The future
of our Valley
Loose Valley
Conservation Area Draft Conservation & Enhancement Plan 2010 – 2020
***Revised
DRAFT***
Mark Pritchard, Medway Valley
Countryside Partnership (MVCP) – September 2008
Table of Contents
1
Summary, Conclusions and
Recommendations.....................................................................................................
3
2
Valley
description........................................................................................................................................................
6
2.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................
6
2.2
Location and
size...................................................................................................................................................
6
2.3
Description of Habitats in the
Area....................................................................................................................
9
2.4
Land
tenure...........................................................................................................................................................
10
2.5
Land Use
history..................................................................................................................................................
11
3
Environmental
information......................................................................................................................................
14
3.1
Biological..............................................................................................................................................................
14
3.2
Physical.................................................................................................................................................................
15
3.3
Cultural and
aesthetic........................................................................................................................................
16
3.3.1
Public Benefit and
use...............................................................................................................................
16
4
Evaluation....................................................................................................................................................................
18
4.1
Conservation status of the
valley......................................................................................................................
18
4.1.1
Historic.........................................................................................................................................................
18
4.2
Evaluation and
features.....................................................................................................................................
18
4.3
Major Factors influencing
conservation.........................................................................................................
20
4.3.1
Constraints..................................................................................................................................................
20
4.3.2
Evaluation of current
conservation.........................................................................................................
20
4.4
Ideal aims and conservation by habitat
type.................................................................................................
22
5
Ways
Forward............................................................................................................................................................
23
5.1
Scientific
projects.................................................................................................................................................
23
5.2
Activities................................................................................................................................................................
23
6
References..................................................................................................................................................................
24
7
Attribution and
Contacts..........................................................................................................................................
24
Appendix A – Summary of MVCP
surveys......................................................................................................................
25
Appendix B – Photographs of individual
habitats in the
Valley...................................................................................
27
This document has been produced
to identify ways to enhance and sustain the biodiversity value of the
whole Loose Valley Conservation Area and its margins (referred to
hereafter as ‘the Valley’). It is intended to provide a framework that
interested stakeholders can develop further, share, and deliver through
a variety of concerted actions. The document was commissioned by the
Loose Valley Conservation Area Partnership (LVCAP) and undertaken by Medway
Valley Countryside Partnership (MVCP), with support from the Lottery Heritage
Fund.
The Valley
(see Map 1) is a very attractive semi-rural sliver of incised and well-watered
land on the outskirts of Maidstone comprising exceptional heritage, amenity
and biodiversity (habitat) value. Housing development pressure however, is
severe and landholdings highly fragmented (see Map 2), which threaten the long
term biodiversity potential of this most special landscape.
Habitat Value:
A Site of Nature Conservation Interest (now Local Wildlife Site) covering some
28.5 Ha was first declared in 1988 owing to the valuable flora and fauna found
along the length of the valley. There are a wide range of important habitats,
the valley containing at least 3 national Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)
target habitats. These are “Open water”, “Neutral grassland” and “Lowland fen”
(the last in small pockets).
Threats:
In addition to the threat of new housing developments and garden infilling,
the overall biodiversity value of the valley is threatened by climate change.
The Wildlife Trusts state that ‘Climate
change is almost certainly the most significant challenge facing nature
conservation today, with the potential to have significant impacts on the
future of UK and global biodiversity’.
Addressing these threats requires
concerted action engaging as many stakeholders as possible.
Potential Benefits
from adopting a ‘whole valley’ approach to conservation include:
q
enhanced
effectiveness of the valley as a wildlife refuge and source of fauna (e.g.)
bats, butterflies and birds for adjacent properties through increased
proportion of land under conservation & habitat enhancement regimes.
q
strengthened
inter-connectivity of the various habitats to benefit wildlife migration and
provide greater resilience to potentially adverse climatic fluctuations and/or
development pressures
q
greater number of
complementary habitats and less duplication with enhanced ‘integrity’ of the
valley habitats through an agreed programme of coordinated habitat improvement
works
q
greater community
engagement, ownership and sympathetic public use leading to greater protection
of the valley and margins from development
q
more geo-diversity
in the valley with overall enhanced landscape character
q
optimising benefits
from the (soon to be) Hayle Park Nature Reserve
q
coordinated system
for regular monitoring of changing flora & fauna
q
long term
continuity ensured through engagement with local schools and communities to
assist monitoring and conservation tasks with support of local groups
Conclusions: In order
to maximise the biodiversity potential of the Valley and sustain it through a
changing environment, a ‘whole valley’ approach offers many advantages. To
achieve this, LVCAP must interact more effectively with all stakeholder
groups, especially as concerns future plans for land that conservation
groups and others now own. A forward strategy needs to be agreed together,
based on:
-
Larger/Longer perspective:
the status and potential of the valley within the context of
borough/county/national agendas, taking into account future climate change
with the whole valley as an ‘oasis’ and biological ‘corridor’
-
Stakeholder Plans:
An evaluation of current conditions in the valley and stakeholder habitat
conservation plans for the future (rather than the present)
-
Monitoring Progress:
A programme incorporating regular plant and animal monitoring surveys to
assess progress and prioritise actions together.
Recommendations:
A concerted programme should
include the following actions:
- Consult
stakeholders about their forward plans and then work to harmonise these in
terms of promoting overall habitat diversity and sustainability.
- Make more
use of the large body of local knowledge and expertise. Engage with
concerned local people (on an individual basis) and assist them to
participate and express their expertise through special interest networks
such as wildlife gardening groups, bird-watching, walking in and around the
valley.
- Make sure
that all landowners in the Conservation Area are aware of their
responsibilities and appropriate sources of advice should they have need.
- Encourage
enhancement of rare and biodiversity action plan (BAP) priority habitats
(such as wetland, standing open water, neutral grassland and open rock
geological sites)
- Hayle
Park Nature Reserve (HPNR) offers major potential for enhancing the
ecological value of the area, and assisting related efforts in the valley.
LVCAP must establish a good relationship with HPNR management, seek to
harmonise efforts wherever practical (especially the monitoring system) and
assist progress towards designation of HPNR as a local nature reserve.
- Make a
study of changes likely to affect the valley over the next 20 years and draw
up contingency plans accordingly with key stakeholders (e.g. to combat
development pressures and adapt to climate change with probable changes in
water availability)
- Monitor
changes in habitat and biodiversity a) to understand trends, b) to
prioritise, guide and refine management practices and interventions, and c)
to help justify applications for resources and investment of future funds in
enhancing biodiversity. This might be done in partnership with local schools
using geographical information system software.
- Engage
the next generations through a programme of activities to ensure long term
sustainability: make sure that they all ‘Value the Valley’.
- Build up
the broadest network of supporters ready to support local groups in opposing
unsuitable developments and to purchase land both in and around the
conservation area. Priorities need to be identified and funding
opportunities sought in conjunction with local match funding.
LVCAP:
The Conservation Area Partnership itself needs to be more proactive in its
aims and engage with as many landowners and other stakeholders as possible,
seeking to extend its harmonising role in order to complement and enhance
individual and group actions in support of appropriate biodiversity, heritage
and amenity actions and mitigate inappropriate developments. This will
include:
q
Assisting the HPNR
set up an ‘outreach’ or ‘extension’ programme with interested parties
throughout the valley
q
Working with local
schools, special interest groups and the HPNR to maximise the educational
value of the Valley, and in particular to help set up and maintain a
compatible change monitoring system for the long term (10 to 50 years)
q
Helping the
development of local wildlife gardening and valley appreciation groups based
on local expertise
q
Identifying
opportunities to enhance the conserved area and protect it from further
development through purchase or other arrangements.
q
Exploring the
potential consequences of climate change on the Valley and arrange for
appropriate monitoring of local change (e.g. water table, stream flow, water
quality) and raising awareness for incorporation in landowners forward
planning.
q
Seeking financial
and logistical support for the above and similar concerted actions involving
local groups
q
Identifying contact
points to obtain and circulate early information on planning proposals from/to
its constituent groups and (e.g.) MBC Planning (and Conservation) Department
The kind of concerted actions
envisaged include
(e.g.) ‘complementary’ wildlife gardens, efficiency of mill-pond maintenance
through coordinated de-silting, complementary tree planting and land/habitat
management across boundaries, making the most of land immediately adjacent to
the conservation area (the margins), a valley wide monitoring system, outreach
activities in relation to the nature reserve, etc.
The first
step is to consult key
stakeholders and ascertain their interest in working to shared objectives.
This might best be achieved through an open meeting with invited experts to
consider the future of the valley within the context of a changing climate.
The Wildlife Trusts have already used this approach to help harmonise policy
and coordinate local/regional/national actions.
The Loose stream rises near
Langley and flows through the Parishes of Boughton Monchelsea, Loose and Tovil
before joining the River Medway. The conservation area, the incised valley and
its margins (hereafter
called the valley) follows the stream from Boughton through Loose and into
Tovil. It is fed in part by a series of springs arising from the Greensand
embankments which form the sides of the valley. The valley comprises a mosaic
of rough unmanaged grassland, semi-improved grazed pastures, drier horse
grazed meadows and damp marshy grassland along the valley floor beside the
river (KWT, 2001).
Boughton Parish Council, Loose Parish Council, Loose Swiss Scouts, Loose
Amenities Association and the Valley Conservation Society are all significant
landowners within the valley and there are a variety of private landowners too
(see Map 2). The area was designated as a Local Wildlife Site in 1988.
The valley lies on the south and
south-west outskirts of Maidstone, Kent.
Central National Grid Reference
TQ757530
Map 1
both locates the valley on the outskirts of Maidstone (KCC, 2008) and gives a
guide to the habitats found there (from the Kent Habitat Survey 2003). A
public right of way runs along the spine of the valley, which is criss-crossed
by a series of formal and informal footpaths.
The Loose
Valley Conservation Area is large by conservation standards, extending some 2
miles in length with variable width. It was designated by virtue of the
heritage value of the numerous (13) mills and associated structures (ponds,
mill races etc) that harnessed the Loose stream for power over several hundred
years.
Map 1 -
Loose Valley habitats, (KCC, 2008)
The valley comprises a mosaic of
rough unmanaged grassland, semi-improved grazed pastures, drier horse grazed
meadows and damp marshy grassland along the valley floor beside the river.
The valley
has been divided up into its major habitats by KCC (2003), which will aid
decisions that are to be made regarding their on-going conservation. These
habitat types are described in more detail in Table 1.
Table 1 also
features so called “Indicator species” for each habitat. These are selected
species, which are comparatively easy to identify that are indicative of good
health of the selected habitat type. In this way they can be used as a type of
shorthand that the conservation strategy adopted is the right one.
Table 1. Valley
habitats & BAP habitats (see Map 1)
|
Habitat
|
Description (including BAP
habitat(s) where relevant) |
Proposed indicator species |
|
1 – Arable Land |
Arable land, where there is a
monoculture, is of only limited conservation value. However many arable
farmers have created field margins. These are of
considerable nature conservation importance. These strips of land around
field boundaries can help conserve and enhance wildlife. They benefit,
especially, invertebrates, ground nesting birds and provide a buffer for
pesticide and nutrient run-off into adjacent water-courses. |
·
Annual arable plants such as cornflower,
chicory
·
Skylark
·
Yellowhammer |
|
2 – Intensive grassland |
Intensive or ‘improved’ meadow
grassland is where the
land has been sown for agricultural or recreational purposes and
fertilisers applied. It normally has a poor variety of species, often
dominated by ryegrass, and possesses a few dominant grass species. It is
much more common than neutral grassland. If left uncut or ungrazed, it
appears as a thick lush growth of a deep green colour during the summer.
During the winter, it will remain a deep green but looks uniform,
sometimes with thick tussocky growth even if left uncut, Kent Downs AONB
(2008). |
·
Finer grasses such as fescues and
reduction of coarser species such as cock’s foot
·
Presence of herbs such as bird’s foot
trefoil |
|
3 – Neutral grassland (BAP Lowland
Meadow) |
Unimproved or neutral meadow
grassland is grassland still in its natural and original state which has
not had significant amounts of fertiliser added. It is often cut annually
for hay. It is characterised by a colourful mix of finer grasses and
wildflowers and has become a rare and fragmented habitat. Any area of
neutral meadow grassland is considered rare and it is important to look
after it sympathetically. |
·
Finer grasses such as fescues
·
Colourful wildflower mix with wide
diversity of species present
·
Absence of nutrient rich indicators such
as docks and thistles |
|
4 – Freshwater habitats (BAP
Standing Open Water) |
Standing
Open Water BAP Kentbap (2008) includes lakes, meres and pools, as well as
man-made waters such as reservoirs, canals, ponds, gravel pits and ditches
with open water for at least the majority of the year. It includes open
water which may contain submerged, free-floating or floating-leaved
vegetation, and water fringe vegetation. This broad habitat also includes
the UK BAP (2008) priority habitats 'eutrophic standing water (nutrient
rich)', 'mesotrophic lakes (moderately nutrient rich)', and 'aquifer-fed
naturally fluctuating water bodies'. Standing waters provide habitat for a
variety of threatened flora and fauna. Notable fauna include great crested
newt (Triturus cristatus),
and water vole (Arvicola terrestris).
|
·
Odonata (dragon and damselflies)
·
Water shrew
·
Brown trout |
|
5 – Woodlands, shaws and hedgerows |
Woodlands are an important part
of the landscape and cultural heritage of the valley. They form an
important habitat for wildlife such as mammals (bats and dormice), birds
and butterflies to name a few. The Kent Habitat Survey 2003 does not
identify any areas of ancient woodland within the valley. The woodlands
themselves may be linked by hedgerows and shaws (narrow woodland strips).
Hedgerows can form a BAP habitat in their own right, but only when species
rich/ancient in character. This has yet to be established for the valley.
However, hedgerows and shaws can link isolated habitat pockets of woodland
together, effectively making a much greater habitat parcel or resource. |
·
Woodland ground flora such as wood
anemones, wild garlic
·
Development of species rich hedgerows
·
Yellowhammer
·
Reed bunting |
|
6– Lowland fen (BAP Lowland Fens) |
Fens are
wetland habitats which form on peaty substrates, and which are fed by
moving water from rivers and streams pond, most fens are nutrient-rich,
being fed by calcareous water, and support a diverse assemblage of tall,
herbaceous vegetation. Key species associated with fen habitat include
water vole, water shrew and reed bunting. In Kent as a whole, and the
valley in particular, there are only small areas of true fen left.
However, for
the purposes
of conservation (Kentbap (2008), fens may be best considered as an
important part of a complex of habitats (including standing open water,
wet grassland and wet woodland) associated with river systems and
floodplains. |
·
Water vole
·
Water shrew
·
Reed bunting
·
Sedges such as star sedge |
|
7 – Built areas and gardens |
Like many
semi-rural, and semi-urban areas much of the area’s biodiversity is to be
found within privately owned gardens. The valley contains many such
valuable sites, ranging from simple back gardens to larger fragments of
traditional orchards. These worth of these should not be under-estimated
when providing habitats, refuges and connectivity within the wider valley. |
·
Bumblebees
·
Great crested newt
·
Bullfinch |
Within the national
BAP (UK BAP, 2008) there are 1149 nationally recognized species and 65 BAP
habitats. A sub-set of these may be found within Kent, a further sub-set
within the valley. There are too many to name individually here, but
‘champion’ indicator species for each habitat featured have been outlined as
either indicators of good health of those habitats, or aspirational species to
be achieved by sympathetic conservation measures.
In addition there
are features of geological interest in the valley (indicated on Map1) and
heritage features pertinent to nature conservation.
There are
a number of landowners within the valley, see Map 2. Each of these will have
their own intentions and goals for their own land. This advisory document
seeks to set out broad ecological and conservation principles that could lead
to an enhanced conservation status for the whole valley.
Obviously action taken on one piece of land may have a beneficial or
detrimental impact upon others. By considering broad principles determined by
nationally recognised biodiversity action plan targets (for both habitats and
species) it is believed that the best possible outcome for the conservation of
the valley can be achieved. This applies equally to its flora and fauna and
its unique and enduring landscape character.
Furthermore, this document seeks to raise awareness amongst all landowners of
the desirability of consulting with their neighbours and engaging in a
landowning community who
harmonise their long
term goals in sympathy with the well-being of the whole
valley.
The character of the valley, and
the fact that it is now a conservation area, is due in large part to its
former industrial heritage. This has resulted in a comparatively low housing
density and a series of characteristic mill features. As with much of the
semi-natural landscape of Britain, nature has also benefited from man’s
intervention, and come to occupy the niches created, whether they are
inadvertent or deliberate. As a result it is necessary to continue to
intervene in order to maintain the landscape features and to act on behalf of
the area’s biodiversity..
The land
was partially cultivated, partially grazed, and partially wooded (see Map 3
below). As in much of the rest of Kent there were substantial areas set over
to orchards that have now been lost. The area of open fields to the east of
the valley has now largely been subsumed by sub-urban Maidstone, but to the
west of the valley the field patterns remain remarkably unchanged. The
valley’s Local Wildlife Site, although linear in nature must be considered in
relation to the surrounding, buffering countryside around urban Maidstone.
Owing to
the proposed establishment of the Hayle Park Local Nature Reserve there could
be significant synergy and mutual benefit to be had with the conservation area
and the establishment of this new site. As a general point of principle the
sum of two contiguous blocks of land which are actively conserved is greater
than if those parcels of land were separated. Any long term goals and
aspirations for the Hayle Park site, should also consider the existing
conservation of the wider valley.
Map 3 -
Historic Map of Loose Valley 1872 (KCC, 2008)
Current Local Wildlife Site boundary picked out in green
Vegetation surveys within the
valley have so far been conducted on a presence/absence basis, identifying
species that are present. Detailed records of these data are held at the Kent
& Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC). KMBRC have prepared, on behalf of
MVCP a report (KMBRC, 2006) listing; protected species, Red Data book species,
BAP plan species, bats, birds, SNCI status, Kent habitat survey and Regionally
Important Geological Site (RIGS). This report has been used to advise the
priorities recommended in this report and to identify those species either
still present or once found, that can be used to indicate the ‘health’ of the
valley.
MVCP have conducted a variety of
surveys within the valley. The results of these are summarised within Appendix
A. These surveys re-iterate the Local Wildlife Site designation by the Kent
Wildlife and reflect the diversity of marginal vegetation and plant species.
The combination of woodland and riverside plants creates good conditions for a
wide range of invertebrates and bird species throughout the year.
In 2007 MVCP conducted a water
vole survey along the length of the valley. This was conducted over a series
of site visits and attempted to establish the presence or absence of the
species by checking for field signs such as latrines, burrows, feeding signs
as well as the animals themselves. Unfortunately no signs were found. This is
not definitively conclusive as to their absence as the valley has historic
records of their presence, and retains excellent pockets of habitat. Ideally
the course should be repeated, which would also help engage landowners in
practical conservation.
MVCP is currently conducting a
dormouse survey in the Swiss Scouts owned land at the eastern end of the
valley (see section 5.1). Dormice nest boxes have been erected which have been
provided by the Kent Mammal Group. No dormouse have yet been found, but the
survey will continue each month until November 2008, so hopes remain high for
discovering this protected species.
Local
residents conduct a number of ad-hoc surveys, especially of butterflies, birds
and plants. It is recommended that standard walks within each habitat are
adopted and mapped so that a degree of replication and repetition of surveys
can be introduced. No consistent date is used for conducting plant surveys. A
consistent date should be chosen to build up a picture of species on the
valley and the effect conservation has had.
Plant surveys have been conducted
on a presence/absence basis. If resources allow, it would be a progressive
step to attempt to categorise the various plant assemblages by NVC (National
Vegetation Classification) guidelines, as published by Natural England. No
measures of abundance, percentage cover or domin scale have yet been used.
Finally,
comprehensive bat surveys have been carried out along the length of the valley
in 2006. Five species of bats were recorded in the survey; 45 kHz, 55 kHz
pipistrelles, Daubenton, Noctule and Serotines bringing the species total to 6
to include Natterers which are known to use the valley. Over 240 bat passes
were recorded on the 2 evenings with bats commuting along the valley and
feeding over the millponds, fields and Loose stream. There were several areas
of high feeding activity and four potential roosts recorded in buildings. The
report concluded that the valley has a good mix of rough unmanaged grassland,
semi-improved pasture, woodland, streams and ponds all valuable for wildlife
forming an important ‘wildlife corridor’. The valley, with the Loose stream,
numerous millponds, woodlands, gardens and grazing land has good foraging and
roosting potential for bats.
A useful way of determining the
relative health of the various habitats and ecosystems present within the
valley is to identify “indicator” species for each habitat. These can be
plants or animals. Provided they are found each year, they can give a good and
quick means to identify whether or not the respective habitats are being
maintained in a favourable condition. Suggested indicator species for each
habitat are given in Table 4 below.
Geomorphology, topography, and
substrate
The
valley has been listed by Kent Regionally Important Geological and
Geomorphological Valleys (RIGS) (2008) as regionally important site
MA5, see Map 1. This geo-diversity echoes the industrial past of the valley
and the quarrying that once occurred along its length. The term geo-diversity
incorporates all the variety of rocks, minerals, landforms and the processes
which have formed these features throughout geological time.
Surrounding land-use &
development
From Map
1 it can be seen that the valley is bounded to the North & East by housing,
and by agricultural land to the South and West. Therefore, while it remains an
important open space on the fringes of Maidstone, it also retains a connection
to the wider countryside, helping the migration of plants and animals to and
through the valley, and their adaptation to any fluctuations in climate
Hydrology
The area
is predominantly well drained with the river flowing along the base of the
valley. Even in drought years the flow of water has remained remarkably
consistent. This consistency of flow could be of increasing importance in
potential future drought years, especially as the valley runs along a
north/south axis, linking other rural land on the fringes of Maidstone. Should
the springs dry up, however, there could be very serious consequences for
habitats along the length of the valley. In order to mitigate against this
threat consideration should be given to any water abstraction along the valley
that exceeds certain base flow water levels.
The Valley in a Changing Climate
According to the
Wildlife Trusts, ‘Climate change is almost certainly the most significant
challenge facing nature conservation, with the potential to have significant
impacts on the future of
UK and global
biodiversity’.
(http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=climatechange)
Farming Futures poll of farmers
in England suggests strongly that climate change is already happening: ‘more
than 50% say that they are already affected by climate change and more than
70% expect to be affected within 10 years’. Farms local to the valley are
already being forced to change their practices in response to the changing
climate.
At the Campaign to Protect Rural
England’s February 2008 meeting to consider ‘Tomorrow’s Kent’ it was
emphasised that ‘climate change is not simply a concern for the future: it
is altering our country now, for good or bad, and we need to react urgently’.
Whether the climate warms or
cools the importance of the valley as a north south connection cannot be over
stated. Natural migration and recolonization of species is the most likely way
for any to continue to succeed, as in the era of a changing climate there will
inevitably be winners and losers. Even in the situation of a relatively static
climate, there will remain substantial local differences in micro-climate, as
the seasonal warming effects of large water bodies will be felt in the valley
bottoms, and the west and east facing slopes may have significant differences
in, especially, flora.
It is widely recognised that the
first indications of a changing climate from global warming are an increase in
global mean temperature accompanied by an increase in local climate
variability, i.e. more local extremes of rain, drought, wind, heat, cold.
While predictions of local/regional changes are still relatively uncertain,
south-east England is expected to experience drier summers and wetter winters.
The combined effect for vegetation growing in or near the valley is likely to
be an increase in water demand (due to higher temperatures) together with a
decrease in summer rainfall, when it is most needed by the plants. The net
effect will be progressively less water feeding the springs and the stream,
while riparian landowners become more and more interested in water extraction
for irrigation. The ‘oasis’ aspect of the valley (a small area of green
vegetation surrounded by a large area of much drier land) will become
enhanced. Since trees use significantly more water than grassland, and extract
water from greater depths, the present high tree-density in parts of the
valley may become incompatible with maintaining a healthy flow in the
stream.
Thus, climate change seems likely
to have major effect on the habitat/biodiversity in the valley within the
lifetime of most people and trees living there now, and certainly within the
lifetime of trees planted today.
Recreational use
The
valley is actively used by the local community for informal recreation. In
particular it is very popular with dog walkers. There does not appear to be a
significant problem with dog fouling at present. Some events such as the
pageant happen, although not every year.
A wide
variety of organizations have been consulted during the creation of this plan,
these include; Loose Parish Council, LVCP, LAA, VCS and the Loose Swiss
Scouts.
The
valley has a long history of being a working valley. The mills which have
shaped it so much have now gone, but there are still significant and
substantial areas of farmland and horse pasture along it’s length. Indeed the
mill sites themselves continue to have a bearing on the landscape character of
the valley, as they become redeveloped and attract new residents to the area.
Many of these may be seeking a lifestyle change to what is perceived as a more
rural location. It is evident that this may bring extra pressures especially
on the transport infra-structure, but it may bring opportunities too as there
may be people newly enthused about conservation and semi-rural living.
Birds
The
valley is a haven for birds, with more than 60 species being identified at the
last count as users of the valley. These include important species such as the
Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) and the seriously declining Spotted
fly-catcher (Muscicapa striata). As well as providing much pleasure to
local residents when visiting their feeding stations, the continued presence
and active encouragement of these birds by sympathetic conservation can
provide excellent indicators as to the health and well-being of the whole
valley. Involving local people in monitoring birds is both a practical step to
engage with them and also will make a contribution into maintaining the long
term health of the whole conservation area.
Access
A public
footpath runs along the length of the valley. The public have open access to
the valley at all times. There are currently few barriers to cycles or
motorbikes, with the latter proving problematic at times particularly on the
bridleways on the eastern edge of the valley. There are substantial issues
with roads being used both as “rat runs” and by inappropriately large
vehicles.
Owing to
the linear nature of the valley access points are best at either end,
especially near the Chequers pub and Brooks Field, where there are excellent
areas for recreation and enjoyment.
Research/education/interpretation
There is no formalised programme
of education or research at present. There are a number of interpretation
panels along the length of the valley already in situ, with others planned.
These describe some of the nature conservation interest and heritage features
found.
The valley contains a wealth of
important heritage features, listed building and structures, and remnants that
might be described as industrial archaeology. These remain outside the scope
of this report, except where they have a direct bearing on the ecology and
landscape of the valley.
Health
and safety
There are a number of steeply
profiled banks within the valley, particularly where quarrying activity once
took place. In addition the stream and open water provide obvious hazards. The
footpaths and steps within the valley are in a generally good state of repair.
The Parish Council should conduct risk assessments for the valley and initiate
a regular schedule of checks for new risks such as deteriorating footpaths or
dangerous trees.
Regular litter patrols both keep
the valley tidy and make it visually more appealing to the public, but can
also remove potential hazards to wildlife, especially from such
non-biodegradable substances as plastics.
Existing plans
Much excellent work is already
being carried out to benefit conservation along the length of the valley. This
ranges form the significant improvements carried out on the ponds in the north
end of the valley by the VCS, through the grazing of the LAA land, to
maintenance of the Brooks field area by the Parish Council and significant
conservation efforts put in by the Loose Swiss Scouts in their land.
To re-iterate an earlier point,
this plan does not seek to replace others, rather to build on them by
providing an overall habitat based view of the valley, that connects and
builds upon the good practice already demonstrated.
Little
recorded information exists as to what species of flora and fauna were present
prior to WWII. However historic maps such as Map 3 give an insight into the
former land use. The valley has no current legal designations; however it is
designated as a Local Wildlife Site, which may confer some extra protection
within the normal planning process.
The
following table highlights those features of the valley that add to its nature
conservation importance, and place them in local, regional and national
context.
Table 2.
Assessing the importance of notable valley features/species
|
Valley features |
Description |
Importance |
|
National |
Regional |
Local |
|
Geology and geomorphology |
Former ragstone quarrying |
High |
High |
High |
|
Vegetation types |
Mixed habitats including some BAP
habitats |
Medium |
Medium |
High |
|
Plants |
Two
plants of county importance have been recorded (star sedge
Carex echinata, Large bitter-cress
Cardamine amara). No national rarities identified so far. |
Medium |
High |
High |
|
Animals |
Red data book species Water rail (Rallus
aqauticus) & Water shrew (Neomys fodiens) have been recorded
within the last 10 years |
Medium |
Medium |
High |
Table 3 provides a SWOT analysis of
the valley based on Ratcliffe Criteria (1977)
Table 3 –
Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats
|
Strengths:
Diversity – Excellent range of BAP and other
habitats (see Table 1 for habitat types). Geological site of county
importance. These require active conservation to be maintained and
expanded.
Rarity – Most notable rare species are those
typical of lowland fen flora. However there may be solitary aculeate fauna
found primarily in the still exposed ragstone valley faces. Some visiting
red list bird species and two plants of county importance. Habitats
supporting these species should, therefore, be maintained and extended
(see action plan below).
Typicalness – Some degree of typicalness for
an area where ragstone quarrying was widespread. In addition heritage
features have shaped the landscape
Intrinsic appeal – Good, a valuable addition
to local landscape in terms of recreational amenity, green open space,
colourful plant life, and good range of bird communities |
Weaknesses:
Naturalness – Artificial origins owing to
man’s quarrying and water mills. Natural colonisation from surrounding
habitats. Therefore in order to maintain the nature conservation interest
on-going involvement is necessary.
|
|
Opportunities:
Recorded history – Status of valley fairly
well documented. However regular survey and monitoring in future would be
of benefit for ensuring the long-term health of the valley.
Potential
– Limited by linear nature and always present development pressures.
However it already contains important BAP habitats. Active conservation is
required though to maintain and enhance the current nature conservation
interest. There is potential for enhancement such as by extending the
area of open cliff faces, de-silting the ponds, expanding the area of
neutral grassland and preventing vegetation succession on the small
pockets of lowland fen.
|
Threats:
Fragility – The character of the valley
largely exists owing to man’s earlier activities. The continuing nature
conservation interest will depend on ongoing involvement. Surrounding
pressures i.e. housing/future development add to this fragility as do some
problem species such as ragwort – which may need control, or over
population of undesirable species such as rats.
Ecological position – Potentially more
isolated if further housing development takes place, especially on east of
valley. The valley is an important link to the wider countryside and an
important north/south link within the county.
|
Table 4 provides a generic SWOT
analysis of the landscape, recreation and community
Table 4 – General
Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats
|
Strengths |
Opportunities |
|
Accessibility of the valley –
footpath links
Designations protecting the valley
Green oasis / corridor from
Maidstone
Community engagement and value of
the valley that exists
Commitment, knowledge and
experience of groups involved in the valley
Cultural identity
Heritage value
Hayle Park nature reserve |
Improve footpath network
Develop self guided walks and
sympathetic interpretation
Conservation of habitats through
valley approach
Pass on skills and experience
Develop as an educational resource
Help meet regional and national
BAP targets
New residents may be highly
motivated to be engaged in conservation activities |
|
Weaknesses |
Threats |
|
Land-use pressures such as recent
developments
Inexperience of new land owners in
a semi-rural environment
Lack of funding
Accessibility for habitat based
approach to conservation
No statutory legal designations
|
Fly-tipping
Antisocial behaviour, vandalism
Inexperience of new land managers
Loss of habitats and species
Loss of identity and character
Land-use pressures, especially new
housing developments
Climate change
Sustainable farming
Lack of awareness of impact of
adjoining land that unsympathetic conservation may have |
·
Time
·
Budget
·
Equipment
·
Skills, including
knowledge of taxonomy and ecology
·
Available skilled
personnel to carry out tasks
·
Land ownership
·
Land pressures
·
Increasing
competition for use of existing land owing to higher local population
As a general point of principle,
clean cut edges and tightly delimited boundaries between habitat types are not
good for wildlife conservation. Creation of transitional softer edges – so
called “ecotones” – can be extremely beneficial to the natural recolonization
and successful establishment of all types of habitat. The following Map 4
suggests some priorities that following evaluation of the rest of this plan.
Map 4 –
Suggested priority actions
Therefore based on the above
evaluation of the whole valley a set of ideal aims can be identified. These
aims are then used to set aims specific to the habitat identified above. Table
5 summarises this information.
Table 5.
Ideal Biodiversity Aims
Habitat
|
Specific operations to achieve above aims |
Proposed indicator species |
1 – Arable Land
|
·
Encourage
adoption of field margins by local arable farmers, especially under
environmental stewardship schemes. This may be problematic at present with
the current high price of cereal crops.
These are of considerable nature
conservation importance. These strips of land around field boundaries can
help conserve and enhance wildlife. They benefit, especially,
invertebrates, ground nesting birds
·
Buffer pesticide
and nutrient run-off into adjacent water-courses where possible |
·
Annual arable
plants such as cornflower, chicory
·
Skylark
·
Yellowhammer |
2 – Intensive
grassland
|
·
Bring more
intensive grassland under grazing an revised mowing regimes
·
Remove nutrients
from system (by grazing or hay cuts) to encourage greater variety in grass
sward and more herb growth
·
Reduction in
nettles, docks, thistles and other plants indicating nutrient enrichment
·
Monitor stoking
densities and animals used to grazed. Horses should be at a density of no
more than 1 per Hectare
·
Control ragwort
and other problem species
·
Consider
restoration measure such as the type of animals used for grazing, timing,
length of sward sowing local provenance seed mix (natural recolonization
is best)
·
Reduce neutral
grassland fragmentation |
·
Finer grasses
such as fescues and reduction of coarser species such as cock’s foot
·
Presence of
herbs such as bird’s foot trefoil |
3 – Neutral
grassland (BAP Lowland Meadow)
|
·
Monitor stoking
densities and animals used to grazed. Horses should be at a density of no
more than 1 per Hectare
·
Control ragwort
and other problem species
·
Consider
restoration measures if necessary such as the type of animals used for
grazing, timing, length of sward sowing local provenance seed mix (natural
recolonization is best)
·
Reduce neutral
grassland fragmentation |
·
Colourful
wildflower mix with wide diversity of species present
·
Absence of
nutrient rich indicators such as docks and thistles |
4 – Freshwater
habitats (BAP Standing Open Water)
|
·
Co-ordinated
de-silting to maintain depth of ponds
·
Retain gravel
areas in faster flowing sections of streams for trout spawning
·
Allow some
marginal vegetation to develop but maintain at least 50% open water by
removal of algae and suffocating vegetation |
·
Odonata (dragon
and damselflies)
·
Water shrew
·
Brown trout |
5 – Woodlands,
shaws and hedgerows
|
·
Link parcels of
existing woodland by new woodland creation or hedgerow establishment
·
Select right
mixture of plants for hedgerows based on landscape character and soil type
·
Monitor
woodlands for health and safety purposes but non-intervention is best
where standard trees are sought
·
Re-introduce
coppicing regimes where formerly present, will especially benefit ground
flora
·
In Swiss Scouts
woodland expose more of former quarried cliff faces |
·
Woodland ground
flora such as wood anemones, wild garlic
·
Development of
species rich hedgerows
·
Yellowhammer
·
Reed bunting |
6– Lowland fen
(BAP Lowland Fens)
|
·
Extend wet areas
by diverting stream where appropriate
·
Maintain fen
areas by preventing encroachment of alder, willow and woodland succession |
·
Water vole
·
Water shrew
·
Reed bunting
·
Sedges such as
star sedge |
7 – Built up
areas and gardens
|
·
Encourage
wildlife friendly gardening throughout the valley
·
Planting of
native species to be encouraged
·
Establish new
garden ponds |
·
Bumblebees
·
Great crested
newt
·
Bullfinch
·
Spotted
flycatcher |
Detailed objectives and actions for
each habitat to achieve the ideal aims stated in section 4.4 will follow on
from wider consultation of this draft document. Consultation with and between
landowners must happen, the desired direction for conservation assessed, and
the practicalities and costs of what are purely suggested
recommendations as to the biodiversity potential of the wider valley,
reviewed. Following this consultation, objectives can then be set which can
then be measured and delivered.
A dormouse
survey is currently being conducted by MVCP in the Swiss Scouts owned woodland
at the south-east end of the valley. Nest boxes have been erected to attempt
to establish the presence/absence of this BAP species. These are monitored
each month. The survey data will feed into the Kent Mammal Group and National
Dormouse Survey. If, however, a more comprehensive and regular schedule of
surveys and monitoring were introduced it would greatly benefit the on-going
wellbeing of the valley as a wildlife refuge. Some of this work would have to
be conducted by specialists; however some could be carried out by locals. This
would also help assess the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the habitat
conservation and enhancement. Monitoring data should be captured in a format
suitable for recording at both KMBRC and in (e.g) local school geographical
information system (GIS). KMBRC hold a central database of flora and fauna
throughout the county for use by planners, developers, and concerned citizens
alike. If important and rare species are found, data recorded by KMBRC will
then be used in the planning process and so can have a direct role in
influencing the conservation status of the whole valley. A systematic
monitoring system would be most valuable in order to quantify changes, to
assess the impacts of different actions and to justify investments and grants.
A schedule
of surveys could engage local schools plus members of the community, and
provide an enhanced sense of value and ownership of the whole valley. A
suggested schedule of survey and activities is given in table 6 below.
In
addition, the existing network of gardens could be still further enhanced.
Building on the expertise of many local gardeners, the creation of a network
of wildlife gardens could be an achievable goal. Wildlife gardening encourages
and cultivates species specifically for the benefit of nature; such as
providing year long sources of food or living spaces for all manner of
creatures.
Table 6 – Proposed table of
activities
|
Project |
Date |
Rationale |
Who |
|
Flora
survey |
June |
Annual
plant survey (2 days required) |
MVCP
(send data to KMBRC) |
|
Herpetological survey |
March-October |
Establish
refugia and check once each week |
MVCP &
local schools (send data to KMBRC) |
|
Butterfly
survey
Butterfly
walk |
March-October
July |
Conduct
regular “W” walk in each habitat each month
|
MVCP,
local residents & local schools (send data to KMBRC)
MVCP -
Open to all |
|
Aculeate
fauna survey |
August |
Establish
status of aculeate fauna each year in RIGS site |
KWT |
|
Bird
survey |
Each
month |
Monthly
visit to record bird sightings |
Local
residents (send data to KMBRC) |
|
Bat walk |
August
evening |
Educate,
entertain and inform |
MVCP -
Open to all |
|
Guided
wildlife walks
Guided
“Land Manager” walks |
Spring/summer/autumn |
Educate,
entertain and inform
Explain
rationale behind approach to conservation recommended |
MVCP
MVCP |
|
Regular
litter collections |
Every
month |
Tidy
valley appears of greater value. Good opportunity to assess condition of
habitats. |
Local
residents |
|
Fixed
point photos |
Once each
season |
Educate,
inform, monitoring, for interpretation |
Local
residents
|
|
Nature
trail |
All year |
Establish
a nature trail with fixed points and signs for education and enjoyment.
Can be allied to educational visits. |
Local
residents & MVCP |
|
Monitoring Change |
Over 20
years |
A shared
system of monitoring changes in the valley over the next few years will
help with coordination and impact |
Local
School using student Geographical Information System, linked to Nature
Reserve |
JNCC, (1998), A statement on common
standards monitoring, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, ISBN1 86107 464
6
Kent BAP, (2008), Standing Open
Water,
http://www.kentbap.org.uk/habitats/view/?hap=145
Kent County Council, (2008), Aerial
photograph of Loose Valley,
http://extranet7.kent.gov.uk/klis/default.asp
Kent Downs AONB, (2008), Land
Managers’ Pack,
http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/Land_Managers_Pack.htm
Kent Habitat Survey, (2003), Kent
Habitat Survey,
http://extranet7.kent.gov.uk/klis/default.asp
KWT, (2001), MA20 2001 Local
Wildlife Site Citation, Kent Wildlife Trust
Ratcliffe, D.A. (ed) (1977), A
Nature Conservation Review, NERC/NCC
RIGS, (2008),
Loose Quarry, Quarry Wood (TQ 763518),
http://www.kentrigs.org.uk/loose.html
UK BAP, (2008), Priority habitats,
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/Default.aspx
If you wish to consult on this
document, its contents and sources then please contact Mark Pritchard, of the
Medway Valley Countryside Partnership, via email to mark.pritchard@medwayvalley.org
The Loose Valley Conservation Area
Partnership is a relatively informal association of Parish Councils, Amenity
Groups, Land landowners and other stakeholders with a common interest in
maintaining and enhancing the qualities of the Valley. Representatives of
Loose Parish Council (Roger Thornborough), Swiss Scouts (Bob Jessope), Tovil
Parish Council (Jim Williams), Valley Conservation Society (David Hill, Ann
King), among others contributed to preparation of this document.
LVCAP contact points include:
LVCAP chair: Jane Holman, 3, The
Manor, Hayle Place, Maidstone, ME15 6DW
Loose Parish Council:
Jan Capon Clerk,
29 Caernarvon Drive, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6FJ
Tel:
01622 692712
Swiss Scouts: Bob Jessope, 1 Leigh
Avenue, Loose ME15 9UY tel 01622 745473
Tovil Parish Council, Alison Chew,
Clerk: c/o Archbishop Courtenay Primary School, Church Road, Tovil, ME15 6QY
tel 01622 675628
Valley Conservation Society chair:
Bryn Cornwell, 4 Stockett lane, Loose ME15 tel 01622 746514
Institutional Contacts:
Kent & Medway Biological Records
Centre (KMBRC), Tyland Barn, Sandling, Maidstone, ME14 3BD
Kent Wildlife Trust,
Tyland Barn,
Chatham Rd, Sandling, Maidstone, ME14
3BD, 01622 662012
Medway Valley Countryside Partnership,
Site: Reeds Pond
Recorder: Ian Johnstone Date: 2 August 2006
Mark
Pritchard
|
Tree
Layer Species
Ash –
Fraxinus excelsior
Cherry –
Prunus avium
Field
Maple – Acer campestre
Hornbeam
– Carpinus betulus
Horse
Chestnut – Aesculus hippocastanum
Scots Pine –
Pinus sylvestris
Sycamore –
Acer pseudoplatanus
Crack-Willow – Salix fragilis
|
|
Shrub
Layer Species
Elder –
Sambucus nigra
Field
Maple – Acer Campestre
Hawthorn
- Crataegus monogyna
Hazel
– Corylus avellana
Holly –
Ilex aquifolium
Hornbeam
– Carpinus betulus
Horse
Chestnut – Aesculus hippocastanum
Ivy –
Hedera helix
Midland
Hawthorn – Crataegus laevigata
Scots
Pine – Pinus sylvestris
|
|
Ground
Flora and Marginal/Emergent Species
Bittersweet (Woody Nightshade) – Solanum dulcamara
Bramble –
Rubus fruticosus
Broad-leaved Dock – Rumex obtusifolius
Broad-leaved Willowherb – Epilobium montanum
Cleavers
– Gallium aparine
Common
Duckweed – Lemna minor
Common
Nettle – Urtica dioica
Common
Reedmace – Typha latifolia
Great
Willowherb – Epilobium hirsutum
Hart’s
Tongue (Fern) - Asplenium scolopendrium
Hedge
Woundwort – Stachys sylvatica
Hemlock
Water-dropwort – Oenanthe crocata
Herb-Robert – Geranium robertianum
Hogweed –
Heracleum sphondylium
Lady Fern
– Athyrium filix-femina
Large
Bitter-cress – Cardamine amara
Lords
–and-Ladies – Arum maculatum
Monkeyflower – Mimulus guttatus
Pendulous
Sedge – Carex pendula
Redshank
– Polygonum minus
Rosebay
Willowherb – Chamerion angustifolium
Slender
False-Brome – Brachypodium sylvaticum
Smooth
Sow-thistle – Sonchus oleraceus
Water
Dock – Rumex hydrolapathum
Water
Figwort – Scrophularia nodosa
Water
Forget-me-not – Myosotis scorpioides
Water-cress – Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Wild
Angelica – Angelica sylvestris
Winter
Heliotope – Petasites hybridus
Yellow
Iris – Iris pseudacorus
|
Survey
Recording Sheet Recorder: Ian
Johnstone
Site: Lower
Crisbrook Pond Date: 9 & 16 August2006
|
Tree
and Shrub Layer Species
Alder –
Alnus glutinosa
Ash –
Fraxinus excelsior
Blackthorn – Prunus spinosa
Box –
Buxus sempervirens
Elder –
Sambucus nigra
Hazel -
Corylus avellana
Cherry –
Prunus avium
Ivy –
Hedera helix
Traveller’s-joy- Clematis vitalba
Hawthorn
- Crataegus monogyna
Horse
Chestnut – Aesculus hippocastanum
Pedunculate Oak- Quercus robur
Sycamore
– Acer pseudoplatanus
Willow –
Salix sp.
|
|
Ground
Flora and Marginal/Emergent Species
Bittersweet (Woody Nightshade) – Solanum dulcamara
Black
Horehound – Ballota nigra
Bramble –
Rubus fruticosus
Broad-leaved Dock – Rumex obtusifolius
Broad-leaved Willowherb – Epilobium montanum
Cleavers
– Gallium aparine
Common
Duckweed – Lemna minor
Common
Nettle – Urtica dioica
Common
Reedmace – Typha latifolia
Creeping
Buttercup – Ranunculus repens
Great
Willowherb – Epilobium hirsutum
Hart’s
Tongue (Fern) - Asplenium scolopendrium
Hedge
Woundwort – Stachys sylvatica
Hemlock
Water-dropwort – Oenanthe crocata
Herb-Robert – Geranium robertianum
Hogweed –
Heracleum sphondylium
Ivy-leaved Toadflax – Cymbalaria muralis
Knotgrass
– Polygonum aviculare
Lady Fern
– Athyrium filix-femina
Large
Bitter-cress – Cardamine amara
Lords
–and-Ladies – Arum maculatum
Monkeyflower – Mimulus guttatus
Pendulous
Sedge – Carex pendula
Purple-loosestrife – Lythrum salicaria
Redshank
– Polygonum minus
Rosebay
Willowherb – Chamerion angustifolium
Slender
False-Brome – Brachypodium sylvaticum
Smooth
Sow-thistle – Sonchus oleraceus
Water-cress – Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Wild
Angelica – Angelica sylvestris
Yellow
Iris – Iris pseudacorus
|
|
Neutral Grassland |
Woodland
|
|
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Lowland fen |
Open water
|
|
 |
 |
(http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=climatechange
) The Wildlife Trusts will integrate climate change response into all areas
of work. We will act at local, regional and country levels throughout the
UK, develop a common approach to actions and agree key messages for wider
awareness work. Where appropriate we will work in partnership with others,
but will also add value to the wider effort by identifying areas where we
can bring unique skills and expertise to bear.
