newark and sherwood biodiversity implementation plan

Newark and Sherwood Biodiversity Implementation Plan

By Alison Fraser MIEEM

David Edwards MRTPI

baker shepherd gillespie

ecological consultants

Newark and Sherwood District Council Kelham Hall Kelham Newark Nottinghamshire File Ref de0212_BIP Final Report_July 2003.doc

Wye HouseWater Lane

BakewellDerbyshireDE45 1EW

Telephone: 01629 815544Fax: 01629 815577

baker

shepherd gillespie

ecological consultants

Newark and Sherwood Biodiversity Implementation Plan

By Alison Fraser MIEEM (Baker Shepherd Gillespie)

David Edwards MRTPI (Newark and Sherwood District Council)

July 2003

Newark and Sherwood District Council Biodiversity Implementation Plan ______________________________________________________________________________________

396 page 1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................3

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................4 1.1 THE BRIEF ....................................................................................................................................4 1.2 PEOPLE INVOLVED.........................................................................................................................5 1.3 REVIEW OF PLANS AND STRATEGIES...............................................................................................7

1.3.1 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) ...................................................................7 1.3.2 The Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (NLBAP).....................................8 1.3.3 English Nature Natural Area Profiles.............................................................................9 1.3.4 The Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal..................................................................9 1.3.5 Newark and Sherwood District Local Plan...................................................................11 1.3.6 Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan..........................................................................11 1.3.7 Environment Agency LEAPs .........................................................................................11 1.3.8 The Nottinghamshire Heathland Strategy.....................................................................12 1.3.9 Opportunities for Renewing Sherwood’s Wildlife.........................................................12 1.3.10 The Strategic Plan for Greenwood..............................................................................12 1.3.11 The River Maun Action Plan.......................................................................................12 1.3.12 The Newark and Sherwood Partnership Community Plan .........................................12 1.3.13 OnTrent Initiative........................................................................................................13 1.3.14 Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the East Midlands .......................................13

2.0 THE BIODIVERSITY RESOURCE OF NEWARK AND SHERWOOD..................................14 2.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................14

2.1.1 Key Biodiversity Features .............................................................................................14 2.2 REGIONAL CHARACTER AREAS.................................................................................................15

2.2.1 The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands Regional Character Area .................................15 2.2.2 The Trent Washlands Regional Character Area ...........................................................17 2.2.3 The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Regional Character Area..................................19 2.2.4 The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands Regional Character Area...............................21 2.2.5 The Sherwood Regional Character Area ......................................................................22

2.3 DESIGNATED SITES IN NEWARK AND SHERWOOD ..........................................................................24 2.4 A SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT KEY BIODIVERSITY FEATURES OF NEWARK AND SHERWOOD.......................................................................................................................................28

2.4.1 Woodlands.....................................................................................................................28 2.4.2 Heathland and Acid Grassland .....................................................................................28 2.4.3 Neutral and Lowland Wet Grassland............................................................................29 2.4.4 The River Trent..............................................................................................................29 2.4.5 Hedges and Cereal Field Margins ................................................................................29

3.0 BIODIVERSITY TARGETS, OPPORTUNITIES AND PRIORITIES...........................30 3.1 TARGETS FOR NEWARK AND SHERWOOD ..................................................................................30 3.2 FUTURE KEY BIODIVERSITY OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEWARK AND SHERWOOD ..........................34

3.2.1 The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA ..................................................................34 3.2.2 The Trent Washlands RCA ............................................................................................34 3.2.3 The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA...................................................................34


396 page 2

3.2.4 The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA................................................................35 3.2.5 The Sherwood RCA .......................................................................................................35

3.3 PRIORITIES FOR ACTION IN NEWARK AND SHERWOOD..............................................................35

4.0 NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL’S CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE DISTRICT. ....................................................37 4.1 ACTIONS AND DELIVERY MECHANISMS ....................................................................................37 4.2 GROUPS OF DELIVERY MECHANISMS .......................................................................................37

4.2.1 Baseline Data/ Survey/ Research & Monitoring...........................................................38 4.2.2 Implementation of Legislation and Policy ....................................................................39 4.2.3 Feasibility Studies and Strategies – Preparation and Implementation.........................40 4.2.4 Training and Information for Staff................................................................................42 4.2.5 Management of the Council’s Own Estate....................................................................43 4.2.6 Designation of Local Nature Reserves..........................................................................43 4.2.7 Advice and Promotion...................................................................................................44

5.0 SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................46 5.1 EXISTING SOURCES OF FUNDING...............................................................................................46

5.1.1 Agri-environment and Forestry grant schemes.............................................................46 5.1.2 Local authority and central government grants............................................................47 5.1.3 Planning gain ................................................................................................................47 5.1.4 Biodiversity Action Group Partnership.........................................................................47

5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES: ..............................................48 5.2.1 UK Grant awards ..........................................................................................................48 5.2.2 EU funding ....................................................................................................................48 5.2.3 Asset Management Planning 4......................................................................................48 5.2.4 Business sponsorship.....................................................................................................48

5.3 BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION ...............................................................................................49 5.3.1 Uptake of agri-environment schemes............................................................................49 5.3.2 Lack of influence on national policy and issues............................................................50 5.3.3 Reluctance to embrace land-use change and management ..........................................50 5.3.4 Long-term funding.........................................................................................................50 5.3.5 Knowledge of the resource and its requirements ..........................................................50 5.3.6 Changing agricultural environment..............................................................................51 5.3.7 Skills shortage ...............................................................................................................51

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN AND MONITORING OF PROGRESS ............52 6.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN................................................................................................52 6.2 MONITORING AND REVIEW .......................................................................................................52

Ecological Monitoring ...........................................................................................................52 Performance Monitoring........................................................................................................53

Appendix 1 – Key Habitats and Species of Newark and Sherwood District 54 Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Partners Contact Details 58 Appendix 3 – The Database 59 Appendix 4 – A Review of Current Biodiversity Action currently undertaken by 60 Newark and Sherwood District Council and ideas for the next 5 years


396 page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Baker Shepherd Gillespie was commissioned by Newark and Sherwood District Council to: “prepare a comprehensive approach to the implementation of the District Council’s obligations under the United Kingdom and Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan.’’ Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a general duty on Government, and by inference local authorities, to have regard to biodiversity conservation; a duty to list the most important species and habitat types for biodiversity conservation and a specific duty to further their conservation. This duty has been reflected in the Government’s ‘Biodiversity Strategy for England’ which states that biodiversity should be integrated into local authority services. In February 1999, the Council, through the Development Planning Services Committee, agreed to: “endorse the Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Nottinghamshire, adopt it as a framework for its work on nature conservation, and pursue its aims through service strategies and partnership arrangements wherever appropriate.’’ This Biodiversity Implementation Plan is structured as follows: Chapter 1 – outlines the consultants’ brief, details the personnel involved with the preparation of the Plan and reviews the national, regional and county plans/strategies from which the biodiversity targets and actions for Newark and Sherwood have been drawn. Chapter 2 - describes the landscape and biodiversity resource of the District using Regional Character Areas as the framework. The key biodiversity features of each RCA are highlighted. The chapter finishes with a summary evaluation of the current key biodiversity features of Newark and Sherwood. Chapter 3 – begins with a table of targets for the key biodiversity habitats and species of the District. The County or National target for each key feature is shown and a target for the District (as a whole, not just the District Council) has been set. Future key biodiversity opportunities for each RCA are identified and the Chapter concludes with a list of priority features which should be the focus for action within the District. Chapter 4 - has an appended database, listing the actions from the strategic plans (reviewed in Chapter 1) which are relevant to the priority features identified in Chapter 3. For each action there is a mechanism or set of mechanisms suggested in the database to ensure that the actions are delivered. Generic mechanisms are grouped and discussed briefly in the text. Chapter 5 – summarises relevant sources of funding for biodiversity implementation. Chapter 6 – briefly outlines suggested mechanisms for implementation of the Plan and for future monitoring and review.


396 page 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION Baker Shepherd Gillespie (BSG) was commissioned, by Newark and Sherwood District Council (N&SDC), to prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan (BIP) for the district in consultation with staff members and partners. Biodiversity is the variety of life on earth. It encompasses the rich variation to be found in living organisms; the variety within a species, between species, from one habitat to another and between whole ecosystems. Biodiversity conservation is an increasingly important area of work for the District Council. The Council (both alone and in partnership) has an important role in ensuring that it makes a full contribution to meeting local, county and national biodiversity targets. In August 2001, the Local Government Association (LGA) issued a “Position Statement on Biodiversity”1 which recognised that: “Local authorities should acknowledge biodiversity as a cross cutting theme and recognise the need to adopt corporate policies that encourage the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.” Similarly, the Government’s “Biodiversity Strategy for England”2 states that biodiversity should be integrated in Local Authority activities. The Biodiversity Implementation Plan is proposed as a means to coordinate and facilitate what the District Council’s various service areas can do to achieve improved biodiversity conservation. This can contribute to the Council’s Vision ‘to work with the community to make Newark and Sherwood a good place to live, work and visit’.

1.1 The Brief The aim stated in the project brief was: “To prepare a comprehensive approach to the implementation of the District Council’s obligations under the United Kingdom and Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan.” Core research areas to be included in the project were: • To identify all existing biodiversity action plans with relevance to N&SDC (eg. Environment Agency

LEAPs) • To briefly summarise: the ecological resource (characteristic habitats and species) of the District;

and, existing targets of particular relevance to the District Council’s administrative area, or with the potential to be influenced by direct and indirect actions of the Council.

1 The full text of the LGA statement can be found at : http://www.lga.gov.uk/Documents/Briefing/Our_Work/Environment/biodiversity.pdf. 2 DEFRA (2002) “Working with the grain of nature – A Biodiversity Strategy for England”


396 page 5

• To identify specific actions/policies falling within the statutory duties or sphere of influence of the District Council, which will contribute to the achievement of the aims and targets of the UKBAP and the Nottinghamshire LBAP.

• To identify those organisations/lead partners already engaged in the implementation and monitoring

process and make recommendations with regard to the significance and appropriateness of, or, potential for, direct or indirect District Council involvement.

• To identify funding streams /opportunities to help to facilitate any recommended actions. • To establish an ongoing monitoring, evaluation and review process to assess the District Council’s

performance in achieving the recommendations brought forward through the BIP.

1.2 People Involved Alison Fraser and Dr Peter Shepherd have undertaken the telephone interviews with staff and key partners, research and report preparation. Peter Winstanley managed the contract on behalf of the District Council. The individuals listed in Table 1 have also contributed information, ideas and opinions to the project: Table 1 – Consultees Phil Beard Strategy Resource Development Officer Env. and Technical Services Robert Bennington* Environmental Co-ordinator Chief Executives Dave Brennan* Project Director Greenwood Mike Catchpole Trees and Woodlands Officer Planning Services Andrew Davie Principal Planning Officer Planning Services Simon Dawson* Senior Technical Officer Env. and Technical Services David Edwards Senior Planning Officer Planning Services Sean Gallagher* Conservation Officer, Sherwood and Trent Notts. Wildlife Trust Gordon Hewston* Project Manager Sherwood Forest Trust Chris Marshall Assistant Director Technical Services Planning Services Paul Robinson Head of Environmental Services Env. and Technical Services Stewart Squires* Conservation and Landscape Manager Planning Services Jo Taylor* Biodiversity Officer Notts. Biodiversity Action Group Kathy Wimble Landscape Architect Planning Services Peter Winstanley* Assistant Director (Planning Strategy) Planning Services (*no longer with organisations listed due to retirement/ change of employer) Copies of a draft of the Plan were sent for consultation, in July 2001, to the following external organisations : English Nature, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, Nottinghamshire County Council – Rural Environment group, Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (NBGRC), Sherwood Forest Trust, Environment Agency, National Farmers Union and the Newark Green Environment Group. During preparation of the Plan, the District Council embarked upon a restructuring exercise. This has implications in terms of the key personnel/ departments involved in the implementation of the Plan (see Section 6.0). The following provides a comparison of the former and new Council officer structures :


396 page 6

Figure 1 – Former District Council Officer Structure

Figure 2 – New District Council Officer Structure

Head ofDemocratic

Services

PolicyEnvironmentalStewardshipLegal ServicesPersonnelHealth, Safetyand SecurityManagementServices

AssistantChief Executive

Economic RegenerationTourismBids

Head ofEconomic

Regeneration

RevenuesSundry DebtorsCashieringStrategic PropertyAccountancyPayroll/CreditorsInternal AuditGrantsIS & Communications

Head ofFinance &

Information Systems

Development ControlAppealsEnforcementBuilding ControlPlanning PolicyLand Reclamation etc.Env. Improvement &

Conservation

Head ofPlanning

Strategic Director(Finance, IS, Planning& Econ Regeneration)

Leisure CentresSports DevelopmentCultural Services(including Arts,Theatre and Museums)

Head ofLeisure & Cultural

Services

RepairsHousing Management(including Tenancy Services,Local Officer, Lettings,Homelessness & Rents)

Head ofHousing

Environmental HealthCleansingTechnical ServicesCommunity Facilities(including Markets, Car Parks& Public Conveniences)

Head ofEnvironmental &

Technical Services

Strategic Director(Operations)

Chief Executive

Private Housing RenovationEnvironmental IssuesFood/ Occupational HealthEnvironmental ProtectionHome EnvironmentRefuse/ Street SweepingTrade Waste/ RecyclingBuilding MaintenanceTransportRentsHomelessnessSheltered AccommodationLocal OfficesLettingsHousing StrategyPest Control/ Animal WelfareGrounds Maintenance (Contractor)Emergency Planning

Community Services

Technical ServicesEstates and ValuationEngineeringBuilding ControlAccess IssuesPlanning ControlConservationPlanning PolicyEnvironment/ Tree Protection

Development & Planning

Car ParksMarketsPublic ConveniencesLeisure CentresSports DevelopmentMuseums/ HeritageArts/ Palace TheatreTourismGrantsDestitute Burials/ CemeteriesGrounds Maintenance (Client)Catering (Client)

Leisure Services

Internal AuditCouncil TaxBusiness RatesHousing BenefitsAccountancyPayroll/ CreditorsInformation Systems

Finance & IS

Committee/ Member ServicesElections/ Electoral RegisterLicensingCentral Typing/ PrintingCaretaking/ ReceptionLegalLand ChargesEconomic AffairsPolicy & Public RelationsPersonnelTraining & DevelopmentManagement ServicesEco-renovationAgenda 21 IssuesHealth, Safety & SecurityCCTVCrime and Disorder

Chief Executives

Chief Executive


396 page 7

1.3 Review of Plans and Strategies A number of biodiversity/ nature conservation plans and strategies have been reviewed during the formulation of this report, in order to identify all targets and actions relevant to the District Council. A brief summary of the main purpose and content of each of these documents is given below:

1.3.1 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) In 1994 the UK Government published Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan3. This was followed in 1995 with a report in two Volumes from the Biodiversity Steering Group4. The Steering Group was established by the Government and charged with developing costed plans for key species and habitats. Volume 2 of the Steering Group Report includes 14 Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) and 116 Species Actions Plans (SAPs). These have become known as the Tranche 1 Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Following the publication of the Tranche 1 BAPs work started on a further 31 HAPs and 275 SAPs. These plans have recently been published in six volumes and are referred to as Tranche 2 BAPs5. The plans each follow a standard format, which sets targets and lists a series of actions that need to be undertaken across the UK. In the earlier UKBAP publications the following terminology was used: ‘key habitats’, ‘key species’ and ‘short, medium and long list species’. It should be noted that these terms have now been discarded in favour of the terms: ‘priority habitat’, ‘priority species’, and ‘species of conservation concern’. These are explained and the criteria for selection listed in a report by the UK Biodiversity Group in 20006. The terminology used in this report is explained in Box 1.

Box 1 In the UKBAP a priority habitat is defined as: ‘A habitat category targeted for action through a habitat action plan.’ There are approximately 45 such habitats. In the UKBAP priority species are defined as ‘those being targeted for action through species action plans or species statements.’ There are approximately 400 of these. The UKBAP priority species are a sub-set of a list of species called ‘species of conservation concern’. Species of conservation concern are defined as ‘Species meeting one or more of four criteria (endemic, in rapid decline, internationally significant and listed in international legislation) and originally published as the long list in the UK Steering Group Report.’

3 Biodiversity. The UK Action Plan. HMSO, London 4 Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. Two Volumes. HMSO, London 5 The UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans. Volumes 1-6.English Nature, Peterborough 6 UK Biodiversity Group (2000) Index to the Steering Group Report and Tranche 2 Action Plans. English Nature, Peterborough.


396 page 8

There are approximately 1250 of these species, including the 400 priority species. Those which are not priority species will be subject to monitoring only.

1.3.2 The Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (NLBAP) The Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) for Nottinghamshire was published in 19987. Like the national plan it comprises a series of habitat and species action plans containing targets for the county and actions required to achieve these targets. The LBAP contains a list of ‘habitats and species of conservation concern in Nottinghamshire’ (see Box 2). The Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group is a partnership over 50 organisations involved in nature conservation across the county, working together to further the aims and the objectives of the LBAP.

Box 2 The LBAP considers all (25) habitats and all the species listed as being of conservation concern to be of equal priority. The habitats of conservation concern includes all of the UKBAP priority habitats that occur in Nottinghamshire and some habitats selected by the local Biodiversity Steering Group either because they are ‘characteristic of the County, important for LBAP species’ or because they present significant ‘opportunities for biodiversity conservation’. Of the 25 habitats of conservation concern 12 now have HAPs written for them. It is expected that further plans will be published in 2003. The selection of the 12 was not influenced by those which are UK priorities nor by any local ecological criteria but was driven by the results of a public consultation exercise about which habitats and species are of importance/significance to local people. The species of conservation concern include all UK priority species which are known to occur in Nottinghamshire and species selected by the local Steering Group which are either ‘rare or declining, species which are extinct from the County but may be encouraged to return and species identified as important via the consultation exercise’. Detailed selection criteria are provided for each species group within the document. There are currently 7 SAPs (of which 2 are group SAPs for bats and dingy and grizzled skipper butterflies). The selection of the 7 was done in a similar way to that described above for habitats. The extent to which species could be used as ‘flagships’ was also considered by the Steering Group.

7 Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group. (1998) Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Nottinghamshire. Taylor JK (ed). Nottinghamshire County Council.


396 page 9

1.3.3 English Nature Natural Area Profiles The Natural Areas of England were first described in 19988. Each Natural Area has a unique character and wildlife resource that has been moulded by the environmental background and the historical and cultural development of an area. The whole of England has now been characterised in this way and, for each Natural Area, English Nature have published a Natural Area Profile. The profile descriptions provide an outline of the key physical, wildlife and land-use features of the Natural Areas. They list core species and habitat information and set out a vision and objectives for each Natural Area. Within Newark and Sherwood District there are two Natural Areas: The Trent Valley and Rises Natural Area and the Sherwood Natural Area (Figure 3). Figure 3 – Natural Areas in Newark and Sherwood

1.3.4 The Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal The Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal9 provides comprehensive and detailed information on the County’s countryside character. Taking into account geology, geomorphology, soils, landscape history,

8 English Nature (1998) Natural Areas Nature Conservation In Context. English Nature, Peterborough. 9 Nottinghamshire County Council (1997) Countryside Appraisal Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines. Nottinghamshire County Council.


396 page 10

landscape features, settlement patterns and styles and land-use, it divides Nottinghamshire up into recognisable Regional Character Areas (Figure 4), which are further subdivided into Landscape Types. These Regional Character Areas and Landscape Types are described in detail in the Appraisal. A broad vision for the future management of Landscape Types and guidance on the management of individual landscape components is also provided. Within Newark and Sherwood there are five Regional Character Areas (RCA): (a) Sherwood (b) The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands (c) The Trent Washlands (d) The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands (e) The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands Figure 4 – Regional Character Areas in Newark and Sherwood


396 page 11

1.3.5 Newark and Sherwood District Local Plan The Local Plan10 includes a range of policies that relate to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity within the District. These policies do not just relate to specific sites and protected species but also refer to a range of UK BAP and LBAP priority habitats and species. Policies relating to the countryside and the natural environment are included in Chapter 8 of the Local Plan, which recognises that; “the biodiversity of the District has suffered as habitats have been destroyed or isolated by the removal of hedgerows and other wildlife corridors. Despite an awareness of the need to conserve existing habitats, wildlife sites still continue to be lost at an alarming rate” All of the policies in Chapter 8 have relevance for biodiversity conservation in the District, however, policy NE13 specifically recognises the importance of UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. The implementation of the policies in Chapter 8 is a valuable mechanism for delivering biodiversity objectives within the District. It is expected that a review of the Plan will commence in 2003-4.

1.3.6 Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan11

The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (Adopted 1997) represents the primary guidance and starting point for the assessment and determination of future minerals development. Minerals extraction has the potential to create a wide range of environmental impacts but through appropriate reclamation and restoration schemes can provide valuable new habitats. The Plan includes policies for the protection of ancient and amenity woodlands (Policy M3.7), heathlands (Policy M3.18) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) (Policy M3.19). The Plan also includes policies promoting wildlife interest through reclamation of minerals sites (Policy M4.13). In the Sherwood Forest Area emphasis is given to the reclamation of sand quarries to indigenous woodlands and/or heathland. A review of the Plan is currently underway, initiated by the publication of an Issues Report in April 2001. A Deposit Draft Plan was issued in May 2002.

1.3.7 Environment Agency LEAPs Local Environment Agency Plans1213 are prepared by the Environment Agency in consultation with a wide range of organisations and local communities. The LEAPs are non-statutory integrated action plans based on river catchments. The LEAPs operate over a 5 year period and are used to guide the activities of the Environment Agency and influence the activities of other groups. Each LEAP sets out a vision, a costed action programme for environmental improvement and supporting policies and partnerships.

10 Newark and Sherwood District Council (March 1999). Newark and Sherwood Local Plan Written Statement and Proposals Map. Newark and Sherwood District Council. 11 Nottinghamshire County Council (1997) Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. Nottinghamshire County Council. 12 Environment Agency (February 2000) Lower Trent and Erewash Action Plan. Environment Agency. 13 Environment Agency (October 2000) Idle and Action Plan. Environment Agency.

Besthorpe Pits, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 12

The Idle and Torne LEAP includes the 4 rivers that drain the Sherwood Natural Area; namely Rainworth Water, the River Maun, the River Meden and the River Poulter. The Lower Trent and Erewash LEAP covers a large area extending from Derby along the River Trent through to Scunthorpe.

1.3.8 The Nottinghamshire Heathland Strategy The Nottinghamshire Heathland Strategy14 is published in 3 parts. The Strategy sets out a series of policies, recommendations and good practice guidance aimed at conserving managing and expanding the heathland resource of Nottinghamshire.

1.3.9 Opportunities for Renewing Sherwood’s Wildlife This report has been published under English Nature’s Habitat Restoration Project in Sherwood15. Chapter 4 of this document defines target habitats and their associated species for restoration within the English Nature Habitat Restoration Project trial area. Brief advice on restoration and re-creation of the target habitats is given.

1.3.10 The Strategic Plan for Greenwood The Strategic Greenwood Plan16 has been prepared by Greenwood’s Key Partners. It reviews and revises the original Forest Plan published in 1994. The Plan provides an environmental framework that describes the landscape characteristics, biodiversity, land-use, recreational and access issues in the Greenwood area. The strategic plan gives the rationale for the Greenwood Community Forest and identifies the strategies and the main players, which will help to achieve the objectives of the plan over the next 25 years. The Greenwood Area is on the western fringe of Newark and Sherwood District between Rainworth, Blidworth and Bilsthorpe.

1.3.11 The River Maun Action Plan The River Maun Action Plan was published in 200017 and was prepared by Baker Shepherd Gillespie working to a steering group comprising Newark and Sherwood District Council, Mansfield District Council and Ashfield District Council. The Plan identifies a series of site specific and generic actions aimed at protecting and enhancing the wildlife, recreational and cultural interest of the valley.

1.3.12 The Newark and Sherwood Partnership Community Plan All local authorities are required by the Local Government Act 2000 to prepare community strategies “for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area”. Section 48 of Circular 04/01 (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) states that local Biodiversity Action Plans should form an integral part of a local authority’s community strategy. The Newark and Sherwood Community Plan was launched on 1 April 2003. One of the Community Plan’s priorities is the “Preservation and enhancement of wildlife, landscape and ecology of the District.” There is a

14 The Nottinghamshire Heathland Forum (1990s undated) Heathland Strategy: Part One Principles and Policies, Part Two Practice and Projects, Part Three Progress and Programme. Nottinghamshire County Council. 15 Sherwood Forest Trust (1998). Opportunities for Renewing Sherwood’s Wildlife. Sherwood Forest Trust. 16 Greenwood Partnership Team (2000). Strategic Plan for Greenwood. Greenwood Partnership Team. 17 Baker Shepherd Gillespie (May 2000). Maun Valley Action Plan. Maun Action Plan Steering Group, c/o Newark and Sherwood District Council.


396 page 13

corresponding target to “give due regard to Biodiversity, climate change, waste and water when implementing change.” To achieve these objectives, the Partnership will require a co-ordinating framework, and the Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plan and the Biodiversity Implementation Plan are well placed to fulfil this role.

1.3.13 OnTrent Initiative18 The OnTrent initiative seeks to reverse the continuing decline in biodiversity along the River Trent, from Stoke-on-Trent to the Humber Estuary, by securing a better balance between wildlife, agriculture, commercial activity and development. It draws together a wide range of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, all of which have strong interests in the river’s future. The objectives are to respect and enhance local distinctiveness and create a rich diversity of linked wetland habitats whilst providing opportunities to improve the quality of life for local people, support the local economy and conserve the river valley's historic and cultural identity. The OnTrent Action Programme due out at the end of 2003 will include a list of Biodiversity Action Plan targets for the Trent Valley, split into Character Areas, with a focus on wetland creation. This will identify the actions and responsibilities required of the partner organisations and others, including local authorities.

1.3.14 Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the East Midlands19 Predictions of the climate in the 21st Century show that there is a possibility of a further increase in the East Midland’s temperature of up to 3°C by the end of the century and further changes in rainfall patterns. This study highlights the impacts that Climate change could have on the East Midlands’ Biodiversity and discusses adaptation strategies which should be implemented in response. In performance of its various activities, the District Council should take account of any short and long term implications of climate change including that relating to biodiversity.

18 OnTrent Vision Statement (April 2001), OnTrent Steering Group, c/o Derbyshire Wildlife Trust East Mill, Bridge Foot, Belper, Derbyshire, DE56 1XH 19 The Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the East Midlands (2000), East Midlands Sustainable Development Round Table


396 page 14

2.0 THE BIODIVERSITY RESOURCE OF NEWARK AND SHERWOOD The information within the Countryside Appraisal (see 1.3.4 above) provides the basis to much of the landscape and soils information given below.

2.1 General Introduction The Nottinghamshire Regional Character Areas (RCAs) (see section 1.3.4) are used in this section as a framework to describe the biodiversity resource of the District. Within Newark and Sherwood there are five Regional Character Areas (RCA): • The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands • The Trent Washlands • The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands • The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands • Sherwood The Sherwood RCA almost exactly coincides with the Sherwood Natural Area (referred to above in 1.3.3). The remaining four RCAs, all of which extend beyond the boundaries of the District, fall within The Trent Valley and Rises Natural Area. Approximately two thirds of the District falls within the Trent Valley and Rises Natural Area (NA). This NA extends into Bassetlaw, Rushcliffe and Nottingham and beyond into Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire and Rutland.

2.1.1 Key Biodiversity Features The English Nature Natural Area profiles (section 1.3.3), the UKBAP (refer to section 1.3.1) and the Nottinghamshire LBAP (refer to section 1.3.2), in combination with the Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal, provide the basis of the assessment of the existing key biodiversity features of the District within each of the RCAs. The key biodiversity features include key habitats and key species (see Box 3).


396 page 15

Box 3 – Key Biodiversity Features Key Biodiversity Habitats The current key habitats for each RCA are defined for the purposes of this document as: ‘habitats of conservation concern in the LBAP, which are significant within the RCA either by virtue of their present extent and/or their quality’. It should be noted that all significant habitats within the district are on the LBAP list of habitats of conservation concern. Key Biodiversity Species The approach to species has, out of necessity, been different to that adopted for habitats. This is because at the time of writing the data on presence and distribution of species (on the LBAP list of species of conservation concern) within the County was not available. The key species features of each RCA are therefore defined for the purposes of this document as: ‘species of conservation concern in the LBAP, which were identified as important to members of the public during the consultation exercise and/or which can be used as indicators of the health of the key habitat features defined above and which the authors’ know occur within the RCA’.20 Woodlark has been included in the list of key biodiversity species because it is the species used within the Newark and Sherwood Local Agenda 21 strategy (2001) as the biodiversity indicator of environmental quality.

2.2 Regional Character Areas

2.2.1 The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands Regional Character Area The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands form a broad band running north-south up the centre of the District, between the Sherwood RCA (to the west) and the Trent Washlands RCA (to the east). The underlying rocks of this RCA comprise Waterstones and Mercia Mudstone (formerly Keuper Marl). The latter sometimes having bands of skerry (hard sandstone) associated with it. A well marked scarp slope overlooks the Sherwood NA, whilst the low, rolling topography of the rest of the RCA dips gently to the east. This geology gives rise to mainly dark brown stoney clay loam or clay soils. Tongues of river alluvium are found in the beck valleys

20 Appendix 2 gives a full list of the LBAP habitats and species of conservation concern and indicates those for which plans have already been prepared. The 4 extra species selected for the preparation of this document as indicators of habitat health are also listed (i.e Brown Hare, Bullfinch, Reed Bunting and Great Crested Newt).

River Greet, nr Southwell, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 16

and stoney soils are found where the skerries come close to the surface. The Countryside Appraisal describes this RCA as an area of undulating landscape with a distinctively rural agricultural character. Arable farming is the predominant land use on the clay soils with the exception of the area south of Southwell where mixed farming prevails. Where the farming practice is intensively arable, cereal field margins and hedgerows are the most significant biodiversity features, providing habitat for farmland birds such as grey partridge, yellow hammer, bullfinch and linnet; for invertebrates, especially butterflies and for mammal species such as bats and harvest mouse. Generally, the RCA has a well wooded character generated by the numerous small–medium sized mixed and deciduous woodlands, a relatively intact hedgerow pattern, scattered pockets of parkland (e.g. Norwood in Southwell), hedgerow trees and the tree–lined becks and dumble streams, which drain the area from west to east. Many of the woodlands, including the narrow, linear woodlands associated with the dumble streams (e.g. Halloughton Dumble e.g. Westhorpe Dumble) are ancient in origin. There is also a relatively high proportion of ancient hedgerows, particularly along country roads and green lanes. Bluebell, yellow archangel, ramsons, dog’s mercury and sweet woodruff are typical ancient woodland indicator species found in these woodlands and hedgerows. More rare ancient woodland groundflora of the RCA includes herb paris, greater butterfly orchid and wood vetch. These woodlands are an important habitat for a range of fauna, especially invertebrates, birds and mammals. The wooded character of this RCA is reflected in its Site of Special Scientific Interest coverage (Figure 5). Kirton Wood SSSI, Wellow Park Wood SSSI, Redgate Woods and Mansey Common SSSI, Mather Wood SSSI and Roe Wood SSSI all support ancient woodland of national importance. The other two SSSIs of the RCA (in the District) are both nationally important grasslands: Laxton Sykes

SSSI and Eakring and Maplebeck Meadows SSSI. Redgate Woods and Mansey Common SSSI also supports valuable grassland. This reflects another main feature of importance within this RCA, which is unimproved neutral grassland. This feature was once widespread before arable agriculture became so dominant in the second half of the 20th Century. What remains is often associated with water course corridors, where problems with drainage and or topography have prevented agricultural improvement. Characteristic species include: cowslip, hayrattle, oxeye daisy and sweet vernal grass. Specialities include: adder’s tongue fern, common spotted orchid and, in wetter areas, southern marsh orchid. These grasslands are also often

very valuable invertebrate and bird habitat.

Duke’s Wood, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Eakring Meadows SSSI,, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 17

Three of the seven SSSIs are owned/ managed by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. The rest are in other private ownership. A fairly wide range of common species and some of the species on the LBAP list of species of conservation concern are known to occur across the RCA. All 12 of the selected key biodiversity species (refer to Box 3) are likely to have been recorded in the RCA at some point. The species selected in the table below are those which occur more frequently and which can be used as indicators of the health of the key habitat features. Key Biodiversity Features of the Mid-Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA (a) Habitats Habitat Status Mixed Ash Woodland LBAP Unimproved neutral grassland UKBAP & LBAP Rivers and Streams LBAP Ancient species-rich hedgerows UKBAP Cereal field margins UKBAP (b) Species Species Status Water vole UKBAP and LBAP Bats (some species) UKBAP and LBAP Brown hare UKBAP Barn owl LBAP Bullfinch UKBAP

2.2.2 The Trent Washlands Regional Character Area The Trent Washlands RCA is essentially the River Trent and its valley, running northwards through the eastern half of the district. The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA borders the Trent Washlands to the west with the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA to the East. The Trent Valley is an average of 2-3 kilometres wide through the District. Upstream from Newark there are stretches of old degraded river bluffs and in places steep, wooded river cliffs are a feature rising above the otherwise flat alluvial floodplain and shallow terraces. Downstream from Newark the RCA broadens out and as it gets further north is virtually indiscernible in terms of topography from the adjacent RCAs. The larger and more extensive terraces flanking the river corridor downstream of Newark comprise deep permeable sandy and coarse sandy soils

River Trent at Farndon, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildife Trust


396 page 18

in glaciofluvial drift. The alluvial soils of the Trent Valley are mottled clay and clay loam soils, developed in greyish and brownish alluvium. The River Trent (and its tributaries) is obviously the major feature within this RCA and it is of national importance. The River is tidal as far down as Cromwell Lock and a number of coastal species, including a common seal have been recorded. Otter and water vole used to be reasonably widespread along the river and its tributaries but declined dramatically in the latter part of the last century, to extinction in the case of the otter. There have been a few records of the otter visiting the Trent again in recent years but no breeding records. The breeding water vole population did not disappear altogether but it is still a shadow of its former extent. The river is a nationally significant migratory corridor for a range of waders and wildfowl as well as providing permanent habitat for such species as kingfisher and heron. Salmon and barbel used to be features of the river when it was higher quality than it is today. Rudd, roach and pike now characterise its fish population. A band of riverside grassland remains in places but this is just a remnant of its former coverage and it has generally been subject to agricultural improvement. In places it is separated from the river by high flood banks and only a comparatively small area is subject to regular seasonal flooding. This grassland tends to be low in species diversity but is important for foraging and breeding waders (e.g. redshank, lapwing and snipe) and wildfowl (e.g. wigeon and teal). Gravel extraction has left in its wake large areas of open water, some of which have been designed for wildlife with extensive shallows and reedbeds. In combination with the river and the riparian grasslands these are valuable biodiversity features, attracting waders, wildfowl, warblers and buntings. There is also the potential for breeding bittern to be attracted back to the area by the extensive new reedbeds near to Langford Lowfields and Besthorpe north of Newark. Arable agriculture is the dominant land-use, making cereal field margins and hedgerows (the enclosure pattern is still in evidence) important biodiversity features throughout much of the RCA, especially further away from the Trent. There are considerable areas of urban and post industrial habitat in Newark, including railway cuttings/embankments, private gardens, parks, road verges, allotments and areas of ‘waste ground’. This is not a wooded landscape but a scattering of willow holts, other small riparian woodlands, occasional pockets of parkland near to settlements and specimen trees (mainly willows, some of which are pollarded) do remain along the Trent and its tributaries. The Trent valley supports a good diversity of tree and shrub willows largely as a result of the presence in the past of many willow holts along the river that provided cuttings for the basket making industry. Few of these holts now remain as they have been cleared and converted to agriculture or re-planted with commercial species such as poplars.

Besthorpe Heronry, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 19

The only SSSI in the RCA is a Trentside grassland site, Hoveringham Pastures SSSI, notified for the botanical interest of its neutral grassland and hedgerows. A remnant of a formerly much more widespread resource. A fairly wide range of common species and some of the species on the LBAP list of species of conservation concern are known to occur across the RCA. The species selected in the table below are those which occur reasonably frequently and/or can be used as indicators of the health of the key habitat features of the RCA. Key Biodiversity Features of the Trent Washlands RCA (a) Habitats Habitats Status Rivers and Streams LBAP Unimproved neutral grassland UKBAP & LBAP Lowland wet grassland UKBAP &LBAP Reedbed UKBAP &LBAP Eutrophic and mesotrophic standing waters UKBAP & LBAP Cereal field margins UKBAP Urban and post industrial LBAP (b) Species Species Status Water vole UKBAP and LBAP Otter UKBAP and LBAP Bats (some species) UKBAP & LBAP Brown hare UKBAP Reed bunting UKBAP Barn owl LBAP Great crested newt UKBAP

2.2.3 The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Regional Character Area The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA lies along the eastern edge of Nottinghamshire. It includes all of the area within Newark and Sherwood east of the Trent Washlands and north of Newark. It is a generally flat, low lying area falling within the broad vale of the Trent. A covering of glaciofluvial drift flattens the landform to a large extent although in places the underlying clays and mudstones (a narrow outcrop of Rhaetic beds and Reddish Mercia Mudstones) stand out as low, rounded hills, rising up to 20 metres above the surrounding plain. Slightly stoney sandy gleys have developed in the glaciofluvial drift. Hiistorically these were soils with poor natural drainage but modern artificial drainage means that most are now well drained. The soils of the Rhaetic beds and the Mercia Mudstones are stoneless or slightly stoney, silty clay loams and clay loams. These soils have slowly permeable subsoils and are prone to seasonal waterlogging where they have not been artificially drained.


396 page 20

To the south of North Clifton the Trent has cut into the soft mudstone, forming a steep-sided river cliff. Blown sands (probably accumulated by strong westerly or south-westerly winds at the end of the ice age) occur as a series of low ridges and hillocks overlooking the Trent. Well drained, stoneless sands are typical of the blown sands. These soils are highly susceptible to summer drought. The RCA is drained to the west by the Trent and to the east by the Witham. A network of drains, dykes and small streams, which are lined by willows in places is a distinctive characteristic of the area, providing habitat for a range of plants, birds, invertebrates and small mammals. In the main this RCA is an enclosed arable landscape, with some ancient hedgerows and many Enclosure period hedgerows remaining. Pine shelter belts are a landscape feature in parts. Woodlands are mainly small-medium scale, the larger ones being geometric-shaped, coniferous or mixed plantation woodlands. There is a small number of oak-birch woodlands, with bracken dominated ground flora and in places specimen oak trees in hedgerows are an important feature. All of the woodlands, hedgerows and specimen trees provide important habitat for a range of bird, invertebrate and small mammal species. In the wider landscape arable agriculture dominates. However, close to the villages there are often limited areas of permanent grassland (which are sometimes ridge and furrow), and field ponds. The ponds provide important amphibian and aquatic invertebrate habitat. In places, especially on the blown sands, a heathy character (bracken and gorse) prevails along roadside verges and woodland edges. Wavy hair grass, tormentil and heath bedstraw are characteristic species of areas of acid grassland.

There is one SSSI in this RCA, which is Spalford Warren, a mixed plantation woodland with a heathy ground flora, which is owned and managed by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. Sand sedge, ling heather and the nationally rare blue fescue grass are some of the specialities of this site. A fairly wide range of common species and some of the species on the LBAP list of species of conservation concern are known to occur across the RCA. The species selected in the table below

are those that occur reasonably frequently and/or can be used as indicators of the health of the key habitat features within this RCA.

Spalford Warren SSSI, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 21

Key Biodiversity Features of the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA (a) Habitats Habitats Status Acid grassland UKBAP & LBAP Lowland heathland UKBAP & LBAP Eutrophic and mesotrophic standing waters UKBAP & LBAP Oak-birch woodland LBAP Unimproved neutral grassland UKBAP & LBAP Cereal field margins UKBAP (b) Species Species Status Bats (some species) UKBAP & LBAP Water vole UKBAP & LBAP Brown hare UKBAP Barn owl LBAP Bullfinch UKBAP Great crested newt UKBAP

2.2.4 The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands Regional Character Area The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA is a broad band of land extending from the southern edge of Greater Nottingham to the edge of Newark. Only a small area of the District, directly to the south of Newark encompassing the villages of Hawton, Cotham and Elston, is within this RCA. This is an area of generally flat-gently rolling topography, which dips to the south east towards the Nottinghamshire Wolds and the Vale of Belvoir. The Trent Valley and Newark form the boundaries to the north and west. The main rock type of the RCA is the Mercia Mudstone group with the occasional band of hard sandstone (skerries). Gypsum outcrops in this part of the District and is marked by the presence of a number of mines and plaster works. Deep clayey alluvial soils are widespread on the valley floor of the River Devon. Gypsiferous soils are associated with the gypsum outcrops, otherwise the substrate comprises slightly stoney, sandy loam brown earth soils. Groundwater is the only real source of waterlogging in a generally intensively farmed area. Arable agriculture dominates this enclosed landscape, meaning that cereal field margins and hedgerows are the most frequent biodiversity features. Woodland cover is limited. Therefore, much of the rest of the landscape and ecological diversity is associated with the small villages where small pockets of grassland and a few ancient hedgerows have remained intact. There are no SSSIs in this part of the district. A limited range of common species and some of the species on the LBAP list of species of conservation concern are known to occur in the RCA. The species selected in the table below are those that occur reasonably frequently and/or can be used as indicators of the health of the key habitat features within this RCA.


396 page 22

Key Biodiversity Features of the South Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA (a) Habitats Habitats Status Unimproved neutral grassland UKBAP & LBAP Cereal field margins UKBAP Ancient species rich hedgerows UKBAP (b) Species Species Status Brown hare UKBAP Bullfinch UKBAP Grizzled skipper LBAP

2.2.5 The Sherwood Regional Character Area The Sherwood Natural Area boundary and the Sherwood RCA boundary are almost identical. The Sherwood RCA occupies the western area of the District and extends beyond into adjoining districts. It is bordered to the east by the Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA. The topography of this RCA is described, in the Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal, as markedly undulating with stretches of plateau-like country between the river valleys. There is a general absence of surface drainage, apart from a few rivers (e.g. the Meden and the Maun). There are numerous dry valleys probably formed by snow melt in an historic climactic period. The underlying rocks of the RCA are Permo-triassic sandstones in two recognisable formations: the Lenton formation and the Sherwood Sandstone formation. These formations both give rise to the well-drained sandy soils which characterise the region. Well-drained coarse loamy soils are found on the lower slopes of the dry valleys. Podzolised soils are found locally under woodlands and very acidic well-drained sandy soils are also found under woodland and lowland heathland to the south and east of Mansfield. To the east of the RCA there are pockets of Mercia Mudstone which give rise to surface and ground water gleys, which are comparatively heavy in texture and have a high degree of soil moisture. The Sherwood RCA has a very distinctive character and it supports biodiversity features of county, national and international importance.

Vicar Water, Credit : NSDC


396 page 23

At the landscape scale the Sherwood RCA is a mix of large areas of woodland (both coniferous and deciduous) and intensive arable agriculture, interspersed with pockets of heathland/acid grassland, wood pasture, old parkland, small woodlands and neutral grasslands in the River valleys. The woodland varies from large scale conifer plantations, to small scale wet woodlands in the Maun, Meden and Rainworth Water Valleys to the internationally important oak-birch woodlands at the heart of Sherwood. The oak-birch woodlands and the lowland wood pasture and parkland of the RCA support a wealth of wildlife. In parts of Sherwood there are veteran trees in excess of 500 years old, which support a rich and internationally important invertebrate fauna. There are exceptional beetle and spider populations in Birklands and Bilhaugh SSSI, which is also a national stronghold for the angle-striped sallow moth and the home of a nationally rare pseudo-scorpion. A number of bat species, red and fallow deer also thrive in the woodlands and wood pasture of Sherwood. Much of the conifer woodland, especially Clipstone Forest retains heather, acid grassland, heathland habitat and the associated fauna of heathland in the rides and clearings. These conifer plantations, mainly under the management of Forest Enterprise, are vital biodiversity reservoirs. The only recent record for adder within the County is from Clipstone Forest. The rare nightjar and woodlark also like the habitat provided by the close proximity of heathland and young conifer plantations. The remnant heaths and acid grasslands of the Rainworth, Edwinstowe and Ollerton/Walesby areas are vital components of the historic Sherwood character of this part of the district. Even in the intensive arable areas a strong heathy character prevails due to the presence of gorse and broom in the roadside verges. Lowland heathland is an internationally rare and threatened habitat. Approximately 90% of Sherwood heath has been lost since 1922. Characteristic species of the true heaths include: ling heather, wavy hair grass and sheep’s fescue. Specialities include: hoary ling (which is a local variant), petty whin and dwarf gorse. There are rare patches of wet heath, which are characterised by cross-leaved heath, purple moor grass and cotton grass. Nightjar and woodlark require heathland habitat in combination with woodland edge. Common lizard and adder (a county rare species) favour heathland habitat. A range of common and rare invertebrates also rely on heathland habitat for their survival. Notably the Portland and small chocolate tipped moths, both of which are nationally important species. The small wet woodlands of the river valleys are an internationally important habitat and a UK priority Biodiversity habitat. Those that remain are a remnant of a habitat formerly much more widespread, but the District retains some of the largest remnants of wet woodland in the County. The best examples are characterised by alder and willows. Specialities include: greater tussock sedge, wood small reed and narrow-leaved buckler fern. As well as the wet woodlands of the river and stream valleys there are also areas of neutral grassland on the alluvial soils. Those of the River Maun valley are the remnants of the once extensive Duke of Portland’s water meadows. Deep coal mining has had an extensive influence on the landscape of the Sherwood RCA. The spoil heaps, old colliery yards and lagoons offer enormous post industrial habitat opportunities. Rufford tip is a good example of where these opportunities have been maximised to good effect. The District Council’s own Vicar Water site is another good example and one where further opportunities are presenting themselves in the near future. Thoresby tip, almost adjacent to the District Council managed Sherwood


396 page 24

Heath Local Nature Reserve also presents an opportunity to create new Sherwood (woodland and heathland) habitats. The ancient hunting forest character of Sherwood is reflected by the SSSIs in the District and in the rest of the RCA. Newark and Sherwood SSSIs include Rainworth Heath, Birklands and Bilhaugh (European candidate Special Area for Conservation, for its lowland oak pasture), Birklands West and Ollerton Corner, Clipstone Heath and Thoresby Lake. Rainworth Heath is owned/managed by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. Part of the Birklands and Blihaugh cSAC became Nottinghamshire’s first National Nature Reserve in November 2002. Key Biodiversity Features of the Sherwood RCA (a) Habitats Habitats Status Oak-birch woodland LBAP Wood pasture and parkland UKBAP & LBAP Lowland heathland UKBAP & LBAP Lowland acid grassland UKBAP & LBAP Wet woodland UKBAP & LBAP Neutral grassland UKBAP & LBAP Urban and post industrial habitats LBAP Rivers and streams LBAP

(b) Species Species Status Bats (some species) UKBAP & LBAP Water vole UKBAP & LBAP Brown hare UKBAP Bullfinch UKBAP Woodlark UKBAP Nightjar UKBAP & LBAP

2.3 Designated Sites in Newark and Sherwood Newark and Sherwood supports 16 SSSIs and 2 part SSSIs, (Rainworth Lakes SSSI and Sherwood Forest Golf Course SSSI), both shared with Mansfield District Council (Figure 5). 3 SSSIs lie just beyond the

Sherwood Heath LNR, Credit : Sherwood Forest Trust


396 page 25

district boundary (Bevercotes SSSI and Clumber Park SSSI in Bassetlaw District; and Strawberry Hill Heaths SSSI in Mansfield). The SSSI coverage largely reflects the biodiversity specialisms of the District. Inevitably the SSSI coverage does not reflect some of the habitats of more local significance such as urban and post-industrial habitats, hedgerows, cereal field margins and rivers and streams. Neither is the national significance of the Trent Valley for birds reflected. It should also be noted that wet woodland habitat is not currently reflected in the SSSI series for the district. Table 2 below summarises the main habitats of the SSSIs and puts them within the context of the RCAs. Table 2: – SSSI Habitats in Newark and Sherwood SSSI RCA NLBAP habitats Kirton Wood Mid Notts Farmlands Mixed ash wood Wellow Park Wood Mid Notts Farmlands Mixed ash wood Redgate Woods and Mansey Common Mid Notts Farmlands Mixed ash wood

Scrub Neutral grassland

Mather Wood Mid Notts Farmlands Mixed ash wood Roe Wood Mid Notts Farmlands Mixed ash wood Laxton Sykes Mid Notts Farmlands Neutral grassland Eakring and Maplebeck Meadows Mid Notts Farmlands Lowland wet grassland

Neutral grassland Newhall Reservoir Meadow Mid Notts Farmlands Neutral/calcareous grassland Birklands and Bilhaugh Sherwood Lowland wood pasture and

parkland Heathland Acid grassland

Birklands West and Ollerton Corner Sherwood Lowland wood pasture and parkland

Clipstone Heath Sherwood Heathland Acid grassland

Rainworth Heath Sherwood Heathland Acid grassland

Thoresby Lake Sherwood Standing eutrophic water Acid grassland Heathland

Rainworth Lakes (part) Sherwood Standing oligotrophic water Sherwood Forest Golf Course (part) Sherwood Lowland heathland

Acid grassland Spalford Warren East Notts Sandlands Heathland

Acid grassland Hoveringham Pasture Trent Washlands Neutral grassland

Lowland wet grassland Besthorpe Meadows Trent Washlands Neutral grassland

Lowland wet grassland


396 page 26

The District currently has three Local Nature Reserves (LNRs): Sherwood Heath LNR (part of the Birklands West and Ollerton Corner SSSI), in the Sherwood RCA; and Devon Park Meadow LNR, in Newark, and Farndon Ponds LNR, in Farndon, both within the Trent Washlands RCA (Figure 5). Sherwood Forest National Nature Reserve was designated in November 2002 on part of the Birklands and Bilhaugh SSSI. Similar information about non-statutory Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and habitat coverage in the District (from the Phase 1 survey of the County in the late 1990s) is not currently available from the Nottinghamshire Geological and Biological Records Centre.

Kirton Wood SSSI, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 27

Figure 5 – SSSIs and LNRs in Newark and Sherwood in their Relevant Regional Character Areas


396 page 28

2.4 A Summary Evaluation Of The Current Key Biodiversity Features Of Newark and Sherwood From the RCA descriptions and lists of key biodiversity features it is clear that the current habitat specialisms of the District are: • woodland (including lowland wood pasture and parkland, oak-birch, mixed ash and wet woodlands); • heathland/acid grassland; • neutral/wet grassland; and • the river Trent. The other key habitat features, by virtue of their extent, or the fact that they are sometimes the only feature in otherwise intensively farmed areas, are: • hedgerows • cereal field margins.

2.4.1 Woodlands Newark and Sherwood is very important within the county, regional, national and international context for its different woodland types. The District has highly valuable lowland wood pasture and parkland, particularly in the Sherwood RCA. The only candidate European SAC (Special Area for Conservation) in Nottinghamshire is the lowland wood pasture area of the Birklands and Bilhaugh SSSI, which is in Newark and Sherwood. The ash woods of the Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA and the wet woods of the Trent Washlands and Sherwood RCAs are also high biodiversity priorities for the district. Five of the eight SSSI mixed ash woodlands in the Mid Nottinghamshire Farmland RCA are within Newark and Sherwood. This high quality resource is supplemented by the presence of many other deciduous and mixed woodland habitats and ancient hedgerows. Some of these are designated as SINCs (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation). Wet woods are a scarce resource across the whole county so these are important wherever they occur. The alder woodlands of the Meden, Maun and Rainworth Water valleys (in the Sherwood RCA) are very limited in extent now but are still reservoirs of the County and District biodiversity resource. Similarly the small damp willow woodlands and ash woods of the Trent Washlands RCA are also valuable remnants of a previously more widespread resource.

2.4.2 Heathland and Acid Grassland Newark and Sherwood is important within the regional and national context for its lowland heathland and acid grassland. The District’s main resource is within the Sherwood RCA but there is also a somewhat specialised resource in the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA on the blown sands. Spalford Warren SSSI in the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA was designated for the assemblages of heathland flora and fauna, which have survived there despite the historic commercial timber management objectives for the site. Budby Heath (part of Birklands and Bilhaugh SSSI) is the largest area of heathland in the Sherwood RCA (and in Nottinghamshire) and lies within Newark and Sherwood. Two of the other four SSSI heaths of the RCA are within the District and the others (in Mansfield) are close to or adjacent to the district boundary.


396 page 29

The only heathland Local Nature Reserve in the County, Sherwood Heath, is managed by the District Council in association with the Sherwood Forest Trust. There are other important heaths and acid grasslands in the two RCAs which, although not SSSI standard, play a vital role in maintaining the overall viability of this fragmented resource. These heaths and acid grasslands are summarily documented in the Nottinghamshire Heathland Register (prepared by Nottinghamshire County Council on behalf of the County Heathland Forum. 1997).

2.4.3 Neutral and Lowland Wet Grassland The neutral and lowland wet grasslands of the Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands, Sherwood (river valleys) and the Trent Washlands RCAs are important in the county and national context. Three of the five SSSI grasslands in the Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA (Laxton Sykes, Eakring and Maplebeck Meadows and Mansey Common) all fall within Newark and Sherwood. Hoveringham Pastures, the only SSSI grassland in the Trent Washlands RCA (in Nottinghamshire), is also located within the District. As well as the SSSIs there are areas of semi-improved grassland, road verges and greenlane/ tracks within these two RCAs, which increase the ecological viability of this fragmented resource.

2.4.4 The River Trent Although the river Trent is contained entirely within one of the District’s five RCAs, and has only has one small SSSI associated with it, it should still be considered as a specialism of the District due to it’s national importance for migratory birds and for breeding waders and wildfowl. It also has two associated UKBAP and LBAP species (otter and water vole) and the reach that is tidal provides an interesting link with more coastal species.

2.4.5 Hedges and Cereal Field Margins The specialist and other semi natural habitats of the District have all been greatly reduced in extent and have become fragmented, particularly in the second half of the last century. In intensive arable agriculture areas (i.e. most of the District) the only habitat for wildlife species is often the hedges (and hedgerow trees) and the margins of arable fields. These features also provide vital linkages between the remaining areas of semi natural habitat.

Kirton Wood SSSI, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 30

3.0 BIODIVERSITY TARGETS, OPPORTUNITIES AND PRIORITIES

3.1 Targets for Newark and Sherwood The targets derived from the UKBAP and the Nottinghamshire BAP for the key habitats and species featured in the descriptions of the RCAs are presented in Table 3. Where targets overlap between the UKBAP and the Nottinghamshire BAP, the most local one has been included in Table 3 below (i.e. the County targets from the LBAP are used in preference to the national targets from the UKBAP). The fourth column in Table 3 details a suggested target for Newark and Sherwood. These are not targets to be met by the District Council alone but targets for the district to which the District Council can make a contribution. These targets have been derived in a number of ways. For example, for habitat area targets for land management, creation and restoration, the Newark and Sherwood contribution has been calculated by estimating the extent of the habitat currently present or that could potentially be created in Newark and Sherwood compared to the total area in Nottinghamshire. For other targets, requiring the development of inventories of habitats, the District target has been assumed to apply to just the District area, although in practice it is likely that such targets will be achieved as part of a wider County initiative. Table 3 – Targets For Key Habitats and Species of Newark and Sherwood Habitat/ Species Plan Target Newark & Sherwood Target

1. Maintain the extent and distribution in a favourable ecological condition. As UKBAP

2. Restore derelict examples to favourable ecological condition by 2010 As UKBAP by 2010 Lowland Wood

Pasture and Parkland

UKBAP 2(2):6321

3. Initiate a programme of expansion of 500ha to help reverse fragmentation by 2002

As UKBAP by 2002

1. Develop an inventory, then formulate a target for its expansion by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005 Oak-Birch

Woodland NLBAP 2. Maintain the existing resource through a variety of management approaches As NLBAP

1. Bring 80% into appropriate management by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005 Lowland

Heathland NLBAP 2.Increase the area by 200ha by 2005 Increase the area by 150ha by

2005. 1. Secure favourable management of all SSSIs by 2010 As NLBAP by 2010.

2. Allow no further loss As NLBAP Unimproved Neutral Grassland NLBAP

3. Develop an inventory, then formulate a target for its expansion by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

21 This notation means that the plan is in tranche 2, Volume 2, page 63


396 page 31

Habitat/ Species Plan Target Newark & Sherwood Target

1. Identify and confirm status of all areas >5ha by 2000 As NLBAP by 2005.

2. Ensure protection and management by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005

3. Identify opportunities for a further 200ha by 2005

Identify opportunities for a further 75ha by 2005.

Lowland Wet Grassland NLBAP

4. Expand the resource by 200ha by 2010 Expand the resource by 75ha by 2010.

1. Identify and confirm status of all areas >2ha by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

2. Ensure protection and management by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

Reedbed NLBAP 3. Create/restore on areas of low conservation value, to achieve a total resource of 100ha by 2010

Create/restore on areas of low conservation value, to achieve a total resource of 80ha by 2010

1. Maintain/enhance ecological diversity As NLBAP.

2. Enhance ecological diversity of at least 100km of main river by 2010

Enhance ecological diversity of at least 15km of main river by 2010.

3. Identify opportunities for restoring a more natural structure in stretches of main river and formulate a target for restoration by 2005

As NLBAP by 2005.

4. Restore natural flows wherever possible As NLBAP.

Rivers & Streams NLBAP

5. Improve all main rivers below optimum standard by at least 1 GQA (General Quality Assessment) class by 2010

As NLBAP by 2010.

1. Develop an inventory, then formulate a target for its expansion by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005. Mixed Ash

Woodland NLBAP 2. Maintain the existing area As NLBAP. 1. Develop an inventory, then formulate a target for its expansion by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005. Wet Broadleaved

Woodland NLBAP 2. Initiate the restoration of degraded examples by 2005. As NLBAP by 2005.

1. Determine extent and then formulate a target for expansion by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

2. Allow no further loss As NLBAP 3. Secure favourable management of 30% by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

Lowland Dry Acid Grassland22 NLBAP

4. Secure favourable management of 100% by 2015 As NLBAP by 2015.

22 The NLBAP divides acid grassland into type a and type b. Type a targets are included within the lowland heathland targets. Type b acid grasslands are those outside of the Sherwood and East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCAs. The targets given here are for the type b grasslands, which are found in the Trent Washlands RCA within Newark and Sherwood.


396 page 32

Habitat/ Species Plan Target Newark & Sherwood Target

1. Develop an inventory, then formulate a creation/restoration target by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

Standing waters NLBAP 2. Maintain and enhance the conservation value As NLBAP.

1. Identify and Confirm status of all valuable sites by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005.

2. Establish mechanisms to protect networks in all urban areas by 2010 As NLBAP but by 2005. Urban & Post

Industrial NLBAP

3. Secure sympathetic management on 100% urban SINCs by 2010 As NLBAP by 2010.

1. Halt all loss of these hedgerows by 2005 As UKBAP by 2005. 2. Achieve favourable management of 50% by 2005 As UKBAP by 2005. Ancient hedges UKBAP

I(2):243 3. Maintain overall numbers of hedgerow trees within each county or district As UKBAP.

Field margins UKBAP I(2):235

1. Maintain, improve and restore the biodiversity of some 15,000ha in the UK by 2010

Maintain, improve and restore the biodiversity of some 40ha in the District by 2010.

1. Establish a base-line monitoring scheme for all species by 2000 As NLBAP

2. Set targets for increasing population levels As NLBAP.

3. Enhance roosting sites and feeding habitats As NLBAP.

Bats NLBAP

4. Maintain known populations As NLBAP. 1. Establish a baseline monitoring scheme by 2000 As NLBAP

2. Enhance riparian habitats by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005. Otter NLBAP 3. Restore breeding otter to rural river catchments by 2010 As NLBAP by 2010.

1. Ensure water vole presence throughout their 1970s range by 2010 As NLBAP by 2010.

Water vole NLBAP 2. Maintain the current distribution and populations As NLBAP.

Brown hare UKBAP UKSGReport (2) 83

1. Maintain and expand existing populations, doubling spring numbers by 2010.

As UKBAP.

1. Establish a baseline for monitoring by 2000 As NLBAP

2. Bring all current sites into appropriate management by 2005 As NLBAP by 2005. Grizzled skipper NLBAP

3. Increase distributions to 1970-88 levels by 2010 As NLBAP by 2010.

1. Determine current status and distribution and formulate a target for expansion by 2005

As NLBAP by 2005.

2. Maintain and enhance feeding habitats As NLBAP. Barn owl NLBAP

3. Maintain current distribution and abundance As NLBAP.


396 page 33

Habitat/ Species Plan Target Newark & Sherwood Target 1. Maintain the current distribution and abundance As NLBAP.

Nightjar NLBAP 2. Increase the number of breeding pairs to 72 by 2005 As NLBAP

1. Maintain a population of around 1500 breeding pairs of woodlark within the existing range of 90 ten km squares

To be determined Woodlark UKBAP

2(I):77 2. Increase the range from 90 to 120 ten km squares by 2008. To be determined

1. Halt or reverse the decline in numbers by 2003 so that the Breeding Bird Survey index is at least at 1996 levels.

As UKBAP but by 2005.

Reed bunting UKBAP 2(I):65 2. See a sustained recovery in numbers so

that the BBS index is at least 50% higher than 1996 levels, in both wetland and farmland habitats, by 2008.


1. Halt or reverse the decline in numbers by 2003 so that the BBS index is at least at 1996 levels.


Bullfinch UKBAP 2(I):101 2. See a sustained recovery in numbers so

that the BBS index is at least 50% higher than 1996 levels, by 2008.


1. Restore populations to100 unoccupied sites, each year for 5 years, creating new ponds and managing habitat where necessary.

To be determined Great crested newt

UKBAP UKSG Report (2):112 2. Maintain the range, distribution and

viability of existing population. As UKBAP.

Otter (Lutra lutra), Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife trust Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 34

3.2 Future Key Biodiversity Opportunities For Newark and Sherwood A range of opportunities exists to implement the actions necessary to meet biodiversity targets. A number of these have been identified as key biodiversity opportunities for each RCA (see box 4).

Box 4 – Key Biodiversity Opportunities The key biodiversity opportunities are those which, in the opinion of the authors, would have the greatest positive impact on the biodiversity of each RCA, within the District. The lists are not a complete inventory of all of the opportunities. For instance none of the opportunities are about ‘maintaining’ habitat resources that are already high quality, although this is clearly an important area of work. Neither do they take into account the extent to which work is already being done on each one. These key opportunities have been selected in the light of the current biodiversity resource of each RCA (described above), the strategic aims, objectives and priorities of the documents reviewed in section 1.3, particularly • The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan • The Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan • English Nature Natural Area Profiles • The Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal and the land-use and agricultural practices within the District.

For each RCA the key biodiversity opportunities are listed below. These relate to habitats only, on the basis that the opportunities for a wide range of species will automatically be enhanced by improvements to the habitats.

3.2.1 The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA (a) Improve the quality of the linear and linking features between the larger areas of quality habitat. The

hedgerows (especially the ancient ones), cereal field margins and the linear woodlands along the dumble streams and the water courses themselves should be the focus for this.

(b) Re-create mixed ash woods. (c) Re-create neutral grassland, especially in the stream and beck valleys. (d) Improve the quality of the existing grassland.

3.2.2 The Trent Washlands RCA (a) Increase the amount of quality wildlife habitat in the Trent Valley by the sensitive restoration of

mineral workings, the creation of reedbeds and the re-creation of grassland and small wet woodlands23.

(b) Improve the quality of linear and linking features outside the valley, in the rest of the RCA. (c) Improve the quality of wildlife habitat in the urban environment of Newark.

3.2.3 The East Nottinghamshire Sandlands RCA (a) Re-create acid grassland.

23 OnTrent Vision Statement (April 2001), OnTrent Steering Group, c/o Derbyshire Wildlife Trust East Mill, Bridge Foot, Belper, Derbyshire, DE56 1XH


396 page 35

(b) Re-create lowland heathland. (c) Re-create oak-birch woodlands. (d) Improve the quality of linear and linking features.

3.2.4 The South Nottinghamshire Farmlands RCA (a) Improve the quality of linear and linking features. (b) Re-create mixed ash woods. (c) Re-create neutral grassland. (d) Re-create calcareous grassland on the gypsiferous soils.

3.2.5 The Sherwood RCA (a) Restore/re-create lowland heathland. (b) Restore/re-create acid grassland. (c) Create oak-birch woodland. (d) Restore lowland wood pasture, where remnants remain in conifer plantations (e) Improve the quality of linear and linking features, especially in the large conifer plantations where

heathland flora and fauna still survive. (f) Re-create wet woodlands in the river valleys. (g) Restore/re-create neutral grassland in the river valleys.

3.3 Priorities for Action in Newark and Sherwood A list of priority features in Newark and Sherwood District Council is detailed below to provide a focus for action. This is derived from the lists of future key opportunities in section 3.2 and the targets set out in Table 3. This set of priorities forms the basis of the database, attached as Appendix 3, and described in Chapter 4, where actions and mechanisms for delivery of the actions are presented. Although a set of priorities is provided here it is important to remember that the LBAP considers all Nottinghamshire habitats and species of conservation concern as of equal priority. Habitat Priorities • Lowland heathland/acid grassland • Lowland wood pasture and parkland • Oak-birch woodlands. • Mixed ash woodland • Wet woodlands • Neutral grassland • Lowland wet grassland • Reedbeds • Ancient hedgerows (extend to include all hedgerows) • Cereal field margins (extend to all arable field margins) • Urban and post industrial habitats • Rivers and streams • Eutrophic and mesotrophic standing water


396 page 36

Species Priorities (Generic for All Key Biodiversity Species) • Develop up to date knowledge of the status of the priority species within Newark and Sherwood • Protect rare and threatened species from further loss • Promote proper consideration of protected species in planning and land management

Duke’s Wood, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Dover Beck, nr Oxton Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 37

4.0 NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL’S CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE DISTRICT.

4.1 Actions and Delivery Mechanisms The database in Appendix 3 lists the actions from the strategic plans (reviewed in Chapter 1) for the District’s priority habitats (identified at the end of Chapter 3) and the generic actions for all of the District’s key biodiversity species (refer to Appendix 1). Where actions were repeated in the strategic plans, the most up to date and/or the most local action has been used. Most of the actions do relate to the BAP targets given in Table 3. However, the BAP actions list is a more comprehensive and applied list than the list of targets, which is why it is used in the database in preference to the targets. For each action (taken directly from the relevant strategic document) a delivery mechanism or set of mechanisms has been devised, the responsible section of each Council department has been identified, principal partners are listed and the time frame is given. An introduction to the database and how to use it is given in Appendix 3 and there are instructions and a set of explanatory abbreviations included in the database. The delivery mechanisms list is the central part of the database as it sets out in detail what the District Council should be doing over the next 5 years in order to maximise the cost effectiveness of its biodiversity conservation work. The mechanisms list addresses the biodiversity priorities defined in Chapter 3 but it is also based on practical and realistic opportunities derived from ideas and information provided by key Newark and Sherwood District Council staff and partner organisations.

4.2 Groups Of Delivery Mechanisms In this section the relationship between the database actions and mechanisms is illustrated, using examples from the database. The seven generic groupings of mechanisms are described and background information is provided where necessary. The seven groups of mechanisms are: 1. Baseline Data/ Survey/ Research and Monitoring 2. Implementation of Legislation and Policy 3. Feasibility Studies and Strategies – Preparation and Implementation 4. Training and Information for Staff 5. Management of the Council’s Own Estate 6. Designation of Local Nature Reserves 7. Advice and Promotion Subsection 4.2.1 on data is more detailed than the other subsections in response to a specific request from the District Council to provide more background information on this subject.


396 page 38

4.2.1 Baseline Data/ Survey/ Research & Monitoring For every Newark and Sherwood priority habitat and the key species there is an action and associated set of mechanisms relating to the need to gather data.

Box 5 E.g. Ancient hedgerows: Action – Establish a register of ancient and species-rich roadside hedges. Mechanism – Support the NBGRC to gather the information and compile such a register. E.g. Newark and Sherwood Key Species: Action – Monitor the populations and distribution of all key species. Mechanism – Support the NBGRC to monitor the District’s biodiversity resource.

A good biodiversity implementation plan must be underpinned by a reliable set of baseline biodiversity data with a clear monitoring strategy so that the success or otherwise of all of the actions taken can be gauged. Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a general duty on Government to have regard to biodiversity conservation; a duty to list the most important species and habitat types for biodiversity conservation and a specific duty to further their conservation. In the telephone interviews with the District Council staff, the need for up to date, reliable and professionally interpreted ecological information came over as a priority that would help many people to do their jobs more efficiently. Large scale ecological survey of habitats and species and the storage, manipulation and interpretation of the data gathered is a highly specialised, time and resource consuming role. It is not one which the District Council could or should do in isolation. In Nottinghamshire this role has been historically and is currently fulfilled by Nottingham City Council’s Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (NBGRC), based at Wollaton Hall Natural History Museum. Newark and Sherwood District Council have worked well with the NBGRC in the past. Recently the District was one of the lead Local Authorities giving financial support to a re-survey (Phase 1 Habitat Survey) of the County’s habitat resource and a re-survey of all of the County’s Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). For this funding the District Council has or will have received in the near future: • A paper copy of the 1997/98 Phase 1 Survey of the District • A paper copy of the Site Alert Schedule (showing the pre 1998 survey SINCs) for the District • A paper copy of the maps and information relating to the proposed new SINCs emerging from the

1998 survey For the funding provided by the District Council this is good value. However there are important items of additional information and services that the District Council really needs from the NBGRC to properly deliver the Biodiversity targets for the District. These include :


396 page 39

• An analysis and written report of the findings of the Phase 1 survey. • An analysis and written summary of the findings of the SINCs survey. • A definitive Site Alert schedule. • A list of which UKBAP priority species and which LBAP species of conservation concern actually

occur in the District. • Information about the populations and distribution of the District’s key species. • An NBGRC co-ordinated key species monitoring programme based on wards, in which local

communities could participate. • A register of important hedgerows. This sort of information is needed on an ongoing basis. Rolling programmes of survey are needed to give meaningful information on the status of habitats and species. An effective way forward may be for all the main users/ funders (including Newark and Sherwood District Council) to enter into a service level agreement with the NGBRC or perhaps an even more formal contract with an appropriately constituted ‘partnership body’. Discussions with partners about this sort of arrangement are ongoing at the time of writing, having been initiated in summer 2001. Newark and Sherwood District Council has played a very active role in these discussions to date. Under funding is the main issue for the NBGRC and has been for a considerable period of time. However if all of the main users of the facility were to provide funding (on a similar basis) then the NBGRC Manager could take on the appropriate number of permanent staff, plan ahead, increase the range of services on offer and generally provide a much more reliable service than has been possible in the past.

4.2.2 Implementation of Legislation and Policy • prevention of key habitat or protected species loss • positive and creative thinking in planning policy There is a suite of legislation and policy implementation actions and associated mechanisms throughout the database for habitats and species. For habitats and species they tend to split into two main types. The first type is about preventing key habitat or protected species loss. See box 6.

Box 6 E.g. Mixed Ash Woods: Action – Through planning control prevent further loss of this habitat. Mechanism 1 – Devise a monitoring system. Mechanism 2 – Implement the monitoring system. E.g. All key species: Action – Through planning control ensure that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration. Mechanism 1 – Development control, establish a checklist for officers that will ensure information on protected species is requested from applicants. Mechanism 2 – Development control, use the checklist. Mechanism 3 – Develop a procedure that requires information on protected species at the allocation stage.

Preventing further loss of the District’s key habitats and species populations is a vital way in which the District Council can contribute to the national biodiversity effort. At present there is no monitoring


396 page 40

system in place to record how many applications in the District affect which, if any, of its key habitats and species and what the outcome of these applications actually are. A simple monitoring procedure should be set up which could link in to the overall monitoring programme for the BIP as a whole. County planning applications (minerals, tipping and roads) should also be included in the monitoring system. This mechanism should not cost the Authority extra money but it will involve some staff time and a change to the current way of working. The second type tends to be more proactive in nature and involve positive and creative thinking in planning policy. See box 7.

Box 7 E.g. Unimproved Neutral Grassland: Action – Through planning identify opportunities for creation. Mechanism – Application of Local Plan policies, especially in river and stream corridors, particularly in the Maun and Dumble valleys.

This type of mechanism is fairly simple to implement. The District Council has already prepared a supplementary planning guidance document entitled ‘Guide To The Provision of Open Space in connection With New Housing Development’ (adopted 1999). It includes open space areas with biodiversity interest/potential and information on the calculation of commuted sums for the provision and maintenance of such areas. This, should be a useful tool in this delivery mechanism. It will also involve the need for all planning staff and the relevant Councillors to be conversant with the key biodiversity habitats and opportunities in each RCA. This type of mechanism should not cost the Authority any additional money but will involve slight changes to the current way of working.

4.2.3 Feasibility Studies and Strategies – Preparation and Implementation • positive contribution to wider strategies • District Council taking lead role in strategy/ feasibility study preparation • implementation of strategies This group of mechanisms splits into three types. The first type involves the District Council making a positive contribution to strategies being prepared by working groups for larger areas. See box 8.

Box 8 E.g. Lowland Wet Grassland: Action – Identify suitable areas for rehabilitation/restoration. Mechanism – Continue to support and contribute to the development of the Trent Valley Plan.

The actions taken by the District Council should be set within the appropriate context. This Plan is based on that underpinning principle. In addition to the strategic documents reviewed in Chapter 1 of this plan other strategic documents will emerge. Wherever appropriate the District Council should contribute to the preparation and subsequent implementation of these. Biodiversity work which contributes to a wider strategy is likely to be more cost effective than a series of one off projects that are not set in any strategic context.


396 page 41

This type of mechanism has no cost attached but will involve staff time. The second type of mechanism is where the District Council takes the lead in strategy/feasibility study preparation. See Box 9.

Box 9 E.g. Urban and Post Industrial: Action – Produce strategies for urban areas. Mechanism – Prepare greenspace inventories and strategies for Newark, Ollerton and Southwell.

Certain groups of habitats or certain geographical areas within the District deserve special attention and a particular focus of effort for a range of reasons. Urban areas are one example of this, where reasons include: the pressure that greenspace is under in such areas; and the benefit to a large number of people of taking a proactive approach. Preparing a strategy in advance of investing further staff time or District Council funding will ensure a higher level of cost-effectiveness and it may be used to attract funding from other sources. A good example of such a strategy already initiated (and funded) by the District Council is the Maun Valley Action Plan (May 2000). This type of mechanism will involve either a large amount of staff time or a small amount of staff time and some funding from the District Council, to buy in external expertise. The third type of mechanism in this group relates to the implementation of the strategies. See box 10.

Box 10 E.g. Rivers and Streams: Action – Encourage appropriate habitat creation/restoration schemes adjacent to rivers and streams. Mechanism – Identify a site or series of sites on the river Maun (in the Maun Valley Action Plan) and work with partners on the restoration of these features.

Implementation may be on the District Council’s own land holdings but there is also the potential here for the District Council to achieve biodiversity targets on partners’/private land. The River Maun Valley Action Plan, for example, identifies a series of generic management actions and site specific projects through the valley. Most of these will require at least partial funding by the District Council, if they are to get off the ground. The Maun Valley Action Plan has been used by the Sherwood Forest Trust in a successful application for Lottery funding under the Sherwood Initiative bid. The District Council has identified projects for implementation as part of the Initiative, which was officially launched on 28 March 2003.


396 page 42

Implementation of projects arising from strategies and plans will require funding from the District Council and staff time. However as in the case of the Maun Valley Action Plan, substantial external funding can be won for the area which justifies the investment of resources by the District Council.

4.2.4 Training and Information for Staff • appropriate training for key District Council staff • effective dissemination and updating of biodiversity information amongst District Council staff • formation of an urban and post-industrial advisory group This group of mechanisms divides into three main types. The first type relates specifically to the District Council key staff receiving the appropriate training to enable them to deliver the rest of the mechanisms. See box 11.

Box 11 E.g. Lowland Heathland: Action – Maintain and enhance existing heathland sites. Mechanism – provide training for key staff members. E.g. Urban and Post Industrial: Action – Ensure that grant aid, advice and training is available to site managers. Mechanism – provide training for the Vicar Water ranger and other key staff members.

An ongoing training programme is required, which accommodates the need for staff to receive ‘update’ training and copes with staff turnover. Implementation is unlikely to be successful if staff are not adequately trained and are consequently low in confidence. This type of mechanism will require funding and a commitment to staff time being used for biodiversity training by the District Council The second type of mechanism is about the effective dissemination and updating of biodiversity information amongst District Council staff. See box 12.

Box 12 E.g. All Key Species: Action – Set up a hotline with police to reduce wildlife crime. Mechanism 1 – Provide to staff contact details of Police Wildlife Liaison Officer. Mechanism 2 – Provide to staff a summary of species protected by legislation and the level of protection.

This type of mechanism would be partially achieved via an organised training programme. In addition identified individuals within each department or section could be allocated responsibility to disseminate information to their colleagues. This information should be provided by one key contact within the District Council. This type of mechanism should not involve funding but will involve staff time and a change to the current way of working.


396 page 43

The third type of mechanism in this group is something of a one off and was included only in the Urban and Post Industrial Habitat Action Plan in the LBAP. See box 13.

Box 13 E.g. Urban and Post Industrial. Action – Consider setting up an urban and post-industrial advisory group in every Local Authority area. Mechanism – With partners review the need for such a group.

This would involve a commitment of staff time but should not involve any specific funding.

4.2.5 Management of the Council’s Own Estate • biodiversity audit of District Council’s estate This group of mechanisms all involve reviews of the District Council’s own estate, in terms of how it is managed, what opportunities exist to further biodiversity conservation and the implementation of the findings of the reviews.

Box 14 E.g. All Key Species: Action – Raise awareness amongst land managers. Mechanism – Review the District Council’s land holdings and buildings with regard to protected species and key biodiversity species. E.g. Ancient Hedgerows: Action – Plant replacement hedgerows for those lost historically. Mechanism 1 – Review opportunities for replacing the District’s species rich hedgerow resource on the Council’s own land holding, implement. Mechanism 2 – In partnership develop a nursery for growing stock of local provenance.

The District Council’s nature conservation sites e.g. Sherwood Heath, Devon Meadow and Vicar Water are already being managed for biodiversity, as well as for visitors. The District Council also manages other land and buildings, not specifically for biodiversity and there are other new sites coming under the Council’s jurisdiction e.g. Intake Wood. There is a need for the District Council’s whole estate to be reviewed in the light of the priorities and mechanisms identified within the BIP and the appropriate changes to management plans and management on the ground implemented. A significant contribution to some of the habitat targets can be made on the District Council’s own land (or land over which it has some direct control) and the District Council will be leading by example.

4.2.6 Designation of Local Nature Reserves • declaration of additional Local Nature Reserves • ensure local strategies include policies and targets for LNR designation


396 page 44

This group of mechanisms divides into two types. The first type (which appears as a mechanism for almost every habitat) is about declaring additional LNRs, supporting the priority habitats for the District. See box 15.

Box 15 E.g. Oak birch Woodland: Action – Declare LNRs or instigate other protection measures. Mechanism – Designate one LNR. Link with heathland mechanism (designate one additional LNR)

Local Nature Reserves are an important way in which Local Authorities can progress and promote biodiversity conservation, either on their own land or in co-operation with private landowners. Prior to designation a 5 year management plan, approved by English Nature, must be produced. LNRs are declared by the Local Authority in conjunction with English Nature. Designation enhances the status and level of protection of sites as bylaws can be devised and used to ensure appropriate use of the site. Also LNRs qualify for English Nature Local Nature Reserve grant aid which can be used to fund management and site interpretation. The preparation of management plans and designating LNRs will involve a lot of staff time and some capital expenditure The second type only appears once as an action in the database:

Box 16 E.g. Urban and Post Industrial: Action – Ensure that all local strategies include policies and targets for LNR designation. Mechanism – Include LNR designation targets for Newark and Sherwood in the BIP.

Future updates of the BIP should include this mechanism.

4.2.7 Advice and Promotion • provision of advice within District Council and externally • on-site interpretation and establishment of demonstration sites This group of mechanisms splits into two main types. The first type are all about the dissemination of information and the provision of advice both within the District Council and externally to land owners and other members of the public. The current slightly ad hoc approach to this could be co-ordinated by one person or section given the specific remit to: assimilate partners’ information, prepare leaflets, place the leaflets on the Council’s web site and co-ordinate the approach to information/advice provision. See box 17.

Box 17 E.g. Ancient Hedgerows: Action – Encourage favourable management of roadside hedgerows. Mechanism – inform landowners of sources of advice from partners and develop a database.


396 page 45

This type of mechanism could take up a considerable amount of staff time. An alternative approach may be for the District Council to consider making a financial arrangement with the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust or the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, to deliver this mechanism. The second type of mechanism relates to on-site interpretation and the establishment of demonstration sites. See box 18.

Box 18 E.g. Oak Birch Woodland: Action – Establish a good practice demonstration site. Mechanism – Establish a demonstration site at Vicar Water. E.g. Lowland Heathland: Action:– Promote public appreciation of and access to heathland sites. Mechanism – Improve interpretation at Sherwood Heath LNR.

There are considerable opportunities on all of the District Council’s current nature conservation sites for both interpretation and the demonstration of good practice. A strategic approach to site interpretation and use for demonstration is required, again co-ordinated by one person or section. All new LNRs and other nature conservation sites coming under the District Council’s auspices should be included in the strategy. This type of mechanism will take quite a lot of staff time and some District Council funding.


396 page 46

5.0 SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 Existing Sources of Funding A variety of funding sources for the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan targets currently exists. Not all of these are available directly to the District Council, but could be utilised by the partner organisations or private landowners or business. There are few single sources of information on funding for biodiversity work in Newark and Sherwood, although the Sherwood Forest Trust has published a guide for landowners24.

5.1.1 Agri-environment and Forestry grant schemes (a) Countryside Stewardship Scheme This scheme potentially can provide funding to assist in the implementation of the following HAPs/ SAPs: • All dry grasslands HAPs, • Heathland, • Veteran trees and parkland, • Arable field margins, • Hedgerows, • Reedbed, • Otter SAP (holt construction). Indirectly the management of these habitats will also benefit many of the species of conservation concern in the Nottinghamshire BAP. Payments can be made for on-going management, restoration and re-creation of habitat. A range of specific works such as tree planting the construction of otter holts, fencing, walling etc. can also be funded by the scheme. (b) Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme These schemes potentially can provide funding to assist in the implementation of the following HAPs: • Oak-birch woodland • Lowland wood pasture • Wet woodland • Mixed ash woodland Payments under these schemes cover on-going management, woodland creation and woodland restoration. Current agri-environment schemes are providing support for the implementation of biodiversity, but there are difficulties in always attracting funding for particular projects (see 5.3 below). The extent to which these schemes can contribute to the BAP targets could be enhanced through future changes to how the schemes are targeted and the extent to which they are funded.

24 Hewston, G, P. Horton and J. Hall (1998). Opportunities for Renewing Sherwood’s Wildlife.


396 page 47

(c) Set-aside There are various options under set-aside, a number of which will help contribute towards biodiversity targets for habitats and species.

5.1.2 Local authority and central government grants (a) County Council Landscape Conservation Grant Scheme These schemes potentially can provide funding to assist in the implementation of the following BAPs: • All the grassland HAP • All the woodland HAPs • Heathland • Hedgerows • Wood pasture and parkland (b) Grants from Statutory Agencies (English Nature and the Environment Agency) A range of grants is available through these agencies either nationally or at a local level, for example, the Local Nature Reserve Grant. This scheme has recently received significant additional resources and it is likely that significant grants could be sought.

5.1.3 Planning gain This source of funding could make a significant contribution to the restoration and re-creation of habitats in all of the RCAs, perhaps particularly in the Trent Washlands and the Sherwood. This funding source not only can cover land purchase and habitat creation costs, but should also provide funding for on-going site management and maintenance through the provision of suitable endowment payments. To be most effective a co-ordinated approach needs to be adopted not only to the restoration of existing quarries, pit tips etc but also to identifying the priority habitat and species targets for different types of extraction before applications are made to the mineral planning authority. Planning gain does not just have to involve the restoration of quarries although such sites are often large in area and provide significant opportunities for implementing the BAP. Planning gain can also involve the maintenance of existing habitat and the restoration of degraded or neglected habitats within, adjacent or near to development sites.

5.1.4 Biodiversity Action Group Partnership The Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group is a partnership over 50 organisations involved in nature conservation across the county, working together to further the aims and the objectives of the LBAP. Biodiversity Action Group partners all provide funding for biodiversity through existing budgets and / or staff resources. These sources of funding will continue, but the extent to which they can contribute to meeting the targets of the BAP will vary from year to year depending on budgetary constraints. The Group currently administers the Action for Wildlife small grants scheme, funded by English Nature and Rushcliffe Agenda 21, for the implementation of the Nottinghamshire LBAP. Members of the Biodiversity Action Group also primarily fund the salary and associated budget of the Biodiversity Officer post, employed by the partnership to support the work of the partners. This centrally funded position contributes to all the BIPs / nature conservation strategies in a variety of different areas, and links local work into the UK BAP, highlighting the national and even international significance of conservation work done on the ground


396 page 48

5.2 Potential sources of funding and future opportunities: A variety of potential funding sources or mechanisms may be available to the District Council, partner organisations and private landowners and businesses. These range considerably in the scale of the funding, the type of works that can be funded, the frequency of availability of funding and the ease by which funding can be sought. The different potential sources of funding therefore will suit different types of project and fund raising will need to carefully consider how to develop proposals that will best suit the different potential sources of financial support. Potential funding sources and opportunities are discussed below:

5.2.1 UK Grant awards There are a wide variety of potential grant awards that could be utilised to help deliver the BAP targets. Some award schemes such as Heritage Lottery Fund and Landfill Tax Credit Scheme can potentially supply very significant sponsorship, but require significant inputs of staff time, both at the application and implementation stages of a bid, and sometimes requires the creation of specific projects and an element of match funding.

5.2.2 EU funding A variety of funding sources are available through the EU ranging from specific funding for biodiversity based projects through the LIFE fund to regional regeneration funding that has been successfully utilised to develop community based and wildlife programmes as part of the regeneration proposals.

5.2.3 Asset Management Planning 4 The AMP3 programme already includes a number of proposed actions relating to water abstraction schemes and sewage effluent treatment that contribute to the implementation of some of the HAPs. Future agreements under the AMP programme could provide opportunities under some of the research actions or contribute to the implementation of water quality and supply objectives of all of the wetland and some of the grassland HAPs.

5.2.4 Business sponsorship There are a wide variety of potential sources of funding through sponsorship by local business. There will be a variety of sizes of funding that different companies would be willing to make as sponsors and there will be particular HAPs/ SAPs that will be better suited to particular market sectors. A number of sponsorship schemes for wildlife conservation are currently operating throughout the UK. These include at a national level Species Champions such as Tog 24 who are sponsoring the Stag Beetle national BAP through to local companies sponsoring local action. These schemes could form a template for similar approaches in Newark and Sherwood where consideration should be given to establishing local wildlife champions for particular species or habitats. Consideration of the key market sectors in Newark and Sherwood such as the water industry, extraction and quarrying industry, construction industry, and agriculture could all be linked to particular species and habitats within the District. Attracting private sponsorship, however, will require significant inputs in terms of staff resources to establish a planned and well-informed approach to local businesses. It may even require the employment of professional staff if they are not available through the Council or partner organisations. A preliminary study of applications to the business sector to attract species champions for the Countryside Council for


396 page 49

Wales (Conservation Directorate)25 identified a series of factors that were often associated with successful approaches for sponsorship. These include: (a) Adopting a professional approach to funding raising. (b) Identification of key personnel in the business before making contact. (c) Establishing a clear set of objectives. (d) Proposing an outline budget. (e) Setting realistic goals and developing a costed work plan for consideration by the potential sponsor. (f) Providing times scale for sponsorship. (g) Identification of tangible benefits to the potential sponsor of being involved in the champions scheme,

such as: i. Involvement in a high profile operation.

ii. Publicity and PR and what level it is likely to be generated. iii. Make the sponsorship as specific to the business as possible. iv. Show there will be community and customer involvement. v. Propose staff involvement and links to staff development and training.

vi. Offer free advice on business operations that may benefit biodiversity. vii. Offer advice on incorporating biodiversity into existing environmental management

systems. viii. Propose establishing a memorandum of understanding.

The study also considered which aspects of approaches increased the likelihood of a positive response. These include: (a) Right time to approach the business (e.g. awareness of the companies budget cycle and existing

sponsorship commitments) (b) Whether the business has an environmental policy or remit (c) A connection between the business and the species (d) Size of the business (e.g. Small to medium enterprise compared to a multi-national) in relation to the

size of sponsorship being requested.

5.3 Barriers to Implementation

5.3.1 Uptake of agri-environment schemes Agri-environment schemes potentially could make a significant contribution to meeting the targets for many of the HAPs and at the current time they are one of the few funding mechanisms that are able to cover long-term management of a wide range of habitats. There are however, three potential barriers to achieving the targets of the BAP. These are: (a) if locally funding through the agri-environment schemes will be sufficient to meet the targets of the

BAP; (b) the reluctance of some landowners to apply for payments under these schemes; and (c) the likelihood of success of applications for key sites. The first point can only be determined through close liaison with the grant awarding bodies. The second point could be addressed in a number of ways including top up payments to provide a greater incentive to enter the schemes. Another mechanism would be to encourage applications for key sites by providing a focussed advisory service aimed at promoting these schemes to targeted landowners and in assisting them

25 Fisher (unpublished) Engaging Champions: Business Support for Biodiversity Conservation


396 page 50

in completing an application for the grant scheme. This approach is currently being used by the Devon Wildlife Trust to promote the uptake of Wildlife Enhancement Scheme and agri-environment schemes for Culm (Purple Moor grass and rush pasture) Grassland which is a priority habitat in the UK BAP. As well as advice and administrative support practical assistance could be provided through the establishment of a flying flock and a machinery ring to enable awkward sites to be managed. Even if landowners can be persuaded or helped to make applications there is no guarantee that the applications will be successful just because the proposed works will bring about biodiversity benefits. Agri-environment schemes have a much wider set of objectives and other applications which do not score so well in terms of their benefit to biodiversity may score higher overall when access, culture and landscape benefits are considered.

5.3.2 Lack of influence on national policy and issues Whilst the County Biodiversity Steering Group will be able to influence local policy issues it will have less influence at a national level. Often, however, significant change can only be brought about through changes in national policy. For example, funding provision for agri-environment schemes or spending on conservation management within state forests will both be greatly affected by changes in national policy, which in turn could have a very significant impact on biodiversity conservation in the District. There is a need for better regional and national working to identify the key barriers to funding for biodiversity work and to be active at these levels to try and influence change.

5.3.3 Reluctance to embrace land-use change and management There can be a general level of reluctance to embrace and/or encourage changes in land-use and land management. This can be because of perceived and/or real problems that changes will bring about. Perceived and actual costs of changing land management regimes to benefit biodiversity can present a barrier to delivering biodiversity conservation especially where it has been assumed that such changes can be accommodated within existing budgets. In some circumstances there are real increases in cost as a result of proposed changes in land management. In other circumstances there is an unwillingness to entertain change either because of a lack of interest or because there is a fear of increased cost and/or difficulty. The reluctance to embrace change can arise within government organisations, local communities and amongst landowners.

5.3.4 Long-term funding Long-term funding for work is an on-going challenge for organisations managing land for nature conservation. The BAP identifies the need to acquire land to enable habitat creation and restoration to take place, but once habitat creation and restoration is completed there is an on-going need to manage the target habitats and species. Obtaining funding for short periods related to specific work is often relatively easier to achieve than continued funding over a longer period for maintenance. This is also an issue for monitoring and the maintenance of the Biological Records Centre.

5.3.5 Knowledge of the resource and its requirements The Nottinghamshire BAP has been prepared to a certain extent without a clear knowledge of the habitat and species resources in the county. For example, the extent of oak-birch woodland in the county or the District is unknown. This in turn can make setting targets and monitoring progress of the BAP extremely difficult. In essence if you do not know how much of a resource you have and what condition it is in, it will not be possible to assess how successful the BAP has been. This highlights the need for an active


396 page 51

Biological Records Centre that not only can collect and store information, but also undertake analysis of the data to provide practical information to the Biodiversity Action Group and the District Council.

5.3.6 Changing agricultural environment The future of the agricultural environment is currently uncertain, particularly in the livestock sector due to the recent foot and mouth crisis and the consequent review of that sector. As agricultural land-use changes the availability of key mechanisms to undertake land management is declining in some areas. For example, nature conservation organisations managing key sites are finding it difficult to find stock to graze key grasslands sites. The lack of suitable machinery and/or livestock could be a barrier to the implementation of the grassland HAPs in particular. At the current time this is being addressed by the Wildlife Trust and the National Trust both of whom now own/manage sheep flocks.

5.3.7 Skills shortage The implementation of the BAP will require a wide range of skills and expertise to be available in a variety of fields of work. For example, it is likely that the BAP will require on-going fund raising in order to meet the targets. In order to attract additional funding, especially from private business it is likely that significant human resources in terms of skills and time will be required above those currently available to the Biodiversity Action Group. Approaching potential sponsors and developing working relationships can take a great deal of effort and a lack of staff resources may be a barrier to attracting funding from some sources. There may also be a lack of available skills and knowledge in a range of other areas to enable the targets of the BAPs to be achieved.

Ploughman Wood (Semi-Ancient Natural Woodland) Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Hedgelaying, Credit : Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


396 page 52

6.0 Implementation of the Plan and Monitoring of Progress

6.1 Implementation of the Plan To be effective, the Biodiversity Implementation Plan requires adoption by the District Council’s various service areas which can contribute to Biodiversity Conservation. More detailed discussion is therefore required with those officers responsible for relevant work areas. It is proposed that a simplified Action Plan based upon these discussions, the existing and proposed work given in Appendix 4, and the actions identified in this document be prepared. This could be updated and amended as and when necessary. This document could link into the District’s Community Plan and the Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plan. The Database at Appendix 3 lists delivery mechanisms which can be used to implement the biodiversity actions taken from the strategies reviewed in Chapter 1. However, the identification of responsible sections/ officers responsible for their implementation, and indeed, the feasibility of achieving some of the listed actions, requires further discussion. In addition, there are other areas currently being undertaken, or which could be undertaken, which should also be included.

6.2 Monitoring and Review The brief from the District Council included a requirement for suggestions on the establishment of: ‘’an ongoing monitoring, evaluation and review process to assess the District Council’s performance in achieving the recommendations brought forward through the BIP.’’ The suggested monitoring/ evaluation/ review process, outlined below, will clearly have to be developed further by the District Council so that it can be fully and effectively integrated across the whole authority. Monitoring of performance can be divided into two categories: 1. Ecological monitoring of habitats and indicator species; and 2. Performance monitoring in terms of progress with mechanisms to deliver the strategic actions and

achieve the targets.

Ecological Monitoring Section 4.2.1 gives the background to the need for good baseline ecological data and ongoing monitoring. It also advocates a service level agreement with the NBGRC as the best way forward with this. One of the suggestions in 4.2.1 relates to the involvement of local communities in ecological monitoring. This could be based on wards and use the Regional Character Area priority species features relevant to each ward as the indicators. A scheme of monitoring and feedback could be devised and co-ordinated by the NBGRC as part of the wider agreement.


396 page 53

Performance Monitoring 1. This type of monitoring should be undertaken internally and a brief annual report should be prepared.

This will inform the preparation of the next Biodiversity Implementation Plan for the District, which should be prepared in 5 years time.

2. The database (see Appendix 3 and the copy on disc) could be adapted to facilitate monitoring.

Columns could be added to the end of the database. 3. Progress can be monitored in terms of : • X hectares • X sites • X advisory leaflets sent out to members of

the public

• X hours spent • X internal procedures put in place • 10% complete etc.

4. An overall Co-ordinator should be appointed with contacts in each departmental section, who are responsible for the collation and provision of data at set intervals. 5. The Co-ordinator and section contacts could form an interdepartmental working party on biodiversity and also be responsible for the information provision described in a number of the delivery mechanisms. 6. This structure and monitoring process should enable easy exchange of information with the County Biodiversity Action Group.


396 page 54

APPENDIX 1 – Key Habitats and Species Of Newark and Sherwood District

Nottinghamshire Habitats of Conservation Concern This is the complete list of habitats of conservation concern in Nottinghamshire. NB The Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Steering Group consider all of the habitats on this list as of equal priority. Those habitats shown in bold are those considered by the Authors of this report to be the Key Habitats of Newark and Sherwood. * Denotes those Habitats for which HAPs have already been prepared in the LBAP. Oak Birch Woodland * Lowland Heathland * Unimproved Neutral Grassland * Lowland Wet Grassland * Reedbed * Rivers and Streams * Mixed Ash Dominated Woodland * Wet Broadleaved Woodland Lowland Dry Acid Grassland * Urban and Post-Industrial Habitats * Cereal Field Margins

Ancient and/or Species Rich Hedgerows Eutrophic and Mesotrophic Standing Waters Lowland Wood Pasture and Parkland Planted Coniferous Woodland Ditches Arable Fields Improved Grassland Fen Marsh Canals Saline Lagoons Lowland Calcareous Grassland *

UK Priority Habitats Ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows Aquifer fed naturally fluctuating water bodies Blanket bog Cereal field margins Chalk rivers Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh Coastal saltmarsh Coastal sand dunes Coastal vegetated shingle Eutrophic standing waters Fens Limestone pavements Littoral and sublittoral chalk Lophelia perusa reefs Lowland beech and yew woodland Lowland calcareous grassland Lowland dry acid grassland Lowland heathland Lowland meadows Lowland raised bog

Lowland wood-pasture and parkland Machair Maerl beds Maritime cliff and slopes Mesotrphic lakes Modiolus modiolus beds Mudflats Mud habitats in deep water Native pine woodland Purple moor grass and rush pastures Reedbeds Sabellaria alveolata reefs Sabellaria spinulosa reefs Saline lagoons Seagrass beds Serpulid reefs Sheltered muddy gravels Sublitorral sands and gravels Tidal rapids Upland calcareous grassland

Upland hay meadows Upland heathland


396 page 55

Upland mixed ashwoods Upland oakwood

Wet woodland

Newark and Sherwood Key Species Refer to the NLBAP for the full list of Species of Conservation Concern in Nottinghamshire. NB The Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Steering Group consider all of the species on that list as of equal priority. * Denotes those Newark and Sherwood Key Species that already have SAPs prepared for them in the NLBAP. The species shown in bold are those which enjoy some sort of special protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended. NB all birds (with the exception of listed pest species) and their nests are protected when breeding. *Bats *Otter Brown hare *Water Vole

*White Clawed Crayfish *Grizzled Skipper *Barn Owl *Nightjar

Woodlark Reed bunting Bullfinch Great Crested Newt

UK Priority Species Vertebrates Anglerfish Bat, Barbastelle Bat, Bechstein’s Bat, Greater horseshoe Bat, Greater mouse-eared Bat, Lesser horseshoe Bat, Pipstrelle Bittern Bullfinch Bunting, Cirl Bunting, Corn Bunting, Reed Burbot Capercaillie Cod Corncrake Crossbill, Scottish Curlew, Stone Dolphin, Atlantic white- Dolphin, Bottlenosed Dolphin, Common Dolphin, Risso’s Dolphin, White-beaked Dolphins, small Dormouse Dove, Turtle Fish, Commercial marine

Fish, Deep-water Flycatcher, Spotted Frog, Pool Grenadier, Roughhead Grendier, Roundnose Grouse, Black Hake Halibut, Greenland Hare, Brown Herring Ling Ling, Blue Linnet Lizard, Sand Mackerel Mackerel, Horse Monkfish, Sea Newt, Great crested Nightjar Otter Partridge, Grey Phalarope, Red-necked Plaice Pollan Porpoise, Harbour Redfish Roughy, Orange Saithe Scabbardfish, Black Scoter, Common

Shad, Allis Shad, Twaite Shark, Basking Shrike, Red-backed Skate, Arctic Skate, Common Skylark Smelt, Argentine Smelt, Greater silver Sole Sparrow, Tree Squirrel, Red Tern, Roseate Thrush, Song Toad, Natterjack Turtle, Green Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, Kemp’s ridley Turtle, Leatherback Turtle, Loggerhead Turtles, Marine Tusk Vendace Vole, Water Warbler, Aquatic Warbler, Marsh Whale, Blue Whale, Cuvier’s beaked Whale, Fin Whale, Humpback


396 page 56

Whale, Killer Whale, Long-finned pilot Whale, Minke Whale, Northern bottlenose Whale, Northern right Whale, Sei Whale, Sowerby’s beaked Whale, Sperm Whale, True’s beaked Whales, Baleen Whales, Toothed Whiting Whiting, Blue Woodlark Wryneck Invertebrates Anemone, Ivell’s sea Anemone, Sea-fan Anemone, Starlet sea Ant, Black bog Ant, Black-backed meadow Ant, Dark guest Ant, Narrow headed Ant, Red barbed Ant, Scottish wood Argent and sable Beauty, Belted Beauty, Dark bordered Bee, Banded mining Bee, Shrill carder Bee-fly, Dotted Bee-fly, Heath Bee-fly, Mottled Beetle, Bast bark Beetle, Beaulieu dung Beetle, Bembridge Beetle, Blue ground Beetle, Cliff tiger Beetle, Edmond’s ground Beetle, Eyed longhorn Beetle, Heath tiger Beetle, Lesser silver water Beetle, Mire pill- Beetle, Northern dune tiger Beetle, Scarlet malachite Beetle, Spangled diving Beetle, Stag Beetle, Violet click

Beetle, River shingle Belle, Straw Blue, Adonis Blue, Large Blue, Silver-studded Brown, Pale shining Buff, Reddish Bumblebee, Great Yellow Bumblebee, Large Garden Bumblebee, Short-haired Burnet, New Forest Burnet, Slender Scotch Carpet, Barberry Carpet, Waved Case-bearer, Basil thyme Chafer, Noble Cicada, New Forest Clay, Square-spotted Clearwing, Fiery Colletes, Northern Copper, Large Coral, Sunset cup Crab, Deep-water Crayfish, White-clawed Cricket, Field Cricket, Mole Damselfly, Southern Fan-foot, Common Fritillary, Heath Fritillary, High brown Fritillary, Marsh Fritillary, Peal-bordered Gothic, Bordered Grasshopper, Large-marsh Hatchett shell, Northern Hawk-moth, Narrow-bordered Hoverfly, Bog Leech, Medicinal Line, Double Lychnis, Striped Merveille du jour, Scarce Mocha, Dingy Moth, Black-veined Moth, Bright wave Moth, Four-spotted Moth, Heart Moth, Marsh Moth, Netted carpet Moth, Netted mountain

Moth, Speckled footman Mussel, Depressed river Mussel, fan Mussel, Freshwater pea Mussel, Freshwater pearl Oyster, Native Pinion, White-spotted Robberfly, Hornet Sea-fan, Pink Shrimp, Tadpole Skipper, Chequered Skipper, Silver spotted Snail, Desmoulin’s whorl Snail, Glutinous Snail, Narrow-mouthed whorl Snail, Round-mouthed whorl Snail, Sandbowl Snail, Shining ram’s-horn Snout, Buttoned Spider, Fen raft Spider, Ladybird Sword-grass Tooth-striped, Barred Underwing, Dark crimson Underwing, Light crimson Underwing, Lunar yellow Upperwing, Orange Wainscot, Brighton Wart-biter Wasp, Purbeck mason Wave, Silky Vascular plants and stoneworts Asparagus, Wild Brome, Interrupted Cabbage, Lundy Catchfly, Small-flowered Cleavers, Corn Clubmoss, Marsh Club-rush, Triangular Corn-salad, Broad-fruited Cornflower Cotoneaster, Wild Cow-wheat, Small Cudweed, Broad-leaved Cudweed, Red-tipped Cut-grass Dock, Shore


396 page 57

Eyebrights Fern, Killarney Fern, Newman’s lady Fumitory, Purple ramping- Fumitory, Western ramping- Gentian, Dune Gentian, Early Hawk’s-beard, Stinking Hawkweeds Hedge-parsley, Spreading Helleborine, Young’s Hemp-nettle, Red Juniper Knawel, Perennial Lady’s tresses, Irish Marshwort Creeping Mouse-ear, Shetland Mugwort, Tower Naiad, Holly-leaved Naiad, Slender Orchid, Fen Orchid, Lady’s slipper Pennycress, Cotswold Pennyroyal Pillwort Pink, Deptford Pondweed, Grass-wrack Pondweed, Shetland Rush, Pigmy Saxifrage, Yellow marsh Scurvy-grass, Mountain Sea-lavender, Rock Sedge, Prickly Sedge, True fox- Shepherd’s needle Small-reed, Scottish Starfruit Stonewort, Convergent Stonewort, Dwarf Stonewort, Great tassel Stonewort, Lesser bearded Stonewort, Mossy Stonewort, Slender Stonewort, Starry Stonewort, Tassel Twinflower Water crowfoot, Three-lobed Water-parsnip, Greater Water-plantain, Floating

Water-plantain, Ribbon-leaved Whitebeam, Ley’s Willow, Woolly Woodsia, Oblong Lower plants and fungi Apple-moss, Rigid Beard-moss, Glaucous Beard-moss, Perthshire Beard-moss, Sausage Beard-moss, Scottish Beardless-moss, Beaked Bog-moss, Baltic Bolete, Devil’s Bolete, Royal Breck-lichen, Scaly Breck-lichen, Starry Bristle-moss, Blunt-leaved Bristle-moss, Pale Bryum, Sea Catapyrenium, Tree Copperwort, Greater Crystalwort, Violet Dog-lichen, Ear-lobed Earth-moss, Starry Earwort, Marsh Elm-lichen, Orange-fruited Feather-moss, Appleyard’s Feather-moss, Derbyshire Feather-moss, Prostrate Feather-moss, Round-leaved Feather-moss, Slender green Feather-moss, Yorkshire Featherwort, Lindenberg’s Fern-moss, Tiny Flapwort, Norfolk Fungi, Hydnoid Fungus, Nail Gyalecta, Elm’s Lead-moss Lecanactis, Churchyard Lejeunea, Atlantic Lichen, River jelly Lichen, Stump Meadow cap, pink Moss, Cornish path Moss, Flamingo Moss, Knothole

Moss, Multi-fruited river Moss, Nowell’s limestone Moss, Thatch Petalwort Pohlia, Scottish Polypore, Oak Pouchwort, Wilson’s Prongwort, Northern Puffball, Sandy silt Pygmy-moss, Triangular Rock-bristle, Water Rock-moss, Icy Rustwort, Stabler’s Rustwort, Western Screw-moss, Freiberg’s Shield-moss, Green Strap-lichen, Ciliate Threadmoss, Dune Threadmoss, Long-leaved Threadmoss, Slender Veilwort Waxcap, Date-coloured Wax-lichen, Warty


396 page 58

APPENDIX 2 – Biodiversity Partners Contact Details Biodiversity Contacts Contact Details

Agricultural Training Board National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh, Kenilworth, CV8 2LZ Tel: 02476 696518

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers BTCV

Chestnut Grove, Burton Joyce, Nottingham, NG14 5DZ Tel: 01159 313316

English Nature – East Midlands Team (Leicestershire, Lincolnshire & Nottinghamshire)

The Maltings, Wharf Road, Grantham, Lincs, NG3 6SH Tel: 01476 568431 Fax: 01476 70927

Environment Agency Environment Agency, Trentside Offices, Scarrington Road West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5FA Tel: 01159 455722 Fax: 01159817743

Farming & Wildlife Advisory Group FWAG

Brackenhurst College, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 OQF Tel: 01636 817000 Fax: 01636 815404

Forest Enterprise Sherwood & Lincs Forest District, Edwinstowe, Mansfield, NG21 9JL Tel: 01623 822447 Fax: 01623 824975

Forestry Commission Sherwood & Lincs Forest District, Edwinstowe, Mansfield, NG21 9JL Tel: 01623 822447 Fax: 01623 824975

Greenwood Partnership Team Greenwood House, 1-3 Diamond Avenue, Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, NG17 7GN Tel: 01623 758231 Fax: 01623 751846

Groundwork Ashfield & Mansfield The Cattlemarket Tavern, Nottingham Road, Mansfield , Nottinghamshire, NG18 1BJ Tel: 016243 635334

National Farmers’ Union Agriculture House, North Gate, Uppingham, Rutland, LE15 9NX Tel: 01572 824255

Nottinghamshire Bat Group Wollaton Hall, Wollaton Park, Nottingham, NG8 2AE Tel: 01159 153900 Fax: 01159 153932

Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Group c/o Trentbridge House, Fox Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 6BJ Tel: 01159 823823

Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre

Wollaton Hall, Wollaton Park, Nottingham, NG8 2AE Tel: 01159 153900 Fax: 01159 153932

Nottinghamshire County Council Trentbridge House, Fox Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 6BJ Tel: 01159 823823

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust The Old Ragged School, Brook Street, Nottingham, NG1 1EA Tel: 01159 588242 Fax: 01159 243175

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – NW Regional Office

Westleigh Mews, Wakefield Road, Denby Dale, Huddersfield, HG8 8QD Tel: 01484 861148

The Sherwood Forest Trust 1-3 Diamond Avenue, Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, NG17 7GN Tel: 01623 758231 Fax: 01623 751846


396 page 59

APPENDIX 3 – The Database Introduction The database is presented in Excel format and comprises information presented under nine columns. The columns are titled as follows:

1. BAP habitat or species 2. Status 3. Action for Newark and Sherwood 4. Category of Action 5. Responsible department 6. Delivery mechanism 7. Target Time Frame 8. Principal Partner 9. Source Document

In the top left hand corner of each column is a search icon. These can be used to search and re-organise the database using the information within each column. The database allows all entries to be shown or a search can be made on a particular word. For example, if the user of the database wished to list all actions associated with the development control the icon can be used to create a database that only shows all rows in which this section is noted as the responsible section. In this way it is possible to list all actions associated with development control or all delivery mechanisms that require the provision of advice or all actions that are scheduled to be implemented by a particular date. Delivery mechanisms A number of the actions identified for local authorities in the Strategies and plans reviewed for the construction of the database are vague and aspirational, whilst others are much more specific. In order to identify the practical measures that Newark and Sherwood District Council can take to implement the actions, delivery mechanisms available to the Council have been listed in the database. An example of how delivery mechanisms relate to actions is given in Box 1.

Box 1 – delivery mechanisms The Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Dry Acid Grassland includes an action that requires local authorities to: “Advise land managers on management and restoration” This action can be implemented by Newark and Sherwood district Council through the following delivery mechanisms of: (a) Reviewing opportunities for habitat management and restoration within the Council’s own land

holdings. (b) Providing training to key in-house staff on management requirements of this habitat. (c) Informing landowners of sources of management and restoration expertise amongst the Councils

partners or in published material.

For latest version of Database contact: David Edwards (01636) 655852 / [email protected]


396 page 60

Appendix 4 - A Review Of Current Biodiversity Action Currently Undertaken By Newark and Sherwood District Council And Ideas For The Next Five Years 4.1 General Introduction It was considered essential that a review of all existing biodiversity work undertaken by the District Council should be undertaken and summarised to inform the preparation of the Biodiversity Implementation Plan. It was also vital that the staff and key partners provided ideas for future delivery of the District’s biodiversity commitments and information on barriers to effective delivery. Telephone interviews with the staff and partners listed above in section 1.2 were undertaken during December 2000 and January 2001. Interviewees were asked about: • work they are doing and have planned which is biodiversity related; • areas of work where biodiversity objectives are not currently integrated but could be; • internal policies, mechanisms and attitudes to implementing biodiversity conservation; • experience and knowledge of integrating biodiversity into their work areas; • training needs; • key partners; • barriers to effective delivery; • data collection and monitoring of delivery, current and future. In summary, the response to the interviews highlighted the considerable amount of work already being undertaken in the District to further the biodiversity objectives of the UKBAP, the LBAP and other strategic documents. In the Author’s opinion the District compares favourably with other Local Authorities across the country in terms of its achievements to date in this area. The enthusiasm and individually developed expertise of many of the staff involved, combined with the Authority’s stated commitment to biodiversity conservation, is what has driven this success so far. There are still work areas where biodiversity objectives have not been integrated. There are also areas where cost effectiveness in terms of delivery could be improved. Staff are keen to be given guidance on what their biodiversity priorities should be especially in terms of new project work and its relationship with existing commitments. There is a positive attitude across all of service areas towards biodiversity but quite a range of levels of experience and expertise exists amongst individuals. There are few sections with specific internal policies or mechanisms to ensure the integration of biodiversity objectives. However, in practice these can be inconsistent and will depend upon the expertise of the individual dealing with the work. Many interviewees felt that they would benefit from training and targeted information provision. Most said that they would welcome internal procedures, mechanisms and checklists to ensure a consistent approach to biodiversity matters. Few participants currently collect data on their contribution to fulfilling biodiversity objectives but all were open to the suggestion of doing so, especially if a simple, standardised mechanism was in place to facilitate this.


396 page 61

Lack of funding was occasionally mentioned as a barrier to effective delivery but more frequently lack of staff time to be proactive in terms of new project work and in terms of devising internal systems to improve efficiency was the main issue. The Sherwood Forest Trust (SFT), Groundwork and the Greenwood Community Forest emerged as the current key partners for delivery within the District. There was thought to be scope to do more with the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust in the future. The information gained during the telephone interviews is detailed below under the main themes that emerged. 4.2 Legislation, Policy and Strategy In February 1999, the Council, through Development and Planning Services Committee, agreed to:- ‘endorse the Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Nottinghamshire, adopt it as a framework for its work on nature conservation, and pursue its aims through service strategies and partnership arrangements wherever appropriate’ The nature conservation/ biodiversity policies within the Local Plan are strong and comprehensive. This strength should be maintained in future Local Plan reviews. The application of the Local Plan policies can vary depending upon the experience of the person dealing with the matter. Habitat translocation was given as an example of an area where the Development Control team had inadequate experience to apply the policies confidently. Biodiversity was described as ‘gradually filtering in’ to Development Control. There is no standard Development Control procedure or checklist for dealing with a protected species matter for example. There is a current initiative to prepare “Biodiversity and Protected Species” Guidance, as part of a “Developers Guide”, aimed at improving the standard of planning applications being submitted and to inform their determination. Up to date, reliable and accessible special site (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation - SINC) information is vital to the Development Control Team. Often this information needs interpretation by a conservation expert. The Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre are to supply this information in a digital form for inclusion on the District Council’s Geographic Information System. It is expected this will be received during summer 2003. The Landscape section of Planning Service administer the Hedgerow Regulations within the district. There is an average of 11 applications per year. The Trees and Woodlands Officer uses the ‘Blue Book’ guidance with respect to Tree Preservation Orders. The T and W Officer deals with an average of 30-40 applications per year. The Landscape section expressed concern about protected species matters and the consistency of approach and level of knowledge across the Authority.


396 page 62

There is an informal policy across the authority to use/ encourage the use of local provenance plants in new schemes. The considerable problem with adequate supply was discussed with a number of staff. The Landscape section are investigating the possibility of setting up a nursery at Ollerton with the help of Groundwork. The Authority’s Agenda 21 document (2000) encompasses and promotes biodiversity. It adopts the population of the Woodlark as the broad biodiversity indicator. Technical Services (now part of Environmental and Technical Services) usually undertake environmental assessment studies in advance of major projects to ensure that protected species and other legal matters have been investigated. There is quite a lot of in-house expertise built up through experience. There is no set procedure however and staff turnover could lead to problems. Environmental and Technical Services have a current Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2000-2005), which was commented on by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and other biodiversity partners. It includes policies and provision for biodiversity within the parks of the district. It is important that the profile of biodiversity is maintained within future revisions of the strategy. Planning Services and Environmental and Technical Services have jointly prepared a supplementary planning guidance document entitled ‘Guide To The Provision of Open Space in connection With New Housing Development’ (adopted 1999). It includes open space areas with biodiversity interest/ potential and information on the calculation of commuted sums for the provision and maintenance of such areas. It was unclear as to the extent this document is used to further biodiversity objectives. There may be more scope in the future. Environmental and Technical Services have also produced an inventory of Recreational Space within the District. Although this specifically concerns formal recreation provision there may be scope to integrate biodiversity objectives. Environmental and Technical Services undertake pest control and give grants for household improvements, which could impinge on protected species issues, especially bats. A policy and mechanism to ensure that there are no accidental infringements of the legislation is required. Environmental and Technical Services are preparing strategies for a range of environmental health matters such as air pollution. Biodiversity could be integrated into such strategies, perhaps as an indicator of their success. In conjunction with Ashfield and Mansfield District Councils, the Authority commissioned a Strategy for the Maun Valley (published July 2000.). This a conservation, recreation and access action plan for the River Maun Valley from Sutton-in-Ashfield to the initial confluence with the River Meden at Gosling Carr and Conjure Alders. Notable progress towards implementation of the Plan has been achieved in Mansfield and Ashfield Districts. Progress has been more limited in Newark and Sherwood District. Through liaison with the Greenwood Community Forest Partnership and Sherwood Forest Trust, there are currently proposals to re-visit opportunities for further implementation of the Action Plan.


396 page 63

4.3 Sites and Management Sherwood Heath Local Nature Reserve Sherwood Heath LNR is 23 hectares of good quality Sherwood heathland, leased by the District Council from Thoresby Estate. It is managed by the Council (primarily Planning Services) with the assistance of The Sherwood Forest Trust (SFT). The site became designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest in August 2001 (part of the Birklands West and Ollerton Corner SSSI). The SFT has secured an annual management grant from the DEFRA administered Countryside Stewardship Scheme for the site. The current agreement expires in September 2007. Interpretation of the site has recently been improved via installation of new interpretation boards and signage throughout the site and the inclusion of a permanent exhibition in the site’s Tourist Information Centre. Interpretation and community involvement events are held at the site, including a Discovery Open Day in summer 2002, organised by the SFT. The site has a recently updated (by SFT) 5 year Management Plan. The SFT is co-ordinating habitat management trials/ monitoring on the site. The SFT, in association with the District Council, undertake annual bracken management on the site. The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust has had an involvement historically. Environmental and Technical Services (Grounds Maintenance) probably spend approximately £100/year on fallen tree removal and clearing up after visits by travellers to the site. It is currently proposed that future management of the site will be managed by the SFT through an agreement with the District Council. Devon Park Local Nature Reserve and Sconce Hills/ Devon Park This site is 1.9 ha and is mainly managed as a meadow with small areas of woodland and specimen trees (willow and poplar). There is a management plan for the site, published 1992, which may benefit from revision. The site benefits from a Countryside Stewardship Scheme contributing to the costs of mowing, pollarding and ditch clearance. The annual maintenance of the site costs around £3300 which covers clearing, mowing, and tree work but it does not cover various specialist ‘one offs’. For example it was necessary to spend £800 in the 1999-2000 financial year on problem fallen trees. The annual maintenance figure includes a sum to pay a farmer to cut the grass and remove as hay. The site’s management work is overseen by the Planning Services and Environmental and Technical Services’ Parks Section and paid for by Planning Services. Devon Park lacks on-site interpretation. The Sconce Hills and Devon Park area extends to around 10 ha and whilst the site is predominately closely mown amenity grassland there are areas of woodland and the potential exists for further areas of nature conservation interest to be created. The site also contains the Queen’s Sconce Civil War earthwork which includes an interesting variety of habitats. Vicar Water Country Park The park extends to approximately 82ha, with around 3ha of ponds and streams, 3ha of oak woodland, 13ha of mixed woodland and large areas of grassland and heathland. A further 10ha of deciduous woodland is planned on part of the restoration of a former spoil tip which was incorporate into the park in 2000. £750,000 has been spent on developing and refurbishing the park between 1998 and 2000. The Management Plan needs a review. This will probably be done in house by the Strategy and Resource Development Officer (Leisure Services) with support from the SFT and Groundwork Newark and Sherwood. The SFT is involved in providing heathland management and restoration advice. The SFT feel that the above is a priority area for staff training. There is a strong ‘Friends’ Group at Vicar Water, which undertakes quite a lot of specialist management work. The Greenwood Community Forest treat Vicar Water as one of their Gateway sites. Countryside Agency funding for Vicar Water comes via the


396 page 64

Greenwood’s bidding process. Grant aid of £4000 was secured in 1999 towards the production of interpretational and educational materials. This costs somewhere in the region of £21,000 per year, including vehicle costs. There is a new visitor centre at the site and a range of leaflets and site information is available. Approximately £5000 is spent annually by Environmental and Technical Services on site maintenance. This is primarily on grass cutting. There is an annual income of £500 from the Woodland Grant Scheme for management. It is intended this site be declared as a Local Nature Reserve. Intake Wood This site may be secured by the District Council under a Section 106 Agreement. It is approximately 13 hectares of coniferous/mixed woodland in a key strategic area of Sherwood. An application will be made to the Forestry Authority for Woodland Grant Scheme funding. The Strategy and Resource Development Officer plans to involve the SFT in the management of the site. The SFT are keen to restore a heathland/grassland/oak-birch woodland mosaic to this site, due to its key strategic location. A Countryside Stewardship scheme may be appropriate. It is intended this site be declared as a Local Nature Reserve. Beacon Hill Conservation Park This is approximately 30ha of species-rich grassland, marsh, dense scrub, woodland and coarse grassland on an old gypsum/landfill site, now being managed by the Notts Wildlife Trust. There are current proposals to declare the site as a Local Nature Reserve. London Road Pond This is a 2ha area of mainly open water with fringing reeds and wet woodland adjacent owned by Newark Town Council. The open water could be an important and rare example (in the District and the County) of a mesotrophic water body. It is possible that the site will be leased to the District Council to manage. This would be a good Local Nature Reserve site. Newark Riverside Park This is a £1.6 million scheme, designed by the Landscape Officer and completed two years ago. It is essentially a formal scheme that does include some informal areas. There were differing views on the scope to slightly increase the amount of nature conservation priority area within this scheme. Newark Castle Project Newark and Sherwood District Council recently obtained lottery grant aid which was matched by the former Leisure Services Committee and which led £3/4 million being spent on a formal landscape of the Castle grounds. It was not felt that biodiversity objectives could be brought into the subsequent management of this scheme. Riverside Walk, Southwell This is a small (less than 1 hectare) site that is a mixture of formal and informal areas. It arose from a housing scheme design by Environmental and Technical Services. The informal areas are mainly low maintenance grassland and small areas of willow and alder. The Environmental and Technical Grounds Maintenance section manage it (funds from Conservation and Landscape budget). There is no commuted


396 page 65

sum for management. It costs approximately £2,200/annum to manage. The site is a narrow strip of land next to the Potwell Dyke. The Landscape Officer has an advisory involvement in the site. The view was expressed that this site could be managed more for biodiversity and more cheaply. Petersmith Drive, Ollerton This scheme was initiated by the Landscape Officer in partnership with Groundwork. It is now managed by the local New Deal team. The site is approximately 30ha and involves land belonging to eight different landowners, one of which is the District Council. It is primarily an access scheme but it does have areas of tree planting and low maintenance grassland. Boughton Woodlands This is 10ha of recently planted native woodland. Around 4ha of grassland is maintained as meadow and cut once a year. Potential for further nature conservation work. Potential LNR? Kelham Hall The grounds are approximately 17ha in size and comprise 50% woodland and 50% grassland and formal grounds and sport pitches. It generated a lot of enthusiasm but quite a lot of differing views during the telephone interviews. It was generally felt that the history, ecology and evolution of the grounds merited further research before any management proposals could be devised. There was consensus that there should be a Management Plan for the grounds and it was needed as a matter of urgency. There isn’t any interpretation at Kelham and there perhaps ought to be. A lottery bid was suggested by a number of members of staff but it was recognised that this would be very labour intensive over a short time period. The view was expressed that a management plan for the woodland and grassland areas and some management of these could be undertaken pending the detailed historical research necessary for the overall restoration of the grounds. There is a lot of scope to integrate biodiversity objectives into the grounds at Kelham, although it is essentially an historic landscape. Kelham is one of the original twelve sites for the national Man of the Trees project (established in the 70s). Man of the Trees is now the International Tree Foundation and they provide a small amount of money each year for specimen trees to be planted in the grounds. These are ornamental trees. There is a visitors book for donors and visitors to look at in the reception area. There appears to be some conflict between this scheme and the historic and ecological interest. The roof of Kelham Hall provides roosting habitat for pipistrelle and brown long eared bats (both protected species and priorities within the UKBAP and the LBAP). Newark and Sherwood Miscellaneous Estate This includes: 202ha of public open space, including urban and country parks, local nature reserve, playing fields and amenity open spaces and housing estates; 53 workshops; 17 craft workshops; Theatres eg. The Palace Theatre; Museums; Community Centres; Swimming pools/leisure centres plus car parks; Surfaced playgrounds; 6500 houses;


396 page 66

car parks e.g. new £2 million car park on the old cattle market site; non-adopted road verges e.g. onto workshop estates; a small area of grazing land (less than 100hectares); Newark and Sherwood Environmental Improvement Schemes. Biodiversity objectives are usually integrated into Technical Services work on the District Council’s estate e.g. the provision of kestrel boxes on a recent scheme. There is scope for biodiversity objectives to be further integrated. Protected species surveys of all appropriate property - was one suggestion. A biodiversity review of the District Council’s complete estate would be very helpful but costly and time consuming. Other Organisation’s Sites District council staff do have limited involvement in other organisation’s sites, e.g. the County Council’s Blidworth colliery site, British Waterways sites and a number of SRB (Single Regeneration Budget) sites. There is scope for the Vicar Water Ranger to extend his input to the Blidworth Colliery Site and other countryside sites. The Newark Castle and Parks Ranger could possibly have an input to any proposed additional LNRs in Newark Kate Hiseman’s (ADAS and De Montfort University) Ollerton Open Space Initiative and the District Council-commissioned Maun Valley Strategy are likely to involve substantial District Council resources (staff time especially), if they are to be implemented successfully. 4.4 Provision of Advice and Information Provision of advice to organisations and individuals (outside the Council) is mainly undertaken by Planning Services staff. This is usually reactive (e.g. to planning applicants, people enquiring about Tree Preservation Orders, trees in Conservation Areas or works to historic buildings). Many interviewees felt that they could only give advice and provide information on a reactive basis due to lack of time. The Trees and Woodlands Officer does sometimes advise landowners on wider wildlife issues with regard to TPO/ Conservation Area trees. The Landscape Officer will give nature conservation advice, if time permits. There are a number of leaflets currently produced by the District Council (e.g. Tree Protection On Construction Sites) which are useful for providing information quickly and efficiently. There is also a number of leaflets produced by other organisations (e.g. the Right Hedge For You, Gardening Which) used by Council Staff. It was suggested that the Council’s own leaflets could be placed on the web site along with a reference list of other sources of advice and information. Some staff felt that they could disseminate more biodiversity conservation information if they had access to a comprehensive set of high quality up to date leaflets. For example, an advisory leaflet could be issued with every decision letter on TPO trees/trees in Conservation Areas. Advisory notes drawing attention to the need to take account of protected species, and the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, accompany replies to enquiries concerning trees and hedgerows matters and to Grant Aid applications to repair historic buildings under Planning Service’s Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme (HERS). There were a range of views on the merits of supporting a County-wide SINCs adviser, perhaps based with the County Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG). The majority of consultees thought that this would be a very positive and effective contribution the District Council could make. The Sherwood


396 page 67

Forest Trust Project Manager had experience of this sort of initiative in other Counties and felt that it has the potential to be a high impact project. One consultee thought that this should be the role of the Wildlife Trust. 4.5 Publicity and Promotion As discussed above , Sherwood Heath LNR has benefited from recent improvements to the site’s interpretation, including new boards, signage and the installation of a permanent exhibition within the site’s Tourist Information Centre. It is important that these are maintained in a good condition. Interpretation at Devon Park LNR could be introduced. There is a full time Ranger based at Vicar Water, undertaking the site’s management and interpretation. This probably costs somewhere in the region of £16-18,000/year. There is also a new visitor centre at the site. There isn’t any interpretation of the Kelham Hall grounds. There is scope to improve on this situation. Intake Wood, the lake off London Road in Newark, Beacon Hill Conservation Park in Newark, Riverside Walk in Southwell and Petersmith Drive in Ollerton all offer further publicity and promotion opportunities. There is scope to add biodiversity promotion to the web site. During National Tree Week staff from both the Planning and Environmental and Technical Services have been involved with planting projects with schools, often in the Greenwood Community Forest Area. Environmental and Technical Services Grounds Maintenance staff could perhaps increase the amount of community based biodiversity work they do. Environmental and Technical Services is currently involved with environmental education, especially regarding recycling. It may be possible to make stronger links with the relevance of recycling to biodiversity. Environmental and Technical Services would appreciate some tailored information to add to their existing material. 4.6 Data Collection and Monitoring The need for updated and interpreted Site Alert (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation), habitat and species information was seen as essential by many staff in the Planning Services and Environmental and Technical Services. This is in terms of discharging the District Council’s statutory and non-statutory functions and in terms of knowing whether any biodiversity implementation work is being effective. Through Planning Services the District Council is represented on the Nottinghamshire Biodiversity and Geological Data Partnership which is currently exploring how the collection and provision of biodiversity data can be best achieved throughout the County. The Authority’s Agenda 21 document (2000) encompasses and promotes biodiversity. It adopts the population of the Wood Lark as the broad biodiversity indicator. It is planned to gain this information from the annually published British Trust for Ornithology bird reports.


396 page 68

Relevant and simple indicators of biodiversity implementation success or otherwise are needed. Sherwood Heath is the only District Council site that currently has any ecological trials/ monitoring being undertaken. This should be maintained and written up periodically and the results/ recommendations applied, as appropriate, to other sites. The Sherwood Forest Trust is a key partner in this work. Internal data gathering on biodiversity work/ cash expended is currently very patchy, although it would be relatively easy to devise a system of data collection and monitoring. It simply required central co-ordination. 4.7 Departmental and Personnel Development All consultees were positive about the idea of tailored training in the integration of biodiversity conservation into their area of work. This suggestion originated from the first telephone interview. The training requirements of different groups of staff would however be quite wide ranging. Work shadowing within and outside of the Authority could be one way of achieving some of the desirable staff development. There are no specific policies at the moment about the integration of biodiversity objectives into peoples’ work areas. This would generally be welcomed, although the development of these in conjunction with the staff implementing them was seen as very important. Good practice guidelines/ checklists/ contacts lists could be developed with staff during training. The Bills of Quantity for site management (Environmental and Technical Services Grounds Maintenance) could be reviewed and updated. Provision should be made for ensuring a consistency of approach in the face of problems such as periods of high staff turn over or the loss of key staff members.