Loose Valley Conservation Area Draft Conservation & Enhancement Plan 2010 – 2020

***Revised DRAFT***

Mark Pritchard, Medway Valley Countryside Partnership (MVCP) – September 2008

Table of Contents

1        Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................................... 3

2        Valley description........................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1     Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.2     Location and size................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3     Description of Habitats in the Area.................................................................................................................... 9

2.4     Land tenure........................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.5     Land Use history.................................................................................................................................................. 11

3        Environmental information...................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1     Biological.............................................................................................................................................................. 14

3.2     Physical................................................................................................................................................................. 15

3.3     Cultural and aesthetic........................................................................................................................................ 16

3.3.1        Public Benefit and use............................................................................................................................... 16

4        Evaluation.................................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1     Conservation status of the valley...................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.1        Historic......................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2     Evaluation and features..................................................................................................................................... 18

4.3     Major Factors influencing conservation......................................................................................................... 20

4.3.1        Constraints.................................................................................................................................................. 20

4.3.2        Evaluation of current conservation......................................................................................................... 20

4.4     Ideal aims and conservation by habitat type................................................................................................. 22

5        Ways Forward............................................................................................................................................................ 23

5.1     Scientific projects................................................................................................................................................. 23

5.2     Activities................................................................................................................................................................ 23

6        References.................................................................................................................................................................. 24

7        Attribution and Contacts.......................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A – Summary of MVCP surveys...................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix B – Photographs of individual habitats in the Valley................................................................................... 27

1         Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

This document has been produced to identify ways to enhance and sustain the biodiversity value of the whole Loose Valley Conservation Area and its margins (referred to hereafter as ‘the Valley’). It is intended to provide a framework that interested stakeholders can develop further, share, and deliver through a variety of concerted actions. The document was commissioned by the Loose Valley Conservation Area Partnership (LVCAP) and undertaken by Medway Valley Countryside Partnership (MVCP), with support from the Lottery Heritage Fund.

The Valley (see Map 1) is a very attractive semi-rural sliver of incised and well-watered land on the outskirts of Maidstone comprising exceptional heritage, amenity and biodiversity (habitat) value. Housing development pressure however, is severe and landholdings highly fragmented (see Map 2), which threaten the long term biodiversity potential of this most special landscape.

Habitat Value: A Site of Nature Conservation Interest (now Local Wildlife Site) covering some 28.5 Ha was first declared in 1988 owing to the valuable flora and fauna found along the length of the valley. There are a wide range of important habitats, the valley containing at least 3 national Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP[1]) target habitats. These are “Open water”, “Neutral grassland” and “Lowland fen” (the last in small pockets).

Threats: In addition to the threat of new housing developments and garden infilling, the overall biodiversity value of the valley is threatened by climate change. The Wildlife Trusts state that ‘Climate change is almost certainly the most significant challenge facing nature conservation today, with the potential to have significant impacts on the future of UK and global biodiversity’. Addressing these threats requires concerted action engaging as many stakeholders as possible.

Potential Benefits from adopting a ‘whole valley’ approach to conservation include:

q       enhanced effectiveness of the valley as a wildlife refuge and source of fauna (e.g.) bats, butterflies and birds for adjacent properties through increased proportion of land under conservation & habitat enhancement regimes.

q       strengthened inter-connectivity of the various habitats to benefit wildlife migration and provide greater resilience to potentially adverse climatic fluctuations and/or development pressures

q       greater number of complementary habitats and less duplication with enhanced ‘integrity’ of the valley habitats through an agreed programme of coordinated habitat improvement works

q       greater community engagement, ownership and sympathetic public use leading to greater protection of the valley and margins from development

q       more geo-diversity in the valley with overall enhanced landscape character

q       optimising benefits from the (soon to be) Hayle Park Nature Reserve

q       coordinated system for regular monitoring of changing flora & fauna

q       long term continuity ensured through engagement with local schools and communities to assist monitoring and conservation tasks with support of local groups

Conclusions: In order to maximise the biodiversity potential of the Valley and sustain it through a changing environment, a ‘whole valley’ approach offers many advantages. To achieve this, LVCAP must interact more effectively with all stakeholder groups, especially as concerns future plans for land that conservation groups and others now own. A forward strategy needs to be agreed together, based on:

1. Larger/Longer perspective: the status and potential of the valley within the context of borough/county/national agendas, taking into account future climate change with the whole valley as an ‘oasis’ and biological ‘corridor’
2. Stakeholder Plans: An evaluation of current conditions in the valley and stakeholder habitat conservation plans for the future (rather than the present)
3. Monitoring Progress: A programme incorporating regular plant and animal monitoring surveys to assess progress and prioritise actions together.

Recommendations: A concerted programme should include the following actions:

1. Consult stakeholders about their forward plans and then work to harmonise these in terms of promoting overall habitat diversity and sustainability.
2. Make more use of the large body of local knowledge and expertise. Engage with concerned local people (on an individual basis) and assist them to participate and express their expertise through special interest networks such as wildlife gardening groups, bird-watching, walking in and around the valley.
3. Make sure that all landowners in the Conservation Area are aware of their responsibilities and appropriate sources of advice should they have need.
4. Encourage enhancement of rare and biodiversity action plan (BAP) priority habitats (such as wetland, standing open water, neutral grassland and open rock geological sites)
5. Hayle Park Nature Reserve (HPNR) offers major potential for enhancing the ecological value of the area, and assisting related efforts in the valley. LVCAP must establish a good relationship with HPNR management, seek to harmonise efforts wherever practical (especially the monitoring system) and assist progress towards designation of HPNR as a local nature reserve.
6. Make a study of changes likely to affect the valley over the next 20 years and draw up contingency plans accordingly with key stakeholders (e.g. to combat development pressures and adapt to climate change with probable changes in water availability)
7. Monitor changes in habitat and biodiversity a) to understand trends, b) to prioritise, guide and refine management practices and interventions, and c) to help justify applications for resources and investment of future funds in enhancing biodiversity. This might be done in partnership with local schools using geographical information system software.
8. Engage the next generations through a programme of activities to ensure long term sustainability: make sure that they all ‘Value the Valley’.
9. Build up the broadest network of supporters ready to support local groups in opposing unsuitable developments and to purchase land both in and around the conservation area. Priorities need to be identified and funding opportunities sought in conjunction with local match funding.

LVCAP: The Conservation Area Partnership itself needs to be more proactive in its aims and engage with as many landowners and other stakeholders as possible, seeking to extend its harmonising role in order to complement and enhance individual and group actions in support of appropriate biodiversity, heritage and amenity actions and mitigate inappropriate developments. This will include:

q       Assisting the HPNR set up an ‘outreach’ or ‘extension’ programme with interested parties throughout the valley

q       Working with local schools, special interest groups and the HPNR to maximise the educational value of the Valley, and in particular to help set up and maintain a compatible change monitoring system for the long term (10 to 50 years)

q       Helping the development of local wildlife gardening and valley appreciation groups based on local expertise

q       Identifying opportunities to enhance the conserved area and protect it from further development through purchase or other arrangements.

q       Exploring the potential consequences of climate change on the Valley and arrange for appropriate monitoring of local change (e.g. water table, stream flow, water quality) and raising awareness for incorporation in landowners forward planning.

q       Seeking financial and logistical support for the above and similar concerted actions involving local groups

q       Identifying contact points to obtain and circulate early information on planning proposals from/to its constituent groups and (e.g.) MBC Planning (and Conservation) Department

The kind of concerted actions envisaged include (e.g.) ‘complementary’ wildlife gardens, efficiency of mill-pond maintenance through coordinated de-silting, complementary tree planting and land/habitat management across boundaries, making the most of land immediately adjacent to the conservation area (the margins), a valley wide monitoring system, outreach activities in relation to the nature reserve, etc.

The first step is to consult key stakeholders and ascertain their interest in working to shared objectives. This might best be achieved through an open meeting with invited experts to consider the future of the valley within the context of a changing climate. The Wildlife Trusts have already used this approach to help harmonise policy and coordinate local/regional/national actions[2].

2         Valley description

2.1        Introduction

The Loose stream rises near Langley and flows through the Parishes of Boughton Monchelsea, Loose and Tovil before joining the River Medway. The conservation area, the incised valley and its margins (hereafter called the valley) follows the stream from Boughton through Loose and into Tovil. It is fed in part by a series of springs arising from the Greensand embankments which form the sides of the valley. The valley comprises a mosaic of rough unmanaged grassland, semi-improved grazed pastures, drier horse grazed meadows and damp marshy grassland along the valley floor beside the river (KWT, 2001). Boughton Parish Council, Loose Parish Council, Loose Swiss Scouts, Loose Amenities Association and the Valley Conservation Society are all significant landowners within the valley and there are a variety of private landowners too (see Map 2). The area was designated as a Local Wildlife Site in 1988.

2.2        Location and size

The valley lies on the south and south-west outskirts of Maidstone, Kent.

Central National Grid Reference TQ757530

Map 1 both locates the valley on the outskirts of Maidstone (KCC, 2008) and gives a guide to the habitats found there (from the Kent Habitat Survey 2003). A public right of way runs along the spine of the valley, which is criss-crossed by a series of formal and informal footpaths.

The Loose Valley Conservation Area is large by conservation standards, extending some 2 miles in length with variable width. It was designated by virtue of the heritage value of the numerous (13) mills and associated structures (ponds, mill races etc) that harnessed the Loose stream for power over several hundred years.

Map 1 - Loose Valley habitats, (KCC, 2008)

2.3         Description of Habitats in the Area

The valley comprises a mosaic of rough unmanaged grassland, semi-improved grazed pastures, drier horse grazed meadows and damp marshy grassland along the valley floor beside the river. The valley has been divided up into its major habitats by KCC (2003), which will aid decisions that are to be made regarding their on-going conservation. These habitat types are described in more detail in Table 1.

Table 1 also features so called “Indicator species” for each habitat. These are selected species, which are comparatively easy to identify that are indicative of good health of the selected habitat type. In this way they can be used as a type of shorthand that the conservation strategy adopted is the right one.

Table 1.  Valley habitats & BAP habitats (see Map 1)

Within the national BAP (UK BAP, 2008) there are 1149 nationally recognized species and 65 BAP habitats. A sub-set of these may be found within Kent, a further sub-set within the valley. There are too many to name individually here, but ‘champion’ indicator species for each habitat featured have been outlined as either indicators of good health of those habitats, or aspirational species to be achieved by sympathetic conservation measures.

In addition there are features of geological interest in the valley (indicated on Map1) and heritage features pertinent to nature conservation.

2.4         Land tenure

There are a number of landowners within the valley, see Map 2. Each of these will have their own intentions and goals for their own land. This advisory document seeks to set out broad ecological and conservation principles that could lead to an enhanced conservation status for the whole valley. Obviously action taken on one piece of land may have a beneficial or detrimental impact upon others. By considering broad principles determined by nationally recognised biodiversity action plan targets (for both habitats and species) it is believed that the best possible outcome for the conservation of the valley can be achieved. This applies equally to its flora and fauna and its unique and enduring landscape character.

Furthermore, this document seeks to raise awareness amongst all landowners of the desirability of consulting with their neighbours and engaging in a landowning community who harmonise their long term goals  in sympathy with the well-being of the whole valley.

2.5         Land Use history

The character of the valley, and the fact that it is now a conservation area, is due in large part to its former industrial heritage. This has resulted in a comparatively low housing density and a series of characteristic mill features. As with much of the semi-natural landscape of Britain, nature has also benefited from man’s intervention, and come to occupy the niches created, whether they are inadvertent or deliberate. As a result it is necessary to continue to intervene in order to maintain the landscape features and to act on behalf of the area’s biodiversity..

The land was partially cultivated, partially grazed, and partially wooded (see Map 3 below). As in much of the rest of Kent there were substantial areas set over to orchards that have now been lost. The area of open fields to the east of the valley has now largely been subsumed by sub-urban Maidstone, but to the west of the valley the field patterns remain remarkably unchanged.  The valley’s Local Wildlife Site, although linear in nature must be considered in relation to the surrounding, buffering countryside around urban Maidstone.

Owing to the proposed establishment of the Hayle Park Local Nature Reserve there could be significant synergy and mutual benefit to be had with the conservation area and the establishment of this new site. As a general point of principle the sum of two contiguous blocks of land which are actively conserved is greater than if those parcels of land were separated. Any long term goals and aspirations for the Hayle Park site, should also consider the existing conservation of the wider valley.

Map 3 - Historic Map of Loose Valley 1872 (KCC, 2008) Current Local Wildlife Site boundary picked out in green

3         Environmental information

3.1         Biological

Vegetation surveys within the valley have so far been conducted on a presence/absence basis, identifying species that are present. Detailed records of these data are held at the Kent & Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC). KMBRC have prepared, on behalf of MVCP a report (KMBRC, 2006) listing; protected species, Red Data book species, BAP plan species, bats, birds, SNCI status, Kent habitat survey and Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS). This report has been used to advise the priorities recommended in this report and to identify those species either still present or once found, that can be used to indicate the ‘health’ of the valley.

MVCP have conducted a variety of surveys within the valley. The results of these are summarised within Appendix A. These surveys re-iterate the Local Wildlife Site designation by the Kent Wildlife and reflect the diversity of marginal vegetation and plant species. The combination of woodland and riverside plants creates good conditions for a wide range of invertebrates and bird species throughout the year.

In 2007 MVCP conducted a water vole survey along the length of the valley. This was conducted over a series of site visits and attempted to establish the presence or absence of the species by checking for field signs such as latrines, burrows, feeding signs as well as the animals themselves. Unfortunately no signs were found. This is not definitively conclusive as to their absence as the valley has historic records of their presence, and retains excellent pockets of habitat. Ideally the course should be repeated, which would also help engage landowners in practical conservation.

MVCP is currently conducting a dormouse survey in the Swiss Scouts owned land at the eastern end of the valley (see section 5.1). Dormice nest boxes have been erected which have been provided by the Kent Mammal Group. No dormouse have yet been found, but the survey will continue each month until November 2008, so hopes remain high for discovering this protected species.

Local residents conduct a number of ad-hoc surveys, especially of butterflies, birds and plants. It is recommended that standard walks within each habitat are adopted and mapped so that a degree of replication and repetition of surveys can be introduced. No consistent date is used for conducting plant surveys. A consistent date should be chosen to build up a picture of species on the valley and the effect conservation has had.

Plant surveys have been conducted on a presence/absence basis. If resources allow, it would be a progressive step to attempt to categorise the various plant assemblages by NVC (National Vegetation Classification) guidelines, as published by Natural England. No measures of abundance, percentage cover or domin scale have yet been used.

Finally, comprehensive bat surveys have been carried out along the length of the valley in 2006. Five species of bats were recorded in the survey; 45 kHz, 55 kHz pipistrelles, Daubenton, Noctule and Serotines bringing the species total to 6 to include Natterers which are known to use the valley.  Over 240 bat passes were recorded on the 2 evenings with bats commuting along the valley and feeding over the millponds, fields and Loose stream. There were several areas of high feeding activity and four potential roosts recorded in buildings.  The report concluded that the valley has a good mix of rough unmanaged grassland, semi-improved pasture, woodland, streams and ponds all valuable for wildlife forming an important ‘wildlife corridor’.  The valley, with the Loose stream, numerous millponds, woodlands, gardens and grazing land has good foraging and roosting potential for bats.

A useful way of determining the relative health of the various habitats and ecosystems present within the valley is to identify “indicator” species for each habitat. These can be plants or animals. Provided they are found each year, they can give a good and quick means to identify whether or not the respective habitats are being maintained in a favourable condition. Suggested indicator species for each habitat are given in Table 4 below. 

3.2         Physical

Geomorphology, topography, and substrate

The valley has been listed by Kent Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Valleys (RIGS) (2008) as regionally important site MA5, see Map 1. This geo-diversity echoes the industrial past of the valley and the quarrying that once occurred along its length. The term geo-diversity incorporates all the variety of rocks, minerals, landforms and the processes which have formed these features throughout geological time.

Surrounding land-use & development

From Map 1 it can be seen that the valley is bounded to the North & East by housing, and by agricultural land to the South and West. Therefore, while it remains an important open space on the fringes of Maidstone, it also retains a connection to the wider countryside, helping the migration of plants and animals to and through the valley, and their adaptation to any fluctuations in climate

Hydrology

The area is predominantly well drained with the river flowing along the base of the valley. Even in drought years the flow of water has remained remarkably consistent. This consistency of flow could be of increasing importance in potential future drought years, especially as the valley runs along a north/south axis, linking other rural land on the fringes of Maidstone. Should the springs dry up, however, there could be very serious consequences for habitats along the length of the valley. In order to mitigate against this threat consideration should be given to any water abstraction along the valley that exceeds certain base flow water levels.

The Valley in a Changing Climate

According to the Wildlife Trusts, ‘Climate change is almost certainly the most significant challenge facing nature conservation, with the potential to have significant impacts on the future of UK and global biodiversity’. (http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=climatechange)

Farming Futures poll of farmers in England suggests strongly that climate change is already happening: ‘more than 50% say that they are already affected by climate change and more than 70% expect to be affected within 10 years’. Farms local to the valley are already being forced to change their practices in response to the changing climate.

At the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s February 2008 meeting to consider ‘Tomorrow’s Kent’ it was emphasised that ‘climate change is not simply a concern for the future: it is altering our country now, for good or bad, and we need to react urgently’.

Whether the climate warms or cools the importance of the valley as a north south connection cannot be over stated. Natural migration and recolonization of species is the most likely way for any to continue to succeed, as in the era of a changing climate there will inevitably be winners and losers. Even in the situation of a relatively static climate, there will remain substantial local differences in micro-climate, as the seasonal warming effects of large water bodies will be felt in the valley bottoms, and the west and east facing slopes may have significant differences in, especially, flora.

It is widely recognised that the first indications of a changing climate from global warming are an increase in global mean temperature accompanied by an increase in local climate variability, i.e. more local extremes of rain, drought, wind, heat, cold.  While predictions of local/regional changes are still relatively uncertain, south-east England is expected to experience drier summers and wetter winters. The combined effect for vegetation growing in or near the valley is likely to be an increase in water demand (due to higher temperatures) together with a decrease in summer rainfall, when it is most needed by the plants. The net effect will be progressively less water feeding the springs and the stream, while riparian landowners become more and more interested in water extraction for irrigation.   The ‘oasis’ aspect of the valley (a small area of green vegetation surrounded by a large area of much drier land) will become enhanced. Since trees use significantly more water than grassland, and extract water from greater depths, the present high tree-density in parts of the valley may become incompatible with maintaining a healthy flow in the stream.  

Thus, climate change seems likely to have major effect on the habitat/biodiversity in the valley within the lifetime of most people and trees living there now, and certainly within the lifetime of trees planted today. 

3.3         Cultural and aesthetic

3.3.1        Public Benefit and use

Recreational use

The valley is actively used by the local community for informal recreation. In particular it is very popular with dog walkers. There does not appear to be a significant problem with dog fouling at present. Some events such as the pageant happen, although not every year.

A wide variety of organizations have been consulted during the creation of this plan, these include; Loose Parish Council, LVCP, LAA, VCS and the Loose Swiss Scouts.

The valley has a long history of being a working valley. The mills which have shaped it so much have now gone, but there are still significant and substantial areas of farmland and horse pasture along it’s length. Indeed the mill sites themselves continue to have a bearing on the landscape character of the valley, as they become redeveloped and attract new residents to the area. Many of these may be seeking a lifestyle change to what is perceived as a more rural location. It is evident that this may bring extra pressures especially on the transport infra-structure, but it may bring opportunities too as there may be people newly enthused about conservation and semi-rural living.

Birds

The valley is a haven for birds, with more than 60 species being identified at the last count as users of the valley. These include important species such as the Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) and the seriously declining Spotted fly-catcher (Muscicapa striata). As well as providing much pleasure to local residents when visiting their feeding stations, the continued presence and active encouragement of these birds by sympathetic conservation can provide excellent indicators as to the health and well-being of the whole valley. Involving local people in monitoring birds is both a practical step to engage with them and also will make a contribution into maintaining the long term health of the whole conservation area.

Access

A public footpath runs along the length of the valley. The public have open access to the valley at all times. There are currently few barriers to cycles or motorbikes, with the latter proving problematic at times particularly on the bridleways on the eastern edge of the valley. There are substantial issues with roads being used both as “rat runs” and by inappropriately large vehicles.

Owing to the linear nature of the valley access points are best at either end, especially near the Chequers pub and Brooks Field, where there are excellent areas for recreation and enjoyment.

Research/education/interpretation

There is no formalised programme of education or research at present. There are a number of interpretation panels along the length of the valley already in situ, with others planned. These describe some of the nature conservation interest and heritage features found.

The valley contains a wealth of important heritage features, listed building and structures, and remnants that might be described as industrial archaeology. These remain outside the scope of this report, except  where they have a direct bearing on the ecology and landscape of the valley.

Health and safety

There are a number of steeply profiled banks within the valley, particularly where quarrying activity once took place. In addition the stream and open water provide obvious hazards. The footpaths and steps within the valley are in a generally good state of repair. The Parish Council should conduct risk assessments for the valley and initiate a regular schedule of checks for new risks such as deteriorating footpaths or dangerous trees.

Regular litter patrols both keep the valley tidy and make it visually more appealing to the public, but can also remove potential hazards to wildlife, especially from such non-biodegradable substances as plastics.

Existing plans

Much excellent work is already being carried out to benefit conservation along the length of the valley. This ranges form the significant improvements carried out on the ponds in the north end of the valley by the VCS, through the grazing of the LAA land, to maintenance of the Brooks field area by the Parish Council and significant conservation efforts put in by the Loose Swiss Scouts in their land.

To re-iterate an earlier point, this plan does not seek to replace others, rather to build on them by providing an overall habitat based view of the valley, that connects and builds upon the good practice already demonstrated.

4         Evaluation

4.1          Conservation status of the valley

4.1.1        Historic

Little recorded information exists as to what species of flora and fauna were present prior to WWII. However historic maps such as Map 3 give an insight into the former land use. The valley has no current legal designations; however it is designated as a Local Wildlife Site, which may confer some extra protection within the normal planning process.

4.2         Evaluation and features

The following table highlights those features of the valley that add to its nature conservation importance, and place them in local, regional and national context.

Table 2.  Assessing the importance of notable valley features/species

Table 3 provides a SWOT analysis of the valley based on Ratcliffe Criteria (1977)

Table 3 – Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats

Table 4 provides a generic SWOT analysis of the landscape, recreation and community

Table 4 –  General Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats

4.3         Major Factors influencing conservation

4.3.1        Constraints

·         Time

·         Budget

·         Equipment

·         Skills, including knowledge of taxonomy and ecology

·         Available skilled personnel to carry out tasks

·         Land ownership

·         Land pressures

·         Increasing competition for use of existing land owing to higher local population

4.3.2        Evaluation of current conservation

As a general point of principle, clean cut edges and tightly delimited boundaries between habitat types are not good for wildlife conservation. Creation of transitional softer edges – so called “ecotones” – can be extremely beneficial to the natural recolonization and successful establishment of all types of habitat. The following Map 4 suggests some priorities that following evaluation of the rest of this plan.

Map 4 – Suggested priority actions

4.4         Ideal aims and conservation by habitat type

Therefore based on the above evaluation of the whole valley a set of ideal aims can be identified.  These aims are then used to set aims specific to the habitat identified above. Table 5 summarises this information.

Table 5.  Ideal Biodiversity Aims

5         Ways Forward

Detailed objectives and actions for each habitat to achieve the ideal aims stated in section 4.4 will follow on from wider consultation of this draft document. Consultation with and between landowners must happen, the desired direction for conservation assessed, and the practicalities and costs of what are purely suggested recommendations as to the biodiversity potential of the wider valley, reviewed. Following this consultation, objectives can then be set which can then be measured and delivered.

5.1          Scientific projects

A dormouse survey is currently being conducted by MVCP in the Swiss Scouts owned woodland at the south-east end of the valley. Nest boxes have been erected to attempt to establish the presence/absence of this BAP species. These are monitored each month. The survey data will feed into the Kent Mammal Group and National Dormouse Survey. If, however, a more comprehensive and regular schedule of surveys and monitoring were introduced it would greatly benefit the on-going wellbeing of the valley as a wildlife refuge. Some of this work would have to be conducted by specialists; however some could be carried out by locals. This would also help assess the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the habitat conservation and enhancement. Monitoring data should be captured in a format suitable for recording at both KMBRC and in (e.g) local school geographical information system (GIS). KMBRC hold a central database of flora and fauna throughout the county for use by planners, developers, and concerned citizens alike. If important and rare species are found, data recorded by KMBRC will then be used in the planning process and so can have a direct role in influencing the conservation status of the whole valley. A systematic monitoring system would be most valuable in order to quantify changes, to assess the impacts of different actions and to justify investments and grants.

5.2          Activities

A schedule of surveys could engage local schools plus members of the community, and provide an enhanced sense of value and ownership of the whole valley. A suggested schedule of survey and activities is given in table 6 below.

In addition, the existing network of gardens could be still further enhanced. Building on the expertise of many local gardeners, the creation of a network of wildlife gardens could be an achievable goal. Wildlife gardening encourages and cultivates species specifically for the benefit of nature; such as providing year long sources of food or  living spaces for all manner of creatures.

Table 6 – Proposed table of activities

6         References

JNCC, (1998), A statement on common standards monitoring, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, ISBN1 86107 464 6

Kent BAP, (2008), Standing Open Water, http://www.kentbap.org.uk/habitats/view/?hap=145

Kent County Council, (2008), Aerial photograph of Loose Valley, http://extranet7.kent.gov.uk/klis/default.asp

Kent Downs AONB, (2008), Land Managers’ Pack, http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/Land_Managers_Pack.htm

Kent Habitat Survey, (2003), Kent Habitat Survey, http://extranet7.kent.gov.uk/klis/default.asp

KWT, (2001), MA20 2001 Local Wildlife Site Citation, Kent Wildlife Trust 

Ratcliffe, D.A. (ed) (1977), A Nature Conservation Review, NERC/NCC

RIGS, (2008), Loose Quarry, Quarry Wood (TQ 763518), http://www.kentrigs.org.uk/loose.html

UK BAP, (2008), Priority habitats, http://www.ukbap.org.uk/Default.aspx

7         Attribution and Contacts

If you wish to consult on this document, its contents and sources then please contact Mark Pritchard, of the Medway Valley Countryside Partnership,  via email to mark.pritchard@medwayvalley.org

The Loose Valley Conservation Area Partnership is a relatively informal association of Parish Councils, Amenity Groups, Land landowners and other stakeholders with a common interest in maintaining and enhancing the qualities of the Valley. Representatives of Loose Parish Council (Roger Thornborough), Swiss Scouts (Bob Jessope), Tovil Parish Council (Jim Williams), Valley Conservation Society (David Hill, Ann King), among others contributed to preparation of this document.

LVCAP contact points include:

LVCAP chair:  Jane Holman, 3, The Manor, Hayle Place, Maidstone, ME15 6DW

Loose Parish Council: Jan Capon Clerk, 29 Caernarvon Drive, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6FJ Tel: 01622 692712

Swiss Scouts: Bob Jessope, 1 Leigh Avenue, Loose ME15 9UY tel 01622  745473

Tovil Parish Council, Alison Chew, Clerk: c/o Archbishop Courtenay Primary School, Church Road, Tovil, ME15 6QY tel 01622 675628

Valley Conservation Society chair: Bryn Cornwell,  4 Stockett lane, Loose ME15 tel 01622 746514

Institutional Contacts:

Kent & Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC), Tyland Barn,  Sandling, Maidstone, ME14 3BD

Kent Wildlife Trust, Tyland Barn, Chatham Rd, Sandling, Maidstone, ME14 3BD, 01622 662012

Medway Valley Countryside Partnership,

Appendix A – Summary of MVCP surveys

Site: Reeds Pond                       Recorder:  Ian Johnstone            Date: 2 August 2006

                                                             Mark Pritchard                                     

Survey Recording Sheet                                         Recorder:  Ian Johnstone

Site: Lower Crisbrook Pond                                    Date: 9 & 16 August2006