Urban Habitat Action Plan

Urban Habitat Action Plan

• Urban HAP Objectives and Targets 2008 - 2013
• Urban HAP Actions 2008 - 2013

Acknowledgements

This document has borrowed shamelessly and without specific acknowledgement from many other comparable plans either published or in preparation, the authors of which may recognise their thoughts and ideas. In particular, thanks are given to members of the Surrey Urban HAP Working Group for their input into the plan: their details are listed at the close of this document. Thanks are also conveyed to a number of wider consultees, a complete list of whom would unfortunately be far too extensive to include. English Nature (now Natural England), Peterborough, kindly provided the illustrations within the document.

Credits

Original text: Steve Berry (English Nature)

Edited text: Leah Mathias (Project Officer)

2008 amendments: Joanne Porter (SCC Urban Biodiversity Officer)

Line Drawings: English Nature

Photographs: Surrey County Council

Foreword

This plan should concern everyone who lives, studies or works in an urban area. Local authorities may have the most substantial contribution to make but individuals acting alone or within organisations can also make a tremendous difference.

“Every patch where the concrete has not actually sealed up the earth is a potential home for some living thing” (Mabey, 1973).

When Richard Mabey wrote these words, it was already apparent that the urban areas of England supported surprisingly rich and abundant communities of wildlife. Strictly speaking, he can be said to have understated the capacity of wildlife to cope with everything which humanity has thrown at it, since even the surface of concrete can support forms of life and there is often abundant life beneath it. The final quarter of the twentieth century experienced acceleration in the industrialisation of the countryside, with severe consequences for wildlife as habitat in some counties was either destroyed, or modified, resulting in a drastic reduction in biodiversity.

In contrast, nature has often fared better in towns and cities and many species are now actually more common near human settlements than in rural areas. Pesticides and herbicides are employed less liberally than is the case on farmland, the air is relatively clean and the additional warmth associated with human habitations enables some species to survive farther north than they could in the countryside. Even so, urban habitats should not be seen as a substitute for those in the countryside, and still less as a second best alternative. They must be judged on their own terms.

Individuals and organisations, from local community groups through to conservation bodies, businesses and local authorities must take much credit for the abundance of wildlife in urban areas, although many opportunities to help wildlife have been missed. It is probably true to say, however, that the opportunism and adaptability of nature itself has been the most influential factor.

The starting point for this Plan is therefore to acknowledge and applaud past achievements, but also appreciate the enormous opportunities that now exist, and crucially, to act upon them. The wildlife that has survived and flourished in urban areas has often done so despite our efforts rather than because of them. Many species have proved able to adapt to living in very changed environments, in some cases even those with a high level of toxins. By tipping the balance in favour of nature, we can transform our environment to the lasting benefit of both wildlife and people.

Bunny Teagle, in a seminal work on urban wildlife (Teagle, 1978) characterised the West Midlands study area as The Endless Village. In an analogous phrase, much of the northern part of Surrey at least might fairly be called the endless suburb. Although some of the rest of the county still has a rural air and the most densely populated parts have a very urban feel, the enduring impression left on the visitor driving through the county is one of a series of largely leafy settlements, separated by woods, downs, heathy commons and farms. In fact, 95% of Surrey’s one million people live in towns with populations exceeding 10,000. What happens to urban wildlife therefore affects and is of concern to virtually the whole of the population.

Introduction

Surrey is the most urbanised shire county in England. More than one fifth of its land surface is devoted to urban use. This is projected to rise to just under one quarter by 2016 (SCC, 1998). The same study also demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of the population of Surrey (more than 85%) is concentrated in just 15% of the county land area.

For development to be sustainable, people must want to live in urban areas. If this is to happen, we need to create high quality urban environments. Although the interests of people and wildlife are sometimes seen as opposed, there is much evidence to suggest that everyday contact with wildlife can improve the quality of people’s lives. Recent research suggests that the benefits of such contact may be demonstrable in terms of reduced stress levels and improved physical health.

The fate of people and wildlife in urban areas are bound together inextricably: what we need is an environment in which people and wildlife can flourish. Any definition of the overall purpose of the Surrey Urban Biodiversity Action Plan must, then, take account of both people and wildlife and may be defined in this way:

‘To safeguard and enhance the biodiversity found in the urban areas of Surrey and in doing so, to improve the quality of people’s lives through contact with, appreciation of and involvement in nature conservation.’

1. Biodiversity in Urban Areas

Biodiversity is shortened from Biological Diversity. Biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth. It is all the species on the planet from the smallest microbe to the largest tree, and how they interact with one another. At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, 150 heads of State committed themselves to halt and reverse the destruction of habitats and the resulting loss of species, which they recognised would ultimately threaten humanity. The 1994 UK Biodiversity Action Plan was drawn up in response to this, which identified the need for plans to be drawn up at a local level. The Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan was first published in 1999.

Biodiversity in urban areas can include native species still present from the relic landscape and earlier land uses. It can also include plants and animals that have ‘escaped’ from parks and gardens, such as buddleia. Accidental introductions such as pineapple weed (Chamomila suaveolens), which came from the treads of tyres imported from the USA, can also be found in the urban environment. Many species, especially birds such as robin, song thrush, wren, dunnock and blackbird have adapted well to life in urban areas, as the areas meet their original habitat requirements.

Several amphibians and many invertebrates, having been lost from urban areas for many years, have now recolonised towns thanks to newly created garden ponds. Water voles, formerly very common in Surrey, have been lost from many rural areas as a result of habitat loss and predation by mink. In urban areas, which mink may be reluctant to enter, there were once significant populations in the Hoe Valley in Woking and on the River Wey in Farnham. Both of these populations have disappeared in recent years. The population on the Hoe Stream is thought to have disappeared after the 2000 floods, either through direct drowning or by predation once driven from the safety of the river corridor. Recolonisation is currently unlikely as mink have now moved into the area, although they are being monitored. The reason for the disappearance of the Farnham population is unknown, but is likely to be due to mink predation.

Neglected waste ground, railway sidings, allotments and gardens have an unexpectedly high wildlife value. These ‘weedy’ areas are now very uncommon in farmland and so these patches in urban areas are very important for many invertebrate and plant species. These are a valuable food source for some species of bird, including sparrows and finches, which are now becoming less common in intensively cultivated land.

2. Habitat Definition

Hardly any landscape in Britain can be said to be totally wild and natural. Interaction between people and the natural landscape has been going on for thousands of years. In Surrey the result is a mosaic of semi-natural and artificial habitat types. Other Habitat Action Plans within the Surrey BAP, such as farmland, lowland heathland, chalk grassland and woodland deal with many of these habitats, which can also occur in and around built-up areas.

Urban areas are difficult to define since they can include places of human settlement, the built environment and remnants of countryside. Transport links such as roads, railways, canals and bridges can extend into the countryside, forming an important green link in urban areas.

For this HAP, urban habitats can include natural greenspaces that are found in or around the following areas:

• Towns
• Villages
• Industrial estates
• Retail parks
• Office buildings
• Farm buildings
• Caravan parks
• Transport infrastructure
• Waste and derelict land
• Allotments
• Domestic gardens
• School grounds
• Golf courses

3. Current Status and Distribution

Surrey County Council’s Urban Capacity Study (SCC, 1998) demonstrated that the degree of urbanisation varied substantially from one District to another. The most urbanised areas were Epsom and Ewell (54.20%) and Elmbridge (41.10%) and the least so Guildford (9.20%), Waverley (7.30%), Tandridge (6.60%) and Mole Valley (4.70%). In between came Woking (36.90%), Spelthorne (34.30%) Reigate and Banstead (27.80%) Surrey Heath (23.90%) and Runnymede (21.30%). Please refer to Figure 1 below:

Due to green belt policy in Surrey, the rate of transfer from the countryside to urban areas is fairly low. The figures above are probably still broadly correct, even though the Urban Capacity Study is now 10 years old.

Within urban Surrey as a whole, there were then more than 1000ha of local authority defined open space, 840ha of playing fields, 107ha of allotments, 104ha of golf courses, 52ha of cemeteries and crematoria and 410ha of land associated with educational establishments, excluding playing fields. Other land uses with actual or potential wildlife interest include caravan sites, nurseries, churchyards, industrial areas, business parks and railway land. These uses combined occupied a further 740ha.

There are 55km of canal-side in Surrey as well as 650km of rivers and streams, much of which passes through urban areas. Also part of the urban habitat are railway cuttings and embankments, the 4600km of roadside verges and, perhaps most significantly of all, domestic gardens. Nationally, it has been estimated that such gardens cover one million hectares, an area larger than that accounted for by all nature reserves.

There are few or no figures available for the extent of either managed greenspace or for most of the naturally regenerating habitats. The value of both to wildlife is widely recognised but in the absence of any accepted criteria to assess them, many sites continue to be lost. While not everyone might agree with Chris Baines’ contention that “The green spaces of our towns and cities are the most important wildlife reserve this country has” (Baines, 1986), their value to wildlife is indisputable.

4. Factors Affecting the Habitat

Although humans have modified every part of the county in some way, the effects of people and their sheer numbers are most clearly apparent in urban areas. Since the built environment is subject to such close control, the potential for changing it is greater and more easily realised.

Surrey’s population density and its proximity to London places great pressure on its greenspace, especially that within and adjoining urban areas. Development, closely associated with the high land values that are a factor throughout the southeast, may therefore be the biggest single factor affecting many of the habitats.

Back garden and infill development is a big issue in Surrey at the moment, with developers trying to squeeze more housing or flats into the space previously occupied by one house and a large garden. This can lead to the loss of large, mature gardens, which are very important for urban wildlife.

There is particular pressure on previously developed or brownfield sites, many of which have communities of plants and animals far richer in terms of species diversity than intensively managed farmland. However, such developments can offer opportunities for wildlife.

Some problems associated with human pressures include trampling and erosion caused by walking, horse riding and mountain biking. Dog fouling can change the ecology of grassland by nutrient enrichment and can also reduce the perceived value of an area, leading in turn to its becoming littered. However, such is the adaptability of wildlife that even dumped rubbish, whilst very unsightly and certainly not to be encouraged, can provide an unexpected habitat for numerous creatures. Wildlife in some areas can suffer disturbance by other recreational activities such as water-skiing on former gravel pits or reservoirs. Over-enrichment or eutrophication of water, often as a result of over-stocking of fish, impoverishes lakes and gravel pits.

Inappropriate management of public open spaces and roadside verges is a key issue. Some areas may be over-managed with urban grasslands mown more frequently than is necessary for reasons of maintaining a public amenity. Park trees may be cut down when they show the first sign of decay, and fallen leaves and dead wood removed in the name of tidiness. The re-engineering and over-engineering of waterways has led to reductions in their biodiversity. Over-grazing of grasslands by horses damages both their botanical and invertebrate interest. Domestic gardens, which are reservoirs for a wide range of wildlife still suffer from herbicide and pesticide application, with resulting effects not just on the target species but on animals which depend on them, including song thrushes and hedgehogs. Even ecologically aware gardeners may not realise that certain very persistent pesticides like lindane (now banned), which was used in ant powder may still be present in powders and liquids standing around on shelves. Street trees have suffered badly through the activities of cable-laying companies and utilities.

Amongst a whole raft of other negative factors are the spread of some invasive plant species from domestic gardens to adjacent semi-natural habitats e.g. rhododendron into ancient woodland; the release (now illegal) into the wild of exotic animals such as red-eared terrapins; the impact of predation by domestic pets, especially on amphibians and reptiles in areas of human settlement near heathland; road kills and pollution of various kinds which may be contributing to the decline of common species such as the house sparrow.

The long decline in local authority budgets has led to some sales of school playing fields, such as those near Kiln Lane, Epsom, which resulted in the isolation of Stones Road Pond SSSI and adversely affected its population of great crested newts. The isolation and fragmentation of wildlife sites renders their wildlife more vulnerable as recolonisation becomes more difficult, especially for less-mobile species. Climate change will cause this to become more of an issue as habitats become unsuitable for some species that would normally move northwards. In a fragmented landscape this is not possible.

On the positive side, there have been changes in attitudes towards urban habitats brought about by a number of factors. The need for local authorities to cut costs has resulted in a reduction in the intensity of the management regime of some amenity grassland and roadside verges and the emergence of low input, low cost landscapes. Although public perception of the value of certain types of urban wildlife sites is still limited, heightened interest in the natural environment has led to a growth in the number of community groups actively involved in the protection and enhancement of some sites. The increase in membership and activities of local nature conservation organisations such as the Surrey Wildlife Trust has also had a beneficial effect. Local Agenda 21 programmes and their successors, the declaration of statutory Local Nature Reserves in urban areas and the substantial contribution of countryside management projects that usually operate in the urban fringe are all sources of encouragement. Many schools, especially primary schools, have developed wild areas within their grounds. Finally, a rising number of private gardeners have reduced or stopped the use of pesticides in their gardens and established compost heaps. The huge number of ponds dug in gardens has undoubtedly benefited amphibian and invertebrate populations, compensating for losses of natural breeding sites elsewhere.

5. Importance to People

“People need nature. With all the stresses and strains of urban living we feel better for it” (EN, 1996)

That fact that people’s interest in the natural environment generally has probably never been higher is clearly reflected in some of the developments referred to above. Conservation action at a local level is an activity that can cross age, gender and social divides and can become a social binding agent. It can lead to further involvement with the local community and local issues. Wildlife sites offer meeting places for local people and a focus for social events and recreation. Involvement in caring for such sites imparts a sense of community responsibility. Social problems such as vandalism can be eased by such involvement (Mostyn, 1979). Studies have shown measurable reductions in vandalism, cleaner streets and local rejuvenation following the introduction of wildlife gardening projects (Lewes, 1979).

People derive pleasure from the presence of wildlife and from the sights, sounds and smells of nature. Wildlife stimulates imagination and education and informal play. Even children reared on computer games still enjoy collecting conkers, acorns and ash keys, making daisy chains and blowing the seed heads off dandelions. Every accessible informal green space of any size is usually colonised by children’s dens almost as fast as it is taken over by buddleia.

Wildlife in urban areas has an invaluable role in keeping people in touch with seasonal changes. Trees burst into bud in spring, are in their full glory in summer when they provide welcome shade as well as dramatic colour in autumn. Towns devoid of wildlife are far poorer for people. Urban wildlife conservation is ultimately about providing for wildlife so that wildlife can provide for people.

The impact of human activity is most obvious in towns and cities, where nature is least natural. The common occurrence of species introduced from other parts of the world, often as garden escapees, is a typical feature of the built environment and has its own historical and cultural significance. The differences between one area and another are reflected just as clearly in the living environment as they are in bricks and stone. Examples include the strong historical association of Woking with horticulture, the connections between Camberley and the military, and the legacy in the form of large areas of open water of extensive mineral workings in Spelthorne and Runnymede. On a more local level, green areas within villages and towns provide links with the past and may form part of a community’s identity. Many ancient trees survive in areas long since built up and even where the original features are gone, street names such as ‘Orchard Close’ or ‘Elm Grove’ may offer clues about what was once there.

Exotic species are fairly common in urban areas. Many plant species have naturalised from gardens and allotments, and many are welcomed, especially, like buddleia, if they are attractive to insects. Some birds such as the mandarin duck are generally looked upon with tolerance, whereas the ring-necked parakeet is now increasingly being seen as a nuisance. Some introduced aquatic plants such as floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides and New Zealand swamp stonecrop Crassula helmsii threaten native species and habitats by completely smothering ponds and watercourses. It is likely that more species from different parts of the world will be introduced into urban areas. While some will be a good addition to our biodiversity, others will need to be controlled to prevent harm to native habitats and species.

What happens in towns and cities is of overriding importance to the future of biodiversity everywhere. Attitudes towards wildlife generally are determined in urban areas because that is where most people live and have most direct control over their own environment, even if this is just a small garden. A small action like putting a bird feeder up, with the result of seeing birds feeding at close quarters can cause a connection to wildlife. Small gestures like this may lead to more extensive actions such as building a pond, and a wider appreciation of wildlife and the environment. This aspect of biodiversity in urban areas could be the most important of all.

6. Benefits to the Community and Private Sector

People value natural green areas close to where they live and work. A high quality natural environment is one way to stimulate economic growth. Urban wildlife in its widest sense has major and demonstrable economic benefits, although these are certainly under-appreciated and often completely overlooked. Trees deaden urban noise and act as air-cleansing agents by filtering out air pollutants. Streets with trees may have only 10-15% of the atmospheric dust found in similar but treeless streets. With so much current concern about rising levels of asthma, especially among children, this is of major significance. Trees also save energy by reducing wind speeds. Vegetation around buildings reduces heat loss and can help protect surfaces against erosion. Trees play a major role in alleviating the problem of flooding resulting from storm-water run-off, while a flat roof planted with vegetation can hold 55% of its own volume in water, which is as much as 110 litres per square metre (Local Government News, April 1997).

Trees prevent loss of soil through erosion, while the aesthetic contribution of vegetation to the appearance of settlements in providing an ever-changing and vibrant contrast to the dull uniformity of grey concrete and tarmac is hard to over-estimate. Trees and shrubs can mask or completely conceal development and give even densely populated areas a much sought after rural feel, adding value to the houses in the streets which they line. Natural watercourses, besides their appeal to humans of all ages, can assist with drainage in built-up areas and provide an immensely valuable leisure resource at very low cost for anglers, walkers and others in search of quiet recreation.

Exposure to the natural environment benefits both physical and mental health. ‘Ecotherapy’, the 2007 MIND report states that people experiencing mental distress frequently use physical activities such as walking, gardening and exercise to help lift their mood, reduce stress, provide purpose and meaning and reduce vulnerability to depression. There is a distinct relationship between lack of green space in urban areas and levels of stress. There are several schemes that have been set up to try and improve people’s physical and mental health. Green Gym, run by the BTCV is a scheme that gives free access to an organised programme of outdoor environmental tasks. The Walking the Way to Health Initiative aims to get more people walking in their communities, especially those who take little exercise or live in areas of poor health.

Some people like to see in their local green spaces managed more intensively than what is good for wildlife. Householders tend to complain when grass is left unmown on roadside verges for example, while many unkempt looking school nature areas have suffered from misplaced good intentions by being ‘tidied-up’ when nature prefers untidiness.

Attitudes however are changing. Among the benefits of a ‘green’ urban environment are higher property values, and almost certainly, a more contented workforce. Some private companies have encouraged their employees to become involved in community action, including projects for nature conservation, while some groups of employees have taken similar initiatives themselves. Crest Homes worked with Surrey Wildlife Trust to encourage new homeowners to engage in wildlife friendly gardening, and Allianz Cornhill created a nature area in the grounds of their training headquarters with the assistance of their employees.

7. Potential

There is huge potential to increase biodiversity in urban areas. Suitable sites may be fragmented, but together they make up a large area.

Public bodies and in particular local authorities have far more influence in towns and cities than they do outside them, as they own a higher proportion of the land. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) requires that all public bodies should ‘have regard’ to biodiversity in their work.

It is relatively easy to identify changes in urban land use management that would bring good returns in terms of an increase in biodiversity. Many of these changes could be achieved either at low cost or even no cost, while some may even result in savings to the public purse.

Many benefits for wildlife in urban areas would result from one simple but fundamental move - the application of less-intensive management regimes to urban land.

Most people are in a position to make a positive and direct contribution, whether at home, work, or school or through their leisure activity. The power of individuals, whether acting as part of a community group or alone, to influence action by others should not be underestimated.

In the past, it used to be thought that provision for people and nature could be provided separately. Most people appreciate both formal and informal parks and gardens. Even the most formal of gardens can be of value to many species with subtle management changes.

8. Current Action

i. Site protection and legal status

Many local authorities play a major role in urban nature conservation in Surrey. The need for site protection, wildlife management and maintaining a diversity of linked natural networks are all clearly defined in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS 9), one of a series issued by the Government to local authorities. Such PPSs are highly significant as they constitute a ‘material consideration’ when planning applications are determined. Local authorities are expected to follow the advice they contain. Local authorities currently help to meet these responsibilities in urban areas in a variety of ways, such as through strategic land use allocations, through local development framework policies and nature conservation strategies, and by site designation and protection.

There are currently 63 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), 40 Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and about 700 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) in Surrey, the majority of which are either in or very near to areas of major settlements.

SSSIs are now more secure as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) strengthened the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Very few SSSIs in Surrey have been affected by development. Subtler threats still come from neglect or damage by third parties, although the legislation now provides a means of dealing with both problems. The Government’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) with Natural England and other public bodies is that 95% of all SSSIs should be in favourable condition by 2010.

LNRs may be declared by local authorities under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. At least 60% of those in the county are urban or urban fringe reserves. One of the most recent urban LNR declarations is the River Mole through Leatherhead, which was declared by Mole Valley District Council. A management group consisting of statutory agencies and local people help guide the management of the LNR.

Although both Parish and Town Councils may also declare LNRs, subject to the approval of the County or District council, only a handful of such authorities, including Lingfield and Dormansland have as yet made use of this power.

The English Nature Wildspace! Scheme ran from 1999-2006. Its aim was to improve the management and interpretation of Local Nature Reserves. It benefited several LNRs in Surrey, and enabled the declaration of four new LNRs in Elmbridge during the course of the project.

All District and Borough councils have Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs). They will become increasingly important, as districts, boroughs and the County Council will have to report on them for National Indicator 197. There is guidance in the Defra publication ‘Local Sites – Guidance on their identification, selection and management’. Criteria for SNCI selection were produced in 2008.

Natural England's Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) provide a set of benchmarks for ensuring access to places near to where people live. These standards recommend that people living in towns and cities should have:

• an accessible natural greenspace of at least 2 hectares in size, no more than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home
• at least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home
• one accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home
• one accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home
• statutory Local Nature Reserves at a minimum level of one hectare per thousand population.

The Thames Basin Heaths Development Plan has been produced, which addresses the effects on heathland of development near the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Increased numbers of visitors, dogs and cats cause negative impacts, especially on the ground nesting birds for which the heathlands are designated. The delivery plan states that development within 400m of a SPA would not normally be permitted. Any development between 400m to 5km of a SPA should provide a Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) to take some of the pressure off the SPA.

Policy CC8 of the South East Plan states that all Local Authorities should have a Green Infrastructure Plan. Green Infrastructure (GI) is a network of multifunctional greenspace within and between cities, towns and villages. It can include formal parks, gardens, woodlands, green corridors, waterways and open countryside. Several authorities have adopted it as a mechanism for development planning, and strategic planning for countryside and heritage projects and initiatives. GI should contribute to improving sustainable resource management, biodiversity, landscape, and regional development and promotion. GI should have social benefits by improving quality of life and access to open space; economic benefits through investment and employment; environmental benefits; and health benefits by promoting an active lifestyle.

ii. Management

There are four Countryside Management Projects operating in urban or urban-fringe areas. These are the Blackwater Valley, Downlands, Gatwick Greenspace and Lower Mole Countryside Management Projects. Surrey County Council and a consortium of Borough and District Councils support each project. In addition the Surrey Heathland Project and Wey Valley Project both work in areas adjoining the built environment.

Countryside Management Projects have proved an especially effective mechanism for achieving action. They have been successful in engaging the interest and attention of local communities in conservation action and have mobilised very substantial numbers of volunteers. Their semi-autonomous status and resulting distance from the local authorities by whom they are principally funded has allowed them to develop close and fruitful working relationships with some landowners and in many cases they make a significant contribution to the management of privately owned SSSIs. They also make a significant positive contribution to the selection and subsequent management of SNCIs. Unfortunately local authority budgets are under increasing pressure, which can result in a loss, decrease or uncertainty about project funding.

Examples of urban parks and open spaces where management takes account of wildlife and can provide a model for others to emulate include Nonsuch Park in Epsom and Ewell, Wyke Churchyard in Guildford and Farnham Park, Waverley. Mole Valley District Council have changed the grass-cutting regime in many parks to benefit biodiversity.

Site-based community initiatives include those at Lingfield, Blanchman’s Farm, Warlingham and Blindley Heath (all in Tandridge); Fox Corner, Pirbright, Heathfield, Send and Snaky Lane, Ash Vale (all in Guildford); and Ditton Field (Elmbridge). The Bourne Conservation Group, Farnham is very active in Waverley.

The Surrey Greenspaces Project is a five-year Heritage Lottery Funded project that started in 2008. 4 project officers run the project that is based in three target areas: Woking, North Guildford and Merstham. The project aims to protect and enhance urban sites within these areas by encouraging the local communities, especially young people to become involved in the monitoring and management of sites. Training and community events will be held, as well as guided walks and green gyms. The project will also work with schools in the target areas to improve their grounds for wildlife, set up after school clubs and hold INSET days for teachers. County wide the project aims to put together educational loan boxes for schools as well as downloadable educational packs. It will also support existing local environmental groups by setting up a forum and sending a regular newsletter.

Green Arc is a new initiative that aims to connect areas of countryside in the green belt around London. This includes Surrey north of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The connections will also encourage access from urban areas. Areas selected should try and fulfil the Countryside Agency’s (now part of Natural England) ‘Ten Functions of the Countryside’. There are five pilot areas in the Surrey / South-west London Green Arc area. These are:

• Thames2Downs – Royal Borough of Kingston / Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council, City of London
• Hutchinson’s Bank – London Borough of Croydon / Tandridge District Council
• Molesey Heath – Elmbridge Borough Council
• Riddlesdown – London Borough of Croydon / City of London / Tandridge District Council
• Staines Moor / Church Lammas – Spelthorne District Council

iii. Advice

The Surrey School Grounds Forum runs an annual course for teachers, which includes information about school wildlife areas. The Surrey Wildlife Trust also runs popular courses for the general public on wildlife gardening through its educational reserve at Nower Wood.

District and Borough Councils run various initiatives. There is a Gardening for Life scheme that runs in Woking and Guildford, which gives advice to gardeners about how to consider wildlife when gardening. The Guildford in Bloom competition has a Best Garden for Wildlife category. Elmbridge Borough Council has a Link up with Nature education initiative. Tandridge District Council has an Environmental Initiatives Grant Scheme for projects that benefit the environment.

At an individual level, there is plenty of evidence that people are keen to take action. Surveys in 1999 and 2002 of stag beetles by the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, resulted in the submission of over 3,000 records. Individual commitment is also indicated by the very high Surrey membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Surrey Wildlife Trust. Many people volunteer for local community organisations that carry out management on sites important for wildlife. The Surrey County Council Countryside Service is aiming for 5,000 volunteer days during 2009/10. This doesn’t include volunteers that work on the Countryside Estate, which is managed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust.

iv. Research and monitoring

There is not much knowledge about urban habitats across Surrey. Any effort or work that is happening in Surrey should be encouraged through the Urban Habitat Action Plan.

• Urban HAP Objectives and Targets 2008 - 2013
• Urban HAP Actions 2008 - 2013?