Whitehill & Bordon HRA Refresh Report by East Hampshire District Council

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh

Final Report November 2012 P12/03-1D

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh

Report Release Sheet Draft/Final: Issue Number:

Final Report P12/03-1D

Date:

November 2012

Client:

East Hampshire District Council

Main Author(s):

Rebecca Brookbank BSc (Hons) PhD MIEEM Ben Kite BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM AIEMA Jo Meeke BSc (Hons) BA (Hons)

Contributors/Surveyors:

Report Prepared for Issue by:

………………………………… Rebecca Brookbank BSc (Hons) PhD MIEEM

Report Approved for Issue by:

………………………………… Ben Kite BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM AIEMA

Doc. No EPR 10 Issue 03

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh Contents Acknowledgements Executive Summary 1.

Introduction

Review of Masterplan Changes

European Site Conservation Objectives & Current Management Structure

Updated Ecological Baseline

Outline Access Management Strategy

Outline Monitoring Strategy

Summary and Recommendations

References

Maps Map 1

Masterplan for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Map 2

Site Location and Nature Conservation Designations

Map 3

SANG Provision with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Map 4

European Site Land Ownership & Land Management

Map 5

SSSI Condition Assessment

Map 6

UK BAP Broad Habitats

Map 7

Annex 1 Bird Records & Key Habitats

Maps 8a-8g UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch1 Species for Each European Site Map 9

2009 Visitor Survey

Map 10

2011 & 2012 Visitor Access Impacts

Map 11

Distributions of Annex 1 Features & Public Access Impacts

Map 12

Key Areas of Conflict between Public Access & Annex 1 Features

Map 13

Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures

Map 14

Monitoring Strategy

Appendices Appendix 1

Outline Business and Administration Plan

Appendix 2

Outline Access Management Plan – Broxhead Common

Appendix 3

Outline Access Management Plan – Kingsley Common

Appendix 4

Outline Access Management Plan – Ludshott Common

Appendix 5

Outline Access Management Plan – Bramshott Common

Appendix 6

Outline Access Management Plan – Woolmer Forest

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Appendix 7

Outline Access Management Plan – Longmoor Inclosure

Appendix 8

Outline Access Management Plan – Shortheath Common

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Acknowledgements We are grateful for the support and assistance that we have received whilst compiling this HRA Refresh from a large number of individuals and organisations. In particular we would like to thank the members of the HRA Working Group and the European Site Managers, the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown Team, Jo Hale (Hampshire County Council), Steve Jenkinson (Access & Countryside Management), Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Executive Summary Ecological Planning & Research Ltd (EPR) were commissioned by East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) Eco-town Team in March 2012 to undertake a ‘’refresh’’ of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) work undertaken and reported upon in November 2011 by UE Associates. The objectives of the HRA Refresh were to:

To review and update site management information where appropriate to ensure the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Team have the best available data from land owners and land managers to help inform the planning process;

Prepare an outline access management plan with land owners and land managers for the European Protected Sites to help guide the necessary preparatory works to mitigate the potential adverse impacts generated from development of 4,000 homes in Whitehill Bordon; and

To develop the proposed monitoring framework set out in the HRA and Land Management Report to produce a monitoring plan for the Local Planning Authority and land managers involved in the day to day management of the European Protected Sites.

A workshop was held with the HRA Working Group (including the owners and managers of European Sites) on 3 May 2012 to gather up to date information on the ecological baseline, present access management patterns, issues and possible solutions at European sites. A broad-scope research and data gathering exercise was also carried out to make sure that the best possible evidence base was assembled to formulate recommendations for inclusion into the outline access management plans and the monitoring framework for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals.

In addition, Revisions to the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan up to the May 2012 version were considered in relation to their potential implications for these plans.

This document forms a supplement to previous HRA work (UE Associates, November 2011), and provides an updated baseline on issues that are key to the development of access management and monitoring measures.

Outline Access Management Plans for European Sites, including recommendations for their administration, as well as an outline monitoring framework have also been developed to address and monitor the potential effects of the Revised Masterplan. These should be consulted upon further with site managers and the HRA Working Group and developed further as the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Proposals emerge and are refined, working towards detailed access management and monitoring arrangements through the outline application process. The strategy will also need to be refined as new data emerges from ongoing and future survey and assessment.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment Refresh

INTRODUCTION Background

1.1

In 2003 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) proposed the closure of Bordon Garrison under the Defence Training Review.

East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) subsequently began

producing a masterplan to regenerate the town of Bordon and to utilise the surplus MoD land following the departure of the military. The ‘Green Town Vision’ was adopted in 2006, which established environmental considerations as the focus for the masterplanning process, and by 2009 they had been successful in their bid to the Department for Communities and Local Governement (DCLG) for Eco-town status.

1.2

In 2010 EHDC published its Draft Framework Masterplan Report (AECOM, 2009) for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, which was supported by a visitor survey of the accessible greenspaces surrounding the town (UE Associates, 2009a) and a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the draft masterplan (UE Associates, 2009b).

1.3

In 2012 Ecological Planning and Research Ltd. (EPR) were commissioned by East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) Eco-town Team to refresh the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town following production of the Whitehill & Bordon Draft Revised Framework Masterplan (May 2012; Map 1).

1.4

This reports forms a supplement to the earlier November 2011 HRA Report (UE Associates), and is part of the continuing process of Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, and builds upon previous work undertaken by UE Associates and other contributors between 2009 and 2011, including, but not limited to, the following reports: • Visitor Access Patterns on European Sites Surrounding Whitehill and Bordon, East Hampshire (UE Associates, 2009); • Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Draft Framework Masterplan (UE Associates & Jonathan Cox Associates, 2011); • HRA Land Management Report (UE Associates, 2011); and

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

• Whitehill Bordon Green Infrastructure Strategy (Halcrow, 2011).

1.5

This HRA Refresh was undertaken in parallel with a 2012 visitor survey of the European designated sites (hereafter referred to as ‘European sites’) and proposed SANGs in the vicinity of the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, therefore the results of this work have not informed this report; they will be incorporated into future iterations of the HRA process.

Previous HRA Work and the Evolving Masterplan 1.6

A screening assessment was undertaken as part of the 2009 HRA work to identify the European sites that were likely to be subject to significant effects resulting from the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town either alone, or in combination with other plans or projects. This concluded that six sites were likely to be significantly affected by recreational pressures and urban edge effects (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘public access’ effects or impacts) arising from the proposed Eco-town development in addition to The sites included:

1.7

•

Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA);

•

Woolmer Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC);

•

Shortheath Common SAC;

•

East Hampshire Hangers SAC;

•

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC; and

•

Thursley and Ockley Bogs Ramsar site.

With respect to effects from public access, the 2011 HRA Report concluded that the draft masterplan proposals as envisaged in June 2010 would lead to adverse effects on the integrity of the Wealden Heaths SPA, Woolmer Forest SAC and Shortheath Common SAC (Map 2).

1.8

This report recommended that in addition to the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) to provide an alternative destination for recreation for the residents of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, and that an Integrated Access Management Group be established to ensure a cohesive and well planned approach to managing both the current and future effects of public access to the European sites.

Establishment of Access

Management Plans for each European site was then recommended, in addition to ongoing monitoring.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

1.9

The Eco-town team have continued working on their proposals since the preparation of the June 2010 masterplan using the results of the HRA to inform the iterative Masterplanning process. This has resulted in the production of the May 2012 Masterplan which proposed a reduction in housing numbers from 5,300 to 4,000, and significant extensions to the proposed network of SANG; both of which are likely to reduce the potential for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals to lead to recreational effects upon nearby European sites.

1.10

Effects from atmospheric pollution as a result of traffic increases and energy generation for the Eco-town were also considered and were assessed in the 2011 HRA. Whilst not part of the remit of this HRA Refresh, the proposed reduction in housing numbers is likely to have positive implications in respect of reduced vehicle movements and traffic-related air pollution. This has been noted so that it can be addressed in future stages of the HRA process to support the outline application plan.

Objectives of the HRA Refresh 1.11

Building on the previous HRA work, the objectives of the HRA Refresh are as follows: •

Consider the changes to the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan that have occurred since earlier iterations of HRA work, assess what implications these may have for the European sites and the forthcoming access management plans and monitoring strategy, and whether conclusions drawn previously still hold good;

•

To review and update biological data for the European sites where appropriate;

•

Review and update information on access impacts;

•

Identify potential access management solutions to address both existing and potential access issues, and develop these into outline access management plans for the European sites that could be delivered in conjunction with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town; and

•

Prepare a monitoring framework for the European sites and the SANGs being delivered with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

1.12

Enhancing and increasing the available area of alternative open space for recreation, through the provision of SANGs and other Green Infrastructure, is not covered in this report. This issue is being addressed separately by work being undertaken this year (2012) by Halcrow in the preparation of a SANG Design and Delivery Plan.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Inclusive Consultation Process 1.13

Successful delivery of an integrated access management and monitoring strategy for the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon, and the Green Infrastructure being delivered by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, will require close partnership working with a range of land owners and land managers who have diverse management objectives. The HRA Working Group is the key consultative group, representing all the main land owners and land managers involved in the Eco-town Project, as well as conservation groups. The group also includes all the statutory agencies, such as Natural England and the Environment Agency.

1.14

The HRA Working Group have therefore been consulted throughout the evolving HRA process, with the most recent phase of consultation aimed at obtaining updated information on the current management of the European sites, the distribution of protected habitats and species that they support, the access impacts that the sites are currently subject to, and feedback on the potential management solutions that could be implemented to reduce and manage the effects of current and future access.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

CHANGES TO THE MASTERPLAN

Introduction 2.1

The HRA process to date, culminating in the November 2011 HRA Report by UE Associates, has considered the potential for the June 2010 Draft Whitehill & Bordon Framework Masterplan to lead to effects upon International sites.

2.2

As a result in part of the conclusions and recommendations of the November 2011 HRA Report, the Whitehill Bordon Framework Masterplan has continued to be updated and developed to respond to the issues identified and recommendations made.

2.3

The Revised Masterplan (May 2012) (please refer to Map 1) has responded to the recommendations and conclusions associated with the November 2011 HRA, and describes how the Whitehill & Bordon project will look spatially. The likely implications of the key changes are considered briefly within this Chapter of the HRA Refresh.

2.4

The HRA is an ongoing process right up to the point that a development receives planning permission, so further work will be required to demonstrate that the Masterplan will fulfil its HRA commitments as it is progressed with the outline planning application.

The Revised Whitehill & Bordon Framework Masterplan (May 2012)

2.5

The Revised Whitehill & Bordon Framework Masterplan May 2012 (hereafter referred to as the ‘’Revised Masterplan’’) reflects the public consultation comments gathered in autumn 2010 and 2011, evidence base studies and changes in the national policy context. It provides an up-to-date evidence base for the Joint Core Strategy.

2.6

The Revised Masterplan sets out a clear vision and overall policy framework to guide how the area will be regenerated and will be a material consideration for determining all planning applications within the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Policy Zone (the Policy Zone) in accordance with the strategic allocation and detailed policies set out in the Joint Core Strategy.

2.7

The Revised Masterplan includes the following key amendments that have been introduced since the June 2010 Masterplan: •

reduced housing numbers from 5,300 to 4,000 homes;

•

increased SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) Network area

•

an alternative alignment option for the inner relief road;

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

•

no housing on the Viking Park site;

•

provision for a new learning campus; and

•

the updated Eco-town Vision which has been endorsed by the Delivery Board and provides further clarity on the project objectives.

2.8

The housing chapter of the Masterplan is consistent with the Joint Core Strategy in proposing up to 4,000 new homes at Whitehill & Bordon. The housing character areas reflect the distinctive features of the site and reference is omitted to housing arranged in generic Green Streets, Green Roots and Green Views housing. Housing densities and development quantum is revised for sites with development constraints e.g. Bordon and Oakhanger Sports Club (BOSC).

2.9

The two key changes to the revised masterplan that are of direct relevance to this revised HRA, are the reduction in housing numbers from 5,300 to 4,000 new homes, and the proposed increase in the size of the SANG areas to include wider areas, which will form part of a SANG Network and complement the town-wide green infrastructure proposals

2.10

Consequently, there is a need to re-visit assumptions made regarding the increase in human population of the town, the environmental pressure that the new population could have upon European sites, and the capacity of the increased area of SANG to address this pressure.

Calculating Future Human Population Levels

2.11

Estimates of the population increase within Whitehill & Bordon were previously calculated using three phases of housing development. The Revised Masterplan has made changes to the phasing of development and the updated schedule can be seen below in Table 1. In order to remain consistent with previous work, estimates in the size of population increase as a result of the Revised Masterplan have been calculated using a standard occupancy rate of 2.36 people per dwelling in the south east of England (Census, 2001).

2.12

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has advised that new data from the 2011 Census will be available in November 2012 and February 2013. If this data, once released, shows a significant change in the household occupancy rate, then this may need to be considered in future iterations of the HRA work (subject to the scale of the change).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Table 1: Proposed Phases of the Revised Masterplan Year

Build Rate

Cumulative Expected Population

Phase 1

2012-2014

150

354

Phase 2

2015-2019

1270

2997

Phase 3

2020-2024

1422

3356

Phase 4

2025+

1089

2570

3931

9277

TOTAL

2.13

As Table 1 shows, the Revised Masterplan is to result in an increase of around 9277 residents compared to the 12,508 increase associated with the Draft Framework Masterplan, June 2010. This is a difference of 3231 fewer residents.

2.14

If the maximum 4,000 dwellings were built, then the increase would be up to around 9,440 new residents in total.

2.15

Such a reduction in anticipated population from the June 2010 Framework Masterplan must be taken into consideration when calculating the requirements for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and assessing the potential impacts of additional visitors to European sites, as both are likely to be reduced as a result of the Masterplan revision.

SANG Provision 2.16

The Revised Masterplan, like it predecessor, identifies 3 main areas of SANG: Standford Grange Farm and Hogmoor Inclosure will provide the major SANGs, supplemented by Bordon Inclosure.

2.17

Other areas, such as Bordon and Oakhanger Sports Club (BOSC) and proposed new parks will make up the wider SANG and Green Infrastructure (GI) network joining other greenspaces with residential and employment areas. These areas are intended to offset the potential recreational and urban edge effects of the plan by providing alternative locations for people to visit.

2.18

The location of the proposed SANG areas in the May 2012 Masterplan are shown on Map 3. The green areas show the presently proposed SANG areas and components of the wider SANG and GI network, and the hatched areas show the extent of the three main SANG areas in the old June 2010 Masterplan prior to their extension.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

2.19

The November 2011 HRA concluded that, after discounting for nature conservation,

agriculture and existing use, the 123.5ha of SANG shown on the June 2010 Masterplan was reduced to an effective area of 69.76ha (i.e. a reduction of 53.74ha).

2.20

The extensions to the three main SANG areas have not themselves been subject to an assessment of whether or not they should be subject to discounting. However, assuming for now that the extended areas do not need discounting, the 141.57ha of SANG would be reduced to a total of 87.83ha.

2.21

The above figure will need to be tested and it is recommended that the proposed extensions to the three main SANG areas are examined to determine whether discounting is appropriate.

2.22

A further large-scale visitor survey of European sites and proposed SANG areas has taken place during the course of 2012 that has sought to refine and target the methodology used previously and gather additional information pertaining to existing visitor use. In view of this, it is also recommended that the assumptions made in the November 2011 HRA Report in relation to the ‘’area based’’ capacity assessment (insofar as they apply to the discounting of SANG to account for existing use) are revisited once the newly gathered data becomes available, in order to test whether the assumptions made previously still hold good.

Smaller Additions to the SANG Suite 2.23

In addition to the three main SANG areas, the Revised May 2012 Masterplan also now shows an additional total of 42.58ha of areas that are to form part of the wider SANG and GI network (please see Map 3). These areas are of varying size, and whilst some are too small to become SANG areas in their own right (although they will nonetheless be invaluable small areas of GI helping to link together large areas and provide permeability to the proposals), others could usefully become small additions to the SANG suite. These could cater for more local need and provide additional recreational opportunities for those looking for more localised walks. The extension of new SANG to the north of Hogmoor Inclosure also links directly to Hogmoor Inclosure and could, with good design, potentially be made to become a functional part of it

2.24

The SANG Suite will also need to relate well, through design, to the wider Green Infrastructure provision coming forward under the Revised Masterplan, to ensure that opportunities to cater for the existing and future demand for recreational provision is maximised.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

SANG Requirements for the Revised Masterplan

Assessment in Relation to Thames Basin Heaths SPA Standards 2.25

Using the Thames Basin Heaths standards for the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) at 8 hectares per 1,000 head of new population within 5km of the SPA, the Revised Masterplan provides, or has the potential to provide for sufficient SANGs for all phases of the scheme.

Table 2: Generated SANG Demand (Using Thames Basin Heaths SPA Provision Rates)

2.26

Expected

SANG Requirement (8ha

Population

per 1000 population)

Phase 1

354

2.84

Phase 2

2997

Phase 3

3356

26.8

Phase 4

2570

20.6

TOTAL

9277

74.24

If 4,000 homes were built (supporting 9,440 new residents), the above information suggests that the SANG demand generated (using Thames Basin Heaths SPA provision rates) would be for 75.52ha of SANG.

Area-Based Assessment of SANG Capacity

2.27

The above information indicates that, if the same assumptions are applied with respect to SANG discounting, up to 87.83ha of Main SANG, plus up to around 42.58ha of smaller SANG could be available to address an identified need of 75.52ha using the ‘’area based’’ assessment method (albeit that the proposed SANG extensions have not been assessed to determine whether they should be subject to discounting). This also does not take into account more recent visitor survey pertaining to the existing use of proposed SANG areas and European sites.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Assessment in Relation to Density-Based Approach

2.28

The 2011 HRA Report used a second, ‘’density based’’ method to calculate SANG capacity. As more current visitor survey data is presently being collected during 2012, a repeat of the density-based assessment approach has not been attempted at this time in this HRA Refresh.

Masterplan Changes in Respect of Potential Effects from Atmospheric Air Pollution

2.29

The November 2011 HRA Report concluded that all of the traffic scenarios considered, and one of the energy options (Option 2) had the potential to affect European sites in particular due to oxides of Nitrogen and Nitrogen deposition.

2.30

The above changes in the Masterplan, and again specifically the reduction in the number of proposed dwellings from 5,300 to 4,000 is likely to have positive implication in respect of the outcome of any assessment of air quality-related effects upon European sites, and the reduction in dwellings will mean that fewer additional vehicles will be introduced onto affected roads.

2.31

A full re-assessment of the potential effects of the Revised Masterplan upon European sites has not been carried out as this was beyond the remit of this HRA Refresh, however, once revised traffic data is available it is recommended that the potential effects upon air quality is reconsidered. This is discussed more fully below in Section 7. Further, parallel and Districtwide HRA work is also being co-ordinated by East Hampshire District Council Planning Policy Department in partnership with Waverley Borough Council and Natural England.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

EUROPEAN SITE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES, ACCESSIBILITY & CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE Background

3.1

This chapter sets out the conservation objectives for the European sites considered likely to be significantly affected by the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town development in the absence of impact avoidance and mitigation measures, and the current structure for management of the component SSSI units of the European sites. These sites include the Wealden Heaths SPA, Woolmer Forest SAC and Shortheath Common SAC. European Site Designations

3.2

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) have been created under the EC Birds Directive and Habitats Directive and are designated due to their European importance. In the UK they form part of a larger European network called Natura 2000.

3.3

The qualifying features for each of the European sites can be seen in Table 3. Table 3: Qualifying features for the European sites. European Site

Component SSSI

Wealden Heaths SPA Phase 2

Broxhead & Kingsley Commons

•

European nightjar (Breeding)

Bramshott & Ludshott Commons

•

Woodlark (Breeding)

Woolmer Forest

•

Dartford warbler (Breeding)

Woolmer Forest

•

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds; Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath European dry heaths Transition mires and quaking bogs; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable `quaking` surface Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion European dry heaths

Woolmer Forest SAC

Qualifying Features

•

• •

• Shortheath Common SAC

Shortheath Common

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

• •

Transition mires and quaking bogs; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable `quaking` surface

Final Report – November 2012

•

Bog woodland* (Priority feature)

Conservation Objectives 3.4

The Habitats Directive requires that Member States maintain or where appropriate restore habitats and species populations of European importance to favourable conservation status.

3.5

The conservation objectives for the SPA and SAC sites form the basis against which to manage and monitor the effects of visitor access. Conservation objectives are linked closely to the qualifying features for which each of the European sites was given its designation. The overarching conservation objectives defined by Natural England for SPA and SAC around Whitehill & Bordon are as follows:

3.6

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which each of the SPAs/SACs has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to: “Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features.” Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore: a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; c.

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species; e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

3.7

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require that where a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans and project, an appropriate assessment is made of the implications for each site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Such an assessment relies upon a detailed understanding of the features of the sites that contribute to their favourable conservation status. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

3.8

3.9

For the populations of birds within the Wealden Heaths SPA, favourable condition status can be defined by reference to Article 1(i), and for the habitats within the SAC by reference to Article 1(e). Conservation objectives for the Wealden Heaths SPA would therefore be: •

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

•

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

For the SAC habitats, the conservation objectives developed from the definition of favourable conditions status are: •

Objective 4: The geographical distribution of the habitats and their overall area within the sites should be maintained or increased;

•

Objective 5: The mix of species (their species structure) and the ecological interrelationships between these and other environmental and management factors (ecological function) which are needed for the long-term maintenance of the habitats should be likely to continue to exist;

•

Objective 6: The conservation status of the habitats’ typical species are maintained in terms of their population size, range and habitat extent.

Nationally Designated Sites 3.10

Within the UK, sites that are nationally important for plants, animals or geological or physiographical features are protected by law as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). This system provides the underpinning statutory protection for all sites, including those which are also of international importance. As such, all SPAs and SACs within the UK are also designated SSSI.

3.11

Originally notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, SSSIs have been renotified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Improved provisions for the protection and management of SSSIs were introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

3.12

Since European and National conservation objectives will overlap (for example when Birds Directive Annex 1 Birds depend upon heathland habitat that forms part of a SSSI), whether a European site is achieving its conservation objectives can also be monitored to an extent through SSSI Condition Assessments carried out by Natural England. This will be looked at in more detail in Section 4.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

3.13

It is also likely that a European site’s management will be dictated largely by its SSSI designation (this is often of relevance to its qualifying features for the European designation).

Accessibility & Current Management Structure Summary 3.14

The Wealden Heaths SPA comprises a number of SSSI units, with component sites owned and managed by a number of different public bodies. SSSIs within the Wealden Heaths SPA include Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI, Woolmer Forest SSSI and Bramshott and Ludshott Commons SSSI.

3.15

Woolmer Forest SAC includes part of Woolmer Forest SSSI, and Shortheath Common SAC includes Shortheath Common SSSI.

3.16

To facilitate more focused conversation during the Focus Groups which fed into the HRA Land Management Report (UE Associates 2011), composite European designations were disaggregated into functional “patches” to enable landholders to talk specifically about their sites. Sites identified by the 2009 Visitor Survey as receiving visitors from Whitehill & Bordon have been labelled “priority patches” as they are locations most likely to receive additional visits as a result of the Revised Draft Masterplan proposals.

3.17

These priority patches will remain the focus of this HRA Refresh and will be referred to from this point on rather than the wider European sites per se.

3.18

The component units of the European sites are described below and on Map 2. Map 4 then shows the land owners and land managers for each site. Broxhead Common

3.19

Broxhead Common lies on an area of generally free-draining, thin, infertile soils over acid sands but locally with fine sandy silts and some gravels. The site has been designated of European and national importance primarily for its heathland habitats and associated species which include a variety of invertebrates including, butterflies, solitary bees and wasps, and is an important site locally for breeding heathland birds including three species of birds listed in Annex 1 of the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Woodlark, Dartford warbler and Nightjar). Sand lizard – also a European Protected Species – has been recorded in suitable places on the Common. The site is regionally important for rare and scarce plants and invertebrates and part of it has been designated as a Local Nature Reserve.

3.20

Part of Broxhead Common (east of the B3004) is privately owned but leased to, and managed by, Hampshire County Council (HCC). The western part of the Common is owned by the MoD and is used as a military training area; however agreements are in place with Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HIWWT) and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC) to manage the central area for wildlife conservation. The area of the Common managed by HCC is designated a Local Nature Reserve and provides a valued open space for the nearby Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

community including local walkers and dog walkers. The Common is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its heath communities, and its importance is further recognised by its designation as part of a European Special Protection Area (SPA) (Wealden Heaths Phase 2 SPA) for the scarce Annex 1 heathland bird species listed above. 3.21

3.22

The main issues regarding the current management of Broxhead Common is the invasion of areas of open heathland by scrub, trees and grass species. There are a number of possible methods which could be employed to tackle such management issues.

3.23

Consequently, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and Hampshire County Council are currently carrying out public consultation regarding long-term management of the Common to ensure both people and wildlife benefit. A critical part of this process is to seek the views of adjoining owners and occupiers, registered commoners, the local community and local organisations, together with visitors and other interested parties using a range of engagement methods which can then inform the future management of the site.

3.24

Current management does not involve the grazing of livestock although this is one of the possible management methods whose feasibility is to be addressed by the on-going consultation process.

3.25

Broxhead Common is registered common land. In 2000 the government gave a new statutory right of access to common land and, in 2006 it passed new legislation on its management. Kingsley Common

3.26

As with Broxhead Common, Kingsley Common is located on the coarse sandy soils of the Folkestone Beds in the western edge of the Weald. The site comprises a mosaic of heathland and acid grassland as well as areas of scrub and secondary woodland. Such diversity of habitats supports a rich invertebrate fauna including 25 nationally rare and scarce species, a rich flora, and Annex 1 Birds Woodlark, Nightjar and Dartford Warbler are also found at this site. Kingsley pond in the north western corner of the site is an important habitat feature, supporting seventeen species of dragonfly, including two notable species, the Small Red Damselfly and Downy Emerald.

3.27

The site is owned by the MoD and is part of the Defence Training Estate. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust are working in partnership with the MoD to better manage Kingsley Common for wildlife and are currently in the process of writing a management plan for the SSSI. Management of the Common does not currently involve livestock grazing. However, the East Hampshire District Landscape Character Assessment (Land Use Consultants, 2006) suggests considering the re-instatement of common grazing to assist in the long-term management and conservation of both Kingsley and Broxhead Commons, which will concurrently help to restore the historic and cultural character of this landscape. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

3.28

HIWWT are currently in the process of applying for HLS for Kingsley Common.

3.29

Kingsley Common is registered common land. In 2000 the government gave a new statutory right of access to common land and, in 2006 it passed new legislation on its management. Ludshott Common

3.30

Ludshott Common represents one of the best remaining examples of open heathland in the western Weald supporting populations of a number of specialised heathland vertebrates, including the Smooth Snake, Dartford Warbler, Woodlark, Stonechat, Nightjar and Hobby (English Nature, 1984). Despite the management challenge of extensive colonisation by Birch and Scotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pine, the Common continues to support extensive tracts of mature heathland vegetation dominated by heather, Bell Heather, Dwarf Gorse and Common Gorse.

3.31

Ludshott Common is owned by the National Trust and Borders Bramshott Common which is owned by the MoD. Conservation management on Ludshott Common has restored a significant area of dry Calluna heathland which is important for many species of bird and insect. Ludshott now forms an important and relatively large heathland nature reserve, and is among the larger blocks of heathland to survive in Hampshire. A wide-ranging consultation with local residents, land owners/managers and statutory bodies on the future long-term, sustainable management of Ludshott Common has just been completed and a Common Purpose application will be made shortly. Ludshott Common is not currently grazed by livestock and the Common Purpose application will seek a return of grazing to the Common to assist its long-term management aims.

3.32

Ludshott Common is registered common land. In 2000 the government gave a new statutory right of access to common land and, in 2006 it passed new legislation on its management. Bramshott Common

3.33

Bramshott Common is largely owned and managed by the MoD for defence training purposes, although Bramshott Common also includes Bramshott Chase, which is owned and managed by the National Trust. The MoD have recently formed a partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust to manage their component of Bramshott Common for wildlife. They are currently carrying out public consultation regarding long-term management to ensure both people and wildlife benefit.

3.34

Bramshott Common lies both north and south of the A3 and is a publicly accessible area much valued by local people and organisations for the recreation opportunities it offers. The site displays a diverse tapestry of habitats, including varied heather swards, bare ground, acidic grassland, trees and scrub.

3.35

The block of Common lying to the north of the A3 is part of the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), a designation based on the presence of breeding populations of Dartford Warbler, Nightjar and Woodlark. This part of the Common receives Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) status for its extent of mature heathland with heather, Bell Heather and Dwarf Gorse. As well as the key Annex 1 bird species, Bramshott Common is also home to an interesting flora associated with the acid grasslands which, in combination with bare Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

sand areas, are important for many invertebrates including solitary bees and wasps, bugs, beetles, spiders, flies and the scarce Silver-studded Blue butterfly. 3.36

Whilst Bramshott Common is not currently grazed, Bramshott Chase does receive periodic grazing by a commoner’s cattle (National Trust, 2009), which assists in the control of scrub and reduces the need for mechanical intervention.

3.37

Bramshott Common is registered common land. In 2000 the government gave a new statutory right of access to common land and, in 2006 it passed new legislation on its management. Woolmer Forest

3.38

Woolmer Forest SSSI contains the largest and most diverse area of lowland heathland habitats in Hampshire (outside the New Forest) and is considered the most important area of heathland in the Weald of southern England (Natural England, 1994). Notably, it is the only site in Britain known to support all twelve native species of reptiles and amphibians. It is the last native heathland site in Britain for Natterjack Toad and Great Crested Newt are also found in the more nutrient enriched pools around the edge of Woolmer Pond. Records for two separate colonies of Sand Lizard within the SSSI are held and whilst Smooth Snake is also present its distribution is less well known.

3.39

Woolmer Forest’s SSSI designation is based upon a mosaic of habitats including: extensive areas of dry heathland vegetation and associated invertebrate fauna of bare sandy patches, humid heath on less free-draining soils, wet heath and mire, extensive areas of open water and small acidic streams and ancient semi-natural woodland. As part of the Wealden Heaths SPA, the site is known for its rich diversity of breeding and wintering heathland birds including Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler.

3.40

Woolmer Forest SSSI comprises three blocks of land split into 41 separate management units. The two largest blocks of land lie to the north and south of the A3, with management unit 1 lying to the west of the A325 (Map 5).

3.41

The northern block is predominantly owned by the MoD and is managed by the MoD, the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust and a private farmer; part of this block is under HLS Agreement. Passfield Common and Conford Moor to the north-east of the MoD landholding are largely owned and managed by the National Trust. Although access is permitted across the northern block, the MoD land is a Range Danger Area (RDA) and it is illegal and dangerous to enter when the red flags are flying.

3.42

The southern block of land, known as Longmoor Inclosure, is owned and managed by the MoD and is described as a separate functional patch below.

3.43

The small block to the west of the A325 is privately owned and managed.

3.44

The MoD are working in partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust through “The Grazing for Wildlife Project” in order to assist with the conservation objectives of the site and cattle are currently grazed on the ranges. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

3.45

For large complex sites such as Woolmer Forest the MoD prepares ‘Integrated Rural Management Plans’ (IRMPs) to ensure that operational activities, biodiversity and other objectives are all identified and managed appropriately. The IRMP for MoD sites in the vicinity of Whitehill & Bordon is in the process of being written and as such cannot inform this HRA Refresh at the present time.

3.46

Passfield Common and Conford Moor in the Holly Water Valley to the north-east of the MoD landholding are both registered commons. The Holly Water Valley is important for its range of seepage mires associated with spring lines, the best examples of which can be seen at Passfield Common and Conford Moor.

3.47

Passfield Common is included in the Woolmer Forest SSSI designation for its pasture woodland, wet grassland and dry heaths, whist Conford Moor comprises a strip of 20 hectares either side of the Holly Water stream. This supports a rare mix of acid bog vegetation and fen vegetation resulting from the alkaline water feeding the area, with species such as Marsh Helleborine, Bog Pimpernel and Southern Marsh Orchid. The seepage mires also provide habitat for the Marsh Fritillary butterfly, a rarity in Hampshire.

3.48

Passfield Common and Conford Moor are both given unfavourable recovering status by Natural England’s SSSI condition assessment (the date of the assessment is given below in Section 4). Conford Moor is currently under HLS agreement and there is an aspiration to increase grazing pressure to tackle ongoing Bracken and Purple Moor Grass encroachment. Longmoor Inclosure

3.49

Longmoor Inclosure is owned and managed by the MoD as a defence training area with managed access. Public access is permitted along public rights of way within the Dry Training Areas at all times. In addition, access on foot is available in those areas delineated with the managed access symbol on the Ordnance Survey Explorer maps.

3.50

Access is subject to the Aldershot and District Military Byelaws, which are displayed at all major access points onto the training areas. When accessing these areas the public are requested not to interrupt any training activities and to observe the byelaws at all times (Ministry of Defence, 2012).

3.51

Whilst the MoD has a duty of care in relation to providing a safe training environment, they have formed a partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust who are assisting with the wildlife conservation objectives of the site. Both Longmoor Inclosure and the block of Woolmer Forest to the north of the A3 are engaged in “The Grazing for Wildlife Project”, an initiative set up by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust which works with the MoD and local livestock owners to introduce cattle or ponies back onto areas of nature conservation importance. A small herd of Shetland cattle are currently being grazed at Longmoor Inclosure to help recreate the conditions required by many of the heathlands rare plants and animals for which the sites receive their European and national designations.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Shortheath Common 3.52

Shortheath Common is a remnant of Woolmer Forest and comprises a wide range of heathland habitats on the Folkestone Beds of the western Weald. Despite extensive colonisation within the past century by Bracken and Oak/Birch woodland, large areas of open heathland and habitats remain and a mosaic of different stages of succession contributes to the considerable habitat diversity found across the site as a whole. The focal point of the Common and reason for its SAC designation is a substantial valley mire and quaking bog which is a floating mass of moss and cranberry.

3.53

The invertebrate fauna of the Common, and in particular of the pond, mire and peripheral habitats, is of special interest. This includes 23 breeding species of dragonflies, including a number which are rare or local, e.g. Cordulia aenea, Erythromma najas, Orthetrum coerulescens and Anax imperator, and a colony of the rare damselfly Ceriagrion tenellum. The site is also home to a large population of Field Crickets.

3.54

Shortheath Common is largely owned and managed by Hampshire County Council, although a small percentage is in private ownership. The privately owned land lies to the west of Roman Road in the south-west corner of the site, and comprises a number of houses with associated gardens. The reason for inclusion of this land within the SAC boundary should be investigated as part of further work carried out at the planning application stage.

3.55

The site is currently under an HLS Agreement (1 September 2009- 31 August 2019) for the restoration of species-rich, semi-natural grassland, the restoration of heathland from neglected sites, the maintenance of ponds of high wildlife value and the restoration of fen. The site is not currently grazed.

3.56

Shortheath Common is valued by the local community as an accessible open space for activities such as walking, jogging and angling, and horse riders may enjoy views across the Common from the bridleways at the western and northern edges of the site.

3.57

Shortheath Common is registered common land. In 2000 the government gave a new statutory right of access to common land and, in 2006 it passed new legislation on its management. Commons Legislation and Guidance The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

3.58

As set out by Underhill-Day and White in the Broxhead Common Appraisal (June 2012), under the CRoW Act, any land which is registered common land is access land on which any person is entitled to enter and remain for the purpose of open air recreation, subject to some restrictions including inter alia restrictions on: â&#x20AC;˘

Driving or riding vehicles except invalid carriages;

â&#x20AC;˘

Having any animal other than a dog;

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

•

Lighting a fire;

•

Intentionally or recklessly killing, injuring or disturbing any animal or bird, or damaging or destroying eggs or nests;

•

Feeding any livestock;

•

Engaging in hunting, shooting, fishing or trapping animals, birds or fish;

•

Using a metal detector;

•

Removing or damaging any plant, shrub or tree;

•

Without reasonable excuse interfering with any fence, barrier or other device designed for preventing accidents to people or to enclose livestock;

•

Neglecting to shut any gate unless it is intended to be left open;

•

Affixing any bill or placard;

•

Disturbing, annoying or obstructing any lawful activity by others; and

•

Any dog must be on a short, fixed lead of no more than 2 metres in length on Open Access land between 1 March and 31 July, or at any time when in vicinity of livestock.

A Common Purpose 3.59

As this report has described, a number of the European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon are currently undertaking a consultation process regarding their future management. “A Common Purpose: a guide to agreeing management on common land” (Short et al., 2005) has been produced by a group of countryside organisations and sets out a process that those concerned with the long-term management of common land can follow and implement. The approach focuses on working closely with stakeholders to create increased levels of awareness regarding the issues and values relating to their common, whilst evaluating the range of possible solutions that would tackle the one while respecting the other.

3.60

This outline access management plan and any future work on the management of European sites seeks to follow a similar path by involving stakeholders and gaining a thorough understanding of their views regarding current management issues, prior to promoting the development of sound, effective management proposals based on co-operation.

3.61

The objectives of the Outline Access Management Plans, and those of the Common Purpose process and any Habitat Management Plans being drafted, will need to be reconciled with landowners as work progresses.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

UPDATED ECOLOGICAL BASELINE

Introduction 4.1

In order to obtain the most up to date baseline information for the European sites to inform the outline access management and monitoring strategies, a number of resources were utilised during a desktop study. Updated information on Annex 1 habitats and species for which the European sites were designated (Annex 1 birds – records from 2 J’s Ecology) were sought and are shown on Map 7.

4.2

Information on other protected and notable habitats and species with the potential to influence management of the sites was also sought. Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC), Natural England, 2 J’s Ecology and the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC) Trust were all contacted and were able to supply additional biological data. Records obtained from HBIC and ARC have been used to create a map for each of the European sites (Maps 8a-8g) showing the location of Hampshire BAP Priority species, UK BAP Priority species and birds listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This assists in highlighting areas within each of the sites that are most likely to be susceptible to management issues associated with recreational access.

4.3

The HRA Working Group was also consulted for site specific information on biodiversity rd features during a workshop held on the 3 May 2012. During this workshop participants were invited to annotate large scale maps for each site. This data was then subsequently entered into a Geographic Information System (ArcGIS 10.1) for analysis, and later validated at a further HRA Working Group meeting held in June 2012. Habitats Updated SSSI Condition Reports

4.4

Natural England updated the information that it holds and makes available regarding the assessed condition of units of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in August 2012. The updated information included any additional data or change in assessment that has resulted from site visits/assessment that had taken place since the previous update. As a consequence of this, the most up to date condition assessments for each SSSI have been obtained to inform the HRA Refresh. Knowing the condition of these sites is a vital part of Natural England’s statutory responsibility to conserve and protect them. Condition assessments are carried out on all SSSIs in England on a regular basis to help monitor the health of these sites in the long-term. Such assessments are invaluable when advising owners and occupiers on the type of management required, and thus will inform the outline access management plans. The condition of the SSSI land in England is assessed by Natural England, using categories agreed across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). There are six reportable condition categories: •

favourable;

•

unfavourable recovering;

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

4.5

•

unfavourable no change;

•

unfavourable declining;

•

part destroyed; and

•

destroyed.

Table 4 below provides the date of the most recent Natural England site assessment of each SSSI unit, as recorded after the August 2012 update of Natural England’s information. The location of each SSSI, and each SSSI unit number, is shown on Map 5. Table 4: Date of Most Recent SSSI Condition Assessments Recorded After Natural England’s August 2012 Update of Information SSSI name Broxhead

Kingsley

Commons

Shortheath Common

Woolmer Forest

SSSI Unit Number

Date of Most Recent Site Assessment

15/03/10

03/09/08

15/03/10

11/03/10

03/11/09

25/04/12

17/08/11

03/10/11

01/02/12

20/07/11

26/08/11

25/08/11

14/09/11

07/09/11

14/09/11

03/10/11

07/09/11

03/10/11

07/09/11

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

SSSI name

Bramshott Commons

4.6

Ludshott

SSSI Unit Number

Date of Most Recent Site Assessment

03/10/11

07/09/11

14/09/11

03/10/11

07/09/11

20/07/11

17/08/11

03/10/11

19/10/11

23/09/09

13/10/10

16/07/09

22/03/10

Table 5 and Map 5 provide a summary of the % of each condition category for each of the SSSIs. In brief, the main reasons for SSSI units failing to reach Favourable condition are linked to habitat management and include: encroachment by scrub, seedlings and trees thus reducing the extent of open heath to below the desired level and lack of structural diversity within the heathland vegetation, thus impacting upon the habitat available for Annex 1 birds, especially Woodlark.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Table 5: Percentage of condition type within each European site SSSI Name

Favourable

Unfavourable

Main Reasons

Recovering

No Change

Declining

for Unfavourable Condition

(% of total site / ha) Broxhead &

55.67

44.33

Kingsley

Very high tree/scrub cover

Commons

Open habitat and acid grassland cover lower than desired Heathland vegetation lacks structural/age diversity

Bramshott

4.13

95.87

Encroachment

& Ludshott

by scrub- extent

Commons

of open heath is below the desired level. Heathland vegetation lacks structural/age diversity

Woolmer

3.16

93.54

Forest

3.21

0.09

Encroachment by woodlandtree cover higher than desired Invasion by seedlings, bracken & rhododendronneeds controlling to maintain open heath Heathland species lack structural/age

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

diversity Shortheath

98.29

1.71

Woodland

Common

encroachment onto open mire Purple moor grass higher than target Key targets for water quality of pond are exceeded Open habitat lower than desired

Distribution of Annex 1 Habitats 4.7

Due to the difficulties in mapping Annex 1 habitat types over large areas, very limited information exists on the distribution of specific Annex 1 habitats.

4.8

The UK Biodiversity Steering Group (now called the UK Biodiversity Group), set up following the Convention on Biological Diversity, published a framework classification for 37 habitat types across the whole of the UK (UK Steering Group, 1995). These classifications were subsequently revised in 1997, but provide the basis for the UK Biodiversity Action Plan process and UK reporting on the condition of protected sites.

4.9

The JNCC have set out a methodology for relating these Broad Habitat Classification types to Annex 1 habitat types (Jackson, 2000). Therefore areas with the potential to support specific Annex 1 habitats can be ascertained from Broad Habitat GIS layers. Table 6 below sets out the JNCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s information on correspondence between Broad Habitat Classifications and the EC Habitats Directive Annex 1 types. Map 6 shows current Broad Habitat layers for the European sites, with potential key habitats supporting Annex 1 habitats shown on Map 7. Table 6: Correspondence between the Broad Habitat Classification and EC Habitat Directive Annex 1 types. Annex 1 Type

Broad Habitat Type

Bog woodland

Broadleaved,

mixed

and

yew

woodland;

Coniferous woodland Northern Atlantic wet heats with Erica

Dwarf shrub heath

tetralix

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Annex 1 Type

Broad Habitat Type

European dry heaths

Dwarf shrub heath

Transition mires and quaking bogs

Fen, marsh and swamp

Depressions on peat substrates of the

Fen, marsh and swamp

Rhynchosporion Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

Standing open water and canals

4.10

National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys for some of the European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill & Bordon were carried out by EPR in 2002, from which the Broad Habitat types shown on Map 6 were derived, and habitat management measures were recommended as a result of this survey work. There is therefore a likelihood that the distribution of habitats has changed since the previous vegetation maps were produced. It is therefore recommended that up-to-date survey data is gathered to establish an accurate baseline against which to manage and monitor the effects of visitor access.

4.11

As Table 7 and Map 7 show, the largest area of broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland is found at Longmoor Inclosure with 221.8ha (35.5% of the total across all sites), followed by Woolmer Forest and Ludshott Common with 151.8 ha and 106.6 ha (24.3% and 17.1% of the total across all sites) respectively. The remaining sites each have a smaller component of this habitat type.

4.12

Woolmer Forest contains the largest area (153.4 ha) of coniferous woodland (66.3% of the total across all sites), followed by Longmoor Inclosure which has 50.5 ha (approximately 21% of the total across all sites). The extent of coniferous woodland is far less at the remaining sites.

4.13

Dwarf shrub heath is most dominant at Woolmer Forest with a total of 289.7ha (55.5% of the total across all sites), 122.2ha (23.4% of the total across all sites) at Longmoor Inclosure and 71.8% (13.8% of the total across all sites) at Ludshott Common.

4.14

Fen, marsh and swamp are far rarer habitats with just 17.02 ha across all sites. 58.8% of this (10ha) can be found at Woolmer Forest. 7ha (approximately 40% of the total across all sites) is located at Shortheath Common. Kingsley Common has a negligible amount (0.02 ha) and this habitat type is absent at the remaining sites.

4.15

Similarly, standing open water covers just 13.3ha in total across the European sites. The majority of this 11.2ha (84.3% of the total across all sites) can be found at Woolmer Forest hence its suitability for Natterjack toad and Great Crested Newt. Minimal areas of open standing water are fond at Shortheath, Ludshott and Kingsley Commons.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Table 7: Current distribution of Annex 1 habitats (main figures refer to extent in hectares, figure in brackets refer to % of total across all sites). Broad Habitat Type per Site (ha)

Broadleaved,

Coniferous

Dwarf shrub

Fen, marsh

Standing

mixed and yew

woodland

heath

and swamp

open water

woodland

Broxhead

and canals

17.4 (2.8)

0.2 (0.1)

17.7 (3.4)

28.0 (4.5)

4.5 (0.9)

0.02 (0.1)

0.004 (0.03)

106.6 (17.1)

13.0 (5.6)

71.8 (13.8)

0.9 (6.8)

72.5 (11.6)

14.4 (6.2)

11.6 (2.2)

151.8 (24.3)

153.4 (66.3)

289.7 (55.5)

10.0 (58.8)

11.2 (84.2)

221.8 (35.5)

50.5 (21.2)

122.2 (23.4)

27.0 (4.3)

4.6 (0.9)

7.0 (41.1)

1.2 (9.0)

625.1

231.5

522.1

17.02

13.3

Common Kingsley Common Ludshott Common Bramshott Common Woolmer Forest Longmoor Inclosure Shortheath Common TOTAL

Faunal Species

2J’s Bird Survey Data – Annex 1 Birds 4.16

Monitoring of EC Birds Directive Annex 1 species was carried out on the lowland heaths within East Hampshire by 2Js Ecology between 2006-2010. This dataset, which can be seen in Table 8 and on Map 7, provides updated information on Annex 1 bird species distribution following the National Survey in 2004. Each of the Annex 1 bird species for which the European sites/SSSI’s are designated (Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler) have been found at every site at some point over the last 5 years with the exception of Dartford Warbler

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

at Kingsley and Shortheath Commons. Trends for each of the Annex 1 bird species will now be looked at in more detail. Table 8: Survey data for Annex 1 bird species, territory counts between 2006-2010 (2Js Ecology, 2011).

Site with conservation status

Sub-sites

Wealden Heaths SPA: Woolmer Forest SSSI

Longmoor Inclosure

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

(13)

Woodlark

Dartford Warbler

(15)

(16)

(15)

Woodlark

Dartford Warbler

Broxhead

Nightjar

(1)

Common

Woodlark

Dartford Warbler

Nightjar

Woodlark

Dartford Warbler

Nightjar

Woodlark

Dartford Warbler

Nightjar

Woodlark

Dartford Warbler

Nightjar

Woodlark

Woolmer Forest

Wealden Heaths SPA: Broxhead & Kingsley Commons SSSI

Wealden Heaths SPA: Ludshott & Bramshott Commons SSSI

Shortheath Common SSSI

Kingsley Common

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

Shortheath Common

Nightjar

Dartford Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 * Figures in bold font 19 = maximum count recorded in 5 year monitoring period; figures in normal font 19 = other complete counts recorded in 5 year monitoring period; figures in parentheses (4) = counts recorded in 5 year monitoring period which may be underestimates; and X = count not made. 4.17

As Table 8 shows, Nightjar populations have remained stable over all sites over the survey period. Data would suggest that this species is currently (and historically) most successful at Woolmer Forest, followed closely by Longmoor Inclosure and least successful at Kingsley, Shortheath and Bramshott Commons. Taking the maximum count recorded at each sub-site over the 5 year monitoring period shows a total of 80 territories.

4.18

Woodlark also remains stable overall, with the species once again being most successful at Woolmer Forest and Longmoor Inclosure and least successful at Kingsley, Shortheath and

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Bramshott Commons. Taking the maximum count recorded at each sub-site over the 5 year monitoring period shows a total of 70 territories. 4.19

Dartford Warbler data shows that this species is at a very low ebb, but has the potential to increase rapidly given favourable conditions of mild winters and lack of heathland fires. With numbers reaching an all time peak in 2007-2008 (with maximum counts of 56 and 54 at Longmoor Inclosure and Woolmer Forest respectively) successive winters with heavy snowfall have impacted heavily upon this species, reducing the total population to just 7 birds at Ludshott Common in 2010. Dartford Warbler was not recorded at either Kingsley or Broxhead Commons over the survey period 2006-2010. HBIC Notable Species Data Search

4.20

Records of notable species (amphibians and reptiles, birds, terrestrial mammals, fish, invertebrates and higher plants) were obtained from the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) for each of the European sites. The locations of potentially sensitive ecological features are shown on Maps 8a-8g. It should be noted that, owing to the need to protect rare amphibians and reptiles from unscrupulous collectors, the species of amphibian and reptile shown on these maps has not been identified. Broxhead Common

4.21

Broxhead Common (west) supports Adder, Common Lizard, Grass Snake and Sand Lizard, the latter of which is only recorded on the western part of the common. There are also a number of records across the site for Silver-studded Blue butterfly, a UK BAP Priority species. Broxhead Common (east) holds records for a number of UK BAP Priority bird species including Lesser Redpoll, Skylark and Reed Bunting. UK BAP Priority vascular plant species found on Broxhead Common (east) include Coral-necklace and Annual Knawel. Records of these features considered to be sensitive to the effects of recreational access are shown on Maps 8a-8g. Kingsley Common

4.22

HBIC records for Kingsley Common are relatively sparse; species of note include Silverstudded Blue butterfly, Adder and Tree Pippit. Ludshott Common

4.23

Records for Adder and Common Lizard are located predominantly to the south of Ludshott Common, although both species along with Grass Snake and Slow Worm are also recorded in the north east of the site. Notable bird species include Common Bullfinch, Yellowhammer, Reed Bunting and Spotted Flycatcher. Invertebrate records include Silver-studded Blue, Grayling and Small Heath butterflies.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Bramshott Common 4.24

Data obtained from HBIC shows that Bramshott Common and Chase supports populations of a number of reptiles (Adder, Common Lizard, Slow Worm) as well as a number of bird and invertebrate species. Many of these species appear on the UK BAP Priority Species List, including the Silver-studded Blue, Grayling and Grizzled skipper butterflies and Skylark, Spotted Flycatcher and Reed Bunting. Woolmer Forest

4.25

HBIC records for Woolmer Forest are relatively extensive in comparison to the other European sites. Notable species records include Natterjack Toad, Great Crested Newt, Smooth Snake and Sand Lizard all of which receive European Protected Species status. UK BAP Priority bird species are also well represented at Woolmer Forest with records including Eurasian Curlew, Ring Ouzel, Wood Warbler and Yellow Wagtail. UK BAP Priority vascular plant species include Coral-necklace, Marsh Clubmoss, Tower Mustard. UK BAP Priority butterfly species include Grayling and Silver-studded Blue. Longmoor Inclosure

4.26

HBIC records for Longmoor Inclosure are predominantly in the west and east of the site. They include multiple records for Adder, Grass Snake, Common Lizard and Slow Worm and two records for Smooth Snake. UK BAP Priority bird species are also well represented and include Eurasian Curlew, Little Plover, Reed Bunting, Sky Lark and Spotted Flycatcher. Invertebrates of note include the Wood Tiger Beetle, Grayling and Silver-studded Blue butterflies and the vascular plant species Bird’s-nest, Yellow Bird’s-nest and Coral-necklace. Shortheath Common

4.27

Reptile and amphibian records for Shortheath Common include Adder, Grass Snake, Common Lizard and Common Toad. Bird species of note include Spotted Flycatcher, Tree Pipit, Lesser Redpoll and Yellowhammer. The only UK BAP Priority vascular plant species recorded is Tubular Water-dropwort. Numerous moth records exist including the notable species Buff Ermine and Cinnabar. ARC Reptile Survey Results (Broxhead Common)

4.28

Additional records for amphibians and reptiles across the European sites were also obtained from the ARC Trust, although records were only available for Broxhead Common, Woolmer Forest and the northern part of Longmoor Inclosure. These records are also shown on Maps 8a-8g. As mentioned above, due to the need to protect rare amphibians and reptiles from unscrupulous collectors, the species of amphibian and reptile shown on these maps has not been identified. rd

HRA Working Group meeting (May 3 managers

2012): identification of biodiversity features by site

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

4.29

Stakeholders were involved in a round table session during which site specific information on biodiversity features, visitor access issues and possible management solutions were updated for each of the European sites. This exercise built upon the analysis of data provided by landowners for the HRA Land Management Report (July 2011).

4.30

HRA Working Group Members were invited to annotate large scale maps for each European site with information and local knowledge regarding the distribution of notable or sensitive ecological features (both habitats and species).

4.31

Additional records provided included those for the Silver-studded Blue butterfly, Mottled Beefly, Heath Tiger Beetle and Field Cricket. Summary of Ecological Baseline & Recommendations

4.32

Table 9 sets out a summary of the ecological baseline for each site. Table 9: Summary Ecological Baseline for the European sites. SSSI Site Name

Predominant SSSI Condition

Annex 1 habitats present*

Annex 1 species present*

Other notable species present***

Broxhead Common

Favourable 55.67%

North Atlantic wet heaths.

Nightjar**

Silver-studded Blue butterfly (UK BAP Priority species)

(Wealden Heaths SPA)

Woodlark** Dartford Warbler**

Mottled Bee-fly (UK BAP Priority species) Coral Necklace (UK BAP Priority vascular plant species)

Kingsley Common (Wealden Heaths SPA)

Unfavourable Recovering

Ludshott Common (Wealden Heaths SPA)

Unfavourable Recovering

Bramshott Common (Wealden Heaths SPA)

Unfavourable Recovering

North Atlantic wet heaths.

Nightjar**

Mottled Bee-fly

Woodlark**

European dry heaths.

Nightjar**

Mottled Bee-fly

Woodlark** Dartford Warbler**

European dry heaths.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Nightjar** Woodlark**

Silver-studded Blue butterly

Dartford Warbler**

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

SSSI Site Name

Predominant SSSI Condition

Annex 1 habitats present*

Annex 1 species present*

Other notable species present***

Woolmer Forest (SAC)

Unfavourable Recovering 93.54%

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds**;

Nightjar**

Natterjack Toad

Woodlark**

Smooth Snake

Dartford Warbler**

Great Crested Newt

(Wealden Heaths SPA)

European dry heaths**; Depressions on peat substrates of the ; Rhynchosporion**;

Spangled Diving Beetle (UK BAP Priority species)

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix;

Marsh Clubmoss (UK BAP Priority species) Coral Necklace

Transition Mires and Quaking Bogs. Longmoor Inclosure (Wealden Heaths SPA)

N/A

Shortheath Common (SAC)

Unfavourable Recovering 98.29%

European dry heaths; North Atlantic wet heaths.

Transition mires and Quaking Bogs**; European dry heaths;

Heath Tiger Beetle (UK BAP Priority species)

Nightjar**

Heath Tiger Beetle

Woodlark**

Silver-studded Blue butterly

Dartford Warbler**

Nightjar**

Woodlark**

Grayling butterfly (UK BAP Priority species) Field Cricket (UK BAP Priority species) Small Red Damselfly

Bog woodland; Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds. *Annex 1 species and habitats are listed when present; this does not indicate that they are a qualifying feature for the European designation covering a site. **Denotes a feature that is the primary reason for the European designation covering a site. ***Only species mentioned on SSSI citations, not species provided in record returns nor shown specifically on maps are listed here; Maps 8a-8g provide more comprehensive species records.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

OUTLINE ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Background

Approach in the Thames Basin Heaths and the Dorset Heaths 5.1

Research on urban effects on protected heathland sites first began in the Dorset Heaths (RSPB, 1989; Murison, 2002; Mallord, 2005). This research focused on the effects of disturbance resulting from recreational use of sites, particularly dog walking, on the breeding success of the Annex 1 birds for which the Dorset Heaths and Thames Basin Heaths SPA’s are designated. In respect of the Dorset Heaths, which is designated as an SAC as well as an SPA, concern was also raised regarding damage to sensitive habitats through trampling, soil erosion and compaction, and nutrient enrichment resulting from dog fouling.

5.2

Other ‘urban edge’ effects caused by the close proximity of housing to heathland sites were also identified, including fly-tipping, wildfire and arson, illegal off-road vehicle use, introduction of non-native and potentially invasive species, and predation from cats (reviewed by Haskins, 2000, and Underhill-Day, 2005). Research has shown that such effects, notably cat predation, tend to be most pronounced where housing is within 400m of the heathland sites. Therefore in the Thames Basin Heaths a 400m exclusion zone around the SPA has been adopted within which new development is restricted (JSPB, 2009).

5.3

Due to the wide spatial distribution of protected heathland sites within these regions, and the diffuse nature of urban effects from adjacent housing, an integrated approach has been taken both in the Dorset Heaths and the Thames Basin Heaths in order to effectively manage the adverse effects of existing and future access. Avoidance and mitigation measures, required for development beyond the 400m exclusion zone, broadly include the provision of alternative open space to divert users away from the sensitive sites, and implementation of onsite access management measures. The Thames Basin Heaths

5.4

In respect of the Thames Basin Heaths, the need for an integrated approach was raised by the Inspector at the Examination in Public of the Thames Basin Heaths Draft Delivery Plan (Burley, 2007). Recommendations made by the Assessor reporting to the panel for the Draft South East Plan led to the establishment of the Joint Strategic Partnership Board (JSPB), which comprises representatives from the 11 affected Local Authorities surrounding the Thames Basin Heaths and other statutory consultees/government advisors (NE), and later the publication of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework (final version endorsed by the JSPB in 2009).

5.5

This Framework identified a three-pronged approach to avoiding likely significant effects on the SPA, including the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), access management on the heaths and habitat management. The former two measures are the focus of the Framework, since at least in the short-term the focus for habitat management is to improve the quality of the habitats to favourable conservation status which is a duty of SPA landowners. In the longer-term, however, habitat management is acknowledged to have the potential to be used as an impact avoidance measure.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

5.6

The JSPB approach in the Thames Basin Heaths SPA area has also been expanded more recently to include a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Strategy. This strategy aims to monitor both visitor levels and Annex 1 bird numbers in the long term, and bring additional measures into play to protect the latter from the former actually within the SPA itself, such as; additional wardening, car park closures, path re-routing etc. The SAMM strategy will be overseen and coordinated by a single central team. The Dorset Heaths

5.7

In the Dorset Heaths ‘The Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework (IPF) 2010-2011’ was adopted by affected Local Authorities as a vehicle for collecting developer contributions to fund mitigation projects across South East Dorset to manage the increased pressures arising from development in the region. A Joint Dorset Heathland Executive Group was established to oversee the implementation of the IPF, a group which consists of a Councillor from each of the six local Authorities together with representatives from Natural England, Home Builders Federation and the RSPB. An updated version of the IPF, The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014 Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Draft has recently been subject to consultation, and once adopted will replace the previous IPF.

5.8

Funds raised by the IPF support three types of mitigation projects: projects to divert users from the heaths; access and fire management projects; and revenue projects. Projects to divert users away from the heaths include provision of SANGs, footpath and other open space improvements, and the provision of BMX/Skate Parks. Access and fire management projects include the Dorset Dogs Project, which encourages responsible access by dog owners and promotes alternative recreational sites, and several site specific projects to review fire access and management plans and to improve infrastructure to achieve decreases in the incidence of fire. The revenue projects include an area wide monitoring programme and the Urban Heaths Partnership (UHP) who provide wardening, education and strategic coordination of access management measures on the ground. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

5.9

The 2009 visitor survey work showed that the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon offer a popular recreational resource for local people. Ludshott Common received the greatest number of visitors during the survey followed by Woolmer Forest and Bramshott Common. In total 1.8 million visits per year are estimated to be made across the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon, and although this figure is likely to be an overestimate, it helps to put the recreational pressure that these sites are potentially subject to into context, for example The Thames Basin Heaths SPA is estimated to receive 5.4 million visits per year (Liley et al. 2005). Although the sites around Whitehill and Bordon are estimated to receive a lower number of annual visits than the Thames Basin Heaths, given the proximity of the proposed Eco-town development to the European sites and the scale of the proposed development, significant effects as a result of increased recreational pressure are likely.

5.10

The survey revealed that 58% of visitors had visited for the purpose of dog walking. Therefore access impacts associated with such use, notably disturbance to ground nesting birds, trampling and eutrophication, are likely to be particularly prevalent.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

5.11

It does not necessarily follow, however, that such use is likely to have the greatest relative effect on the sensitive features for which the European sites were designated. Further information on the range and spatial distribution of additional urban edge effects was required.

5.12

In 2011 focus group workshops were held by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Team to obtain information on both the incidence of impacts from recreational access and other urban edge effects (collectively referred to as ‘access impacts’) in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon. Participants included the European site managers, the MoD and Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service. In addition to records of disturbance and dog fouling, this workshop noted the prevalence of a number of other significant urban edge effects across the European sites (UE Associates, 2011a); these are discussed in more detail below.

5.13

Following the approaches advocated in the Thames Basin Heaths and the Dorset Heaths, the 2011 HRA recommended that an Integrated Access Management Group be established, funded by developer contributions, to ensure integrated and coordinated management of the effects of public access likely to arise as a result of the Eco-town development, with site specific Access Management Plans produced to deal with individual site issues and opportunities. Information on Recreational Access

5.14

In 2009 a visitor survey was undertaken to determine the patterns of recreational access to the European sites in the vicinity of the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town (UE Associates, 2009). The survey followed a standard questionnaire-based approach (Liley et al. 2005), that was agreed with the HRA Working Group. A total of 8 two-hour survey periods were covered Of the sites scoped into the HRA that are discussed in this report, 20 access points were selected for interview; these ranged from pedestrian access points to high capacity car parks (Map 9).

5.15

Ludshott Common had the greatest number of groups exiting the site during the survey (N=154), followed by: Kingsley Common (N=80); Woolmer Forest (N=73); Bramshott Common (N=68); Broxhead Common (N=57); Longmoor Inclosure (N=55); and with the fewest groups Shortheath Common (N=16). The highest numbers of groups exiting each site were intercepted at the access points with housing immediately adjacent, or with the highest capacity car parks, including access points 1B, 2A, 3A, 8B, 9A, and 10A.

5.16

Map 9 shows the routes around the site that visitors had taken during their visit, as annotated on maps during the interviews. This shows the parts of the European sites that receive the greatest proportion of visitor use. Visitor access was prevalent across all of Ludshott Common and Kingsley Common, but access to the other sites was focused in certain areas At Broxhead Common and Shortheath Common access was focused on the south-eastern part of the site, whereas at Woolmer Forest access was focused on the western boundary, at Bramshott Common access was focused on the north-west and at Longmoor Inclosure access was focused on the south-west.

5.17

During 2012 a second visitor survey on the European and non-European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon was undertaken in parallel with the HRA Refresh. The results of this

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

work are not yet available, but will inform refinements to site specific access management plans in the future, alongside the development of the outline planning application. Updated Information on Access Impacts Range of Access Impacts rd

5.18

On the 3 of May 2012 a workshop was held with the HRA Working Group to obtain updated information on the incidence of specific access impacts on the European sites. During a round table session stakeholders were invited to annotate large scale site maps with additional access impacts, or to state where previously recorded impacts were no longer relevant due to existing access management work. None of the previous records of impacts were removed during the sessions and several of the previous access problems were reiterated. HRA Working Group members were invited to verify the results collated following the workshop, and the final summary of results was validated with stakeholders at the June 2012 HRA Working Group meeting.

5.19

This yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s workshop in addition to the previous focus group workshops held as part of the previous HRA work (2011) have confirmed that the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon are subject to a range of impacts from public access. These impacts, and the number of records provided in 2011 and 2012 are summarised in Table 10 below, and on Map 10.

5.20

It is important to note that the details regarding access impacts recorded during the workshop sessions held in 2011 and 2012 ranged from specific incidents recorded at known locations, for example records of arson and wildfire provided by Hampshire Fire and Rescue in 2011, to more general perceptions of access problems such as dog fouling and trampling. The dataset collected is also only representative of the information provided by those members attending the workshop, and so the number and spatial distribution of records should not be considered exhaustive. Table 10: Incidences of visitor access impacts recorded during stakeholder consultation events held in 2011 and 2012, those marked in red constitute the most prevalent impacts recorded.

Access Impact

Number of Records Provided in 2011

Number of Additional Records Provided in 2012

Total Number of Records Provided in 2011 and 2012

Disturbance (dogs/horses off lead/track)

Dog fouling

Fly-tipping

Illegal parking

Invasive plants

Littering

Livestock issues

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Off-road vehicles

Rat-running

Trampling/erosion

Unlawful digging/ building

Wildfire/arson

5.21

The most common access impacts recorded across the European sites include wildfire/arson, disturbance caused by dogs off the lead and/or horses off bridleways, and fly-tipping. This is consistent with data from the Dorset Heaths (Underhill-Day, 2005). Incidences of dog fouling were also well recorded across all of the sites. Illegal access by off-road vehicles, rat-running and trampling was only identified as an issue on some of the sites, and so the records of such effects were less numerous.

5.22

Issues with trampling and erosion, illegal parking, littering, and unlawful digging and building, were impacts recorded during the 2012 workshop which had not been specifically recorded on the European sites previously.

5.23

Additional records for every access impact recorded in 2011 were recorded in 2012, implying that existing access management measures are not sufficient to effectively manage such problems. In some cases, the same incidents may have been recorded by landowners in 2011 and 2012, but this indicates that the problem is still evident as landowners were asked to remove previous records if no longer relevant. Prevalence of Impacts on European Sites

5.24

The results of the workshops held in 2011 and 2012 showed that the access impacts were not necessarily mostly associated with the sites receiving the most recreational visits as observed during the visitor survey, confirming the importance of obtaining specific information on the occurrence of such impacts.

5.25

Disturbance as a result of dogs being off leads and off tracks, and/or horses being off bridleways, was also recorded for all of the sites, as was dog fouling, particularly around the main car parks. Conflicts between these two user groups was also repeatedly mentioned, which may in some cases be the cause of either party straying off the main Public Rights of Way.

5.26

Uncontrolled dogs off leads can also lead to problems with livestock, although incidences of dogs interfering with livestock was only recorded at Longmoor Inclosure. Persistent problems with dogs bothering livestock can be obstructive to successful conservation grazing upon which some sites depend to maintain habitat structure and diversity. The wider effects of recreational access upon the success of conservation grazing is therefore a matter requiring consideration in relation to all of the European sites currently being grazing or proposed to be grazed in the future.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

5.27

Problems with trampling and erosion were recorded by stakeholders in 2012 at Bramshott Common, Broxhead Common and Kingsley Common, either due to the high level of access along particular routes or due to the particular level of ground disturbance required to create microhabitats suitable for supporting invertebrates such as the Mottled Bee-fly and Sand Lizard. High levels of access by the MoD across Kingsley Common was identified as a particular source of impacts on habitats.

5.28

Fly-tipping along roads flanking European sites is a consistent problem, with the greatest effects felt at Broxhead Common, Kingsley Common, Shortheath Common and the northern edge of Woolmer Forest. Fly-tipping can also lead to the introduction of invasive non-native species, such as the Variegated Yellow Archangel Lamium galeobdolon ssp. argentatum observed at Kingsley Common this year. New Zealand Pigmyweed Crassula helmsii has also been recorded in Woolmer Pond, although this is not necessarily linked to public access.

5.29

Due to the existence of access roads running through Kingsley Common and Shortheath Common to serve the houses along their eastern boundaries, these two sites suffer comparatively greater effects from illegal off-road vehicle use, and in the case of Shortheath Common rat-running between Gibbs Lane and Roman Road. Such access gives rise to illegal parking on the Commons and makes them more vulnerable to incidences of fly-tipping.

5.30

Illegal encroachment onto Kingsley Common was noted as a result of unlawful digging and building along the Western edge, and although not recorded during the workshop, similar problems were also observed along the Eastern edge of Shortheath Common during a site visit in 2012.

5.31

By far the most common impact recorded across the European sites was wildfire or arson. Broxhead Common, Kingsley Common, Woolmer Forest and Longmoor Inclosure had the greatest number of individual records, although the manager of Ludshott Common also affirmed the severity of the fire risk across the site. Details of some of the recorded fires are provided in the HRA (UE Associates & Jonathan Cox Associates, 2011). Wildfires can be set by discarded cigarettes, and therefore fire risk is likely to increase as recreational use increases. Intentional fire setting also occurs, but would not necessarily be expected to significantly increase as a result of the Eco-town development.

5.32

Very few access impacts were recorded for Bramshott Common, and during the 2012 workshop, although comments were provided regarding particular tracks being well used by dog walkers, the land manager also commented that “habitat management is the problem not visitors”. Effect of Access Impacts on European Site Conservation Objectives

5.33

Section 3 sets out the conservation objectives for maintaining the features for which the Wealden Heaths SPA, Woolmer Forest SAC and Shortheath Common SAC were designated at favourable conservation status. These are also set out in the 2011 HRA Report, and were used as a standard against which to assess likely significant effects on the SPA/SACs. The narrative describing the specific effects of each access impact on the habitats and species for which the European sites are designated is not repeated here for brevity, and a detailed review of these effects can be found at Underhill-Day (2005).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

5.34

Table 11 does however summarise the findings of the 2011 HRA regarding whether the access impacts described above are likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of the European sites. Information obtained on access impacts as part of this HRA Refresh has not revealed any significantly different patterns or distributions of access impacts across the European sites, and therefore the conclusions drawn in the 2011 HRA Report are considered to remain valid.

5.35

Table 11 includes cat predation as an access impact, although no specific incidences of cat predation were recorded during the 2011 and 2012 workshops. The effects of illegal parking, littering and unlawful digging/building were not assessed in the 2011 HRA Report as these access impacts were not specifically recorded on the European sites during the 2011 focus group workshops. Illegal parking has been grouped with off-road vehicle in the table below due to the effect it has on degradation of habitats, and littering has been grouped with flytipping. Unlawful digging/building has not been assessed as such effects are unlikely to increase as a result of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. Table 11: Summary of likely significant effects of access impacts on the conservation objectives of the European sites. Likely significant effect on conservation objectives? (Yes/No) Access Impact

Wealden Heaths SPA

Woolmer Forest SAC

Shortheath Common SAC

Cat predation

Disturbance (dogs/horses off lead/track)

Dog fouling

Fly-tipping/littering/

Livestock issues

Off-road vehicles/illegal parking

Rat-running

Trampling/erosion

Wildfire/arson

invasive species

Current Access Management Activities 5.36

To inform the Access Management Strategy, land managers were asked to provide information on the current access management activities that are undertaken on the European sites.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

5.37

Hampshire County Council provide a ranger for Shortheath Common and Broxhead Common East, with an estimated 4 hours spent on each site per week dealing with access management issues in the summer, and around 2 hours spent on each site per week during the winter. On Broxhead Common the main access management tasks include: patrolling with the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) to monitor whether dogs are being kept on leads, and to look for fires and illegal vehicle access; clearing fly-tipping; litterpicking; liaising with site visitors; and work to update and install signage. On Shortheath Common a similar range of activities take place, although patrolling with the PCSO does not take place and additional work is done to manage vehicle use across the site. Management time is evenly distributed across Shortheath Common, whereas the area around the Cricket Club car park at Broxhead Common receives a greater focus of efforts.

5.38

The MoD manage Woolmer Forest through their defence training operations. They deal with access issues in a reactive rather than proactive way, and so do not routinely attend site. A land management organisation Land Marc are contracted by the MoD to provide a ranger service, which covers a large area of MoD training land in Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Sussex, Kent and Surrey.

5.39

As detailed in Section 3 the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust manage many of the MoD landholdings in the Whitehill and Bordon area, including Broxhead Common West, Kingsley Common, Longmoor Inclosure and Bramshott Common. Around 2 ranger days a week are spent on maintaining the grazing infrastructure at Longmoor Inclosure, which is often subject to vandalism particularly in the south east corner of the site, but they currently have very little involvement with access management at the other sites.

5.40

The National Trust commit the equivalent of around 3 ranger days per week to access management at Ludshott Common, maintaining car parks, paths and benches, and dealing with off-road vehicles and conflicts between dog walkers and horse riders. They also have regular volunteer groups who do additional work on the Common. Access Management Measures Understanding Behaviour to Influence Change

5.41

A body of research now exists on the behavioural psychology of dog walkers (eg. Edwards & Knight, 2006; SIRC, 2008; Jenkinson, 2011; also described by UE Associates, 2011a). Whilst this research is particularly informative for understanding how to manage access on heathland sites where the user groups are predominantly composed of dog walkers, its findings may also be applied to help understand the behaviour of other user groups.

5.42

Research on the perceptions of dog walkers relating to acceptable behaviour, tells us that (SIRC, 2008): • dog walkers believe that they can control their dogs when off the lead; • dog walkers believe it is unacceptable for a dog to chase wild animals, livestock and that dogs should not be allowed to approach joggers, cyclists or horse riders; and Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

• that it is reasonable to expect to have to keep a dog on a lead for some parts of a walk.

5.43

This suggests that dog walkers do not disobey requests with the intention of being irresponsible, or to cause problems, nevertheless non-compliance is still observed. This may be due to a lack of understanding about the type of land that they are on, the particular access rights they have whilst on that land, the behaviour that is expected of them whilst on such land and the reasons why such behaviour is needed.

5.44

However, dog owners also have a different set of motivations and priorities compared to other types of users; dogs are very much regarded as a member of the family, and therefore the health and enjoyment of an owners’ dog during a visit strongly influences the choices taken whilst onsite (Jenkinson, 2011). The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) tells us that three distinct sets of beliefs influence the likelihood of a person complying with a certain requested behaviour: • Personal beliefs: how the person feels about doing a particular behaviour; • Societal beliefs: how the person feels they will be judges by others for doing a particular behaviour (peer pressure); and • Control beliefs: their knowledge and ability to do the behaviour, if they choose to.

5.45

Figure 1 below sets out an example of how The Theory of Planned Behaviour may be used to understand why dog owners choose to ignore an ‘on lead’ request; this table is reproduced from Jenkinson (2011), and is also included in the Land Management Report (UE Associates, 2011a), but is also provided here due to the assistance it gives to understanding visitor behaviour. Such an approach may equally be applied to understand non-compliance with other requests (such as collecting dog faeces), or other user groups (for example horse riders).

5.46

The work to date by Jenkinson (2011) and UE Associates (2011a) suggest that: • Restrictive management approaches on their own are unlikely to be met with success, and should be used as a last resort; • Access management requests should be communicated in a positive, engaging and constructive way, and through the provision of interpretation and signage that is up-todate, clearly sets out the desired behaviour, the reason for requiring the desired behaviour, the time period during which the desired behaviour is required, and the alternative locations provided to allow continuation of the alternative behaviour; and • Messages about desired behaviours should be communicated using multiple approaches, varied in terms of both format and source of delivery.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Figure 1: Using The Theory of Planned Behaviour to understand potential reasons for noncompliance.(Jenkinson, 2011).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Eight Steps to Change 5.47

Hampshire County Council has set out an eight step approach to changing access management on a site, which is based on the principles for understanding and influencing behaviour drawn from The Theory of Planned Behaviour (HCC, undated).

5.48

Their approach is targeted at changing the behaviour of dog walkers, but provides a useful framework for approaching many of the access management problems identified above and for effective monitoring of any changes implemented. Table 12 below sets out an adapted version of HCC’s eight step approach. The eight step approach has been trialled by Hampshire County Council’s Countryside Service at a number of locations, and examples of the approaches taken are described where relevant below. Table 12: Adaptation of HCC’s Eight Steps to Change Step 1

Identify the problem

Step 2

Identify the desired outcome

Step 3

Identify the desired behaviour to achieve the outcome

Step 4

Adapt site management or other practice to help change behaviour

Step 5

Communicate to users what the desired behaviour is and why

Step 6

Consider the wider consequences of any changes

Step 7

Evaluate whether changes implemented have successfully altered behaviour

Step 8

The last resort – consider legal enforcement to achieve desired outcome

Steps 1-3: Identify Problem, Desired Outcome and Desired Behaviour 5.49

Table 13 below sets out the access impacts that have been identified across the European sites and how these impacts may be analysed in the context of the eight step approach.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Table 13: Summary of access impacts in the context of steps 1-3 of the eight step approach. Access Impact

The Problem

Desired Outcome

Desired Behaviour

Cat predation

Predation of Annex 1 birds

Less predation of Annex 1

Placing bells on cat collars;

birds

keeping cats in at night.

Walkers, dog walkers and

Fewer incidents of walkers,

Dogs kept on lead during

dogs, and/or horse riders

dog walkers and dogs,

bird nesting season in more

leaving the main tracks

and/or horse riders leaving

sensitive areas of European

causing disturbance to Annex

the main tracks during their

sites; walkers, dog walkers

1 birds

visit

and horse riders keeping to

Disturbance

main tracks and trails and away from more sensitive areas of European sites; utilising alternative areas of open space for recreation. Dog fouling

Dog faeces being left on site

A reduction in dog faces left

Collection of dog faces and

degrading Annex 1 habitats

on site

disposal in dog bin

Fly-tipping/littering/

Deposition of large/small

Fewer incidents of fly-

Disposal of waste in

invasive species

quantities of waste causing

tipping and littering

recycling/disposal centre;

damage or destruction of

disposal of litter in litter bins

Annex 1 habitats Livestock issues

Dogs chasing or injuring

Fewer incidents of

Dogs kept under control of

livestock

disturbance or injury to

owners or on lead around

livestock

Off-road

Unauthorised vehicle access

Fewer incidents of

Utilising alternative

vehicles/illegal

causing trampling and erosion

unauthorised vehicle

appropriate locations for off-

parking

of Annex 1 habitats and

access

road activities and

disturbance to Annex 1 birds

authorised car parking facilities

Rat-running

Unauthorised vehicle access

Fewer incidents of rat-

Utilising alternative formally

causing trampling and erosion

running

listed route to reach

of Annex 1 habitats and

destination

increasing exposure to other undesirable behaviour Trampling/

High levels of access along

Regeneration of trampled or

Utilising alternative route

erosion

same route causing damage

eroded habitats

during visit, or alternative

Wildfire/arson

and destruction of Annex 1

areas of open space for

habitats

recreation

Uncontrolled fire causing

Fewer incidents of wildfire

Collection and disposal of

destruction of Annex 1

or arson; smaller extent of

cigarette butts, no BBQs on

habitats and

habitat lost to wildfire or

heaths, no intentional

disturbance/death of Annex 1

arson

setting of fires

birds

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Step 4: Adapt Site Management or Other Practices

Adapt Site Management: Control Access to More Sensitive Areas 5.50

Whilst it is recognised that all of SPA and SAC areas are ‘’sensitive’’ in terms of being important in one way or another to the integrity of the designated site, for the purposes of enabling access management measures and other interventions to be targeted where they will be of most benefit, it is useful to identify those areas that are more sensitive than others, in terms of the specific ecology or ecosystem function that they support, or the potential for this to be more easily damaged by access related impacts.

5.51

HCC’s approach requires desired behaviours to balance the need of the site (and it’s Annex 1 habitats or species) against the need of the visitors, and to ensure that the desired behaviour is realistic. It may therefore be most realistic to attempt to control access to the most sensitive areas on site; this may be achieved in a variety of ways. Potential management measures need to be carefully considered and implemented in a coordinated way to ensure that access is not displaced to a location that is equally or more sensitive.

5.52

Starting first at the point of access to a site, the current location and size of car parks should be assessed. If car parks are adjacent to the more robust areas of a site and do not allow high numbers of visitors to gain access, then the provisions may be appropriate to remain as they stand. However, if car parks are adjacent to the most sensitive areas of a site or have a very high capacity, it may be appropriate to consider one or more of the following: car park closures; relocation of car parks to a less vulnerable location; reducing the size of car parks and/or applying car park permits or charges to dissuade or control the extent of use.

5.53

Any changes to parking provisions are likely to controversial with existing users of sites; the 2009 visitor survey showed that ‘reduced car parking’ and ‘parking charges’ were two of the top five reasons that would make a site less attractive (UE Associates, 2009). Therefore changes to car park provision could be considered initially on a trial basis, with opportunities given to members of the public to comment on any such trial, and for monitoring strategies to measure the resultant displacement of visitors (enabling the closure to be reversed if the recorded displacement is detrimental).

5.54

Dog Zoning is another approach to limiting the type of access that is permissible within the more sensitive areas of a site. It works by classifying the type of access that is desirable in different parts of a site: 1) by restricting access completely in the most sensitive areas; 2) by allowing access to dogs but only whilst on the lead in moderately sensitive areas; and 3) by allowing unrestricted access to dogs off leads in the parts of a site that are most robust.

5.55

This allows the most sensitive features of a site to be protected, whilst at the same time allowing visitors to satisfy their need to exercise dogs off the lead. It is not a method that need Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

necessarily only apply to dog walkers, but could be used to indicate to other users whether they should remain on the main bridleways, tracks or trails. It can also be used as a method for controlling the type of access within grazing compartments on a site to limit the risk of disturbance to livestock. 5.56

Dog Zoning is not an approach that would necessarily be appropriate for all sites, but it has now been trialled at Danebury Hill Fort, Manor Farm County Park (HCC, undated) and St Catherine’s Hill in Hampshire (Jenkinson, 2008) and at Jeskyns Park in Kent (Forestry Commission, 2012). Almost all involved a ‘traffic light’ system for colour coding the type of access permitted, with either a green paw or green dog symbol indicating dogs allowed off lead, orange indicating dog allowed on lead, and red indicating dogs not allowed. How dog zoning areas are established would need careful consideration, in consultation with landowners and site managers. They are most likely to be successful and easily implemented where they coincide with existing management infrastructure for a site, for example utilising grazing compartments, and less successful where the extent of zones are broadly indicated using waymarkers. The approach to dog zoning would therefore need to be considered in light of any common land registration, and alongside the development of Management Plans for commons currently going through ‘Common Purpose’ consultation.

5.57

Other measures can also be used to control or obstruct access to more sensitive areas such as installation of screening, through habitat management to allow natural scrub regeneration, or by altering the path network. Re-routing of paths can also be used as a method for alleviating pressure on the most trampled parts of a site or on features that are subject to erosion. Adapt Site Management: Measures to Control Dog Fouling

5.58

Some sites, including Manor Farm Country Park in Hampshire, have used a zoning approach to the management of dog fouling which includes a ‘flick it off the path’ approach in some areas but collection and disposal into dog bins in others. This can however lead to mixed messages, and confusion over what approach should be taken.

5.59

Whilst the installation and emptying of dog waste bins can be a burden for land managers, research has shown that dog fouling dramatically decreases where well-placed dog bins are provided. A recent audit of the infrastructure present at the main car parks at the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon found that only 27% provide dog waste bins; these were at the main car park at Ludshott Common, the main car park at Longmoor Inclosure and the main car park at Kingsley Common (EPR, 2012).

5.60

Strategic location of new dog bins should therefore be implemented following discussion with land managers and dog walkers to ensure maximum efficacy. The poor positioning of dog bins can often be a reason for people bagging faeces, but then not properly disposing of bags. Dog bins should therefore be positioned in locations that allow reasonably easy installation and emptying, but which are also appropriate for the dog owners using the site. Free bags could be provided to further ease collection. Monitoring of the extent of dog fouling should be done prior to and following installation of the bins to confirm appropriate placement, and some form of periodic faeces marking can also be a powerful way to convey to users of the site the scale of the dog fouling problem.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Adapt Site Management: Fire Management 5.61

Habitat management should be carried out at source to remove brash which can fuel fires, for example through controlled burning, grazing or vegetation clearance. For high risk locations that have been subject to multiple fires in the past, the provision of onsite fire hydrants could be considered, although the benefit of such measures would need to be discussed with Hampshire Fire and Rescue. Adapt Site Management: Restricted Road Access

5.62

Rat-running and unauthorised vehicle access across the heaths is a particular problem at Kingsley Common and Shortheath Common where routes must be kept open to serve residents living on the edges of the Common. Improved signage and application of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) could be trialled to deter unwanted use of tracks through the Common by issue of fines. If this proved unsuccessful then electronically activated barriers or bollards could be installed to prevent access except to residential properties. Successful restriction of road access into and across the Common would also be likely to reduce other access impacts such as fly-tipping. Other Practices: Reduce the Extent of Cat Predation

5.63

Although new housing within the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town is located over 400m from the edge of the European sites, free bells for cat collars could be given out to new home owners to decrease the likely success of any long-ranging cats in predating Annex 1 birds and other protected wildlife. Requests for cats to be kept inside at night could also be made to new homeowners through educational leaflets provided in homebuyer packs. Other Practices: Provision of Alternative Open Space for Recreation

5.64

The Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town will deliver a network of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces and other open spaces as part of a network of Green Infrastructure in order to divert recreational access to, and thus pressure on, the European sites. Three main SANG compartments are proposed: Hogmoor Inclosure; Bordon Inclosure and Standford Grange Farm. Such sites are particularly targeted at dog walkers and walkers, but will also cater for other recreational pursuits such as picnicking, jogging and so on.

5.65

Further details regarding the SANGs provision for the Eco-town are set out in Section 2, and the details regarding the design of the SANGs and Green Infrastructure are set out in the reports “SANG Design and Delivery Plan” (Halcrow, 2012) and “Management and Maintenance of Green Infrastructure” (GIDE Associates, 2012).

5.66

Hampshire County Council has produced a series of leaflets entitled “Exploring……..eg. Whitehill”. These leaflets set out the Public Right of Way network specific to the area in question, explaining the types of access that are permissible along each route. They specifically identify routes suitable for horse riding, cycling and off-road driving. Such resources should be circulated to the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town community, to advise on alternative suitable locations for such activities. This could be achieved through incorporation of the relevant information within leaflets, or by providing links to the information on Hampshire County Council’s website via a dedicated Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town countryside access website (as detailed further below).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

5.67

A review of existing locations where off-road activities including BMX, dirt bike and quad bike riding are authorised should be undertaken. In Dorset, such activities are a significant problem, and several of the mitigation projects being implemented through the Interim Planning Framework include provision for BMX and skate parks. Potential enhancements to existing nearby facilities and/or the provision of additional alternative locations to support such activities should be considered as part of the emerging Eco-town proposals. Other Practices: Waste Collection

5.68

Fly-tipping is a persistent problem across all of the European sites and has the potential to affect the favourable conservation status of the SAC sites and their underpinning SSSIs in particular through the introduction of non-native invasive species and by directly damaging or destroying Annex 1 habitats.

5.69

Waste Management Schemes in the District should therefore be reviewed to better understand the potential causes of such behaviour. Existing waste collection schemes should then be improved, or new schemes provided, to make disposal centres more accessible and/or more cost effective for businesses. A discounting scheme, or non-chargeable allowance, should also be considered for small business to reduce the burden of waste disposal on the profitability. If green waste is currently not collected from residential locations, the potential for offering such a service should be explored.

5.70

A recent audit of the infrastructure present at the main car parks at the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon found that only 27% provide litter bins; these were at the main car park at Broxhead Common East, the main car park at Longmoor Inclosure and at the main car park at Kingsley Common (EPR, 2012). Provision of litter bins at all of the main access points to the sites alongside better information about appropriate disposal of litter should help to prevent littering. Although the provision of bins can cause problems, by acting as a focus for fly-tipping and arson for example, it would present a conflicting message to visitors if they are asked to not drop litter whilst at the same time not providing bins for its subsequent disposal. Other Practices: Fire Management

5.71

Wildfire and arson presents a serious threat to the favourable conservation status of both the SPA and SAC designated sites. Shortheath Common and Broxhead Common East are the only sites to have a specific Fire Management Plan (FMP) in place with Hampshire Fire and Rescue. FMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consist of a digital map of a site (Figure 2), stored on a mobile data terminal, which show the habitats present along with their associated fire risk. The map also shows features such as access points, dead ends and fire hydrant marker posts. FMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are very useful for informing the approach to, and management of, heathland fires, therefore FMPs should be developed for all of the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon.

5.72

Ranger activities should include searching for, and extinguishing any BBQs found on the European sites. This should continue to be an important part of the role of the ranger presence on sites and should help to prevent spread of fires as a result of prohibited activities such as BBQs, and arson, although should such soft measures be proven ineffective then bylaws could be imposed to make such activities subject to fines.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Figure 2: Fire Management Plan for Broxhead Common

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Other Practices: Ranger Service 5.73

Given the continued prevalence of access impacts on a scale deemed sufficient to affect the outcome of conservation objectives for the European sites, it is clear that the current efforts to implement access management measures are not sufficient to deal with the current level of urban pressure placed on the European sites, and would therefore be unlikely to deal with the greater level of pressure that would result from development of the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown.

5.74

Current access management activities are undertaken on a site-by-site basis influenced by the available budgets and priorities of the respective landowners. Some of the sites receive far greater levels of ranger presence, whilst other sites currently have no dedicated ranger to deal with problems arising from public access. Co-ordinated access management across the European sites does therefore not currently take place, which has resulting in access management measures being implemented on a site specific basis without consideration for knock-on effects on other sites. Differing levels of ranger presence and foci for public communications may also result in a mixed message to visitors who frequent multiple sites; if there is more public contact and greater pressure placed on visitors regarding desired behaviours at one site but not others, then visitors may begin to question the validity of such requests.

5.75

An Integrated Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service covering the network of European sites and other open spaces surrounding Whitehill & Bordon, including SANGs, should therefore be established to deliver a consistent, co-ordinated and proactive ranger presence across the sites. This will also help to understand how the activities undertaken on one site may subsequently influence public access at another.

5.76

The amount of time dedicated specifically to managing access impacts should be increased from current levels. Whilst the activities of the Ranger Service can be expected to have a broadly beneficial effect across all European Sites and deliver a variety of incidental benefits, newly provided Ranger effort should be focussed on addressing the effects of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. The extent to which ranger activity and presence should be increased will need to be assessed on a site specific basis, and should be subject to regular review as part of the monitoring process (discussed in Section 6).

5.77

As a rough approximation, the sites that currently have a dedicated ranger to manage visitor access receive between 0.03-0.09 ranger hours per hectare per week. This may be used as a starting point to gauge the ranger effort that might be required to manage the total area of EU and non-EU (SANGs) sites that will need to be subject to a co-ordinated Ranger Service, which totals around 1,387 hectares (excluding the MoD â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;no public accessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; area at Woolmer Forest).

5.78

If the average figure of 0.07 ranger hours per hectare per week is used, then 97 ranger hours per week would be required in total, which assuming an average working week of 37.5 hours per week equates to 2.5 additional rangers.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

5.79

As a general indication however, if all of the sites were to be managed at the standard of the site receiving the greatest ranger effort (Ludshott Common), then 126 ranger hours per week would be required, accounting for 3.5 rangers across the network of EU and non-EU sites.

5.80

This should be viewed as a minimum standard for the management of these sites however, as the current level of Ranger effort employed at Ludshott Common could probably still usefully be enhanced. The amount of ranger effort required to adequately manage the network of sites should be considered in more detail at the outline planning application stage as part of the ongoing HRA process, in collaboration with the landowners and land managers of the European sites, and be informed through iterative feedback from the ongoing monitoring process in the future.

5.81

To provide a starting point for distributing ranger effort across the sites, Table 14 below sets out the number of ranger hours that would be provided for each site, based on an equal split of 3.5 rangers across each site on a per hectare basis. This means that larger sites will receive more ranger effort. However, Map 10 shows that the incidence of access impacts does not appear to be directly correlated with the size of a site. This may be a reflection of the incidence of recording effort, rather than the true incidence of access impacts, but may well be representative of the extent that sites closest to areas of housing are actually subject to. Appropriate distribution of ranger effort across the European sites should therefore also be considered further in collaboration with the landowners and land managers of the European sites, and be informed through iterative feedback from the ongoing monitoring process in the future.

5.82

As part of future calculations of total ranger effort required to manage the network of sites and appropriate distribution of ranger effort across the network of sites, it will important to take into account existing levels of ranger effort employed on sites to ensure a balanced distribution of additional effort. It will also be important to calculate the contribution that the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town makes to the total recreational pressure placed upon these sites, so that a proportionate contribution to the running of the Integrated Ranger Service can be made.

5.83

Ranger duties should include the following broad actions: •

Liaison with members of the public, reinforcing the educational message regarding responsible access and requesting desired behaviours where necessary;

•

Onsite liaison with Police Community Support Officers in respect of specific incidences of access impacts, and as part of routine site visits to reinforce the credibility of ranger efforts across the sites;

•

Implemented physical access management measures on site such as path improvements or diversions and installation of screening;

•

Installing and maintaining interpretation and signage on site;

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

•

Monitoring for and dealing with the effects of access impacts, including the removal/eradication of any invasive species, clearing fly-tipping, litter picking, and extinguishing BBQs; and

•

Maintaining an incident log and reporting the results of monitoring to the Integrated Access Management Group (IAMG) (discussed further in Section 6).

Step 5: Communicate the Desired Behaviours 5.84

The access rights associated with different types of land are complex, as are the sensitivities of ecological features present, the former of which are described in the Land Management Report (UE Associates, 2011a). Clear information must therefore be provided to convey to the users of a site what the desired behaviours are and the reasons for requesting them.

5.85

Information should be easily accessible and be available in multiple media types and at varied locations to foster maximum engagement. Communications should be based on the ideals of responsible access and recreation, not restrictions, and be consistent across all of the open spaces in and around Whitehill and Bordon.

5.86

Branding should be used to present an integrated and engaging approach that has credibility amongst the public. This could include Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town branding, but also branding to attract attention and interest from particular user groups. At Yateley Common Country Park credit card sized guides were developed with the Kennel Club, which contained information on the behaviours expected during visits, and this meant that the guide could have the Kennel Club logo on it to give it credence with dog walkers (HCC, undated). Other affiliates should be explored, such as the British Horse Society and walking groups such as Ramblers, The Long Distance Walking Association and Walking for Heath.

5.87

The provision of information should start at the home, with leaflets available to new home owners and a dedicated Whitehill & Bordon countryside access website provided to give information on the network of open spaces available, the sensitivities and access rights relevant to each, and the behaviours expected during visits. This will allow new residents to make an informed choice before they leave the house, and to form new patterns of access to the countryside from first occupation. Such an approach has been implemented in Dorset (www.dorsetdogs.org.uk; Figure 3) by the Urban Heaths Partnership, funded through the Interim Planning Framework. The website targets dog owners and dog walkers specifically, offering membership to Dorset Dogs and providing information about dog walking, the ‘doggy do code’, dog news, dog first aid and ‘doggy’ events such as this years Dorset Dogs Festival.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Figure 3: Dorset Dogs website homepage.

5.88

The merits of producing a website specifically for dog walkers should be explored. Whilst the dog walking community is tightly knit and heavily dog focused communications are more likely to appeal to dog walkers, other user groups should also be provided information relevant to their activity to ensure the most inclusive approach. This could be achieved by setting up user specific websites, but may be most effectively achieved by having an overarching website providing information about the background to the integrated access management strategy, the European site habitats and features, and then to have specific user group pages with information relevant to the various activities set out. This would be the format most likely to help alleviate conflict between user groups because website visitors could see that the access management requests are not solely related to ‘dog problems’ or ‘horse rider problems’, but that everyone is being asked to fulfil the role of being a responsible visitor.

5.89

The use of ‘Push’ technology to send messages to mobile phones could also be investigated. Push Technology Ltd. is one of several UK companies specialising in internet-based, central server originated, communication technologies that can deliver ‘Data on Demand’. Their communications platform ‘Diffusion’ enables large-scale, real-time, smart data distribution to any net-connected device such as a mobile phone, delivering a personalised experience regardless of content type, geography or network (Figure 4). Visitors to the Whitehill &

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Figure 4: Imagery conveying the Push Technology approach to communicating smart data (www.pushtechnology.com).

Bordon website could therefore register to receive user specific or site specific information about responsible access, events and other notifications using such push-based technology. 5.90

Information about responsible access to the European sites and other open spaces should then be distributed into the community. This will be achieved through placement of information in local newspapers, or through the distribution of leaflets at local vets, pet shops, countryside stores and other dog/horse service providers such as groomers, professional dog walkers and stables. Open day events could also be run to promote the new integrated approach to access management in and around Whitehill and Bordon and to advertise new open space provision. Specific Whitehill & Bordon user group clubs could then be set up to run regular events such as dog training days, organised walks, organised horse rides and volunteer working parties, to promote responsible access and to foster ownership of the network of open spaces surrounding Whitehill and Bordon.

5.91

Such an approach has been used at Jeskyns Park in Kent, where the Forestry Commission set up Jeskyns Dog Club (Figure 5) where members are asked to help spread responsible dog ownership messages at the community woodland. Engagement with other existing specialist groups, such as dog and kennel clubs, equestrian centres, rambling clubs, cycling clubs, bike hire companies, off-road/motocross clubs, youth groups and schools could also be undertaken as part of focused workshop events or activity days to inform, educate and promote responsible access to the European sites and the wider countryside.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Figure 5: Extract from Jeskyns Dog Club leaflet, Forestry Commission, Kent.

5.92

Clear and positive information should be provided on site, and in particular at access points that people are preferred to use from a management point of view, through the form of attractive interpretation boards at key access points into the site explaining the features of interest and the approach that has been taken to access management.

5.93

A recent audit of the infrastructure present at the main car parks at the European sites surrounding Whitehill & Bordon showed that many of the main access points did not display any interpretation material at all, and those that did had differing information depending on the landowner/manager (EPR, 2012; Figure 6). A continuous branded theme for interpretation and signage should therefore be used across all of the European sites and other open spaces to ensure consistent and easily understandable communication of information about responsible access. Relevant landowners/managers should be involved in the production of interpretation material, with logos displayed on interpretation panels to provide credibility.

5.94

Any notices around the site providing additional information, for example in respect of grazing, should be updated regularly so that users are clear that the information is still relevant.

5.95

The use of Push technology could also explored, which would allow real-time notifications to be sent to the mobile phones of visitors when they are located at certain points on a site.

5.96

Increased ranger presence on sites, delivering a clear and consistent message to visitors, will also be an important method of bringing about positive change and responsible access. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Figure 6: Range of interpretation and signage provided across the European sites (relevant sites are named below).

Broxhead Common

Woolmer Forest

Kingsley Common

Ludshott Common (left), Bramshott Common (right)

Longmoor Inclosure

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Steps 6 and 7: Monitor Change 5.97

The Monitoring Strategy set out in Section 6 will fulfil the requirements of steps 6 and 7 of HCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eight step approach by considering the wider consequences of implemented access management measures and the success of such measures in effectively altering access behaviours. Step 8: Enforcement

5.98

In the context of disturbance caused by dogs off the lead, there is no legal requirement for how a dog should be controlled on a Public Right of Way (PRoW), except where the PRoW runs through a field containing sheep. Access rights passed under the CRoW Act permit access on foot subject to dogs being on a fixed lead of no more than 2 metres long at all times of year around livestock and between 1 March and 31 July. Such access rights may be retracted upon non-compliance, but this would render the individual a trespasser as opposed to someone committing a legal offence unless another specific bylaw was passed to indicate otherwise. This is also the case for horse riding, cycling and other activities which are not specifically permitted under the CRoW Act, but still only constitute trespass unless bylaws state to the contrary.

5.99

Therefore if desired behaviours are not achieved through informed request and alternative recreational provision, and access impacts are still prevalent to such an extent that they are significantly affecting the conservation objectives for the European sites, then enforcement may be achieved through the passing of bylaws, Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) or Dog Control Orders (DCO). Such measures should only be implemented as a last resort however, as such enforcement is labour-intensive to implement and often simply displaces individuals to other locations (Jenkinson, 2011). A review of the implications of non-compliance on the conservation objectives of the European site(s) concerned should therefore be undertaken, in addition to a review of the measures implemented under steps 4 and 5, to identify further opportunities for improvement and to weigh the need to proceed with enforcement measures. Summary of Site-specific Access Management Measures and Key Components of the Outline Access Management Strategy rd

5.100

During the HRA Working Group workshop held on the 3 May, land managers were asked to provide their views regarding the potential access management measures that could be implemented at each site to deal with the range of site specific access impacts that have been identified.

5.101

The land manager aspirations for access management identified during the workshop have been considered alongside the updated ecological baseline information, the information on visitor access and the updated information on access impacts for each site, to develop a shortlist of site specific access management measures for each European site.

5.102

GIS analysis has also been used to inform an assessment of the parts of each European site where recreational access and the incidence of access impacts are likely to be having the greatest relative effect on the Annex 1 features for which the sites were designated.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

5.103

The Spatial Analyst extension to ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI UK) was used to create thematic maps 2 showing the density of Annex 1 bird territories per km , the distribution of sensitive Annex 1 2 habitats, the density of access impacts recorded per km , and the density of recreational 2 pressure in km walked per km across all of the European sites. Initial density plots produced using a continuous scale were then reclassified into seven density classes, except in respect of the Annex 1 habitats, which were either classified as low sensitivity (all woodland habitats) or high sensitivity (all remaining habitats) (Map 11). Density class seven relates to locations where the density of Annex 1 bird territories, access impacts or recreational pressure is ‘very high’ relative to the suite of European sites assessed, whereas density class one relates to locations where the density of those features is negligible.

5.104

Overlay analysis was then carried out to create a single density layer for public access effects (recreational pressure and access impacts), and a single density layer for the Annex 1 features themselves (Annex 1 birds and Annex 1 habitats). These two layers were then overlaid to identify the locations where the greatest conflicts between public access and the Annex 1 features is occurring (Map 12).

5.105

The results of this thematic output have been used to help determine the focus and spread of access management measures which are summarised in Table 14 and on Map 13. The results of the GIS analysis have been used with caution, however, since the data on access impacts was limited to that provided during the HRA Workshop sessions. It may therefore be possible that access impacts are better recorded on sites like Broxhead Common, which currently has a dedicated ranger, as opposed to sites such as Woolmer Forest which currently receives less ranger effort.

5.106

In addition to the measures set out in Table 14, other key components of the Outline Access Management Strategy include: • Measures to decrease the risk of cat predation on Annex 1 birds; • Provision of alternative open space for recreation; • Improved waste collection services; • Establishing Fire Management Plans; • Establishment of an Integrated Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service; and • Provision of educational information and improved communications regarding the Access Management Strategy.

5.107

Site-specific Outline Access Management Plans for each European site are then set out in separate appendices (Appendices 2-8) which contain all of the relevant information from this overarching strategy specific to each site. These outline plans represent embryonic Access Management Plans for each site which can be progressed alongside future iterations of the HRA, and indeed other parallel processes such as the Common Purpose process and the production of site habitat management plans. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Shifting Recreational Activity within a European Site 5.108

At this stage dog zoning areas are only indicative and are based on current information on the distribution of less sensitive woodland habitat types. Definitive areas will need to be carefully developed in consultation with the HRA Working Group, site managers and with those involved in producing draft Habitat Management Plans for Broxhead Common, Shortheath Common and Bramshott Common.

5.109

In several instances, the closure or reduction (or the investigation of potential charging) of car parking locations at European sites is proposed, and measures are also suggested in tandem with this for making other access points and parts of that European site appear the more ‘’obvious’’ or easy location to travel to if one wished to visit that European site.

5.110

This combination of measures has been deliberately paired in order to help encourage a ‘’shift’’ of the existing recreational pressure within a site away from the more sensitive areas, which generally speaking are those which the evidence suggests supports Annex 1 habitat types (in particular heathland), Annex 1 birds or other ecological features, and into areas of woodland which are considered on the information available to be more robust.

5.111

It should be noted that this is a very fine balancing act; the aim is to shift recreational pressure within a site by discouraging it in more sensitive areas and making it easier in less sensitive areas, not to encourage increased recreational overall. Encouraging a shift in recreation from one part of a site to another must therefore be carefully judged and monitored to ensure that it is encouraging the desired shift in recreational activity within each site, rather than encouraging the increase in such activity.

5.112

It is important also that the access management measures at European sites are undertaken in tandem with the delivery and enhancement of the proposed SANG areas, and coordinated with improved access management of SANG areas. The integrated approach should ensure that increases in recreation are limited to the SANG areas, but also that SANG itself it managed in a similar holistic fashion so that opportunities to maximise benefits for both wildlife and people are taken where available.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Table 14: Summary of potential access management solutions for the European sites with the potential to be affected by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map 13.

European Site Broxhead Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Unit no.

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Improved signage at the main car park and on site through the provision of one interpretation board, and waymarkers (number to be

Close lay-by at junction of B3004 and A325.

Consider restriction of parking in lay-bys on B3004 and A325 through bollards/barriers (maintaining access for emergency vehicles).

Consider introducing car parking charges and/or permit parking at the main Cricket Club car park.

Increase habitat management and grazing in centre of Broxhead East to reduce fire risk.

Provide one dog bin in the proximity of the main car park.

Additional ranger provision of 6 hours per week.

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be

Provide approximately five bollards/barriers to allow resident access to housing and emergency vehicles, but prevent unauthorised vehicle

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks.

Reduce size of central car park.

Consider relocating car park provision to Sleaford Bridge.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 4 hours per week.

Improved signage at the three main car parks and on site through the provision of three interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to

Reduce size of car park south of B3002.

Consider relocating car park provision to car park at the junction of the B3002 and Waggoners Wells Road.

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. x1

determined).

Kingsley Common

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. x2

determined). x5

access through the Common.

Ludshott Common

be determined).

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

European Site

Bramshott Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Unit no.

Increase habitat management and grazing in centre of site to reduce fire risk.

Consider feasibility of periodic re-routing of PRoW adjacent to Waggoners Wells lakes to prevent trampling and erosion.

Provide a litter bin at each of the three car parks.

Provide a dog bin in the vicinity of two of the car parks.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 22 hours per week.

x 22

Open car park at camp site/recreation ground and promote access.

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be

determined). 27

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 12 hours per week.

x 12

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round.

Woolmer Forest

wooded areas outside of the dismantled railway/MoD firing range; access into the centre of the site only to be permitted when red flags down and with dogs on lead during bird nesting season, and with dogs/horses remaining on tracks/bridleways year round. 32

Improved signage at the main car park and the northern-west access point and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards,

Provide one litter bin at the main car park and the northern-west access point.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the main car park and the northern-west access point.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 19 hours per week.

x 19

Reduce size of main car park off of Forest Road.

Improved signage at the main car park and on site through the provision of one interpretation board, and waymarkers (number to be

and waymarkers (number to be determined).

Longmoor Inclosure

determined).

Shortheath Common

Close vehicle access to Weavers Down car park through the provision of a bollard/barrier at the top of Queens Road.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 44 hours per week.

x 44

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

European Site

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Unit no.

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks.

Provide screening to block access to islands in bogs to south of Shortheath Pond.

Provide bollards/barriers at four locations to allow resident access to housing and emergency vehicles, but prevent unauthorised vehicle

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. x2

determined).

access through the Common. 46

Consider car park charging at both car parks.

Additional ranger provision of 5 hours per week.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

The Integrated Access Management Group Background 5.113

As set out at the start of this section, the previous Land Management Report and 2011 HRA recommended that an Integrated Access Management Group (IAMG) be set up to implement an Access Management Strategy for the European sites likely to be significantly affected by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals in the absence of impact avoidance and mitigation measures.

5.114

Similar approaches have been taken in The Thames Basin Heaths and The Dorset Heaths in order to manage visitor access to large networks of European sites (SPAs and SACs). Therefore the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Project (JSPB, 2009) and the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 20122014 (currently in draft form as a Supplementary Planning Document; February 2012) have informed our understanding of the important factors to be considered in establishing the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Integrated Access Management Group, and have fed into the wider GI management and maintenance proposals at Whitehill & Bordon. Composition of Group

5.115

Members should include representative(s) from East Hampshire District Council, Natural England, Hampshire County Council, the MoD, the National Trust, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust, the RSPB and other representatives from key interest groups that have been involved in the development of the Outline Access Management Strategy or who are identified during future stages of the Ecotown project. The organisational structure of the IAMG and related bodies is shown in context in Appendix 1. Aims and Objectives

5.116

The overall aim of the Integrated Access Management Group will be to protect the European sites around Whitehill & Bordon from additional recreational and urban pressures arising from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals through implementation of Access Management Plans for each European site, through provision of an Integrated Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service, through wider education regarding responsible access to the countryside and through the promotion of alternative green spaces (SANG and other Green Infrastructure).

5.117

Specific objectives of the group will include: • Setup and coordinate projects forming key components of the Access Management Strategy including measures to decrease the incidence of cat predation on Annex 1 birds, provision of alternative open space for recreation (including SANGs), delivering improved waste collection services, establishing Fire Management Plans for all of the European sites and provision of an integrated Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service; • Finalise and implement Site-specific Outline Access Management Plans for each European site taking forward outline information contained within this report;

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

• Establish appropriate branding for communications Management Strategy for the European sites;

regarding

the

Access

• Design and dissemination of educational information regarding the Access Management Strategy for the European sites, to promote alternative open spaces being delivered by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town and to promote responsible access to these sites through the production of a bespoke website, distribution of leaflets to new homes and to identified service providers in the local community, organisation of events, and provision of onsite interpretation and signage; • Creation of Whitehill & Bordon user group clubs and a programme of regular events to foster ongoing interest and ownership of the European sites and alternative open spaces being delivered by the scheme; • Evaluate and secure an appropriate mechanism for funding of the Access Management Strategy and the IAMG, and manage finances to support ongoing activities; • Finalise and implement a Monitoring Strategy to include monitoring the phasing of development, visitor access to the European sites and alternative open spaces, access impacts and condition of site infrastructure, and the ecological baseline for the European sites and alternative open spaces; and • Manage the monitoring database, analysing monitoring results and providing reports. Organisation, Governance and Finance 5.118

The organisation, governance and finance of The Integrated Access Management Group should be developed within a Business and Administration Plan for the Access Management Strategy. This will need to be considered further going forward in relation to any review of governance or organisational structure associated with all elements of the Eco-town project. The approach in the Thames Basin Heaths suggests that creation of a Project Board should be considered to oversee and steer the direction of the project, to ensure that objectives are being met and to ensure ongoing financial stability and cost efficiency of the group. This Board will need to be integrated/linked with the wider organisation structure of the Eco-town project team.

5.119

The organisational structure of the IAMG should also be closely linked to wider GI management and maintenance operations, to enable a coordinated approach to be taken to meeting the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and accommodating this in a planned, holistic way.

5.120

An Outline Business and Administration Plan provided as Appendix 1. This document should similarly be developed as the proposed Access Management and Monitoring Strategy is finalised alongside the Whitehill & Bordon Masterplan proposals and agreed with stakeholders.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

5.121

The Project Board in principle would review and agree the details of key Access Management Strategy components, the finalised format of educational information and associated branding, the finalised Site-specific Access Management Plans for each European site, and the details of the Monitoring Strategy. As part of the Business Plan, all of the objectives for the Integrated Access Management Group should be broken down to generate annual work programmes which should be targeted to coincide with the phased development of the Ecotown.

5.122

The Project Board would be made up of core members from the Integrated Access Management Group elected to generate a Board with a balance of relevant skills including knowledge regarding the Eco-town project specifics, SANG and Green Infrastructure design, habitat management, access management, ecological monitoring, project management, public relations and financial management.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

MONITORING STRATEGY

General Approach 6.1

Whilst the monitoring strategy forms an integral part of the Outline Access Management Strategy detailed in Section 5 and will be overseen and implemented by the Integrated Access Management Group, the monitoring objectives for the strategy are set out separately below for clarity.

6.2

The Land Management Report and 2011 HRA set out a suggested HRA monitoring framework which included the themes: monitoring of atmospheric pollution; disturbance and birds; urban edge effects; and habitats and typical species.

6.3

In order to determine the ultimate success of the Access Management Strategy a co-ordinated Monitoring Programme is required which uses standardised repeatable methods to allow analysis of long-term trends in recreational access patterns and urban edge effects, including identification of potential displacement activity. Broad Monitoring Objectives

6.4

Although atmospheric pollution has not been discussed as part of this HRA Refresh, where it has been identified to result in a likely significant effect on one or more European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, ongoing monitoring of atmospheric pollution levels should take place unless new information allows such impacts to be scoped out of future iterations of the HRA.

6.5

In respect of the Access Management Strategy, four monitoring themes can be identified as listed below. The first relates to monitoring the potential impact ‘’source’’ (e.g. additional dwellings and residents requiring recreational opportunity) and enabling good financial governance, whilst the other three relate to monitoring the impacts in respect of the ecological features likely to be affected (i.e. the Annex 1 birds and habitats of the SPAs and SACs that would represent the potential ‘receptor’ of any impacts in the absence of impact avoidance and mitigation measures). 1) Progress of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town development, including delivery of housing numbers, the receipt of financial contributions towards access management and monitoring measures, and the phasing of SANGs and Green Infrastructure; 2) The ecological baseline for the European sites and SANGs; 3) Visitor use of European sites and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) being delivered by the scheme; and 4) Incidences of access impacts on the European sites, both as a result of recreational access and urban edge effects. . Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

6.6

Not all of the themes will require site specific action at all of the European and proposed SANGs sites, and the primary and secondary importance of onsite monitoring actions is set out in Table 15 within the summary below. Progress of the Eco-town Proposals Specific Objectives

6.7

To monitor and record the progress of development of the Eco-town in order to feedback information on actual increases in the net population to the phased implementation of Access Management Measures, including SANGs, and to track any significant interactions between population increase and monitoring data from themes 2-4 set out above. Survey Methods

6.8

Information on the phased construction of the Eco-town will be obtained from the Eco-town Team. Specific information that should be fed back to the IAMG includes: • Numbers of houses occupied- information on the composition of the household could be obtained at the point of sale to provide the most accurate information on the net increase in population; • The receipt of financial contributions from development toward access management and monitoring measures (versus expenditure); • Extent of SANG delivered, and the boundaries of SANG land delivered if individual SANG compartments have a phased delivery; and • Extent and location of other Green Infrastructure and formal open space delivered. Periodicity

6.9

Regular information on changes to the Eco-town phasing plan should be fed back into the monitoring database, with regular progress meetings held at least every 6 months between the Local Delivery Vehicle (LDV) and the Integrated Access Management Group. Ecological Baseline Specific Objectives

6.10

To gather updated information on the ecological baseline for the European sites, in addition to those parts of SANGs that have been identified as supporting sensitive ecological habitats and features. This will inform an assessment of any decline in the distribution or range of ecological habitats or features, both those that are qualifying features of the SPAs and SACs and those that are more sensitive to recreational pressure and which contribute to the overall biodiversity of a site, as a result of increases in urban effects brought about by the development.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Survey Methods 6.11

Ecological baseline information should first be updated for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Policy Zone through desktop study of available information on the distribution of Broad Habitats, protected and notable species, and on SSSI condition. This may be achieved primarily through commission of a records search with HBIC and by exploring information on the Natural England website.

6.12

Dedicated ecological surveys should then be undertaken to update existing baseline information. The type of surveys that will be required for each site will depend upon the specific conservation objectives of each site; these are detailed in Section 3.

6.13

For SPAs (Broxhead, Kingsley, Ludshott and Bramshott Commons, and Woolmer Forest, Longmoor Inclosure) Annex 1 bird surveys should be undertaken as a monitoring action of primary importance. Woodlark have also been recorded holding territories at Shortheath Common SAC, indicating the presence of habitat suitable for ground-nesting birds, therefore Annex 1 bird surveys should also be undertaken at this site as an action of secondary importance, to inform an assessment of any potential displacement of bird territories as a result of increased recreational pressure on the other SPA sites.

6.14

The Annex 1 birds are already the subject of national monitoring on roughly a 10 year cycle, and 2 Jâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ecology have undertaken annual monitoring surveys from 2006 to date for the Whitehill & Bordon European sites. Standard well established ornithological methods for surveying each species are used. Such monitoring efforts should continue, using the same standardised methods and suitably qualified and experienced ornithologists, to inform the monitoring strategy for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. Where such survey work is already programmed, collaborative working with the IAMG should be sought.

6.15

The standard survey approach maps the numbers of each species holding territories, which is critical information; however such surveys do not provide information on how this relates to breeding success. In the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, breeding success of Woodlark is currently being studied by 2 Jâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ecology at a few select locations with the use of surveillance equipment. Such an approach could be considered for the Wealden Heaths SPA at specific locations where bird territories and recreational access strongly conflict, and where this is suspected as having a significant detrimental effect on the conservation status of the species(s). Such locations would need to be identified by detailed analysis of monitoring data.

6.16

Survey approaches employed thus far have used miniature cameras and video recorders to observe the potential reasons for birds being flushed from their nests and/or failure to fledge young, and could be achieved through the use of equipment that constantly records or that which is activated by motion. Any monitoring of this nature should be done with great care to ensure that the effects of existing levels of disturbance are not further compounded by survey effort.

6.17

For SACs, surveys to map the distribution of Annex 1 habitats should be carried out as a monitoring action of primary importance. This would also usefully be done for the SPA sites to help inform an understanding of the habitat resource available for the Annex 1 birds, although due to the time and costs involved in such survey work this could be considered as an action

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

of secondary importance for the SPAs since direct information on the distribution of Annex 1 birds will be monitored and habitat assessments could be undertaken as part of this process. Habitat surveys will not be required for the SANGs. As has been identified in Section 4, detailed up to date information on the distribution of Annex 1 habitats does not exist, and UK BAP Habitat data that can be used to derive broad areas that might support such habitats is known to be outdated for many of the European sites. Therefore update surveys are required to refresh the baseline against which the distribution of qualifying SAC habitats can be monitored. Such surveys would need to be done by extremely experienced botanists, and would not necessarily follow any standard NVC habitat mapping techniques owing to the specificity of some of the Annex 1 habitat types. 6.18

Other ecological features that are not qualifying features for the SPAs or SACs but which contribute to the overall biodiversity of these sites and are sensitive to recreational pressure and urban edge effects should be surveyed as a monitoring action of secondary importance for all of the European sites and SANGs to ensure that declines in biodiversity are not brought about by the development. It is possible that such data could be collected by local interest groups, such as the Longmoor Conservation Group who have an established group of biological recorders, and therefore the IAMG should foster strong links with such groups so that any biological data collected can be used to inform the best approaches for managing recreation. Specific interest groups could also be created as part of any community engagement efforts to specifically gather information on any key species or species groups. Periodicity

6.19

The distribution of Annex 1 bird territories might be expected to change most frequently, and be relatively greater influenced by stochastic events such as severe weather conditions and significant changes to visitor access brought about by implementation of access management measures. As described above, annual monitoring has been taking place across the European sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon since 2006 (2 Jâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ecology). 2 Jâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ecology also undertake annual monitoring surveys of the three Annex 1 bird species across the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Annual monitoring should therefore continue to allow long-term trends in territory numbers, distribution and/or range to be analysed. The IAMG should seek collaborative working with the established monitoring programme.

6.20

Natural England SSSI condition monitoring currently takes place on a 6 year cycle, presumably owing to the potential for marked changes in habitat composition or condition to occur within that time period. Time and cost implications associated with such work are also likely to have a significant bearing on the frequency of assessment. To tie in with the SSSI condition assessments, surveys to monitor potential changes in the distribution of Annex 1 or other key habitats should take place at this same periodicity.

6.21

Information on habitat management completed on the European sites should also be fed back into the monitoring database.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Visitor Monitoring Specific Objectives 6.22

To monitor changes in the patterns of recreational access to the European sites and SANGs, to determine whether visitor numbers to the European sites are increasing, decreasing or staying the same and whether any such patterns may be correlated with the levels of visitor access to the SANGs. This will inform as assessment of the effect of the provision of alternative open space on the recreational pressure observed on the European sites. Survey Methods

Visitor Survey 6.23

The principle method of assessing changes in the patterns of access to the European sites and SANGs will be to undertake further onsite visitor questionnaire surveys that may be compared year on year with previous survey results. Two data sets now exist regarding the patterns of access to these two types of open spaces; the first was obtained by UE Associates in 2009 and the second was obtained by EPR in 2012, the latter of which is being reported on alongside production of this report. Map 14 shows the access points that have been surveyed to date across the European sites, proposed SANG and other adjacent open space.

6.24

To understand the change in recreational access patterns potentially brought about by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town the subset of these access points likely to be visited either on foot or by car from the new residential areas should be surveyed. This will help to focus the data obtained, and the use of funds, on addressing the specific impacts potentially brought about by the Eco-town, as opposed to impacts originating from other sources.

6.25

The 2009 visitor survey (latest available results) showed that on average people arriving at the European sites on foot had walked 1.4km, and those that drove travelled 7.2km. Map 14 shows these distance bands projected from the residential areas proposed within the current Eco-town masterplan, highlighting the access points on the European sites that are most likely to be accessed. The pedestrian and car park access points falling within each of these respective bands should therefore be included within the visitor surveys undertaken for the purpose of monitoring the potential effects of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town, in addition to all of the access points to the SANGs. The access points included within future surveys should be reviewed by the IAMG, particularly in light of any access management measures implemented that would restrict or prevent access at any of these points.

6.26

It is important to note that these distances have been calculated as straightline distances ‘’as the crow flies’’ from the point of access to the heaths from the point of origin (home location), as opposed to distance from the boundary of the European site. Actual travel distances will usually be greater than straightline distances, and therefore inclusion of access points within the respective distance bands is likely to reliably intercept the majority of visitors to the European sites originating from the Whitehill and Bordon area.

6.27

Although Frensham Common is currently scoped out of the HRA, the main car park access (11E) should be included within the visitor survey to monitor any potential unexpected visitor Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

displacement to this site. Access point 4B is neither SPA, SAC nor proposed SANG, but is an adjacent Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) which supports Annex 1 birds. Car park access is feasible here, therefore this access point should be monitored to identify any potential visitor displacement. 6.28

The surveys should be undertaken using the same methodology as that employed during the 2009 and 2012 surveys. These methodologies follow a standard approach, based on that originally employed by Liley et al. (2005) in the survey undertaken on behalf of Natural England on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, which have been agreed with stakeholders during consultation undertaken in 2009 and 2012. The same questions as those posed in previous surveys, should be included in the questionnaire to ensure that behavioural changes can be assessed, although additional questions could be included to inform any particular additional queries arising during monitoring. The length of the questionnaire should, however, be kept as succinct as possible to ensure maximum participation. Automated Counters

6.29

Visitor survey data has been used to estimate the number of annual visits made to the European sites, and proposed SANGs. However, a visitor survey is only able to represent a snapshot in time unless access points are continuously monitored, which would clearly be prohibitively expensive. Automated counters, such as pressure pads, should therefore be installed at the main car parks and at significant pedestrian access points to provide further information to validate and refine estimations of annual visitation to the European sites and SANGs, as part of the long-term monitoring process.

6.30

Automated technologies provide a cost-effective, long-term and continuous approach to monitor visitor use of a site, but cannot provide qualitative information that can only be obtained through onsite surveys. Use of automated counters should therefore not replace onsite visitor surveys. Pressure pads installed at car parks also cannot provide information on the number of visitors contained within each vehicle, therefore periodic car park counts should also be undertaken, perhaps as one of the tasks whilst rangers are on site, to record the number of people and dogs contained within cars during a set time period. This will allow an analysis of the average occupancy of cars, and help to further refine the estimations of annual visits to a site.

6.31

Map 14 shows 13 indicative locations that would benefit from installation of automated counters across the European sites, and at least an additional 3 should be installed at the main car parks of the SANGs (locations to be determined by the detailed SANG design). The final locations for installation of automated counters will be determined by the IAMG, and siting of the counters will consider the potential for vandalism, theft or deliberate misuse. Pressure pads targeted to monitor pedestrian access need to be installed at suitable pinch points to a site where visitors will reliably trigger the device; pedestrian kissing gates would be particularly suitable locations. Resident Survey

6.32

It will be important to understand whether it is visitors who would otherwise visit the European sites who are using the SANGs, as opposed to other types of recreational user who do not visit the European sites, since such users may be taking up theoretical capacity within the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

SANGs which is intended to provide an alternative recreational resource for those that would visit the European sites. A resident survey in the Whitehill and Bordon area, to include existing and new residential addresses, should therefore be carried out as part of the monitoring process. This survey will also allow information on wider access patterns to the countryside to be obtained; helping to inform the design of any future additional SANG provision in the event that the monitoring indicated a deficiency in that delivered at the outset. 6.33

Face-to-face interviews conducted during door-to-door visits would guarantee a predetermined response rate or sample size, since the survey would continue until the desired number of interviews had been completed. Because the interviewee is taken through the questionnaire by a trained interviewer, this approach would also allow the most complex questions to be asked. For these reasons a door-to-door residents survey would return the most robust, high quality data, but would also be the most labour and cost intensive approach. Postal or telephone surveys could therefore be considered, although in the case of postal surveys some form of incentive should be considered to maximise the response rate. In order to establish a baseline against which to monitor change, a residents survey should be undertaken prior to commencement of the Eco-town development.

6.34

The questionnaire should pose similar questions to those asked during the visitor survey, such as sites visited, frequency of visits, method of travel, main activities undertaken during visits, reasons for choice of site, length of time spent on sites, whether dogs are taken and allowed off leads. Additional information on the composition of households, age of property, size of property, profession of homeowners should also be asked to allow further patterns in recreational behaviour to be drawn out. This will then help the IAMG to more effectively target the provision of educational information to promote responsible access to the countryside. Periodicity

6.35

The frequency of monitoring surveys to assess changes in recreational access patterns would best be undertaken at intervals associated with likely significant changes in home ownership in the local area. The average length of residence at a single address is 5 years, therefore monitoring surveys should be repeated at this periodicity. This is the frequency that has been employed for the purposes of monitoring across the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (UnderhillDay et al. 2008). Access Impacts Specific Objectives

6.36

To monitor the incidences of access impacts resulting from recreational access and urban edge effects on the European sites and SANGs. This will establish whether the measures taken to deter undesirable behaviour and to promote responsible access to the countryside have been effective, and will help to refine the educational message communicated within the community and on site. It will also inform any requirement for site improvements to maintain the attractiveness of the SANGs and therefore their effectiveness at diverting visitors away from the European sites. Such monitoring has been done in Dorset (DERC, 2005).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Survey Methods 6.37

The Integrated Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service should complete regular incident logs to record the location, frequency and type of access impacts observed on the European sites and SANGs. Incident logs could also be completed by existing site rangers, and/or any voluntary working groups/volunteers. Locations should be recorded with GPS units, to provide grid references that can be fed into a Geographical Information System (GIS) for spatial interrogation and overlay with other monitoring data.

6.38

The condition of site infrastructure should also be recorded as part of this exercise to distinguish general decline of site furniture and features from that of incidences of vandalism. Such information will feed back into an assessment of potential correlation between site infrastructure condition and visitor numbers, and will identify any requirement to implement site improvements. Periodicity

6.39

Incident logs should be completed on an ongoing basis as part of the ranger duties for a particular site. The information collected should be mapped and reviewed at least on an annual basis to inform work programmes for the following year, and to inform any revisions to the educational approach or themes communicated to the local community to promote responsible access. Monitoring Database Utilising Geographical Information Systems

6.40

Geographical Information Systems present an ideal approach to storing, managing and analysing large datasets that have a spatial or temporal data component. ArcGIS (ERSI UK), for example, allows powerful interrogative spatial analyses to be quickly carried out to visualise links between data themes, whilst still permitting raw data to be easily moved to/from Microsoft databases such as Excel and Access. This allows information to quickly be made available outside of the GIS environment, for example for the production of graphs for reports, or analysis of data using statistical tests.

6.41

The Spatial Analyst extension to this software package can, for example, analyse the potential for conflict between the qualifying features of the European sites, the density of recreational pressure across the sites as recorded during the visitor surveys, and the incidences of other access impacts, producing a visualisation of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;high risk areasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that should be the focus of access management. Such analyses should be undertaken as part of the data review process to map any shifts in conflict areas, so that the foci of management approaches can be shifted appropriately. Approach to data review and reporting

6.42

Monitoring data should be entered and backed up on an annual basis to safeguard work completed, with a full review and reporting of results set by the periodicity of surveys completed under the four monitoring themes set out above (5 years). Evaluation of the results by an impartial third party should be considered, to provide the greatest credibility in the end

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

result, with specialist consultants chosen to complete such evaluations based on relevant skills and previous experience. 6.43

Recommendations for changes to the Access Management Strategy or Site-specific Plans for the European sites, or for additional survey work, should be fed back to the LDV for authorisation. The Integrated Access Management Group will then be responsible for implementing such changes across the relevant portfolio of documents.

6.44

The ongoing costs of implementing the Access Management Strategy should be included as part of the evaluation, to feed information back to the LDV for budgeting access management works and monitoring surveys over the next monitoring period.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Summary of Monitoring Strategy Table 15 set out below identifies the monitoring actions that are required in respect of each EU site, in addition to alternative open space delivered (SANGs).

EU site

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Survey of other sensitive ecological features

Visitor Survey

Car Park Counters

Access impact incident log

Table 15: Summary of site specific monitoring actions.

Annex 1 bird survey

6.45

Broxhead Common

Kingsley Common

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

Woolmer Forest

Longmoor Inclosure

Shortheath Common

Hogmoor Inclosure

Bordon Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

Monitoring Theme

* P denotes monitoring actions of primary importance, S denotes monitoring actions of secondary importance, and â&#x20AC;&#x201C; denotes monitoring action not required.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Implications of Masterplan Amendments to the HRA

7.1

It is explained in Section 2 that the two principle revisions to the Masterplan (May 2012) of reducing the level of proposed new housing from 5,300 to 4,000 new homes, and increasing the area of proposed SANG is likely to have the following important effects: •

Reducing the number of new residents who might choose to pursue recreational activities upon European sites;

•

Increasing the capacity of the SANG network to absorb the recreational pressure generated by those new residents; and

•

Reducing the additional traffic generated by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals, and by extension the traffic-related air pollution that may affect European sites.

SANG Provision 7.2

Based upon Thames Basin Heaths SPA SANG Provision Standards only, the Revised May 2012 Masterplan appears likely to provide sufficient SANG to address the potential increase in recreational pressure of the anticipated number of new residents. This however needs to be confirmed, as the new extensions to the SANG network need to be considered to determine whether their SANG capacity should be discounted due to existing ecological value or existing visitor use. The latter, and the ‘’area-based’’ assessment of SANG capacity that was carried out in the November 2011 HRA Report can be usefully revisited in future phases of HRA work once imminent data being collected by the 2012 Visitor Survey becomes available.

7.3

In addition to the above, the 2012 Visitor Survey information should be used to revisit the ‘’density-based’’ capacity assessment of SANG that was carried out in the November 2011 HRA Report. This should be carried out alongside a review of the ‘’area-based’’ assessment of SANG capacity and the discounting methodology as described above, so that the likely accuracy of both methodologies can be considered in light of the best available information. Air Pollution

7.4

Following the reduction in the number of dwellings and the likely consequent reduction in vehicle use generated by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals, the revised traffic data should be used to revisit the air quality modelling assessment carried out in the November 2011 HRA.

7.5

Should modelling of the reduced traffic volumes still indicate that an effect upon a European site from traffic-related air pollution may occur, then the air quality over the affected area

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

should be accurately modelled, and any specific areas of predicted critical load/level exceedance for sensitive habitat types visited by a suitably experienced botanist, to survey the affected area(s), to determine whether the actual habitat types present may be sensitive to the predicted changes in air quality. This will increase the accuracy of previous assessment, which had to rely upon the best available existing information on the distribution of broad habitat types. Should the vegetation within the affected area be comprised of sensitive habitats that are qualifying features of the European site, then the mitigation measures set out in the November 2011 HRA Report should be developed and applied accordingly. 7.6

This approach would need to be integrated with wider air quality assessment work that is being undertaken on a wider scale by East Hampshire District Council’s Planning Policy department and Waverley Borough Council. Summary of Updated Information

7.7

This HRA Refresh has set out updated information on European site management, current site condition and ecological baseline. Information was obtained from Natural England, HBIC, the ARC, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, and HRA Working Group Members (including site owners and managers).

7.8

It will be important for HRA purposes as well as access management on European sites, to keep this evidence base current, and this task will fall to be carried out ultimately by the proposed monitoring strategy and the IAMG. Outline Access Management Strategy

7.9

The updated information on the management, condition, ecology and access of European sites, including that provided by HRA Working Group members in the 3 May 2012 workshop, has been used to develop an Outline Access Management Strategy, the organisational Structure for which is set out in Appendix 1: Outline Business and Administration Plan. This document provides a framework through which funds generated by development at Whitehill & Bordon can be collaboratively targeted toward necessary Access Management and Monitoring measures by the IAMG and related bodies, and help to speed the process through which funds are delivered to the right Delivery Partner to implement required works on the ground. The proposed IAMG is intended to foster an inclusive approach to access management and make strong links with those organisations implementing habitat management plans.

7.10

The information gathered and discussions with site owners/managers has been used to produce an Outline Management Strategy set out within this HRA Refresh, and the key sitespecific measures are detailed for convenience in Embryonic Outline Access Management Plans (OAMPs) for each European site provided at Appendices 2-8. The OAMPs should be developed further as HRA work progresses (including in particular during the work being carried out for the outline planning application stage), and in parallel with contiguous process such as ‘’Common Purpose’’, and the production of habitat management plans. Measures will need to be discussed and agreed with site owners and managers.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

7.11

The current HRA Refresh and Outline Access Management Strategy rely on the results of the 2009 visitor survey and on limited information regarding the distribution of Annex 1 habitats. The results of the 2012 visitor survey should therefore be incorporated into future revisions of these documents.

7.12

More detailed survey work to map the distribution of Annex 1 habitats across the European sites should be undertaken as previously recommended in the November 2011 HRA. This work will inform the Outline Access Management Plans for each site, but will also guide ongoing monitoring of the success of implemented access management measures in mitigating impacts arising from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town as well as existing recreational pressure.

7.13

As part of work to develop the OAMPs, land owners and managers were consulted regarding the exact land ownership and management boundaries for the European sites. Shortheath Common is largely owned and managed by Hampshire County Council; however a small percentage is in private ownership. This privately owned land lies to the west of Roman Road in the south-west corner of the site, and comprises a number of houses with associated gardens. The reason for inclusion of this land within the SAC boundary should be investigated as part of further work carried out at the planning application stage.

7.14

A survey of existing residents in the Whitehill & Bordon Policy Zone is recommended. This information will provide a clearer picture of the actual percentage of residents of Whitehill Bordon that travel to European sites, as well as the likely pattern of recreational activity that will be adopted by new residents in the same area. This information will be invaluable as part of an ongoing monitoring strategy (discussed below), and would best be undertaken in Autumn or Spring when the chances of intercepting residents when they are at home, as opposed to on holiday, will be maximised.

7.15

Habitat Management Plans for many of the sites that are registered as Common Land are also currently being produced following â&#x20AC;&#x153;A Common Purposeâ&#x20AC;? approach. Sites currently going through the Common Purpose exercise include Broxhead Common, Shortheath Common and Bramshott Common. Due to the consultation process involved in agreeing habitat management for Commons, these Management Plans are not due to be finalised for some time. The IAMG should therefore work to ensure that the aims and objectives of the Habitat and Access Management Plans are mutually deliverable, and the Access Management Plans for each site, once progressed beyond the outline stage, must take account of, and be complementary to, the overarching Habitat Management Plan for the site.

7.16

The timing of implementation of access management measures should be carefully developed, so that the programme of works complement the phasing of development and its associated SANG, to ensure that visits are not displaced to other more sensitive locations. Where visitor displacement is apparent the effects of increased visits at the alternative site must be weighed against the sensitivities of that site and its conservation objectives, with swift action taken to remedy such displacement if it is deemed to have a greater adverse effect on the Annex 1 habitats and species for which the network of European sites are designated.

7.17

Utilising GIS to analyse high risk areas with the greatest potential for conflict between Annex 1 habitats and species, recorded visitor access levels and historical incidences of specific visitor Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

access issues, individual hotspot maps showing the spatial distribution of the above themes can be overlaid, so that those parts of the sites subject to conflict can be isolated and highlighted to inform the focus of access management plans. 7.18

The Access Management Strategy will address the existing adverse effect of recreational pressure and access upon European sites, as well as the potential contribution from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

7.19

One of the principal ways in which this will be achieved is through the establishment of an Integrated Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service that covers the network of European sites and other open spaces surrounding Whitehill & Bordon, including SANGs, to deliver a consistent, co-ordinated and proactive Ranger presence across the sites. As part of future calculations of total Ranger effort, and funding, required to manage the network of sites, it will be important to calculate the contribution that the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town makes to the total recreational pressure placed upon these sites, so that a proportionate contribution to the running of the Integrated Ranger Service can be made. Monitoring Strategy

7.20

The same updated body of information and discussions with the HRA Working Group Members have been used to develop a framework to monitor changes in both the visitation, impacts and ecology of European sites as well as the potential effects of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals. The organisational structure of the IAMG and related bodies shown in Appendix 1 is arranged to enable swift feedback of monitoring results to the IAMG so that appropriate action can be taken if adverse changes are detected.

7.21

The key aspects to be monitored are: 1) Progress of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town development, including delivery of housing numbers, the receipt of financial contributions towards access management and monitoring measures, and the phasing of SANGs and Green Infrastructure; 2) The ecological baseline for the European sites and SANGs; 3) Visitor use of European sites and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) being delivered by the scheme; and 4) Incidences of access impacts on the European sites, both as a result of recreational access and urban edge effects.

7.22

Item 1 above will be monitored through information collected by the LDV and the appointed Treasurer to the IAMG (see Appendix 1). Monitoring tools to gather the remaining data will be comprised of; ongoing (but targeted) visitor surveys, the placement of automatic vehicle counters at the car parks of European sites and SANG, newly proposed surveys of residents in the Whitehill & Bordon Policy Zone, the maintenance of an access impacts log, targeted surveys of Annex 1 habitats, and a full audit of existing access points to enable more accurate extrapolations of annual visits to EU sites. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

7.23

The proposed Ranger Service will be responsible for maintaining the log of access impact and incidences, as well as reporting the results of monitoring to the IAMG, who will then have the means of reacting to the implications of the interpretation of that data. The organisational framework outlined in Appendix 1 will enable the IAMG to decide upon the required action and transfer the necessary funds to the Delivery Partner best placed to take remedial action.

7.24

The ‘’feedback loop’’ that enables the results of monitoring to be rapidly translated into remedial action will be of considerable importance in protecting the integrity of the relevant European sites into the future, and in providing the required confidence that potential impacts will be avoided and addressed.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50, 179-211. Burley, P. (2007) Report to the panel for the Draft South East Plan Examination in Public on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and Natural England’s Draft Delivery Plan. Census (2001) Clark, J. (2011) Monitoring of EC Birds Directive Annex 1 species on the lowland heaths within East Hampshire DC. 2Js Ecology. Dorset Environmental Research Centre (2005) The Urban Heaths LIFE Project (UHLP) Incident Reporting Wardens’ Season (01 April – 30 September) Review 2002 – 2005. Edwards, V. & Knight, S. (2006) Understanding the Psychology of Walkers with Dogs: new approaches to better management. University of Portsmouth. English Nature (1984) Bramshott and Ludshott Commons SSSI Citation. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003749.pdf Forestry Commission (2012) Jeskyns Community Woodland: Visiting Jeskyns with your dog. GIDE Associates (2012) Long-term Framework for the Management and Maintenance of Green Infrastructure. Halcrow (2011) Whitehill Bordon Green Infrastructure Strategy. Halcrow (In Prep 2012) SANG Design and Delivery. Hampshire County Council (Undated) Taking the lead: managing walkers with dogs on your site. Haskins, L. E. (2000) Heathlands in an urban setting: effects of urban development on heathlands of south-east Dorset. British Wildlife, 4, 229-237. Jackson, D. L. (2000) Guidance on the interpretation of the Biodiversity Broad Habitat Classification (terrestrial and freshwater types): Definitions and the relationship with other classifications. JNCC Report 307. Jenkinson, S. (2008) Final Report: Walkers with Dogs around Winchester. Jenkinson, S. (2011) People and Dogs in the Outdoors. Research report for Cairngorms National Park Authority. Joint Strategic Partnership Board (2009) Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework. As endorsed, February 2009. Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report – November 2012

Land Use Consultants (2006) East Hampshire District Landscape Character Assessment. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.easthants.gov.uk/ehdc/formsfordownload.nsf/0/8D9074AF15CF2D9F80257219005 92068/$File/Final+Report+Chapters+1-6.pdf Liley, D., Jackson, D. & Underhill-Day, J. (2005) Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths. English Nature Research Report. Ministry of Defence (2012) Longmoor range and training areas. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/DefenceEstateandEnvironment /AccessRecreation/SouthEast/LongmoorRangeAndTrainingAreas.htm National Trust (2009) Ludshott Common. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.ntludshott.org.uk/ludshott.htm Natural England (1994) Woolmer Forest SSSI citation. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004188.pdf Natural England (2012a) European Site Conservation Objectives for Shortheath Common Special Area of Conservation Site code: UK0030275. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/UK0030275-Shortheath-Common-SAC_tcm631877.pdf Natural England (2012b) European Site Conservation Objectives for Wealden Heaths Phase 2 Special Protection Area Site Code: UK9012132. Retrieved August 2012 from http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/UK9012132-Wealden-Heaths-Phase-2-SPA_tcm632266.pdf Short, C., Hayes, E., Selman, P. and Wragg, A. (2005) A Common Purpose; A guide to agreeing management on common land. English Nature, Peterborough. Sport Industry Research Council (2008) Assessment of Perceptions, Behaviours and Understanding of Walkers with Dogs in the Countyside. The Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2010-2011. The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014 Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Draft. UE Associates (2009) Visitor Access Patterns on European Sites Surrounding Whitehill and Bordon, East Hampshire. UE Associates (2011) HRA Land Management Report. UE Associates & Jonathan Cox Associates (2011) Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Draft Framework Masterplan.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Underhill-Day, J. C. (2005) A literature review of urban effects on lowland heaths and their wildlife. English Nature Research Report Number 623.

Underhill-Day, J. and White, J. (2012) Broxhead Common- An Options Appraisal. Footprint Ecology, Dorset. www.dorsetdogs.org.uk

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Habitats Regulations Assessment refresh P12/03-1D

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Maps

Map 1

Masterplan for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Map 2

Site Location and Nature Conservation Designations

Map 3

SANG Provision with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

Map 4

European Site Land Ownership & Land Management

Map 5

SSSI Condition Assessment

Map 6

UK BAP Broad Habitats

Map 7

Annex 1 Bird Records & Key Habitats

Maps 8a-8g UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch1 Species for Each European Site Map 9

2009 Visitor Survey

Map 10

2011 & 2012 Visitor Access Impacts

Map 11

Distributions of Annex 1 Features & Public Access Impacts

Map 12

Key Areas of Conflict between Public Access & Annex 1 Features

Map 13

Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures

Map 14

Monitoring Strategy

MAP 1 Masterplan for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town KEY Settlement policy boundary SANG network Natural open space Residential Mixed use town centre Employment Employment and housing Employment and commercial leisure Community, education & sports Indicative location of allotments

Source: East Hampshire District Council

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map1_Masterplan_P1203-1A_161112.mxd

P12/03

MAP 2 Site Location & Nature Conservation Designations Wealden Heaths SPA Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI

KEY Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary

Kingsley Common

Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Broxhead Common

Functional site names given in black; Nature conservation designations given in red. Shortheath Common Shortheath Common SAC Shortheath Common SSSI

Ludshott Common

Wealden Heaths SPA Bramshott and Ludshott Commons SSSI Bramshott Common

Woolmer Forest Wealden Heaths SPA Woolmer Forest SAC Woolmer Forest SSSI

SCALE: 1:40,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

Longmoor Inclosure Wealden Heaths SPA Woolmer Forest SSSI

P12/03

MAP 3 SANG Areas 1.77

KEY Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary

0.37

SANG boundaries shown on Framework Masterplan June 2010

0.43 1.82

Proposed SANGs network, May 2012 (areas in hectares are shown inset)

32.45 6.32 0.37

0.19

4.57

BORDON INCLOSURE

0.95 0.14

0.05

1.62 3.75 0.08 0.06

0.95

9.93

0.13 0.06 1.99

0.64

0.19 1.05 0.13

59.58

STANDFORD GRANGE FARM HOGMOOR INCLOSURE 49.54

0.67 1.65

SCALE: 1:12,000 at A3 0

200

400

600

0.39

800 Metres

Âą

0.21

0.19

P12/03

MAP 4 European Site Land Ownership & Land Management Kingsley Common

KEY

! ! !

Broxhead Common

Land manager MoD HIWWT Hampshire County Council

! ! !

National Trust

Shortheath Common

The ARC Trust Privately managed

Landowner Ludshott Common

MoD Hampshire County Council National Trust Privately owned

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

SCALE: 1:35,000 at A3

! !

Bramshott Common

! !

Woolmer Forest !

! !

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research Longmoor Inclosure CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map4_LandOwnerManager_P1203_141112.mxd

P12/03

MAP 5 SSSI Condition 4

Kingsley Common

KEY 1

Favourable

Unfavourable recovering

Broxhead Common

Unfavourable no change

4 5

2 3

Unfavourable declining

Shortheath Common

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

38 4 3

39 21

25 22

26 17

Woolmer Forest

19 27

41 28

SCALE: 1:35,000 at A3

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

12 33

35 36 13 16

Ecological Planning & Research

32 31

37 34

Longmoor Inclosure

CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map5_SSSIFavourableCondition_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

MAP 6 Broad Habitats

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area for Conservation (SAC) Acid Grassland Arable and Horticulture Bracken Broadleaved Woodland Built-Up Areas and Gardens Calcareous Grassland Coniferous Woodland Dwarf Shrub Heath Fen, Marsh and Swamp Improved Grassland Inland Rock Neutral Grassland Rivers and Streams Standing Open Water and Canals Unknown Habitat

SCALE: 1:35,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP 7 Annex 1 Bird Records & Key Habitats

# #

KEY # #

Special Protection Area (SPA)

## # # # # ## #### ## ## #### # # # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # ## # # ## ## ## # #### # # # ### # ## # ## # # # ## ##

# #

# ## ##

Special Area for Conservation (SAC) Broadleaved Woodland Coniferous Woodland

Dwarf Shrub Heath

# ##

Fen, Marsh and Swamp ## # ### # #### # # ## # ## ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # ## # ## #### ### ## ## ## ## ## # # # # # ## # ## ### ## # ## # ## ### ## # # #### ### # # ## ### ## # # # # # # # # # ## ### # ## # ## #### # ## # # ## ## # # # # #

Standing Open Water and Canals #

Dartford Warbler

Nightjar

Woodlark

# #

# ## # ###

## ## # ##

# # # # # ## # # ## ## # # ## # # # # #### ## ### # # ### # # # # # # # ### ## # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # ### # # # ## # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # ## # ## # ## ## ## ## # # # ## ## # # ## # ## ## ## ## # # # ## # # #### # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # ### # ## # ## # ## # ## ## # ### # # ## # # ## ## # # # # ## ## ## ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # ## # # ### # ## # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # ## # ### ## # # ## # # # #### # # # # # #

## #

# ##

# #

SCALE: 1:35,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # # # #### # ### # # # ### # # # ### ### # # # ##### # ## # # ### ### # ## # # # ## ## # ## # ## ## ### # ## ##### # # ## ## # ### # # # ## ### # ##### # # # ## ### # ## # # ## # ### # ## # # ## # # ## # ### # ## ## # # # # # # # ### # # ## ### # # ## ### ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # #### ## ### # # # # # ### # # # ### # # ### # # # # # # ## # #

P12/03

MAP 8a

UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Broxhead Common

Special Protection Area (SPA)

( !

Sky Lark

Reptile

( !

Spotted Flycatcher

Amphibian

( !

Tree Pipit

( !

Common Bullfinch

@ !

Yellow Wagtail

( !

Common Crossbill

@ !

Yellowhammer

( !

Common Cuckoo

( < !

Common Linnet

( < !

Common Quail

( < !

European Turtle Dove

( !

Fieldfare

( !

Green Sandpiper

) "

Cinnabar

( < !

Hoopoe

) "

Grayling

( !

Lesser Redpoll

) "

Minor Shoulder-knot

( !

Lesser Spotted Woodpecker

) "

Mottled Rustic

KEY

( !

Little Egret

) "

Neglected Rustic

( !

Redwing

) "

Purple Emperor

( !

Reed Bunting

) "

Silver-studded Blue

) "

Silver-washed Fritillary

) "

Small Square-spot

) "

White-line Dart

# * # *

# ** # * # # * # * # * # * # * # * *# # *# * ** # * # # *#

) "

< <<

W X

) "

Mossy Stonecrop Smooth Cat's-ear Buff Ermine

) "

W X

) "

W WX XX W ) )" )" "

# * ) "

W") X

" " ) ) )" " )

Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre and Amphibian & Reptile COnservation Trust SCALE: 1:6,000 at A3 0

# *

Coral-necklace

# *

Annual Knawel

W XX W

) "

# *

) "

) # *# # # * *" # ** # *# * # * # * # * * # * # * #

W XX W

)# )" )! " ( " ) *" ( ! !! @ !( ( !( # * ! ( (! (( < )" !" # ) *! ! ( ) " (! < (! ! ! (! ( ( < @! ! # *" ((# < )! * <

# *# * *# ## * * W# X # *# * * * # *# # * # * # * # *# * # * # * * # *# # * # * W X # * # # * *# # * # ** # * # * # # # *# * * # * *# *# *# * # * # * # * # * # *# *# # * * * # * # # * # # * # # * * *# # * # * *# * # # * * *# * # * *# # *# # * # * # * # * # # * # ** # * # * # *# # * *# # # * *# # *# # * * * # * # * * # * * # * *# # *# # * # *# # # * *# # * *# # * # *# # # * * # * # * # * # * * * # * * *# *# # # *# * # * *# *# *# # * # * # * # * # * # * # *# *# # # * * # # * ** # # * * # * * # * # * # * ) " # # *# * *# W* # *# # *# *# *X * * # *# # * # # * * * # # * *# * *# # * #

X W W X W X W X W X

) "

100

200

300

) "

400 Metres

Âą

) "

P12/03

MAP 8b

UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Kingsley Common

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Reptile

( < !

Hoopoe

( !

Tree Pipit

W X

Mossy Stonecrop

W X

Tower Mustard

) "

Silver-studded Blue

( !

( < !

# *

W X

) "

W X

) "

Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre SCALE: 1:5,000 at A3 0

100

200

300 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP 8c UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Shortheath Common

Special Area for Conservation (SAC)

) "

Ear Moth

Reptile

) "

Festoon

Amphibian

) "

Ghost Moth

( !

Common Cuckoo

) "

Grayling

( !

Common Kingfisher

) "

Hedge Rustic

( < !

Common Linnet

J ) "

Knot Grass

( !

Common Quail

J ) "

Minor Shoulder-knot

( !

Common Snipe

J ) "

Mottled Rustic

( < !

European Turtle Dove

J ) "

Neglected Rustic

( !

Fieldfare

J ) "

Oak Lutestring

( !

Lesser Redpoll

J ) "

Orange Footman

KEY

( !

Lesser Spotted Woodpecker

J ) "

Rosy Rustic

( !

Northern Lapwing

J ) "

Rustic

( !

Redwing

J ) "

Sallow

( !

Reed Bunting

J ) "

September Thorn

( !

J ) "

Shoulder-striped Wainscot

Spotted Flycatcher

( !

E ) "

Silver-studded Blue

Tree Pipit

@ !

E ) "

Small Heath

Yellowhammer

E ) "

Small Phoenix

E ) "

Small Square-spot

E ) "

White Admiral

E ) "

White Ermine

E ) "

White-line Dart

E ) "

Keeled Skimmer

E ) "

Small Red Damselfly

# * # *

E ) "

# * E ) "

* ## * E ) (" < !! ( " E ) ) "

X # * W # *

W X ) E" ) "

( !

# *

Tubular Water-dropwort

) "

Autumnal Rustic

) "

Blood-Vein

) "

Buff Ermine

) "

Cinnabar

# * @ ) " E < ( ! # *

) )" E" ) " J ) E" ) E" ) "" J ) J ) )" " )" " J " ) E" ) J )" " ) ) J" ) J" ) " J ) )" J" ) J ) ) " " J ) " <

# *

Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre SCALE: 1:6,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP 8d

UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Woolmer Forest

KEY

# * # *

( !

W X < <

) "

< <

< <<

< <

( !

) "" )

( ! (! ! (( !

# *# *# *# * # *# *# ** # *# * #

# * * # *#

W X

Black-tailed Godwit Brambling Common Bullfinch Common Crossbill Common Cuckoo Common Grasshopper Warbler Common Greenshank Common Linnet Common Pochard Common Redshank Common Snipe Dunlin Eurasian Curlew

Eurasian Marsh Harrier

Lesser Redpoll

Red Kite

X W W X W X W X W X W X W X

Eurasian Hobby

Eurasian Reed Warbler

Little Plover

Eurasian Wryneck Fieldfare Firecrest Gadwall

" ) ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) "

Goosander Green Sandpiper Hen Harrier

Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Little Egret Little Gull

Merlin Northern Lapwing Osprey Pied Avocet

Redwing Reed Bunting Ring Ouzel Ruddy Turnstone Sky Lark Song Thrush Spotted Flycatcher Tree Pipit Whimbrel Whinchat Wood Warbler Yellow Wagtail Yellowhammer Marsh Clubmoss Coral-necklace Green-flowered Helleborine Mossy Stonecrop Smooth Cat's-ear Tower Mustard Vulpia ciliata subsp. ambigua Blood-Vein Cinnabar Ear Moth Grayling Heath Rustic Knot Grass Latticed Heath Oak Hook-tip Rustic Silver-studded Blue Silver-washed Fritillary Small Phoenix White Admiral

Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre and Amphibian & Reptile COnservation Trust

! # *( ( < # *! *# ! (

SCALE: 1:16,000 at A3

! (

W X X W

Black Redstart

# *# *

) "

( ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! !< ( # @! ! (( < * ! ! ) # " *! * # ( @# ! *! ( ( ! *# # * ( (( < !! ! <

! (! ( ( # !! ( *# * <<

X W

# *

) "

< <

# *

* ## *

( ! ! ( ( < !

# * * # # * # * # * # * # # # * * * # * *# *# *# # * # * # * # * # *# * # # * * # * # * # * * * # # * # * # # * * * # # # # * ( ! *# # * # * # * * # # * # *# # # * # * * # # # # * # * * * * # # * # # *# * * * # * # * * # * # * * # # * * # # # * * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # # * * # * # * # * # * # * # # * * *# # *# * # *# * # # *# *# * * # # * * # * # * # * # * # * # *# # * # * # * # # * * # # * * * # # * * # # * * # * # * # * # *# # * * # # * * # # # * * *# * # * # * # # * * # # # * * *# # # ## # * * * * * # * * * # # * # * *# # # * * # * *# # *# *# # # # # * * * * # *# * # * *# # # *X * * W # * # # # * * * # * # * # * # # # * * # * * # # * * # * # * # * # * # * # # * # *# * # *# # * *# * # * # * # * * *# # # *# * * # * # * * # * # # *# # *# * *# *# # *# * # * * # * # * # # * * # * # * # * *# ** # *# * # * * * # # * * # *# # *# * # # # * *# *# # * # *# *# * # *# # * # * # * # *# * * # *# * # *# * *# # * *# *# # *#

< <

# *

W X

( ! < !( ( (! ! ! ( !( ! ( ( ! ! ) ( " (! # # * * (! < ( !< ! (! * @ # ) ! " ( < ( ! * # * (! ## (! < ( * (! < (! < ! ! (! # # ! ( ( < ! # ( *# * * *! ( ! # *# * # * # @! (! < @ * ## * * ( # < ! # *# ) " # * * * # *# *# * * # @ # ! * # * # # # * # * * * # * ( (! < ! # *

)" ) )" " ) "

# *

< <<

# * # *! ( # ! (! < *# * ( (# ! * ( ! ! # ( < * ( ! W X # * # * # * # * ) " * # * *# # *# *# * W # X # * # * # # * # * *# * * # * @! ! # (< (! ! (! ( # *# # ( ! * # * ( ! # # ! # (* (( < ! * * * !( ( ! ! # ( ! * # * # * # * # @! !# ( ( ! ( @! # < ( ! * * *# * *# W X # * *# @ ( !! (! * * ! ( ! * # # W(! # X (! *# (( ! ( ! < ( < ( ! < ! # *" ) # * # * # # * * ( < ! # ! ( ) " ( < ! * # * # # * * # * * # *# *" * # * *# # * *# *# (# ! W) # X

) X X W W# *" W X

" ) ) "

< < <

W X

# *

# * # * # * # *# * * # *# # * # *# # * # # * * * *# *# *# # * *# * # *# # *

( ! ) "

) "

( !( ! ( !! ( ) @ " !

( ! (# ! * ( !

! !( ( < @ !

Barn Owl

< < < < < < < <

# *

Amphibian

< < < <

! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( < ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

Reptile

! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! @ ! @ ! @ ! @ ! @ !

< < < < <

Special Area for Conservation (SAC)

< < < < < < < < <

Special Protection Area (SPA)

250

500

750

1,000 Metres

Âą

# * # *

P12/03

MAP 8e

UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Longmoor Inclosure

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area for Conservation (SAC)

( ! (! < (! ! ( !! ( (

( !

< <

( ! <( ! <<

< < < <<

(! (! < ( (! ! (! (( < ! !! !( ( ( ! ( < ! @ !

< < << <

) "

) " ) " ! (

W X

# ( ! * # * * # (( ! ! (! ( # * # * ! (! @! (

) "

!@! ( @" ! ) !" ) ! ( ( (! < !! !( ( <

) "" )

) "

WX X W # * # * # * ) "

! ( ( ! ( ! <

Common Crossbill

! ( < ( ! < ( ! < ( !

Eurasian Curlew

Fieldfare

! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

Firecrest

Lesser Redpoll

Red Kite

! ( ( ! ( ! ( !

Reed Bunting

! ( @ ! @ ! @ !

Tree Pipit

Brambling Common Bullfinch

Common Cuckoo Common Linnet

" ) ) " ) " ) " ) "

Eurasian Hobby Birds, European Turtle Dove

Bird's-nest Coral-necklace Heath Cudweed Monotropa hypopitys subsp. hypopitys Mossy Stonecrop Wood Tiger Beetle Lepidoptera, Buff Ermine Cinnabar Grayling Latticed Heath Shoulder-striped Wainscot Silver-studded Blue

Hen Harrier

Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Little Egret Little Plover

Redwing

Sky Lark Song Thrush Spotted Flycatcher

Whinchat Wood Warbler Yellowhammer

Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre and Amphibian & Reptile COnservation Trust

< < < <

< <<

) "

WX X W

# *

<< <

) "

( < !

W X

# *

X W XX W W @! # *! ( ( ! # *! ( ! ) " W X @( (! ! ( (! < ! (! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ( W ( X (< (! ! " )

W X

X W W X # *

) "" ) ) "

# # * * # * W X # * # # # * * * W X * # *# # * # # * # * # * # * * # # * * W X

) "

< <

( ! ( !( ! ( !! @ ! ( @! ! ! (( ( # *! ( ! ( < # *!

# # * * * # * # * # # * # * # # * * ( < ! # * # # * # *! * (* W# X !! #( (( ! * (# # # # *! * # * * # * * @ # * ! # # * # * # * *

Black Redstart

< <

W X

! ( ( ! ( !

# * # *

X W W X W X W X W X W X W X

Amphibian

< < < < < < <

W X

* W# XX W WX WX W X W WX X

Reptile

< < < <

# * # *

SCALE: 1:17,500 at A3 0

250

500

750

1,000 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP 8f

UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Ludshott Common

KEY

( !

Common Cuckoo

( !

Common Kingfisher

( !

Common Nightingale

( < !

Eurasian Hobby

( < !

European Turtle Dove

( !

Fieldfare

( !

Lesser Redpoll

( !

Redwing

( !

Reed Bunting

( !

Spotted Flycatcher

( !

Tree Pipit

@ !

Whinchat

@ !

Yellowhammer

) "

Grayling

) "

Silver-studded Blue

) "

Silver-washed Fritillary

) "

Small Heath

Common Crossbill

< <

( !

# *

Common Bullfinch

) )" " ) "

* # *# *#

# *

( ! ! " ( ) ! ( @! ! ( (!

( ! ! ( ! ( @ ! !! ( ) " ( < (" ! ) ( " ) @! ! (! (! (!

( !

* # *#

)" " )

Reptile

) "

# *

Special Protection Area (SPA)

) "

) " )" " )

# * ( < !

Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre

# *

SCALE: 1:10,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

# * Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map8f_SpeciesRecordsLudshott_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

MAP 8g

UK BAP, Hampshire BAP, W&CA Sch 1 Species: Bramshott Common

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area for Conservation (SAC)

# * # *

Brambling

( !

Common Crossbill

( !

Common Cuckoo

( < !

Common Linnet

( !

Eurasian Wryneck

( !

Osprey

( !

Redwing

( !

Reed Bunting

( !

Sky Lark

( !

Spotted Flycatcher

( !

Tree Pipit

@ !

Whinchat

@ !

Wood Warbler

@ !

Yellowhammer

) "

Cinnabar

)" ) )" " "" ) )" ) ) " )" (" !! !( ( ) (" (! @! !! ( ! )" ) " !( (( ! ) @ (! (! < !

) "

Dingy Skipper

) "

Grayling

) "

Grizzled Skipper

) "

Purple Emperor

) "

Silver-studded Blue

) "

Silver-washed Fritillary

) "

Small Heath

@ !

# *

# * ) )" "" ) )" " )

Amphibian

( !

@ !

) "" ) ) )" "

Reptile

# *

* # ## * * * # *#

< < < <<

# * # *

) " Data provided by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre SCALE: 1:10,000 at A3 0

150

300

450

600 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP 9 Visitor Survey Results, 2009 Kingsley Common

! ( 2A

! ( 2B

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA)

Broxhead Common

! ( 2C

Special Area for Conservation (SAC)

! ( 3B

Visitor routes

! ( 3A

! ( 1A

Access point (ID shown inset)

! ( 3C ! ( 1B

Shortheath Common

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

! ( 10B ! ( 10A ! ( 10D Ludshott Common

Survey work undertaken by UE Associates, 2009

! ( 10C

! ( 10F ! ( 8A ! ( 7B

! ( 7A

! ( 10E

Bramshott Common

Woolmer Forest

! ( 8B SCALE: 1:35,945 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

! ( 9B

Ecological Planning & Research Longmoor Inclosure

CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

! ( 9A

DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map9_2009VisSurvey_P1203-1A_161112.mxd

P12/03

MAP 10

!# # *( ( ! *

( !

(! ! *( ( # ! # * ( ! # * ( (! ! ( ! * ! (#

! (

KEY

# * # *! (! (

( !

# *

Special Protection Area (SPA)

* (# ! *! ( # (! (! ! ( # ( ! # *! ( ( * ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ( ! ( !

( ! # * # *! ( *! *! (# ! (# (! ( ( ! # * ( ! # *! ( * (# !

( ! # *

( !

(! ! ( ( # *! # *# ( *! ( !

Visitor Access Impacts

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) HCC Rights of Way

# *

( !! ( (! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( !

( ! (! ! (

Visitor Access Impacts 2011

( !! (

( !

Disturbance

( !

Dog fouling

( !

Fly-tipping

( !

Livestock issue

( !

Off-road vehicles

( !

Rat-running

( !

Wildfire or arson

( !

# * # *

( !

(# ! *

# *

Visitor Access Impacts 2012 ( !

# *

Disturbance

# *

Dog fouling

# *

Fly-tipping

# *

Livestock issue

# *

Off-road vehicles

# *

Rat-running

# *

Unlawful digging/building

# *

Wildfire or arson

# *

Illegal parking

# *

Litter

# * ( ! ! ( ! ( (! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! # * !! ( ( (! ( !

( !

! ( ( !

(! ! (

( !

( # *!

( !! ( ( !

( !

# *

( ! ! (

# *

( ! ( ! ( !

( ! ( !

SCALE: 1:35,000 at A3

( ! 0

( ! ( !

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( !

( ! ( ! ( !

# *! (

# *

Ecological Planning & Research !! ( ( ( !

( ! ( ! ( !

( !

# *

( ! ! (

( !

# *

CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map10_AccessImpacts_P1203-1A_161112.mxd

P12/03

Density Annex 1 Birds (no. of bird territories per km2)

Density of Recreational Pressure (metres walked per km2)

MAP 11

Distribution of Annex 1 Features & Public Access Impacts

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area for Conservation (SAC) Density/sensitivity (units described inset) Negligible Low Low-medium Medium Medium-high High Very high

Sensitivity of Annex 1 Habitats (woodland habitats- low; all others- high)

Density of Access Impacts (no. of access impacts per km2)

SCALE: 1:74,000 at A3 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000 Metres

Âą

P12/03

Density of Recreational Pressure and Access Impacts

Density of Annex 1 Birds and Habitats

MAP 12

Key Areas of Conflict between Public Access & Annex 1 Features

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area for Conservation (SAC) Density classes Negligible Low Low-medium Medium Medium-high High Very high

Density of Conflict between Public Access Impacts and Annex 1 Features

SCALE: 1:74,000 at A3 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000 Metres

Âą

P12/03

(! ( ! (! ( ! (! 9 12 10 10 11

( ! (! 9 11

10 12 10 ! ( 9! ( ! ( ! ( 10 ! ( 11 ! ( 11 9( ! ! 15 ( ! ( 10 13 !! ( (8 ! 14! ( ( 10 ! (! 8 (

10 ! (

15 ! ( 14 ! (8 ! (

! ( 10

! ( Kingsley

! (3 KEY Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

Special Protection Area (SPA) 45 ! (

MAP 13 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures

! (! (

1013

! ( ( ! (! ( ! ! ((

45 43 46 42 44 Common 47

5 ! 4 ! (7 ( ! ( ! ( ! (1 ! (4 6 2! ( 4 ! ( ! ( Broxhead Common

! (3 45 ! (

16 ! ( 22 ! (

! (7

! (5

! (7

Access Management Target Notes

HCC Rights of Way

43 45 ! ( 46 ! ( 42 ! ( ! ( 41 ! (

! (4

1 ( !

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

! (1

! (4 6 ! ( !2! ( 4 (

16 ! ( 22 Ludshott Common ! ( 22 17 ! 22 17 ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 16 16 ! ! ( ( 23 20 ( ! ! ( 23 20 ! ( ! ( 16 18 ! ( ! ( 22 ( 18 ! 16 ! ( ! ( 22 ! ( 24 ! ( 19 ! ( 24 ! ( 19 27 ! ( ! ( ! (26 21 ! ( 27 ! ( 26 30! ! ( ( 21 ! ( 27 29 28 ! (! ! ( 26 ( ! (

Woolmer Forest

! ( 32 ! ( 33

45 ! (

25 ! (

Bramshott Common 45 ! (

45 ! (

30 ! (

27 28 ! ( ! ( 26 ! (

29 ! (

25 ! (

( ! (! ! (

34 ! (

46 43 42

35 ! (

32 ! ( 33 ! (

44 ! ( 47 ! (

Shortheath Common 43 ! ( 45 ! ( 46 ! (! 42 (

38 ! (

Ecological Planning & Research

41 ! (

39 40 ! ( ! (

Longmoor Inclosure

CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

37 ! ( 36 ! (

Âą

DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map13_AccessMng_P1203-1A_161112.mxd

P12/03

MAP 14

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

( 9A ! CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Map14_Monitoring_P1203-1A_161112.mxd

P12/03

Appendix 1 Outline Business and Administration Plan

CONTENTS 1.

Introduction and Context

Roles and Responsibilities

Access Management and Monitoring

Financial Arrangements

Reporting

References

A1-1

1.0

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1.1

This appendix explains how the recommendations for access management and ongoing monitoring set out in the HRA Refresh will be overseen and administrated (both in practical and financial terms). It also provides a likely indication of costs where these can be reasonably foreseen at this early stage.

1.2

This document summarises the detailed methodologies from the HRA Refresh and sets out concisely: •

Who is responsible for which actions, and the organisational relationships between bodies (Section 2);

•

What access management and monitoring is required to be delivered by these bodies (Section 3);

•

How the required actions will be financed (Section 4); and

•

How the above will be reported upon and if necessary adjusted as a result of conclusions drawn (Section 5).

A1-2

2.0

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Organisational Structure

2.1

The proposed organisational arrangements for the implementation of the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy are shown below in Figure A1.1 below. Whilst the bodies shown are separate discrete entities with distinct responsibilities and roles, their membership is not mutually exclusive, and it is likely that some organisations will be members of more than one of the bodies shown on Figure A1.1.

2.2

The organisational structure proposed should be discussed with the HRA Working Group prior to formal establishment. Once formalised, members of the various groups shown with key functional responsibilities (in particular where those responsibilities include budgetary control or responsibility) will be required to agree to the way in which their functions are discharged and under what circumstances capital may be utilised. This is discussed further in Section 4.

2.3

In addition to the above, the existing principle landowners and managers will be important Delivery Partners in terms of ensuring that desired outcomes on the ground are delivered. In view of this, the proposed access management and monitoring measures should be discussed and agreed with landowners and managers, so that the proposed actions can be refined and discussed to ensure that all involved are content that they represent beneficial actions that should be implemented, and are thus prepared to agree to supporting their delivery. Responsibilities

2.4

The proposed roles and responsibilities of each body shown on Figure A1.1 are explained below: •

Integrated Access Management Group (IAMG): This is the key body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the both the Access Management Strategies and Monitoring, and will need to be well integrated into the wider management structure for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town project, and well linked with management of the SANG and wider GI network. The IAMG will also be responsible for deciding how ‘’on the ground’’ actions should be implemented, if necessary adjusted in response to feedback from monitoring, and then translating this into instructions and works approvals to the Delivery Partners. The IAMG will advised by the HRA Working Group, but whereas the HRA working group holds a broader remit and advisory role in relation to all issues

A1-3

concerning the relevant European sites, the IAMG will be solely concerned with Access Management and Monitoring. The IAMG will be comprised of two constituent bodies: o

The IAMG Board; which will hold executive responsibility for authorising expenditure and approving budgets for action that is recommended by the IAMG Members. The IAMG Board is likely to be comprised of representatives from East Hampshire District Council, Site Owners, Site Managers and Natural England.

The IAMG Members; who hold primary responsibility for interpreting the information that is gathered from ongoing monitoring, and deciding how the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy should be evolved and adjusted over time to respond to any identified trends. This constituent body will be the primary forum for the development of Access Management and Monitoring measures from its formation onwards. The IAMG Members will be linked with the wider management/governance structure of the Eco-town Project, and will include the IAMG Board itself, but will be expanded to include all key stakeholders with an expertise or interest in access management on the relevant European sites, including conservation organisations and NGOs, representatives of the key green space user groups (dog walkers, riders, ramblers etc), the Fire and Rescue Service and community groups.

â&#x20AC;˘

Treasurer: This organisation will hold primary responsibility for budgetary control. It will collect contributions from development and will be responsible for holding or investing those contributions appropriately (subject to the chosen funding mechanism as described in Section 4). The Treasurer could be part of, or sit within, a Local Delivery Vehicle (LDV) presently being considered as part of the project. The Treasurer will also be responsible for releasing funds that are needed for actions/work that has been approved by the IAMG Board to the appropriate Delivery Partner(s), and for publishing regular financial reports to the IAMG and ensuring that financial propriety is observed. The Treasurer in this instance is likely to be East Hampshire District Council as they will be best placed to collect contributions from development, but this does not preclude others from assuming the role. Hampshire County Council presently acts as Treasurer for the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Strategy development by the Joint Strategic Partnership Board (JSPB) for very similar purposes in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

A1-4

•

HRA Working Group: This group should continue to be consulted and to advise the IAMG in relation to access management issues and the effects upon the interest features of European sites (although the full remit and scope of the HRA Working Group is wider than just Access Management and Monitoring). They should also be provided with the results of monitoring data and asked to advise the IAMG in relation to its interpretation and the appropriate response. The membership of this group will be reviewed alongside the wider governance arrangements for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town project.

•

Delivery Partners: This is an umbrella term that will encompass any organisation that is supplied with funds from the Access Management and Monitoring Project, and tasked with implementing actions or works approved by the IAMG. All Delivery Partners (when they agree to become so) will be required to enter into an undertaking to ensure that funds handed to them from the Access Management and Monitoring Project are spent upon the specific measures that have been authorised by the IAMG. The Delivery Partners will in most cases be the land owners/managers of the SPA and SAC areas. However, they may also include contractors that may be appointed from time to time for specific purposes authorised by the IAMG.

2.4

In addition to the core responsibilities outlined above, joint working will be necessary between the IAMG and Delivery Partners in some circumstances, for example as follows: •

Where the European site that is to be subject to proposed Access Management Measures is Common Land and either progressing through the ‘’Common Purpose’’ process, or otherwise where the measures proposed would require the consent of the Planning Inspectorate;

•

Where the measures proposed would require the consent of Natural England due to the protection afforded to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); and

•

Where Habitat Management Plans are currently being developed for the subject European site and it consequently becomes necessary to reconcile the measures proposed in the emerging Habitat Management Plan with those recommended in the Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP)* *The measures proposed in the OAMPs are based primarily upon what is currently known about the baseline conditions at each site, feedback from

A1-5

land managers and known aspirations for habitat and other management at sites from published documents. They are likely to require updating as new information emerges, and the IAMG should oversee this process.

A1-6

Figure A1.1: Proposed Access Management and Monitoring Organisational Structure (Within Wider Eco-town Governance Structure) Funding / Development Contributions

Integrated Access Management Group (IAMG) Advice IAMG Project Board

Treasurer

Operating Costs

IAMG Group Members Monitoring Feedback

Works Approval Cost of Access Management Measures and Monitoring Approved by IAMG

HRA Working Group

Works Approval Delivery Partners

Implementation of Access Management Plans (Appendices 2-8)

RED Arrows denote the flow of funds BLUE Arrows denote the flow of key information A1-7

New Access Management Measures Approved by IAMG including Adjustments from Monitoring

Monitoring

3.0

ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING Introduction

3.1

The Access Management and Monitoring measures that will become the business of the IAMG are described fully in Chapters 3 and 4 respectively of the HRA Refresh.

3.2

The proposed Outline Access Management Plans (OAMPs) for each relevant European site are included as Appendices 2 to 8 of the HRA Refresh. These documents are intended to become the vehicles through which the required Access Management and Monitoring will be implemented and controlled on each European site.

3.3

Furthermore, the OAMPs will be ‘’living’’ documents that will be updated and expanded by the IAMG on an iterative basis, as new information emerges from ongoing monitoring and consultation/discussion. The next phase of proposed work will involve the production of an Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy, which will draw together the various items of work carried out to date, and will complete the OAMPs to a detailed level and embed them as part of the overall strategy.

3.4

Whilst the measures recommended within each of the OAMPs will aim to deliver the greatest possible benefits to their subject European site, they are targeted at, and should prioritise, addressing specifically the potential effects upon European sites towards which the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals could contribute. Summary of Access Management Measures

3.5

Full details of the Access Management measures recommended are provided in the main HRA Refresh and are not repeated here. However, a summary of these is duplicated in Table A1.1 below for convenience. These measures should be consulted upon with site owners, site managers and with the HRA Working Group. They may also need to be revisited if new information indicates that they may no longer be appropriate (for example future visitor or residents surveys etc). The costs for these insofar as they can be foreseen at this stage are detailed below in Section 4.

3.6

In addition to the specific measures detailed below, Access Management will include various operating costs such as Rangers’ salaries and the cost of emptying bins (if contractors are used) etc. This is discussed further below in Section 4.

A1-8

Table A1.1: Summary of potential access management solutions for the European sites with the potential to be affected by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map 10 of the Main HRA Refresh. European Site Broxhead Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Unit no.

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Improved signage at the main car park and on site through the provision of one interpretation board, and waymarkers (number to be

Close lay-by at junction of B3004 and A325.

Consider restriction of parking in lay-bys on B3004 and A325 through bollards/barriers (maintaining access for emergency vehicles).

Consider introducing car parking charges and/or permit parking at the main Cricket Club car park.

Increase habitat management and grazing in centre of Broxhead East to reduce fire risk.

Provide one dog bin in the proximity of the main car park.

Additional ranger provision of 6 hours per week.

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. x1

determined).

Kingsley Common

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. x2

determined). 10

Provide approximately five bollards/barriers to allow resident access to housing and emergency vehicles, but prevent unauthorised vehicle

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks.

Reduce size of central car park.

Consider relocating car park provision to Sleaford Bridge.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 4 hours per week.

Improved signage at the three main car parks and on site through the provision of three interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to

access through the Common.

Ludshott Common

be determined).

A1-9

European Site

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Reduce size of car park south of B3002.

Consider relocating car park provision to car park at the junction of the B3002 and Waggoners Wells Road.

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Unit no.

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round.

Bramshott Common

Increase habitat management and grazing in centre of site to reduce fire risk.

Consider feasibility of periodic re-routing of PRoW adjacent to Waggoners Wells lakes to prevent trampling and erosion.

Provide a litter bin at each of the three car parks.

Provide a dog bin in the vicinity of two of the car parks.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 22 hours per week.

Open car park at camp site/recreation ground and promote access.

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

x 22

determined).

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round.

Woolmer Forest

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 12 hours per week.

x 12

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

Improved signage at the main car park and the northern-west access point and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards,

and waymarkers (number to be determined). 33

Provide one litter bin at the main car park and the northern-west access point.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the main car park and the northern-west access point.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

A1-10

European Site Longmoor Inclosure

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Additional ranger provision of 19 hours per week.

x 19

Reduce size of main car park off of Forest Road.

Improved signage at the main car park and on site through the provision of one interpretation board, and waymarkers (number to be

Unit no.

determined).

Shortheath Common

Close vehicle access to Weavers Down car park through the provision of a bollard/barrier at the top of Queens Road.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 44 hours per week.

x 44

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly

wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. 42

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be

determined). 43

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks.

Provide screening to block access to islands in bogs to south of Shortheath Pond.

Provide bollards/barriers at four locations to allow resident access to housing and emergency vehicles, but prevent unauthorised vehicle

access through the Common. 46

Consider car park charging at both car parks.

Additional ranger provision of 5 hours per week.

A1-11

Summary of Monitoring Measures 3.7

As with Access Management Measures, proposed monitoring is described more fully in the HRA Refresh (main document) and is not repeated here. However, proposed measures are summarised in Table A1.2 below. These measures will also need to be discussed with the HRA Working Group and may need to be refined if new information emerges suggesting that this is appropriate.

3.8

A key principle with monitoring, as discussed in the HRA Refresh, is that the same measurements should be taken each time a sample is taken so that the data collected over a period of time is comparable. This means that it is important to be clear about the purpose of each measurement that is taken (i.e. what trend is being monitored) and for the scope of the scope of measurements taken only to change if there is a clear reason for this that would improve the overall efficacy of the monitoring.

3.9

Costs associated with monitoring, and financial arrangements, are set out below in Section 4.

A1-12

Table A1.2: Summary of Monitoring Measures

Visitor Survey

Car Park Counters

Access impact incident log

Annex 1 bird survey

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Survey of other sensitive ecological features

EU site Broxhead Common

Kingsley Common

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

Woolmer Forest

Longmoor Inclosure

Shortheath Common

Hogmoor Inclosure

Bordon Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

P = Measure of Primary Importance S = Measure of Secondary Importance

A1-13

4.0

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS Introduction

4.1

This section details what can be foreseen at this stage in relation to the likely cost of access management and monitoring measures proposed, and suggests potential mechanisms that could be adopted to fund them.

4.2

The financial arrangements outlined below are broad recommendations only and will need to be retrofitted or adapted as necessary to suit the final agreed organisational structure through which Access Management and Monitoring will be delivered (i.e. any amendments to Figure A1.1 above). They will also need to be integrated ito the wider governance structure of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town project.

4.3

Furthermore, where financial or budgetary responsibility and legal agreements are necessary, it is recommended that specialist legal advice is sought to establish the necessary agreements and processes. The recommendations set out below are examples of similar practice that occurs elsewhere that could potentially be used to overcome obstacles within this context; their suitability and final drafting should be established by a qualified legal advisor experienced in financial affairs. Securing the Access Management and Monitoring Funding Stream Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

4.4

In the first instance, in order to ensure that monies raised from development are secured and tied to the measures that are agreed to be necessary, it will be necessary for those parties involved in that process to enter into an undertaking to commit to discharging their particular role in that process as has been agreed.

4.5

Such an agreement will enable funds to be passed from the collecting body/Treasurer, to the relevant Delivery Partner to enable measures to be delivered on the ground; the passage and appropriate use of those funds then having been secured from the outset.

4.6

In the Thames Basin Heaths SPA situation, the required security of income for the SAMM Project was provided by relevant parties (which in that case included the collecting Local Authorities, Hampshire County Council as Treasurer and Natural England as a Delivery Partner) signed a ‘’Memorandum of Agreement’’ (MOA). This was effectively a legal agreement drawn up by solicitors which formalised the role that each party was to play in the collection, handling and use of financial contributions from development, and the circumstances under which they could be spent.

A1-14

4.7

It should be noted that in order for all of the necessary parties to sign such an agreement, there will need to be broad agreement amongst all parties concerned that the aims, aspirations and methodology set out in the MOA is appropriate and desirable. This approach can only be successful where there is a commitment from all involved to delivering the necessary improvements. Securing Funding From Third Party Development

4.8

If it is necessary in the future for financial contributions to be sought from private developers (for example either where third party land is concerned, or where land is sold to a developer between an outline and reserved matters consent etc). In such circumstances, the necessary contribution should be set out within a Section 106 Agreement / Unilateral Undertaking associated with the particular planning application concerned.

4.9

In order to make this process more robust, it is recommended that East Hampshire District Council consider formalising the need for such contributions in its emerging planning policy or guidance. Potential Funding Mechanisms

4.10

The costs anticipated for the implementation of the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy will essentially fall into two categories:

4.11

â&#x20AC;˘

Initial set up (capital) costs; and

â&#x20AC;˘

Ongoing management and maintenance costs.

Potential broad mechanisms for delivering each of these are suggested below. Capital Set Up Costs

4.11

In handling terms these are the easier costs to calculate. Once the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy has been fully developed and agreed, the initial capital outlay (which includes such items as the cost of closing/reducing car parks, providing signage, purchasing equipment for rangers, fitting vehicle counters etc.) will simply need to be added up. This process has begun below, but cannot be finalised until both the Whitehill & Bordon Framework Masterplan and the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy have been finalised and agreed.

4.12

As the whole of the residential development proposed within the Whitehill & Bordon Masterplan is located within a fairly limited policy area, with no part significantly further from a European site than the others (which would make it less likely to contribute towards effects upon European sites), it is recommended that the total set

A1-15

up cost is simply divided by the total number of dwellings proposed in the Masterplan, so that a ‘’per dwelling’’ contribution can be collected from development. 4.13

In the Thames Basin Heaths SPA scenario, legal advice provided to the JSPB by David Elvin QC (which has not been made publicly available as far as EPR is aware, but is referred to as Agenda Item 4 of the JSPB’s Meeting Agenda/Minutes of their 17 June 2010 Meeting) indicated that a ‘’flat rate’’ tariff for development contributions was not appropriate, as the contribution collected from development should be ‘’progressive’’.

4.14

‘’Progressive’’ is interpreted as meaning that any tariff applied to new development should be based upon its potential proportion of responsibility for any contribution toward effects upon the SPA (in the absence of impact avoidance and mitigation measures).

4.15

The most obvious determinant for proportion of responsibility is the proximity of the subject dwelling(s) to the European sites concerned, due to the known relationship between the propensity of residents to visit a site and that sites proximity; which is usually the main factor influencing visitation.

4.16

However, as mentioned above, as there is no marked gradation of proximity to European sites due to the spatially limited policy zone, it may be more effective in this instance to base the tariff upon the number of bedrooms (and thus potential SPA/SAC visitors) that a dwelling may support. This approach has been adopted by some Local Authorities in the Thames Basin Region (for example Wokingham BC), but at present lacks information to support it. Such evidence could be gathered by a survey of existing residences in the locality of the Whitehill & Bordon policy area which is discussed more fully in the HRA Refresh. Phasing of Capital Works

4.17

As financial contributions from development will arrive in discrete amounts over a period of time as new development is delivered, there will be a mismatch in funding, as the initial capital works required to set up the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy will require a larger amount to be paid out up front.

4.18

It is therefore likely that the Access Management Strategy will need to be forwardfunded until the money can be recovered from development contributions. The amount recovered should include the cost of that forward funding (i.e. the interest on the forward-funded amount that would otherwise be earned if the money was held).

4.19

The size of the sum required for forward-funding could be reduced by phasing the implementation of the Access Management and Monitoring Measures so that they are

A1-16

delivered as required and prioritised according to need/importance. Any such phasing would be best planned once the phased delivery of the Whitehill & Bordon development is also firmly settled as this will allow measures to be introduced that target the potential effects of discrete development parcels as they come forward. 4.20

It is recommended that the capital works required to establish monitoring measures (such as the installation of electronic vehicle counters etc) are excluded from phasing and delivered from the outset. This is because it will be necessary to gather robust baseline data across all sites from the outset to monitor any changes (expected or otherwise) as development progresses. Ongoing Management and Maintenance Costs

4.21

This category of costs apply to both access management (for example the periodic replacement of rotten timber features such as fence posts, emptying of bins, ranger costs etc) and also to long-term monitoring.

4.22

In order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, it is necessary to ensure that the relevant European sites are protected from the potential effects of the Whitehill & Bordon proposals for as long as they may continue to exert themselves.

4.23

Early practice with respect to the protection of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA was to calculate the cost of maintaining such measures ‘’in perpetuity’’; which has been given various definitions including 80 years under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, and 125 Years under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.

4.24

However, EPR has been provided with a copy of a Legal Opinion on this issue written by David Elvin QC for Wokingham Borough Council (2010), which indicates that any measures intended to secure the protection of European sites (in the specific case concerned this was the Thames Basin Heaths SPA) should be secured ‘’indefinitely’’ (i.e. for as long as those measures may be needed to address potential effects)

4.25

In practice, achieving the above requires the establishment of a system of funding that is self-perpetuating. There are a number of potential options that are available to meet this need, each with its own potential benefits and drawbacks, and it is recommended that the Council consider these and take legal advice on the most appropriate option, and develop a viable means of implementing it.

4.26

The options that may be suitable are as follows:

A1-17

1. A Ring-Fenced Capital Sum: Development contributions could be collected and either held in an account or invested. The returns on this sum (either the interest generated or the returns from the investment) are then used to fund the necessary Access Management and Monitoring measures. i.

The ring-fenced capital sum would probably be held either by the Treasurer themselves or possibly on their behalf by a third party in an escrow account.

ii.

The ring-fenced sum should be index-linked so that the amount of interest/return delivered is sufficient not only to pay for ongoing access management and monitoring measures, but also to provide a small surplus capital recharge for the ring-fenced sum itself that is enough for it to grow in line with inflation.

iii.

This option is likely to be the most suitable option for the circumstances at Whitehill & Bordon, as it gives the Treasurer and IAMG direct control over the available budget from the outset and does not rely upon the successful collection of funds from property owners once the initial contribution is paid at the point of planning consent.

2. A Rentcharge: Subject to land ownership, it may be possible to set up a ‘’rentcharge’’ under the Rentcharges Act 1977 / The Rentcharges Regulations 1978. i. A rentcharge can potentially be levied on the sale and subsequent resale of all market properties. The rentcharge is payable to the rent owner, and would be picked up by solicitors undertaking the conveyancing process. The rentcharge would be index-linked to ensure that the amount paid kept up with inflation. ii. The advantages of the rentcharge are that it is arguably fairer, as it places some of the burden of the cost of protecting the SPA/SAC upon those who may be responsible for affecting it (future residents of the area). It is also easier to collect than a service charge (described below) as it does not involve directly approaching residents who may be reluctant to pay a service charge, and the cost is usually insignificant in relation to the costs of purchasing a property. iii. The main disadvantage of a rentcharge is that the ongoing capital receipt is dependent upon the rate at which properties change hands.

A1-18

Evidence seen by EPR suggests that properties change hands about every 5 years on average (i.e. 20% turnover), but the size of the rentcharge should be set at an amount sufficient to generate the required income based upon the best available long-term estimate of the rate of property sales. iv. If a preferred option, it is recommended that the feasibility of a rentcharge, and its appropriate formula, is investigated and developed in conjunction with experienced legal and financial advisors. 3. A Service Charge: This is a charge collected from new residents on a periodic basis. It is not recommended in this instance as it is often difficult to collect and may reduce the attractiveness of newly constructed properties to potential buyers in the first instance. It nonetheless remains a potential option. 4.27

The funding for the Access Management and Monitoring measures could potentially be supplied by any of the above options, or a combination of them. It may also be worth noting that as SANG must similarly be funded ‘’indefinitely’’, the SANG areas proposed in the Masterplan could therefore similarly benefit from one of these approaches, although this is outside of the remit of this Outline Business and Administration Plan.

Anticipated Costs – Access Management Access Management Set Up Costs 4.28

Based upon the recommendations made thus far in the HRA Refresh, estimated set up costs that are foreseeable at this stage associated with Access Management are set out below in Table A1.3. Full costing of these measures has not been attempted because it is first necessary for the scope of measures to be agreed (for example with site managers), and confirmed as necessary and beneficial through the ongoing HRA work being carried out for the outline application stage, in order to avoid abortive work.

A1-19

Table A1.3: Anticipated Access Management Set Up Costs (NB: These costs are not exhaustive and will need to be confirmed as HRA work progresses) Item

Unit

Estimated

Unit Cost

Quantity

Total Cost

(Installed)

Required

Dog Bins

£300

£3,300

Litter Bins

£300

£3,300

Electronic or Keyed

TBD*

£1,500.00

£19,500

Notes

Different specifications (and prices) will be needed according to location

Barriers/Bollards Interpretation Boards

Will contain information relating to the sensitivity of the sites, meaning of the behavioural control signage and symbols etc

Waymarkers / Finger

£300.00

140**

£42,000

** Number unknown at this stage as routes

Posts for Ranger equipment /

TBD*

Likely to be shared with SANG/wider GI costs due to integrated ranger service

vehicle(s) Car park / lay-by closures

TBD*

£500

£2,500

Cost will vary with circumstance and will be subject to contract

or reductions Production of Fire Management Plans

Shortheath and Broxhead Commons already have Fire Management Plans. Remainder still need to provide this information to Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, who indicate that collation of this information would not be onerous

Habitat Management to

Instances

TBD*

Reduce Fire Risk

Could possibly be carried out via grazing as part of habitat management which may limit additional cost

Fencing (stock proof)

metres

Gates/stiles

Car Park Charging

Instances

TBD* £400-£800*** TBD*

TBD*

Subject to detailed access management plans and Common Purpose process

TBD*

*** Subject to specification

Up to 3

TBD*

If installed would generate small ongoing income to help fund management.

Infrastructure

* TBD: To be determined at outline planning application stage.

A1-20

TBD*

Ongoing Access Management Costs 4.30

The most significant cost will be the salary of the rangers employed to look after the European sites, although this cost will be shared with the SANG areas, as it is envisaged that both European sites and the SANG areas will share common rangers who will then be better placed to maintain an overview of visitor access patterns across both. The rangers appointed by the Whitehill & Bordon proposals would be in addition to those who already care for some of the areas of European sites as explained in more detail in the HRA Refresh.

4.31

Salaries for the rangers are a matter to be negotiated, but it would be sensible to budget for in the region of £26,000pa for the Senior Ranger, plus in the region of £23,000 per person per annum for each of the additional posts envisaged. These salaries will of course increase with inflation, although this should be accounted for in the suggested funding mechanisms. Various associated ‘on costs’ and support costs etc for the rangers have not been calculated at this stage, as these cannot be known until the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy has been finalised through the ongoing HRA process during the development of the outline application, and through agreement with land owners and managers. The roles and responsibilities of the ranger service beyond the access management and monitoring strategy will also need to be defined, as it is likely that their duties will include management of additional areas of Green Infrastructure as well as European sites and SANG. Suggested requirements for additional ranger posts necessitated by access management and monitoring needs are set out in the main HRA Refresh document, but appropriate staffing levels for the new ranger service will need to be informed by a holistic assessment of the wider remit of the ranger service.

4.32

The other main ongoing Access Management Cost is likely to be the periodic replacement of infrastructure items that reach the end of their useful life, such as gates, way markers, fencing etc. For timber items this is likely to be required once every 5 years, whereas other items such as bollards and entry barriers are likely to last longer – potentially as long as 10 years between replacement (subject to potential vandalism).

4.33

For ease of calculation, it is recommended that the costs of replacing infrastructure items is annualised once the full suite of items is known.

4.34

Other significant ongoing Access Management costs include routine tasks such as emptying bins/dog bins, as well as periodic removal of non-native plants etc. Even where such tasks are undertaken by the rangers they may attract additional costs (e.g. for disposal).

A1-21

Anticipated Costs - Monitoring Set Up Costs 4.35

Aside from the recommended visitor, resident and wildlife surveys (see HRA Refresh Document) which are not costed herein, a key capital expense of the Monitoring strategy will be the purchase and installation of electronic vehicle counters at car parks across the European sites and the SANG areas.

4.36

The per unit cost of these is likely to vary, but as a broad indication, the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Access Management and Monitoring Strategy estimated that 80 pressure mat vehicle counters would cost in the region of £55,000. It is not known whether this cost estimate was found to hold good, and it is likely that this many devices attracted a degree of economy of scale, but on a ‘per unit’ basis, the equivalent cost for the 16 automated vehicle counters (13 across European sites and 3 in SANG car parks) that are recommended by this HRA Refresh would be in the region of £11,000. Ongoing Monitoring Costs

4.37

As above, the main annual cost of ongoing monitoring will be the cost of commissioning the recommended surveys, plus the cost of the rangers’ salaries.

4.38

The Thames Basin Heaths SPA Access Management and Monitoring Strategy predicted costs of £3,000 per annum associated with maintaining the 80 vehicle counters that were proposed to be installed. Whilst again it is not know whether this estimate held good and whether economies of scale applied, an equivalent ‘’per unit’’ cost for the Whitehill & Bordon situation would be £600 per annum.

4.39

The costs of reporting the results of the various monitoring exercises can be reduced by making this task part of the remit of the Senior Ranger, who will be well placed to interpret the meaning of the data collected. This is discussed further below.

A1-22

5.0

REPORTING

5.1

Reporting the actions taken under the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy, as well as its outcome in terms of the data gathered through monitoring, will be key in ensuring that the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy is effective.

5.2

The following should be monitored and reported upon to the IAMG: 1. The financial position of the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (recommend quarterly): This should include the completion of dwellings within the Whitehill & Bordon Policy Zone, the receipt of funds arising from them, and their release to Delivery Partners for agreed tasks. This report should be compiled by the Treasurer; and 2. The

results

the

recommended

visitor,

residents

and

wildlife/habitat surveys (recommend annually, although some surveys such as the residents survey will take place at a lower frequency): This report should be compiled by the Senior Ranger, although it will draw in the data provided by contractors undertaking the actual survey work.

5.3

Upon receipt of the annual report for (2) above, the IAMG should meet to discuss the results of the monitoring data, and determine whether any response or adjustment to the Access Management Strategy is required. Decisions should be minuted and their observations made of their potential effects in the following annual report.

A1-23

6.0

REFERENCES Elvin, D (QC) (2010) Wokingham District Council: The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994. Issues With Regard to Mitigation and SANGS: Opinion. 2 March 2010. Joint Strategic Partnership Board (JSPB, 2010) Agenda Item 4. Meeting of the JSPB Held on 17 June 2010.

A1-24

Appendix 2 Outline Access Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Broxhead Common (Wealden Heaths SPA) 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

In 2012 Ecological Planning and Research Ltd. (EPR) were commissioned by East Hampshire District Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (EHDC) Eco-town Team to refresh the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

1.2

Earlier iterations of HRA work (2011) by UE Associates and Jonathan Cox Associates recommended (at Section 12.5) that Access Management Plans for each European site be developed as a key component of reducing the existing as well as future impacts of development.

1.3

The HRA Refresh Report (EPR, 2012) to which this document forms an Appendix, progresses this recommendation in relation to all European sites with the potential to be affected by increases in recreational pressure by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town in the absence of impact avoidance and mitigation measures.

1.4

The HRA Refresh Report sets out a number of broad access management principles and recommendations that apply across the board to all potentially affected European sites. It has also mapped and analysed the spatial distribution of the key qualifying features and sensitive ecology of each site, and identified key areas of conflict where these coincide with recorded impacts. This information has been used to specify recommended key access management actions and monitoring measures.

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for Broxhead Common, in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

1.6

The OAMP contained within this Appendix is intended to become the vehicle through which the access management measures made necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals will be implemented. It contains outline recommendations formulated from the information collected during the HRA Refresh, including the rd

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently

A2-1

available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

owners/managers); and in parallel with various ongoing processes of relevance such as the ‘’Common Purpose’’ process, the development of various habitat management plans and in response to any further pertinent information that emerges during the future development of the Whitehill & Bordon proposals. The Final Access Management Plans that will emerge from this iterative process will then be taken forward and implemented.

1.8

Implementation will be coordinated and overseen by the Integrated Access Management Group (IAMG). As described in the HRA Refresh, the cost of the measures necessary to address the effects of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town proposals will be sought from development, and will then be passed to various delivery partners for implementation. This document will form the vehicle used as the basis for collected funds to be spent on agreed access management measures.

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Broxhead Common of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A2-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY

Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Broxhead Common. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designation, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy.

Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Broxhead Common, part of the Wealden Heaths SPA and Broxhead & Kingsley Commons SSSI, is designated for the following features: •

European nightjar (Breeding);

•

Woodlark (Breeding); and

•

Dartford warbler (Breeding).

Conservation Objectives of European Designation

2.3

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Broxhead Common has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to:

‘’Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features.

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

A2-3

b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species;

e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

2.4

For the populations of birds within the Wealden Heaths SPA, favourable condition status can be defined by reference to Article 1(i). Conservation objectives for the Wealden Heaths SPA would therefore be: •

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

•

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.5

Approximately half of the site is in unfavourable recovering condition (44%), whilst the other half is in favourable condition (56%). The main management challenges facing this site are very high tree/scrub cover, open habitat and acid grassland cover lower than desired and heathland vegetation lacking structural/age diversity. The location and condition of SSSI compartments is shown on Map 5 of the main HRA Refresh.

Annex 1 Bird Distribution 2.6

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. All three species of Annex 1 bird have been recorded at Broxhead Common (2 J’s Ecology), although the number of territories held by each species has fluctuated year on year. Between 2006 and 2008 Dartford Warbler held the most territories, although successive cold winters have caused a rapid decline in this species which was not recorded on site in 2010. The numbers of territories held by Woodlark has remained relatively constant across the

A2-4

2006-2010 year period, with 5 territories held in 2010. Nightjar territory numbers have shown a recent increase from 1 in 2008 to 4 in 2009 and 2010.

Other Ecological Features 2.7

Broxhead Common (west) supports Adder, Common Lizard and Grass Snake (Sand Lizard is only recorded on the eastern part of the common) (HBIC & ARC). There are also a number of records across the site for Silver-studded Blue butterfly, a UK BAP Priority species. Broxhead Common (east) holds records for a number of UK BAP Priority bird species including Lesser Redpoll, Skylark and Reed Bunting (HBIC). UK BAP Priority vascular plant species found on Broxhead Common (east) include Coralnecklace and Annual Knawel (HBIC). The spatial distribution of some of the key species is shown on Map 8a of the main HRA Refresh Report.

Present Landownership and Management

2.8

Broxhead Common is registered common land. Broxhead Common East of the B3004 is privately owned but leased to, and managed by, Hampshire County Council (HCC). The western part of the Common is owned by the MoD and is used as a military training area; however agreements are in place with Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HIWWT) and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC) to manage the central area for wildlife conservation.

2.9

Broxhead Common is currently under a Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) Agreement (1 September 2010- 31 August 2020) for the restoration of lowland heath, the control of Bracken and the maintenance of ponds of high wildlife value. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and Hampshire County Council are currently carrying out public

consultation regarding long-term

management to ensure both people and wildlife benefit.

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access

2.10

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Broxhead Common receives a relatively moderate number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, with the greatest number of groups recorded exiting the site during the survey at the main car park at Broxhead Common East.

2.11

Predominant access impacts identified during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012 included disturbance, wildfire/arson and fly-tipping.

A2-5

2.12

These impacts were mostly recorded on Broxhead Common East which correlates with the relatively higher proportion of recreational access recorded on this part of the common.

A2-6

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT Integrated Access Management Group (IAMG)

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Broxhead Common, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Broxhead Common and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

The process for this, and for the delivery of agreed measures is set out in Appendix 1, and will require the IAMG to approve measures so that the Treasurer can release funds to the appropriate Delivery Partner, described below.

3.4

The effects that are resultant from the implementation of the recommended access management measures will be monitored through the provisions set out below in Section 4, with the results fed back to the IAMG to inform any necessary adjustments.

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures

3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Broxhead Common, the lead Delivery Partner for access management measures in this case is likely to be Hampshire County Council, assisted as necessary by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended

3.6

The greatest potential for conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site occurs in the centre of Broxhead East, and also the central part of Broxhead West, based on the data currently available.

Therefore access

management measures are aimed at moving access away from these central areas to the southern part of Broxhead East, and then better managing public access at this location.

Potential access management measures recommended in this Outline

Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A2.1.

A2-7

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A2.1. European Site Broxhead Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and

Unit no. x1

dogs and horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. 2

Improved signage at the main car park and on site through the provision of

one interpretation board, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 3

Close lay-by at junction of B3004 and A325.

Consider restriction of parking in lay-bys on B3004 and A325 through

bollards/barriers (maintaining access for emergency vehicles). 5

Consider introducing car parking charges and/or permit parking at the

main Cricket Club car park. 6

Increase habitat management and grazing in centre of Broxhead East to

reduce fire risk. 7

Provide one dog bin in the proximity of the main car park.

Additional ranger provision of 6 hours per week.

A2-8

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Broxhead Common to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be the primary agent responsible for the collation of the monitoring information, although this information will come from a variety of sources, including specialist contractors and the existing site managers (Hampshire County Council, Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation.

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring

4.4

1) Progress of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town development, including delivery of housing numbers, the receipt of financial contributions towards access management and monitoring measures, and the phasing of SANGs and Green Infrastructure; 2) Visitor use of European sites and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) being delivered by the scheme; 3) Incidences of access impacts on the European sites, both as a result of recreational access and urban edge effects; and 4) The ecological baseline for the European sites and SANGs.

A2-9

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Broxhead Common are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh document.

Unit No. 1 pedestrian access point Frequency

5 yr

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

3 car park access points;

Annex 1 bird survey

Access impact incident log

Theme

Car Park Counters

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional monitoring actions).

Visitor Survey

4.5

x 1, access point 3A

1 yr

A2-10

MAP A2.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) HCC Rights of Way Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (3

! ( 4

! (8

! (6

! (8

! (1 SCALE: 1:6,500 at A3

! (4

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

!7 ! (2 ( ! (5 Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Appendices\MapA2_1_AccessMng_P1203-1B_141112.mxd

P12/03

MAP A2.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

( 9A ! CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Appendices\MapA2_2_Monitoring_P1203-1A_141112.mxd

P12/03

Appendix 3 Outline Access Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Kingsley Common (Wealden Heaths SPA) 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for Kingsley Common, in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

1.6

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently

A3-1

available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

1.8

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Kingsley Common of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A3-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Kingsley Common. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designation, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy. Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Kingsley Common, part of the Wealden Heaths SPA and Broxhead & Kingsley Commons SSSI, is designated for the following features: •

European nightjar (Breeding);

•

Woodlark (Breeding); and

•

Dartford warbler (Breeding).

Conservation Objectives of European Designation 2.3

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Kingsley Common has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to: ‘’Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore: a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; c.

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species; e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

A3-3

2.4

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

•

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.5

Annex 1 Bird Distribution

2.6

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. Between 2006 and 2010 only Nightjar and Woodlark have been recorded on Kingsley Common in relatively low numbers (2 J’s Ecology). Only a single territory was held by Nightjar in 2007, with no records of this species in proceeding years. Woodlark territory numbers peaked in 2008, with 3 territories held, although only a single territory was held in 2010.

Other Ecological Features 2.7

Species records for Kingsley Common are relatively sparse; species of note include Silver-studded Blue butterfly, Adder and Tree Pippit (HBIC). The spatial distribution of some of the key species is shown on Map 8b of the main HRA Refresh Report.

Present Landownership and Management

2.8

Kingsley Common is registered common land.

2.9

A3-4

writing a management plan for the SSSI and HIWWT are currently in the process of applying for HLS for Kingsley Common.

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access 2.10

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Kingsley Common receives a relatively high number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, particularly for the size of the site, with the greatest number of groups recorded exiting the site at the main car park in the north-west corner.

2.11

Predominant access impacts identified during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012 include disturbance, wildfire/arson, off-road vehicle use and fly-tipping.

2.12

These impacts were widely distributed across Kingsley Common which correlates with the distribution of recreational access recorded during the visitor survey.

A3-5

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT Integrated Access Management Group

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Kingsley Common, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Kingsley Common and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

3.4

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures 3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Kingsley Common, the lead Delivery Partner for access management measures in this case is likely to be the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, assisted as necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended 3.6

The greatest potential for conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site occurs in the central two heathland blocks of Kingsley Common, based on the data currently available. Therefore access management measures are aimed at moving access away from these central areas to the main car park area in the north-west corner and to the eastern arm of the site, and in preventing unauthorised vehicle access to the common.

Potential access management

measures recommended in this Outline Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A3.1.

A3-6

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A3.1.

European Site Kingsley Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and

Unit no. x1

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the

provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 3

Provide approximately five bollards/barriers to allow resident access to

housing and emergency vehicles, but prevent unauthorised vehicle access through the Common. 4

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks.

Reduce size of central car park.

Consider relocating car park provision to Sleaford Bridge.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 4 hours per week.

A3-7

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Kingsley Common to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring 4.4

In respect of the Access Management Strategy, four monitoring themes can be identified as listed below. The first relates to monitoring the potential impact source and enabling good financial governance, whilst the other three relate to monitoring the impacts in respect of the ecological features likely to be affected (the Annex 1 birds and habitats of the SPAs and SACs). 1) Progress of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town development, including delivery of housing numbers, the receipt of financial contributions towards access management and monitoring measures, and the phasing of SANGs and Green Infrastructure; 2) Visitor use of European sites and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) being delivered by the scheme; 3) Incidences of access impacts on the European sites, both as a result of recreational access and urban edge effects; and 4) The ecological baseline for the European sites and SANGs.

4.5

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Kingsley Common are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh document.

A3-8

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Annex 1 bird survey

1 pedestrian access point

x 2, access points 2A and 2B

5 yr

1 yr

2 car park access points; Unit No.

Frequency

Access impact incident log

Visitor Survey

Theme

Car Park Counters

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional monitoring actions).

A3-9

MAP A3.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) HCC Rights of Way Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (3 ! (5

! (2

! (3 ! (3 ! (6

! (4

! ( 3

! (2

! (4 ! (8 ! (7

! (1

! (3 ! (1

SCALE: 1:5,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

Âą

400 Metres

P12/03

MAP A3.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

P12/03

Appendix 4 Outline Access Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ludshott Common (Wealden Heaths SPA) 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for Ludshott Common, in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

1.6

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently

A4-1

available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

1.8

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Ludshott Common of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A4-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY

Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Ludshott Common. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designation, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy.

Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Ludshott Common, part of the Wealden Heaths SPA and Ludshott & Bramshott Commons SSSI, is designated for the following features: •

European nightjar (Breeding);

•

Woodlark (Breeding); and

•

Dartford warbler (Breeding).

Conservation Objectives of European Designation

2.3

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Ludshott Common has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to:

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

A4-3

b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species;

e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

2.4

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

•

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.5

Most of the site is in unfavourable recovering condition (96%).

The main

management challenges facing this site are encroachment by scrub, where the extent of open heath is below the desired level, and heathland vegetation lacking structural/age diversity. The location and condition of SSSI compartments is shown on Map 5 of the main HRA Refresh.

Annex 1 Bird Distribution 2.6

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. All three species of Annex 1 bird have been recorded at Ludshott Common between 2006 and 2010 (2 J’s Ecology).

Nightjar and Dartford Warbler have been recorded holding the most

numerous territories, although numbers of Dartford Warbler territories have seen a rapid decline since 2007 with only 7 territories held in 2009 and 2010, as opposed to 50 being held in 2007. The number of Nightjar and Woodlark territories held has

A4-4

remained fairly constant over this period, with Nightjar territory numbers ranging from 13-17, and with Woodlark numbers never exceeding 5.

Other Ecological Features 2.7

Present Landownership and Management

2.8

Ludshott Common is registered common land and is owned and managed by the National Trust. Conservation management on Ludshott Common has restored a significant area of dry Calluna heathland which is important for many species of bird and insect. Ludshott now forms an important and relatively large heathland nature reserve, and is among the larger blocks of heathland to survive in Hampshire. A wideranging consultation with local residents, land owners/managers and statutory bodies on the future long-term, sustainable management of Ludshott Common has just been completed and a Common Purpose application will be made shortly. Ludshott Common is not currently grazed by livestock and the Common Purpose application will seek a return of grazing to the Common to assist its long-term management aims.

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access

2.9

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Ludshott Common receives the highest number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, with the greatest number of groups recorded exiting the site at the main car park south of the B3002.

2.10

Predominant access impacts identified during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012 include wildfire/arson and dog fouling.

2.11

These impacts were most prevalent in the central and north-eastern parts of the site, which correlates with the distribution of recreational access recorded during the visitor survey.

A4-5

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT Integrated Access Management Group

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Ludshott Common, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Ludshott Common and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

3.4

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures

3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Ludshott Common, the lead Delivery Partner for access management measures in this case is likely to be the National Trust, assisted as necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended

3.6

The greatest potential for conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site occurs in the central and north-eastern parts of Ludshott Common, based on the data currently available.

Therefore access management

measures are aimed at moving access away from these areas to the more southern wooded parts of the site which are more resilient to public access, improving the information available to visitors in those areas, and in reducing the incidence of fire in the central part of the site. Potential access management measures recommended in this Outline Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A4.1.

A4-6

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A4.1.

European Site Ludshott Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Improved signage at the three main car parks and on site through

Unit no. x3

the provision of three interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 2

Reduce size of car park south of B3002.

Consider relocating car park provision to car park at the junction of the

B3002 and Waggoners Wells Road. 4

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and

Increase habitat management and grazing in centre of site to reduce fire

risk. 6

Consider feasibility of periodic re-routing of PRoW adjacent to Waggoners

Provide a litter bin at each of the three car parks.

Provide a dog bin in the vicinity of two of the car parks.

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 22 hours per week.

Wells lakes to prevent trampling and erosion.

A4-7

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Ludshott Common to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring

4.4

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Ludshott Common are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh document.

A4-8

Access impact incident log

Annex 1 bird survey

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Unit No.

4 car park access points

x 3, car parks 10A, 10B and 10C

5 yr

1 yr

Visitor Survey

Theme

Frequency

Car Park Counters

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional monitoring actions).

A4-9

MAP A4.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY

! (1

Special Protection Area (SPA)

! (7

HCC Rights of Way

! (7

Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

! (2

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (1

! (5

! (8 ! (9 ! (3

! (1 ! (7

! (4

SCALE: 1:8,000 at A3 0

! (6

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP A4.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

P12/03

Appendix 5 Outline Access Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bramshott Common (Wealden Heaths SPA) 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for Bramshott Common, in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

1.6

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently

A5-1

available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

1.8

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Bramshott Common of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A5-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY

Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Bramshott Common. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designation, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy.

Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Bramshott Common, part of the Wealden Heaths SPA and Ludshott & Bramshott Commons SSSI, is designated for the following features: •

European nightjar (Breeding);

•

Woodlark (Breeding); and

•

Dartford warbler (Breeding).

Conservation Objectives of European Designation

2.3

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Bramshott Common has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to:

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

A5-3

b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species;

e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

2.4

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

•

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.5

Most of the site is in unfavourable recovering condition (96%).

The main

Annex 1 Bird Distribution 2.6

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. All three species of Annex 1 bird have been recorded on Bramshott Common between 2006 and 2010, although only in low numbers. As with other sites in the locality, Dartford Warbler has seen a decline in numbers in recent years, and no territories were recorded between 2009 and 2010. Woodlark territory numbers peaked in 2008 at 3, and only 1 Nightjar territory has been recorded, which was in 2010.

A5-4

Other Ecological Features 2.7

Bramshott Common and Chase supports populations of a number of reptiles (Adder, Common Lizard, Slow Worm) as well as a number of bird and invertebrate species (HBIC). Many of these species appear on the UK BAP Priority Species List, including the Silver-studded Blue, Grayling and Grizzled skipper butterflies and Skylark, Spotted Flycatcher and Reed Bunting. The spatial distribution of some of the key species is shown on Map 8g of the main HRA Refresh Report.

Present Landownership and Management

2.8

Bramshott Common is registered common land and is owned and managed by the MoD for defence training purposes. Bramshott Commonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SSSI designation also includes Bramshott Chase which is owned and managed by the National Trust.

2.9

The site displays a diverse tapestry of habitats, including varied heather swards, bare ground, acidic grassland, trees and scrub. The MoD have recently formed a partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust to manage Bramshott Common and Chase for wildlife. They are currently carrying out public consultation regarding long-term management to ensure both people and wildlife benefit.

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access

2.10

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Bramshott Common receives a moderate to high number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, with a roughly equivalent number of groups recorded exiting from each of the main car parks on the east and western boundaries.

2.11

Access impacts identified during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012 include disturbance and fly-tipping, although very few impacts were recorded in comparison to the other European sites.

2.12

Impacts from fly-tipping were associated with the road running along the western boundary, whereas incidences of disturbance were recorded in the vicinity of the Waggoners Wells lakes.

A5-5

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT Integrated Access Management Group

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Bramshott Common, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Bramshott Common and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

3.4

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures

3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Bramshott Common, the lead Delivery Partners for access management measures in this case are likely to be the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the National Trust, assisted as necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended

3.6

Few specific areas of conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site have been identified for Bramshott Common, based on the data currently available.

Access management measures are therefore aimed at shifting access

away from the more sensitive heathland habitats to the more resilient woodland habitats so that these features are better buffered from future recreational access, and in promoting responsible access to the site.

Potential access management

measures recommended in this Outline Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A5.1.

A5-6

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A5.1.

European Site Bramshott Common

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Unit no.

Open car park at camp site/recreation ground and promote access.

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the

provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 3

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 12 hours per week.

A5-7

x1 x

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Bramshott Common to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring

4.4

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Bramshott Common are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh document.

A5-8

Access impact incident log

Annex 1 bird survey

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Unit No.

2 car park access points

x 2, car parks 10E and 10F

5 yr

1 yr

Visitor Survey

Theme

Frequency

Car Park Counters

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional monitoring actions).

A5-9

MAP A5.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY

! (3

Special Protection Area (SPA)

! (2

HCC Rights of Way Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (6 ! (3

! (4

! (5

! (2

! (1

SCALE: 1:8,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP A5.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

P12/03

Appendix 6 Outline Access Management Plan – Woolmer Forest (Woolmer Forest SAC and Wealden Heaths SPA) 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for the northern block of Woolmer Forest SSSI (hereafter referred to as “Woolmer Forest”), in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

Longmoor

Inclosure, which is also part of Woolmer Forest SSSI and lies to the south of the A3, is dealt with as a separate functional patch and is discussed in Appendix 7.

1.6

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

A6-1

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

1.8

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Woolmer Forest of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A6-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY

Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Woolmer Forest. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designations, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy.

Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Woolmer Forest, part of the Wealden Heaths SPA, is designated for the following features: •

European dry heaths;

•

Transition mires and quaking bogs; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable `quaking` surface; and

•

2.3

Bog woodland* (Priority feature).

Woolmer Forest SAC is additionally designated for the following reasons: •

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds; Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds;

•

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with crossleaved heath;

•

European dry heaths;

•

Transition mires and quaking bogs; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable `quaking` surface; and

•

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion.

A6-3

Conservation Objectives of European Designation

2.4

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Woolmer Forest has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to:

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species;

e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

2.5

•

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

A6-4

•

2.6

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

For the SAC habitats, the conservation objectives developed from the definition of favourable conditions status are:

•

Objective 4: The geographical distribution of the habitats and their overall area within the sites should be maintained or increased;

•

Objective 5: The mix of species (their species structure) and the ecological inter-relationships between these and other environmental and management factors (ecological function) which are needed for the long-term maintenance of the habitats should be likely to continue to exist;

•

Objective 6: The conservation status of the habitats’ typical species are maintained in terms of their population size, range and habitat extent.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.7

The majority of the site (94%) is in unfavourable recovering condition. The main management challenges facing this site are encroachment by woodland with tree cover higher than desired, invasion by seedlings, bracken & rhododendron which needs controlling to maintain open heath, and heathland species that lack structural/age diversity. The location and condition of SSSI compartments is shown on Map 5 of the main HRA Refresh.

Annex 1 Bird Distribution

2.8

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. Woolmer Forest, along with Longmoor Inclosure, supports the highest counts of all three Annex 1 bird species across the European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon (2 J’s Ecology). The number of territories held by Nightjar and Woodlark has remained fairly stable over the survey period 2006-2010 with between 15-22 territories held by each species. The number of territories held by Dartford Warbler peaked in 2008, at 54, although numbers have declined rapidly since then with only 13 territories held in 2009 and none held in 2010.

A6-5

Distribution of Annex 1 Habitats 2.9

Due to the difficulties in mapping Annex 1 habitat types over large areas, very limited information exists on the distribution of specific Annex 1 habitats.

2.10

2.11

The JNCC have set out a methodology for relating these Broad Habitat Classification types to Annex 1 habitat types (Jackson, 2000). Therefore areas with the potential to support specific Annex 1 habitats can be ascertained from Broad Habitat GIS layers. Table 1 below sets out the JNCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s information on correspondence between Broad Habitat Classifications and the EC Habitats Directive Annex 1 types. Table 2 then sets out the current extent of Broad Habitat Types held within Woolmer Forest.

Table 1: Correspondence between the Broad Habitat Classification and EC Habitat Directive Annex 1 types. Annex 1 Type

Broad Habitat Type

Bog woodland

Broadleaved,

mixed

and

Coniferous woodland Northern Atlantic wet heats with

Dwarf shrub heath

Erica tetralix European dry heaths

Dwarf shrub heath

Transition mires and quaking bogs

Fen, marsh and swamp

Depressions on peat substrates of

Fen, marsh and swamp

the Rhynchosporion Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

A6-6

Standing open water and canals

yew

woodland;

Table 2: Current extent (hectares) of broad habitats. Broad Habitat Type (ha)

Broadleaved,

Coniferous

Dwarf shrub

Fen, marsh

Standing

mixed and

woodland

heath

and swamp

open water

yew

and canals

woodland

Woolmer

151.8

153.4

289.7

10.0

11.2

Forest

Other Ecological Features

2.12

Species records for Woolmer Forest are relatively extensive in comparison to the other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon (HBIC & ARC). Notable species records include Natterjack Toad, Great Crested Newt, Smooth Snake and Sand Lizard all of which receive European Protected Species status. UK BAP Priority bird species are also well represented at Woolmer Forest with records including Eurasian Curlew, Ring Ouzel, Wood Warbler and Yellow Wagtail. UK BAP Priority vascular plant species include Coral-necklace, Marsh Clubmoss, Tower Mustard. UK BAP Priority butterfly species include Grayling and Silver-studded Blue. The spatial distribution of some of the key species is shown on Map 8d of the main HRA Refresh Report.

Present Landownership and Management

2.13

Woolmer Forest is largely owned by the MoD and the MoD land is managed by the MoD, the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust and a private farmer. Passfield Common and Conford Moor in the Holly Water Valley to the north east of the MoD landholding are largely owned and managed by the National Trust, and both sites are registered commons. Access is permitted across much of Woolmer Forest although the MoD land is a Range Danger Area (RDA) which is illegal and dangerous to enter when the red flags are flying.

2.14

The MoD are working in partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust through â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Grazing for Wildlife Projectâ&#x20AC;? in order to assist with the conservation objectives of the site and cattle are currently grazed on the ranges.

A6-7

2.15

For large complex sites such as Woolmer Forest, the MoD prepares â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Integrated Rural Management Plansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (IRMPs) to ensure that operational activities, biodiversity and other objectives are all identified and managed appropriately. The IRMP for MoD sites in the vicinity of Whitehill & Bordon is in the process of being written.

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access

2.16

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Woolmer Forest receives a moderate to high number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, with the highest number of groups recorded exiting from the main car park in the south-west corner and from the pedestrian access point in the north-west corner. Visitor density accords strongly with the route of the access road, and there is restricted access to the central areas, in particular when training is taking place.

2.17

Predominant access impacts identified during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012 include disturbance, wildfire/arson and fly-tipping.

2.18

Such impacts were focused in the north-west corner, where the site is closest to the existing residential area of Whitehill.

The effects of public access are therefore

greatest along the western boundary of the site.

A6-8

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Integrated Access Management Group

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Woolmer Forest, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Woolmer Forest and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

3.4

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures

3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Woolmer Forest, the lead Delivery Partners for access management measures in this case are likely to be the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the National Trust, assisted as necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended

3.6

The greatest potential for conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site occurs along the western boundary of Woolmer Forest, based on the data currently available. Access to the central part of the site continues to be restricted by use of the site by the MoD. Therefore access management measures are aimed at promoting more responsible access in those locations where it is permissible, ensuring that incidences of unauthorised access are reduced, and in ensuring that Hampshire Fire and Rescue can respond to heathland fires more

A6-9

effectively by establishing a Fire Management Plan. Potential access management measures recommended in this Outline Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A6.1.

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A6.1. Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and

Unit no. x1

horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly wooded areas outside of the dismantled railway/MoD firing range; access into the centre of the site only to be permitted when red flags down and with dogs on lead during bird nesting season, and with dogs/horses remaining on tracks/bridleways year round. 2

Improved signage at the main car park and the northern-west access point and on

site through the provision of two interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 3

Provide one litter bin at the main car park and the northern-west access point.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the main car park and the northern-west access

point. 4

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 19 hours per week.

x 19

A6-10

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Woolmer Forest to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring

4.4

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Woolmer Forest are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh document.

A6-11

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Annex 1 bird survey

1 pedestrian access point

x 2, access points 8A and 8B

5 yr

1 yr

6 yr

1 car park access point; Unit No.

Frequency

Access impact incident log

Visitor Survey

Theme

Car Park Counters

monitoring actions).

A6-12

MAP A6.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) HCC Rights of Way Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (3 ! (2

! (1

! (4

! (5

! (2 ! (3 SCALE: 1:16,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP A6.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

P12/03

Appendix 7 Outline Access Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Longmoor Inclosure (Wealden Heaths SPA) 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for Longmoor Inclosure, in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

1.6

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently

A7-1

available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

1.8

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Longmoor Inclosure of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A7-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY

Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Longmoor Inclosure. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designation, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy.

Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Longmoor Inclosure, part of the Wealden Heaths SPA and Woolmer Forest SSSI, is designated for the following features: •

European nightjar (Breeding);

•

Woodlark (Breeding); and

•

Dartford warbler (Breeding).

Conservation Objectives of European Designation

2.3

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Longmoor Inclosure has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to:

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

A7-3

b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species;

e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

2.4

Objective 1: Maintain the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species as a viable component of their natural habitats on a long-term basis;

•

Objective 2: Maintain the range (geographic extent) of the population of each of the three Annex 1 bird species for the foreseeable future; and

•

Objective 3: Maintain sufficient area of suitable habitat to maintain the populations of each of the three Annex 1 bird species on a long term basis.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.5

Annex 1 Bird Distribution 2.6

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. Longmoor Inclosure, along with Woolmer Forest, supports the highest counts of all three Annex 1 bird species across the European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon (2 J’s Ecology). The number of territories held by Nightjar and Woodlark has remained fairly stable over the survey period 2006-2010 with between 13-19 territories held by each species. The number of territories held by Dartford Warbler peaked in 2008, at 56, although

A7-4

numbers have declined rapidly since then with only 11 territories held in 2009 and 2 held in 2010.

Other Ecological Features 2.7

Species records for Longmoor Inclosure are predominantly in the west and east of the site (HBIC). They include multiple records for Adder, Grass Snake, Common Lizard and Slow Worm and two records for Smooth Snake. UK BAP Priority bird species are also well represented and include Eurasian Curlew, Little Plover, Reed Bunting, Sky Lark and Spotted Flycatcher. Invertebrates of note include the Wood Tiger Beetle, Grayling and Silver-studded Blue butterflies and the vascular plant species Bird’s-nest, Yellow Bird’s-nest and Coral-necklace. The spatial distribution of some of the key species is shown on Map 8e of the main HRA Refresh Report.

Present Landownership and Management

2.8

Longmoor Inclosure is owned and managed by the MoD as a defence training area with managed access. Whilst the MoD has a duty of care in relation to providing a safe training environment, they have formed a partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust who are assisting with the wildlife conservation objectives of the site through the “The Grazing for Wildlife Project”.

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access

2.9

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Longmoor Inclosure receives a relatively moderate number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, particularly for the size of the site, with the greatest number of groups recorded exiting the site at the main car park in the south-west corner.

2.10

Predominant access impacts identified during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012 include disturbance, wildfire/arson, illegal off-road vehicle use and issues with livestock.

2.11

These impacts were widely distributed across the site with impacts such as fly-tipping and dog fouling being associated with access at the south-western car park.

A7-5

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT Integrated Access Management Group

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Longmoor Inclosure, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Longmoor Inclosure and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

3.4

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures

3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Longmoor Inclosure, the lead Delivery Partner for access management measures in this case is likely to be the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, assisted as necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended

3.6

The greatest potential for conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site occurs in the south-western corner of Longmoor Inclosure, based on the data currently available. Therefore access management measures are aimed at reducing, and better informing responsible, access at this location. Potential access management measures recommended in this Outline Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A7.1.

A7-6

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A7.1.

Map ID

Potential Access Management Solutions

Unit no.

Reduce size of main car park off of Forest Road.

Improved signage at the main car park and on site through the provision of one

interpretation board, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 3

Close vehicle access to Weavers Down car park through the provision of a

bollard/barrier at the top of Queens Road. 4

Establish Fire Management Plan.

Additional ranger provision of 44 hours per week.

x 44

A7-7

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Longmoor Inclosure to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring

4.4

A7-8

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Longmoor Inclosure are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh document.

Access impact incident log

Annex 1 bird survey

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Theme

Unit No.

2 car park access points

x 1, access point 9A

5 yr

1 yr

Frequency

Car Park Counters

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional monitoring actions).

Visitor Survey

4.5

A7-9

MAP A7.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) HCC Rights of Way Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (3

! (4

! (5

SCALE: 1:16,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

400 Metres

Âą

! (2 ! (1 Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\HRA\Appendices\MapA7_1_AccessMng_P1203-1B_141112.mxd

P12/03

MAP A7.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

P12/03

Appendix 8 Outline Access Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Shortheath Common SAC 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

This Appendix summarises how these recommendations translate into site-specific recommendations for Shortheath Common SAC, in the form of an Outline Access Management Plan (OAMP) to address particular issues and problems that have been identified.

1.6

workshop held with the HRA Working Group and site managers on 3 May 2012.

1.7

The outline recommendations set out herein are not intended to be the final proposals. They are a starting point based upon the best information currently

A8-1

available, and will be developed further in consultation with the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town

HRA

Working

Group

(including

Natural

England

and

site

1.8

1.9

With the above in mind, the scope and purpose of this document is to:

1. Summarise for the IAMG and future Access Management Plan Delivery Partners, the key aspects of the ecology of Shortheath Common SAC of relevance to access management (Section 2); 2. Summarise the existing access management regime of the site and identify sitespecific problems with access management that are known to exist (Section 3); 3. Propose specific measures that are considered likely, on the basis of information currently available, to help address either existing or future problems related to access management issues (Section 4); and 4. Specify how the performance of the access management measures set out in Section 4 will be monitored; how this monitoring will tie in with the wider monitoring being undertaken for HRA purposes by the IAMG, and how information gathered from this monitoring will be used to refine and adjust the approach being taken if it suggests that actions being taken are not achieving the desired outcome (Section 5).

A8-2

2.0

SITE SUMMARY

Introduction

2.1

This section of the OAMP summarises the features of ecological value present within Shortheath Common. These include both the qualifying features that underpin the European designation, but also other known features of ecological value that may be sensitive to impacts from access. Existing access issues and impacts are then also summarised. This information is the basis for any access management strategy.

Qualifying Features of European Designation

2.2

Shortheath Common SAC is designated for the following features: •

European dry heaths;

•

Transition mires and quaking bogs; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable `quaking` surface; and

•

Bog woodland* (Priority feature).

Conservation Objectives of European Designation

2.3

With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which Shortheath Common SAC has been designated ("the Qualifying Features”) the broad conservation objectives as defined by Natural England (2012a) are to:

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

a. The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

A8-3

b. The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

d. The populations of qualifying species;

e. The distribution of qualifying species within the site.’’

2.4

Conservation objectives developed from the definition of favourable conditions status are:

•

Objective 1: The geographical distribution of the habitats and their overall area within the sites should be maintained or increased;

•

Objective 2: The mix of species (their species structure) and the ecological inter-relationships between these and other environmental and management factors (ecological function) which are needed for the long-term maintenance of the habitats should be likely to continue to exist;

•

Objective 3: The conservation status of the habitats’ typical species are maintained in terms of their population size, range and habitat extent.

SSSI Condition Assessment

2.5

The majority of the site (98.29%) is in unfavourable recovering condition. The main management challenges facing this site are woodland encroachment onto open mire resulting in a lower than desired area of open habitat, a higher than desired amount of Purple moor grass and key targets for water quality of the pond are exceeded. The location and condition of SSSI compartments is shown on Map 5 of the main HRA Refresh.

Distribution of Annex 1 Habitats 2.6

Please refer to Map 7 of the Main HRA Refresh Report. Due to the difficulties in mapping Annex 1 habitat types over large areas, very limited information exists on the distribution of specific Annex 1 habitats.

A8-4

2.7

2.8

The JNCC have set out a methodology for relating these Broad Habitat Classification types to Annex 1 habitat types (Jackson, 2000). Therefore areas with the potential to support specific Annex 1 habitats can be ascertained from Broad Habitat GIS layers. Table 1 below sets out the JNCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s information on correspondence between Broad Habitat Classifications and the EC Habitats Directive Annex 1 types. Table 2 then sets out the current extent of Broad Habitat Types held within Shortheath Common.

Table 1: Correspondence between the Broad Habitat Classification and EC Habitat Directive Annex 1 types. Annex 1 Type

Broad Habitat Type

Bog woodland

Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland; Coniferous woodland

Northern Atlantic wet heats with

Dwarf shrub heath

Erica tetralix European dry heaths

Dwarf shrub heath

Transition mires and quaking bogs

Fen, marsh and swamp

Depressions on peat substrates of

Fen, marsh and swamp

the Rhynchosporion Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

Standing open water and canals

Table 2: Current extent (hectares) of broad habitats. Broad Habitat Type (ha)

Broadleaved,

Coniferous

Dwarf shrub

Fen, marsh

Standing

mixed and yew

woodland

heath

and swamp

open water

woodland

Shortheath

27.0

and canals

4.6

A8-5

7.0

1.2

Other Ecological Features

2.9

Woodlark and Nightjar have been recorded on Shortheath Common (2 Jâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ecology), although only in low numbers and the site is not designated an SPA for the presence of these Annex 1 bird species. Reptile and amphibian records for Shortheath Common include Adder, Grass Snake, Common Lizard and Common Toad. Bird species of note include Spotted Flycatcher, Tree Pipit, Lesser Redpoll and Yellow Hammer. The only UK BAP Priority Vascular Plant Species recorded is Tubular Water-dropwort. Numerous moth records exist including the notable species Buff Ermine and Cinnabar. The spatial distribution of some of the key species is shown on Map 8c of the main HRA Refresh Report.

Present Landownership and Management

2.10

Shortheath Common is registered common land, and is principally owned and managed by Hampshire County Council, although a small percentage is in private ownership.

2.11

Known Site-Specific Problems Caused by Access

2.12

The visitor survey (UE Associates, 2009) showed that Shortheath Common receives the fewest number of visitors compared to other European sites in the vicinity of Whitehill and Bordon, with the greatest number of groups recorded exiting the site at the car park in the south-west corner.

2.13

Despite the level of recreational access that Shortheath Common currently receives, access impacts were well recorded during the HRA Working Group consultation workshops held in 2011 and 2012. Impacts include disturbance, rat-running and illegal parking, wildfire/arson and fly-tipping.

2.14

Rat-running is associated with the informal track running through the northern part of the site from Gibbs Lane to Roman Road, which gives rise to fly-tipping and illegal parking. Wildfire/arson and incidences of disturbance were more closely associated with the central and south-western parts of the site, which is also where visitor access was greatest.

A8-6

3.0

PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Integrated Access Management Group

3.1

This section sets out how the specific issues and impacts described above that are a manifestation of the present pattern of access at Shortheath Common, are proposed to be addressed through targeted access management measures.

3.2

The delivery of these measures will be prioritised, overseen and coordinated both within Shortheath Common and across the other European sites by the IAMG. The measures recommended below may be adjusted, added to, brought forward, postponed or cancelled if considered appropriate by the IAMG (advised by the HRA Working Group) in response to the emergence of new evidence.

3.3

3.4

Responsibilities for Implementation of Access Management Measures

3.5

Due to the present ownership and management of Shortheath Common, the lead Delivery Partner for access management measures in this case is likely to be the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, assisted as necessary by the Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service and other approved contractors.

Specific Access Management Measures Recommended

3.6

The greatest potential for conflict between public access and the conservation objectives of the site occurs in the central part of Shortheath Common, based on the data currently available.

Therefore access management measures are aimed at

reducing, and better managing, access at the two car parks and within the immediately adjacent habitats, and in preventing unauthorised vehicle access through the common. Potential access management measures recommended in this Outline Access Management Plan are therefore set out in Table 3 and on Map A8.1.

A8-7

Table 3: Summary of potential access management solutions; Map ID relates to the target notes shown on Map A8.1. Map ID 1

Potential Access Management Solutions Establish zoning system where dogs can be exercised off the lead, and dogs and

Unit no. x1

horses can access off the tracks/bridleways, in predominantly wooded areas with all other areas requiring dogs on lead during the bird nesting season and dogs/horses on tracks/bridleways year round. 2

Improved signage at the two main car parks and on site through the provision of two

interpretation boards, and waymarkers (number to be determined). 3

Provide one litter bin at the two main car parks.

Provide one dog bin in the vicinity of the two car parks.

Provide screening to block access to islands in bogs to south of Shortheath Pond.

Provide bollards/barriers at four locations to allow resident access to housing

and emergency vehicles, but prevent unauthorised vehicle access through the Common. 6

Consider car park charging at both car parks.

Additional ranger provision of 5 hours per week.

A8-8

4.0

MONITORING Integrated Monitoring and the IAMG

4.1

The information below sets out the specific indicators that are to be monitored at Shortheath Common to inform necessary adjustments to the access management strategy to address either new and emerging trends, or unexpected and undesirable side effects of action taken.

4.2

4.3

The Whitehill & Bordon Ranger Service will be responsible for reporting the results of monitoring data to the IAMG on an annual basis, to inform future decision making.

Site Specific Monitoring

4.4

Not all of the themes will require site specific action, therefore the primary and secondary monitoring actions specific to Shortheath Common are set out in Table 4 below, and on Map 14 of the main HRA Refresh Document.

A8-9

NVC/Annex 1 habitat survey

Annex 1 bird survey

1 pedestrian access point

x 2, access points 1A and 1B

5 yr

1 yr

6 yr

2 car park access points; Unit No.

Frequency

Access impact incident log

Visitor Survey

Theme

Car Park Counters

Table 4: Summary of primary monitoring actions (S denotes secondary optional monitoring actions).

A810

MAP A8.1 Summary of Preferred Site Specific Access Management Measures KEY Special Protection Area (SPA)

! (5

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) HCC Rights of Way Woodland habitats potentially suitable for implementation of a zoning system

1 ! (

Access Management Target Notes

! (5 ! (5 (3 ! (6 ! ! (2 ! (4 ! (7

! (3 !5 ! (6 ( ! (2

SCALE: 1:6,000 at A3 0

100

200

300

! (1

400 Metres

Âą

P12/03

MAP A8.2

Site Specific Monitoring

KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11H !

Proposed residential parcels ( 11E ! )

Proposed SANGs

Frensham Common

1.4km linear distance from proposed residential parcels 7.2km linear distance from proposed residential parcels Access point

Kingsley Common

( 2B ! ) ( 2AD ! D )

( 2D !

Broxhead Common

*2C ( !

Shortheath Common

( 1A ! D )

*1C ( !

D )

*5E *5A *5D )5B *5CD * D8A ( !

( !

( 4B ! )

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

( !

12A

D )

* ) D * * *

( 1B !

( !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

)

( 3B ( ! ! 3E ( 3D ! ( 3A ! 13A ! ( 3C ( ! ( 13B ! Bordon 13C ( ! Inclosure ( 13D !

)

( !

* D ( !

( 10B ! ) D ( 10D ! )

Site specific monitoring

) D

( 10A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C ! ) D

( 10F ! ) D

( !

( 7A !

( 10E ! ) D

Pedestrian access point to be included in visitor survey

)

Car park access point to be included in visitor survey

Access point for automated counter installation

Bramshott Common

( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

12B

( 8B ! D )

SCALE: 1:60,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

( 9B ! )

Longmoor Inclosure

Ecological Planning & Research

D )

P12/03