bd5303: monitoring the effects of environmental stewardship on...

BD5303: Monitoring the effects of Environmental Stewardship on Landscape Character and Quality

Developing a method for reporting and monitoring the direct and cumulative impacts of Environmental Stewardship on the maintenance and enhancement of Landscape Character and Quality

3. Report of Findings: Landscape effects of Environmental Stewardship at the National Character Area and Agricultural Landscape Type Levels

Prepared by LUC in association with Julie Martin Associates

June 2013

BD5303: Monitoring the effects of Environmental Stewardship on Landscape Character and Quality: Report 3

Project Title: BD5303: Monitoring the Effects of Environmental Stewardship on Landscape Character and Quality

Client: Defra. Managed by Natural England

Acknowledgements

The study (BD5303) was commissioned and funded by Defra and overseen by Natural England. We are particularly grateful to the Officers that have guided us through this study: From Defra: Richard Brand-Hardy ERG-WAC, Mark Baylis ELM, and David Devaney ERG-SOIL; and from Natural England the Project Officers: Gill Travis, Victoria Hunns, Sarah Manning and Andrew Baker who have provided detailed advice and guidance over the three years of the study. We are also very grateful to our Steering Group for their helpful advice made up of representatives from Defra and Natural England (as above) and officers of English Heritage: Jeremy Lake, Vince Holyoake and Amanda Chadburn.

This study has been led and managed by Lyndis Cole Principal of LUC with Robert Deane, Sally Parker, Helen Cooper, Diana Manson, and Will Cookson of LUC; Julie Martin of Julie Martin Associates; Jonathan Porter, Jemma Brookes and Laura Jagota of Countryscape; Roy Haines-Young of Fabis Consulting; and Professor Carys Swanwick of Sheffield University.

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Principal

V01 30.05.2013 First draft without contents

page

Julie Martin/

Lyndis Cole

Lyndis Cole Lyndis Cole

V02 30.05.2013 Second draft with contents

page and justified page

numbers

Lyndis Cole Lyndis Cole Lyndis Cole

V02.1 31.5.2013 Aims added to introduction LC LC LC

V3 27.6.2013 Final amendments

responding to comments

received

Lyndis Cole Julie Martin Lyndis Cole


BD5303: Monitoring the effects of Environmental

Stewardship on Landscape Character and Quality

Developing a method for reporting and monitoring the direct and cumulative

impacts of Environmental Stewardship on the maintenance and enhancement

of Landscape Character and Quality

3. Report of Findings: Landscape effects of Environmental Stewardship at the National Character Area and Agricultural Landscape Type Levels

Prepared by LUC in association with Julie Martin Associates

June 2013

Planning & EIA Design Landscape Planning Landscape Management Ecology Mapping & Visualisation

LUC BRISTOL 14 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RH Tel:0117 929 1997 Fax:0117 929 1998 [email protected]

Offices also in: London Glasgow Edinburgh

FS 566056

EMS 566057

Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Registered number: 2549296 Registered Office: 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD

LUC uses 100% recycled paper


Contents

Environmental Stewardship

1 Introduction 1 BD5303 Research Study 1 This report 1 Responding to the brief 4 Structure of this report 4

2 The approach for assessing the landscape effects of ES at the NCA and ALT levels 5 Overall aim 5 Definitions 5 The overall assessment approach 5 Data needs 6 Supporting notes on the approach 14

3 Findings from the assessment of 18 NCAs 26 The benefits of the assessment approach 27 Comparison of scales of assessment 33 Differences in ES landscape effects across different landscape themes 33

4 The updated methodology using a bespoke database 38 Developing objectives 38 Developing indicators 38 Setting thresholds 38

5 Findings from the assessment of 50 NCAs (using the bespoke database) 43 Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT 47 Eastern Arable ALT 49 South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT 50 Western Mixed ALT 51 Upland Fringe ALT 54 Upland ALT 55 The landscape effect of ES across different option types 57 The relative contribution of ELS, UELS and HLS to the landscape effects of ES 62 Overall observations on findings at the NCA level 81

6 Findings from the assessment of the six ALTs 86 Introduction 86 Summary of findings 89

7 Analysis of ES uptake by ALT 92 Top 20 ES Options by area (Table 7.1) 92 Top 20 ES Options by area: Landscape effects (Table 7.2) 95 Top 10 ES Options by length (Table 7.4) 97 Top 10 ES Options by length: Landscape effects (Table 7.5) 97 Top 20 ES Option Bundles by area: ES Landscape effects (Table 7.8) 100 Top 10 ES Option Bundles by length: ES Landscape effects (Table 7.10) 103

8 Conclusions 107 Bespoke methodology 107


Assessments at different scales in the hierarchy 107 Results of assessments at the NCA and ALT levels 107 Levels of ES Uptake by ES option type 108 Appendix 1: The assessment of the 18 NCAs (3 per ALT) 113 Appendix 2: Master table of objectives, their linked indicators, thresholds, nature of options selected, their unit of measurement and the relevant stock data 181 Appendix 3: Selection of ES options relating to each objective and linked indicator 190 Appendix 4: ES Hedgerow management and restoration uptake per NCA expressed as a percentage of total hedgerow stock 224 Appendix 5: ES low input grassland option uptake 236 Appendix 6: Total number of trees under ES in-field tree protection options . 248 Appendix 7: ES historic environment options uptake per NCA. 260 Appendix 8: The assessment of the six ALTs 277 Appendix 9: ES Area Options: Top 20 options by area of uptake 307 Appendix 10: ES Linear Options: Top 10 options by length of uptake 313 Appendix 11: ES Area Options: Top 20 option bundles by area of uptake 317 Appendix 12: ES Linear Options: Top 10 option bundles by length of uptake 323


BD5303: Monitoring the Effects of Environmental Stewardship on Landscape Character and Quality

Full set of Final Reports

1 Methodology Report

Appendix 1: Updating the NCA key characteristics

Appendix 2: Spreadsheet of ES options

Appendix 3: Selection criteria for the choice of sample NCAs

Appendix 4: Evolution of field survey method

Appendix 5: Field Survey pro-formas

Appendix 6: Description of features

Appendix 7: Condition monitoring

(Separate report) Appendix 8: Review of Alternative Monitoring Approaches

2. Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the Study

Area Level

Appendix 1: Summary of the landscape effects of all ES options surveyed

(Separate report) Appendix 2: Contribution of ES to Landscape Maintenance and

Enhancement

3. Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the

National Character Area and Agricultural Landscape Type Levels

Appendix 1: Assessment of the 18 NCAs

Appendix 2: Master table of objectives

Appendix 3: Selection of ES options relating to each objective and linked indicator

Appendix 4: ES Hedgerow management and restoration uptake per NCA

Appendix 5: ES low input grassland option uptake per NCA

Appendix 6: Total number of trees under ES in-field tree protection options per NCA

Appendix 7: ES historic environment options uptake per NCA

Appendix 8: The assessment of the six ALTs

Appendix 9: ES Area Options: Top 20 options by area of uptake

Appendix 10: ES Linear Options: Top 10 options by length of uptake

Appendix 11: ES Area Options: Top 20 option bundles by area of uptake

Appendix 12: ES Linear Options: Top 10 option bundles by length of uptake

4. Report of Findings: Counterfactuals

Appendix 1: Alternative methodologies considered

5. Report of Findings: Public Engagement Report

6. Synthesis Overview: Summary of Findings and Conclusions

Appendix 1: Rapid field survey approach

Appendix 2: Assessing Environmental Stewardship effects at Strategic Level

Appendix 3: Bespoke approach to assessing ES landscape effects.

Appendix 4: Methodology for public engagement to inform ES monitoring

7. Executive Summary: Briefing Paper


Environmental Stewardship

Environmental Stewardship is an agri-environment scheme that provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England to deliver effective environmental management on your land.

There are four elements to Environmental Stewardship:

Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) is open to all farmers and provides a straightforward approach to supporting the good stewardship of the countryside. This is done through simple land management that goes beyond the Single Payment Scheme requirement to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition. It is open to all farmers and landowners. ELS Agreements last for five years.

Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) is the organic strand of ELS. It is geared to organic and organic/conventional mixed farming systems and is open to all farmers not receiving Organic Farming Scheme aid.

Uplands Entry Level Stewardship (Uplands ELS) was launched in February 2010 to support hill farmers with payments for environmental management. This strand of Environmental Stewardship succeeds the Hill Farm Allowance. It is open to all farmers with land in Severely Disadvantaged Areas, regardless of the size of the holding. UELS Agreements last for five years.

Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) Negotiated with farmers in target areas or, outside of those areas, using target themes. These agreements involve more complex types of management and agreements are tailored to local circumstances. HLS applications will be assessed against specific local targets and agreements will be offered where they meet these targets and represent good value for money. HLS Agreements last for 10 years (or longer for some options)

Relationship between ELS and HLS agreements There is an expectation that HLS applicants will already be in an (Upland) ELS or (Upland) OELS agreement or that they will join (Upland) ELS/OELS at the time of making an HLS application. This is because ELS, OELS and HLS have been designed to complement each other. In the cases where an HLS applicant already has an (Upland) ELS or OELS agreement, they are required to re-apply for these options when they make their HLS application. This is to ensure that the different elements of ES are combined in the most effective way. Natural England then provides a joint ELS/HLS, Uplands ELS/HLS, OELS/HLS or Uplands OELS/HLS agreement. Very occasionally there will be sites for which (Uplands) ELS or (Uplands) OELS options are not available, such as coastal and inter-tidal habitats and lowland heathland. In these cases an HLS-only agreement may be appropriate.

http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/els/default.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/oels/default.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/uplandsels/default.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/hls/default.aspx


1

1 Introduction

BD5303 Research Study

1.1 This three year Research and Development Study (reviewed after the first year) has been funded by Defra and run by Natural England. It responds to a long term concern that monitoring of agri-environment schemes has frequently failed to capture fully the landscape effects of these schemes, both positive and negative, and has failed to capture their cumulative effects on the landscape over time.

1.2 The stated aim of this study has been “to develop and test a robust, repeatable and comprehensive evaluation framework for reporting and monitoring the direct and cumulative impacts of Environmental Stewardship ((O)ELS & (O)HLS) on the maintenance and enhancement of landscape character and quality at a variety of scales.” This has used a series of quantitative and qualitative techniques that, taken together:

Measure the impact of ES on the maintenance and enhancement of landscape character and quality/condition, allowing judgement to be made on the degree to which the ES landscape objective has been met;

Assess counterfactuals that compare landscape effects with and without ES (the net effect of ES) and the landscape effects of ES compared to the Classic agri-environment schemes;‟

Evaluate the cumulative impact of ES (and the options within it) on landscape character and quality/condition;

Define lessons learned from the targeting and operation of ES that can be applied to landscape character and quality in the next agri-environment programme;

Be able to report at a range of appropriate scales and link in with existing landscape monitoring and research projects;

Be consistent with the European Landscape Convention.”

This report

1.3 This report describes the approach developed for assessing the landscape effects of Environmental Stewardship at the scale of the National Character Areas and separately at the scale of the Agricultural Landscape Types. It also describes the findings from this work. It is the third in a series of Reports of Findings that bring together the different aspects of the BD5303 Research and Development Study. The full set of reports is itemised at the front of this report.

1.4 The approach described in this report was developed by Julie Martin with the assistance of LUC.

1.5 As has been identified in the Methodology Report for this study, as part of the BD5303 study, work has been undertaken at a range of spatial scales to assess the landscape effects of ES. This responds to the requirement of the brief that the study must “Be able to report at a range of appropriate scales”. The hierarchy of scales considered through the overall study has been:


2

The Agricultural Landscape Type (ALT) level. The six ALTs are made up of groupings of National Character Areas (NCAs) that together cover the whole of England identified by Swanwick et al (2007)1. These have provided the most strategic level of investigation with review of landscape effects based on analyses of uptake data compared to the key landscape characteristics of each ALT (drawn up as part of this study) and other digital and spatial data that reflects this landscape character.

The National Character Area (NCA) level. This level has been based around 18 National Character Areas, selected so that there are three NCAs within each Agricultural Landscape Type. These 18 NCAs have been chosen to reflect different aspects of the Agricultural Landscape Types as well as a wide range of other considerations, not least coverage of protected landscapes, ESAs and the range of uptake under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS). They also cover all of the seven New Agricultural Landscape (NAL) areas. At this level the landscape effects of ES have been assessed based on an analysis of ES uptake data compared to the key characteristics of each NCA defined in the fine–grained landscape descriptions (updated by Julie Martin at the outset of this study) and other digital and spatial datasets on stock of landcover types and landscape features at the NCA level (primarily using Land Cover Map 2007) that reflect these key characteristics..

The Study Area / survey square level. This is the most detailed level of investigation with one Study Area selected per selected NCA (18). It is at this level that the landscape effects of individual ES options have been assessed in the field. As far as possible, these Study Areas have been selected to reflect different landscape types within the overall Agricultural Landscape Type / selected NCAs, informed by reference to the NCA Profiles and local Landscape Character Assessments. Again the Study Areas capture the seven NALs. At this level the landscape effects of ES have been assessed through detailed field survey within 4 – 5 1km2 survey squares selected within each Study Area. The main purpose of these Study Areas has been to provide geographical and landscape context to survey work conducted within the individual survey squares. This hierarchy of the different levels of analysis are illustrated in Figure 1.1 below.

1.6 This report describes the assessment at the NCA and ALT levels.

1 Swanwick C, Hanley N and Termansen M (2007) Scoping Study on Agricultural Landscape Valuation. Report for

Defra, London www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/character/areas/default.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/character/areas/default.aspx


3

Figure 1.1: The nested hierarchy of sample areas used in this study

1.7 The results of the field survey have directly informed interpretation of the ES uptake data, helping guide interpretation of the landscape effects of individual options at the NCA and ALT level, as described in this report.

3. Eighteen Areas of Search (shown in

blue) and Study Areas (in red)

(One for each NCA)

4. Approx 75 Survey Squares

(Between four and five for

each Study Area l)

1. Six Agricultural

Landscape Types

(ALTs) covering the

whole of England

2. Eighteen National

Character Areas

(NCAs)

(Three NCAs for

each ALT)


4

Responding to the brief

1.8 Two other specific aspects of the brief that the approach described in this report address are:

The development of robust „Indicators of Success‟ at an appropriate scale for all

landscapes to enable the measurement of progress on maintaining and conserving

landscape character and quality; and

Designing a framework which allows the development of thresholds identifying

where changes in land management would begin to impact on landscape character,

and whether these impacts are positive or negative.

1.9 As argued throughout this study key landscape characteristics provide the common thread linking all aspects of the study. They also lie at the heart of the evaluation questions that have guided the monitoring approaches adopted at all levels through this study. These questions are:

What are the important landscape characteristics of the area?

What is the relationship between these characteristics and the ES options/measures?

What are the specific effects of these ES options on landscape character (informed by the BD5303 field work)?

What is the up-take of the options that affect the landscape characteristics?

What is judged to be the effect of this level of up-take on this landscape?

Structure of this report

1.10 This report describes the approach developed to assess the landscape effects of ES at the NCA and ALT levels (the same methodology was applied at both levels). It then divides into two parts:

PART A covers the analysis and findings at the NCA level (with the detailed tables of output per NCA set out in Appendix 1). This Part also includes a description of the further evolution of the approach at the NCA level through the development of a bespoke database, and the emerging findings from this further development (undertaken outside BD5303 but entirely dependent on the approach developed as part of BD5303). This further analysis is valuable on two counts: Firstly it utilises 2013 ES uptake data which is both more up-to-date and deemed by Natural England to be more accurate than the 2010 ES uptake data used in the BD5303 analysis (both datasets were supplied to the consultants from the Genesis database held by Natural England); Secondly, the more recent analysis covers 50 NCAs (and will eventually cover all NCAs) while the BD5303 work, as described above only covered 18 NCAs. There is therefore a wider range of data on which to draw.

PART B covers the analysis and findings at the ALT level (with the detailed tables of output again provided in a separate Appendix (Appendix 8).


5

2 The approach for assessing the landscape effects of

ES at the NCA and ALT levels

Overall aim

2.1 The approach described below and developed through BD5303 seeks to measure the effects of the selection, use and location of Environmental Stewardship on „the maintenance and enhancement of landscape character and quality‟ at the level of individual NCAs (and ALTs).

2.2 The approach was specifically concerned with identifying the landscape impacts (positive and negative) of Environmental Stewardship (both ELS and HLS) rather than considering the wider effects of landscape change. It was concerned with identifying indicators and thresholds that enable assessment of the relative scale of landscape impact brought about by Environmental Stewardship.

Definitions

2.3 The definitions adopted throughout this approach were:

Indicator – Measure of change in a key landscape characteristic or element

Threshold – Level and/or distribution of option uptake that would cause significant (i.e. noticeable) change to the landscape (either positive or negative).

The overall assessment approach

2.4 The approach is structured around a series of explicit evaluation and monitoring questions that significantly built on the evaluation questions that guided all aspects of this study (para 1.9). The same broad assessment process can be applied to both NCAs and Agricultural Landscape Types (ALTs). As part of BD5303 the approach was tested on 18 sample NCAs and all ALTs.

2.5 A central concern of the approach was to consider what constitutes „positive and strongly positive benefits for landscape character and quality‟. There is a need for a reference source here i.e. agreed landscape objectives, such as those for the NCAs which are being developed through the NCA Profiles. These in turn should inform the development of indicators.

Evaluation and monitoring questions

2.6 Experience from Countryside Quality Counts (CQC) suggested that the following key questions set the sequential steps by which to assess the overall landscape impacts of ES at the strategic level:

1) What are the key landscape characteristics / elements of the area that may be affected by ES?

2) What are the objectives for these characteristics / elements?

3) Which ES options potentially may influence the key characteristics / elements?


6

4) What indicators could help in reaching judgements on whether these changes are consistent with landscape objectives for the area?

5) What is the level of uptake of ES options that would influence key characteristics / elements or add new features?

6) What is the stock i.e. extent of the key characteristics / elements within the area (where relevant and possible to measure)?

7) What are the indicator results i.e. levels of ES uptake as a % of overall stock?

8) What threshold level/ pattern of uptake might be significant to landscape character and quality?

9) Are the effects on the landscape positive, neutral or negative (and why)?

2.7 These questions framed the approach and have defined the structure of the outputs for each of the sample NCAs, assessed as part of the BD5303 study. This has enabled a view to be reached on the effects of ES on landscape character and quality within these particular NCAs.

Landscape themes

2.8 The overall assessment approach is structured around seven landscape themes with the above sequence of questions considered for each landscape theme in turn. These landscape themes are:

Woodlands and tree cover (including traditional orchards)

Field patterns and boundary types

Agricultural land use

Farm building materials and design

Historic environment (including parkland)

Semi-natural habitats

Coast

Data needs

Base data

2.9 The base data required to inform the above questions are as follows:

The key landscape characteristics / elements of each NCA.

Those ES options that may influence the key characteristics / elements (Question 3 above).

The level of uptake of ES options (measured as area, length or item depending on the option) as provided in the Genesis dataset for the date October 2010.

The spatial distribution of this ES uptake across England by NCA, based on a national GIS dataset held by Natural England (cut to individual NCAs).

The „stock‟ (amount) of individual key landscape characteristics by NCA based on an analysis of relevant Land Cover Map (LCM) 2007 data.

The spatial distribution of this stock based on GIS analysis of LCM 2007 by NCA.

The length of boundary features by NCA taken from Countryside Survey 2007 field survey data; and woodland perimeters from LCM 2007 and the National Forest Inventory.


7

Supporting digital data on the distribution of certain key landscape characteristics by NCA that are poorly or not covered by LCM, These include the National Forest Inventory (covering woodland type and extent) and a range of datasets relating to the historic environment:

o Traditional orchards: The Traditional Orchards BAP Priority Habitat Inventory for England v2.2 available on MAGIC.

o Parklands: The English Heritage Registered Parks and Gardens dataset on MAGIC plus the separate GIS dataset held by Natural England on Extant Parkland 1995 and 1918 (allowing analysis of loss). This dataset only covers unregistered parks and gardens.

o Historic Environment / Archaeology: The Scheduled Monuments dataset on MAGIC, the Scheduled Monuments at Risk dataset plus the SHINE (Selected Heritage Inventory for Natural England) dataset held by Natural England. The latter is a national GIS dataset that identifies the main currently known archaeological features, both above and below ground that are not scheduled.

o English Heritage Listed Buildings.

Use of these base data

2.10 The above base data have been used to directly inform the approach.

1. Database: The key datasets have been brought together in an Access database that captures (a) the key landscape characteristics of each NCA grouped by the themes noted above; (b) a comprehensive list of every ES option, their potential landscape effects (drawing on the BD5303 Field Survey results), and additionally information on the scheme to which each option belongs – (ELS, UELS, HLS); and (c) the uptake of each option by each NCA based on the data in Genesis.

2. Database links: For each key landscape characteristic, links have been made to those options that have the potential to affect it and in turn to the uptake of those options. Each option has only been linked to one key characteristic (to avoid double counting) but each key characteristic is likely to be affected by a suite of options, so any one characteristic is likely to linked to a range of options.

3. Stock: In order to understand the stock (i.e. the extent of each key characteristic) in each NCA, analysis of LCM 2007 GIS data was undertaken. LCM 2007 data was cut to each NCA and analysed using GIS to calculate total stock under each broad habitat and sub-habitat. For some key characteristics, LCM 2007 data were not the best available and additional GIS data sources were interrogated as noted above, such as Natural England‟s Traditional Orchards Inventory and other historic environment data sources. For linear/boundary features, non-spatial field survey data from the 2007 Countryside Survey was interrogated as well as the National Forest Inventory from the Forestry Commission to identify the boundary lengths of woodland blocks within each NCA.

4. Published maps: In piloting the approach under BD5303, an ESRI ArcReader published map was prepared for each NCA to identify the location of area options and stock. ArcReader is a GIS viewer that allows the user to zoom and pan around the map switching layers on and off as desired. For each NCA, the published map paired spatial stock and uptake data for each key characteristic allowing uptake to be viewed as a layer on top of the baseline stock data. The uptake data that was used for these maps was Natural England‟s ES uptake GIS dataset (2010). Using GIS, the national ES uptake dataset was cut to each NCA generating a polygon dataset of field parcels and option uptake within them. The uptake data was shown as either ELS, UELS or HLS. In addition, stock data (a combination of Land Cover Map 2007 and other data – para 2.9) was cut to each NCA in GIS. This was to make the maps faster and more efficient for the assessor. (Some screenshots from the Published Maps are shown in Figures 2.1 – 2.3 below).


8

5. In piloting the approach under BD5303, a published map was prepared for each NCA to identify the location of area options and stock. The published map paired spatial stock and uptake data for each key characteristic allowing uptake to be viewed as a layer on top of the baseline stock data. The uptake data that was used for these maps was Natural England‟s ES uptake GIS dataset. This national dataset can be cut to each NCA in GIS. It is a polygon dataset of field parcels and option uptake within them.

Figure 2.1: Overview map of NCA 88 with all layers turned off

Figure 2.2: NCA 46 showing option uptake data related to fens overlaid onto LCM fen/swamp stock data


9

Figure 2.3: NCA 88 Low input grassland options overlaid onto LCM grassland stock categories

2.11 In using LCM to provide the assessment of stock a considerable amount of effort went into trying to find the best broad habitat and sub-habitats of LCM to (a) reflect the different key characteristics and (b) to prevent double counting of stock between different key characteristics. The full set of LCM broad habitats and sub-categories is set out in Table 2.1. In some cases there was not a direct fit between the LCM habitats and the identified key characteristics, for example, there is no LCM sub-category for wet grassland and so rough grassland has been used as a proxy for this landscape feature. Nevertheless, having a measure of stock against which to compare ES uptake is a major step forward for this type of assessment. The use of LCM across all NCAs provides a constant measure greatly increasing the accuracy of cross comparison between NCAs.

Table 2.1: LCM Broad habitats and sub-categories

Broad habitat Broad habitat sub category Code

Acid grassland Acid grassland Ga

Acid grassland Bracken dominated grassland Br

Arable and horticulture Arable bare Aba

Arable and horticulture Arable Stubble Ast

Arable and horticulture Arable unknown Au

Arable and horticulture Arable wheat Aw

Arable and horticulture Orchard O

Bog Bog Bo

Bog Bog, grass dominated Bg


10


Bog Bog, heather dominated Bh

Broad leaved, mixed and yew

woodland Deciduous D


woodland Mixed M


woodland Scrub Sc

Built up areas and gardens Bare Ba

Built up areas and gardens Suburban Us

Built up areas and gardens Urban U

Built up areas and gardens Urban industrial Ui

Calcareous grassland Calcareous grassland Gc

Coniferous woodland Conifer C

Coniferous woodland Felled Fd

Coniferous woodland Recent (<10 years) Cn

Dwarf shrub heath Burnt heather Hb

Dwarf shrub heath Gorse Hg

Dwarf shrub heath Heather and dwarf shrub H

Dwarf shrub heath Heather grass Hga

Fen marsh and swamp Fen marsh and swamp F

Freshwater Flooded Wf

Freshwater Lake Wl

Freshwater River Wr

Improved grassland Hay Gh

Improved grassland Improved Gi

Inland rock Despoiled land Ud

Inland rock Inland rock Ib

Littoral rock Littoral rock Lr

Littoral sediment Littoral mud Lm


11


Littoral sediment Littoral sand Ls

Littoral sediment Saltmarsh Sm

Littoral sediment Saltmarsh grazing Smg

Montane habitats Montane habitats Z

Neutral grassland Neutral grassland Gn

Rough low-productivity

grassland

Rough low-productivity

grassland Gr

Supra-littoral rock Supra-littoral rock Sr

Supra-littoral sediment Sand dune Sd

Supra-littoral sediment Sand dune with shrubs Sds

Supra-littoral sediment Shingle Sh

Supra-littoral sediment Shingle vegetated Shv

The separate steps in the approach

2.12 The description that follows sets out the separate steps in the approach that directly reflect the evaluation and monitoring questions set out in para 2.6 above. In this approach these questions are addressed in turn for each of the landscape themes (para 2.8). An example of this step by step approach is set out for the Thames Basin Lowlands NCA (Figure 2.4) at the end of this Chapter.

1. What are the key characteristics / elements of the NCA?

These key characteristics were informed by the database of NCA key characteristics with further information being sought as necessary from the original and fine-grained NCA descriptions.

Only two or three of the most important characteristics or elements were recorded per theme (focusing solely on those that may be affected by ES)

Where relevant, the distribution of key characteristics / elements within the landscape were noted to help assess the appropriateness of the location of ES options.

2. What are the relevant objectives?

These are essential both to the development of indicators and to the assessment of effects.

Objectives were informed by the original and fine-grained NCA assessments; they are common sense and brief.

Where there were gaps in coverage of objectives for some landscape elements these were plugged, informed both by the stock and uptake data, as well as the


12

landscape descriptions of the NCAs and, where they had been completed, by the Key Facts and Data of the NCA Profiles.

The new objectives forming part of the updated NCA Profiles were not used during BD5303 as they were still in development and their concerns stretch beyond the application of agri-environment schemes.

3. Which ES options may potentially influence the key characteristics/ elements?

In most cases relevant options were clear from review of the ES handbooks‟ option categories and were also informed by the BD5303 database (para 2.10(1)).

Review of all the potential options is important to understand the impacts of ES option selection. Are the right options (i.e. those that will offer optimal landscape benefit) being selected?

As noted in para 2.10(2) most key characteristics/elements will have the potential to be affected by more than one ES option.

There is also a need to consider which options may be adding new features to the landscape and whether the landscape effects are likely to be positive or negative. New features primarily relates to the Arable options for buffer strips and other margin, block and plot options (again for Arable).

4. What indicators can help in reaching judgements?

The indicators flow from both the objectives and from the options with the greatest uptake – and hence their selection requires judgement.

In most cases 2-3 indicators per landscape theme were identified as sufficient.

Sometimes there may be an objective but no relevant uptake (and occasionally uptake but no relevant objective).

Indicators are similar but not necessarily the same for all landscapes of the same ALT, because key characteristics differ.

Where possible indicators are expressed as ES uptake as a % of stock – but this is not possible for some themes which have no available stock figures.

Where no stock figure was available, uptake level was expressed as a number (area or length) to form a simple indicator.

For some themes surrogate stock data have been used, e.g. listed buildings as a surrogate for historic farm buildings – obviously these will provide less reliable indicators but they may still be better than no stock figure.

5. What is the level of uptake of relevant ES options

This relates directly back to Step 3 „Which ES options may potentially influence the key characteristics/ elements?‟

Generally uptake for an obvious group of options with similar or related landscape effects was recorded rather than uptake for individual options (although there are some exceptions to this, e.g. haymaking where an individual option will have a very distinctive landscape effect).

The focus is on the options with the greatest uptake – again an element of judgement is required.

Where there is no uptake (but uptake would have been expected) this was also noted.


13

6. What is the stock of key characteristics / elements

As identified in para 2.10(3) above, this was largely based on an analysis of LCM (2007).

There were some difficulties in interpreting LCM classes and deciding which classes are most relevant to different ES option groups. As one example LCM has no separate recognition of wet grasslands (discussed in the supporting notes at the end of this section).

7. What are the indicator results?

For each indicator this specifically compared area / length of relevant ES option uptake with the overall stock of that key characteristic to create a percentage figure.

8. What threshold level/ pattern of uptake might be significant to landscape

character and quality?

Uptake thresholds have been developed to indicate the level at which landscape effects may be considered „significant‟.

Thresholds very broadly reflect the level at which effects are likely to be noticeable.

They have also been set at levels that will help identify which NCAs are performing relatively better and which relatively worse.

Because most thresholds are expressed as uptake as a % of stock, they can be the same across all NCAs.

However where thresholds are based on uptake level only and not as % of stock they need to be interpreted with greater caution.

This applies to deer fencing, fencing along watercourses, in-field trees, fallow plots etc.

9. What are the effects of ES on the landscape?

This question is answered under three headings.

Overall effects

Effects were classed as positive, neutral or negative by reference to:

i. the objectives for that theme.

ii. the identified landscape effects of individual options (as described in the database (para 2.10 above).

iii. the uptake thresholds (as described above).

In a few cases, e.g. wide buffer strips in arable, the effects will depend on the landscape context2 and so no definitive assessment of effects may be made.

Distribution

Comments are made on the geographical distribution of effects where possible, using the published maps comparing the distribution of stock versus uptake.

The assessment considers whether or not option uptake appears to occur in locations that are consistent with landscape character and objectives, and flags up any issues that may need further consideration (e.g. woodland that appears inappropriately located on moorland tops).

2 Wide buffer strips from the field surveys have been identified as positive in large-scale arable landscapes where they

can help define overall field pattern, especially where this has been weakened by past hedgerow loss. On the other hand they can distort the field pattern where applied to small-scale-fields of irregular shape – detracting from their intrinsic shape and often traditional character, reflecting past medieval field patterns.


14

Are the right ES options being selected?

This section comments on whether there has been uptake/ sufficient uptake of the options with the greatest landscape benefit, and on whether there are other options that should be focused on in this NCA.

10. Overview

At the end of each NCA assessment a summary was provided of:

the themes affected/ not affected by ES.

the respective influences of ELS and HLS.

whether ES is having a strongly positive, positive or neutral effect on the landscape as a whole, based on the nature and scale of its influence on all the different landscape themes.

2.13 For further detail refer to Appendix 2 which sets out a master table that shows for each Landscape Objective (Q2); the nature of options selected (Q3), the selected indicator (Q4); the selected stock data (Q6) and the relevant threshold (Q8); and to Appendix 3 which shows all options selected relating to each objective. These Appendices reflect the further development of the approach undertaken outside BD5303 and described in Chapter 4 (where one or two of the thresholds have been refined). Nevertheless, they demonstrate the process and the range of data used.

Supporting notes on the approach

2.14 The notes below describe further considerations that have guided the approach in terms of its application to the individual landscape themes.

Woodlands and tree cover

The assessment focused on broadleaved woodlands and tree cover as conifers are generally not managed under ES

In-field and hedgerow trees were included under this heading

Woodland management uptake levels (and hence the threshold of change) are relatively low across all NCAs primarily because the major driver of woodland management is the England Woodland Grant Scheme

There are no stock figures for in-field (or hedgerow) trees so a crude uptake level was used as an indicator here

LCM orchards does not provide a reliable stock measure – for example it does not record orchard areas in landscapes such as the Herefordshire Lowlands that definitely have orchards – for this reason the Traditional Orchards BAP Priority Habitat Inventory for England v2.2 available on MAGIC was used to provide the stock data for this element of the analysis


The NCAs with the greatest uptake of deer fencing, fencing along watercourses and wide buffer strips in arable were identified and comments on the effects of these options were made where appropriate


The main indicators here are all those options that relate directly or indirectly to the retention of permanent pasture.


15

Care is needed to avoid double counting of uptake relative to semi-natural grassland.

Stock data are generally taken from LCM rough and/or permanent grassland.

For fallow plots (potential negative effect) uptake level was used as a crude indicator (as clearly there is no stock as these are new introduced features).

Building materials and design

Listed buildings were used as a surrogate stock measure – but note that many historic farm buildings are not listed and many listed buildings are not farm buildings, so this is less than ideal.

Strongly positive effects (e.g. Orton Fells, North Pennines) may reflect presence of field barns (although these are not listed among the key characteristics for these areas).

There are some signs that uptake levels are depressed in peri-urban areas where there is high demand for barn conversions to residential use.

There is extremely low uptake of capital items (max 5-10 per NCA).

As there is no uptake mapping, no comments on distribution have been made.


In upland and upland fringe ALTs, the stock of semi-natural grassland has been assumed to be LCM rough grassland.

In lowland ALTs the stock of semi-natural grassland has been assumed to be LCM acid, calcareous and neutral grassland (these figures seem to be particularly unreliable, especially those for calcareous grassland).

Again care was needed to avoid double counting of uptake relative to agricultural land use.

The overall effectiveness of the approach

2.15 Overall, the approach has proved effective in distinguishing the different effects of ES in different types of landscape (discussed separately in the next Chapter). Based on the simple premise of using the key landscape characteristics and their associated landscape objectives as a guide, and comparing (a) the relevant stock data for that key characteristic with (b) the relevant ES uptake data, the approach follows a simple step by step approach which clearly shows how the assessment of ES effects has been identified.

Setting landscape thresholds

2.16 As identified in academic literature, even where the science is strong, thresholds are rarely absolutes but are defined as a policy tool to aid decision-making. In the approach described above the thresholds are judgement-based closely informed by:

The effects of ES options observed in the field and recorded in the database.

The effects of different levels of uptake observed in the field.

The uptake and stock levels identified across NCAs: these levels are essential to know before setting the thresholds because the change brought about by ES needs to be seen in context.

2.17 However, overall the thresholds aim is to help judge the significance of the change in the landscape, positive or negative, introduced by Environmental Stewardship option uptake. Fundamentally the thresholds have been set at:

levels at which change would be expected to be noticeable; and


16

levels that help to differentiate between NCAs that are doing well under ES and NCAs that are doing less well.

2.18 As noted above, these thresholds are normally expressed as a specific percentage of relevant ES uptake relative to the stock. Where there is no stock data the threshold has been set as a set number or area of the landscape feature in question under option. Higher thresholds are set for those indicators where:

there is a high stock and where significant uptake is needed to create any noticeable effect in the wider landscape, such as the conservation of hedgerows (a key landscape feature in most landscapes) and retention of winter stubbles in arable landscapes

the stock is small and dwindling and therefore significant uptake is necessary as in some semi-natural habitats.

2.19 In addition the thresholds are particularly high at 50% for the management of archaeological features on grassland and on arable. This reflects the fact that the measurement of the stock is very accurate, based on the combined measurement of the area of scheduled monuments and of non-scheduled sites identified through Natural England‟s SHINE dataset (para 2.9). It also reflects that, compared to other options, very high levels of uptake have been recorded.

2.20 Conversely thresholds have been set low for woodland management (at 5% of total stock) recognising that the more dominant grant scheme for woodland is the England Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS).

2.21 Thresholds have also been tempered by the ES uptake figures. For example, there has generally been very low uptake for traditional orchard ES options across the whole country and for parkland also. As a consequence the threshold has been set low with an uptake at 5% of stock to ensure that where there has been some noticeable uptake this is captured.

Assessing landscape effects

2.22 In this approach, as described above, the effects of ES on landscape character and quality have been judged for each key landscape characteristic / element by comparing the indicator result (Question 7) with the stated threshold (Question 8) with effects classed as:

- positive if the threshold is met or exceeded

- neutral if the threshold is not met but the options are not having a negative effect on the landscape

- negative if one or more options are having a negative effect on the landscape (these options are few in number and relate to extensive protective fencing and some forms of arable plots) and have sufficient uptake to meet or exceed the stated threshold.

2.23 The approach then takes a further two steps (a) to summarise the effects of ES on the individual landscape themes of each NCA; and (b) to draw together these summaries for each theme to provide an overview of the landscape effects of ES on the NCA as a whole, as follows:

Assessing the effect of ES on each landscape theme

2.24 This assessment is based on a three point „score‟ as follows:

- 1 point: ES is having a strongly positive landscape effect with most (or key) identified thresholds of individual indicators (within that theme) being met or exceeded.

- 0.5 points: ES is having a positive landscape effect with some identified thresholds for individual indicators (within that theme) being met


17

- 0 points: ES is having a neutral landscape effect with most or all the identified thresholds not being met.

Overview of the landscape effects of ES on the NCA (or ALT) as a whole

2.25 In turn, to summarise the effects of ES on the landscape of the NCA as a whole, the assessment findings are drawn together as follows:

- Strongly positive for the landscape of the NCA where the sum of the theme „scores‟ = 4.5 – 6

- Positive for the landscape of the NCA where the sum of the theme „scores‟ = 2 – 4

- Neutral for the landscape of the NCA where the sum of the theme „scores‟ = 0 –1.5

Comparison with the field survey assessments

2.26 These classes or „scores‟, based around an initial assessment of positive, neutral or negative (detracting), are simpler than the five point assessment used in the field survey work which had the separate classes of enhancing, conserving, maintaining, neutral and detracting.

2.27 This reflects the different scales of the two assessments (I km squares for the field survey compared to a whole NCA of up to 30,000ha) and their different purposes. A primary requirement of the field survey was to assess the landscape effects of individual options and it was important to understand not only whether the option was beneficial to the landscape but why it was beneficial with:

- Enhancing relating to the recreation of lost features or the addition of new ones of benefit to the landscape.

- Conserving relating to conserving and restoring valued key characteristics / elements which have suffered significant decline in the past and take a considerable time to re-create (often many years) if lost e.g. hedgerow trees or semi-natural habitat.

- Maintaining relating to the retention of key characteristics / elements which are common in the landscape and can be recreated relatively quickly, such as improved permanent pasture.

2.28 In the case of the NCA (and ALT) assessments described here, the purpose has been to assess the effect of ES over whole landscapes. It has been important, therefore, to keep the assessment scores simple against the huge amounts of other data that were being analysed in terms of the measurement of stock and the range of options and their uptake being considered (explained further in Chapter4). In this assessment the score of „positive‟ brings together those options that are enhancing, conserving and maintaining the landscape. But there are two important points to note:

- In the field survey assessment, enhancing and conserving were considered of equal importance as it is as important to conserve valued landscape elements as it is to recreate them.

- In the NCA (ALT) assessment, described here, those types of option described as maintaining the landscape, such as the retention of winter stubbles or permanent pasture have been given higher thresholds to reflect that their value in the landscape is to remain „common‟.

2.29 Overall, the approach described here, based on assessing the achievement of individual landscape objectives measured against individual thresholds, has proved an effective and consistent tool for assessing the landscape effects of Environmental Stewardship at the scale of individual NCAs and ALTs. The results from the 18 sample NCAs that were assessed through this study (BD5303) are briefly discussed in the next chapter. However, based on the strength of this approach it has now been developed further through the


18

creation of a bespoke database that automates much of the work entailed in reviewing each of the steps described above. This updated approach is outlined in Chapter 4 while Chapter 5 considers some of the emerging results arising from the assessment of 50 further NCAs using this new database. It is programmed that all 155 NCAs (excluding Lundy and Greater London) will have been assessed using this new database by the end of August 2013.

Figure 2.4: 114. Thames Basin Lowlands (South-East Mixed Wooded)


Key characteristics/ elements • Moderately wooded with oak-ash woods and shaws • Field trees (oak, ash, field maple) mark old hedgerow lines • Riparian wet woods in river valleys

Objectives • Traditional management particularly of ancient woodland coppice • Protection of shaws and small woodlands to encourage regeneration • Protection and management of in-field trees

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field trees

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • Number of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 130ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 3.4km • Protection of in-field trees (ELS) 195no

Stock • 4211ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 929km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter

Indicator results • 3.1% of woodland managed under ES • 0.4% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 195 no in-field trees protected

Thresholds (indicative only) • 5% of woodlands managed under ES • 10% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES

Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field tree protection neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Uptake relates well to existing woodland patterns – appropriate

Are the ES option types with

greatest potential landscape

benefit being taken up?

• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes but greater uptake would be very beneficial • Coppicing of bankside trees would also be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Small or medium-sized fields enclosed by hedges • Thin, straight hawthorn hedges on flatter land • Wider, irregular mixed-species hedges on more undulating land

Objectives • Management of hedgerows to ensure retention and reinforcement of

field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips, field corners)

Indicators • 20% of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 16km • Few features with potential negative effects

Stock • 760km of hedgerows


19

Indicator results • 2.1% of hedgerows managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES

Effects overall • Hedgerow management neutral

Distribution of effects if known • No data




• Hedgerow management • – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly pastoral, dominated by fields of permanent pasture

Objectives • Encourage grazing to retain areas of grassland and meadow in the

lowlands and river valleys

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration • Low input grassland

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Uptake • Semi-improved grassland (HLS) 103ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (ELS) 290ha

Stock • 139ha rough grassland (LCM) • 7692ha improved grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 74% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under

ES • 3.8% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under

ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Uptake of relevant options generally appears fairly widespread




• Semi-improved grassland – yes • Low input grassland – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Small mixed holdings with brick-built farms

Objectives • Retention of historic farm buildings in the landscape

Relevant ES option types • Historic buildings

Indicators • % of historic farm buildings maintained under ES

Uptake • Maintenance of 189m2 of historic buildings (mainly ELS)

Stock • 1252 listed buildings (surrogate stock measure only)

Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 2 or 0% of listed buildings maintained

under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of historic farm buildings stock maintained under ES


20

Effects overall • Historic farm buildings probably neutral





• Historic buildings – no, almost no uptake

Historic environment

Key characteristics/ elements • Large areas of landscaped parks, particularly along the river valleys

(now intensively farmed)

Objectives • Retention and appropriate management of historic environment

resources

Relevant ES option types • Parkland • Water feature management or restoration

Indicators • % of parkland under ES options for parkland

Uptake • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 149ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 21no

Stock • 1403ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 11% of parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of parkland resource managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Parkland positive • Water features positive

Distribution of effects if known • Parkland – three sites only




• Parkland – no, fairly limited uptake, greater uptake would have landscape benefits

• Water features – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Meadows • Remnant heathland

Objectives • Management/ restoration/ creation of these habitat types

Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Lowland heathland

Indicators • % of neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland

under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration of species-rich semi-natural grassland (HLS)

45ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 67ha

Stock • 308 ha of neutral grassland (LCM) • 21ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 15% of LCM neutral grassland area managed as species-rich grassland

under ES • 319% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural

grassland under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Lowland heathland positive


21

Distribution of effects if known • Uptake very localised at a small number of sites




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Lowland heathland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • N/A – no coast

Overview

Much of this NCA comprises built up and urban fringe land and hence there is limited uptake of ES generally.

There is little evidence that ELS is having an impact on this landscape, but semi-improved grassland, parkland,

water features and lowland heathland are benefiting from HLS in a limited number of locations. Overall impact:

Neutral.


22


23

A. ASSESSMENT OF SAMPLE NCAs (18)


24


25


26

3 Findings from the assessment of 18 NCAs

3.1 During BD5303 the approach described in the previous Chapter has been applied to the 18 NCAs examined during this overall study, listed in Table 3.1:

Table 3.3.1: List of NCAs piloted under BD5303

Agricultural Landscape

Type

NCA

Code NCA Name

Chalk and Limestone

Mixed 87 EAST ANGLIAN CHALK

Chalk and Limestone

Mixed 134 DORSET DOWNS AND CRANBORNE CHASE

Chalk and Limestone

Mixed 140 YEOVIL SCARPLANDS

Eastern Arable 28 VALE OF YORK

Eastern Arable 46 THE FENS

Eastern Arable 88

BEDFORDSHIRE AND CAMBRIDGESHIRE

CLAYLANDS

SE Mixed (Wooded) 114 THAMES BASIN LOWLANDS

SE Mixed (Wooded) 120 WEALDEN GREENSAND

SE Mixed (Wooded) 122 HIGH WEALD

Western mixed 96 DUNSMORE AND FELDON

Western mixed 100 HEREFORDSHIRE LOWLANDS

Western mixed 139 MARSHWOOD AND POWERSTOCK VALES

Upland Fringe 17 ORTON FELLS

Upland Fringe 54 MANCHESTER PENNINE FRINGE

Upland Fringe 149 THE CULM

Upland 10 NORTH PENNINES

Upland 51 DARK PEAK

Upland 150 DARTMOOR


27

The benefits of the assessment approach

3.2 These assessments have illustrated the value of the approach described in the previous Chapter in providing a consistent assessment of the landscape effects of ES within and across NCAs. This is potentially an important policy tool. In particular the approach helps:

To identify the overall effect of ES on the landscape of each NCA as a whole (the primary purpose of the approach) with the assessment closely guided by the key landscape characteristics of the NCA in question;

To identify the future ES needs of the landscape of each NCA.

3.3 The approach also:

Takes account of the stock of the individual characteristic landscape elements and is judged through a series of landscape thresholds (one for each selected landscape objective) that ensures consistency of assessment between different NCAs.

Provides a consistent framework against which to consider the landscape effects of ES. This is achieved by reviewing the effects of ES within and across particular themes ((1) Woodland and trees; (2) Field patterns and boundary features; (3) Agricultural land uses; (4) (Farm) Building materials and design; (5) Historic environment; (6) Semi-natural habitats; and (7) the Coast). This allows the balance of landscape effects between these different themes to be quickly and easily understood, so giving a more balanced view of the landscape effects of ES on the landscape of each NCA as a whole and between NCAs.

Within each theme, enables quick identification of where the emphasis of ES uptake should be focused in the future for the benefit of the landscape.

Helps to identify which options that would particularly benefit the landscape are being poorly utilised.

Can inform policy by illustrating where options and their level of uptake are having a strongly beneficial effect on the landscape and conversely where they are not.

3.4 The full set of completed assessments across the 18 NCAs is set out in Appendix 1. Table 3.2 below provides a summary of the assessment of all the 18 NCAs. This shows how the assessment for each NCA has been built up. It sets out the threshold for each landscape objective and indicates the level of uptake and indicator result against that threshold, presented as uptake as a % of total stock. It also demonstrates how the individual indicator results across a theme are built up to provide an assessment „score‟ for each theme. In turn it shows how these have been added together to arrive at an overall assessment for the effects of ES on the landscape of the NCA as a whole. In this way each theme is influencing the final outcome.

3.5 Table 3.3 then provides an overview of the assessment results for each NCA, indicating the landscape benefits provided by ES in that NCA and where there are missed opportunities, where higher levels of ES uptake for particular options would be beneficial for the landscape.


28

Table 3.2: Summary of assessment for all 18 NCAs (grouped by ALT): Landscape contributions of ES


29

Table 3.3: Overview of the assessment results for each NCA - Landscape contributions of ES

ES Landscape benefits ES missed opportunities for

landscape where greater

uptake would be beneficial

ELS / HLS effects on the

landscape

CHALK AND LIMESTONE MIXED ALT

87. East Anglian Chalk

ES is contributing positively to

field boundaries and arable

margins and species-rich

grassland

ES having limited impact on

woodlands, in-field trees,

characteristic valley pastures,

historic farm buildings and

archaeology.

Fallow plots locally may have a

negative impact depending on

context

ELS main driver for in-field

trees, field boundaries, field

margins and archaeology.

HLS influential in relation to

arable options and semi-

natural grassland

PO

SIT

IVE

(2)

134. Dorset Downs and Cranborne Chase


protection of in-field trees,

management of hedgerows

and field margins, archaeology

on grassland, and species-rich

grassland


woodland management, valley

pastures, historic farm

buildings, archaeology on

arable, and parkland; and no

impact on water meadows

ELS main influence on the

landscape, although HLS

influential in relation to field

margins and semi-improved

and species-rich grasslands

PO

SIT

IVE

(3)

140. Yeovil Scarplands


protection and management of

woodland, in-field trees,

orchards, hedgerows, parkland

and species-rich grassland


drystone (limestone) walls,

historic farm buildings and

archaeology

ELS main influence on the

landscape. HLS makes some

contribution to orchards,

archaeology, parkland and

semi-improved and species-

rich grassland. PO

SIT

IVE

(3.5

) EASTERN ARABLE ALT

28. Vale of York


retention and management of

in-field trees, hedgerows, semi-

improved and wet grassland,

archaeology on grassland,

parkland and lowland

heathland (although parkland

and heathland benefits not

widespread geographically)


woodlands and hedgerow

trees, historic farm buildings,

archaeology on arable and

species-rich grassland

ELS main influence on

hedgerows and archaeology.

HLS influential on parkland,

rough and semi-natural

grassland and heathland.

PO

SIT

IVE

(2

.5)


30

The Fens


management of woodlands, in-

field trees, ditches, hedgerows,

field margins, semi-improved

and wet grasslands, historic

farm buildings, fenland habitats

and saltmarsh


characteristic Fenland

orchards, hedgerows and

archaeology


negative landscape impact

depending on context

ELS main influence on in-field

trees, ditches, hedges and

historic farm buildings. HLS is

especially influential on

woodlands, archaeology and

the area‟s characteristic but

relatively rare rough grassland,

wetlands and saltmarsh ST

RO

NG

LY

PO

SIT

IVE

(5

.5)

88. Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands


management of in-field trees,

field boundaries and margins,

semi-improved and wet

grassland and historic farm

buildings.

Limited impact on woodlands,

hedgerow trees, archaeology,

parkland or species-rich

grassland


negative landscape impact



trees and field boundaries and

margins. HLS influential on

fallow plots and semi-improved

grasslands

PO

SIT

IVE

(3.5

)

SOUTH EAST MIXED (WOODED) ALT

114. Thames Basin Lowlands

Much of NCA comprises built up and urban fringe land with

limited uptake of ES generally. Little evidence that ELS is

having an impact, but semi-

improved grassland, parkland,

water features and lowland

heathland are benefiting from

HLS in a limited number of

locations. NE

UT

RA

L (

1.5

)

120. Wealden Greensand



semi- improved and wet

grassland, archaeology on

grassland, water features and

semi-natural habitats


woodlands, characteristic

mature hedgerow trees, and

historic farm buildings. Only

limited influence on

archaeology on arable land

and on parkland.


trees and hedgerows. HLS

more influential for semi-

improved grassland,

archaeology, water features

and semi-natural habitats.

PO

SIT

IVE

(2

.5)

122. High Weald



semi-improved pastures,

archaeology, species-rich

grassland and lowland heath


the NCA‟s relatively large

resource of semi-natural

woodlands, hedgerows, historic

farm buildings, parkland and

water features (including

distinctive hammer ponds).

May be some localised

negative impact from deer

fencing


trees and hedgerows. HLS

more influential for semi-

improved grassland and semi-

natural habitats, especially

lowland heathland.

PO

SIT

IVE

(3)


31

WESTERN MIXED ALT

96. Dunsmore and Feldon


management of hedgerows

and water features

ES having little or no impact

on woodlands and area‟s

characteristic mature hedgerow

trees and limited impacts on

historic farm buildings,,

characteristic parkland and

semi-natural habitats,

Significant uptake of arable

options (notably fallow plots)

may have negative impact



hedgerows and agricultural

grasslands. HLS affects arable

options, parkland and rough

and semi-natural grasslands

NE

UT

RA

L (

1.5

)

100. Herefordshire Lowlands



hedgerows, orchards, low input

grassland, historic farm


grassland‟ and semi-natural

grasslands.


woodlands and parkland –

although these are key

landscape elements.


trees, hedgerows and low input

grasslands. HLS affects

orchards, historic farm

buildings, archaeology and

rough and semi-natural

grasslands. PO

SIT

IVE

(4)

139. Marshwood and Powerstock Vales


management of hedgerows,

archaeology and semi-natural

habitats.


woodlands, pastures, historic

farm buildings and

archaeology, and none on

hedgerow trees or coastal

features.


hedgerow management. HLS

influential on archaeology,

rough and species-rich

grasslands and lowland

heathland, albeit at a fairly low

level PO

SIT

IVE

(2)

UPLAND FRINGE

17. Orton Fells


woodland management and

expansion (through

succession),protection of in-

field trees, retention and

management of stone walls,

hedgerows, low-input

grassland, rough pasture,

historic farm buildings,


species-rich grasslands, hay

meadows and moorlands

(including limestone features).

- ELS main influence on most landscape elements, although HLS influential, especially in relation to woodland expansion and management of rough and species-rich grassland and moorland.

ST

RO

NG

LY

PO

SIT

IVE

(5

.5)


32

54. Manchester Pennine Fringe

Very limited ES uptake generally, in this urban fringe NCA,

where farming activity is relatively low and possibly declining.

Little evidence that ES is having a positive impact on the

landscape, although it is contributing at a low level to protection

and management of stone walls, hedgerows, permanent

grassland and archaeology on grassland

ELS main influence. Increased

uptake levels across the board

would benefit this landscape

NE

UT

RA

L (

0)

149. The Culm


protection of in-field trees, as

well as retention and

management of hedgerows,

low-input grassland,

archaeology on grassland, and

Culm grassland

ES having less impact on


woodlands, earth banks,

historic farm buildings,

archaeology on arable and

lowland heathland – all of

which are key characteristic

landscape elements. No impact

on coastal landscape

elements.


woodlands, trees, hedgerows

and permanent grassland.

HLS more influential on Culm

grassland.

PO

SIT

IVE

(3.5

)

UPLANDS

10. North Pennines


broadleaved woodland

management, protection and

expansion (through

succession), as well as


in-field trees, stone walls,

hedgerows, traditional pastures

and rough grazing, historic

farm buildings, archaeology,

species-rich grassland, hay

meadows and moorland


trees, field boundaries,

traditional pastures, farm

buildings, archaeology and hay

meadows. HLS more influential

on woodland management and

expansion and upland

pastures. Both ELS and HLS

strongly influence management

of moorland in this NCA S

TR

ON

GL

Y P

OS

ITIV

E (

6)

51. Dark Peak

Relatively limited uptake of ES generally in this NCA, as much

was still under ESA agreements in 2010. ES appears to be

having a positive impact on the landscape in only two respects:

in-field trees (although these are not identified as a key

characteristic) and stone wall protection and management. ES is

also contributing at a lower level to retention and management of

rough pasture, protection of archaeology on grassland, species-

rich grassland, and moorland and blanket bog3

ELS is the main driver. HLS is

also influential on upland

pastures and moors.

Increased uptake levels,

especially, for woodland

management and protection,

would benefit this landscape

NE

UT

RA

L (

1)

3 The limited uptake of ES in the Dark Peak reflects that at the time of the assessment large areas of the NCA were still

under ESA agreements and therefore not eligible for ES


33

150. Dartmoor

ES is contributing positively

to the landscape in terms of

management of traditional field

boundaries, rough pasture,

species-rich grassland and

moorland, with significant

levels of characteristic mixed

stocking and cattle grazing on

moorland

ES having less impact on

woodlands, permanent

pastures, historic farm

buildings and archaeology and

further uptake of options for

these landscape elements may

be beneficial.

ELS main driver. HLS also

influential (albeit often at a low

level) on management of

woodlands, hedgerows, rough

pasture, archaeology on

grassland, species-rich

grassland and moorland

PO

SIT

IVE

(3)

Findings

Comparison of scales of assessment

3.6 Comparison of the findings at the NCA level with those at the Study Area level (described in Report 2 (Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the Study Area Level) identifies that the findings are clearly very different in over 50% of cases. For example:

Manchester Pennine Fringe NCA: The field survey identified that in the Oldham Fringe Study Area (in this NCA), ES is making a moderate contribution to conserving the landscape, whereas for the NCA-wide assessment the landscape contribution of ES is judged as neutral.

The same difference was evident between the Hope Valley Study Area and the Dark Peak NCA as a whole.

Conversely, in the Fens, within the Prickwillow Study Area, ES was judged through field work to be making a low contribution to conserving and enhancing the landscape whereas across the NCA as a whole it has been assessed as Strongly Positive in its landscape effects.

3.7 Thus limited surveys at the local level cannot act as a surrogate for assessing the landscape impacts of ES at the NCA level – for which an NCA-wide assessment is required as described above. Equally assessing the landscape effects of single NCAs cannot act as a surrogate for the landscape effects of ES at the scale of whole ALTs. As is evident from Tables 3.2 – 3.3, NCAs within ALTs do not share common landscape outcomes from ES, This reflects that the landscape varies considerably across the NCAs of individual ALTs, as it does between ALTs and that ES uptake patterns also vary.

Differences in ES landscape effects across different landscape themes

3.8 The primary purpose of the NCA assessment approach described previously and tested on the 18 NCAs, has been to develop a method for assessing the landscape effects of ES at the scale of individual NCAs, as demonstrated in Appendix 1 and Tables 2.2 – 2.3.

3.9 Nevertheless, such assessments in combination also provide an important insight into the use of ES options and groups of options and their effect on the landscape across the different landscape themes. This is illustrated in Table 3.4 (a) which provides a visual summary of ES landscape impacts by theme for each NCA and allows comparison across


34

all the NCAs assessed, by landscape theme. This shows that there is some commonality in the pattern of ES uptake across the NCAs within a particular ALT but that there are NCAs that break the mould. This is picked up in Chapter 5.


35

Table 3.4 (a): Visual summary of ES landscape impacts at the NCA level

ALT NCA

Key landscape characteristic themes

ES Overall

effect

Woodland

& trees

Field

boundaries

Agric.

land use

Farm

building

Historic

env.

Semi-

natural

habitats

Coast

CH

AL

K &

LIM

ES

TO

N

E M

IXE

D

87. East Anglian Chalk (2) -

134. Dorset Downs and Cranborne Chase (3) -

140 Yeovil Scarplands (3.5) -

EA

ST

ER

N

AR

AB

LE

28. Vale of York (2.5) -

46. The Fens (5.5)^

88. Bedfordshire & Cambs. Claylands (3.5) -

S E

MIX

ED

WO

OD

ED

114. Thames Basin Lowlands (1.5) -

120. Wealden Greensand (2.5) -

122. High Weald (3) -

WE

ST

ER

N

MIX

ED

96. Dunsmore & Feldon (1.5) -

100. Herefordshire Lowlands (4) -

139 Marshwood and Powerstock (2) -

UP

LA

ND

FR

ING

E

17. Orton Fells (5.5) -

54. Manchester Pennine Fringe (0) -

149. Culm (3.5))

(

2

)


36

UP

LA

ND

S 10. North Pennines (6) -

51. Dark Peak (1) -

150. Dartmoor (3) -

ES is having a Strongly Positive Landscape effect with most (or key) identified thresholds for individual Indicators being met or exceeded

ES is having a Positive Landscape effect with some identified thresholds for individual Indicators being met

ES is having a Neutral Landscape effect with the most or all of the identified thresholds not being met

Table 3.4 (b): Summary of landscape effects of ES across the different landscape themes (amalgamating the results of the individual NCAs in Table 3.4 (b))

Landscape theme Landscape effects of ES

Strongly positive Positive Neutral

Woodland and trees 4 7 7

Field patterns and boundary types 13 1 4

Agricultural land use 3 8 7

Agricultural buildings 4 1 13

Historic environment 3 10 5

Semi-natural habitats 10 4 4

Totals 37 31 40


37

3.10 There are a number of general points worthy of note that emerge from Tables 3.4(a) and (b) based on an assessment of the landscape effects of ES in the 18 NCAs:

Boundaries: The levels of uptake of ES boundary options (especially hedgerow

options) ensures that they are having a Strongly Positive effect on the landscape of the

majority of NCAs (13 out of 18 in this sample) helping uphold one of the key landscape

characteristics of the English landscape.

It is surprising that the one ALT where the NCAs are not meeting the threshold for

boundary options is in the NCAs of the South East Wooded ALT which has the densest

hedgerow pattern of probably all the ALTs. This lack of sufficient ES uptake to meet the

landscape threshold may be because many of the field boundaries are provided by

shaws (narrow bands of woodland) that are not well suited to the ES boundary options.

The very density of the hedgerow pattern also requires significantly higher levels of

uptake compared to other NCAs to meet the identified threshold, although by any

measure boundary uptake is relatively low in these NCAs.

Woodland and trees: Landscape thresholds are quite often not met under this theme.

This is a missed opportunity for the landscape as farm woodlands and trees, like

boundaries, help define the scale and pattern of the landscape.

Semi-natural habitats: The level of uptake of these ES options (exceeding the

landscape threshold) ensures that they have a Strongly Positive effect on the landscape

of over half the NCAs in the sample, although this does not include any NCAs in the

intensively farmed Eastern Arable ALT. However, in the Fens this is partially

compensated by high levels of uptake for the extensive areas of salt marsh along the

coast.

Farm buildings: On the other hand, farm buildings are relatively rarely brought under

ES option, with the exception of NCAs in the Eastern Arable ALT and in the Upland

Fringes and in the Uplands where traditional field barns are more common.

Agricultural land uses: The levels of ES option uptake affecting these land uses most

commonly have a Positive or Neutral effect on the landscape as opposed to a Strongly

Positive effect. This is because the landscape thresholds are often not met for this

range of options – particularly evident in the NCAs of the Chalk and Limestone ALT.

As will be evident later in this report (Chapter 8), two of the ES options with very high

levels of uptake are EK2 and EK3 for low and very low fertiliser inputs on permanent

grassland, yet it is evident that these options were only able to meet their landscape

threshold in four of the 18 NCAs assessed (Table 3.2).

3.11 Finally, from the assessment it is clear that there are some groups of option where levels of ES uptake are low and significantly higher levels of uptake would be highly beneficial for the landscape. These are all options for

- Hedgerow trees

- Orchards

- Parkland

- Haymaking

- Water meadows

- Coastal ES options

3.12 These and other findings will be returned to in Chapter 5 with the benefit of a larger sample

of results.


38

4 The updated methodology using a bespoke database

The main developments in the approach building on the BD5303 approach

4.1 Following the work undertaken under BD5303 the approach for assessing the landscape effects of ES at the NCA level has been refined further through the development of a separate bespoke database and further consideration of the landscape objectives and indicators. This development is still firmly built around the nine evaluation questions that guided the BD5303 approach (para 2.6). In short the main developments and changes to the BD5303 approach have been:

Utilisation of the 2013 ES uptake data from Genesis rather than the 2010 data used in BD5303.

As a consequence of using this updated data no spatial analysis has been undertaken of the distribution of stock versus uptake other than aspects of the historic environment. This is because there is no current dataset that shows the spatial distribution of ES options other than as point data. In addition, although the location of options is very important in terms of their landscape effects, we found during BD5303 that the broad brush nature of LCM significantly reduced the value of this spatial analysis.

The use of a bespoke database allows greater consistency across the individual NCA assessments when all NCAs are being assessed and allows the data on ES uptake and stock to be prepopulated into the database. This greatly increases the clarity of the thought process and the speed at which the assessments can be done.

Developing objectives

4.2 Building on the development work undertaken for BD5303, a generic list of 46 objectives has been used within the bespoke database. Each objective relates to a key landscape feature (key characteristic) and the list represents the full set of objectives that should be required across all 157 NCAs.

Developing indicators

4.3 As in BD5303, for each objective, a linked indicator has been generated, drawing on the experience gained through BD5303. As before indicators are expressed as a percentage of ES uptake versus stock (either as a percentage of area or a percentage of length depending on how the relevant ES options are measured). As in the BD5303 assessment, where no stock figure is available, uptake level (area, length or number as in trees) may form a simple indicator.

4.4 As for BD5303 significant effort was put into ensuring that the right stock data was selected for each indicator, and also the right ES uptake data.

Setting thresholds

4.5 Again, building on the experience of BD5303, a threshold has been set for each indicator and tested through some early piloting of the newly formed database. As before, these


39

thresholds help the assessor to evaluate whether ES is having a positive, neutral or negative effect on a landscape.

4.6 These thresholds are normally expressed as a specific percentage of relevant ES uptake relative to the stock. Where there is no stock data the threshold has been set as a set number or area of the landscape feature in question under option. The variation in threshold levels for different landscape objectives has retained the thinking developed through BD5303 (as described in paras 2.17 – 2.22).

4.7 All of the above information has been aggregated into a master table which sets out each of the objectives with its corresponding indicator, relevant uptake and stock data as well as the threshold. This information is shown in Appendix 3 while Appendix 4 shows the options that have been selected relating to each objective.

The bespoke database

4.8 The bespoke database that has been developed has the following elements:

Clear data entry forms have been developed allowing those unfamiliar with access databases to complete the individual NCA analyses.

The database and the data entry forms have been structured around the nine evaluation and monitoring questions identified in Chapter 2.

The data entry forms have been built up horizontally moving from left to right through the evaluation questions making it easier to see the flow of information relating to each evaluation question (rather than vertically as in the BD5303 NCA indicator and threshold Word tables).

For each NCA the database pre-populates the data entry form with the relevant base information relating to the area of ES uptake by relevant options and the area / length of the stock of key landscape features.

Thus completion of the data entry form per theme, once the key characteristics have been entered, requires the selection of the most appropriate objectives to which are linked the correct indicators and thresholds, and the relevant stock and ES uptake data. In turn, the database displays the indicator score which can be compared with the threshold.

The assessor then needs to (a) check the pre-populated data; (b) check the indicator score derived by the database from a comparison of relevant stock and uptake data; and (c) identify whether for that objective the effect on the landscape is positive, neutral or negative.

4.9 In Table 4.1 below the overall structure of the Microsoft Access database is illustrated. The database has been developed to facilitate the assessment and follows the logical thought process that the Assessors need to follow in order to arrive at the final assessment for each NCA.

4.10 The following key is used in Table 4.1 to denote how the information is entered/created:

Action is required by assessor at the time of reviewing an

individual NCA – either in the form of preparing free text, tick box

selection or dropdown menu selection

No action required by assessor at the time of reviewing an

individual NCA as the data is prepopulated


40

Table 4.1: Database structure

Information Method of inputting data into database

Evaluation for each theme

1. Key

characteristics/

elements

Key characteristics per NCA are pre-populated from the BD5303 NCA

key characteristics database. .

The key characteristics require checking against full fine grained

landscape descriptions. They are edited to focus on the relevant key

landscape elements of that NCA. The stock and uptake data are used

as a check to ensure that the edited key characteristics include all

relevant landscape elements.

2. Objectives For each theme, a list of objectives has been generated at the outset

directly linked to each key landscape element.

These objectives are presented in the data entry form as a list for each

theme.

3. Selection of

relevant

objectives

A tickbox selection allows the assessor to mark which objectives are

relevant to the NCA being assessed.

(For each objective, the assessor uses the edited key characteristics as

well as stock and uptake data (described below) to judge whether that

objective is relevant to the NCA. Only those objectives marked as

relevant form part of the assessment.

4. Indicators Each objective has a corresponding indicator expressed as a percentage

of uptake versus stock (measured as area, length, area or number).

5. Uptake Drawing on the analysis of Genesis uptake data per NCA, uptake

calculations are prepopulated against each objective/indicator and

expressed as a total. In addition, to these totals, there is access to the

„raw‟ options uptake data so that it can be reviewed by scheme group

(ELS or HLS) via a button.

A series of summary calculations and queries have been set up behind

the main database interface to allow the correct information to be pulled

through to the right location. This has been done for all NCAs.

6. Stock Where possible, each indicator has a corresponding stock value that is

prepopulated using LCM 2007 analysis by NCA or analysis of other GIS

datasets as described in the previous section.

Stock calculations have been generated for each indicator for all NCAs

in order for the relevant stock figure to be pulled through to the right

location.

7. Thresholds Threshold values have been set for each indicator for all NCAs. These

were set up in a way that allows for „tweaked‟ threshold values to

recalculate „on the fly’4. This was important as initial piloting of a few

NCAs highlighted where thresholds needed tweaking, and this set up

allows thresholds to be changed and the indicator results to be

4 „on the fly’ means that the database contains a formula which allows a calculation to be made depending on the data

that has been entered. Thus the actual calculation only occurs when the „button‟ is clicked.


41


automatically recalculated.

8. Indicator

results

Database analysis of the stock versus uptake values allows this to be

prepopulated on screen – usually as a percentage value.

These calculations have been set up as a formula that undertakes the

calculation within the database. This has been done for all NCAs.

9. Effects Are the

effects on the

landscape:

positive, neutral

or negative?

The assessor uses the above information on uptake, stock, and indicator

result compared to the threshold to evaluate whether the effects on the

landscape for each objective are positive, neutral or negative and uses a

drop down list to make this selection.

10. Are ES

options with

greatest

potential

landscape

benefit being

taken up?

For each objective, the assessor responds to this question with a Yes or

No (selected from a drop down list) and enters the justification for this, if

needed.

11. Overall

effects on theme

Following completion of the assessment for each relevant objective, an

overall effect of ES on landscape for that theme is selected (from a drop

down list) by the assessor. The values available are strongly positive,

positive, neutral, negative and not applicable. This overall effect reflects

the sum of the assessments made against each of the objectives.

Summary results for all themes

Theme effect

scores

The „scores‟ from 11 are automatically assigned to the overall results

summary with one „score‟ for each theme. The scores are assigned as

follows:

Strongly positive = 1

Positive = 0.5

Neutral = 0

Not applicable = 0

Total score for

overall effect

Based on the summation of the theme effect scores, an overall score for

each NCA is generated. The scores are assigned as follows:

0 – 2 = Neutral

2.5 – 4 = Positive

4.5+ = Strongly positive

ES seems to be

benefiting the

landscape in

respect of:

This is a free text box for the assessor to complete having reviewed all of

the analysis above.

ES seems to be

having more

limited impact

on:

This is a free text box for the assessor to complete having reviewed all of

the analysis above.


42


Comments A free text box for the assessor to complete having reviewed all of the analysis above.

4.11 In the following Chapter some of the key findings from the assessment of the 50 NCAs analysed to date are summarised as they provide a useful further insight into the landscape effects of ES.


43

5 Findings from the assessment of 50 NCAs (using the

bespoke database)

5.1 Although the findings that are discussed below, have strictly been derived from work undertaken outside BD5303, some of the emerging findings are described here as they help to throw light on findings under BD5303 (Chapter 4). This is valuable on two counts: this work, that has taken forward the development work under BD5303, has used updated and what Natural England believes is more accurate ES uptake data by NCA (for 2013); and (b) it has now analysed 50 NCAs providing a greater population from which to draw findings – the full set of NCAs will be assessed using this approach by the end of August 2013.

5.2 These emerging findings are considered under three headings with the purpose of understanding better how ES uptake is affecting different types of landscape and whether this might have implications for the future application of Environmental Stewardship:

The landscape effects of ES at the NCA level compared across ALTs

The landscape effect of ES across different option types

The relative contribution of ELS, UELS and HLS to these landscape effects

5.3 The 50 NCAs that have been assessed so far under this follow on work are indicated in Table 5.1, which also indicates the overall effect of ES on the landscape of the individual NCAs assessed. This is then mapped in Figure 5.1.

Table 5.1: Summary of overall results for the 50 NCAs assessed

ALT NCA NCA name

Total

score

Overall

effect

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 30 SOUTHERN MAGNESIAN LIMESTONE 2 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 92 ROCKINGHAM FOREST 2 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 95 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE UPLANDS 2 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 107 COTSWOLDS 3 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 110 CHILTERNS 2 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 116

BERKSHIRE AND MARLBOROUGH

DOWNS 3 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 119 NORTH DOWNS 3.5 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 125 SOUTH DOWNS 4 Positive


44

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 127 ISLE OF WIGHT 4 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 130 HAMPSHIRE DOWNS 3.5 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 132

SALISBURY PLAIN AND WEST

WILTSHIRE DOWNS 2 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 136 SOUTH PURBECK 2.5 Positive

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 137 ISLE OF PORTLAND

Chalk and

Limestone Mixed 141 MENDIP HILLS 4 Positive

Eastern Arable 39 HUMBERHEAD LEVELS 2 Positive

Eastern Arable 48 TRENT AND BELVOIR VALES 3 Positive

Eastern Arable 77 NORTH NORFOLK COAST 2.5 Positive

Eastern Arable 80 THE BROADS 3.5 Positive

Eastern Arable 82 SUFFOLK COAST AND HEATHS 3 Positive

Eastern Arable 86

SOUTH SUFFOLK AND NORTH ESSEX

CLAYLAND 2.5 Positive

SE Mixed

(Wooded) 81 GREATER THAMES ESTUARY 2.5 Positive

SE Mixed

(Wooded) 121 LOW WEALD 3 Positive

SE Mixed

(Wooded) 124 PEVENSEY LEVELS 2 Positive

SE Mixed

(Wooded) 126 SOUTH COAST PLAIN 2.5 Positive

SE Mixed

(Wooded) 131 NEW FOREST 3.5 Positive

SE Mixed

(Wooded) 135 DORSET HEATHS 4 Positive

Western mixed 20 MORECAMBE BAY LIMESTONES 4.5

Strongly

positive

Western mixed 31

MORECAMBE COAST AND LUNE

ESTUARY 1.5 Neutral

Western mixed 32

LANCASHIRE AND AMOUNDERNESS

PLAIN 1.5 Neutral


45

Western mixed 61

SHROPSHIRE, CHESHIRE AND

STAFFORDSHIRE PLAIN 3 Positive

Western mixed 62 CHESHIRE SANDSTONE RIDGE 1.5 Neutral

Western mixed 67 CANNOCK CHASE AND CANK WOOD 1.5 Neutral

Western mixed 89 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE VALES 2.5 Positive

Western mixed 97 ARDEN 2 Positive

Western mixed 104

SOUTH HEREFORDSHIRE AND OVER

SEVERN 2 Positive

Western mixed 108 UPPER THAMES CLAY VALES 1 Neutral

Upland Fringe 38

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, DERBYSHIRE AND

YORKSHIRE COALFIELD 1 Neutral

Upland Fringe 103 MALVERN HILLS 2.5 Positive

Upland Fringe 144 QUANTOCK HILLS 1.5 Neutral

Upland Fringe 147 BLACKDOWNS 3 Positive

Upland Fringe 151 SOUTH DEVON 5

Strongly

positive

Upland Fringe 152 CORNISH KILLAS 4.5

Strongly

positive

Upland 19 SOUTH CUMBRIA LOW FELLS 4.5

Strongly

positive

Upland 53 SOUTH WEST PEAK 3.5 Positive

Upland 65 SHROPSHIRE HILLS 6

Strongly

positive

Upland 98

CLUN AND NORTH WEST

HEREFORDSHIRE HILLS 4.5

Strongly

positive

Upland 145 EXMOOR 5

Strongly

positive

Upland 153 BODMIN MOOR 2.5 Positive

Upland 156 WEST PENWITH 2.5 Positive

Upland 157 THE LIZARD 4.5

Strongly

positive


46

Figure 5.1: Summary of overall results for the 50 NCAs assessed


47


5.4 Under this separate study the split of NCAs per ALT is no longer even. The selection prioritised those that encompassed protected landscapes (AONBs, National Parks and Heritage Coasts), not covered in the initial 18 NCAs of BD5303, as well as those where Nature Improvement Area (NIA) projects have commenced. As a result there is a skew in numbers in favour of the Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT and the Western Mixed ALT. For NCAs having a significant area of designated protected landscape, a positive effect by ES might be anticipated as they have more often than not been included in classic scheme and HLS target areas.

Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT

5.5 The assessment results for the NCAs in the Chalk and Limestone ALT are shown in Figure 5.2 on the next page. With a greater number of NCAs being assessed compared to the numbers under BD5303, the results begin to demonstrate a greater uniformity between NCAs in the same ALT.

5.6 In this ALT the uptake of ES in each of the NCAs is assessed as having a Positive effect on the landscape. However, the assessment results do vary between NCAs with the North Downs, South Downs, Isle of Wight, Hampshire Downs and the Mendip Hills showing that ES is making a more solid contribution to a positive landscape effect.

5.7 Looking at the different landscape themes three particular trends are evident:

Semi-natural habitats: All these NCAs with the exception of Salisbury Plain and the West Wiltshire Downs show that ES is making a strongly positive contribution to the conservation of semi-natural habitats - in these cases almost exclusively relating to the conservation and restoration of chalk grasslands. In the case of Salisbury Plain and the West Wiltshire Downs there are still relatively high levels of uptake for this habitat - 2,675 ha but this is a relatively small proportion of the extensive semi-natural grasslands of Salisbury Plain - the largest remaining extent of chalk grassland in Western Europe. It is also a smaller area of uptake than that noted in some of the other chalkland landscapes, such as the South Downs NCA with 6,319 ha under the relevant ES options. This may reflect that much of the grassland on Salisbury Plain falls within MOD training grounds.

Field boundaries and field patterns: Across these NCAs, ES uptake appears to be making a relatively strong contribution to the management of field boundaries and the strengthening of field pattern. This is achieved with every NCA in this ALT exceeding the threshold for ES management of hedgerows and with the use of wide buffer strips also helping strengthen field pattern in a number of these large-scale landscapes.

Historic environment: Likewise, in the chalkland landscapes of South East England ES uptake is making a strong contribution to the conservation of the historic environment. This includes the conservation management of archaeological sites on arable and grassland and the conservation management of parkland. Potentially surprising is that this is not also reflected in the Cotswolds and Chilterns which are also noted for their historic heritage including extensive parkland. However, in both these NCAs the landscape thresholds have not been met for parklands or for archaeology on arable or grassland.

5.8 Overall these findings generally reflect the assessments of the three BD5303 NCAs falling within this ALT.


48

Table 5.2: Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT – Individual NCA assessments


Theme

NC

A3

0 –

So

uth

ern

Magn

esia

n L

imesto

ne

NC

A9

2 –

Rockin

gha

m

Fore

st

NC

A9

5 –

N‟h

am

pto

nsh

ire

Upla

nds

NC

A1

07 –

Cots

wold

s

NC

A1

10 –

Ch

iltern

s

NC

A1

16 –

Berk

shire a

nd

Marlb

oro

ugh D

ow

ns

NC

A1

19 –

Nort

h D

ow

ns

NC

A1

25 –

South

Dow

ns

NC

A 1

27 –

Isle

of

Wig

ht

NC

A1

30 –

Ha

mpsh

ire

Dow

ns

NC

A1

32 –

Salis

bury

Pla

in

& W

est W

iltshire D

ow

ns

NC

A1

36 –

South

Purb

eck

NC

A 1

41 –

Mend

ip H

ills

Woodland/trees 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5

Field boundaries 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1

Agric. Land uses 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

Buildings 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0

Historic env. 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0 1

Semi-nat habitats 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Coast - - - - - - 0.5 0 0.5 - - - -

Overall effect 2 2 2 3 2 3 3.5 4 4 3.5 2 2.5 4


49

Eastern Arable ALT

5.9 The assessment results for the NCAs in the Eastern Arable ALT are shown in Figure 5.3.

Again, with a greater number of NCAs being assessed compared to the numbers under

BD5303, the results begin to demonstrate a greater uniformity between NCAs in the same

ALT.

Table 5.3: Eastern Arable ALT – Individual NCA assessments

5.10 As is evident from Table 5.3 above, all the NCAs in the Eastern Arable ALT are assessed

as having a Positive effect on the landscape. Again there are a number of specific trends to

note:

Semi-natural habitats: Unlike the Chalk and Limestone ALT, not all NCAs in the

intensively farmed Eastern Arable ALT are showing ES uptake for semi-natural habitats

at levels that have a strongly positive effect on the landscape, repeating the finding for

this ALT under BD5303. The two exceptions are The Broads (where there is a strong

emphasis under ES on the conservation of lowland meadows and fen and reed beds),

and in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths where there has been a strong focus on the

restoration of the area‟s lowland heathland along with areas of reedbed and species-rich

grassland.

Field boundaries and field patterns: It is also in these two NCAs, along with the Trent

and Belvoir Vales, where ES uptake is having a strongly positive effect on the

EASTERN ARABLE ALT

Theme

NC

A 3

9 –

Hum

berh

ead

Levels

NC

A 4

8 –

Tre

nt a

nd

Belv

oir V

ale

s

NC

A 7

7 –

Nort

h N

orf

olk

Coast

NC

A 8

0 –

The B

roa

ds

NC

A 8

2 –

Su

ffo

lk C

oast

and H

eath

s

NC

A 8

6 –

So

uth

Su

ffo

lk

and N

ort

h E

ssex C

layla

nd

Woodland/trees 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

Field boundaries 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5

Agric. Land uses 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0

Buildings 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Historic env. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Semi-nat habitats 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5

Coast - - 0 0 0 -

Overall effect 2 3 2.5 3.5 3 2.5


50

management of field boundaries and the strengthening of field patterns. In the Suffolk

Coast and Heaths this relates to both hedgerow management and, of particular benefit,

the planting of new hedgerows - which both exceed the landscape threshold. In the

Broads the strongly positive landscape effects of boundary management relate to

hedgerow management and separately to management of the characteristic ditches and

dykes; while in the Trent and Belvoir Vales it reflects high ES uptake that exceeds the

landscape threshold for hedgerow management and the use of wide buffer strips that

help define field pattern in these large-scale arable landscapes. In these generally open

large-scale landscapes, the strengthening of field boundaries is particularly important for

the landscape.

It is notable that across most of the NCAs in this ALT, uptake relating to trees and

woodlands are low. This is a missed opportunity, as these are also important in

providing structure to these open landscapes.

Agricultural land use: It is also notable that none of these NCAs meet the landscape

threshold for low input grasslands (and therefore the conservation of permanent

grasslands in these arable landscapes). The only NCA where ES uptake is making a

strongly positive contribution to agricultural land uses is in the North Norfolk Coast

where there are high levels of uptake (relative to stock) for wet grasslands.

Historic environment: In this heavily cultivated NCA there are no NCAs where ES is

identified as making a strongly positive contribution to the conservation of the historic

environment. None of these NCAs meet the threshold for the retention and

management of archaeological features on grassland or on arable.

5.11 Overall these findings are slightly different to those noted under the NCAs assessed under

BD5303, in that the BD5303 NCAs in this ALT had stronger uptake of woodland and tree

options and also in important boundary options. In addition, the BD5303 NCAs showed

better uptake relating to farm buildings and lowland coastal habitats.

South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT

5.12 The assessment of NCAs in this ALT is shown in Table 5.4 on the next page. all the NCAs

in the South East Mixed ALT are assessed as having a Positive effect on the landscape.

5.13 The NCAs in this ALT continue the trend noted in the BD5303 assessment of not meeting

the landscape thresholds for boundary features across half of these NCAs. This is

particularly noticeable in the New Forest and the Dorset Heaths, where it appears that the

successful targeting of ES on the internationally important heathland habitats of these two

NCAs has tended to focus attention away from the surrounding enclosed lands which are

relatively poorly covered by ES uptake.

5.14 While three of the NCAs have ES uptake for semi-natural habitats that is strongly positive

for the landscape (New Forest, Dorset Heaths and the South Coast Plain) there are

relatively low levels of uptake in the Low Weald and Pevensey Levels, while uptake does

not meet the landscape threshold in the highly industrial and built up character of the

Greater Thames Estuary. It is also notable that the ES uptake for salt marsh is insufficient

in this NCA to meet the landscape threshold, yet this habitat was once an over-riding

characteristic of the landscape.


51

Table 5.4: South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT – Individual NCA assessments

SOUTH EAST MIXED (WOODED) ( ALT)

Theme

NC

A 8

1 –

Gre

ate

r

Tham

es E

stu

ary

NC

A 1

21 –

Low

Wea

ld

NC

A 1

24 –

Pevensey

Levels

NC

A 1

26 –

South

Co

ast

Pla

in

NC

A 1

31 –

Ne

w F

ore

st

NC

A 1

35 –

Dors

et

Heath

s

Woodland/trees 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Field boundaries 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0

Agric. Land uses 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5

Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0

Historic env. 1 1 0.5 0 1 1

Semi-nat habitats 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1

Coast 0 - - 0.5 1 1

Overall effect 2.5 3 2 2.5 3.5 4

5.15 Other notable aspects of the NCAs in this ALT are that:

Woodland and trees: In an area with some of the highest woodland cover in England, uptake of woodland and tree options is not particularly strong, again a pattern identified under BD5303. However, ES uptake in the Low Weald does meet the landscape threshold for the management of field trees while uptake in the Dorset Heaths and the Greater Thames Estuary meet the threshold for the management of woodland.

Historic environment: While none of the NCAs have sufficient ES uptake to meet the

threshold for the retention and conservation of traditional farm buildings (potentially

because of the heavy pressure for barn conversions in this heavily populated region),

the majority of NCAs have uptake at a level that is having a strongly positive effect on

the wider historic environment - primarily the management of archaeological sites on

grassland and arable. The exception is the New Forest where the emphasis is on the

management of parkland and wood pasture.

5.16 Overall these findings largely reflect those of the NCAs assessed under BD5303.

Western Mixed ALT

5.17 The assessment of NCAs in this ALT is shown in Table 5.5 on the next page. Of the NCAs

assessed, one is identified as having a level of ES uptake that is Strongly Positive for the

landscape, while four are assessed as having a Positive effect on the landscape. But in

the remaining 50% of NCAs assessed, ES uptake in the critical options has been low

resulting in ES having a Neutral effect on the landscape overall.


52

Table 5.5: Western Mixed ALT – Individual NCA assessments

WESTERN MIXED ALT

Theme

NC

A 2

0 –

More

ca

mbe

Bay L

imesto

nes

NC

A 3

1 –

More

ca

mbe

Coast a

nd L

une

Estu

ary

NC

A 3

2 –

La

ncashire a

nd

Am

ound

ern

ess P

lain

NC

A 6

1 –

Shro

pshire

,

Cheshir

e &

Sta

ffs P

lain

NC

A 6

2 –

Chesh

ire

San

dsto

ne R

idge

NC

A 6

7 –

Can

nock

Chase a

nd C

rank W

ood

NC

A 8

9 –

Nort

ha

mpto

nshire

Va

les

NC

A 9

7 –

Ard

en

NC

A 1

04 –

S

Here

ford

sh

ire &

Over

Severn

NC

A 1

08 –

Up

per

Tham

es C

lay V

ale

s

Woodland/trees 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0

Field boundaries 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0

Agric. land use 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0.5

Buildings 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0

Historic env. 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0

Semi- nat habitats 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5

Coast 1 0.5 0.5 - - - - - - -

Overall effect 4.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 2.5 2 2 1


53


54

5.18 In a landscape again strongly characterised by its hedgerow patterns, it is noticeable that,

other than the Morecambe Bay Limestones, ES boundary options are not strongly positive

for the landscape in this ALT. Nevertheless, nearly all NCAs in this ALT are showing that

ES is bringing positive benefit for field boundaries. On the other hand, in 60% of the NCAs

thresholds for woodlands and trees are not met, yet these are also an important

characteristic of this landscape type.

5.19 Compared to other ALTs uptake relating to semi-natural habitats in this sample of NCAs is

lower, with only 30% of the NCAs having ES uptake that is strongly positive for semi-

natural habitats, and with 40% of NCAs assessed as neutral. It is also noticeable that

thresholds are less regularly met for the conservation management of agricultural land

uses and also for the historic environment than in some other ALTs, trends that will be

returned to in the next section.

5.20 These more variable assessment results in this ALT reflect the findings of the assessments

under BD5303, although in the BD5303 NCAs in this ALT, all showed a strongly positive

contribution to the landscape in terms of the management of boundary features.

Upland Fringe ALT

5.21 The assessment of NCAs in this ALT is shown in Table 5.6 below.

5.22 As in BD5303, this is an ALT where ES uptake shows very different outcomes for the

landscape in different NCAs. In two of the NCAs the landscape effect of ES is Neutral, in

two it is Positive and in two it is Strongly Positive. The neutral outcome is not unexpected

in the industrialised landscapes of the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield

but is unexpected in the Quantock Hills (AONB). Here it is possible that some of the ES

options are not tailored to the particular landscape characteristics of this NCA - in particular

its mature outgrown beech hedgebanks.

5.23 This is another landscape type where the field boundary pattern is very important with

uptake assessed as strongly positive in the Cornish Killas and South Devon NCAs (where

there is high uptake of both hedgerow and hedgebank options). But this pattern is not

repeated across the other NCAs. Likewise landscape thresholds for woodlands and trees

are not always met with 50% of the NCAs having levels of uptake that do not meet the

thresholds, resulting in a neutral assessment, yet these will be key characteristics of the

majority of these landscapes.

5.24 On the other hand, across the NCAs in this ALT, there is relatively even uptake for ES

options relating to agricultural land use and the historic environment. In addition, in

nearly all NCAs the thresholds for semi-natural habitats are significantly exceeded resulting

in a strongly positive assessment for the landscape. This also relates to the coastal habitats

of two out of three of the coastal NCAs.

5.25 Overall, these findings largely reflect those of the BD5303 assessment, and particularly the

variable nature of the ES uptake in these NCAs and therefore the consequential variable

effects on the landscape in the different NCAs.


55

Table 5.6: Upland Fringe ALT – Individual NCA assessments

Upland ALT

5.26 Finally, the assessment of NCAs in this ALT is shown in Table 5.7 below.

5.27 The NCAs in this ALT are striking, with over half of the sample assessed as having a

Strongly Positive effect on these landscapes, and the remaining NCAs assessed as

having a Positive landscape effect.

5.28 High levels of ES uptake have been experienced in the Uplands with strong targeting of

HLS options to assist in the conservation and restoration of moorland. These levels of

uptake are considered later in this report but are evident with nearly all these NCAs having

levels of uptake for moorland and other characteristic semi-natural habitats that are

strongly positive for the landscape. Equally all but two of the NCAs have uptake that is

strongly positive for the conservation of field boundaries and patterns. Another aspect is

that all the NCAs in this sample have levels of ES uptake for agricultural land use that

should be having a positive landscape effect.

5.29 It is also notable that three of the NCAs have levels of uptake that are strongly positive for

the retention and conservation of traditional farm buildings – a pattern that is not

observed in lowland NCAs.

UPLAND FRINGE ALT

Theme

NC

A 3

8 –

Nott

is, D

erb

ys

and Y

ork

shire C

oa

lfie

ld

NC

A 1

03 –

Malv

ern

Hill

s

NC

A 1

44 –

Qua

nto

ck H

ills

NC

A 1

47 –

Bla

ckdow

ns

NC

A 1

51 –

South

Devo

n

NC

A 1

52 –

Corn

ish K

illas

Woodland/trees 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Field boundaries 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 1

Agric. land use 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Buildings 0 0 0 0 0.5 0

Historic env. 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5

Semi-nat. habitats 1 1 0.5 1 1 1

Coast - - - 0 1 1

Overall effect 1 3 1.5 3 5 4.5


56

Table 5.7: Uplands ALT – Individual NCA assessments

UPLANDS ALT

Theme

NC

A1

9 –

So

uth

Cum

bria

Low

Fe

lls

NC

A 5

3 –

So

uth

West

Peak

NC

A 6

5 –

Shro

pshire

Hill

s

NC

A 9

8 –

Here

ford

shire

Hill

s

NC

A 1

45 -

Exm

oor

NC

A 1

53 –

Bod

min

Mo

or

NC

A 1

56 –

West P

enw

ith

NC

A 1

57 –

The

Liz

ard

Woodland/trees 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1

Field boundaries 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1

Agric. land use 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Buildings 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0

Historic env. 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 1

Semi-nat habitats 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1

Coast 0.5 - - 0 1 - - 0

Overall effect 4.5 3.5 6 4.5 5 2.5 2.5 4.5

5.30 For the wider historic environment, the NCAs are split with four having levels of uptake that are strongly positive for the landscape and three having limited uptake that is of neutral landscape benefit. In this respect Bodmin Moor is an interesting example. This is an NCA that has had very high levels of ES uptake, equivalent to some 60% by area of the NCA as a whole (although this does not allow for co-location of options). However, while having a monumental landscape of national if not international importance, uptake of relevant options has been low, resulting in a neutral effect under this theme.

5.31 The example of Bodmin Moor is potentially useful in highlighting the benefits of the assessment approach. By assessing the landscape effects of ES under different themes, overall levels of uptake do not mask where ES is succeeding in supporting the landscape and where higher levels of uptake would be beneficial.

5.32 Overall these NCA assessments for the Upland landscapes are more strongly positive for the landscape than noted in the BD5303 assessments for the NCAs in this ALT. This is partly because in the case of the Dark Peak much of the NCA was still under ESA agreements at the time that the uptake data was generated for analysis (2010).

5.33 Looking across these assessments as a whole, as in the BD5303 assessments, it is evident that in the majority of NCAs, ES uptake is bringing benefits to the landscape, sometimes strongly positive benefits, as in the Uplands. Nevertheless this type of assessment also helps highlight where there is the potential to realise greater benefits for the landscape through ES, both within individual NCAs and potentially also by focusing on particular themes. These are thoughts that will be returned to in the Overview Report.


57


5.34 As the bespoke database identifies the stock, uptake, and indicator result for every landscape objective in every NCA, it also provides a useful tool for following the uptake of different types of option across all NCAs. Clearly the whole assessment process described in Chapters 2 and 4 is predicated on choosing the landscape objectives, and therefore ES options, that link to the key characteristics of the landscape in question. However, there are some options that apply to nearly all landscapes and it is instructive to look at their patterns of uptake across the NCAs in case this tells us anything about the future application of Environmental Stewardship.

5.35 Below a total of six option groups have been selected: two with very high levels of uptake at the national level; two with a mixed pattern of uptake across the NCAs; and two with low levels of uptake but relating to landscape elements that are characteristic of the majority of NCAs, that is woodland management and the conservation of hedgerow trees.

High uptake options Hedgerows

5.36 Hedgerows are a key characteristic of nearly all landscapes in the lowlands except where ditches, hedgebanks or walls are present, and even in these circumstances will still be a characteristic of some parts of the landscape of most NCAs. The hedgerow options EB1 and EB2 are the top two linear options in terms of levels of uptake across all ALTs with the single exception of the Uplands (Chapter 7) where they are second and third, with EB11 Stone wall protection and maintenance, coming first.

5.37 Appendix 4 examines the uptake of hedgerow options across all 157 NCAs grouped by ALT. It also compares the uptake of EB1 and EB2 with the uptake of options EB3 Enhanced hedgerow management and HB11 Management of hedgerows of very high environmental quality, as well as capital items for hedgerow restoration.

5.38 What is immediately evident (Figure 5.2) is that the landscape threshold for hedgerow uptake (20% of total stock) is largely met in all ALTs with the exception of the South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT, where it is only met in 26% of NCAs, highlighting a trend that has been noted earlier. On the other hand, it is met in all of the Chalk and Limestone NCAs (other than the Isle of Portland where there is no ES uptake) and in 88% of the Western Mixed NCAs. Even in the Uplands it is met in all but 27% of the NCAs (being associated with areas of valley in-bye land).


58

Figure 5.2: Number of NCAs per ALT that meet the landscape threshold for hedgerow options

1: Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT, 2: Eastern Arable ALT, 3 : SE Mixed (Wooded) ALT, 4: Western Mixed, 5 : Upland Fringe

ALT, 6 : Upland ALT

5.39 In these NCAs where the threshold is met, it is interesting to note that in only six does the percentage of uptake for enhanced hedgerow options (EB3 & HB11) exceed 30% of total uptake: in North West Norfolk, Breckland, Isle of Wight, Durham Magnesian Limestone, the North Norfolk Coast and the Cheviot Fringe.

Low input grasslands

5.40 Similarly, options for low input grasslands (EK2 and EK3 in the lowlands and EL2 and EL3 within SDAs) show very high levels of uptake, together forming the top option bundle in terms of total area of ES uptake in all ALTs, except for the Uplands where it is knocked into second position (Chapter 7). As noted in the Field Survey Report these options can bring particular benefit if applied to areas of unimproved and semi-improved pasture but also perform a valuable role in conserving permanent pasture in areas dominated by arable cultivation.

5.41 Appendix 5 examines the uptake of these low input grassland options again across all NCAs and compares the uptake of EK2/L2 (low inputs) with EK2/L3 (very low inputs).

5.42 What is evident from Figure 5.3 below, that summarises the findings of Appendix 5, is that the landscape threshold for low input grasslands (20% of total stock of permanent grassland under these options) is not met in the majority of NCAs despite the very high levels of uptake. Only in the Uplands ALT does the number of NCAs that meet this threshold exceed 50%. In the two most pastoral lowland landscapes of the South Eastern Mixed and Western Mixed ALTs fewer than 20% of NCAs meet this threshold. Equally in the two landscape types (Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT and the Eastern Arable ALT) where it performs an important role in conserving permanent grassland in an otherwise arable dominated landscape, the constituent NCAs meet the threshold in 46% and 23% of NCAs respectively. This suggests that to maximise the landscape benefits of these options there would be merit in the purposeful targeting of these options, as identified in Report 2 (Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the Study Area Level). This would enable these high levels of uptake to be focused in those locations where they can bring the greatest benefit for the landscape (and other objectives).


59

Figure 5.3: Number of NCAs per ALT that meet the landscape threshold for low input grassland options

1: Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT, 2: Eastern Arable ALT, 3: SE Mixed (Wooded) ALT, 4: Western Mixed, 5:

Upland Fringe ALT, 6: Upland ALT

Options with mixed pattern of uptake across the NCAs In-field Trees

5.43 In-field trees, whilst not characteristic of all landscapes, are important landscape elements where they are present. From the NCA assessments undertaken under BD5303 and subsequently, it has appeared that options for field trees may also have been applied to hedgerow trees5 - potentially because options for hedgerow trees were not introduced until 2010. Nevertheless, overall levels of uptake for field tree options (Appendix 6) are generally quite low, achieving the relevant landscape threshold as follows:

Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: 29% of NCAs

Eastern Arable ALT: 11% of NCAs

South Eastern Mixed (Wooded) ALT: 27% of NCAs

Western Mixed ALT: 30% of NCAs

Upland Fringe ALT: 27% of NCAs

Upland ALT: 32% of NCAs

5.44 It is quite possible of course that this reflects the distribution of field trees and where they are characteristic in the landscape, for example, as in the open landscapes of the Chalk and Limestone and the Arable East where field trees tend to be quite localised. It is potentially less expected in the South Eastern Mixed, Western Mixed and Upland Fringe ALTs, especially in landscapes such as the New Forest, Dorset Heaths and South Hants Lowlands where field trees are a common characteristic and yet uptake is low.

5.45 It is also noticeable that the balance of ES option uptake is firmly weighted towards the conservation of trees in pasture as opposed to arable, where trees are arguably under greater threat from damage, although this may of course reflect the current distribution of trees.

5 With NCAs where the key landscape characteristic for trees describes hedgerow trees but the uptake has been for field

trees


60

Options for the conservation of archaeology

5.46 In these NCA assessments (both BD5303 and subsequently) the identification of stock of archaeological sites has been relatively precise with the areas of Scheduled Monuments and SHINE (Selected Heritage Inventory for Natural England) sites overlaid using GIS on LCM 2007 to identify those archaeological sites on arable and those on grassland. A separate exercise was then undertaken to identify those Scheduled Monuments at Risk on arable.

5.47 Those NCAs where the landscape thresholds for archaeological sites are met are identified in Appendix 7 and are summarised in Table 5.8 below:

Table 5.8: Number of NCAs per ALT that meet the landscape thresholds for archaeological conservation

5.48 ALT Number of NCAs that meet the landscape threshold for the …

Conservation of

archaeology on

grassland

Conservation of

archaeology on arable

Removal of

Scheduled

Monuments at Risk

from cultivation

Chalk and limestone mixed 6 (21%) 6 (21%) 11 (39%)

Eastern arable - - 5 (19%)

South East mixed (wooded) 3 (20%) 3 (20%) 4 (27%)

Western mixed 5 (12%) 1 (2%) 5 (12%)

Upland fringe 4 (18%) 1 (5%) 4 (18%)

Upland 4 (18%) 2 (9%) 3 (14%)

5.48 What is evident is that in the majority of NCAs the relevant archaeological thresholds are not met - this is particularly evident in the Eastern Arable ALT. Yet where these thresholds are met they are more often than not very significantly exceeded with an indicator score in excess of 100%. This suggests that in these instances local archaeological sites, not included on SHINE, are also being brought under management.

Options with low uptake but for landscape elements that are characteristic across the majority of NCAs

5.49 There are two particularly noticeable groups of ES option that generally have relatively low uptake but cover landscape elements that are highly characteristic of many NCAs: that is options for woodland and separately for hedgerow trees:

Woodland: Deciduous and mixed woodlands are a characteristic of at least parts of nearly all NCAs. Yet uptake of relevant options typically only meets the relevant landscape thresholds in some 18% of NCAs with uptake particularly low in the Eastern Arable landscapes. As argued before this may well be because of the strong influence of the England Woodland Grant Scheme.

Hedgerow trees: Options for hedgerow tree protection and hedgerow tree establishment are also currently underused. This, as noted above, may be partially explained by these options only being introduced in 2010. There is only one NCA out of all 157 (38. Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield) that meets or exceeds


61

the threshold for the Renewal of hedgerow trees (EC23) while none meet the threshold for Protection of hedgerow trees (Options E/O/HC24, EC25.). As already identified, the uptake of options for field trees is more common, although still underutilised.

Other options that benefit the landscape but are poorly utilised

5.50 In addition, across the NCAs there are a range of options that are often underused – a significant missed opportunity for the landscape. In particular, these are:

Orchards: Orchard options (C18/19/20/21 (ha)) generally have low levels of uptake even in areas where in the past there was a strong tradition of orchard production. The only NCAs to have ES orchard uptake exceeding 40ha are shown in Table 5.9:

Table 5.9: NCAs with over 40ha. of orchard ES options (C18/19/20/21 (ha))

NCA Ha NCA Ha

Chalk and Limestone 104 South Herefordshire/ Over Severn 89

107 Cotswolds. 45 106 Severn & Avon Vales 280

119 North Downs 48 148 Devon Redlands 62

140 Yeovil Scarplands 60 Upland fringe

South West Mixed 149 The Culm 67

100 Herefordshire Lowlands 241 151 South Devon 65

101 Herefordshire Plateau 131 Uplands

102 Teme Valley 99 65 Shropshire Hills 56

What is surprising is that there is limited orchard uptake in the South East Mixed ALT, with the High Weald, for example, having an uptake of 18 ha compared to an area of traditional orchards of 466 ha. Equally surprising are very low levels of uptake in Essex and Suffolk, areas also once with a strong tradition of orchard production.

Parklands: ES options for both parkland and water features appear to be underused in many landscapes and yet parklands are a key characteristic of many landscapes.

Specialist options such as HLS options for lowland haymaking, water meadows and ponds, would also benefit the landscape if there were greater uptake. Although the true traditional water meadow is limited in extent and is largely confined to the chalk valleys of Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset these are very distinctive and much valued historic landscapes. These options could bring real landscape benefit if properly used and targeted (as „habitat‟ options such as dwarf shrub heath tend to be).

The Coast: There are relatively few coastal options and those that there are tend to be underused. Those that there are relate to low lying coastal areas: Salt marsh, Intertidal and saline habitats, Vegetated shingle and Sand dunes. As was evident from field work in the Hartland area of North Devon, coastal cliff habitats will be covered by lowland heath and species-rich grassland options, the coastal role of which is less easy to discern in a NCA-wide study such as this.

Overwintering stubbles: Finally it is very noticeable in the large-scale arable landscapes of the Chalk and Limestone and Eastern Arable ALTs that, despite high levels of uptake of overwintering stubble options, the uptake area is rarely sufficient to meet the landscape threshold.


62

5.51 What these observations might mean is returned to at the end of this Chapter.

The relative contribution of ELS, UELS and HLS to the landscape effects of

ES

5.52 So far in this Chapter the description of landscape effects of ES has not made a distinction between the relative contributions of ELS, UELS and HLS. From the individual NCA assessments it is evident that these contributions can vary significantly. The contribution of ELS / UELS and HLS to each landscape objective and landscape theme is set out in Appendix 3. The following Figures 5.4 – 5.9 show the relative landscape contribution of ELS/UELS/HLS to the individual NCAs (50) that have been assessed in the current on-going work. Figures (a) and (b) in each set illustrate the relative uptake of area options per NCA, while Figures (c) and (d) look at the relative contribution of linear options.

5.53 There are two over-riding trends that are apparent: Firstly, linear options are clearly dominated by ELS option uptake i.e. primarily those for the conservation management of linear features. This is noted across all ALTs. The small lengths of HLS uptake for linear features primarily reflect capital items for their restoration and recreation.

5.54 Secondly, and surprisingly, there are no clear trends across the pattern of uptake for area options. While it might be assumed that ELS was having the overriding influence by area, this is by no means always the case, with some NCAs in every ALT having a higher proportion of HLS as opposed to ELS option uptake. This is very evident in the South East Mixed ALT where four out of the six NCAs assessed have significantly higher levels of HLS over ELS uptake (primarily but not exclusively driven by targeting of lowland heathland management and restoration). What is more surprising is that exactly the same pattern is mirrored in the six Eastern Arable NCAs, partly but not exclusively explained by the inclusion of the Broads and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths in the sample.

5.55 Equally, amongst these NCAs, while nationally the Uplands have had very significant targeting of moorland options, which will usually have a high proportion of HLS uptake, in this sample HLS does not dominate uptake in all the Upland NCAs.

5.56 These differences in uptake are explored further for the individual NCAs by ALT and described on pages 66-67 and 74.


63

Figure 5.4(a): Chalk and Limestone ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as a % of uptake by area

Figure 5.4(b): Chalk and Limestone ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as ha of uptake by area


64

Figure 5.4(c): Chalk and Limestone ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as a % of linear uptake by length


65

Figure 5.4(d): Chalk and Limestone ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as km of uptake by length


66

Figure 5.5(a): Eastern Arable ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed

as a % of uptake by area

Figure 5.5(b): Eastern Arable ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed

as ha of uptake by area


67

Figure 5.5(c): Eastern Arable ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed

as a % of linear uptake by length

Figure 5.5(d): Eastern Arable ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed

as km of uptake by length


68

Figure 5.6(a): South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as a % of uptake by area

Figure 5.6(b): South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as ha of uptake by area


69

Figure 5.6(c): South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as a % of linear uptake by length

Figure 5.6(d): South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS

expressed as km of uptake by length


70

In all the descriptions that follow, the focus is on ES area options as it is known that ELS dominates linear option uptake throughout (Figures (b) and (c) in each set).

Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: Uptake of ELS and HLS area options (Figures 5.4(a) and 5.4(b))

5.57 In these large-scale arable dominated landscapes ES uptake relevant to landscape as a percentage of total NCA area averages 14.6% and ranges between 4% and 32%.

5.58 In the majority of NCAs, ELS uptake dominates overall ES uptake, although all have at least 20% HLS uptake by area and often more. Indeed in three NCAs HLS uptake exceeds 50% - in the South Downs, Isle of Wight and South Purbeck. In addition, by area, the Cotswolds also show high HLS uptake (making up some 38% of total area of uptake).

5.59 For those NCAs where ELS dominates, this is primarily driven by high levels of ELS uptake for the agricultural options, especially for over-wintering stubbles and low input grasslands. Yet as noted previously, many will be below the landscape thresholds for these options. Those NCAs that have high ELS uptake by area will generally not have particularly high levels of HLS uptake for semi-natural habitats.

5.60 For those NCAs where HLS exceeds 50% of uptake by area, the primary driver is high levels of HLS uptake for the conservation and restoration of semi-natural grasslands, in this case primarily chalk and limestone grasslands. In the South Downs this is added to by high levels (comparatively) of uptake for HLS woodland management options, significant HLS uptake for the management of wet grasslands in the river valleys, along with rough grassland and also with a significant proportion of winter stubbles managed under HLS. In addition, over a third of the historic environment options are under HLS, with very significant uptake of options for the management of archaeology on both grassland and arable.

5.61 In the case of the Cotswolds, the significant HLS uptake, in addition to HLS uptake for semi-natural habitats, reflects a high level of HLS uptake for the historic environment, in particular


71

the removal of archaeology from cultivation.6

Eastern Arable ALT: Uptake of ELS and HLS area options (Figures 5.5(a) and 5.5(b))

5.62 Again, these are typically large-scale arable landscapes where ES uptake as a percentage of the total area of the NCA averages 8.8% and ranges between 4% and 17%.

5.63 With the exception of the Humberhead Levels and Trent & Belvoir Vales, HLS uptake is unexpectedly high. The NCAs that have been assessed may, in part, be atypical of this ALT.

5.64 The Humberhead Levels and Trent & Belvoir Vales are potentially more typical with at least 60% of uptake relating to ELS and 38% - 40% to HLS. Here ELS focuses on agricultural land uses, especially low input grasslands and over-wintering stubbles (although in the latter case uptake is below the landscape threshold). There is also a strong emphasis on grass buffer strips in arable in the Trent and Belvoir Vales. In these two NCAs, HLS levels primarily relate to options for semi-natural habitats and the management of wet and rough grasslands.

5.65 In the remaining four NCAs the high uptake of HLS (over 50% of all area uptake) again reflects significant uptake of HLS options for rough and wet grasslands (these dominate the total uptake of the North Norfolk Coast). In the Broads and Suffolk Coast and Heaths these are augmented by significant uptake of HLS options for semi-natural habitats (for fens and reed beds on the Broads and lowland heathland for the Suffolk Coast and Heaths); while in the South Suffolk and North Essex Claylands NCAs it is notable that nearly all historic environment options are under HLS, especially the removal of archaeology from cultivation (although the landscape threshold is not achieved).

South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Uptake of ELS and HLS area options (Figures 5.6(a) and 5.6(b))

5.66 In these NCAs, ES uptake as a percentage of total NCA area, averages 18% and ranges between 4% (South Coast Plain) and 36% (New Forest). What is striking about the NCAs in this ALT is the very high levels of HLS uptake, with HLS area option uptake dominating, often very significantly, in all but one of the NCAs assessed.

5.67 In the case of the New Forest and the Dorset Heaths, this reflects HLS targeting on their extensive areas of lowland heathland, and in the New Forest also includes HLS options for the conservation of areas of wood pasture and parkland.

5.68 For the Pevensey Levels, South Coast Plan and Greater Thames Estuary, reflecting their low lying character, the main HLS influence is for the management of wet grasslands (and also rough grasslands in the case of the Greater Thames Estuary). Conversely the smaller areas of ELS primarily relate to options for low input grasslands.

5.69 In the single case of the Low Weald where ELS makes up 60% of uptake by area, ELS options strongly focus on low input grasslands, although the large area under option (7,000 ha), falls below the landscape threshold.

Western Mixed ALT: Uptake of ELS and HLS area options (Figures 5.7(a) and 5.7(b))

5.70 In these NCAs, ES uptake as a percentage of total NCA area, averages 7.3% and ranges between 3% and 22% of the NCA area.

5.71 Typically the split between ELS and HLS is 60:40, although Cannock Chase with targeting of HLS on its lowland heathlands has resulted in HLS uptake here being some 68%. Equally

6 It is noted that as a result of a farmland bird initiative there will also have been significant targeting of HLS arable

options e.g skylark plots and bird seed mixes but overall uptake of ELS options exceeds that of HLS options in these areas.


72

the high levels of HLS uptake on the Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary relate almost exclusively to uptake of salt marsh options.

5.72 Across the remaining NCAs, ELS uptake is overwhelming dominated with options for low input grasslands and mixed stocking, although as identified earlier, in the former case uptake may fall below the landscape threshold. ELS also covers the management of archaeology on arable and grassland but again with the relevant thresholds not always met.

5.73 In those NCAs where ELS dominates, HLS uptake is generally split across the landscape themes including areas of wet grasslands under agricultural land uses, a contribution to the conservation of the historic environment and areas of semi-natural habitat which will include a range of habitat types that reflect the character of the area, including traditional meadows in the Vale landscapes and fen and lowland raised bog habitats in the North West.


73

Figure 5.7(a): Western Mixed ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed

as a % of uptake by area

Figure 5.7(b): Western Mixed ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed

as ha of uptake by area


74

Figure 5.7(c): Western Mixed ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as a %

of linear uptake by length


75

Figure 5.7(d): Western Mixed ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as km of

uptake by length


76

Figure 5.8(a): Upland Fringe ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as

a % of uptake by area


77

Figure 5.8(b): Upland Fringe ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as

ha of uptake by area

Figure 5.8(c): Upland Fringe ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as

a % of linear uptake

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NO

TTIN

GH

AM

SH

IRE

, D

ER

BY

SH

IRE

AN

D

YO

RK

SH

IRE

CO

ALF

IELD

MA

LV

ER

N H

ILLS

QU

AN

TO

CK

HIL

LS

BLA

CK

DO

WN

S

SO

UTH

DE

VO

N

CO

RN

ISH

KIL

LA

S

38 103 144 147 151 152

HLS

UELS

ELS


78

Figure 5.8(d): Upland Fringe ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as

km of uptake by length

Figure 5.9(a): Uplands ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as a %

of uptake by area


79

Figure 5.9(b): Uplands ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as ha of uptake by area

Figure 5.9(c): Uplands ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as a % of linear uptake


80

Figure 5.9(d): Uplands ALT: Relative contribution of ELS and HLS expressed as km of

uptake by length


81

Upland Fringe ALT: Uptake of ELS and HLS area options (Figures 5.8(a) and 5.8(b))

5.74 In these NCAs, ES uptake as a percentage of total NCA area, averages 14% and ranges between 3% and 28% of the NCA area.

5.75 In these landscapes the influence of UELS begins to appear. Typically the combination of ELS and UELS makes up between 60% and 70% of ES uptake by area. The one exception is the Malvern Hills where HLS uptake by area makes up over 55% of uptake through the combination of options for the historic environment and semi-natural habitats.

5.76 Overall ELS is heavily dominated by the options for low input grasslands, for example, in South Devon, the Blackdowns and Cornish Killas, whereas HLS is more evenly distributed across a range of options including wet and rough/semi-improved grasslands and semi-natural habitats as well as the historic environment (and coastal options in the case of the Cornish Killas).

5.77 Most of these NCAs lack true moorland but in the case of the Coalfields, the Quantocks, and South Devon, UELS is also contributing to moorland management along with the management of upland hay meadows (in the Coalfields and on the fringes of Dartmoor in South Devon).

Uplands ALT: Uptake of ELS and HLS area options (Figures 5.9(a) and 5.9(b))

5.78 In these NCAs, ES uptake as a percentage of total NCA area is the highest amongst all the ALTs at an average of 29%, ranging between 14% and 62% of the NCA area.

5.79 Whilst these upland landscapes nationally have benefited from targeting of HLS, especially in relation to the conservation management of moorland habitats, this is less evident in the NCAs assessed, other than the South West Peak, Shropshire Hills and Exmoor, which respectively have over 3,800ha, 4,000 ha, and 12,000 ha of moorland habitats under HLS.

5.80 With the exception of the South West Peak, the Lizard and West Penwith where over 50% of uptake is HLS options, in all other cases ELS/UELS dominate, typically making up 60% - 70% of all uptake, This ELS/UELS uptake is overwhelmingly dominated by options for low input grasslands, combined on Bodmin Moor with rush pasture management and on Exmoor with mixed stocking. In these NCAs ELS/UELS options are also making a very significant contribution to the conservation management of moorland that combine with the areas under HLS.

Overall observations on findings at the NCA level

5.81 This Chapter has looked at ES uptake in three ways, looking at :




5.82 These different perspectives potentially help understanding of how ES is performing for the benefit of the landscape in different types of landscape. In particular, as required by the brief, this helps inform lessons learned from the operation of ES that might be applied to aid landscape character and quality in the next agri-environment programme.

Overall performance of ES on conserving and enhancing landscape character and quality

5.83 The review of ES uptake by NCA described in this Chapter and Chapter 3, has confirmed that ES has the potential to contribute significantly to conserving and enhancing landscape character and quality, a conclusion that echoes the findings of the Field Survey Report.


82

5.84 It has confirmed that ES is generally having a Strongly Positive effect on the landscapes of the Uplands and a positive effect on the landscapes of the NCAs within the Chalk and Limestone ALT, the Eastern Arable ALT and the South East Mixed ALT. The effects of ES uptake are, though, more variable in the NCAs of the Western Mixed ALT and also in the Upland Fringe ALT. In the former ALT, ES was identified as having a Neutral effect on the landscape within 50% of the NCA sample, and 33% of the NCA sample of the Upland Fringe.

5.85 It has been identified that ES is already making important contributions to conserving and enhancing landscape character and quality at the NCA level and has the potential to do more, especially in areas where uptake is low for features that are a key characteristic of the landscape. Conversely there are some options that have very high levels of uptake (compared to other options) but landscape benefits are not always assured as discussed below.

The landscape performance of different ES option types

5.86 The use of thresholds developed through BD5303 for different landscape objectives has proved a very useful tool in helping identify where and where not ES is helping make a landscape contribution.

5.87 As identified in Chapter 2, these thresholds are ultimately judgement-based and have been used as a tool to enable assessment rather than representing absolutes. They have been identified to help judge the significance of the likely effects of ES uptake on the landscape, with the thresholds set at:

levels at which change would be expected to be noticeable; and

levels that help to differentiate between NCAs that are doing well under ES and NCAs that are doing less well for the landscape.

5.88 As identified through the NCA assessments, it would be very unlikely that all selected thresholds could or should be met. Rather it is the combination of indicator results against individual thresholds that helps guide an understanding of the landscape effects of ES uptake in any one NCA across different landscape themes.

5.89 Looking at the degree to which individual option groups meet the relevant landscape threshold across all NCAs provides different insights.

5.90 Analysis confirms that across all NCAs, amongst the options with very high levels of uptake, the landscape threshold for hedgerow uptake (20% of total stock) is largely met in all ALTs with the exception of the South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT. This is important as boundary features are one of the defining characteristics of the English landscape helping define its landscape scale and structure.

5.91 On the other hand, the failure of low input grassland options to meet the identified landscape threshold in the majority of NCAs while showing the highest levels of uptake of ES area options is an important finding. It suggests that to maximise the landscape benefits of these options there could be merit in purposeful targeting or other locational guidance for these options, as identified in Report 2 (Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the Study Area Level). This would enable these high levels of uptake to be focused in those locations where they can bring the greatest benefit for the landscape (and other objectives).

5.92 For the landscape, those options that would particularly benefit from higher levels of uptake are those for:

Woodlands and tress

Wood pasture and parkland

Orchards

Coastal options – salt marsh, shingle and sand dunes

Wetlands


83

Water meadows and ponds

Haymaking


5.93 From this assessment it is evident that linear options are clearly dominated by ELS option uptake. Conversely there are no clear trends across the pattern of uptake for area features. Some NCAs in every ALT have a higher proportion of HLS as opposed to ELS option uptake. This is very evident in the South East Mixed ALT but perhaps more surprisingly is mirrored in the six Eastern Arable NCAs. While nationally the Uplands have had very significant targeting of moorland options, which will usually have a high proportion of HLS uptake, in this NCA sample HLS does not dominate uptake in all the Upland NCAs.

5.94 Thus both ELS and HLS make a contribution to the landscape-scale influence of ES, especially in areas of moorland and lowland heathland conservation. Indeed in some landscapes the heavy emphasis on moorland and heathland habitats may have potentially drawn emphasis away from other options that could be used for the benefit of the wider landscape (para 5.13). The balance between ELS and HLS is considered further in Chapter 7.


84

B ASSESSMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE TYPES (ALTS)


85


86

6 Findings from the assessment of the six ALTs

Introduction

6.1 As well as assessing the landscape contribution of Environmental Stewardship at the scale of individual NCAs, the work undertaken under BD5303 has also involved assessing the effects of ES on the landscape character and quality of the six Agricultural Landscape Types as a whole, that together cover the whole of England as shown in Figure 6.1. This assessment followed exactly the same approach as that described in Chapter 2.

Figure 6.1: The six Agricultural Landscape Areas

6.2 The one specific difference is that a suite of key landscape characteristics had to be derived for each of the ALTs at the outset, as this had not previously been undertaken. These provide the essential starting point to the approach. These key characteristics were derived by Julie Martin and were based on a thorough review of the key characteristics of the NCAs falling within each ALT. The full set of key landscape characteristics at the ALT level is set out in Chapter 4 of Report 1: Methodology Report.

6.3 The full set of assessments across the six ALTs is set out in Appendix 8. Table 6.1 provides a summary of this assessment for each of the six ALTs. This Table shows how the assessment for each ALT has been built up. It sets out the threshold for each landscape objective and indicates the level of uptake and indicator result against that threshold, presented as uptake as a % of total stock. It also demonstrates how the individual indicator results across a theme are combined to provide an assessment „score‟ for each theme. In turn it shows how these have been added together to arrive at an overall assessment for the effects of ES on the landscape of the ALT as a whole. In this way each theme is influencing the final outcome.


87

Table 6.1. Summary of assessment for all Agricultural Landscape Types (ALTs)


88

6.4 Table 6.2 then provides an overview of the assessment results for each ALT, indicating the landscape benefits provided by ES in that ALT and where there are missed opportunities, where higher uptake of particular ES options could be beneficial for the landscape.

Table 6.2: Overview of the assessment results for each ALT- Landscape contributions of ES

ES Landscape benefits ES missed opportunities for

landscape where greater

uptake would be beneficial

ELS / HLS effects on the

landscape


In this mainly arable ALT, ES is

contributing positively to


hedgerows, low input

grasslands, archaeology on

both arable and grassland,


lowland heathland

ES is having more limited

impact on woodlands, in-field

trees, characteristic drystone

walls (in limestone areas),

rough grassland, historic farm

buildings and parklands

ELS is the main influence in

relation to hedgerows, low

input grasslands, and

archaeology on grassland.

HLS is influential in relation to

archaeology on arable land,

semi-natural grasslands and

heaths PO

SIT

IVE

(3)

EASTERN ARABLE ALT



hedgerows and ditches, semi-



water features, fen marsh and

swamp, lowland heathland, salt

marsh and sand dunes


impact on woodlands and

hedgerow trees, historic farm


arable land, parkland, and

species-rich grassland


relation to hedgerows and

archaeology on grassland.

HLS is influential in relation to


grassland, water features, fen

marsh and swamp, lowland

heathland, salt marsh and sand

dunes. PO

SIT

IVE

(3

.5)

SOUTH EAST MIXED (WOODED) ALT



grassland, archaeology on

grassland, parkland, water

features and semi-natural

habitats

ES is having much less

influence on woodlands,

traditional orchards, hedgerows

and historic farm buildings (all

of which are highly

characteristic of this

landscape); and only limited

influence on archaeology on

arable land

ELS is the main driver in

relation to archaeology on

grassland but HLS is much

more influential in this ALT,

especially in relation to semi-


parkland, water features, semi-

natural habitats and coastal

features PO

SIT

IVE

(3

.5)

WESTERN MIXED ALT



orchards, hedgerows, historic


grassland, lowland heathland,

wetland and salt marsh


impact on woodlands,

hedgerow trees, locally

distinctive ditches and stone

walls, traditional pastures,


parkland, water features and

sand dunes.


relation to in-field trees,

hedgerows and archaeology on

grassland. HLS is influential

in relation to orchards, historic

buildings, lowland heathland,

wetland and salt marsh

PO

SIT

IVE

(3)


89

UPLAND FRINGE


protection of in-field trees and

restoration of traditional

orchards, as well as retention

and management of traditional

field boundaries, archaeology

on grassland, moorland and

coastal features

ES is having less impact on


woodlands, permanent

pasture, historic farm buildings,

archaeology on arable land,

parkland, and species-rich

grassland – although all of

these are key characteristic

landscape elements.


relation to in-field trees, field

boundaries, archaeology on

grassland, and moorland.

HLS more influential in relation

to orchards, semi-natural

habitats and coastal features

PO

SIT

IVE

(4)

UPLANDS



in-field trees, traditional field

boundaries, traditional pastures

and rough grazing, historic

farm buildings, archaeology on

grassland, moorland and other

semi-natural habitats and

coastal features

ES is having less impact on


woodlands, archaeology on

arable land, and species-rich

grassland


relation to in-field trees, field

boundaries, traditional pastures

and hay meadows. HLS is

more influential in relation to


coastal features. Both ELS

and HLS strongly influence

management of historic farm

buildings, archaeology and

moorland. ST

RO

NG

LY

PO

SIT

IVE

(6)

6.5 These results are then brought together in a visual summary in Table 6.3 that shows the assessment results for each theme and for each ALT.

6.6 The assessment results presented in this Chapter will inevitably have some differences to those described in the last Chapter, for two main reasons:

The ES uptake data used here under BD5303 is from 2010, that analysed in the last Chapter is based on follow-on work to BD5303, utilising 2013 uptake data.

The analysis in the last Chapter was based on the performance of individual NCAs and whether they individually met different landscape thresholds but grouping this information by the ALTs to which the individual NCAs belong. So the results relate to the sum of individual NCAs. On the other hand, the assessment outlined in this Chapter is based on amalgamating the total stock and separately the total uptake data for each ALT – this will even out the potential highs and lows in both stock and uptake between the individual NCAs.

Summary of findings

6.7 Despite the differences noted above the main conclusions for effects of ES uptake on the landscape remain largely the same at this ALT level. Levels of ES uptake in all ALTs except the Uplands is identified as having a Positive landscape effect while in the Uplands it has been assessed as having a Strongly Positive effect. The general findings for each of the ALTs is as follows :

The Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: This ALT continues to show a strongly positive level of uptake for semi-natural habitats and also for the historic environment. The landscape benefits of high field boundary uptake noted previously is slightly diluted at this level, potentially because of lower levels of uptake for wall options in the Limestone landscapes. Option uptake for agricultural land use is


90

stronger at the ALT level compared to the NCA sample, whereas uptake for woodland and trees is not as strong at the ALT level compared to the individual NCAs. As before agricultural buildings are identified as neutral for the landscape.

The Eastern Arable ALT: This ALT has strongly positive uptake for the landscape in relation to field boundaries and coastal habitats, reflecting a pattern first observed in the Fens. Uptake for agricultural land uses, the historic environment and semi-natural habitats is positive for the landscape of the ALT as a whole while the landscape effect of ES on woodlands and trees and traditional agricultural buildings is neutral. Overall the ALT analysis is very similar to that for the NCA sample.

South West Mixed (Wooded) ALT: As previously noted, this ALT demonstrates relatively low uptake of woodland and tree and boundary options which is potentially surprising given the high woodland cover and dense hedgerow pattern across much of this landscape type. By contrast uptake for semi-natural habitats, coastal habitats and the historic environment is strongly positive for the landscape in this ALT reflecting the patterns noted across many (although not all) of the NCA sample.

Western Mixed ALT: In the assessment of NCAs in this ALT described previously, landscape benefits provided by ES were identified as more variable than in the other ALTs, with ES identified as having a neutral effect on the landscape across 50% of the NCA sample. This pattern is reflected in this ALT-wide assessment with no theme identified as strongly positive for the landscape but with option uptake for woodland and trees, buildings, the historic environment and semi-natural habitats as well as coastal habitats all identified as positive for the landscape. Conversely uptake for agricultural land uses and field boundaries (a strong characteristic of these landscapes where ES was generally identified as having a positive effect at the NCA level) is identified as neutral in their landscape effect at the ALT level.

Upland Fringe ALT: Again the earlier assessments by NCA described previously, painted a variable picture across this ALT in terms of the landscape benefits provided by ES, partly reflecting that this ALT includes the post-industrial landscapes of the coalfields and areas or urban fringe. ES was identified as having a neutral effect on the landscape of a number of the NCA sample. Seen as a whole though, ES uptake for field boundaries, semi-natural habitats and the coast is identified as strongly positive for the landscape, while that for woodland and trees and the historic environment is positive. Conversely uptake of options for agricultural land uses and traditional farm buildings is identified as neutral at the ALT level, while option uptake for agricultural land uses was generally identified as positive at the NCA level.

Uplands ALT: Finally, in this ALT, as noted previously in the NCA sample, landscape effects are identified as strongly positive overall. ES uptake levels are identified as strongly positive in respect of boundary features, agricultural land uses traditional farm buildings (with stone field barns a particular characteristic of these landscapes), semi-natural habitats and coastal habitats where present. Uptake levels are also positive for woodland and tree cover and for the historic environment. In this ALT there are no landscape themes that have been assessed as having a neutral effect on the landscape.

6.8 Overall these findings confirm the positive effect that ES uptake offers to the landscape and indicates where it is most particularly helping the landscape, across these different landscape types. It also identifies the main differences between the assessments at the NCA and ALT levels.


91

Table 6.3: Visual summary of ES landscape impacts at the ALT level

ALT

Key characteristic themes ES Overall

effect

Woodland

& tree

cover

Field

pattern &

boundary

types

Agric.

land use

Building

materials &

design

Historic

env.

Semi-

natural

habitats

Coast

CHALK AND LIMESTONE MIXED

EASTERN ARABLE

SOUTH EAST MIXED WOODED

WESTERN MIXED

UPLAND FRINGE

UPLANDS

ES is having a Strongly Positive Landscape effect with most (or key) identified thresholds for individual Indicators being met or exceeded

ES is having a Positive Landscape effect with some identified thresholds for individual Indicators being met

ES is having a Neutral Landscape effect with the most or all of the identified thresholds not being met


92

7 Analysis of ES uptake by ALT

Introduction

7.1 In this final chapter, a slightly different form of analysis has been undertaken on ES uptake to provide a different perspective. It specifically looks at the landscape effects of the most popular (in terms of uptake) individual options and option bundles by ALT. This information was first presented to Defra at the end of 2011, as part of BD5303, and has been updated here using the 2013 uptake data to complete the analysis of the landscape effects of ES at the NCA and ALT levels.

Analysis of the most popular ELS / HLS options (based on uptake) in the

different ALTs

7.2 The first analysis has looked at the most popular ES options in terms of areas / lengths of uptake in the different ALTs (the relevant Tables are set out in Appendices 9 and 10). These Tables set out:

Appendix 9: The top 20 ES area options, in terms of total area of uptake, in each ALT (differentiating between ELS, UELS, & HLS) and their relative landscape effects.

Appendix 10: The top 10 linear options in terms of length of uptake in each ALT (differentiating between ELS, UELS, & HLS) and their relative landscape effects.

7.3 The percentage area and length of the most popular ES options in each ALT are summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.4 respectively on the following pages. Table 7.1 looks at the top 20 options measured by area, while Table 7.4 looks at the top 10 ES options measured by length. In turn, Tables 7.2 and 7.5 identify the relative landscape effects of the top 20 ELS and HLS options in each ALT by area (Table 7.2) and by length (Table 7.5).

7.4 The landscape effects of individual options are derived from the results of the field survey work undertaken as part of BD5303 and described in Report 2: Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the Study Area Level.

7.5 Some observations from this analysis are that:

Top 20 ES Options by area (Table 7.1)

7.6 On average the top 20 ES options by area of uptake make up 80% of all ES uptake by area in each ALT, ranging from 69% in the Eastern Arable ALT to 92% in the Uplands, with the top 5 options by area typically making up over 50% of all ES uptake by area in each ALT. In other words a very few options make up the primary ES „palette‟ in each ALT (see Appendix 9).

7.7 In four out of six of the ALTs, amongst the top 20 options by area, ELS options cover a considerably greater area than HLS options. But in two of the ALTs (South East Mixed (Wooded) and the Uplands), HLS options dominate in terms of area covered. This reflects the heavy emphasis on Lowland Heathland Restoration with option HO2 making up 16% of the total area of uptake in the South East Mixed ALT. Here there is also a notable emphasis on restoration of Wood Pasture and Parkland. Equally in the Uplands there has been a very heavy emphasis on Moorland Restoration, with option HL10 making up 17% of the total area of uptake in this ALT.


93

7.8 Two of the options that have been identified as bringing particular landscape benefits but which have been identified earlier in this report as having low levels of uptake (often insufficient to meet the landscape threshold) - HC7 Management of woodland and HC12 Management of parkland – are, nonetheless, amongst the top 20 options by area of uptake in three ALTs (Chalk and Limestone, Eastern Arable and South East Mixed).

Table 7.1: ES Area Options: Top 20 options by area of uptake in the six Agricultural Landscape Types

ALTs Area of

top 20

options as

% of total

uptake

Scheme Options (1) % of total

uptake

Chalk and

Limestone

Mixed

77% ELS D3, D5, E3, F1, F6, K2, K3, K5 51%

HLS C7, C12, D3, D5, F6, K6, K7, K15, K16,

K17, R1, R2

26%

Eastern

Arable

69% ELS D5, E2, E3, F1, F6, K2, K3, K5 45%

HLS C7, C12, F6, F13, K7, K9, K10, K15,

K17, P5, R1, R2

24%

South East

Mixed

(Woodland)

80% ELS E3, F1, F6, K2, K3, K5 31%

HLS C7, C12, C13, K6, K7, K9, K10, K15,

K16, O1, O2, R1, R2, R7

49%

Western

Mixed

76% ELS D5, F6, K2, K3, K5, L2 55%

UELS L18 1%

HLS D5, F6, K6, K7, K9, K10, K15, K16,

K18, P5, R1, R2, R7

20%

Upland

Fringe

85% ELS D5, F6, K2, K3, K5, L3, L6 57%

UELS L17, L18 10%

HLS K6, K9, K15, L7, L9, L10, L12, R1, R2,

R7,

18%

Upland 92% ELS D5, K2, K5, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6 35%

UELS L17, L18, L20 12%

HLS L7, L8, L9, L10, L12, L15, L16, R1, R2 45%

(1) The number of options may not add up to 20 as OELS options have not been identified separately


94

Table 7.2: ES Area Options: Landscape effects of the top 20 options by area of uptake in the six Agricultural Landscape Types

7.6 ES

scheme

7.7 Landscape effect Agricultural landscape types % of total uptake by area

Chalk

&

Lim

esto

ne

Mix

ed

Easte

rn

Ara

ble

South

East

Mix

ed

Woo

ded

Weste

rn

Mix

ed

Upla

nd

Fringe

Upla

nd

ELS Strongly positive landscape effects 7% 8% - 4% 11% 21%

Positive landscape effects 43% 32% 27% 49% 47% 14%

Neutral / negative landscape effects 2% 6% 4% - 1% -

UELS Strongly positive landscape effects - 1% 10% 13%

Positive landscape effects - - - -

Neutral / negative landscape effects - - - -

HLS Strongly positive landscape effects 18% 16% 42% 15% 16% 46%

Positive landscape effects 8% 7% 7% 5% 3%

Neutral / negative landscape effects - 1% - - -

Top 20 options: % of total uptake for area ES options in each ALT 77% 69% 80% 76% 85% 92%


95

Top 20 ES Options by area: Landscape effects (Table 7.2)

7.9 Together the top 20 options for each ALT (ELS +HLS) by area generally include a range of options that have the potential to bring significant benefits to the landscape of that ALT, such as the emphasis on maintenance and restoration of grassland in the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the restoration of wet grasslands in the Eastern Arable ALT, where most of the land has been drained and is now subject to intensive cultivation.

7.10 Looking specifically at Table 7.2 it is evident that a significant majority of the ELS options in the top 20 by area have the potential to make a positive contribution to landscape conservation and enhancement.

7.11 Amongst those ELS options that have the potential to have a strongly positive landscape effect, there are three that fall into the top 20 area options. These are:

- ED5: Management of Archaeological Features on Grassland where significant uptake is found across all ALTs.

- EE3: 6m Grass Buffer Strips in arable, found particularly in the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the Eastern Arable ALT. This (and other wide buffer strip) option(s) are beneficial in these very large-scale landscapes, helping strengthen the field pattern, particularly in areas where hedgerows have been lost or where field boundaries are largely demarcated by ditches (but can be adverse in small-scale enclosed landscapes where they can disrupt the field pattern as indicated below).

- EL6: Unenclosed Moorland Rough Grazing, which has significant areas of uptake in the Upland Fringes and the Uplands, helping retain moorland character.

7.12 ELS options with the potential to have a positive landscape effect cover the largest area of all options (line 2 of Table 7.2) in all ALTs except in the South East Mixed ALT and the Uplands ALT where HLS options dominate. Of these ELS options, the four that overwhelmingly dominate this category are:

- EK2 / EK3: Permanent grasslands with low / very low inputs and EK5 Mixed Stocking. These are helping to retain areas of permanent grassland in the predominantly arable landscapes of the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the Eastern Arable ALT. They can also help retain the pastoral character of the other ALTs, although there may be a case for providing greater focus to the location of these options in these locations.

- EF6: Over-wintering Stubbles that brings winter texture and colour to arable landscapes.

7.13 The limited area of ELS options that can be detrimental to the landscape largely relate to:

- EFI: Management of Field Corners. This option can, in the wrong location, disrupt the dominant field pattern; and

- the use of Wide Buffer Strips in small-scale landscapes – again these can detract from organic small-scale field patterns, as found in the South East of England.

7.14 Turning to the HLS options it is evident that:

- The majority of HLS options in the top 20 by area of uptake are strongly positive for the landscape and are itemised by ALT in Table 7.3


96

Table 7.3: HLS options in the top 20 options by area that are strongly positive for the landscape

HLS Options

Chalk

&

limesto

ne

Easte

rn

ara

ble

SE

Mix

ed

Weste

rn

mix

ed

Upla

nd

frin

ge

Upla

nd

HC7 Woodland management x x x

HC12 Maintenance of wood pasture/parkland x x x

HC13 Restoration of wood pasture/ parkland x

HD5 Management of archaeology on grassland x x

HK6 Maintenance of species-rich grassland x x x x

HK7 Restoration of species-rich grassland x x x x x

HK9/10 Maintenance of wet grassland x x x

HK16 Restoration of grassland for target features x x x

HK17 Creation of grassland for target features x x

HK18 Haymaking supplement x

HL7 Maintenance of rough grazing x x

HL8 Restoration of rough grazing x

HL9 Maintenance of moorland x

HL10 Restoration of moorland x x

HL12 Supplement for the management of heather etc x

HL15 Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement x

HL16 Shepherding supplement x

HO1 Maintenance of lowland heathland x

HO2 Restoration of lowland heathland x

HP5 Maintenance of coastal salt marsh x x

HR1 Cattle grazing supplement x x x x x x

HR2 Native breeds at risk grazing supplement x x x x x


97

Top 10 ES Options by length (Table 7.4)

7.15 For linear ES options, only the top 10 options by length of uptake are considered here, as these make up the vast majority of all linear option uptake, as illustrated by the right hand column of Table 7.4.

7.16 Here the overwhelming landscape contribution to the conservation and management of boundary features is provided by ELS as opposed to HLS. HLS at most is only contributing 1% - 2% of ES linear option uptake.

Top 10 ES Options by length: Landscape effects (Table 7.5)

7.17 These boundary features – hedgerows, hedgebanks, ditches and walls – as argued previously are central to English landscape character. They define field pattern (from irregular to regular rectilinear field boundaries) and make a major contribution to the sense of scale of the landscape, from small irregular medieval enclosures to the large-scale open landscapes of the chalk downlands. Boundary features are distinctive landscape features in their own right, with different types of boundary and boundary management bringing a strong sense of regional identity, from the wooded shaws of the Weald and the limestone walls of the Yorkshire Dales to the hedgebanks of the South West. Local variations add a heightened sense of place to individual localities with, for example, different forms of hedge laying associated with different counties and individual parishes having a tradition of distinct forms of hedgebank and stone wall construction in Devon and Cornwall (Cornish hedges in Cornwall).

Table 7.4: ES Linear Options: Top 10 options by length of uptake in the six Agricultural Landscape Types (C = capital works)

ALTs Length of top

10 options as

% of total

uptake

Scheme Options % of

total

uptake

Chalk and

Limestone

Mixed

92% ELS B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, C3 91%

HLS FSH 1%

Eastern

Arable

95% ELS B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10 93%

HLS (C) N3, N4 2%

South East

Mixed

(Woodland)

88% ELS B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, C3 86%

HLS (C) FSB 2%

Western

Mixed

88% ELS B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, B8, B9, B11, C3 86%

UELS - -

HLS FSB 2%

Upland

Fringe

87% ELS B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B11, B12,

B13, C3

87%

UELS - -


98

HLS - -

Uplands 85% ELS B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, 73%

UELS B11 8%

HLS (C) FSB, FSH 4%

7.18 Looking at the landscape effect of these linear options ,Table 7.5 emphasises the strongly positive landscape contribution of ELS to maintaining characteristic boundary features:

Overwhelmingly the two most commonly applied ELS option across all ALTs (except the Uplands) are EB1 Hedgerow Management on both sides of the Hedge and EB2 Hedgerow Management on one side of the Hedge. This is the case even in the Upland Fringe and in the Eastern Arable areas where there has been very considerable hedgerow loss.

The choice of options also reflects regional landscape variations with a higher uptake of hedgebank and earth bank options in the Upland Fringe and Uplands and higher use of ditch options (EB6, EB7) in the Eastern Arable ALT where significant areas are subject to drainage.

It is also evident in EB11 Stone Wall Protection and Maintenance moving to the top position in terms of uptake in the Uplands ALT and third in the Upland Fringe ALTs.

In the limited cases where ES boundary options may be having a negative landscape effect, these relate specifically to HLS capital items (not ELS) for new fencing. In these instances new fence lines can disrupt traditional field boundary patterns and may create new isolated enclosures. The one ELS option that also has the potential to have the same effect is EJ11 Maintenance of Watercourse Fencing; however, levels of uptake for this option are currently relatively low.


99

Table 7.5: ES Linear Options: Landscape effects of the top 10 options by length of uptake in the six Agricultural Landscape Types

7.19 ES

scheme

7.20 Landscape effect Agricultural landscape types % of total uptake

Chalk

&

Lim

esto

ne

Mix

ed

Easte

rn

Ara

ble

South

East

Mix

ed

Woo

ded

Weste

rn

Mix

ed

Upla

nd

Fringe

Upla

nd

ELS Strongly positive landscape effects 91% 93% 86% 86% 87% 73%

Positive landscape effects - - - - - -

Neutral / negative landscape effects - - - - - -

UELS Strongly positive landscape effects - - - - - 8%


Neutral / negative landscape effects - - - - - -

HLS Strongly positive landscape effects - - - - - -

Positive landscape effects - - - - -

Neutral / negative landscape effects 1% 2% 2% 2% - 4%

Top 10 options: % of total uptake for linear ES options in each ALT 92% 95% 88% 88% 87% 85%


100

Analysis of the most popular ELS / HLS option bundles (based on uptake) in the different ALTs

7.19 The second analysis moves on from looking at the contribution of individual ES options to considering the potential landscape effects of different option bundles. These option bundles are made up of groups of ES options (sometimes including ELS, UELS and HLS options together) that together are considered to be contributing to the same landscape outcome.

7.20 As previously, the analysis focuses on the top 20 option bundles by area of uptake and the top 10 option bundles by length of uptake with:

Appendix 11: identifying the top 20 ES option bundles, in terms of total area of uptake, in each ALT (separating out the relative contributions of ELS, UELS, & HLS) and their relative landscape effects; and

Appendix 12: identifying the top 10 ES linear option bundles, in terms of length of uptake in each ALT (differentiating between ELS, UELS, & HLS) and their relative landscape effects.

7.21 This analysis of option bundles gives a more complete picture of ES uptake and landscape effects compared to considering individual options alone. Overall the top 20 option bundles cover between 86% (the Eastern Arable ALT) and 98% (the Uplands ALT) of the area of all ES option uptake in each ALT.

7.22 In the short analysis that follows the emphasis is on the relative contribution of ELS and separately HLS within these option bundles. It is important to note at the outset though, that a high proportion of the top 20 option bundles in terms of uptake have the potential to have a strongly positive landscape effect, this is particularly the case in the Upland, Upland Fringe and Western Mixed ALTs, as indicated in Table 7.6 (which looks at the relative contributions of ELS, UELS and HLS together).

` Table 7.6: Number of the top 20 option bundles with the potential to have a very positive landscape effect by ALT

Number of top 20 option bundles by area with the potential to have a very positive

landscape effect (assessed by ALT)

Chalk &

Limestone Mixed

Eastern

Arable

SE Mixed

(Wooded)

Western

Mixed

Upland Fringe Uplands

9 12 10 11 13 13

Top 20 ES Option Bundles by area: ES Landscape effects (Table 7.8)

7.23 The split between ELS, UELS and HLS across the ALTs within these option bundles is shown in Table 7.7. This shows that ELS options within the option bundles generally cover a greater area overall than HLS except in the South East Mixed and Upland ALTs where HLS options cover a greater area, confirming a trend noted throughout this report:


101

Table 7.7: Top 20 option bundles split between component schemes by % area of uptake

ALT ELS UELS HLS % of total uptake

Chalk and Limestone Mixed 55% 0 37% 92%

Eastern Arable 49% 0 37% 86%

South East Mixed (Wooded) 34% 0 58% 91%

Western Mixed 57% 2% 29% 88%

Upland Fringe 61% 11% 22% 94%

Uplands 37% 12% 49% 98%

7.24 Table 7.8 looks at the contribution of ES area options through the different option bundles. As indicated in the bottom row of this Table, the top 20 ES option bundles, as in the analysis of individual options, contribute over 90% of all option uptake except in the Eastern Arable and Western Mixed ALTs.

7.25 In Table 7.8 the % of total ES uptake in each ALT is subdivided by both the type of land cover being affected and the degree of likely landscape impact. This Table allows for the fact that in the case of some option bundles their landscape impact will vary depending on the nature of the landscape in which they are found. An important example of this is the landscape effect of broad buffer strips in arable. In large-scale landscapes, such as on Chalk Downland and in the Arable East, these buffer strips help strengthen a much weakened field pattern. Conversely in smaller landscapes with an intricate field pattern, these wide boundary buffer strips can detract from the intimate and often irregular field pattern. Equally this Table demonstrates that there are some arable options that are at best neutral in their landscape effect and may be negative. These options include plots in the centre of fields, bird seed mixes and ES arable options to prevent soil erosion.

7.26 Looking at Appendix 11 and comparing it with Table 7.8, noticeable factors relating to ELS are:

Retention of permanent grassland: As in the analysis of individual options, high levels of uptake associated with ELS grassland options brings the primary landscape benefit of maintaining a landcover of permanent grassland, characteristic of pastoral and mixed landscapes and helping retain the limited amounts of pasture in the arable dominated East. As before relevant uptake is overwhelming dominated by the two options EK2 (Low Input Grassland) and EK3 (Very Low Input Grassland) and also EL2/EL3 in the uplands. Uptake of this option bundle has the highest level of uptake in all the ALTs, only slipping to second place in the Uplands ALT. Indeed, in the Western Mixed ALT these two options make up 36% of all ES uptake by area and 34% in the Upland Fringe. This figure falls to 24% in the Eastern Arable ALT where these options have the lowest level of uptake other than in the Uplands.

Arable: The ELS options that have the potential to bring strongly positive landscape benefits are the wide grassland buffer strip options in the large landscapes of the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the Eastern Arable ALT.

Arable: Those ELS options that have the potential to bring positive landscape benefits are, as in the analysis of individual options, options relating to the retention of overwintering stubbles, especially EF6.


102

Table 7.8: Analysis of the landscape effects by ALT of the top 20 ES option bundles measured by area

Land cover type Option types % of total ES uptake area by ALT

Ch

alk

&

Lim

esto

ne

Mix

ed

Easte

rn

Ara

ble

SE

Mix

ed

(Wo

od

ed

)

Weste

rn

Mix

ed

Up

lan

d

Fri

ng

e

Up

lan

d

Grassland Strongly positive landscape effects 1% 7% 7% 4%

Positive landscape effects 41% 35% 34% 51% 51% 16%

Arable Strongly positive landscape effects 4% 11% 1%

Positive landscape effects 11% 9% 7%

Neutral / negative landscape effects 7% 10% 7% 3% 2%

Historic environment Strongly positive landscape effects 10% 3% 6% 7% 7% 2%

Positive landscape effects 4%

Woodland/scrub

Strongly positive landscape effects 2% 2% 3% 1% 1%

7.27 Positive landscape effects 1%

Semi-natural habitats Strongly positive landscape effects 14% 8% 29% 15% 34% 79%

7.28 Positive landscape effects 4% 1% 1% 1%

% of total uptake (all area options) (1) 92% 86% 91% 88% 94% 98%

(1) Due to rounding, figures in the table do not always equate to the percentage of total uptake


103

Arable: Those ELS options that are neutral in terms of their landscape effect are those options associated with prevention of soil erosion, while those which may be adverse in the wrong location are wide buffer strips in small-scale landscapes, as already discussed, and arable plot options that may look odd if they do not respond to the field pattern.

Historic environment: As in the analysis of individual options, across all ALTs, it is the uptake of the option bundle relating to the management of archaeological sites on grassland that is bringing a strongly positive landscape benefit, for example, helping conserve barrows and earthworks as prominent landscape features. Also bringing a strongly positive landscape benefit are the ELS options where archaeological features are taken out of cultivation, noted primarily in the arable areas of the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the Eastern Arable ALT.

Woodland: The generally low uptake of woodland options across all ALTs, reflects that the main mechanism to encourage positive woodland management is the England Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) (but see also the analysis of linear features below).

Semi-natural habitats: While the management and restoration of semi-natural habitats falls primarily to HLS, ELS options that can help contribute to the maintenance and restoration of Moorland are playing an important role in the Upland Fringe and Uplands ALTs.

7.27 Notably HLS options are primarily associated with option bundles that have the potential to bring strongly positive landscape benefits as indicated in Table 7.9:

Table 7.9: HLS options within top 20 option bundles that have a strongly positive landscape effect

The four Lowland ALTs Upland Fringe and Upland ALTs

Woodland management

Wood pasture parkland management /

restoration

Management/restoration of species-rich

grassland

Management/restoration of wet grassland

Cattle grazing / native breeds at risk

Lowland heathland management/restoration

Salt marsh management and restoration

Woodland management Wood pasture

parkland management / restoration

Management/restoration of species-rich

grassland

Upland semi-natural/rough grassland

management/restoration

Lowland heathland management

/restoration

Moorland management/restoration & %

associated supplements inc.

shepherding and rewetting

Cattle grazing/Native breeds at risk

Top 10 ES Option Bundles by length: ES Landscape effects (Table 7.10)

7.28 Table 7.10 turns to the linear feature option bundles which are made up almost entirely of ELS options. The only ALT where this ELS contribution falls below 85% of all linear option uptake, is in the Uplands where there is considerable capital (HLS) investment in the restoration of stone walls.

7.29 This analysis re-emphasises:


104

The strongly positive contribution of ELS to the conservation and management of traditional linear features that are such an essential characteristic of the English countryside.

The dominance of options relating to hedgerow uptake across all the ALTs. However, the relative proportion of hedgerow uptake does not necessarily reflect those landscapes where hedgerows are a particularly dominant feature, such as in the South East Mixed ALT where thick hedgerows are a defining characteristic yet proportionally ELS hedgerow option uptake is lower than in other ALTs, as noted previously.

The regional variations in landscape character, with ELS options for hedgebank management concentrated in the Upland Fringe and Upland ALTs and ditch management options more prevalent in the Eastern Arable ALT and the South East Mixed ALT which includes significant areas of low lying drained coastal marshes, as in Romney Marsh and the Pevensey Levels.

A distribution of woodland boundary options that closely reflects woodland distribution more generally. Overall woodland boundary options appear more popular than woodland management options.

Overall findings

7.30 Overall, this analysis of the top options and option bundles in terms of areas and lengths of uptake confirms or adds further nuance to other points noted through this report. In particular:

The top 20 options/ option bundles by area and top 10 by length make up the vast majority of all option uptake in each ALT, suggesting that within each ALT a relatively limited ES palette is being applied.

The above is confirmed by the fact that some 50% of all ES uptake by area is concentrated in just five options. In other words, a very few options make up the primary ES „palette‟ in each ALT.

The option bundle to have the highest level of uptake by area is that relating to low input grasslands (EK2/EK3 and EL2/EL3). This is the top option bundle by area of uptake of all ES option bundles across all ALTs with the single exception of the Uplands ALT where it falls to second place. Indeed, in the Western Mixed ALT this bundle makes up 36% of all ES uptake by area and 34% in the Upland Fringe. This figure falls to 24% in the Eastern Arable ALT where these options have the lowest level of uptake other than in the Uplands.

In the case of linear options, the option bundle to have the highest level of uptake across all ALTs, with the exception of the Uplands, is that for the management of hedgerows. This reaches 77% of all linear uptake in the Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT and 72% of all linear option uptake in the Western Mixed ALT. In the Uplands the top option bundle relates to the maintenance of walls.

ELS options dominate by area of uptake in four of the ALTs but in the remaining two (South East Mixed and the Uplands) HLS options cover a proportionally greater area.

The majority of the top 20 options and option bundles by area of uptake that are strongly positive for the landscape are HLS options. The majority that are positive for the landscape are ELS options.

Linear options are dominated by ELS (over 90% of uptake) and the vast majority of these are strongly positive for the landscape.

The top 20 options by area of uptake include ES options that earlier in this report have been identified as having low uptake (relative to that needed to benefit the landscape).


105

These include options for woodland management and maintenance and restoration of parkland, underlining the amount of uptake needed to make a discernible difference to the landscape.


106

Table 7.10: Analysis of the landscape effects by ALT of ELS uptake within the top 10 ES option bundles measured by length

Linear feature Option types % of total ELS uptake length by ALT

Ch

alk

&

Lim

esto

ne

Mix

ed

Easte

rn

Ara

ble

SE

Mix

ed

(Wo

od

ed

)

Weste

rn

Mix

ed

Up

lan

d

Fri

ng

e

Up

lan

d

Hedgerows /

hedgerows with

ditches

Very positive landscape effects 84% 74% 65% 82% 59% 31%


Hedgebanks (stone-

faced and earth

banks)

Very positive landscape effects - - - - 16% 7%


Walls Very positive landscape effects 1% - - 2% 12% 47%


Ditches Very positive landscape effects 5% 21% 17% 5% 3% 2%


Woodland edges Very positive landscape effects 3% 1% 8% 3% 4% 3%


Fencing Neutral / negative landscape effects 3% 1% - 8% 5% 3%

% of total uptake (all linear options) (1) 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 97%

(1) Due to rounding error, figures in the table do not always equate to the percentage of total uptake


107

8 Conclusions

8.1 In this final chapter key conclusions identified in this report are drawn together.

Bespoke methodology

8.2 Through BD5303 a robust and repeatable method has been developed for assessing the landscape effect of ES (or any other agri-environment scheme) at the scale of NCAs and ALTs. It provides a consistent assessment of the landscape effects of ES within and across NCAs and ALTs. By assessing uptake within a series of common landscape themes and by comparing the stock of features characteristic of that landscape with the uptake of relevant options and assessing the results against consistent landscape thresholds, a common assessment framework is provided.

8.3 This allows the landscape effects between these different themes to be quickly and easily understood, so giving a more balanced view of the landscape effects of ES on the landscape of each NCA as a whole and between NCAs. It also allows identification of which options that would particularly benefit the landscape are being utilised or underutilised.

8.4 In turn, it can inform policy by illustrating where options and their level of uptake are having a strongly beneficial effect on the landscape and conversely where they are not (paras 3.2 – 3.5).

Assessments at different scales in the hierarchy

8.5 The assessments at the NCA and ALT levels have confirmed that limited surveys at the local level cannot act as a surrogate for assessing the landscape impacts of ES at the NCA level – for which an NCA-wide assessment is required as described in this report. Equally assessing the landscape effects of single NCAs cannot act as a surrogate for the landscape effects of ES at the scale of whole ALTs. As is evident from Tables 3.2 – 3.3, NCAs within ALTs do not share common landscape outcomes from ES. This reflects that the landscape varies considerably across the NCAs of individual ALTs, as it does between ALTs and that ES uptake patterns also vary (paras 3.6 – 3.7).

Results of assessments at the NCA and ALT levels

8.6 The review of ES uptake by NCA described in Chapters 3 and 5 has confirmed that ES has the potential to contribute significantly to conserving and enhancing landscape character and quality, a conclusion that echoes the findings of the Field Survey Report.

8.7 It has confirmed that ES is generally having a Strongly Positive effect on the landscapes of the Uplands and a Positive effect on the landscapes of the NCAs within the Chalk and Limestone ALT, the Eastern Arable ALT and the South East Mixed ALT. The effects of ES uptake are, though, more variable in the NCAs of the Western Mixed ALT and also in the Upland Fringe ALT. In the former ALT, ES was identified as having a Neutral effect on the


108

landscape of 50% of the NCA sample, and 33% of the NCA sample of the Upland Fringe7 (para 5.85).

8.8 This pattern is repeated when the assessment is undertaken at the ALT level, although variability within the ALTs is smoothed out with the amalgamation of data. As a consequence, at this level, ES uptake is identified as having a Positive effect on the landscape, with the exception of the Uplands where again ES is assessed as having a Strongly Positive landscape effect (Tables 6.1 & 6.3).

8.9 Thus ES is making an important contribution to conserving and enhancing landscape character and quality at the NCA and ALT levels but has the potential to do more, This especially relates to areas where uptake is low for features that are a key characteristic of the landscape. Conversely there are some options that have very high levels of uptake (compared to other options) but landscape benefits are not always assured as identified below.

Levels of ES Uptake by ES option type

8.10 The top 20 options / option bundles by area and top 10 by length make up the vast majority of all option uptake in each ALT. Further, assessments at the ALT level have highlighted that large levels of uptake are concentrated in a few options, with some 50% of all ES uptake by area concentrated in just five options. In other words, a very few options make up the primary ES „palette‟ in each ALT (paras 7.5, 7.16, 7.19. 7.27).

8.11 Nevertheless, the top 20 options and the top 20 option bundles by area of uptake do reflect the differing landscape character of the different ALTs. They therefore have the potential to bring significant landscape benefits to the landscape of that ALT, such as the emphasis on maintenance and restoration of grasslands in the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the restoration of wet grasslands in the Eastern Arable ALT, where most of the land has been drained (para 7.5). Selection of linear options likewise reflects the different landscapes and boundary types of the different ALTs (para 7.13).

8.12 The imbalance between a few options with very high levels of uptake and many others with low levels though, does represent a significant missed opportunity (as discussed below).

Options with high levels of uptake

8.13 There are some options that apply to nearly all landscapes and it is instructive to look at their patterns of uptake across the NCAs in case this tells us anything about the future application of Environmental Stewardship.

8.14 Hedgerow options: These have the highest levels of uptake amongst all the linear options across all the ALTs with the single exception of the Uplands where options for walls move into first place (para 7.26). In the Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT and the Western Mixed ALT this option bundle represents over 70% of all linear uptake (Appendix 12). Furthermore the landscape threshold for hedgerow uptake (20% of total stock) is largely met across the NCAs of all ALTs with the exception of the South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT (paras 5.36 – 5.38). These generally high levels of uptake are important as boundary features are one of the defining characteristics of the English landscape helping define landscape scale and structure. It is evident though, that in those NCAs where the hedgerow threshold is met, the more demanding hedgerow options (EB3 & HB11) together only exceed 30% of total hedgerow uptake in six out of the 157 NCAs (para 5.39).

8.15 Low input grasslands: Similarly, options for low input grasslands (EK2 and EK3 in the lowlands and EL2 and EL3 within SDAs) show very high levels of uptake, together forming

7 The Upland Fringe also includes 3 NCAs (Chapters 3&5) where ES is having a strongly positive landscape effect

highlighting the variability in this ALT


109

the top option bundle in terms of total area of ES uptake in all ALTs, except for the Uplands, where it slips to second place. In the Western Mixed ALT this bundle makes up 36% of all ES uptake by area and 34% in the Upland Fringe. This figure falls to 24% in the Eastern Arable ALT where these options have the lowest level of uptake other than in the Uplands (para 7.21). However, the landscape threshold for low input grasslands (20% of total stock of permanent grassland under these options) is not met in the majority of NCAs despite the very high levels of uptake (paras 5.40-5.41).

8.16 This suggests that to maximise the landscape benefits of these options there would be merit in the purposeful targeting of these options, as identified in Report 2 (Report of Findings: Landscape Effects of Environmental Stewardship at the Study Area Level). This would enable these high levels of uptake to be focused in those locations where they can bring the greatest benefit for the landscape (and other objectives) so maximising their benefit (para 5.42).

Options with more limited areas of uptake

8.17 Conversely those options that are strongly beneficial to the landscape but where uptake is often low and frequently does not meet the landscape threshold at the NCA level include:

Options for field trees. It is noticeable that these options appear to have been applied to hedgerow trees8 - potentially because options for hedgerow trees were not introduced until 2010. It is also noticeable that the balance of ES option uptake is firmly weighted towards the conservation of trees in pasture as opposed to arable, where trees are arguably under greater threat from damage (paras 5.43-5.45).

Reflecting the above, options for hedgerow tree protection and hedgerow tree establishment are also very underused, only meeting the landscape threshold in one out of the 157 NCAs (para 5.50).

Although option HC7 Management of woodland is one of the top options by area of uptake in the majority of NCAs (para 7.5), uptake of relevant woodland management options typically only meets the relevant landscape threshold (5% of total stock for deciduous and mixed woodlands) in some 18% of NCAs, with uptake particularly low in the Eastern Arable landscapes.

Options for orchards (HC18/19/20/21) generally have low levels of uptake even in areas where in the past there was a strong tradition of orchard production (para 5.51, Table 5.9).

Options for both parkland / wood pasture and also water features including ponds appear to be generally underused and yet these are key characteristics of many landscapes (para 5.51).

Relevant archaeological thresholds are not met in the majority of NCAs. This is particularly evident in the Eastern Arable ALT. Yet where these thresholds are met they are more often than not very significantly exceeded with an indicator score in excess of 100% (paras 5.46 – 5.49).

Options for hay cutting and water meadows also have very low levels of uptake even in areas where they were once common, and rarely meet their landscape threshold (para 5.51).

There are relatively few coastal options and those that there are relate to low lying coastal areas covering salt marsh, intertidal and saline habitats, and vegetated shingle and sand dunes. These tend to be underused and may not meet the landscape threshold even where they were / are an important feature of the coastal landscape (para 5.51).

8 With NCAs where the key landscape characteristic for trees describes hedgerow trees but the uptake has been for field

trees


110

It is interesting though that the supplement for native breeds at risk (HR2) is in the top 20 options by area of uptake in all the ALTs with the single exception of the South East Mixed ALT (Table 7.3).

8.18 It is the above options, along with boundary features, semi-natural habitats and a number of the capital items (such as those relating to trees), that singly and in combination, are particularly important for reinforcing local distinctiveness and sense of place, helping bring out the nuances of the local landscape. From the landscape perspective therefore, there is a case for purposefully seeking increased uptake of these options (para 5.93).

Split between ELS / HLS

8.19 In this report the split between ELS (UELS) and HLS has been analysed in two ways. Firstly, in Chapter 5 it has been analysed by the proportional split within individual sample NCAs that have been grouped by ALT. Secondly, in Chapter 7 it has been analysed by ALT looking specifically at the level of uptake of the top 20 options and option bundles.

8.20 Linear options: In both analyses it is evident that linear options are overwhelmingly dominated by ELS (UELS), with ELS (UELS) making up 90% of uptake. The vast majority of this ELS uptake is strongly positive for the landscape. The small amounts of HLS uptake largely relate to restoration, especially the restoration of walls in the Uplands (Tables 7.5 & 7.10).

8.21 Area options: Looking at the analysis of the top 20 options and option bundles by ALT, this confirms that ELS dominates by area of uptake in four of the ALTs but in the remaining two (South East Mixed and the Uplands) HLS options cover a proportionally greater area (para 7.27). In these two ALTs there has been significant targeting of lowland heathland and upland moorland respectively.

8.22 However, when looking at uptake by NCA there is no clear pattern in the split between ELS and HLS. Some NCAs in every ALT have a higher proportion of HLS as opposed to ELS option uptake. This is very evident in the South East Mixed ALT and is mirrored in the Eastern Arable NCAs. While nationally the Uplands have had very significant targeting of moorland options, which will usually have a high proportion of HLS uptake, in this NCA sample HLS does not dominate uptake in all the Upland NCAs (paras 5.53 – 5.61).

8.23 The majority of the top 20 options and option bundles by area of uptake that are strongly positive for the landscape are HLS options. The majority that are positive for the landscape are ELS options (Tables 7.2 & 7.8).

These differing levels of uptake of ELS and HLS area options are interesting to the extent that they slightly blur the distinction between (a) ELS as the „Broad and Shallow‟ aspect of ES i.e. with options that cover significant areas but have a lighter touch, and (b) HLS which offers a „Narrow and Deep‟ approach, with options covering more limited areas but being significantly more exacting in their requirements. The reality is that HLS is also covering significant areas in some NCAs bringing the joint benefits for the landscape of (a) the purposeful targeting of these options; and (b) the strongly positive effects on the landscape of the majority of HLS options.


111

Appendices


112


113

Appendix 1: The assessment of the 18 NCAs (3 per ALT)


87. East Anglian Chalk (Chalk and Limestone Mixed)


Key characteristics/ elements • Limited woodland cover • Beech belts along roads, ash-dominated copses and hilltop clumps • Pine belts towards the Brecklands in the east

Objectives • Active woodland management and renewal


Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of hedgerow length with hedgerow tree protection under ES • Number of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 26ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 32km • Protection of in-field trees (ELS) 909no

Stock • 2748ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 1428km woodland perimeter

Indicator results • 1.0% of woodland managed under ES • 2.2% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field trees probably neutral

Distribution of effects if

known

• Very little woodland option uptake, no obvious patterns




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Large, late enclosure fields with low thorn hedges and few trees

Objectives • Management and restoration of hedgerows • Reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Ditch management • Field corners and buffer strips

Indicators • Km of ditches managed under ES • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 1151km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 95km • Ditch management (ELS) 188km • Also 265ha of field corners and 418ha of wider buffer strips in arable

(both mainly ELS)


114


Indicator results • 188km of ditches managed under ES • 36% of hedgerows managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows and ditches are managed under ES

Effects overall • Ditch management probably neutral • Hedgerow management positive • Field corners and buffer strips may reinforce this positive effect


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management – yes • Hedge and ditch management – yes • Ditch management - yes • Field margins – yes but greater uptake of narrow buffer strips in

arable would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly arable • Grazing in smaller fields within the river valleys and around

Newmarket

Objectives • Retain and manage traditional permanent grasslands of valley floor

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots)

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under

ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • Area of fallow plots/margins

Uptake • Semi-improved grassland (HLS) 39ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 1177ha • Fallow plots (mainly HLS) 320 plots

Stock • 1141ha rough grassland (LCM) • 15,827ha improved grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 3.4% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under

ES • 7.4% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under

ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under

ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under

ES • 500 or more fallow plots

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots (HLS) neutral


known

• Uptake of grassland options often along rivers






Key characteristics/ elements • Isolated 19th century white or yellow brick farmhouses


115






Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 33 or 1.1% of listed buildings

maintained under ES




known

• No data




• Historic buildings – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Significant linear ancient or Roman earthworks

Objectives • Retention and appropriate management of historic environment

resources

Relevant ES option types • Archaeology

Indicators • % of archaeological resource under ES options for archaeology

Uptake • Archaeology (all area options) 333ha on arable (of which 49ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options) 93ha on grass

Stock • 2776ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 809ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 72% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management

practice

Indicator results • 12% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 11% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 50% of archaeological resource managed for archaeology under ES

Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass neutral


known

• Archaeology uptake fairly widespread




• Archaeology – yes but uptake could be improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Remnants of chalk grassland often associated with road verges


116

Objectives • Management/ restoration/ creation of this habitat type

Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland

Indicators • % of calcareous and neutral grassland managed as species-rich

semi-natural grassland under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration/ creation of species-rich semi-natural

grassland (HLS) 188ha

Stock • 30ha of neutral grassland (LCM) – no calcareous grassland recorded

on LCM

Indicator results • 627% of LCM calcareous and neutral grassland area managed as

species-rich grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of calcareous and neutral grassland managed as species-rich

semi-natural grassland under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive


known

• Uptake too small to comment on




• Species-rich grassland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements N/A – no coast

Overview

In this mainly arable NCA, ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of

management of field boundaries and margins and species-rich grassland. It seems to be having limited

impact on woodlands, in-field trees, characteristic valley pastures, historic farm buildings and archaeology;

and means of increasing uptake of options that would benefit these landscape elements should be explored.

There is also some uptake of arable options (fallow plots) that locally may have a negative landscape impact

depending on context. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees, field boundaries and margins and

archaeology; while HLS is also influential in relation to arable options and semi-natural grassland. Overall

impact: POSITVE.

134. Dorset Downs and Cranborne Chase (Chalk and Limestone Mixed)


Key characteristics/ elements • Combe and valley side woodlands • Shelterbelts of beech, ash and sycamore • Hilltop tree clumps and copses (mainly beech)




Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 303ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 171km • Protection of in-field trees (ELS) 2363no


117


Indicator results • 3.2% of woodland managed under ES • 7.6% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 2363no in-field trees protected under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field trees probably positive


known

• Woodland management and perimeter fencing concentrated in scarp areas – appropriate






Key characteristics/ elements • Large fields with low, sparse hedgerows on the downs • Smaller fields in the valleys


Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Field corners and buffer strips

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 2386km • Also 124ha of field corners (mainly ELS) and 442ha of wider buffer strips in

arable (ELS and HLS)


Indicator results • 68% of hedgerows managed under ES


Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Field corners and buffer strips may reinforce this positive effect


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management – yes • Field margins – yes but greater uptake of narrow buffer strips in arable would

be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly arable • Pasture within the valleys

Objectives • Conserve valley pastures and meadows through grazing and arable reversion

to pasture

Relevant ES option types • Mixed stocking • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots)

Indicators • % permanent pasture managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES


118

• Area of fallow plots/margins

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 1876ha • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 925ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 6442ha • Fallow plots/ margins (mainly HLS) total 26ha and 210 plots

Stock • 39,572ha permanent pasture (LCM) • 5349ha rough grassland (LCM) • 34,223ha improved grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 4.7% of permanent pasture managed as mixed stocking under ES • 17% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under

ES • 19% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • Fallow plots (ELS) 210no

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of permanent pasture managed as mixed stocking under ES • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under

ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 500 or more fallow plots

Effects overall • Permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking neutral • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots neutral


known

• Uptake of grassland options appears well spread and often along rivers




• Mixed stocking – yes • Semi-improved and wet grassland – yes • Low input grassland – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Render, flint, clunch and thatch farm buildings – no consistent building stone




Uptake • Maintenance of 12,019m2 of historic buildings (mainly ELS)


Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 120 or 4.2% of listed buildings maintained

under ES




known

• No data






119


Key characteristics/ elements • Prominent and vast hillforts and other prehistoric features on ridges • Deer parks

Objectives • Retention and appropriate management of historic environment resources

Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland

Indicators • % of archaeological resource under ES options for archaeology • % of parkland under ES options for parkland

Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 3277ha on arable (of which

300ha archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 2511ha on grass • Parkland management and restoration 226ha (HLS)

Stock • 1207ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 2507ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 83% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 5065ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 271% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 100% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 4.5% of registered parks and gardens under ES options for parkland

Thresholds (indicative only) • 50% of archaeological resource managed for archaeology under ES • 10% of parkland resource managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Archaeology on arable positive • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland neutral


known

• Archaeology uptake fairly widespread • Parkland uptake concentrated at a small number of sites




• Archaeology – yes • Parkland – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Species-rich calcareous grassland on scarp slopes • Water meadows in the wider valleys


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Traditional water meadow management or restoration

Indicators • % of calcareous and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural

grassland or as traditional water meadow under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration/ creation of species-rich semi-natural grassland

(HLS) 3166ha • Traditional water meadow management or restoration 0ha

Stock • 471ha of calcareous and neutral grassland (LCM) • No stock figure for water meadows

Indicator results • 672% of LCM calcareous and neutral grassland area managed as species-rich

grassland under ES • 0% of traditional water meadows managed as such

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of calcareous and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-

natural grassland under ES • 10% of traditional water meadows managed as such

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Water meadows neutral

Distribution of effects if • Uptake appears concentrated mainly on scarp, with smaller area in valleys –

appropriate


120

known




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Traditional water meadow – no, there should be uptake

Coast


Overview

ES appears to be benefiting this mainly arable landscape in respect of protection of in-field trees, as well as

management of hedgerows and field margins, archaeology on grassland, and species-rich grassland. However it

seems to be having limited impact on woodland management, valley pastures, historic farm buildings, archaeology on

arable land, and parkland; and no impact on water meadows. Means of increasing uptake of options that would

benefit these characteristic landscape elements should be explored. ELS is the main influence on the landscape,

although HLS is also influential in relation to field margins and semi-improved and species-rich grasslands. Overall

impact: Positive.

140. Yeovil Scarplands (Chalk and Limestone Mixed)


Key characteristics/ elements • Small woods and copses, sometimes ancient, on steep ridges and in deep

combes • Willow and alder in vales • Remnant orchards with poplar shelter belts

Objectives • Active woodland management and renewal • Management and extension of traditional orchards

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field trees • Orchards

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of hedgerow length with hedgerow tree protection under ES • Number of in-field trees protected under ES • % of traditional orchards managed, restored and created under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 174ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 182km • Protection of in-field trees (ELS) 1822no • Orchard management/ restoration/ creation 26ha

Stock • 2828ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 946km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter • 507ha traditional orchards

Indicator results • 6.2% of woodland managed under ES • 19% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 1822no in-field trees protected under ES • 5.1% of traditional orchards managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 5% of woodlands managed under ES • 10% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 5%% of traditional orchards managed, restored and created under ES

Effects overall • Woodland management positive • Woodland perimeter fencing positive • In-field trees probably positive • Orchards positive


121

Distribution of effects if known • Woodland management and perimeter fencing concentrated in scarp areas –

appropriate




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes • Orchards – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Hedges sparse and low in the south-west but elsewhere mainly thick with

substantial hedgebanks • Scattered areas of drystone walls on higher ground

Objectives • Management and restoration of hedgerows and drystone walls to ensure

retention and reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Stone wall protection and management

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • % of stone walls managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 1881km • Stone wall protection and management (ELS) 6.2km

Stock • 2926km of hedgerows • 405km of stone walls

Indicator results • 64% of hedgerows managed under ES • 1.5% of stone walls managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES • 20% of stone walls are managed under ES

Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Stone wall protection and management neutral





• Hedgerow management – yes • Stone wall management – no, very limited uptake


Key characteristics/ elements • Dominant land cover is grassland, ranging from improved pastures in valley

bottoms to rough pasture on steep hillsides • Also some arable

Objectives • Conserve pasture, especially rough pasture

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland


Uptake • Semi-improved grassland (HLS) 727ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 4064ha


Indicator results • 16% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under ES • 13% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Uptake of grassland options appears well spread, often along scarp and in

valley bottoms •


122






Key characteristics/ elements • Mixture of building materials but local Ham Hill stone is most characteristic







under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Prominent features include prehistoric hillforts and large country houses • Parklands surrounding country houses are conspicuous landscape features




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 50ha on arable (of which 43ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 238ha on grass • Parkland management and restoration 385ha (HLS)

Stock • 754ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 1181ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 88% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice

2356ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 6.6% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 20% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 16% of parks and gardens under ES options for parkland


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass neutral • Parkland positive

Distribution of effects if known • Archaeology uptake fairly widespread • Parkland uptake concentrated at a small number of sites


123




• Archaeology – yes • Parkland – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Some species-rich grassland on scarp slopes



Indicators • % of calcareous, acid and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-

natural grassland under ES


(HLS) 574ha

Stock • 745ha of calcareous, acid and neutral grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 77% of LCM calcareous, acid and neutral grassland area managed as

species-rich grassland under ES




Distribution of effects if known • Uptake appears mainly on scarp - appropriate




Species-rich grassland – yes

Coast


Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of protection and management of woodland, in-

field trees, orchards, hedgerows, parkland and species-rich grassland. It seems to be having less impact on drystone

walls, historic farm buildings and archaeology. Means of increasing uptake of options that would benefit these

landscape elements should be explored. ELS is the main influence on the landscape, although HLS also makes some

contribution in relation to orchards, archaeology, parkland and semi-improved and species-rich grassland. Overall

impact: Positive.


124

EASTERN ARABLE ALT

28. Vale of York (Eastern Arable)


Key characteristics/ elements • Scattered small broadleaved woods and coverts • Scattered field boundary and riparian trees

Objectives • Active woodland management • Protection and renewal of hedgerow trees

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field trees (not mentioned as a key characteristic) • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES • ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • no of hedgerow trees established under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 44ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 37km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 1473no • Protection of hedgerow trees 0.3ha • Establishment of hedgerow trees 0no

Stock • 3236ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 911km woodland perimeter • 3768km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 1.4% of woodland managed under ES • 4.0% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 1473no in-field trees protected under ES • 0.3ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 0no of hedgerow trees established under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field tree protection probably neutral • Hedgerow tree protection neutral • Hedgerow tree establishment neutral


known

• Limited uptake but location appears appropriate in relation to existing woodland patterns




• Woodland management – yes but uptake could be improved • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment – no, greater uptake would be

very beneficial • Coppicing of bankside trees would also be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Low, flailed and intermittent hedges enclosing medium to large fields • Floodplain fields traditionally unenclosed or ditched

Objectives • Management of hedgerows to ensure retention and reinforcement of field

patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Field margins


125


Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 2596km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 146km • Also 293ha of field corners and 300ha of wider buffer strips in arable (both

mainly ELS)




Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Hedge and ditch management probably positive • Uptake of field corners and wider buffer strips in arable may reinforce this

positive effect


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management – yes • Hedge and ditch management – yes • Field margins – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Arable cultivation predominates • River floodplains traditionally grazed (often on a communal basis) or used for

hay meadows

Objectives • Traditional management of pastures, meadows and wetlands along river washlands and floodplains

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Wet grassland • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots)

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 703ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 3597ha • Fallow plots (mainly HLS) 100 plots


Indicator results • 25% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES

• 16% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES


Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots probably neutral due to limited uptake

Distribution of effects if known

• Uptake of low input grassland appears concentrated in river corridors – appropriate

Are the ES option types with greatest potential landscape benefit being taken up?

• Semi-improved and wet grassland – yes • Low input grassland – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Large, brick-built farmsteads


126







under ES




known

• No data




• Historic buildings – yes but uptake could be improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Historic landscape features include Roman remains, early timber-frame

buildings and fine masonry bridges • Designed parklands




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 123 ha on arable (of which 19ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 615ha on grass • Parkland management or restoration (HLS)154ha


Indicator results • 14% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 142% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 14% of registered parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland positive


known

• Archaeology uptake fairly widespread • Parkland – single site only




• Archaeology – no for arable, yes for grass • Parkland – yes but uptake could usefully be extended


127


Key characteristics/ elements • Washlands and hay meadows along river floodplains • Remnant heathlands on poorer sandy soils




grassland under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES


(HLS) 325ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 240ha

Stock • 2197ha of calcareous and neutral grassland (LCM) • 605ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)


grassland under ES • 40% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES


natural grassland under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES



known

• Species-rich grassland uptake too small to comment on • Lowland heathland – single site only, appropriately located





Coast


Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of retention and management of in-field trees,

hedgerows, semi-improved and wet grassland, archaeology on grassland, parkland and lowland heathland (although

in the case of parkland and heathland the benefits are not widespread geographically). It seems to be having limited

impact on woodlands and hedgerow trees, historic farm buildings, archaeology on arable land and species-rich

grassland, and means of increasing uptake of these options should be explored. ELS is the main driver in relation to

hedgerows and archaeology; while HLS is also influential in relation to parkland, rough and semi-natural grassland

and heathland. Overall impact: Positive.

46. The Fens (Eastern Arable)


Key characteristics/ elements • Willow and poplar shelterbelts • Occasional avenues to roads • Isolated trees of marked significance • Numerous orchards in Wisbech area

Objectives • Maintenance and renewal of shelterbelts, avenues and isolated trees • Management and extension of traditional orchards


128

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees • In-field trees • Orchards

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • Ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • Number of hedgerow trees established under ES • Number of in-field trees protected under ES • % of traditional orchards managed, restored and created under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 269ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 3.6km • Hedgerow tree protection (ELS) 2.5ha • Hedgerow tree establishment (ELS) 48no • In-field trees protected (mainly ELS) 1846no • Orchard management/ restoration/ creation (HLS) 14ha

Stock • 4329ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 1475km woodland perimeter • 498ha orchards

Indicator results • 6.2% of woodland managed under ES • 0.2% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 2.8% of traditional orchards managed/ restored/ created under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 5% of woodlands managed under ES • 10% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 5% of traditional orchards managed/ restored/ created under ES

Effects overall • Woodland management positive • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment neutral • In-field tree protection probably positive • Orchard management/ restoration/ creation neutral


known

• Limited uptake and no obvious patterns




• Woodland management – yes • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment – very limited uptake, greater

uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Orchard management/ restoration/ creation – yes but uptake limited • Coppicing of bankside trees would also be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Strong rectilinear/ geometric pattern of rivers, drains and ditches, often

embanked • Low incidence of hedges except in pockets of enclosed fenland and furthest

inland areas

Objectives • Management of ditches and hedgerows to ensure retention and reinforcement

of field patterns, including pockets of enclosed fenland • Creation of grassland buffer strips to bring variety to arable landscape

Relevant ES option types • Ditch management • Hedge and ditch management • Hedgerow management • Field margins

Indicators • Km of ditches managed under ES • 20% of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Ditch management (mainly ELS) 7599km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 481km • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 1436km


129

• Also 1378ha of field corners and 3300ha of wider buffer strips in arable (both ELS and HLS)



Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of ditches are managed under ES • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES

Effects overall • Ditch management probably positive • Hedgerow management neutral • Uptake of field corners and wider buffer strips in arable probably positive as

landscape is flat and they may lend structure


known

• No data




• Ditch management – yes • Hedge and ditch management – yes • Hedgerow management – yes • Field margins – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Rich and varied agricultural land use including cereals, roots, vegetables,

bulbs, horticultural glasshouses, and livestock • Grazing and grasslands traditionally found along embankments and around

settlements

Objectives • Management/ restoration of grassland and grazing where traditionally found

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Wet grassland • Low input grassland • Fallow plots


Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 3551ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 3470ha • Fallow plots (mainly ELS) 2821no


Indicator results • 70% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under


Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under


Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots possibly negative


known

• Uptake of grassland options appears to be located in traditional grassland areas – appropriate




• Semi-improved and wet grassland – yes • Low input grassland – yes but uptake could be further improved


130


Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional brick-built farmsteads







under ES


Effects overall • Historic farm buildings probably positive


known

• No data




• Historic buildings – yes but uptake could be further improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Remains from a range of periods, including early settlement, historic drainage

systems, sea defences and salterns


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Water feature management or restoration


Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 555ha on arable (of which 453ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 224ha on grass • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 49no




Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass neutral • Water features probably positive


known

• Archaeology uptake fairly widely spread




• Archaeology – no, uptake could be improved, especially on arable land


131


Key characteristics/ elements • Remnant wetland areas

Objectives • Management/ restoration/ creation of wet fenland and wash grasslands

Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Wetland (fen and reedbed)

Indicators • % of acid and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural

grassland under ES • % of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES


(HLS) 160ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of wetland (HLS) 320ha

Stock • 1959ha of acid and neutral grassland (LCM) • 1534ha fen marsh and swamp (LCM)

Indicator results • 8.1% of LCM acid and neutral grassland area managed as species-rich

grassland under ES • 21% of LCM fen marsh and swamp area managed as wetland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of acid and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural

grassland under ES • 20% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Wetland positive


known

• Uptake too small to comment on patterns




• Species-rich grassland – yes but could be improved • Wetland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Tidal saltmarshes and mudflats adjacent to the Wash

Objectives • Reintroduce grazing to saltmarshes and protect tidal mudflats

Relevant ES option types • Saltmarsh management or restoration

Indicators • % of saltmarsh managed as such under ES

Uptake • Saltmarsh management or restoration (HLS) 1156ha

Stock • 1796ha saltmarsh (LCM)

Indicator results • 64% of saltmarsh managed as such under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of saltmarsh managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Saltmarsh positive


known

• Edges of Wash – appropriate




• Saltmarsh – yes


132

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape of the Fens in respect of management of woodlands, in-field

trees, ditches, hedgerows, field margins, semi-improved and wet grasslands, historic farm buildings, fenland habitats

and saltmarsh. However it seems to be having relatively little impact on characteristic Fenland orchards, hedgerows

and archaeology. There is also some uptake of arable options (fallow plots) that locally may have a negative

landscape impact. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees, ditches, hedges and historic farm buildings; while

HLS is especially influential in relation to woodlands, archaeology and the area‟s characteristic but relatively rare

rough grassland, wetlands and saltmarshes. Overall impact: Strongly positive.

88. Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands (Eastern Arable)


Key characteristics/ elements • Clusters of ancient deciduous woodlands on higher plateaux • Smaller woodlands and riverine willows in river valleys • Hedgerow and in-field trees (remnant hedge lines) of variable quality

Objectives • Active woodland management • Protection of hedgerow and in-field trees

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Protection of hedgerow trees • In-field trees

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 83ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 15km • Protection of hedgerow trees 0ha • In-field trees protected (mainly ELS) 4159no


Indicator results • 1.0% of woodland managed under ES • 0.4%of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 0ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 4159no in-field trees protected under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Hedgerow tree protection neutral • In-field tree protection positive


known





• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection – no, uptake would be very beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes • Coppicing of bankside trees would also be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Fields bounded by open ditches or sparse closely trimmed hedgerows • Larger hedges on river floodplains


133


Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Ditch management • Field margins

Indicators • Km of ditches managed under ES • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 3477km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 1001km • Ditch management (ELS) 1101km • Also 532ha of field corners and 1008ha of wider buffer strips in arable (both

mainly ELS)



Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows and ditches are managed under ES

Effects overall • Ditch management probably positive • Hedgerow management positive • Field corners and buffer strips may reinforce this positive effect


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management – yes • Hedge and ditch management – yes • Ditch management – yes • Field margins – yes but greater uptake of narrow buffer strips in arable would

be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly an open and intensive arable landscape • River corridors with floodplain grassland • Village edge grasslands are an important feature

Objectives • Retain and manage traditional permanent grasslands of valley floor

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Wet grassland • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots/ margins)

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • Number of fallow plots

Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 1641ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 8697ha • Fallow plots 868no



ES • 19% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • Fallow plots (mainly HLS) 868 no




134

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots possibly negative


known

• Uptake of grassland options often along rivers






Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional farm buildings in a mixture of materials including brick, stone and

thatch






Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 95 or 12% of listed buildings maintained under

ES




known

• No data






Key characteristics/ elements • Historic landscape features include medieval earthworks and deserted villages


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland (not mentioned as a key characteristic) • Water features (not mentioned as a key characteristic)

Indicators • % of archaeological resource under ES options for archaeology • % of parkland managed under ES options for parkland

Uptake • Archaeology (all area options) 531ha on arable (of which 128ha archaeological

features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options) 1907ha on grass • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 234ha • Water feature management or restoration 24no

Stock • 10855ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 5997ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 67% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 4298ha registered and unregistered parkland


135

Indicator results • 4.9% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 32% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES 5.4% of

parkland managed under ES options for parkland


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass neutral • Parkland neutral • Water features positive


known

• Archaeology uptake fairly widespread • Parkland uptake concentrated at a small number of sites




• Archaeology on arable – no • Archaeology on grass – yes but uptake could be improved • Parkland – no, very limited uptake given size of resource • Water features – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Wet meadows and marshes along river floodplains




grassland under ES


(HLS) 203ha

Stock • 1200ha of calcareous and neutral grassland (LCM)


grassland under ES



Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral


known

• Species-rich grassland uptake too small to comment on




• Species-rich grassland – yes but uptake could be improved

Coast


Overview

ES seems to be benefiting the landscape in respect of management of in-field trees, field boundaries and margins,

semi-improved and wet grassland and historic farm buildings. It appears to be having more limited impact on

woodlands, hedgerow trees, archaeology, parkland or species-rich grassland, and means of increasing uptake of

options that would benefit these landscape elements should be explored. There is also some uptake of arable options

(fallow plots) that locally may have a negative landscape impact depending on context. ELS is the main driver in

relation to in-field trees and field boundaries and margins; while HLS is also influential in relation to fallow plots and

semi-improved grasslands. Overall impact: Positive.


136

SOUTH EAST MIXED WOODED ALT

114. Thames Basin Lowlands (South East Mixed Wooded)


Key characteristics/ elements • Moderately wooded with oak-ash woods and shaws • Field trees (oak, ash, field maple) mark old hedgerow lines • Riparian wet woods in river valleys

Objectives • Traditional management particularly of ancient woodland coppice • Protection of shaws and small woodlands to encourage regeneration • Protection and management of in-field trees



Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 130ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 3.4km • Protection of in-field trees (ELS) 195no

Stock • 4211ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 929km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter

Indicator results • 3.1% of woodland managed under ES • 0.4% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 195no in-field trees protected


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field tree protection neutral


known

• Uptake relates well to existing woodland patterns – appropriate




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes but greater uptake would be very beneficial • Coppicing of bankside trees would also be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Small or medium-sized fields enclosed by hedges • Thin, straight hawthorn hedges on flatter land • Wider, irregular mixed-species hedges on more undulating land


patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips, field corners)


Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 16km • Few features with potential negative effects


Indicator results • 2.1% of hedgerows managed under ES


137


Effects overall • Hedgerow management neutral


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management • – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly pastoral, dominated by fields of permanent pasture

Objectives • Encourage grazing to retain areas of grassland and meadow in the lowlands

and river valleys

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration • Low input grassland


Uptake • Semi-improved grassland (HLS) 103ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (ELS) 290ha


Indicator results • 74% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under ES • 3.8% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES


Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral


known

• Uptake of relevant options generally appears fairly widespread






Key characteristics/ elements • Small mixed holdings with brick-built farms






Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 2 or 0% of listed buildings maintained under

ES



138



known

• No data






Key characteristics/ elements • Large areas of landscaped parks, particularly along the river valleys (now

intensively farmed)


Relevant ES option types • Parkland • Water feature management or restoration

Indicators • % of parkland under ES options for parkland

Uptake • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 149ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 21no

Stock • 1403ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 11% of parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of parkland resource managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Parkland positive • Water features positive


known

• Parkland – three sites only




• Parkland – no, fairly limited uptake, greater uptake would have landscape benefits

• Water features – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Meadows • Remnant heathland



Indicators • % of neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland under

ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration of species-rich semi-natural grassland (HLS) 45ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 67ha

Stock • 308 ha of neutral grassland (LCM) • 21ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 15% of LCM neutral grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under

ES • 319% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland

under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES


139



known

• Uptake very localised at a small number of sites





Coast


Overview

Much of this NCA comprises built up and urban fringe land and hence there is limited uptake of ES generally. There is

little evidence that ELS is having an impact on this landscape, but semi-improved grassland, parkland, water features

and lowland heathland are benefiting from HLS in a limited number of locations. Overall impact: Neutral.

120. Wealden Greensand (South East Mixed Wooded)


Key characteristics/ elements • Extensive belts of ancient mixed woodland of hazel, oak, birch and chestnut

coppice • Mature hedgerow oaks

Objectives • Restore and manage broadleaved woodland, particularly ancient woodlands

and coppice • Protection and management of in-field trees • Protect and renew hedgerow trees

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field trees (not mentioned as a key characteristic) • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees


Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 581ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 148km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 2649no • Hedgerow tree protection 0ha • Hedgerow tree establishment 0m

Stock • 31.541ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 5867km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter

Indicator results • 1.8% of woodland managed under ES • 2.5% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 2649 in-field trees protected under ES • 0ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 0m of hedgerow tree establishment under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field tree protection probably positive


140

• Hedgerow tree protection neutral • Hedgerow tree establishment neutral


known

• Uptake follows existing woodland patterns – appropriate




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes • Hedgerow tree protection and renewal – no, no uptake


Key characteristics/ elements • Smaller fields with dense species-rich hedges on clay • Larger, more regular fields with trimmed hawthorn or blackthorn hedges on

more acidic soils


patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Wider buffer strips in arable • Deer fencing

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • Length of deer fencing

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 776km • Wider buffer strips in arable (ELS and HLS) 230ha • Deer fencing 5.7km


Indicator results • 16% of hedgerows managed under ES • 5.7km of deer fencing


Effects overall • Hedgerow management neutral • Wider buffer strips in arable may have a positive effect or may be intrusive,

depending on landform • Deer fencing negative


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Mosaic of pasture and arable

Objectives • Retain mixed farming character

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved and wet grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland


Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 1874ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 4898ha





141



Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral


known

• Uptake of relevant options appears fairly widespread, especially in south-west






Key characteristics/ elements • Local vernacular includes timber framing and weatherboarding as well as

sandstone






Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 42 or 0.5% of listed buildings maintained under

ES




known

• No data






Key characteristics/ elements • Range of features including field monuments (tumuli and Iron Age hillforts),

numerous landscaped parks, small quarries and relics of the iron industry such as hammer ponds


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland • Water feature management or restoration



archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 219ha on grass • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 690ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 24no

Stock • 159ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 278ha SHINE + SMR on grass


142

• 77% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice 7032ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 14% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 79% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 9.8% of parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland neutral • Water features positive


known

• No obvious patterns




• Archaeology – no on arable, yes on grass • Parkland – yes • Water features – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Semi-natural grassland • Lowland heath • Wetlands


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Lowland heathland • Wetland

Indicators • % of acid, calcareous and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-

natural grassland under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES • % of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration of species-rich semi-natural grassland (HLS) 360ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 3136ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of wetland (HLS) 33ha

Stock • 1741 ha of acid, calcareous and neutral grassland (LCM) • 2621ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM) • 86ha fen marsh and swamp (LCM)

Indicator results • 21% of LCM acid, calcareous and neutral grassland area managed as species-

rich grassland under ES • 120% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES • 38% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of acid, calcareous and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-

natural grassland under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES • 20% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Lowland heathland positive • Wetland positive


known

• Most uptake of all three habitat types occurs in the western part of the area




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Lowland heathland – yes • Wetland – yes

Coast


143

Key characteristics/ elements • Very short length of coast and no coastal characteristics mentioned

Objectives •

Relevant ES option types •

Indicators •

Uptake • No uptake of coastal options

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of protection of in-field trees, semi-improved and

wet grassland, archaeology on grassland, water features and semi-natural habitats. However it seems to be having

much less influence on woodlands, characteristic mature hedgerow trees, and historic farm buildings; and only limited

influence on archaeology on arable land and on parkland. Greater uptake of options for management and restoration

of these elements would further benefit the landscape. There may be some localised negative impact from deer

fencing. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees and hedgerows. HLS is more influential for semi-improved

grassland, archaeology, water features and semi-natural habitats. Overall impact: Positive.

122. High Weald (South East Mixed Wooded)


Key characteristics/ elements • Extensive woodland cover including ancient semi-natural oak and beech • High forest, coppice, small woods, shaws, and ghyll woodland

Objectives • Restore and manage broadleaved woodland, particularly ancient woodlands

and coppice

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field trees (not mentioned as a key characteristic)


Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 468ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 419km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 3316no

Stock • 38,069ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 8082km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter

Indicator results • 1.2% of woodland managed under ES • 5.2% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • Protection of in-field trees 3316no


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Protection of in-field trees probably positive

Distribution of effects if known • Uptake widely scattered (as is existing woodland), mostly outside LCM

woodland area






Key characteristics/ elements • Small and medium-sized fields enclosed by hedgerows and wooded shaws • Irregular field patterns mainly of medieval origin


144


patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Wider buffer strips in arable • Deer fencing

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • Length of deer fencing

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 1052km • Wider buffer strips in arable (mainly ELS) 359ha • 9.6km deer fencing


Indicator results • 17% of hedgerows managed under ES • 9.6km of deer fencing


Effects overall • Hedgerow management neutral • Wider buffer strips in arable may reinforce this positive effect or may be

intrusive, depending on landform • Deer fencing negative





• Hedgerow management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly grazed grassland – sheep with some cattle and pigs

Objectives • Retain mainly pastoral character

Relevant ES option types • Mixed stocking • Semi-improved and wet grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots)

Indicators • % of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 2928ha • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 1326ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 9018ha

Stock • 82,322ha permanent grassland (LCM) • 4965ha rough grassland (LCM) • 77,357ha improved grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 3.6% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 27% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under


Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under


Effects overall • Permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking neutral • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Uptake of relevant options appears fairly widespread

Are the ES option types with • Mixed stocking – yes but uptake could be improved


145





Key characteristics/ elements • High quality vernacular architecture • Timber-framed barns a notable and characteristic feature







under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Strong influence of 15th-17th century Wealden iron industry, surviving

features including hammer ponds • Grand houses and parklands

Objectives • Conserve and restore historic environment resources, especially hammer

ponds and parkland


Indicators • % of archaeological resource under ES options for archaeology • % of parkland under ES options for parkland • Area/ number of water features managed or restored

Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 18ha on arable • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 333ha on grass • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 511ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 5no

Stock • 28ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 106ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 86% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 10,614ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens



Effects overall • Archaeology on arable positive • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland neutral • Water features neutral


146

Distribution of effects if known • No obvious patterns, uptake limited to a small number of sites




• Archaeology –yes • Parkland – yes • Water features – no, uptake appears very limited for this key landscape

element


Key characteristics/ elements • Semi-natural grassland • Heathland, notably at Ashdown Forest







Stock • 1340ha of acid and neutral grassland (LCM) • 834ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 53% of LCM acid and neutral grassland area managed as species-rich

grassland under ES • 28% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES



Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Lowland heathland positive

Distribution of effects if known • Species-rich grassland uptake scattered across area • Lowland heathland uptake concentrated in Ashdown Forest area





Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Sandstone cliffs

Objectives •

Relevant ES option types • No relevant options

Indicators •

Uptake • No uptake of coastal options

Overview

In this area ES appears to be benefiting the landscape in respect of protection of in-field trees, semi-improved

pastures, archaeology, species-rich grassland and lowland heath. However it seems to be having much less influence

on the NCA‟s relatively large resource of semi-natural woodlands, hedgerows, historic farm buildings, parkland and

water features (including distinctive hammer ponds). Greater uptake of options for management and restoration of

these landscape elements would be of special benefit in this area. There may be some localised negative impact from

deer fencing. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees and hedgerows. HLS is more influential for semi-

improved grassland and semi-natural habitats, especially lowland heathland. Overall impact: Positive.


147

WESTERN MIXED ALT

96. Dunsmore and Feldon (Western Mixed)


Key characteristics/ elements • General lack of woodland cover • But many hedgerow trees (often mature oaks) as well as small coverts and

belts of trees lend treed character

Objectives • Active woodland management (especially of small coverts and tree belts) • Protection and renewal of hedgerow trees

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • no of hedgerow trees established under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 153ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 20km • Protection of hedgerow trees 0m • Establishment of hedgerow trees 0no


Indicator results • 4.9% of woodland managed under ES • 1.9% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 0ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 0no of hedgerow trees established under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Hedgerow tree protection neutral • Hedgerow tree establishment neutral




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment – no, uptake would be very

beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Large, mainly regular or rectilinear hedged fields • Some smaller fields

Objectives • Management of hedgerows to ensure retention and reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips)


Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 1456km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 300km • 242ha wider buffer strips in arable





148

Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Hedge and ditch management probably positive • Wider buffer strips in arable may reinforce this positive effect (landscape is

gently undulating)


• No data


• Hedgerow management – yes • Hedge and ditch management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Feldon (south) dominated by pasture • Dunsmore (north) mainly mixed farming including intensive arable

Objectives • Conserve remaining areas of unimproved grassland • Seek opportunities to restore grassland



Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 300ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 3555ha • Fallow plots1562no


Indicator results • 13% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES


Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES

• 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 500 or more fallow plots

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots possibly negative


• Uptake of relevant options generally appears widespread




Key characteristics/

elements

• Historic buildings mainly in red brick or Lias limestone







ES


149




known

• No data







elements

• Ridge and furrow (former medieval open fields) and deserted medieval village sites widespread

• Large country houses with mature parklands


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland • Water features (not mentioned as a key characteristic)


Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS)129 ha on arable (of which 85ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 765ha on grass • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 46ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 39no


Indicator results • 4.9% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 28% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 2.7% of parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass neutral • Parklands neutral • Water features positive


known

• Archaeology uptake widespread • Parkland – single site only




• Archaeology on arable – no, quite limited uptake • Archaeology on grass – yes but uptake could be greater • Parkland – no, very limited uptake, greater uptake would have landscape

benefits



elements

• Remnant heathland and acid grassland, especially in Dunsmore (north)




150

Indicators • % of acid and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland

under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration/ creation of species-rich semi-natural grassland (HLS)


Stock • 1092 ha of acid and neutral grassland (LCM) • 25ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 12% of LCM acid and neutral grassland area managed as species-rich grassland

under ES • 0% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES



Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Lowland heathland neutral


known

• Uptake too small to comment on




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Lowland heathland – no, no uptake

Coast


elements

• N/A – no coast

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to this landscape in respect of management of hedgerows and water features.

It seems to be having little or no impact on woodlands and hedgerow trees and limited impacts on historic farm

buildings, parkland and semi-natural habitats. Means of increasing uptake of these options (particularly those relating

to the area‟s characteristic mature hedgerow trees and parkland) should be explored. There is also significant uptake

of arable options (notably fallow plots) and this may have a negative landscape impact depending on context. ELS is

the main driver in relation to hedgerows and agricultural grasslands; while HLS also affects arable options, parkland

and rough and semi-natural grasslands. Overall impact: Neutral.

100. Herefordshire Lowlands (Western Mixed)



elements

• Steep slopes of central hills dominated by woodlands • Scattered copses and plantations throughout the area • In-field trees • Traditional and bush orchards

Objectives • Active management of woodlands, especially on slopes and valley sides • Management and extension of traditional orchards


Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES • % of traditional orchards managed, restored and created under ES


151

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 148ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 58km • In-field trees protected (mainly ELS) 2936no • Orchard management/ restoration/ creation (HLS) 206ha

Stock • 4079ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 1178km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter • 1401ha traditional orchards

Indicator results • 3.6% of woodland managed under ES • 4.9% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 2936no in-field trees protected under ES • 15% of traditional orchards managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 5% of woodlands managed under ES • 10% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 5% of traditional orchards managed/ restored/ created under ES

Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field trees probably positive • Orchards positive


known

• Very little woodland management uptake, no obvious patterns




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field trees – yes • Orchards – yes



elements

• Mainly large fields with low hedgerows • Smaller fields with numerous hedgerow trees on higher ground


patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management


Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 1307km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 91km




Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive


known

• No data







elements

• Intensive arable cultivation of much of lower lying land, with occasional hop fields • Permanent pasture, including wet meadows, in valley bottoms


152

Objectives • Maintain and strengthen the pastoral nature of the floodplains • Prevent further floodplain erosion by arable reversion



Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 449ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 6514ha


Indicator results • 11% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • 28% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland positive


known








elements

• Historic buildings mainly in timber framed with some stone and red brick



Indicators • % of historic farm buildings restored or maintained under ES

Uptake • Maintenance of 17,252m2 of historic buildings (mainly ELS) • Restoration of historic buildings (HLS) 3688no capital items (exceptionally high –

check)


Indicator results • If average building 100m2, 173 or 5.7% of historic buildings maintained under

ES • Plus very high level of capital works


Effects overall • Historic farm buildings probably positive (if capital items correct)


known

• No data




• Historic buildings – yes but maintenance uptake could be improved



153


elements

• Iron Age hillforts • Occasional parkland


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland • Water features (not mentioned in key characteristics)



archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 686 ha on grass • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 89ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 25no




Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parklands neutral • Water features positive


known

• Archaeology uptake fairly widespread • Parkland – single site only




• Archaeology – yes but uptake on arable could be improved • Parkland – no, very limited uptake, greater uptake would have landscape

benefits



elements

• Remnant species-rich grasslands and meadows



Indicators • % of acid and neutral grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland

under ES


280ha

Stock • 438 ha of acid and neutral grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 64% of LCM acid and neutral grassland area managed as species-rich grassland

under ES


grassland under ES


Distribution of effects if • Uptake mainly in valley bottoms - appropriate


154

known




• Species-rich grassland – yes

Coast


elements

• N/A – no coast

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of management of in-field trees, hedgerows,

orchards, low input grassland, historic farm buildings, archaeology on grassland‟ and semi-natural grasslands.

However, it seems to be having limited impact on woodlands and parkland – although these are key landscape

elements. Means of increasing uptake of ES options for these landscape elements should be explored. ELS is the

main driver in relation to in-field trees, hedgerows and low input grasslands. HLS also affects orchards, historic farm

buildings, archaeology and rough and semi-natural grasslands. Overall impact: Positive.

139. Marshwood and Powerstock Vales (Western Mixed)



elements

• Woodlands and copses on steeper slopes and along river courses • Mature hedgerow trees, especially in Marshwood Vale

Objectives • Active management of woodlands, especially on slopes and valley sides • Management and renewal of hedgerow trees, particularly in Marshwood Vale

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • no of hedgerow trees established under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 24ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 11km • Protection of hedgerow trees 0ha • Establishment of hedgerow trees 0no


Indicator results • 2.3% of woodland managed under ES • 2.9% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 0ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 0no of hedgerow trees established under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Hedgerow tree protection neutral • Hedgerow tree establishment neutral

Distribution of effects if • Woodland management uptake closely reflects existing pattern of woodlands

(strong concentration in north-east) – appropriate


155

known




• Woodland management – yes but very limited uptake • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment – no, uptake would be very

beneficial



elements

• Strong but varied network of hedgerows • Hedges low and well-trimmed on higher ground, overgrown on steeper slopes,

and dense but well-managed in vales • Small to medium-sized fields


patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management


Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 243km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 8.6km




Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive


known

• No data







elements

• Mixture of pasture and arable • Pasture predominates in Marshwood Vale, Powerstock Hills, and on steeper

greensand slopes; arable elsewhere

Objectives • Retain balance between pasture and arable • Ensure pastoral areas retain pastoral character

Relevant ES option types • Semi-improved grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland


Uptake • Semi-improved grassland (HLS) 217ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 1180ha


Indicator results • 15% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under ES • 17% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES


Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral

Distribution of effects if • Uptake appears to be mainly in or adjacent to existing pastoral areas –

appropriate


156

known







elements

• Many large farmsteads • Older traditional buildings of limestone or Ham Hill stone



Indicators • % of historic farm buildings restored or maintained under ES

Uptake • Maintenance of 2326m2 of historic buildings (mainly HLS)


Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 23 or 1.9% of listed buildings restored or

maintained under ES




known

• No data







elements

• Prehistoric barrows and hillforts, extensive strip lynchets, moated sites and castles




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 1.4ha on arable • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 110ha on grass


Indicator results • 2.7% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 39% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES


Effects overall • Archaeology neutral

Distribution of effects if • Archaeology uptake fairly widespread


157

known




• Archaeology – yes •



elements

• Unimproved grasslands, wet flushes and marshy areas on valley sides • Heathland and acid grassland on greensand ridges



Indicators • % of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland managed as species-rich semi-

natural grassland under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES


427ha • Management/ restoration of lowland heathland (HLS) 9.8ha

Stock • 356 ha of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland (LCM) • 40ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 120% of LCM acid, neutral and calcareous grassland area managed as species-

rich grassland under ES • 25% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed/ restored under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland managed as species-rich semi-




known

• Uptake strongly concentrated in two areas – close to south-west coast and on Powerstock Hills in north-east – appropriate





Coast


elements

• Sheer cliffs with landslips • Pebble beaches

Objectives • Retention and appropriate management of these habitat types

Relevant ES option types • Vegetated shingle and sand dune creation

Indicators • % of sand dune managed under ES

Uptake • No uptake

Stock • 47ha sand dune (LCM)

Indicator results • 0% of sand dune managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of sand dune managed under ES


158

Effects overall • Sand dunes neutral


known

• N/A




• Vegetated shingle and sand dune creation – no, no uptake

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of management of hedgerows, archaeology and

semi-natural habitats. However it seems to be having limited impact on woodlands, pastures, historic farm buildings

and archaeology, and none on hedgerow trees or coastal features. Means of increasing uptake of these options,

especially options for woodland and hedgerow trees, should be explored. ELS is the main driver in relation to

hedgerow management. HLS is also influential in relation to archaeology, rough and species-rich grasslands and

lowland heathland, albeit at a fairly low level. Overall impact: Positive.


159

UPLAND FRINGE ALT

17. Orton Fells (Upland Fringe)


Key characteristics/ elements • Sparse woodland cover - small broadleaved and mixed copses • Shelter planting around farms • Scattered in-field ash trees

Objectives • Active woodland management • Replanting of native broadleaves • Protection of in-field ash trees

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Maintenance of successional areas • In-field trees

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of woodland maintained as successional areas under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 69ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 24km • Maintenance of successional areas (HLS) 107ha • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 1677no


Indicator results • 8.3% of woodland managed under ES • 11% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 13% of woodland maintained as successional areas under ES • 1677 in-field trees protected under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 5% of woodlands managed under ES • 10% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 10% of woodland managed as successional areas under ES

Effects overall • Woodland management positive • Woodland perimeter fencing positive • Successional areas positive • In-field trees probably positive


known

• Uptake of both woodland management and woodland edge options appears to reinforce existing patterns of broadleaved woodland but some successional areas appear to take in higher open ground (query whether appropriate in landscape terms)




• Woodland management – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes • Successional areas – yes • In-field trees – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • High limestone walls and large enclosures on higher ground • Ash trees along field boundaries • Some smaller hedged fields on lower ground

Objectives • Retention and management of drystone walls and hedgerows as appropriate • Protection of field boundary ash

Relevant ES option types • Stone wall protection and management • Hedgerow management

Indicators • % of stone walls protected and managed under ES • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Stone wall protection and management (ELS) 863km • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 144km


160

Stock • 908km of stone walls • 94km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 105% of stone walls protected and managed under ES • 65% of hedgerows managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of stone walls are protected and managed under ES • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES

Effects overall • Stone wall protection and management positive • Hedgerow management positive


known

• No data




• Stone wall protection and management – yes • Hedgerow management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Limestone grassland and meadows with sheep grazing • Grass moorland with remnant heather in some areas

Objectives • Improve texture and diversity of both grassland and moorland pastures by

reducing stocking levels and intensity of management

Relevant ES option types • Grassland • Low input grassland

Indicators • % of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • % of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 2647ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 4179ha • Rough pasture management or restoration (mainly HLS) 1119ha

Stock • 16,577ha permanent grassland (LCM) • 517ha rough grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 16% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 25% of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 216% of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 20% of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 20% of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking neutral • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland positive • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture positive


known

• Uptake appears widespread – appropriate




• Mixed stocking – yes but uptake could be improved • Low input grassland – yes • Rough pasture – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Historic settlement with limestone buildings and walls





161




under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of historic farm buildings stock maintained



known

• No data






Key characteristics/ elements • Very rich visible archaeology including stone circles, Roman roads, prehistoric

settlement sites, medieval granges and planned villages, tower houses and deer parks




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 0ha on arable • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 1257ha on grass




Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive


known





• Archaeology – no for arable, yes for grass


Key characteristics/ elements • Limestone scars and pavements – extensive and important • Species-rich grasslands • Heather moorland and mires


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (incl haymaking) • Maintenance and restoration of moorland

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • % of hay meadow managed by haymaking under ES • % of moorland managed as such under ES


162

Uptake • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (incl haymaking) (ELS and

HLS) 300ha • Haymaking options (ELS) alone 172ha • Maintenance or restoration of moorland (ELS and HLS) 7398ha

Stock • 517ha rough grassland (LCM) • 1455ha hay (LCM) • 9923ha moorland (LCM acid grassland, bog and dwarf shrub heath)

Indicator results • 58% of rough grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 12% of LCM hay meadow managed by haymaking under ES • 75% of LCM moorland managed as such under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 10% of hay meadows managed by haymaking under ES • 50% of moorland managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Hay meadows positive • Moorland positive


known

• Moorland uptake seems appropriate in location




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Hay meadows – no, probably should be greater uptake • Moorland – yes (note that moorland measures are also intended to protect

limestone features)

Coast


Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of woodland management and expansion

(through succession) and protection of in-field trees, as well as retention and management of stone walls, hedgerows,

low-input grassland, rough pasture, historic farm buildings, archaeology on grassland, species-rich grasslands, hay

meadows and moorlands (including limestone features). ELS is the main driver in relation to most landscape

elements, although HLS is also influential, especially in relation to woodland expansion and management of rough and

species-rich grassland and moorland. Overall impact: Strongly positive.

54. Manchester Pennine Fringe (Upland Fringe)


Key characteristics/ elements • Sparse woodland cover • Woodland in narrow, steep sided valleys • Scrub on steeper slopes

Objectives • Active woodland management • Planting/ regeneration of native broadleaves

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Maintenance of successional areas

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of woodland maintained as successional areas under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 0ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 7.9km • Maintenance of successional areas (HLS) 0ha



163

Indicator results • 0% of woodland managed under ES • 0.1% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 0% of woodland maintained as successional areas under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Successional areas neutral


known

• Uptake too small to comment




• Woodland management – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes • Successional areas – no, greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Regular fields, hedged on lower ground, walled on higher ground

Objectives • Retention and management of drystone walls and hedgerows as appropriate





Indicator results • 6.4% of stone walls protected and managed under ES • 7.5% of hedgerows managed under ES


Effects overall • Stone wall protection and management neutral • Hedgerow management neutral


known

• No data




• Stone wall protection and management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial

• Hedgerow management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Variable quality grassland and rough grazing

Objectives • Active management of permanent grassland

Relevant ES option types • Low input grassland

Indicators • % of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • % of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Uptake • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 613ha • Rough pasture management or restoration (ELS and HLS) 18ha



164

Indicator results • 4.6% of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 0.4% of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 20% of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Effects overall • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture neutral


known

• Uptake widely scattered




• Low input grassland – not much, greater uptake would be beneficial • Rough pasture – no, greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional farm buildings in characteristic Pennine stone







ES




known

• No data




• Historic buildings – no, much greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Prehistoric barrows, medieval field systems and 18th and 19th century

industrial heritage




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options) 0ha on arable • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 2.4ha on grass

Stock • 0.8ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 9.3ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 16% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice



165




known

• Uptake too small to comment




• Archaeology on arable – no • Archaeology on grass – yes (although very small area involved)


Key characteristics/ elements • Semi-natural grasslands and hay meadows


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (incl haymaking)

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES

Uptake • Species-rich grassland management or restoration ( HLS) 18ha

Stock • 4252ha of rough grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 0.4% of rough grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral


known

• Too small an area to comment




• Species-rich grassland – no, should be greater uptake • No uptake of ES haymaking options – these might be beneficial (although

existing hay meadow resource is very small)

Coast


Overview

There is very limited uptake of ES generally in this NCA, which is located in the urban fringe, where farming activity is

relatively low and possibly declining. There is little evidence that ES is having a significant positive impact on the

landscape, although it seems to be contributing at a low level to protection and management of stone walls,

hedgerows, permanent grassland and archaeology on grassland. ELS is the main driver. Increased uptake levels

across the board would benefit this landscape. Overall impact: Neutral.

149. The Culm (Upland Fringe)


Key characteristics/ elements • Broadleaved valley and coastal woodlands • Distinctive skyline trees, tree clumps and coverts, often of beech


166

Objectives • Active woodland management (especially of valley side and coastal

woodlands) • Protection and renewal of prominent in-field trees and tree clumps


Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 420ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 314km • In-field trees protected (mainly ELS) 6812no

Stock • 29,019ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 7523ha broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter





known

• Uptake of both woodland management and woodland edge options appears to reinforce existing patterns of broadleaved woodland




• Woodland management – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes • In-field trees – yes but even greater uptake would be beneficial and there is

little evidence of renewal


Key characteristics/ elements • Ancient, irregular fields with earth hedgebanks on valley sides • Larger, rectilinear parliamentary fields on higher ground with hedges and

hedgebanks

Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries, especially earth banks and

hedgerows, to ensure retention and reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Earth bank management • Hedgerow management

Indicators • % of earth banks managed under ES • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Earth bank management (ELS) 456km • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 8651km

Stock • 4990km of earth banks • 14,680km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 9.1% of earth banks managed under ES • 59% of hedgerows managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of earth banks are managed under ES • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES

Effects overall • Earth bank management neutral • Hedgerow management positive


known

• No data




• Earth bank management – yes but uptake could be improved • Hedgerow management – yes


167


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly pasture with mosaic of improved and unimproved grassland

Objectives • Retention and management of permanent (especially unimproved) grassland

Relevant ES option types • Grassland • Low input grassland

Indicators • % of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • % of permanent grassland managed as rough pasture under ES

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 22,599ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 30,165ha • Rough pasture management or restoration (mainly HLS) 572ha

Stock • 139,071ha permanent grassland (LCM) • 11,098ha rough grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 16 % of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 22% of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 5.2% of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES


Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking neutral • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland positive • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture neutral


known

• Uptake appears widespread




• Mixed stocking – yes but uptake could be improved • Low input grassland – yes • Rough pasture – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Many surviving traditional farmsteads





Stock • 6019 listed buildings (surrogate stock measure)


under ES




known

• No data






168


Key characteristics/ elements • Rich prehistoric archaeology, eg Bronze Age barrows, mainly on higher ground




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 81ha on arable (of which 79ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) • Archaeology (all area options, ELS and HLS) 788ha on grass






known





• Archaeology – no for arable, yes for grass


Key characteristics/ elements • Unimproved species-rich Culm grassland and mires • Patches of heathland commons



Indicators • % of rough grassland managed under ES as species-rich semi-natural

grassland • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Uptake • Management/ restoration of species-rich semi-natural grassland (HLS) 2333ha • Management/ restoration of lowland heathland (HLS) 74ha

Stock • 11,098 ha of rough grassland (LCM) • 1117ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 21% of rough grassland area managed/ restored as species-rich grassland

under ES • 6.6% of dwarf shrub heath area managed/ restored under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland

under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Lowland heathland neutral


known

• Uptake pattern of species-rich grassland options seems related to Culm Measures – appropriate




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Lowland heathland – no, uptake appears limited


169

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Saltmarshes, mudflats, sand dunes

Objectives • Retention and appropriate management of these coastal habitat types

Relevant ES option types • Saltmarsh • Sand dunes

Indicators • % of saltmarsh and sand dune managed under ES

Uptake • No uptake

Stock • 141ha saltmarsh and sand dune (LCM)

Indicator results • 0% of saltmarsh and sand dune managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of saltmarsh and sand dune managed under ES

Effects overall • Saltmarsh and sand dunes neutral


known

• N/A




• Saltmarsh and sand dunes – no, no uptake

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of protection of in-field trees, as well as retention

and management of hedgerows, low-input grassland, archaeology on grassland, and Culm grassland. It seems to be

having less impact on retention and management of woodlands, earth banks, historic farm buildings, archaeology on

arable land and lowland heathland – all of which are key characteristic landscape elements – and no impact on

coastal landscape elements. Means of increasing uptake of these options should be explored. ELS is the main driver

in relation to woodlands, trees, hedgerows and permanent grassland; while HLS appears more influential in relation to

Culm grassland. There appear to be no significant negative landscape effects due to the introduction of new

landscape elements under ES. Overall impact: Positive.


170

UPLAND ALT

10. North Pennines (Upland)


Key characteristics/ elements • Broadleaved woodland in river gorges, gills and streamsides • Shelter planting around farms

Objectives • Active woodland management • Exclusion of livestock • Expansion of broadleaved woodlands in upland gills

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Maintenance of successional areas • In-field trees (not mentioned as a key characteristic)

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of woodland maintained as successional areas under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 500ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 164km • Maintenance of successional areas (HLS) 825ha • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 4426no


Indicator results • 11% of woodland managed under ES • 20% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 18% of woodland maintained as successional areas under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management positive • Woodland perimeter fencing positive • Successional areas positive (but see below) • In-field trees probably positive

Distribution of effects if known • Woodland management mainly in upland gills with some larger areas of

woodland fencing/succession on moors above (query whether location of the latter is always appropriate in landscape terms)




• Woodland management – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes • Successional areas – yes • Protection of in-field trees – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Small fields bounded by dry stone walls and hedges in the dales • Larger, more regular walled enclosures on higher ground • Open moor above

Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries, especially stone walls and







171

Indicator results • 65% of stone walls protected and managed under ES • 54% of hedgerows managed under ES


Effects overall • Stone wall protection and management positive • Hedgerow management positive





• Stone wall protection and management – yes • Hedgerow management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Pasture in dales • Rough and moorland grazing on upland ridges and summits (enclosed

allotments and open moorland)

Objectives • Retention and traditional management of pastures • Management of rough pasture • Extensive moorland grazing

Relevant ES option types • Mixed stocking • Permanent low input grassland management • Enclosed upland semi-natural/rough pasture management • Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration

Indicators • % of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • % of rough grassland managed as semi-natural/rough pasture under ES

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 12,684ha • Permanent low input grassland management (mainly ELS) 18,573ha • Enclosed upland semi-natural rough pasture management (mainly ELS)

1393ha • Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration (mainly HLS)

12,225ha




Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking positive • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland positive • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture positive

Distribution of effects if known • Low input grassland management mainly in dales; rough pasture

management mainly in dale heads – appropriate to landscape




• Mixed stocking – yes • Low input grassland – yes • Rough pasture – yes but uptake for enclosed allotment land is relatively small

and could possibly be increased


Key characteristics/ elements • Scattered vernacular farmsteads that make a strong contribution to character • Distinctive „miner-farmer‟ buildings and settlements of daleheads




172





under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Roman and extensive lead mining remains





Stock • 5.3ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 903ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 69% of stock vulnerable to change in land management practice



Effects overall • Archaeology on arable positive • Archaeology on grass positive

Distribution of effects if known • Most uptake concentrated in dales and on main Pennine scarp – seems

appropriate




• Archaeology – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Upland hay meadows • Limestone grasslands • Heather moorland and blanket bog


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (incl haymaking) • Maintenance and restoration of moorland

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • % of hay meadow managed by haymaking under ES • % of moorland managed as such under ES

Uptake • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (ELS and HLS) 3041ha • Haymaking options alone 1353ha


173

• Maintenance and restoration of moorland (ELS and HLS) 245,059ha – including 12,547ha of cattle grazing on moorland

Stock • 2664ha rough grassland (LCM) • 4920ha hay (LCM) • 141,223ha moorland (LCM acid grassland, bog and dwarf shrub heath)

Indicator results • 114% of rough grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 28% of hay meadow area managed by haymaking under ES • 174% of moorland area maintained and restored as moorland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of species-rich grassland (incl hay meadow) managed as such under ES • 10% of hay meadow managed by haymaking under ES • 50% of moorland managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Hay meadows positive • Moorland positive

Distribution of effects if known • Species-rich grassland uptake mainly in dales and associated with areas of

hay meadows; moorland uptake widespread – seems appropriate




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Hay meadow – yes • Moorland – yes

Coast


Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of broadleaved woodland management, protection

and expansion (through succession), as well as retention and management of in-field trees, stone walls, hedgerows,

traditional pastures and rough grazing, historic farm buildings, archaeology, species-rich grassland, hay meadows and

moorland. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees, field boundaries, traditional pastures, farm buildings,

archaeology and hay meadows; while HLS appears more influential in relation to woodland management and

expansion and upland pastures. Both ELS and HLS strongly influence management of moorland in this NCA.

Overall impact: Strongly positive.

51. Dark Peak (Upland)


Key characteristics/ elements • Broadleaved woodland in valleys and cloughs around edges of plateau

Objectives • Active woodland management • Exclusion of livestock from clough woodlands



Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 77ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 14km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 1904no




174



Distribution of effects if known • Woodland management and woodland edge uptake, although limited, is

mainly associated with cloughs – appropriate to landscape




• Woodland management – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but even more uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Moorland tops unenclosed or occasional gritstone walls • Moorland fringes and valley slopes enclosed by dry gritstone walls • Valley bottom fields enclosed by hedgerows

Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries, especially stone walls and






Indicator results • 30% of stone walls protected and managed under ES • 5.0% of hedgerows managed under ES


Effects overall • Stone wall protection and management positive • Hedgerow management neutral





• Stone wall protection and management – yes but uptake could be improved • Hedgerow management – yes but uptake could be improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Pasture for dairy and beef cattle in sheltered valleys • Extensive sheep grazing on moors

Objectives • Retention and traditional management of pastures • Management of rough pasture



Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 1498ha • Permanent low input grassland management (mainly ELS) 2578ha • Enclosed upland semi-natural rough pasture management (mainly ELS)


623ha


175


Indicator results • 6.1% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 11% of permanent grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 17% of rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES


Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking neutral • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Location of low input grassland and rough pasture management is as

expected (valleys and valley sides) – appropriate to landscape




• Mixed stocking – yes • Low input grassland – yes • Rough pasture – yes • However uptake of all options is relatively low and increase would benefit

landscape


Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional buildings in local gritstone







under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Many visible features , especially prehistoric and early coal mining remains





Stock • 49ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 1388ha SHINE + SMR on grass


176

• 20% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice




Distribution of effects if known • Most uptake concentrated in valleys – would have expected more on high

ground




• Archaeology on arable – no • Archaeology on grass – yes but uptake could be improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Species-rich grasslands in valleys • Heather moorland and blanket bog on tops (heather in east especially)


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management or restoration • Maintenance and restoration of moorland

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • % of heather moorland and blanket bog managed as such under ES

Uptake • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (ELS and HLS) 478ha • Maintenance and restoration of moorland (ELS and HLS) 5603ha

Stock • 5142ha rough grassland (LCM) • 41,523ha dwarf shrub heath and bog (LCM)

Indicator results • 9.3% of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 13% of dwarf shrub heath and bog maintained and restored as moorland

under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 50% of heather moorland and blanket bog managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Heather moorland and blanket bog neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Species-rich grassland uptake mainly in valleys; moorland uptake mainly on

moors in east – seems appropriate




• Species-rich grassland – yes but uptake could be improved • Moorland – yes

Coast


Overview

There is relatively limited uptake of ES generally in this NCA, possibly due to its location very close to urban areas

with lower than average levels of farming activity. ES appears to be having a significant positive impact on the

landscape in only two respects: in-field trees (although these are not identified as a key characteristic) and stone wall

protection and management. It is also contributing at a lower level to retention and management of rough pasture,

protection of archaeology on grassland, species-rich grassland, and moorland and blanket bog. ELS is the main

driver although HLS is also influential in relation to upland pastures and moors. Increased uptake levels, especially

for woodland management and protection, would benefit this landscape. Overall impact: Neutral.


177

150. Dartmoor (Upland)


Key characteristics/ elements • Many ancient upland oak woods • Sycamore and beech shelter plantings near farmsteads on moorland edge

Objectives • Protect and manage semi-natural woodlands, especially valley-side woodlands

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 238ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 10km

Stock • 11,375ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 1444km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter



Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Limited uptake but location appears appropriate in relation to existing woodland patterns


• Woodland management – yes • Woodland fencing – yes • However uptake of both appears very low given size of resource


Key characteristics/ elements • Open moor surrounded by extensive rectilinear 19th century „newtakes‟ • Small irregular pasture fields with dry stone wall, hedgebanks and hedges on

lower ground

Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries, especially stone walls, stone-

faced hedgebanks and hedgerows, to ensure retention and reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Stone wall protection and management • Stone-faced hedgebank management • Hedgerow management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips, field corners)

Indicators • % of stone walls protected and managed under ES • % of stone-faced hedgebanks managed under ES • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Stone wall protection and management (ELS) 59km • Stone-faced hedgebank management (ELS) 126km • Hedgerow management (ELS and HLS) 549km • Few features with potential negative effects

Stock • 767km of stone walls • 592km of stone-faced hedgebanks • 2345km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 7.7% of stone walls protected and managed under ES • 21% of stone-faced hedgebanks managed under ES • 23% of hedgerows managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of stone walls are protected and managed under ES • 20% of stone-faced hedgebanks are managed under ES • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES

Effects overall • Stone wall protection and management neutral • Stone-faced hedgebank management positive • Hedgerow management positive


178





• Stone wall protection and management – yes • Stone-faced hedgebank management – yes • Hedgerow management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Pasture in valleys • Extensive grazing on open moor




Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 7209ha • Permanent low input grassland management (mainly ELS) 5070ha • Enclosed upland semi-natural rough pasture management (mainly ELS)


1868ha




Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking positive • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture positive

Distribution of effects if known • Location of low input grassland and rough pasture management is as

expected (valleys and moorland edges) – appropriate to landscape




• Mixed stocking – yes • Low input grassland – yes • Rough pasture – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional buildings in granite and slate







179


under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Very high historic interest, mainly from prehistoric sites on open moor




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options) 0.2ha on arable • Archaeology (all area options, mainly HLS) 397ha on grass


Indicator results • 0.6% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 20% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES


Effects overall • Archaeology neutral

Distribution of effects if known • Most uptake on upland edge (scrub clearance) – seems appropriate, but

highly localised in a small number of areas




• Archaeology – yes but uptake could be improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Heather moorland and blanket bog • Moorland commons traditionally extensively grazed by cattle, sheep and

ponies


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management or restoration • Cattle grazing on moorland • Maintenance and restoration of moorland

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • % of moorland with cattle grazing under ES • % of moorland managed as such under ES

Uptake • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (ELS and HLS) 789ha • Cattle grazing on moorland (ELS) 1726ha • Maintenance and restoration of moorland (ELS and HLS) 21,401ha

Stock • 2631ha rough grassland (LCM) • 37,526ha moorland (LCM acid grassland, dwarf shrub heath and bog)


180

Indicator results • 20% of rough grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 8.1% of moorland with cattle grazing under ES • 57% of moorland maintained and restored as moorland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 5% of moorland with cattle grazing under ES • 50% of moorland managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Cattle grazing on moorland positive • Moorland positive


known

• Species-rich grassland uptake mainly in valleys to east; moorland uptake mainly on areas of existing grass moor to west – seems appropriate




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Cattle grazing – yes but uptake could be improved • Moorland – yes

Coast


Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in terms of management of traditional field boundaries,

rough pasture, species-rich grassland and moorland, with significant levels of characteristic mixed stocking and cattle

grazing on moorland. ES appears to be having less impact on woodlands, permanent pastures, historic farm buildings

and archaeology and further uptake of options for these landscape elements may be beneficial. ELS is the main

driver but HLS is also influential (albeit often at a low level) in relation to management of woodlands, hedgerows,

rough pasture, archaeology on grassland, species-rich grassland and moorland. Overall impact: positive.


181

Appendix 2: Master table of objectives, their linked indicators, thresholds, nature of options selected, their unit of measurement and the relevant stock data

Code Key word Objective Indicator

Threshol

d Unit Description of uptake

Measure

ment

unit Description of stock

Woodland/tree cover

A1 Woodland

Active woodland

management

% of woodland managed

under ES 5 % Woodland management ha

NFI broadleaved, coppice

and wood pasture

A2 Woodland Woodland protection

% of woodland perimeter

with fencing maintained

under ES 10 %

Woodland fencing plus

UC5 km

NFI broadleaved and

coppice perimeter

A3 Woodland Woodland creation

Woodland creation under

ES as % of existing

woodland 1 % Woodland creation ha

NFI broadleaved and

coppice

A4 Woodland

Semi-natural woodland

regeneration

% of scrub maintained as

successional areas under

ES 10 %

Maintenance of

successional areas ha NFI scrub

A5 In-field trees Protection of in-field trees

Number of in-field trees

protected under ES 1500

per

NCA In-field trees tree N/A


182

A6

Hedgerow

trees

Protection of hedgerow

trees

Area of hedgerow trees

protected under ES 500

ha

per

NCA


trees ha N/A

A7

Hedgerow

trees Renewal of hedgerow trees

Number of hedgerow trees

established under ES 500

per

NCA

Establishment of hedgerow

trees tree N/A

A8

Riparian

trees

Management of riverside /

bankside trees

Number of bankside trees

coppiced 500

per

NCA

CI coppicing of bankside

trees tree N/A

A9 Orchards

Management and

extension of traditional

orchards

% of traditional orchards

managed under ES 5 %

Orchard creation; orchard

management and

restoration ha Orchards BAP habitat


B1 Hedgerows

Management and

restoration of hedgerows

% of hedgerows managed

under ES 20 %

Hedgerow management;

hedgerow restoration and

planting; management of

hedgerows of very high

environmental value;

hedge and ditch

management; C1

hedgerows km CS hedges

B2 Hedgerows

Creation of new hedgerow

lengths

Length of new hedgerows

planted 10

km

per

NCA CI New hedge planting km N/A

B3 Ditches

Management and

restoration of ditches /

dykes

Length of ditches / dykes

managed under ES 500

km

per

NCA

Ditch management; CI

restoration / creation of

ditches and dykes km N/A


183

B4 Stone walls

Management and

restoration of stone walls

% of stone walls managed

under ES 20 %

Stone wall protection and

management; stone wall

restoration; CI restoration

of stone walls‟ km CS walls

B5

Earth

banks/stone-

faced

hedgebanks

Management and

restoration of banks

% of banks managed

under ES 20 %

Earth bank management;

earth bank restoration;

stone-faced hedgebank

management; CI

restoration of stone-faced

hedgebanks; CI restoration

of earth banks‟ km CS banks/grass strips

B6

Wider buffer

strips

Reinforcement of field

patterns in arable areas

Area of wider buffer strips /

yr round headlands created

under ES 1000

ha

per

NCA

Wider buffer strips in

arable; floristically

enhanced buffer strips

unharvested cereal

headlands ha N/A

B7 Deer fencing

Minimal negative

landscape impact from

deer fencing Length of ES deer fencing 5

km

per

NCA Deer fencing km N/A

B8

Fencing

along

watercourse

s

Minimal negative


fencing along watercourses

Length of ES fencing along

watercourses 30

km

per

NCA

Fencing along

watercourses km N/A


C1 Arable land

Diversity of winter arable

landscape

% of arable land with

overwintering stubbles

under ES 20 % Overwintering stubbles ha

LCM Aba, Ab, Ast, Au,

Aw


184

C2

Permanent

grasslands

Retention of mixed/pastoral

character

% of improved grassland

managed as low input

grassland under ES 20 %

Grassland creation to

prevent erosion and

encourage water infiltration

and a reduction in nutrient

leaching; permanent low-

input grassland

management ha LCM Gi, Gh

C3

Wet

grasslands

Retention and

management of wet

grasslands

% of rough grassland

managed as wet grassland

under ES 10 %

Wet grassland creation;

wet grassland

management or

restoration; rush pasture

management; traditional

water meadow

management or restoration ha LCM Gr

C4

Rough

pasture

Retention and

management of rough

pasture

% of rough grassland

managed as semi-

improved/rough grassland

under ES 10 %

Semi-improved/rough

grassland creation; semi-

improved/rough grassland

management or

restoration; enclosed

upland semi-natural/rough

pasture management;

upland semi-natural/rough

pasture management or

restoration; ha LCM Gr

C5

Mixed

stocking

Retention/restoration of

traditional mixed stock

grazing

% of permanent pasture

managed as mixed

stocking under ES 20 % Mixed stocking ha LCM Gh, Gi, Gr

C6

Water

meadows

Retention and

management of traditional

water meadows

Area of traditional water

meadow management

under ES 100

ha

per

NCA

Traditional water meadow

management or restoration ha N/A


185

C7 Fallow plots

Minimal negative


fallow plots Number of ES fallow plots 500

per

NCA Fallow plots/margins plot N/A

Building materials/design

D1

Traditional

farm

buildings

Retention of historic farm

buildings

% of historic buildings

maintained under ES 10 % Historic buildings

m2/100 =

185pprox

. no Count of listed buildings

D2

Traditional

farm

buildings

Restoration of historic farm

buildings

Number of agreements

with historic building

restoration

CI Restoration of historic

buildings

No of

agreeme

nts N/A


E1

Archaeologic

al features

Retention and

management of


% of archaeological

resource on arable under

relevant ES archaeology

options for arable 50 %

Archaeological features

taken out of cultivation;

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

SMR plus SHINE on

arable


186

E2

Archaeologic

al features

Retention and

management of

archaeology on arable as

part of wider conservation

objectives

% of archaeological

resource on arable

protected by „other‟ ES

options that have a

positive impact on

archaeology‟ 25 %

Semi-improved grassland

creation; Grassland

creation to prevent erosion

and encourage water

infiltration and a reduction

in nutrient leaching;

Species rich grassland

creation; Lowland

heathland creation BUT

ONLY option H04.

Uptake of these options is

limited to locations where

they are found on SMR or

SHINE sites using GIS for

the purposes of assessing

this objective. ha

SMR plus SHINE on

arable

E3

Archaeologic

al features

Retention and

management of

archaeology on grass

% of archaeological

resource on grassland

under relevant ES

archaeology options for

grassland 50 %

Management of

archaeological sites under

grassland. Ha

SMR plus SHINE on

grass

E4

Archaeologic

al features

Removal of archaeological

features from cultivation

Land removed from

cultivation as % of

vulnerable SMAR area 50 %


taken out of cultivation;

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

SMAR area where

vulnerability relates to

landscape management

practices

E5

Archaeologic

al features

Retention and increased

visibility of archaeology on

moorland

Number of agreements

with archaeological

resource on moorland

under relevant ES option

for archaeology

Maintaining archaeological

visibility on moorland;

No of

agreeme

nts

SMR plus SHINE on

moorland (LCM Ga, Bo,

Bg, Bh, Hb, Hg, H, Hga)


187

E6 Parkland

Retention and

management of

parkland/wood pasture

% of parkland/wood

pasture under ES options

for parkland/wood pasture 10 % All parkland sub-categories ha

EH Registered Parks and

Gardens plus NE

unregistered parks and

gardens

E7

Water

features

Retention and

management of larger

water features

Number of larger water

features (over 100m2)

managed under ES 20

per

NCA Q2 no N/A

E8

Small ponds

(under

100m2)

Retention and

management of small

ponds

Number of small ponds

(under 100m2) managed

under ES 20

per

NCA Q1 no N/A


F1

Species-rich

grassland

(lowland)

Management/restoration/cr

eation of lowland species-

rich grassland

% of acid, calcareous and

neutral grassland managed

as species-rich grassland

under ES 20 % HK6, HK7, HK8 ha

LCM Ga, Gc, Gn in ALTs

1-4

F2

Species-rich

grassland

(upland)


eation of upland species-

rich grassland

% of rough, calcareous and


as species-rich grassland

under ES 20 % HK6, HK7, HK8 ha

LCM Gr, Gc, Gn in ALTs

5-6

F3

Upland hay

meadows

Management/restoration of

upland hay meadows

% of rough, calcareous and


as hay meadow under ES 10 %

L20, HK18 Hay making

supplement ha

LCM Gr, Gc, Gn in ALTs

5-6

F4

Lowland hay

meadows

Management of lowland

hay meadows

% of acid, calcareous ,

neutral and wet grassland

managed as hay meadows 10 %

HK18 Hay making

supplement ha

LCM Ga, Gc, Gn in ALTs

1-4,


188

F5

Lowland

heathland


eation of lowland heathland

% of lowland heathland

managed as such under

ES 10 %

Lowland heathland

creation; lowland

heathland management or

restoration ha LCM Hb, Hg, H, Hga

F6 Wetland


eation of fen, lowland

raised bog and reedbed

% of fen marsh and swamp

managed as wetland under

ES 20 % All wetland sub-categories ha

LCM F plus Bg ,Bh, Bo in

ALTs 1-4

F7 Moorland

Maintenance and

restoration of moorland

% of moorland managed

as such under ES 50 %

Maintenance and

restoration of moorland,

creation of upland

heathland ha

LCM Ga, Bo, Bg, Bh, Hb,

Hg, H, Hga

F8

Upland

blanket bog

Rewetting of areas of

blanket bog, mires and

flushes % of blanket bog rewetted 20 %

L13. Moorland re-wetting

supplement ha LCM Bg, Bh, Bo

F9

Cattle

grazing on

moorland


traditional cattle grazing on

moorland commons

% of moorland with cattle

grazing under ES 5 % Cattle grazing on moorland ha

LCM Ga, Bo, Bg, Bh, Hb,

Hg, H, Hga

Coast

G1 Saltmarsh

Conservation and

management of salt marsh

% of salt marsh managed


Salt marsh management or

restoration ha Sm, Smg

G2 Sand dunes

Conservation and

management of sand

dunes

% of sand dunes managed


Sand dune management or

restoration ha Sd, Sds


189

G3

New coastal

habitat

Creation of new coastal

habitats

Area of new coastal habitat

created on farmland under

ES 100

ha

per

NCA

Inter-tidal and saline

habitat creation; vegetated

shingle and sand dunes

creation ha N/A


190

Appendix 3: Selection of ES options relating to each objective and linked indicator

Code Objective

Option

code

Simplified

option

code Option name Scheme Sub category Units

Woodland/tree cover

A1 Active woodland management HC7 C7 Maintenance of woodland HLS Woodland management ha

A1 Active woodland management HC8 C8 Restoration of woodland HLS Woodland management ha

A2 Woodland protection OC3 C3

Maintenance of woodland

fences OELS Woodland fencing km

A2 Woodland protection EC3 C3

Maintenance of woodland

fences ELS Woodland fencing km

A2 Woodland protection UOC5 C5

Sheep fencing around small

woodlands UOELS Woodland fencing km

A2 Woodland protection UC5 C5

Sheep fencing around small

woodlands UELS In-field trees km

A3 Woodland creation HC10 C10

Creation of woodland outside

Severely Disadvantaged Areas HLS Woodland creation ha

A3 Woodland creation HC9 C9

Creation of woodland in

Severely Disadvantaged Areas HLS Woodland creation ha

A4


regeneration HC15 C15

Maintenance of successional

areas and scrub HLS

Maintenance of

successional areas ha

A4 Semi-natural woodland

HC16 C16 Restoration of successional

HLS Maintenance of

ha


191

regeneration areas and scrub successional areas

A4


regeneration HC17 C17

Creation of successional areas

and scrub HLS

Maintenance of

successional areas ha

A5 Protection of in-field trees EC1 C1

Protection of in-field trees on

arable land ELS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees OHC1 C1


rotational land OHLS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees HC1 C1


arable land EHLS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees OC1 C1


rotational land OELS In-field trees Tree



grassland EHLS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees EC2 C2


grassland ELS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees OC2 C2


organic grassland OELS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees OHC2 C2


organic grassland OHLS In-field trees Tree

A5 Protection of in-field trees HC5 C5 Ancient trees in arable fields HLS In-field trees Tree


Ancient trees in intensively

managed grass fields HLS In-field trees Tree

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees EC24 C24

Hedgerow tree buffer strips on

cultivated land NEW in 2010 ELS


trees ha


192

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees OHC24 C24


rotational land OHLS


trees ha

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees HC24 C24


cultivated land EHLS


trees ha

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees OC24 C24


rotational land NEW in 2010 OELS


trees ha

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees OC25 C25


organic grassland NEW in 2010 OELS


trees ha

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees OHC25 C25


grassland NEW in 2010 OHLS


trees ha

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees EC25 C25


grassland NEW in 2010 ELS


trees ha

A6 Protection of hedgerow trees HC25 C25


grassland NEW in 2010 EHLS


trees ha

A7 Renewal of hedgerow trees EC23 C23


trees by tagging NEW in 2010 ELS

Establishment of

hedgerow trees Tree

A7 Renewal of hedgerow trees OC23 C23


trees by tagging NEW in 2010 OELS

Establishment of

hedgerow trees Tree

A8

Management of riverside /

bankside trees CBT CBT Coppicing bankside trees HLSC

Coppicing of bankside

trees Number

A9

Management and extension of

traditional orchards HC18 C18

Maintenance of high-value

traditional orchards HLS

Orchard management &

restoration ha

A9



Maintenance of traditional

orchards in production HLS


restoration ha


193

A9



Restoration of traditional

orchards HLS


restoration ha

A9


traditional orchards HC21 C21 Creation of traditional orchards HLS Orchard creation ha


B1

Management and restoration of

hedgerows EB1 B1

Hedgerow management on both

sides of a hedge ELS Hedgerow Management km

B1


hedgerows OB1 B1

Hedgerow management on both

sides of a hedge OELS Hedgerow Management km

B1


hedgerows EB10 B10

Combined hedge and ditch

management (incorporating EB3

Enhanced hedgerow

management) ELS

Hedge & Ditch

management km

B1


hedgerows OB10 B10


management(incorporating

OB3/EB3 Enhanced hedgerow

management) OELS

Hedge & Ditch

management km

B1


hedgerows UOB14 B14 Hedgerow restoration UOELS

Hedgerow restoration

and planting km

B1


hedgerows OB14 B14 Hedgerow restoration OELS


and planting km

B1


hedgerows EB14 B14 Hedgerow restoration ELS


and planting km

B1


hedgerows UB14 B14 Hedgerow restoration UELS


and planting km


194

B1


hedgerows OB2 B2

Hedgerow management on one

side of a hedge OELS Hedgerow Management km

B1


hedgerows EB2 B2

Hedgerow management on one

side of a hedge ELS Hedgerow Management km

B1


hedgerows OB3 B3

Enhanced hedgerow

management OELS Hedgerow Management km

B1


hedgerows EB3 B3

Enhanced hedgerow

management ELS Hedgerow Management km

B1


hedgerows OB8 B8


management (incorporating

OB1/EB1 Hedgerow

management) OELS

Hedge & Ditch

management km

B1


hedgerows EB8 B8



Hedgerow management) ELS

Hedge & Ditch

management km

B1


hedgerows EB9 B9



Hedgerow management) ELS

Hedge & Ditch

management km

B1


hedgerows OB9 B9


management (incorporating

OB2/EB2 Hedgerow

management) OELS

Hedge & Ditch

management km

B1


hedgerows HB11 HB11

Management of hedgerows of

very high environmental value

(both sides) HLS

Management of

hedgerows of very high

environmental value km

B1


hedgerows HB12 HB12 Management of hedgerows of

very high environmental value HLS

Management of

hedgerows of very high km


195

(one side) environmental value

B1


hedgerows HF HF

Hedgerow supplement –

removal of old fence lines HLSC Hedgerows km

B1


hedgerows HR HR

Hedgerow restoration including

laying, coppicing and gapping

up HLSC Hedgerows km

B1


hedgerows HR2010 HR

Hedgerow restoration includes

laying, coppicing and gapping

up HLSC Hedgerows km

B1


hedgerows HSC HSC

Hedgerow supplement –

substantial pre-work HLSC Hedgerows km

B1


hedgerows HSL HSL

Hedgerow supplement – top

binding and staking HLSC Hedgerows km

B2

Creation of new hedgerow

lengths PH PH

Hedgerow planting – new

hedges HLSC New hedge planting km

B3


ditches / dykes EB6 B6 Ditch management ELS Ditch management km

B3


ditches / dykes OB6 B6 Ditch management OELS Ditch management km

B3


ditches / dykes EB7 B7 Half ditch management ELS Ditch management km

B3


ditches / dykes OB7 B7 Half ditch management OELS Ditch management km

B3


ditches / dykes DR DR Ditch, dyke and rhine restoration HLSC

Restoration / creation of

ditches and dykes km


196

B3


ditches / dykes HB14 HB14

Management of ditches of very

high environmental value NEW

in 2010 HLS Ditch management km

B3


ditches / dykes WDC WDC

Creation of ditches – rhines and

dykes HLSC



B3


ditches / dykes WGC WGC Creation of gutters HLSC



B4


stone walls

EB11 B11 Stone wall protection and

maintenance ELS

Stone wall protection

and management km

B4 Management and restoration of

stone walls UOB11 B11


maintenance on/above the

moorland line UOELS


and management km

B4


stone walls UB11 B11


maintenance on or above the

Moorland Line UELS


and management km

B4


stone walls OB11 B11


maintenance OELS


and management km

B4


stone walls UB17 B17 Stone wall restoration UELS Stone wall restoration km

B4


stone walls UOB17 B17 Stone wall restoration UOELS Stone wall restoration km

B4


stone walls TW TW

Stone wall supplement – top

wiring HLSC

Restoration of stone

walls km

B4 Management and restoration of

WR2010 WR Stone wall restoration HLSC Restoration of stone

km


197

stone walls walls

B4


stone walls WR WR Stone wall restoration HLSC


walls km

B4


stone walls WRD WRD

Stone wall supplement – difficult

sites HLSC


walls km

B4


stone walls WRQ WRQ

Stone wall supplement – stone

from quarry HLSC


walls km

B4


stone walls WRS WRS

Stone wall supplement – stone

from holding HLSC


walls km

B5


banks OB12 B12

Earth bank management on

both sides NEW in 2010 OELS Earth bank management km

B5


banks EB12 B12


both sides NEW in 2010 ELS Earth bank management km

B5


banks UOB12 B12

Earth bank management (both

sides) on/above the moorland

line UOELS Earth bank management km

B5


banks UB12 B12


both sides on or above the

Moorland Line UELS Earth bank management km

B5


banks OB13 B13

Earth bank management on one

side NEW in 2010 OELS Earth bank management km

B5


banks EB13 B13

Earth bank management on one

side NEW in 2010 ELS Earth bank management km

B5


banks UB13 B13 Earth bank management on one

side on or above the Moorland UELS Earth bank management km


198

Line

B5


banks UB15 B15

Stone-faced hedgebank

restoration UELS


restoration km

B5


banks UOB15 B15


restoration UOELS


restoration km

B5


banks UOB16 B16 Earth bank restoration UOELS Earth bank restoration km

B5


banks UB16 B16 Earth bank restoration UELS Earth bank restoration km

B5


banks UB4 B4


management on both sides on

or above the Moorland Line UELS

Stone-faced Hedgebank

management km

B5


banks OB4 B4


management on both sides OELS


management km

B5


banks EB4 B4


management on both sides ELS


management km

B5


banks UOB4 B4


management (both sides)

on/above ML UOELS


management km

B5


banks UB5 B5


management on one side on or

above the Moorland Line UELS


management km

B5


banks

EB5 B5 Stone-faced hedgebank

management on one side ELS


management km


199

B5


banks UOB5 B5


management (one side)

on/above ML UOELS


management km

B5


banks OB5 B5


management on one side OELS


management km

B5


banks EC EC

Creation of new earth banks

NEW in 2010 HLSC

Restoration of earth

banks km

B5


banks ER ER Earth bank restoration HLSC


banks km

B5


banks ER2010 ER Earth bank restoration HLSC


banks km

B5


banks ERC ERC

Casting up supplement – hedge

bank options HLSC


banks km

B6

Reinforcement of field patterns

in arable areas HE10 E10

Floristically enhanced grass

buffer strips (non-rotational) HLS

Floristically enhanced

buffer strip ha

B6


in arable areas EE12 E12

Supplement to add wildflowers

to buffer strips and field corners ELS

Floristically enhanced

buffer strip ha

B6



4 m buffer strips on cultivated

land EHLS


arable (4/6m-12m) ha

B6




land ELS



B6


in arable areas OE2 E2

4 m buffer strips on rotational

land OELS



B6


in arable areas OHE2 E2


land OHLS




200

B6




land OELS



B6




land OHLS



B6




land EHLS



B6




land ELS



B6




land next to a watercourse NEW

in 2010 ELS



B6




land next to a OHLS



B6




land next to a OELS



B6


in arable areas RHF10 F10

No longer used Non payment

version of HF10 EHLS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6


in arable areas HF10 F10 Unharvested cereal headlands HLS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6 Reinforcement of field patterns

in arable areas REF10 F10


version of EF10 ELS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6


in arable areas EF10 F10 Unharvested cereal headlands ELS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6


in arable areas HF10NR F10

Unharvested cereal headlands

NR HLS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha


201

B6


in arable areas HF14 F14

Unharvested, fertiliser-free

conservation headland HLS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6


in arable areas RHF14 F14


version of HF14 HLS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6


in arable areas HF14NR F14

Unharvested, fertiliser-free

conservation headland NR HLS

Unharvested cereal

headlands ha

B6


in arable areas OJ9 J9

12 m buffer strips for

watercourses on rotational land

NEW in 2009 OELS



B6


in arable areas HJ9 J9


watercourses on cultivated land EHLS



B6


in arable areas EJ9 J9


watercourses on cultivated land

NEW in 2009 ELS



B6


in arable areas OHJ9 J9


watercourses on cultivated land

NEW in 2009 OHLS



B7

Minimal negative landscape

impact from deer fencing FD FD Deer fencing HLSC Deer fencing km

B8


impact from fencing along

watercourses OHJ11 J11

Maintenance of watercourse

fencing OHLS

Fencing along

watercourses km

B8



watercourses EJ11 J11


fencing NEW in 2009 ELS

Fencing along

watercourses km

B8 Minimal negative landscape

OJ11 J11 Maintenance of watercourse

OELS Fencing along

km


202


watercourses

fencing NEW in 2009 watercourses

B8



watercourses HJ11 J11


fencing EHLS

Fencing along

watercourses km

B8



watercourses UOJ3 J3

Post and wire fencing along

watercourses UOELS

Fencing along

watercourses km

B8



watercourses UJ3 J3

Post and wire fencing along

watercourses UELS

Fencing along

watercourses km


C1


landscape HF15 F15

Reduced herbicide cereal crops

followed by overwintered stubble HLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape HF15NR F15


following overwintered stubble

NR HLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape RHF15 F15


version of HF15 EHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape EF15 F15


followed by overwintered stubble

NEW in 2010 ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape OEF15 F15


followed by overwintered stubble

NEW in 2010 OELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1 Diversity of winter arable

EF22 F22 Extended overwintered stubble

ELS Overwintering stubbles ha


203

landscape NEW in 2010

C1


landscape OEF22 F22

Extended overwintered stubble

NEW in 2010 OELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape ROF6 F6


version of OF6 OELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape EF6 F6 Overwintered stubble ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape ROHF6 F6


version of OHF6 OHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape REF6 F6


version of EF6 ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape HF6 F6 Overwintered stubble EHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape RHF6 F6


version of HF6 EHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape OHF6 F6 Overwintered stubble OHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape OF6 F6 Overwintered stubble OELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape EG4 G4

Cereals for whole-crop silage

followed by overwintered stubble ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape HG4 G4


followed by overwintered stubble EHLS Overwintering stubbles ha


ROG4 G4 No longer used Non payment

OELS Overwintering stubbles ha


204

landscape version of OG4

C1


landscape OG4 G4


followed by overwintered stubble OELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape ROHG4 G4


version of OHG4 OHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape OHG4 G4


followed by overwintered stubble OHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape RHG4 G4


version of HG4 EHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape REG4 G4


version of EG4 ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape HG5 G5

Brassica fodder crops followed

by overwintered stubble HLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape ROHG5 G5


version of OHG5 OHLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape REG5 G5


version of EG5 ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape EG5 G5


by over-wintered stubbles ELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape OG5 G5


by over-wintered stubbles OELS Overwintering stubbles ha

C1


landscape ROG5 G5


version of OG5 OELS Overwintering stubbles ha


OHG5 G5 Brassica fodder crops followed

OHLS Overwintering stubbles ha


205

landscape by over-wintered stubbles (org)

C1


landscape

RHG5 G5 No longer used Non payment

version of HG5 HLS Overwintering stubbles ha

C2 Retention of mixed/pastoral

character HJ3 HJ3

Arable reversion to unfertilised

grassland to prevent erosion or

run-off

HLS


prevent erosion and

encourage water

infiltration and a

reduction in nutrient

leaching

ha


character HJ4 HJ4

Arable reversion to grassland

with low fertiliser input to prevent

erosion or run-off

HLS


prevent erosion and

encourage water

infiltration and a


leaching

ha

C2


character EK2 K2

Permanent grassland with low

inputs ELS

Permanent low-input

grassland management ha

C2


character OHK2 K2


inputs OHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character OK2 K2


inputs OELS

Permanent low-input


C2


character HK2 K2


inputs EHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character HK3 K3

Permanent grassland with very

low inputs EHLS

Permanent low-input



EK3 K3 Permanent grassland with very

ELS Permanent low-input

ha


206

character low inputs grassland management

C2


character OHK3 K3


low inputs OHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character

OK3 K3 Permanent grassland with very

low inputs OELS

Permanent low-input


C2


character OL2 L2


inputs in SDAs OELS

Permanent low-input


C2


character HL2 L2


inputs in SDAs EHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character OHL2 L2


inputs in SDAs OHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character EL2 L2


inputs in SDAs ELS

Permanent low-input


C2


character UHL21 L21 No cutting strip within meadows UHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character UOHL21 L21 No cutting strip within meadows UOHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character UL21 L21 No cutting strip within meadows UELS

Permanent low-input


C2


character UOL21 L21 No cutting strip within meadows UOELS

Permanent low-input


C2


character HL3 L3


low inputs in SDAs EHLS

Permanent low-input



207

C2


character OHL3 L3


low inputs in SDAs OHLS

Permanent low-input


C2


character OL3 L3


low inputs in SDAs OELS

Permanent low-input



character EL3 L3


low inputs in SDAs ELS

Permanent low-input


C3 Retention and management of

wet grasslands HD10 D10

Maintenance of traditional water

meadows HLS

Traditional water

meadow management

or restoration

ha


wet grasslands HD11 D11

Restoration of traditional water

meadows HLS

Traditional water

meadow management

or restoration

ha


wet grasslands HK10 K10

Maintenance of wet grassland

for wintering waders and

wildfowl

HLS

Wet grassland

management or

restoration for breeding

waders or wintering

waders and wildfowl

ha



Restoration of wet grassland for

breeding waders HLS

Wet grassland

management or


waders or wintering

waders and wildfowl

ha



Restoration of wet grassland for

wintering waders and wildfowl HLS

Wet grassland

management or


waders or wintering

waders and wildfowl

ha


HK13 K13 Creation of wet grassland for

HLS Wet grassland creation

ha


208

wet grasslands breeding waders for breeding waders or

wintering waders and

wildfowl

C3

Retention and management of


Creation of wet grassland for

wintering waders and wildfowl HLS

Wet grassland creation

for breeding waders or

wintering waders and

wildfowl ha

C3


wet grasslands OK4 K4 Management of rush pastures OELS

Rush pasture

management ha

C3


wet grasslands HK4 K4 Management of rush pastures EHLS

Rush pasture

management ha

C3


wet grasslands EK4 K4 Management of rush pastures ELS

Rush pasture

management ha

C3


wet grasslands OHK4 K4 Management of rush pastures OHLS

Rush pasture

management ha

C3



Maintenance of wet grassland

for breeding waders HLS

Wet grassland

management or


waders or wintering

waders and wildfowl ha

C3


wet grasslands

EL4 L4 Management of rush pastures in

SDAs ELS

Rush pasture

management ha

C3


wet grasslands OL4 L4

Management of rush pastures in

SDAs OELS

Rush pasture

management ha

C3


wet grasslands OHL4 L4


SDAs OHLS

Rush pasture

management ha


209

C3


wet grasslands HL4 L4


SDAs EHLS

Rush pasture

management ha

C4


rough pasture HK15 K15

Maintenance of grassland for

target features HLS

Semi improved/rough

grassland management

or restoration ha

C4



Restoration of grassland for

target features HLS

Semi improved/rough

grassland management

or restoration ha

C4



Creation of grassland for target

features HLS

Semi-improved

grassland creation ha

C4


rough pasture UHL22 L22

Management of enclosed rough

grazing for birds UHLS

Enclosed upland semi-

natural/rough pasture

management ha

C4


rough pasture UOHL22 L22


grazing for birds UOHLS



management ha

C4


rough pasture UOL22 L22


grazing for birds UOELS


natural / rough pasture

management ha

C4


rough pasture UL22 L22


grazing for birds UELS



management ha

C4


rough pasture UL23 L23

Management of upland

grassland for birds UELS

Upland semi-


management or

restoration ha


UHL23 L23 Management of upland

UHLS Upland semi-

ha


210

rough pasture grassland for birds natural/rough pasture

management or

restoration

C4


rough pasture UOHL23 L23


grassland for birds UOHLS

Upland semi-


management or

restoration ha

C4


rough pasture UOL23 L23


grassland for birds UOELS

Upland semi-


management or

restoration ha

C4


rough pasture EL5 L5 Enclosed rough grazing ELS



management ha

C4


rough pasture OL5 L5 Enclosed rough grazing OELS



management ha

C4


rough pasture OHL5 L5 Enclosed rough grazing OHLS



management ha

C4


rough pasture HL5 L5 Enclosed rough grazing EHLS



management ha

C4


rough pasture HL7 L7

Maintenance of rough grazing

for birds HLS

Upland semi-


management or

restoration ha


HL8 L8 Restoration of rough grazing for

HLS Upland semi-

natural/rough pasture ha


211

rough pasture birds management or

restoration

C5


traditional mixed stock grazing OK5 K5 Mixed stocking OELS Mixed stocking ha

C5


traditional mixed stock grazing OHK5 K5 Mixed stocking OHLS Mixed stocking ha

C5


traditional mixed stock grazing HK5 K5 Mixed stocking EHLS Mixed stocking ha

C5


traditional mixed stock grazing

EK5 K5 Mixed stocking ELS Mixed stocking ha

C6


traditional water meadows HD10 D10

Maintenance of traditional water

meadows HLS

Traditional water

meadow management

or restoration ha

C6


traditional water meadows HD11 D11

Restoration of traditional water

meadows HLS

Traditional water

meadow management

or restoration ha

C7


impact from fallow plots

REF8 F8 No longer used Non payment

version of EF8 ELS Fallow plots/margins Plot

C7


impact from fallow plots

HF8 F8 Skylark plots EHLS Fallow plots/margins Plot

C7


impact from fallow plots OHF8 F8 Skylark plots OHLS Fallow plots/margins Plot


212

C7


impact from fallow plots RHF8 F8


version of HF8 EHLS Fallow plots/margins Plot

C7


impact from fallow plots EF8 F8 Skylark plots ELS Fallow plots/margins Plot

C7


impact from fallow plots ROHF8 F8


version of OHF8 OHLS Fallow plots/margins Plot

C7


impact from fallow plots OF8 F8 Skylark plots OELS Fallow plots/margins Plot

Building materials/design

D1


buildings HD1 D1

Maintenance of weatherproof

traditional farm buildings EHLS Historic buildings

Approx

number

D1


buildings OHD1 D1


traditional farm buildings OHLS Historic buildings

Approx

number

D1


buildings ED1 D1


traditional farm buildings ELS Historic buildings

Approx

number

D1


buildings OD1 D1


traditional farm buildings OELS Historic buildings

Approx

number

D1


buildings UD12 D12


traditional farm buildings in

remote locations UELS Historic buildings

Approx

number

D1


buildings

UOHD12 D12

Maintenance of remote

weatherproof traditional farm

buildings

UOHLS Historic buildings m2

D1 Retention of historic farm UHD12 D12 Maintenance of remote

weatherproof traditional farm UHLS Historic buildings Approx


213

buildings

buildings number

D2

Restoration of historic farm

buildings

HTB HTB Restoration of historic buildings HLSC Restoration of historic

buildings

No of

agreemen

ts


E1


archaeology on arable OD2 D2

Take out of cultivation

archaeological features currently

on rotational land OELS


taken out of cultivation ha

E1


archaeology on arable ED2 D2



on cultivated land ELS



E1


archaeology on arable OHD2 D2

Take archaeological features out

of cultivation (Org) OHLS



E1


archaeology on arable HD2 D2


of cultivation EHLS



E1


archaeology on arable ED3 D3

Reduced-depth, non-inversion

cultivation on archaeological

features (minimum till) ELS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E1


archaeology on arable OHD3 D3

Low depth, non-inversion


features OHLS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E1





features EHLS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha


214

E1


archaeology on arable OD3 D3



features (minimum till) OELS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E1 Retention and management of


Crop establishment by direct

drilling (non-rotational) HLS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E1 Retention and management of


Arable reversion by natural

regeneration HLS



E2


archaeology on arable as part

of wider conservation objectives

HJ4 J4

Arable reversion to grassland

with low fertiliser input to prevent

erosion or run-off (on Scheduled

Monuments or SHINE area only)

HLS


prevent erosion and

encourage water

infiltration and a


leaching

ha

E2




HK17 K17

Creation of grassland for target

features (on Scheduled


HLS Semi-improved

grassland creation ha

E2




HK8 K8

Creation of species-rich, semi-

natural grassland (on

Scheduled Monuments or

SHINE area only)

HLS Species rich grassland

creation ha

E2




HO4 O4

Creation of lowland heathland

from arable or improved

grassland (on Scheduled


HLS Lowland heathland

creation ha

E3



ED4 D4 Management of scrub on

archaeological features ELS

Management of

archaeological sites

under grassland

ha


215

E3


archaeology on grass HD4 D4

Management of scrub on

archaeological features EHLS

Management of


under grassland ha

E3


archaeology on grass OHD4 D4


archaeological features OHLS

Management of


under grassland ha

E3


archaeology on grass OD4 D4


archaeological features OELS

Management of


under grassland ha

E3


archaeology on grass OD5 D5

Management of archaeological

features on grassland OELS

Management of


under grassland ha

E3


archaeology on grass HD5 D5


features on grassland EHLS

Management of


under grassland ha

E3


archaeology on grass OHD5 D5


features on grassland OHLS

Management of


under grassland ha

E3


archaeology on grass ED5 D5


features on grassland ELS

Management of


under grassland ha

E4


features from cultivation OD2 D2



on rotational land OELS



E4


features from cultivation ED2 D2



on cultivated land ELS




216

E4


features from cultivation HD2 D2


of cultivation EHLS



E4


features from cultivation OHD2 D2


of cultivation (Org) OHLS



E4


features from cultivation ED3 D3



features (minimum till) ELS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E4





features EHLS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E4


features from cultivation OD3 D3



features (minimum till) OELS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E4


features from cultivation OHD3 D3



features OHLS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E4



Crop establishment by direct

drilling (non-rotational) HLS

Reduced depth of

cultivation ha

E4



Arable reversion by natural

regeneration HLS



E5



moorland UOD13 D13

Maintaining visibility of

archaeological features on

moorland UOELS

Maintaining

archaeological visibility

on moorland

No of

agreemen

ts

E5



moorland UD13 D13



moorland UELS

Maintaining


on moorland

No of

agreemen

ts


217

E5



moorland UOHD13 D13



moorland UOHLS

Maintaining


on moorland

No of

agreemen

ts

E5



moorland UHD13 D13



moorland UHLS

Maintaining


on moorland

No of

agreemen

ts

E6


parkland/wood pasture HC12 C12

Maintenance of wood pasture

and parkland HLS

Parkland management

or restoration ha

E6


parkland/wood pasture HC13 C13

Restoration of wood pasture and

parkland HLS

Parkland management

or restoration ha

E6


parkland/wood pasture HC14 C14 Creation of wood pasture HLS

Creation of wood

pasture ha

E7


larger water features HQ2 Q2

Maintenance of ponds of high

wildlife value (more than 100

m2) HLS

Water feature

management or

restoration Number

E8


small ponds HQ1 Q1

Maintenance of ponds of high

wildlife value (less than 100 m2) HLS

Water feature

management or

restoration Number


F1

Management/restoration/creatio

n of lowland species-rich

grassland HK6 K6

Maintenance of species-rich,

semi-natural grassland HLS

Species-rich grassland

management or

restoration ha

F1



grassland HK7 K7

Restoration of species-rich,



management or

restoration ha

F1 Management/restoration/creatio

HK8 K8 Creation of species-rich, semi-

HLS Species rich grassland

ha


218


grassland

natural grassland creation

F2


n of upland species-rich

grassland HK6 K6

Maintenance of species-rich,



management or

restoration ha

F2



grassland HK7 K7

Restoration of species-rich,



management or

restoration ha

F2



grassland HK8 K8

Creation of species-rich, semi-

natural grassland HLS

Species rich grassland

creation ha

F3


upland hay meadows HK18 K18 Haymaking supplement HLS

K18 Hay making

supplement ha

F3


upland hay meadows UOL20 L20 Haymaking UOELS


management or

restoration ha

F3


upland hay meadows UOHL20 L20 Haymaking UOHLS


management or

restoration ha

F3


upland hay meadows UL20 L20 Haymaking UELS


management or

restoration ha

F3


upland hay meadows UHL20 L20 Haymaking UHLS


management or

restoration ha

F4

Management of lowland hay

meadows HK18 K18 Haymaking supplement HLS

K18 Hay making

supplement ha


219

F5


n of lowland heathland HO1 O1

Maintenance of lowland

heathland HLS

Lowland heathland

management &

restoration ha

F5



Restoration of lowland

heathland HLS

Lowland heathland

management &

restoration ha

F5



Restoration of forestry areas to

lowland heathland HLS

Lowland heathland

creation ha

F5




from arable or improved

grassland HLS

Lowland heathland

creation ha

F5




on worked mineral sites HLS

Lowland heathland

creation ha

F6


n of fen, lowland raised bog and

reedbed HQ10 Q10

Restoration of lowland raised

bog HLS

Lowland raised bog

management or

restoration ha

F6



reedbed HQ3 Q3 Maintenance of reedbeds HLS

Reed bed management

or restoration ha

F6



reedbed HQ4 Q4 Restoration of reedbeds HLS

Reed bed management

or restoration ha

F6



reedbed HQ5 Q5 Creation of reedbeds HLS Reed bed creation ha

F6 Management/restoration/creatio

n of fen, lowland raised bog and HQ6 Q6 Maintenance of fen HLS

Fen management or

restoration ha


220

reedbed

F6



reedbed HQ7 Q7 Restoration of fen HLS

Fen management or

restoration ha

F6



reedbed HQ8 Q8 Creation of fen HLS Fen creation ha

F6



reedbed HQ9 Q9

Maintenance of lowland raised

bog HLS

Lowland raised bog

management or

restoration ha

F7

Maintenance and restoration of

moorland HL10 L10 Restoration of moorland HLS

Maintenance &

Restoration of moorland ha

F7


moorland HL11 L11 Creation of upland heathland HLS

Creation of upland

heathland ha

F7


moorland UHL17 L17

No supplementary feeding on

moorland UHLS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland UOL17 L17


moorland UOELS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland UOHL17 L17


moorland UOHLS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland UL17 L17


moorland UELS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland HL6 L6

Unenclosed moorland rough

grazing EHLS

Maintenance &


F7 Maintenance and restoration of

EL6 L6 Unenclosed moorland rough

ELS Maintenance &

ha


221

moorland grazing Restoration of moorland

F7


moorland HL9 L9 Maintenance of moorland HLS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland UX1 X1

Moorland commons and shared

grazing requirements UELS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland UOX3 X3 Moorland UOELS

Maintenance &


F7


moorland UX3 X3 Moorland requirements UELS

Maintenance &


F8

Rewetting of areas of blanket

bog, mires and flushes HL13 L13 Moorland re-wetting supplement HLS

L13. Moorland re-

wetting supplement ha

F9



moorland commons UOHL18 L18

Cattle grazing on upland

grassland and moorland UOHLS

Cattle grazing on

moorland ha

F9



moorland commons UL18 L18


grassland and moorland UELS

Cattle grazing on

moorland ha

F9



moorland commons UHL18 L18


grassland and moorland UHLS

Cattle grazing on

moorland ha

F9



moorland commons UOL18 L18


grassland and moorland UOELS

Cattle grazing on

moorland ha

Coast

G1 Conservation and management

HP5 P5 Maintenance of coastal salt

HLS Salt marsh management

ha


222

of salt marsh marsh or restoration

G1

Conservation and management

of salt marsh HP6 P6

Restoration of coastal salt

marsh HLS

Salt marsh management

or restoration ha

G2


of sand dunes HP1 P1 Maintenance of sand dunes HLS

Sand dune management

or restoration ha

G2


of sand dunes HP2 P2 Restoration of sand dunes HLS

Sand dune management

or restoration ha

G3


habitats HP4 P4

Creation of coastal vegetated

shingle and sand dunes on

grassland HLS

Vegetated shingle &

sand dune creation ha

G3


habitats HP7 P7

Creation of inter-tidal and saline

habitat on arable land HLS

Inter-tidal & saline

habitat creation ha

G3


habitats HP8 P8


habitat on grassland HLS


habitat creation ha

G3


habitats HP9 P9


habitat by non-intervention HLS


habitat creation ha


223


224

Appendix 4: ES Hedgerow management and restoration uptake per NCA expressed as a

percentage of total hedgerow stock

(Green tone is where the landscape threshold of 20% of hedgerow stock to be under ES hedgerow options is met or exceeded in that NCA)

NCA All hedgerow uptake

expressed as % of

stock (total uptake in

km)

Basic hedgerow

management option uptake

(EB1 &EB2) as % of total

uptake

Enhanced hedgerow option

uptake (EB3 & HB11) as %

of total uptake

Capital items for hedgerow

restoration as % of total

uptake (uptake in km)

Chalk and Limestone mixed ALT

27 – Yorkshire Wolds 62.8 (2465km) 78 21 1 (30.6km)

29 – Howardian Hills 42.5 (357.2km) 84 16 <1 (2.2km)

30 – Southern Magnesian Limestone 34.4 (1655.9km) 85 14 1 (16.2km)

43 – Lincolnshire Wolds 83.3 (2469km) 61 37 2 (40.2km)

45 – Northern Lincolnshire Edge with

Coversands

42.9 (749.9km) 65 34 <1 (3.4km)

47 – Southern Lincolnshire Edge 60 (1183.4km) 70 29 <1 (4.8km)

74 – Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire

Wolds

54.8 (1299.4km) 86 13 1 (10.2km)

75 – Kesteven Uplands 77.6 (1974.6km) 76 22 2 (37.6km)

76 – North West Norfolk 73.8 (2206.4km) 65 34 1 (29.2km)


225


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




85 – Breckland 25.3 (1021.4km) 60 39 <1 (1.8km)

87 – East Anglian Chalk 26.9 (867.5km) 84 15 <1 (5.7km)

92 – Rockingham Forest 60.1 (1141km) 77 21 2 (23.5km)

93 – High Leicestershire 73.8 (1542.4km) 90 9 1 (19.2km)

95 – Northamptonshire Uplands 53.5 (1975.6km) 88 10 2 (35.4km)

107 - Cotswolds 42.8 (4235.6km) 85 14 1 (61km)

110 - Chilterns 30.5 (1527.7km) 81 16 3 (40km)

116 – Berkshire and Marlborough Downs 29.1 (1010.3km) 68 30 2 (23km)

119 – North Downs 28.1 (1091.5km) 90 9 1 (11km)

125 – South Downs 27.1 (753.1km) 80 15 5 (33.6km)

127 – Isle of Wight 53.9 (527.9km) 64 34 2 (12.9km)

130 – Hampshire Downs 49.6 (2131.1km) 76 23 1 (20.5km)

132 – Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire

Downs

22.8 (822.9km) 87 12 1 (10.7km)

134 – Dorset Downs and Cranbourne

Chase

54 (1884.1km) 89 10 1 (13.7km)

136 – South Purbeck 53.7 (215.5km) 79 16 5 (10km)


226


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




138 – Weymouth Lowlands 31.6 (137.3km) 75 24 <1 (0.8km)

140 – Yeovil Scarplands 49.3 (1439.6km) 92 7 <1 (8.4km)

141 – Mendip Hills 22 (269km) 81 17 2 (5.2km)

Eastern arable ALT

1 – North Northumberland Coastal Plain 65.6 (581.5km) 74 24 2 (8.9km)

13 – South East Northumberland Coastal

Plain

29.9 (394.4km) 70 30 -

14 – Tyne and Wear Lowlands 30.7 (311.9km) 83 16 1 (2km)

15 – Durham Magnesian Limestone

Plateau

48 (569.2km) 60 39 1 (4.1km)

23 – Tees Lowlands 46.2 (1564.4km) 81 18 <1 (7.5km)

24 – Vale of Mowbray 53.1 (1182.2km) 88 11 <1 (2.4km)

26 – Vale of Pickering 49.1 (784.8km) 83 16 <1 (1.9km)

28 – Vale of York 45.4 (1711.3km) 82 17 <1 (13.6km)

39 – Humberhead Levels 25 (1498.9km) 80 19 <1 (10.3km)

40 – Holderness 40.9 (948.8km) 77 22 1 (8.9km)

41 – Humber Estuary 15.7 (98.9km) 87 11 2 (2.5km)


227


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




42 – Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes 52.6 (1122.6km) 74 24 2 (18.6km)

44 – Central Lincolnshire Vale 67.8 (1746.1km) 74 25 1 (20km)

46 – The Fens 13.7 (1095.4km) 77 22 2 (22.1km)

48 – Trent and Belvoir Vales 62.5 (5758.7km) 84 15 <1 (27km)

49 -Sherwood 41.3 (706.2km) 68 26 6 (40.7km)

77 – North Norfolk Coast 31.5 (23.7km) 39 61 -

78 – Central North Norfolk 76.4 (1488.2km) 73 26 1 (17.2km)

79 – North East Norfolk and Flegg 50.5 (295.4km) 85 14 <1 (1.5km)

80 – The Broads 53.9 (614.4km) 70 29 1 (8.4km)

82 – Suffolk Coast and Heaths 41.4 (818.3km) 77 20 3 (23km)

83 – South Norfolk and High Suffolk

Claylands

62.1 (5061.4km) 86 13 <1 (27.5km)

84 – Mid Norfolk 71.8 (2438.4km) 74 25 1 (24.8km)

86 – South Suffolk and North Essex

Clayland

41.7 (5212km) 84 15 <1 (21km)

88 – Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

Claylands

34.7 (3066.2km) 85 14 1 (42.5km)


228


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




90 – Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge 36.7 (372.7km) 86 13 1 (2.6km)

SE Mixed Wooded ALT

81 – Greater Thames Estuary 21.2 (318.4km) 74 25 1 (2.7km)

111 – Northern Thames Plain 18.5 (1336.8km) 80 19 1 (16.5km)

113 – North Kent Plain 14.8 (248.6km) 93 6 <1 (0.3km)

114 – Thames Basin Lowlands 1.7 (12.8km) 32 56 12 (1.5km)

115 – Thames Valley 6.1 (168.7km) 79 18 2 (3.9km)

120 – Wealden Greensand 15.1 (726.7km) 78 18 4 (28.2km)

121 – Low Weald 21.6 (1450.5km) 87 10 3 (40km)

122 – High Weald 13 (821.4km) 82 15 3 (21.9km)

123 - Romney Marshes 44.8 (327.5km) 83 16 1 (3km)

124 – Pevensey Levels 18 (38.4km) 70 22 8 (3km)

126 – South Coast Plain 27.2 (226.3km) 82 13 5 (10.7km)

128 – South Hampshire Lowlands 14.9 (168.6km) 71 25 4 (7km)

129 – Thames Basin Heaths 12.8 (530.8km) 88 11 1 (6.5km)

131 – New Forest 12.6 (295.9km) 92 5 3 (6.9km)


229


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




135 – Dorset Heaths 15.8 (269.6km) 81 17 2 (5.2km)

SW Mixed ALT

6 – Solway Basin 77.5 (2387.4km) 74 23 3 (66.1km)

7 – West Cumbria Coastal Plain 42.8 (696.7km) 73 21 6 (42.9km)

9 – Eden Valley 76.2 (703.4km) 74 23 3 (24.2km)

20 – Morecambe Bay Limestones 43.2 (423.4km) 88 9 3 (10.5km)

31 – Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary 35.5 (136.4km) 80 19 1 (1.1km)

32 – Lancashire and Amounderness Plain 21.7 (840.7km) 87 12 <1 (5.9km)

55 – Manchester Conurbation 5 (29.5km) 82 18 -

56 – Lancashire Coal Measures 6.3 (76.8km) 66 33 1 (1.3km)

57 – Sefton Coast 4.7 (11.4km) 96 4 -

58 –Merseyside Conurbation 1.1 (6.9km) 65 35 -

59 - Wirral 44.8 (272.1km) 77 18 5 (14.8km)

60 – Mersey Valley 20 (343km) 86 13 1 (3.3km)

61 – Shropshire, Cheshire and

Staffordshire Plain

57 (7880.2km) 87 12 1 (103.7km)


230


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




62 – Cheshire Sandstone Ridge 47.8 (434.1km) 81 18 <1 (3.2km)

63 – Oswestry Uplands 73.3 (193.6km) 91 6 3 (6.5km)

66 – Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau 37.1 (1188.2km) 74 21 5 (59.9km)

67 – Cannock Chase and Cank Wood 20.5 (431km) 86 12 2 (9km)

68 – Needwood and South Derbyshire

Claylands

52.6 (1538.1km) 84 12 4 (69.8km)

69 – Trent Valley Washlands 14.4 (188.7km) 78 26 2 (4km)

70 – Melbourne Parklands 36.1 (191.4km) 83 15 2 (3.5km)

71 – Leicestershire and South Derbyshire

Coalfield

41.4 (305.7km) 88 9 3 (10.6km)

72 – Mease/Sence Lowlands 62.4 (714.7km) 91 8 1 (10.2km)

73 – Charnwood 21 (130.6km) 89 6 5 (7.1km)

89 – Northamptonshire Vales 44.2 (1428km) 77 20 3 (40km)

91 – Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge 45.1 (580km) 80 19 1 (8.6km)

94 – Leicestershire Vales 51.7 (1235.7km) 93 6 1 (8.9km)

96 – Dunsmore and Feldon 42.6 (1193.1km) 81 15 4 (49km)

97 - Arden 25.5 (1273.9km) 85 12 3 (35km)


231


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




100 – Herefordshire Lowlands 31.8 (1162.1km) 88 7 5 (54km)

101 – Herefordshire Plateau 30 (448.6km) 82 11 7 (33.2km)

102 – Teme Valley 20.8 (163.9km) 75 16 9 (14.5km)

104 – South Herefordshire and Over

Severn

25.5 (591.8km) 89 8 3 (17.8km)

106 – Severn and Avon Vales 33.9 (2940km) 87 10 3 (89.6km)

108 – Upper Thames Clay Vales 34.5 (2493.1km) 85 13 2 (41.4km)

109 –Midvale Ridge 34.7 (545.5km) 82 17 1 (5.2km)

117 – Avon Vales 35.4 (906.1km) 88 11 <1 (1.9km)

118 – Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges 35.4 (1106.1km) 87 12 1 (18.7km)

133 – Blackmoor Vale and the Vale of

Wardour

41.6 (1251.1km) 91 8 <1 (8.4km)

139 – Marshwood and Powerstock Vales 35 (228.6km) 66 30 4 (8.4km)

142 – Somerset Levels and Moors 30.4 (566.4km) 92 6 2 (10.7km)

143 – Mid Somerset Hills 34.9 (640.5km) 87 12 1 (8.3km)

146 – Vale of Taunton and Quantock

Fringes

30.6 (599.1km) 90 9 <1 (3.4km)


232


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




148 – Devon Redlands 46.9 (1925.3km) 90 9 1 (18.2km)

Upland Fringe ALT

2 – Northumberland Sandstone Hills 30.4 (360.6km) 65 30 5 (17.1km)

3 – Cheviot Fringe 81.2 (819.9km) 58 39 3 (22.5km)

11 – Tyne Gap and Hadrian‟s Wall 41.3 (260.5km) 64 35 1 (3.7km)

12 – Mid Northumberland 31.5 (456.3km) 72 27 1 (3.7km)

16 – Durham Coalfield Pennine Fringe 32.2 (492.8km) 76 23 <1 (3.5km)

17 – Orton Fells 113.2 (106.5km) 77 19 4 (4.4km)

18 – Howgill Fells 45.8 (12.8km) 65 23 12 (1.5km)

22 – Pennine Dales Fringe 31.2 (804.4km) 81 18 <1 (1.7km)

35 – Lancashire Valleys 18.5 (221.4km) 74 22 4 (8.5km)

37 – Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe 6.6 (73.3km) 90 8 2 (1.8km)

38 – Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and

Yorkshire Coalfield

19 (1025.9km) 75 24 1 (13.4km)

50 – Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower

Derwent

18.5 (229.6km) 80 16 4 (9.4km)

54 – Manchester Pennine Fringe 7.2 (53.7km) 85 12 3 (1.5km)


233


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




64 – Potteries and Churnet Valley 26.4 (431.9km) 78 18 4 (18.2km)

103 – Malvern Hills 25.3 (92.4km) 73 11 16 (13.3km)

105 – Forest of Dean and Lower Wye 6.4 (88.1km) 85 9 6 (5.1km)

144 – Quantock Hills 15.7 (55.4km) 69 31 -

147 - Blackdowns 31.4 (1115km) 77 20 3 (31.5km)

149 – The Culm 40.2 (5666.5km) 85 13 2 (88.4km)

151 – South Devon 37.5 (1910km) 79 18 3 (60.2km)

152 – Cornish Killas 39.6 (4126km) 86 13 <1 (14.9km)

154 - Hensbarrow 37.1 (230.9km) 86 14 -

Upland ALT

4 - Cheviots 52.7 (56.9km) 77 21 2 (1.2km)

5 – Border Moors and Forests 13.5 (86.6km) 53 44 3 (2.8km)

8 – Cumbria High Fells 45.2 (637.1km) 63 31 6 (37.7km)

10 – North Pennines 55.7 (231.3km) 66 29 5 (11.8km)

19 – South Cumbria Low Fells 21.2 (297.7km) 80 15 5 (16.2km)

21 – Yorkshire Dales 21 (186.8km) 84 11 5 (8.5km)


234


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




25 – North Yorkshire Moors and Cleveland

Hills

38.6 (1362.2km) 81 18 <1 (7.5km)

33 – Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill 36.5 (546.4km) 79 17 4 (20.4km)

34 – Bowland Fells 47.9 (86.7km) 34 51 15 (13.2km)

36 – Southern Pennines 4.2 (45.5km) 62 34 4 (1.9km)

51 – Dark Peak 4.5 (52.8km) 68 24 8 (4.4km)

52 – White Peak 9.1 (61.8km) 54 34 12 (7.3km)

53 – South West Peak 19.1 (98.9km) 70 23 7 (6.8km)

65 – Shropshire Hills 71.1 (2725km) 80 14 6 (141.2km)

98 – Clun and North West Herefordshire

Hills

77.9 (1072.4km) 60 31 9 (93.3km)


Hills

31.4 (239.3km) 79 16 5 (13.1km)

145 – Exmoor 43.6 (2067km) 65 32 3 (68.8km)

150 – Dartmoor 26.5 (620.5km) 61 37 2 (13.7km)

153 – Bodmin Moor 12.3 (180km) 79 20 1 (1.9km)

155 - Carnmenellis 30.4 (223.3km) 96 4 -


235


expressed as % of


km)

Basic hedgerow



uptake



of total uptake




156 – West Penwith 26.6 (248.6km) 96 4 -

157 – The Lizard 81.2 (540km) 86 13 <1 (4.6km)


236

Appendix 5: ES low input grassland option uptake (dominated by EK2/3 and EL2/3) per NCA

expressed as a percentage of the stock of improved grassland of the NCA.

(Green tone is where the landscape threshold of 20% of improved grassland stock to be under ES low input grassland options is met or exceeded in that NCA)

NCA All low input ES option

uptake expressed as % of

improved grassland stock

(total uptake in ha)

Percentage of total low

input grassland uptake

under low input options

(E/HK2 & E/HL2)



under very low input

options (E/HK3 & E/HL3)

Percentage of other low

input grassland options

(total in ha)

Chalk and limestone mixed ALT

27 – Yorkshire Wolds 33.5 (3118ha) 58 40 2 (49ha)

29 – Howardian Hills 24.9 (1295ha) 76 23 <1 (3ha)

30 – Southern Magnesian Limestone 12.8 (2795ha) 70 29 1 (20ha)

43 – Lincolnshire Wolds 37.1 (2489ha) 45 48 7 (7ha)


Coversands

12.9 (443ha) 46 50 4 (19ha)

47 – Southern Lincolnshire Edge 20.4 (1041ha) 54 46 -

74 – Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire

Wolds

14.8 (2538ha) 56 40 4 (111ha)

75 – Kesteven Uplands 22.8 (1626ha) 59 38 3 (48ha)

76 – North West Norfolk 16.5 (2034ha) 48 50 2 (45ha)

85 – Breckland 13.2 (2056ha) 13 85 2 (40ha)


237








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

87 – East Anglian Chalk 8.1 (1281ha) 76 23 <1 (2ha)

92 – Rockingham Forest 31.2 (2593ha) 70 30 -

93 – High Leicestershire 26 (5046ha) 76 23 1 (57ha)

95 – Northamptonshire Uplands 25.1 (8564ha) 71 28 <1 (17ha)

107 - Cotswolds 20.5 (17017ha) 64 35 <1 (111ha)

110 - Chilterns 11.9 (5310ha) 61 38 <1 (5ha)

116 – Berkshire and Marlborough Downs 19 (4670ha) 44 55 <1 (30ha)

119 – North Downs 13.2 (4923ha) 56 43 <1 (14ha)

125 – South Downs 17.2 (6456ha) 53 45 2 (101ha)

127 – Isle of Wight 13.7 (1682ha) 39 52 9 (154ha)

130 – Hampshire Downs 14.2 (4415ha) 49 50 1 (51ha)

132 – Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire

Downs

25.2 (6087ha) 52 47 <1 (37ha)


Chase

22.6 (7750ha) 62 37 <1 (48ha)

136 – South Purbeck 29.4 (1453ha) 49 46 5 (80ha)

138 – Weymouth Lowlands 18 (897ha) 50 49 1 (12ha)


238








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

140 – Yeovil Scarplands 14.1 (4373ha) 63 36 <1 (20ha)

141 – Mendip Hills 20.1 (2885ha) 72 27 <1 (15ha)

Eastern Arable ALT

1 – North Northumberland Coastal Plain 28.1 (2527ha) 69 28 3 (85ha)

13 – South East Northumberland Coastal

Plain

14.3 (1233ha) 74 21 5 (66ha)

14 – Tyne and Wear Lowlands 15.6 (1389ha) 70 29 <1 (8ha)


Plateau

10.9 (1068ha) 70 30 -

23 – Tees Lowlands 13.3 (3270ha) 69 30 <1 (18ha)

24 – Vale of Mowbray 13.6 (2502ha) 76 24 -

26 – Vale of Pickering 21.2 (1756ha) 74 26 -

28 – Vale of York 14 (3149ha) 68 31 <1 (12ha)

39 – Humberhead Levels 17.2 (2640ha) 46 53 <1 (1ha)

40 – Holderness 22.3 (1724ha) 59 40 <1 (7ha)

41 – Humber Estuary 14.9 (193ha) 58 42 -

42 – Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes 18.1 (1461ha) 55 45 -


239








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

44 – Central Lincolnshire Vale 26.6 (1806ha) 64 35 <1 (5ha)

46 – The Fens 12.8 (3592ha) 31 68 1 (22ha)

48 – Trent and Belvoir Vales 18.9 (4298ha) 68 31 <1 (18ha)

49 -Sherwood 7.8ha (434ha) 22 71 7 (30ha)

77 – North Norfolk Coast 5.9 (96ha) 83 17 -

78 – Central North Norfolk 12.7 (1588ha) 38 55 7 (105ha)

79 – North East Norfolk and Flegg 21 (503ha) 62 38 -

80 – The Broads 11.4 (2126ha) 33 66 1 (28ha)

82 – Suffolk Coast and Heaths 10.4 (1566ha) 23 74 3 (42ha)


Claylands

7.4 (2724ha ) 48 51 1 (39ha)

84 – Mid Norfolk 15.4 (2612ha) 35 50 15 (379ha)


Clayland

5.9 (3175ha) 49 49 2 (74ha)

88 – Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

Claylands

10 (4658ha) 60 39 <1 (6ha)

90 – Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge 20.3 (1142ha) 48 51 1 (17ha)


240








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

SE Mixed Wooded ALT

81 – Greater Thames Estuary 8.5 (1696ha) 28 72 -

111 – Northern Thames Plain 5.2 (3103ha) 50 50 -

113 – North Kent Plain 6.7 (1078ha) 45 55 -

114 – Thames Basin Lowlands 4.8 (373ha) 30 70 -

115 – Thames Valley 4.4 (1131ha) 60 40 -

120 – Wealden Greensand 10.8 (4758ha) 42 41 17 (779ha)

121 – Low Weald 9.4 (7489ha) 66 33 <1 (25ha)

122 – High Weald 10.8 (8370ha) 61 38 <1 (3ha)

123 - Romney Marshes 23.2 (2003ha) 48 52 -

124 – Pevensey Levels 27 (794ha) 64 36 -

126 – South Coast Plain 6.2 (579ha) 40 59 <1 (2ha)

128 – South Hampshire Lowlands 4.1 (498ha) 52 47 1 (7ha)

129 – Thames Basin Heaths 8.9 (2577ha) 63 35 2 (47ha)

131 – New Forest 8.5 (1517ha) 51 47 1 (20ha)

135 – Dorset Heaths 13.3 (2056ha) 56 40 4 (71ha)


241








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

SW Mixed ALT

6 – Solway Basin 15.1 (5915ha) 84 15 <1 (14ha)

7 – West Cumbria Coastal Plain 21.5 (4259ha) 87 11 2 (64ha)

9 – Eden Valley 17.3 (7690ha) 78 21 <1 (3ha)

20 – Morecambe Bay Limestones 12.4 (2678ha) 80 20 -

31 – Morecambe Coast and Lune Estuary 6.9 (440ha) 79 21 -

32 – Lancashire and Amounderness Plain 4.2 (1359ha) 73 26 <1 (8ha)

55 – Manchester Conurbation 5 (241ha) 70 30 -

56 – Lancashire Coal Measures 7.6 (497ha) 67 33 -

57 – Sefton Coast 5.4 (57ha) 21 79 -

58 –Merseyside Conurbation 0.2 (9ha) 44 56 -

59 - Wirral 10.4 (448ha) 73 27 -

60 – Mersey Valley 10.5 (575ha) 52 38 10 (55ha)


Staffordshire Plain

6.2 (9366ha) 63 34 3 (240ha)

62 – Cheshire Sandstone Ridge 9.7 (687ha) 58 38 4 (26ha)


242








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

63 – Oswestry Uplands 14.2 (930ha) 62 37 <1 (3ha)

66 – Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau 19.7 (3797ha) 65 33 2 (81ha)

67 – Cannock Chase and Cank Wood 7.5 (998ha) 73 26 1 (11ha)

68 – Needwood and South Derbyshire

Claylands

7.1 (3247ha) 68 32 -

69 – Trent Valley Washlands 12.9 (1025ha) 67 32 <1 (4ha)

70 – Melbourne Parklands 18.5 (589ha) 59 38 3 (21ha)

71 – Leicestershire and South Derbyshire

Coalfield

7.7 (353ha) 63 36 1 (3ha)

72 – Mease/Sence Lowlands 17.3 (1242ha) 73 26 <1 (6ha)

73 – Charnwood 10.3 (485ha) 75 25 -

89 – Northamptonshire Vales 23.3 (4790ha) 71 28 1 (43ha)

91 – Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge 21.5 (1456ha) 64 35 1 (11ha)

94 – Leicestershire Vales 13.8 (3323ha) 77 22 <1 (15ha)

96 – Dunsmore and Feldon 18.5 (3920ha) 77 22 <1 (26ha)

97 - Arden 12.1 (4785ha) 78 21 <1 (12ha)

100 – Herefordshire Lowlands 26.1 (6033ha) 80 18 2 (104ha)


243








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

101 – Herefordshire Plateau 24.3 (3726ha) 70 29 1 (45ha)

102 – Teme Valley 23 (1910ha) 77 18 5 (97ha)


Severn

19.2 (2067ha) 63 30 7 (146ha)

106 – Severn and Avon Vales 19.6 (11372ha) 73 26 1 (92ha)

108 – Upper Thames Clay Vales 16.2 (10466ha) 67 32 <1 (33ha)

109 –Midvale Ridge 18.8 (2842ha) 63 36 <1 (1ha)

117 – Avon Vales 14.7 (3878ha) 71 29 -

118 – Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges 15.6 (4253ha) 77(l) 23 -

133 – Blackmoor Vale and the Vale of

Wardour

5.5 (2173ha) 62 37 <1 (7ha)

139 – Marshwood and Powerstock Vales 20.2 (1364ha) 50 49 1 (20ha)

142 – Somerset Levels and Moors 15.4 (5286ha) 83 17 -

143 – Mid Somerset Hills 15.8 (2547ha) 70 29 <1 (4ha)


Fringes

8.2 (1275ha) 74 25 1 (17ha)

148 – Devon Redlands 16.9 (5357ha) 72 25 3 (155ha)


244








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

Upland Fringe ALT

2 – Northumberland Sandstone Hills 71.6 (17304ha) 72 27 <1 (107ha)

3 – Cheviot Fringe 45 (7550ha) 67 29 4 (282ha)

11 – Tyne Gap and Hadrian‟s Wall 51.9 (9979ha) 78 21 <1 (13ha)

12 – Mid Northumberland 48.1 (13750ha) 86 13 1 (31ha)

16 – Durham Coalfield Pennine Fringe 26.9 (8073ha) 83 16 <1 (1ha)

17 – Orton Fells 37.3 (5992ha) 81 18 <1 (10ha)

18 – Howgill Fells 35.6 (562ha) 78 21 <1 (1ha)

22 – Pennine Dales Fringe 15.4 (7188ha) 77 22 <1 (10ha)

35 – Lancashire Valleys 17.3 (4983ha) 74 26 -

37 – Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe 5.4 (1126ha) 58 42 -

38 – Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and

Yorkshire Coalfield

5.1 (1965ha) 77 23 -

50 – Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower

Derwent

7.2 (1412ha) 58 41 <1 (1ha)

54 – Manchester Pennine Fringe 8.8 (810ha) 66 34 -

64 – Potteries and Churnet Valley 7.2 (2093ha) 66 34 -


245








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

103 – Malvern Hills 31.4 (794ha) 82 18 -

105 – Forest of Dean and Lower Wye 15.4 (919ha) 77 23 -

144 – Quantock Hills 29.1 (582ha) 55 45 -

147 - Blackdowns 20 (5726ha) 70 29 <1 (11ha)

149 – The Culm 18.5 (23719ha) 84 16 -

151 – South Devon 26.8 (10428ha) 74 25 1 (147ha)

152 – Cornish Killas 17.9 (12502ha) 73 26 1 (84ha)

154 - Hensbarrow 7.7 (281ha) 83 17 -

Upland ALT

4 - Cheviots 146.5 (3965ha) 65 34 1 (34ha)

5 – Border Moors and Forests 103.6 (13349ha) 70 29 <1 (19ha)

8 – Cumbria High Fells 33.3 (13111ha) 76 23 <1 (4ha)

10 – North Pennines 62.6 (24321ha) 77 22 <1 (58ha)

19 – South Cumbria Low Fells 26.6 (8134ha) 81 17 <1 (13ha)

21 – Yorkshire Dales 49.7 (25760ha) 75 34 <1 (37ha)

25 – North Yorkshire Moors and Cleveland 23.8 (9331ha) 65 34 <1 (8ha)


246








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

Hills

33 – Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill 16.8 (8506ha) 81 18 <1 (6ha)

34 – Bowland Fells 48.4 (3991ha) 75 24 <1 (3ha)

36 – Southern Pennines 34 (12426ha) 62 37 <1 (12ha)

51 – Dark Peak 22.2 (4300ha) 44 55 <1 (7ha)

52 – White Peak 22.3 (8787ha) 51 48 <1 (33ha)

53 – South West Peak 16.7 (4165ha) 59 40 <1 (15ha)

65 – Shropshire Hills 26.6 (12696ha) 72 27 1 (162ha)


Hills

15.9 (4343ha) 68 30 2 (100ha)


Hills

45 (3422ha) 79 20 1 (54ha)

145 – Exmoor 22.4 (16390ha) 63 36 <1 (6ha)

150 – Dartmoor 25.6 (6087ha) 61 39 -

153 – Bodmin Moor 21.7 (2854ha) 70 30 -

155 - Carnmenellis 6.3 (334ha) 85 15 -

156 – West Penwith 15.4 (1035ha) 59 41 -


247








(E/HK2 & E/HL2)







(total in ha)

157 – The Lizard 14.7 (629ha) 55 38 7 (41ha)


248

Appendix 6: Total number of trees under ES in-field tree protection options (dominated by

E/HC1 and E/HC2) per NCA, subdivided into options on grassland and options on arable.

(Green tone is where the landscape threshold of 1500 trees to be under ES in-field trees protection options is met or exceeded in that NCA)

NCA Total uptake (Number of trees under

options E/HC1, E/HC1 and OHC1/2)

Number of in-field trees protected on

grassland (Options EC2, HC2 and

OHC2)


arable (Options EC1, HC1 and

OHC1)

Chalk and limestone mixed ALT

27 – Yorkshire Wolds 1395 1260 135

29 – Howardian Hills 311 213 98

30 – Southern Magnesian Limestone 2184 1683 501

43 – Lincolnshire Wolds 876 717 159


Coversands

52 14 38

47 – Southern Lincolnshire Edge 321 290 31

74 – Leicestershire and

Nottinghamshire Wolds

952 797 155

75 – Kesteven Uplands 859 649 210

76 – North West Norfolk 371 326 45

85 – Breckland 926 774 152


249





OHC2)



OHC1)

87 – East Anglian Chalk 617 568 49

92 – Rockingham Forest 1722 1362 360

93 – High Leicestershire 679 534 145

95 – Northamptonshire Uplands 1389 916 473

107 - Cotswolds 7619 6491 1128

110 - Chilterns 1479 1058 421

116 – Berkshire and Marlborough

Downs

1086 841 245

119 – North Downs 2552 2115 437

125 – South Downs 1581 1338 243

127 – Isle of Wight 445 433 12

130 – Hampshire Downs 2917 2309 608

132 – Salisbury Plain and West

Wiltshire Downs

746 628 118


Chase

2180 1772 408

136 – South Purbeck 123 116 7

138 – Weymouth Lowlands 34 34 0


250





OHC2)



OHC1)

140 – Yeovil Scarplands 1898 1585 313

141 – Mendip Hills 521 479 42

Eastern Arable ALT

1 – North Northumberland Coastal

Plain

22 5 17

13 – South East Northumberland

Coastal Plain

133 127 6

14 – Tyne and Wear Lowlands 87 52 35


Plateau

205 191 14

23 – Tees Lowlands 918 752 166

24 – Vale of Mowbray 1227 1084 143

26 – Vale of Pickering 614 543 71

28 – Vale of York 1181 912 269

39 – Humberhead Levels 1171 775 396

40 – Holderness 696 603 93

41 – Humber Estuary 26 24 2

42 – Lincolnshire Coast and Marshes 641 552 89


251





OHC2)



OHC1)

44 – Central Lincolnshire Vale 901 847 54

46 – The Fens 1536 868 668

48 – Trent and Belvoir Vales 1004 549 455

49 -Sherwood 143 84 59

77 – North Norfolk Coast 1 0 1

78 – Central North Norfolk 540 426 114

79 – North East Norfolk and Flegg 282 247 35

80 – The Broads 640 522 118

82 – Suffolk Coast and Heaths 245 115 130


Claylands

920 556 364

84 – Mid Norfolk 886 694 192


Clayland

2518 1888 630

88 – Bedfordshire and

Cambridgeshire Claylands

1618 1092 526

90 – Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge

288 228 60


252





OHC2)



OHC1)

SE Mixed Wooded ALT

81 – Greater Thames Estuary 156 81 75

111 – Northern Thames Plain 2334 1608 726

113 – North Kent Plain 775 754 21

114 – Thames Basin Lowlands 54 41 13

115 – Thames Valley 1154 717 437

120 – Wealden Greensand 2802 2372 430

121 – Low Weald 3812 2853 959

122 – High Weald 3305 2979 326

123 - Romney Marshes 122 51 71

124 – Pevensey Levels 17 14 3

126 – South Coast Plain 92 43 49

128 – South Hampshire Lowlands 467 421 46

129 – Thames Basin Heaths 1480 1130 350

131 – New Forest 899 789 110

135 – Dorset Heaths 783 638 145


253





OHC2)



OHC1)

SW Mixed ALT

6 – Solway Basin 1587 1413 174

7 – West Cumbria Coastal Plain 387 387 0

9 – Eden Valley 3297 3088 209

20 – Morecambe Bay Limestones 897 877 20

31 – Morecambe Coast and Lune

Estuary

111 105 6

32 – Lancashire and Amounderness

Plain

762 716 46

55 – Manchester Conurbation 42 39 3

56 – Lancashire Coal Measures 52 47 5

57 – Sefton Coast 26 22 4

58 –Merseyside Conurbation 33 33 0

59 – Wirral 394 357 37

60 – Mersey Valley 241 168 73


Staffordshire Plain

13444 11073 2371

62 – Cheshire Sandstone Ridge 1738 1312 426


254





OHC2)



OHC1)

63 – Oswestry Uplands 610 596 14

66 – Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau 1611 1177 434

67 – Cannock Chase and Cank

Wood

797 509 288

68 – Needwood and South

Derbyshire Claylands

1876 1505 371

69 – Trent Valley Washlands 369 317 52

70 – Melbourne Parklands 127 57 70

71 – Leicestershire and South

Derbyshire Coalfield

96 92 4

72 – Mease/Sence Lowlands 502 365 137

73 – Charnwood 109 103 6

89 – Northamptonshire Vales 771 551 220

91 – Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge 964 858 106

94 – Leicestershire Vales 428 299 129

96 – Dunsmore and Feldon 911 659 252

97 - Arden 2384 1577 807

100 – Herefordshire Lowlands 3220 2509 711


255





OHC2)



OHC1)

101 – Herefordshire Plateau 2053 1544 509

102 – Teme Valley 458 395 63


Severn

1225 963 262

106 – Severn and Avon Vales 4597 3482 1115

108 – Upper Thames Clay Vales 1195 885 310

109 –Midvale Ridge 610 423 187

117 – Avon Vales 1298 1076 222

118 – Bristol, Avon Valleys and

Ridges

1827 1540 287

133 – Blackmoor Vale and the Vale

of Wardour

1594 1364 230

139 – Marshwood and Powerstock

Vales

331 210 121

142 – Somerset Levels and Moors 245 229 16

143 – Mid Somerset Hills 1072 893 179


Fringes

239 165 74

148 – Devon Redlands 1785 1496 289


256





OHC2)



OHC1)

Upland Fringe ALT

2 – Northumberland Sandstone Hills 506 502 4

3 – Cheviot Fringe 369 328 41

11 – Tyne Gap and Hadrian‟s Wall 1106 1065 41

12 – Mid Northumberland 1143 931 212

16 – Durham Coalfield Pennine

Fringe

945 821 124

17 – Orton Fells 1332 1326 6

18 – Howgill Fells 71 71 0

22 – Pennine Dales Fringe 4172 3843 329

35 – Lancashire Valleys 2658 2658 0

37 – Yorkshire Southern Pennine

Fringe

876 852 24

38 – Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire

and Yorkshire Coalfield

1302 1056 246

50 – Derbyshire Peak Fringe and

Lower Derwent

360 331 29

54 – Manchester Pennine Fringe 194 194 0


257





OHC2)



OHC1)

64 – Potteries and Churnet Valley 1599 1442 157

103 – Malvern Hills 194 119 72

105 – Forest of Dean and Lower Wye 698 554 144

144 – Quantock Hills 293 273 20

147 - Blackdowns 1782 1570 158

149 – The Culm 5494 5283 211

151 – South Devon 818 708 110

152 – Cornish Killas 1643 1524 119

154 - Hensbarrow 13 13 0

Upland ALT

4 - Cheviots - - -

5 – Border Moors and Forests 945 940 5

8 – Cumbria High Fells 1764 1756 8

10 – North Pennines 3368 3355 13

19 – South Cumbria Low Fells 1612 1612 0

21 – Yorkshire Dales 5461 5437 24


258





OHC2)



OHC1)

25 – North Yorkshire Moors and

Cleveland Hills

2735 2685 50

33 – Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill 4712 4657 55

34 – Bowland Fells 553 553 0

36 – Southern Pennines 1303 1303 0

51 – Dark Peak 794 635 159

52 – White Peak 1474 1474 0

53 – South West Peak 741 741 0

65 – Shropshire Hills 5563 4661 902

98 – Clun and North West

Herefordshire Hills

1322 1124 198

99 – Clun and North West

Herefordshire Hills

836 772 64

145 – Exmoor 1176 1158 18

150 – Dartmoor 517 501 16

153 – Bodmin Moor 136 136 0

155 - Carnmenellis 29 29 0

156 – West Penwith 42 42 0


259





OHC2)



OHC1)

157 – The Lizard 95 75 20


260

Appendix 7: ES historic environment options uptake per NCA.

Retention and management of archaeology on arable options are dominated by E/HD2, E/HD3, HD6/7. Retention and management of

archaeology on grass options are dominated by E/HD5. Removal of archaeological features from cultivation options are dominated by E/HD2,

E/HD3, HD6/7.

The stock figures have been identified as follows:

a) Scheduled Monument and SHINE sites that according to Land Cover Map 2007 are on arable b) Scheduled Monument and SHINE sites that according to Land Cover Map 2007 are on grassland

c) Scheduled Monuments at risk that are on arable

(Green tone is where the landscape threshold is met or exceeded in that NCA (50% for each option group). Darker green indicates that total uptake is more than 100% of the stock figure)

NCA Option bundle Total stock figure per option

bundle (ha)

Total uptake (ha) Uptake as a percentage of stock

figure

Chalk and Limestone Mixed

30 – Southern

Magnesian

Limestone



2959.9 152 5.19



713.2 467 65.5



338.3 152 44.9

92 – Rockingham

Forest



805.2 58 7.2


261


bundle (ha)


figure



698.4 256 36.7



77.4 58 74.9

95 –

Northamptonshire

Uplands



1810.6 235 13



4526.3 1685 37.2



355.6 235 66.1

107 - Cotswolds Retention and management of


4317.2 1840 42.6



4762.8 2332 49



719.9 1840 255.6

110 - Chilterns Retention and management of


2985.6 328 11



2040.6 242 11.9



392.5 328 83.6


262


bundle (ha)


figure

116 – Berkshire

and Marlborough

Downs



2035.5 4312 211.8



1676.4 1430 85.3



757 4312 569.7

119 – North

Downs



463.2 302 65.2



450.1 111 24.7



178.3 302 169.4

125 – South

Downs



285.7 2774 970.9



838 2311 275.8



705.7 2774 393.1

127 – Isle of

Wight



28.6 110 384.9

Retention and management of 75.7 19 25.1


263


bundle (ha)


figure




64.5 110 170.5

130 – Hampshire

Downs



570.8 2092 366.5



567 395 69.7



911.5 2092 229.5

132 – Salisbury

Plain and West

Wiltshire Downs



1285 2847 221.4



3097 6878 222.1



1439 2847 197.7

136 – South

Purbeck



100.9 35 34.7



602.2 251 41.7



100.5 35 34.8

141 – Mendip Retention and management of 311.5 99 31.8


264


bundle (ha)


figure

Hills archaeology on arable



1243.8 1150 92.5



132.9 99 74.5

Eastern Arable

39 – Humberhead

Levels



4751 87 1.8



879.1 319 36.3



67.8 87 128.4

48 – Trent and

Belvoir Vales



2571.1 294 11.4



1134.5 409 36.1



328.9 294 89.4

77 – North Norfolk

Coast



- - -



- - -


265


bundle (ha)


figure



- - -

80 – The Broads Retention and management of


878.9 82 9.3



426 51 12



23.5 82 349.6

82 – Suffolk Coast

and Heaths



1016.2 46 4.5



315.6 20 6.3



79.1 46 58.2

86 – South Suffolk

and North Essex

Clayland



2255.5 548 24.3



926.7 150 16.2



300 548 182.7


266


bundle (ha)


figure

SE Mixed (Wooded)

81 – Greater

Thames Estuary



246.8 44 17.8



270 720 266.7



44.9 44 98

121 – Low Weald Retention and management of


113.2 103 91



176.6 62 35.1



57.6 103 178.7

124 – Pevensey

Levels



3.8 30 798.6



14.2 122 861.9



10.3 30 290.2

126 – South

Coast Plain



73.4 1 1.4


267


bundle (ha)


figure



47.6 20 42



79.3 1 1.3

131 – New Forest Retention and management of


- - -



146.2 68 46.5



- - -

135 – Dorset

Heaths



48.8 71 145.4



215.8 142 65.8



88.1 71 80.6

Western Mixed

20 – Morecambe

Bay Limestones



- - -



165.5 415 250.8

Removal of archaeological - - -


268


bundle (ha)


figure


31 – Morecambe

Coast and Lune

Estuary



- - -



13 51 392.8



- - -

32 – Lancashire

and

Amounderness

Plain



19.8 32 161.4



18.9 464 2449



7.8 32 409.7

61 – Shropshire,

Cheshire and

Staffordshire Plain



2580.3 235 9.1



4081.3 1428 35



311.1 235 75.5

62 – Cheshire

Sandstone Ridge



151.8 12 7.9

Retention and management of 240.4 87 36.2


269


bundle (ha)


figure




37.6 12 31.9

67 – Cannock

Chase and Cank

Wood



903.2 4 0.4



735.5 74 10.1



557.6 4 0.7

89 –

Northamptonshire

Vales



1844.2 619 33.6



1605.9 964 60



225.6 619 274.4

97 - Arden Retention and management of


1490.6 12 0.8



2450.6 539 22



84.2 12 14.2

104 – South Retention and management of 154.9 41 26.5


270


bundle (ha)


figure

Herefordshire and

Over Severn




1449.6 203 135.7



47 41 87.3

108 – Upper

Thames Clay

Vales



7573.3 988 13



7090.3 1762 24.9



964.9 988 102.4

Upland Fringe

38 –

Nottinghamshire,

Derbyshire and

Yorkshire

Coalfield



653.5 22 3.4



361.2 56 0



99.3 22 15.5

103 – Malvern

Hills



- - -



157.5 335 212.8


271


bundle (ha)


figure



- - -

144 – Quantock

Hills



8 54.1 14.8



0 103.7 0



8 12.4 64.3

147 - Blackdowns Retention and management of


199.8 41 20.5



273.1 229 83.8



70.4 41 58.2

151 – South

Devon



427.8 301 70.4



293.8 358 121.8



243.6 301 123.5

152 – Cornish

Killas



755.4 311 41.2


272


bundle (ha)


figure



463.5 293 63.2



264.7 311 117.5

Upland

19 – South

Cumbria Low

Fells



- - -



369.8 837 226.3



- - -

53 – South West

Peak



- - -



162.5 200 123.1



- - -

65 – Shropshire

Hills



510.9 187 36.6



1666.6 1553 93.2


273


bundle (ha)


figure



179.8 187 104

98 – Clun and

North West

Herefordshire

Hills



311.7 194 62.2



507.7 382 75.2



202.8 1994 95.7

145 – Exmoor Retention and management of


396 20 5.1



4386.1 1406 32.1



86.2 20 23.2

153 – Bodmin

Moor



121.5 9 7.4



912.9 199 21.8



868.5 9 1

156 – West Retention and management of 429.6 19 4.4


274


bundle (ha)


figure

Penwith archaeology on arable



578.5 191 33



222.3 19 8.5

157 – The Lizard Retention and management of


66.9 77 115



33.2 97 292



50.4 77 152.9


275


276


277

Appendix 8: The assessment of the six ALTs


278



Key characteristics/ elements • Relatively low woodland cover • More extensive cover on scarp slopes, by streams, on drift deposits • Beech plantings often characteristic • Woodland associated with country houses and estates



Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of hedgerow length with hedgerow tree protection under ES • Number of in-field trees protected under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 3986ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 1951km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 41,377no

Stock • 207,510ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 50,437km woodland perimeter



Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field trees probably neutral


known

• No data




• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field tree protection – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly large, planned enclosures with thorn hedges or stone walls (the latter on

limestone) • Remnant ancient enclosures on scarp slopes

Objectives • Management and restoration of hedgerows and drystone walls • Reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Stone wall protection and management • Field corners and buffer strips

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • % of stone walls managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 48,552km • Stone wall protection and management (ELS) 583km • Also 6507ha of field corners (mainly HLS) and 9848ha of wider buffer strips in

arable (ELS and HLS)

Stock • 81,600km of hedgerows • 12,000km of stone walls

Indicator results • 60% of hedgerows managed under ES • 4.9% of stone walls protected and managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES • 20% of stone walls are managed under ES


279

Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Stone wall protection and management neutral • Field corners and buffer strips may reinforce field patterns


known

• No data




• Hedgerow management – yes • Stone wall management – yes but uptake could be much improved • Field margins – yes but greater uptake of narrow buffer strips in arable would

be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly arable cropping • Some pasture for dairy, cattle, sheep and mixed, especially on scarp slopes

and in valleys

Objectives • Retention and management of traditional permanent grasslands • Arable reversion to pasture

Relevant ES option types • Miixed stocking • Semi-improved or wet grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots)

Indicators • % permanent pasture managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • No of fallow plots

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 25,462ha • Semi-improved grassland (HLS) 18,202ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 117,841ha • Fallow plots (mainly HLS) 8274 plots

Stock • 672,449ha permanent pasture (LCM) • 106,652ha rough grassland (LCM) • 565,797ha improved grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 3.8% permanent pasture managed as mixed stocking under ES • 17% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under


Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of permanent pasture managed as mixed stocking under ES • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland under ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 500 or more fallow plots on average per NCA

Effects overall • Permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking neutral • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland positive • Fallow plots neutral


known

• No data




• Mixed stocking – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Semi-improved grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Low input grassland – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Vernacular buildings of brick and flint, limestone or ironstone depending on

geology • Large, courtyard plan farmsteads in areas of planned enclosure



280




Stock • 76,215 listed buildings (surrogate stock measure only)

Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 2560no or 3.4% of listed buildings maintained

under ES




known

• No data




• Historic buildings – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Rich archaeological remains from a range of periods • Many fine country houses and designed parklands




Uptake • Archaeology (all area options) 20,864ha on arable (of which 3718ha

archaeological features taken out of cultivation) (mainly HLS) • Archaeology (all area options) 22,552ha on grass (mainly ELS) • Also historical and archaeological feature protection 7365no • Parkland management and restoration 3210ha (HLS)

Stock • 36,483ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 34,133ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 69% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 93,340ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 57% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 66% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 3.4% of parkland under ES options for parkland


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable positive • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland neutral


known

• No data




• Archaeology – yes • Feature protection - yes • Parkland – yes but uptake could be much improved


281


Key characteristics/ elements • Semi-natural calcareous grassland • Areas of heath on coversands






(HLS) 27,262ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 4125ha

Stock • 44,550ha of calcareous and neutral grassland (LCM) • 2863ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)







known

• No data




• Species-rich grassland – yes • Lowland heathland – yea

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Dramatic cliffs where chalk meets the coast (but little coastline overall)

Objectives

Relevant ES option types • No relevant options

Overview

In this mainly arable ALT, ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of retention and

management of hedgerows, low input grasslands, archaeology on both arable and grassland, species-rich grassland

and lowland heathland. It seems to be having more limited impact on woodlands, in-field trees, characteristic drystone

walls, rough grassland, historic farm buildings and parklands. Means of increasing uptake of options that would

benefit these landscape elements should be explored. ELS is the main driver in relation to hedgerows, low input

grasslands, and archaeology on grassland; while HLS is also influential in relation to archaeology on arable land,

semi-natural grasslands and heaths. Overall impact: Positive.


282

EASTERN ARABLE ALT


Key characteristics/ elements • Limited woodland • Woodland concentrated on valley sides and heavy clays • Hedgerow trees, tree clumps and shelterbelts

Objectives • Active woodland management • Protection and renewal of in-field and hedgerow trees, tree clumps and

shelterbelts

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field trees • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees


Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 2740ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 666km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 27,335no • Protection of hedgerow trees 4.8ha • Establishment of hedgerow trees 789no

Stock • 113,096ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 33,222km woodland perimeter • 84,330km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 2.4% of woodland managed under ES • 2.0% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 27,335no in-field trees protected under ES • 4.8ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 789no of hedgerow trees established under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field tree protection probably neutral • Hedgerow tree protection neutral • Hedgerow tree establishment neutral





• Woodland management – yes but uptake could be improved • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment – no, greater uptake would be

very beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Medium to large rectilinear parliamentary enclosure fields • Fields separated by thorn hedges or drainage ditches • Some smaller, earlier enclosures with mixed hedges near villages and on

clay

Objectives • Management of hedgerows and ditches to ensure retention and

reinforcement of field patterns

Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Ditch management • Field margins


283

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • Km of hedges and ditches managed under ES • Km of ditches managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 45,576km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 9105km • Ditch management (mainly ELS) 18,198km • Also 8376ha of field corners and 12,432ha of wider buffer strips in arable

(both mainly ELS)

Stock • 84,300km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 54% of hedgerows managed under ES • 9105km of hedges and ditches managed under ES • 18,198km of ditches managed under ES


Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Hedge and ditch management probably positive • Ditch management probably neutral • Field corners and buffer strips may reinforce field patterns





• Hedgerow management – yes • Hedge and ditch management – yes • Field margins – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly arable cropping with a very wide range of crops • Horticulture in the Fens • Pasture generally limited to valley floors and coastal fringes

Objectives • Retain/ manage/ restore traditional permanent pastures


Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • No of fallow plots

Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 20,841ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 64,449ha • Fallow plots (mainly HLS) 9369no

Stock • 62,252ha rough grassland (LCM) • 415,597ha improved grassland (LCM)




ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 500 or more fallow plots on average per NCA

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots neutral




• Semi-improved and wet grassland – yes • Low input grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


284



Key characteristics/ elements • Farmsteads mainly sandstone or brick and pantile • Localised flint, timber frame and thatch in East Anglia






Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 3471no or 5.3% of listed buildings

maintained under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Many medieval sites and features • History of drainage and coastal reclamation from 17th century onwards • 18th century country houses and parklands


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland • Water features

Indicators • % of archaeological resource under ES options for archaeology • % of parkland under ES options for parkland • No of water features per NCA managed or restored under ES


archaeological features taken out of cultivation) (mainly HLS) • Archaeology (all area options) 9585ha on grass (mainly ELS) • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 3370ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 558no

Stock • 40,684ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 18,999ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 66% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 45,009ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 8.9% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 50% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 7.5% of registered parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 50% of archaeological resource managed for archaeology under ES • 10% of parkland resource managed as such under ES • 20no water features per NCA managed or restored under ES

Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland neutral


285

• Water features positive





• Archaeology – no for arable, yes for grass • Parkland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Water features – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Remnant valley and coastal wetlands and marshes • Remnant heathlands on poorer sandy soils


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Wetland • Lowland heathland


natural grassland under ES • % of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES


(HLS) 3617ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of wetland (HLS) 2217ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 1574ha

Stock • 31483ha of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland (LCM) • 5130ha fen marsh and swamp (LCM) • 4839ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM)

Indicator results • 11% of LCM acid, neutral and calcareous grassland area managed as

species-rich grassland under ES • 43% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES • 33% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland managed as species-rich

semi-natural grassland under ES • 10% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Fen marsh and swamp positive • Lowland heathland positive





• Species-rich grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Fen marsh and swamp - yes • Lowland heathland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Sandy beaches, dunes, coastal grazing marshes, intertidal mudflats, salt

marshes and broads

Objectives • Conservation and management of these features

Relevant ES option types • Salt marsh • Sand dune

Indicators • % of salt marsh managed under ES • % of sand dune managed under ES

Uptake • 2067ha management/ restoration of salt marsh (HLS) • 972ha management/ restoration/ creation of sand dune (HLS)

Stock • 7352ha of salt marsh (LCM) • 3484ha of salt marsh (LCM)


286

Indicator results • 28% of salt marsh managed/ restored under ES • 28% of sand dune managed/ restored/ created under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of salt marsh managed/ restored under ES • 10% of sand dune managed/ restored/ created under ES

Effects overall • Salt marsh positive • Sand dune positive





• Salt marsh – yes • Sand dune – yes

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of retention and management of hedgerows and

ditches, semi-improved and wet grassland, archaeology on grassland, water features, fen marsh and swamp, lowland

heathland, salt marsh and sand dunes. It seems to be having limited impact on woodlands and hedgerow trees,

historic farm buildings, archaeology on arable land, parkland, and species-rich grassland. Means of increasing uptake

of these options should be explored. ELS is the main driver in relation to hedgerows and archaeology on grassland;

while HLS is also influential in relation to semi-improved and wet grassland, water features, fen marsh and swamp,

lowland heathland, salt marsh and sand dunes. Overall impact: Positive.


287

SOUTH EAST MIXED WOODED ALT


Key characteristics/ elements • Relatively high woodland cover • Ancient and coppice woodlands including royal hunting forests • Remnant pre-enclosure woodlands (shaws) • Extensive areas of heathland converted to conifer plantations • Traditional orchards, especially in Kent

Objectives • Traditional management of ancient woodlands and coppice • Protection of shaws and small woodlands to encourage regeneration • Management/ restoration/ creation of traditional orchards

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • Orchards

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • % of orchards managed under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 2884ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 1183km • Management/ restoration/ creation of traditional orchards (HLS) 106ha

Stock • 202,696ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 42,444km broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter • 2497ha traditional orchards

Indicator results • 1.4% of woodland managed under ES • 2.7% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 4.2% of traditional orchards managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 5% of woodlands managed under ES • 10% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 5% of traditional orchards managed under ES

Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • Orchards neutral





• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial Orchards –

yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Small, irregular fields with mixed hedgerows • Larger rectilinear fields on areas of former heath, enclosed by thorn hedges • Coastal reclamation enclosed by ditches and dykes

Objectives • Management of hedgerows and ditches to ensure retention and


Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Hedge and ditch management • Ditch management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips, field corners)


Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 7877km • Hedge and ditch management (ELS) 1241km • Ditch management (mainly ELS) 2397km • Limited uptake of features with potential negative effects


288

Stock • 42,860km of hedgerows



Effects overall • Hedgerow management neutral • Hedge and ditch management probably neutral • Ditch management probably neutral





• Hedgerow management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedge and ditch management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Ditch management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly pastoral in character • Unimproved wet pasture on coastal grazing marshes • Also significant areas of cropping and horticulture

Objectives • Retain mainly pastoral or mixed farming character

Relevant ES option types • Mixed stocking • Semi-improved and wet grassland management/ restoration/ creation • Low input grassland • Arable crops (potential negative effects from fallow plots)

Indicators • % of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • % of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under ES • % of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • No of fallow plots

Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 8189ha • Semi-improved and wet grassland (HLS) 19,035ha • Permanent grassland with low inputs (mainly ELS) 39,240ha • Fallow plots 1295no

Stock • 458,548ha permanent pasture • 34,787ha rough grassland (LCM) • 423,761ha improved grassland (LCM)

Indicator results • 1.8% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 55% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under

ES • 9.3% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking under ES • 20% of rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland under

ES • 20% of improved grassland managed as low input grassland under ES • 500 or more fallow plots on average per NCA

Effects overall • Permanent grassland managed as mixed stocking neutral • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland positive • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots neutral





• Mixed stocking – no, very limited uptake • Semi-improved grassland – yes • Low input grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial



289

Key characteristics/ elements • Wealth and diversity of historic buildings and farmsteads • Brick, tile hung and weatherboarded most common • Distinctive features such as threshing barns and oast houses • Many pre-1750 buildings






Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 507no or 0.9% of listed buildings maintained

under ES







• Historic buildings – no, very low uptake


Key characteristics/ elements • Many prehistoric remains • Relics of Wealden iron industry, notably hammer ponds • Distinctive military heritage on coast • Large houses set in historic parklands





archaeological features taken out of cultivation) (mainly HLS) • Archaeology (all area options, mainly ELS) 2540ha on grass (mainly ELS) • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 9771ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 350no

Stock • 2999ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 4111ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 67% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 52,816ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens

Indicator results • 26% of archaeology on arable managed for archaeology under ES • 62% of archaeology on grass managed for archaeology under ES • 19% of parks and gardens area managed or restored under ES


Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland positive • Water features positive


290





• Archaeology – yes but uptake could be improved on arable • Parkland – yes • Water features – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Acid and neutral grassland, lawns and wood pasture • Lowland heathland • Riparian wet woods and water meadows


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Lowland heathland • Wetland


grassland under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES • % of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES


4589ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 28,871ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of wetland (HLS) 622ha

Stock • 17,703ha of acid and neutral grassland (LCM) • 24,953ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM) • 626ha fen marsh and swamp (LCM)

Indicator results • 26% of LCM acid and neutral grassland area managed as species-rich

grassland under ES • 116% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES • 99% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES


grassland under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES • 20% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland positive • Lowland heathland positive • Wetland positive





• Species-rich grassland – yes • Lowland heathland – yes • Wetland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Extensive coastal salt marshes • Cliffs, estuaries, creeks and beaches







291








• Salt marsh – yes • Sand dune – yes

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of semi-improved and wet grassland, archaeology

on grassland, parkland, water features and semi-natural habitats. However it seems to be having much less influence

on woodlands, traditional orchards, hedgerows and historic farm buildings; and only limited influence on archaeology

on arable land. Greater uptake of options for management and restoration of these elements would further benefit the

landscape. ELS is the main driver in relation to archaeology on grassland but HLS is much more influential in this

ALT, especially in relation to semi-improved and wet grassland, parkland, water features, semi-natural habitats and

coastal features. Overall impact: Positive.


292

WESTERN MIXED ALT


Key characteristics/ elements • Relatively low woodland cover • But many hedgerow trees, shelterbelts, small farm woodlands and estate

parklands • Traditional orchards

Objectives • Active management, especially of shelterbelts and small woodlands) • In-field trees • Protection and renewal of hedgerow trees • Management/ restoration/ creation of traditional orchards

Relevant ES option types • Woodland management • Woodland fencing • In-field tree protection (significant uptake, although in-field trees not named

as a key characteristic) • Protection of hedgerow trees • Establishment of hedgerow trees • Orchards

Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES • ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • no of hedgerow trees established under ES • % of traditional orchards managed under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 3045ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 2062km • In-field trees protected (ELS) 73,594no • Protection of hedgerow trees 4.8ha • Establishment of hedgerow trees 156no • Management/ restoration/ creation of traditional orchards (HLS) 786ha

Stock • 148,064ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 45,097km woodland perimeter • 102,900km of hedgerows • 8547ha of traditional orchards

Indicator results • 2.1% of woodland managed under ES • 4.6% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 73,594no of in-field trees protected under ES • 4.8ha of hedgerow tree protection under ES • 156no of hedgerow trees established under ES • 9.2% of traditional orchards managed under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field trees probably positive • Hedgerow tree protection neutral • Hedgerow tree establishment neutral • Orchards positive





• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Hedgerow tree protection and establishment – no, uptake would be very

beneficial • Orchards – yes


293


• Key characteristics/ elements • Medium size fields divided by hedges • In coastal areas and levels, large rectilinear pastures and commons enclosed

mainly by ditches • Stone walls also locally characteristic

• Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries to ensure retention and reinforcement of field patterns

• Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Ditch management • Stone wall protection and management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips)

• Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • Km of ditches managed under ES • % of stone walls protected and managed under ES

• Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 50,561km • Ditch management (mainly ELS) 3877km • Stone wall protection and management 1679km • Limited uptake of features with potential negative effects

• Stock • 102,900km of hedgerows • 11,900km of stone walls

• Indicator results • 49% of hedgerows managed under ES • 3877km of ditches managed under ES • 14% of stone walls protected and managed under ES

• Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES • Km of ditches managed under ES • 20% of stone walls are protected and managed under ES

• Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Ditch management probably neutral • Stone wall retention and management neutral

• Distribution of effects if known • No data

• Are the ES option types with greatest potential landscape benefit being taken up?

• Hedgerow management – yes • Ditch management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Stone wall protection and management - yes but greater uptake would be

beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Dairy farming on improved pasture is prevalent • Beef and sheep farming, mixed arable cropping and market gardening are

also common

Objectives • Retain balance between pasture and arable • Ensure pastoral areas (especially floodplain) retain pastoral character • Conserve remaining areas of unimproved grassland



Uptake • Semi-improved and wet grassland (mainly HLS) 18,320ha • Permanent grassland with low/ very low inputs (mainly ELS) 147,908ha • Fallow plots 5350no

Stock • 113,089ha rough grassland (LCM) • 955,840ha improved grassland (LCM)






294

• 500 or more fallow plots on average per NCA

Effects overall • Rough grassland managed as semi-improved or wet grassland neutral • Improved grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Fallow plots neutral





• Semi-improved and wet grassland – yes but uptake could be greater • Low input grassland – yes but uptake could be greater


Key characteristics/ elements • Historic buildings in a variety of traditional materials • Distinctive hop kilns, cider houses and cattle housing in some areas • Extensive survival of late 17th century farm buildings





Stock • 90,012no listed buildings (surrogate stock measure only)


maintained under ES • Also 3875no capital items (exceptionally high – check)


Effects overall • Historic farm buildings probably positive (if capital items correct)







Key characteristics/ elements • Range of prehistoric, Roman, medieval and other remains • Widespread ridge and furrow in Midlands • Ancient parklands and designed landscapes • Legacy of wetland reclamation


Relevant ES option types • Archaeology • Parkland • Water features



archaeological features taken out of cultivation) (mainly HLS) • Archaeology (all area options) 20,665ha on grass (mainly ELS) • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 2152ha • Water feature management or restoration (HLS) 796no


295

Stock • 31,538ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 35,652ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 71% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 70456ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens



Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parklands neutral • Water features neutral





• Archaeology on arable – no, quite limited uptake • Archaeology on grass – yes • Parkland – no, very limited uptake, greater uptake would have landscape

benefits • Water features – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial


Key characteristics/ elements • Species rich grassland • Remnant lowland heath • Lowland raised bog, mires and mosses


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland • Lowland heathland • Wetland (fen and reedbed)


natural grassland under ES • % of lowland heathland managed as such under ES • % of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES


(HLS) 8804ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of lowland heathland (HLS) 4322ha • Management/ restoration/ creation of wetland (HLS) 1735ha

Stock • 45,927 ha of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland (LCM) • 8104ha dwarf shrub heath (LCM) • 552ha fen marsh and swamp (LCM)

Indicator results • 19% of LCM acid, neutral and calcareous grassland area managed as

species-rich grassland under ES • 53% of LCM dwarf shrub heath area managed as such under ES • 314% of LCM fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of acid, neutral and calcareous grassland managed as species-rich

semi-natural grassland under ES • 10% of lowland heathland managed as such under ES • 20% of fen marsh and swamp managed as wetland under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Lowland heathland positive • Wetland positive





• Species-rich grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Lowland heathland – yes • Wetland – yes


296

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Coastal cliffs, intertidal mudflats, creeks, beaches, dunes and estuaries





Stock • 10,273ha of salt marsh (LCM) • 4540ha of salt marsh (LCM)

Indicator results • 43% of salt marsh managed/ restored under ES • 6.2% of sand dune managed/ restored/ created under ES


Effects overall • Salt marsh positive • Sand dune neutral





• Salt marsh – yes • Sand dune – yes but uptake could be improved

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of management of in-field trees, orchards,

hedgerows, historic buildings, archaeology on grassland, lowland heathland, wetland and salt marsh. It seems to be

having more limited impact on woodlands, hedgerow trees, locally distinctive ditches and stone walls, traditional

pastures, archaeology on grassland, parkland, water features and sand dunes. Means of increasing uptake of these

options (particularly those relating to the area‟s characteristic mature hedgerow trees and parkland) should be

explored. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees, hedgerows and archaeology on grassland; while HLS also

affects orchards, historic buildings, lowland heathland, wetland and salt marsh. Overall impact: Positive.


297

UPLAND FRINGE ALT


Key characteristics/ elements • Broadleaved woodland on steep slopes and valley sides • Tree-lined streams, riparian and estate woodland • Traditional orchards in parts of the south-west

Objectives • Active woodland management • Protection and renewal of prominent in-field trees and tree clumps • Management/ restoration/ creation of traditional orchards


Indicators • % of woodland managed under ES • % of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • No of in-field trees protected under ES • % of traditional orchards managed under ES

Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 2267ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 1908km • In-field trees protected (mainly ELS) 33,320no • Management/ restoration/ creation of traditional orchards (HLS) 173ha

Stock • 145,653ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 34,521ha broadleaved and mixed woodland perimeter • 1663ha traditional orchards

Indicator results • 1.6% of woodland managed under ES • 5.5% of woodland with perimeter fencing maintained under ES • 33,320no in-field trees protected under ES • 10% of traditional orchards managed under ES


Effects overall • Woodland management neutral • Woodland perimeter fencing neutral • In-field trees probably positive • Orchards positive





• Woodland management – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – no, greater uptake would be beneficial • In-field trees – yes but even greater uptake would be beneficial and there is

little evidence of renewal • Orchards – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Distinctive enclosed medieval strip fields around older settlements • Ancient, irregular hedged fields on lower ground • Larger, rectangular rectilinear parliamentary enclosures on higher ground

with drystone walls, hedges or hedgebanks

Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries to ensure retention and


Relevant ES option types • Hedgerow management • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank management • Stone wall protection and management

Indicators • % of hedgerows managed under ES • % of stone-faced hedgebanks and earth banks managed under ES


298

• % of stone walls protected and managed under ES

Uptake • Hedgerow management (mainly ELS) 26,242km • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank (ELS) 2740km • Stone wall protection and management (ELS) 4451km

Stock • 55,700km of hedgerows • 12,300km of banks • 12,900km of stone walls

Indicator results • 47% of hedgerows managed under ES • 22% of stone-faced hedgebanks and earth banks managed under ES • 35% of stone walls protected and managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES • 20% of stone-faced hedgebanks and earth banks are managed under ES • 20% of stone walls are protected and managed under ES

Effects overall • Hedgerow management positive • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank management positive • Stone wall protection and management positive





• Hedgerow management – yes • Earth bank management – yes • Stone wall protection and management– yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Mainly pasture with both improved and unimproved grassland

Objectives • Retention and management of permanent (especially unimproved)

grassland, improving texture and diversity

Relevant ES option types • Mixed stocking • Permanent low input grassland management • Rough grassland management


Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 84,233ha • Permanent low input grassland management (mainly ELS) 134,960ha • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture under ES (ELS and HLS)

9868ha




Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking neutral • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland neutral • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture neutral





• Mixed stocking – yes but uptake could be improved • Low input grassland – yes but uptake could be improved • Rough pasture – yes but uptake could be improved


Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional buildings mainly of stone with stone, slate or pantile roofs in

north; of chert, flint, cob, render and other materials in south-west


299

• Very high number of surviving traditional farmsteads





Stock • 47,071 listed buildings (surrogate stock measure)


maintained under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Widespread prehistoric and medieval remains • Remains of rural extraction and processing industries eg coal, textiles, tin;

mills, canals and railways • Large country houses and designed parklands





archaeological features taken out of cultivation) (mainly HLS) • Archaeology (all area options) 22,258ha on grass (mainly ELS) • Parkland management or restoration (HLS) 1447ha

Stock • 3877ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 10,463ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 66% of stock vulnerable to change as a result of land management practice • 30,506ha registered and unregistered parks and gardens



Effects overall • Archaeology on arable neutral • Archaeology on grass positive • Parkland neutral





• Archaeology – no for arable, yes for grass • Parkland – yes but uptake could be improved


300


Key characteristics/ elements • Unimproved species-rich grassland and mires • Varied moorland and heathland communities


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management and restoration • Moorland maintenance and restoration • Cattle grazing on moorland

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed under ES as species-rich semi-natural

grassland • % of moorland managed as such under ES • % of moorland with cattle grazing under ES


7882ha • Maintenance and restoration of moorland (mainly ELS) 36,330ha • Cattle grazing on moorland (mainly ELS) 13,767ha

Stock • 88,937ha of rough grassland (LCM) • 68,374ha of moorland (LCM acid grassland, dwarf shrub heath and bog)

Indicator results • 8.9% of rough grassland area managed/ restored as species-rich grassland • 53% of moorland managed as such under ES • 20% of moorland with cattle grazing under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as species-rich semi-natural grassland

under ES • 50% of moorland managed as such under ES • 5% of moorland with cattle grazing under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Moorland positive • Cattle grazing on moorland positive





• Species-rich grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Moorland – yes • Cattle grazing on moorland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Diverse coastal features including cliffs, salt marshes, mudflats, sand dunes










Are the ES option types with • Salt marsh – yes


301



• Sand dune – yes •

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of protection of in-field trees and restoration of

traditional orchards, as well as retention and management of traditional field boundaries, archaeology on grassland,

moorland and coastal features. It seems to be having less impact on retention and management of woodlands,

permanent pasture, historic farm buildings, archaeology on arable land, parkland, and species-rich grassland –

although all of these are key characteristic landscape elements. Means of increasing uptake of these options should

be explored. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees, field boundaries, archaeology on grassland, and

moorland; while HLS appears more influential in relation to orchards and coastal features. Overall impact: Positive.


302

UPLANDS ALT


Key characteristics/ elements • Broadleaved woodland, often ancient, in steep sided river valleys and

upland edges • Shelter planting around farms

Objectives • Active woodland management • Exclusion of livestock



Uptake • Woodland management options (HLS) 4755ha • Maintenance of woodland fences (ELS) 1556km • Protection of in-field trees (mainly ELS) 49,875no

Stock • 117,893ha broadleaved and mixed woodland • 18,050km woodland perimeter








• Woodland management – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Woodland fencing – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Protection of in-field trees – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Generally open and unenclosed on the hills • Larger, regular mainly walled enclosures on hill slopes • Small fields bounded by mixed hedges and hedgebanks in the valleys

Objectives • Management of traditional field boundaries to ensure retention and


Relevant ES option types • Stone wall protection and management • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank management • Hedgerow management • Field margins (potential negative effects from buffer strips, field corners)

Indicators • % of stone walls protected and managed under ES • % of stone-faced hedgebanks managed under ES • % of hedgerows managed under ES

Uptake • Stone wall protection and management (ELS) 16,134km • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank management (ELS) 2029km • Hedgerow management (ELS and HLS) 11,919km • Few features with potential negative effects

Stock • 35,500km of stone walls • 6300km of stone-faced hedgebanks • 29,200km of hedgerows

Indicator results • 45% of stone walls protected and managed under ES • 32% of stone-faced hedgebanks and earth banks managed under ES


303

• 41% of hedgerows managed under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of stone walls are protected and managed under ES • 20% of stone-faced hedgebanks and earth banks are managed under ES • 20% of hedgerows are managed under ES

Effects overall • Stone wall protection and management positive • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank management positive • Hedgerow management positive





• Stone wall protection and management – yes • Stone-faced hedgebank and earth bank management – yes • Hedgerow management – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Pasture in valleys • Extensive grazing on open moor




Uptake • Mixed stocking (mainly ELS) 126,488ha • Permanent low input grassland management (mainly ELS) 150,051ha • Enclosed upland semi-natural rough pasture management (mainly ELS)

11,529ha • Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration (mainly

HLS) 26,069ha




Effects overall • Permanent grassland with mixed stocking neutral • Permanent grassland managed as low input grassland positive • Rough grassland managed as rough pasture positive





• Mixed stocking – yes but uptake could be improved • Low input grassland – yes • Rough pasture – yes but uptake for enclosed allotment land is relatively

small and could possibly be increased


Key characteristics/ elements • Traditional buildings of stone or render with stone or slate roofs • Very high numbers of surviving traditional farmsteads • Long houses, linear plan farmsteads and field barns common




304


Uptake • Maintenance of 369,834m2 of historic buildings (mainly ELS) • Also 12,253no capital items (exceptionally high - check)


Indicator results • If average building 100m2, then 3698no or 13% of listed buildings

maintained under ES









Key characteristics/ elements • Widespread prehistoric and medieval remains • Remains of rural extraction and processing industries eg lead, tin, coal,

woollen milling





archaeological features taken out of cultivation) (ELS and HLS) • Archaeology (all area options) 32,313ha on grass (mainly ELS) • Also historical and archaeological features protected 11,176no

Stock • 2837ha SHINE + SMR on arable • 32313ha SHINE + SMR on grass • 82% of stock vulnerable to change in land management practice








• Archaeology on arable – no, uptake could be improved • Archaeology on grass – yes • Feature protection – yes


Key characteristics/ elements • Heather moorland, blanket bog, peaty mires and mosses • Species rich semi-natural grasslands and wet flushes


Relevant ES option types • Species-rich grassland management or restoration • Maintenance and restoration of moorland • Cattle grazing on moorland


305

Indicators • % of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • % of moorland managed as such under ES • % of moorland with cattle grazing under ES

Uptake • Species-rich grassland management or restoration (mainly HLS) 17,995ha • Maintenance and restoration of moorland (ELS and HLS) 823,089ha • Cattle grazing on moorland (mainly ELS) 60,188ha

Stock • 95,248ha rough grassland (LCM) • 770,197ha moorland (LCM acid grassland, dwarf shrub heath and bog)

Indicator results • 19% of rough grassland area managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 107% of moorland maintained and restored as moorland under ES • 7.8% of moorland with cattle grazing under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 20% of rough grassland managed as species-rich grassland under ES • 50% of moorland managed as such under ES • 5% of moorland with cattle grazing under ES

Effects overall • Species-rich grassland neutral • Moorland positive • Cattle grazing on moorland positive





• Species-rich grassland – yes but greater uptake would be beneficial • Moorland – yes • Cattle grazing on moorland – yes

Coast

Key characteristics/ elements • Cliffs with sandy and rocky bays between


Relevant ES option types • Sand dune

Indicators • % of sand dune managed under ES

Uptake • 634ha management/ restoration/ creation of sand dune (HLS)

Stock • 701ha of salt marsh (LCM)

Indicator results • 90% of sand dune managed/ restored/ created under ES

Thresholds (indicative only) • 10% of sand dune managed/ restored/ created under ES

Effects overall • Sand dune positive





• Sand dune – yes

Overview

ES appears to be contributing positively to the landscape in respect of retention and management of in-field trees,

traditional field boundaries, traditional pastures and rough grazing, historic farm buildings, archaeology on grassland,

moorland and coastal features. It seems to be having less impact on retention and management of woodlands,

archaeology on arable land, and species-rich grassland. ELS is the main driver in relation to in-field trees, field

boundaries, traditional pastures and hay meadows; while HLS appears more influential in relation to species-rich

grassland and coastal features. Both ELS and HLS strongly influence management of historic farm buildings,

archaeology and moorland. Overall impact: Strongly positive.


306


307

Appendix 9: ES Area Options: Top 20 options by area of uptake

Table A9.1: Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: Top 20 options by area of uptake

Rank Option code Option name Scheme Uptake (ha)

% of total uptake

1 EK2 Permanent grassland with low inputs ELS 60,956 17%

2 EK3 Permanent grassland with very low inputs

ELS 39,103 11%

3 EF6 Overwintered stubble ELS 24,909 7%

4 HK7 Restoration of species-rich, semi-natural grassland

HLS 22,389 6%

5 EK5 Mixed stocking ELS 18,715 5%

6 ED5 Management of archaeological features on grassland

ELS 16,638 5%

7 HK15 Maintenance of grassland for target features

HLS 13,838 4%

8 HK6 Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland

HLS 12,252 3%

9 ED3 Reduced-depth, non-inversion cultivation on archaeological features (minimum till)

ELS 9,979 3%

10 EF1 Management of field corners ELS 8,026 2%

11 HR2 Native breeds at risk grazing supplement

HLS 7,399 2%

12 EE3 6 m buffer strips on cultivated land ELS 7,164 2%

13 HR1 Cattle grazing supplement HLS 6,494 2%

14 HD3 Low depth, non-inversion cultivation on archaeological features

HLS 6,031 2%

15 HF6 Overwintered stubble HLS 5,842 2%

16 HD5 Management of archaeological features on grassland

HLS 5,089 1%

17 HC7 Maintenance of woodland HLS 4,238 1%

18 HK16 Restoration of grassland for target features

HLS 4,149 1%

19 HC12 Maintenance of wood pasture and parkland

HLS 3,604 1%

20 HK17 Creation of grassland for target features

HLS 3,141 1%

Total uptake 363,065 77%

Strongly positive landscape effects

Positive landscape effects

Neutral /negative landscape effects


308

Table A9.2: Eastern Arable ALT: Top 20 options by area of uptake


% of total uptake


2 EK3 Permanent grassland with very low inputs ELS 21,008 10%


4 HK15 Maintenance of grassland for target features HLS 10,410 5%



7 ED5 Management of archaeological features on grassland ELS 6,272 3%


9 HK10 Maintenance of wet grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl HLS 5,777 3%

10 HK9 Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding waders HLS 5,444 3%

11 HR2 Native breeds at risk grazing supplement HLS 5,004 2%



14 HK17 Creation of grassland for target features HLS 3,639 2%


16 HC12 Maintenance of wood pasture and parkland HLS 2,965 1%

17 HK7 Restoration of species-rich, semi-natural grassland HLS 2,667 1%

18 HP5 Maintenance of coastal salt marsh HLS 2,348 1%

19 HF13 Uncropped cultivated areas for ground nesting birds - arable HLS 2,177 1%




309

Table A9.3: South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Top 20 options by area of uptake


% of total uptake

1 HO2 Restoration of lowland heathland HLS 26,169 16%



4 HC13 Restoration of wood pasture and parkland HLS 8,279 5%






10 HR7 Supplement for difficult sites HLS 3,571 2%





15 HK16 Restoration of grassland for target features HLS 2,700 2%

16 HO1 Maintenance of lowland heathland HLS 2,577 2%


18 EE3 6m buffer strips on cultivated land ELS 1,898 1%

19 HC12 Maintenance of wood pasture and parkland HLS 1,868 1%

20 HK6 Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland HLS 1,847 1%



310

Table A9.4: Western Mixed ALT: Top 20 options by area of uptake


% of total uptake









9 HD5 Management of archaeological features on grassland HLS 6,189 2%

10 UL18 Cattle grazing on upland grassland and moorland UELS 6,068 1%

11 HP5 Maintenance of coastal salt marsh HLS 5,633 1%


13 HK16 Restoration of grassland for target features HLS 4,638 1%

14 EL2 Permanent grassland with low inputs in SDAs ELS 4,553 1%





19 HK18 Haymaking supplement HLS 3,301 1%




311

Table A9.5: Upland Fringe ALT: Top 20 options by area of uptake


% of total uptake





5 EL6 Unenclosed moorland rough grazing ELS 21,910 6%



8 HL10 Restoration of moorland HLS 11,452 3%


10 EL3 Permanent grassland with very low inputs in SDAs ELS 10,831 3%

11 HL9 Maintenance of moorland HLS 7,262 2%


13 HL12

Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping HLS 6,523 2%



16 UL17 No supplementary feeding on moorland UELS 4,232 1%




20 HL7 Maintenance of rough grazing for birds HLS 2,773 1%



312

Table A9.6: Uplands ALT: Top 20 options by area of uptake

Rank Option code Option name Scheme Uptake (ha) % of total uptake

1 EL6 Unenclosed moorland rough grazing ELS 365,451 20%

2 HL10 Restoration of moorland HLS 309,841 17%


4 HL15 Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement HLS 125,935 7%

5 HL12

Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping HLS 103,491 6%

6 HL9 Maintenance of moorland HLS 94,406 5%



9 HL16 Shepherding supplement HLS 72,816 4%


11 UL17 No supplementary feeding on moorland UELS 51,256 3%

12 EL3 Permanent grassland with very low inputs in SDAs ELS 41,948 2%




16 HL7 Maintenance of rough grazing for birds HLS 18,280 1%

17 HL8 Restoration of rough grazing for birds HLS 13,056 1%

18 UL20 Haymaking UELS 12,023 1%

19 EL5 Enclosed rough grazing ELS 11,249 1%

20 EL4 Management of rush pastures in SDAs ELS 10,922 1%

Total uptake 1,836,848 92%


313

Appendix 10: ES Linear Options: Top 10 options by length of uptake

Table A10.8.2: Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: Top 10 options by length of uptake

Rank Option code Option name Scheme Uptake (m)

% of total uptake

1 EB2 Hedgerow management on one side of a hedge ELS 15,573,280 36%

2 EB1 Hedgerow management on both sides of a hedge ELS 11,466,300 26%

3 EB3 Enhanced hedgerow management ELS 6,817,310 16%

4 EB6 Ditch management ELS 1,643,033 4%

5 EC3 Maintenance of woodland fences ELS 1,323,432 3%

6 EB8

Combined hedge and ditch management (incorporating EB1 Hedgerow management) ELS 1,030,472 2%

7 EB10

Combined hedge and ditch management (incorporating EB3 Hedgerow management) 602,379 2%

8 EB7 Half ditch management ELS 569,278 1%%

9 EB9

Combined hedge and ditch management (incorporating EB2 Hedgerow management) ELS 494,465 1%

10 FSH Sheep fencing Capital 483,863 1%




Neutral / negative landscape effects


314

Table A10.2: Eastern Arable ALT: Top 10 options by length of uptake


% of total uptake





5 EB7 Half ditch management ELS 3,814,300 8%

6 EB8


7 EB10

Combined hedge and ditch management (incorporating EB3 Enhanced hedgerow management) ELS 1,633,439 3%

8 EB9


9 HN4 Permissive bridleway/cycle path access Capital 462,697 1%

10 HN3 Permissive footpath access Capital 359,902 1%


Table A10.3: South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Top 10 options by length of uptake


% of total uptake




4 EB3 Enhanced hedgerow management ELS 900,978 9%

5 EC3 Maintenance of woodland fences ELS 854,766 8%

6 EB7 Half ditch management ELS 467,353 4%

7 EB8


8 EB9


9 EB10

Combined hedge and ditch management (incorporating EB3 Enhanced hedgerow management) ELS 217,421 2%

10 FSB Sheep Fencing - newly restored boundary Capital 214,536 2%



315

Table A10.4: Western Mixed ALT: Top 10 options by length of uptake


% of total uptake





5 EB8



7 EB11 Stone wall protection and maintenance ELS 1,132,179 2%

8 EB9



10 EB7 Half ditch management ELS 723,022 1%


Table A10.5: Upland Fringe ALT: Top 10 options by length of uptake


% of total uptake





5 EB12 Earth bank management on both sides NEW in 2010 ELS 2,095,709 7%

6 EB13 Earth bank management on one side NEW in 2010 ELS 1,749,274 6%


8 EB4 Stone-faced hedgebank management on both sides ELS 776,678 2%

9 EB6 Ditch management ELS 642,947 2%

10 EB5 Stone-faced hedgebank management on one side ELS 623,674 2%



316

Table 10.6: Uplands ALT: Top 10 options by length of uptake


% of total uptake




4 UB11 Stone wall protection and maintenance on or above the Moorland Line UELS 2,845,006 8%



7 EB4 Stone-faced hedgebank management on both sides ELS 926,548 3%

8 EB5 Stone-faced hedgebank management on one side ELS 721,546 2%


10 FSH Sheep Fencing Capital 604,557 2%



317

Appendix 11: ES Area Options: Top 20 option bundles by area of uptake

Table A11.1: Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank Option bundle

Total uptake by scheme % total uptake by scheme

ELS UELS HLS Total ELS UELS HLS Total

1 Permanent low-input grassland management 100,074 3,487 103,561 28% 0% 1% 29%

2 Overwintering stubbles 27,349 7,841 35,190 8% 0% 3% 10%

3 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 34,641 34,641 0% 0% 10% 10%

4 Management of archaeological sites under grassland 18,130 5,840 23,970 5% 0% 2% 7%

5 Mixed stocking 18,715 1,555 20,270 5% 0% 0% 6%

6

Semi improved/rough grassland management or restoration 17,987 17,987 0% 0% 5% 5%

7 Reduced depth of cultivation 9,979 6,210 16,189 3% 0% 2% 4%

8 Wider buffer strips in arable (4/6m-12m) 10,604 2,425 13,029 3% 0% 1% 4%

9 Bird Seed Mixes 2,185 7,694 9,879 1% 0% 2% 3%

10 Field corners 8,109 1,123 9,232 2% 0% 0% 3%

11 Native breeds at risk grazing supplement 7,399 7,399 0% 0% 2% 2%

12 Cattle grazing supplement 6,494 6,494 0% 0% 2% 2%

13 Woodland management 6,234 6,234 0% 0% 2% 2%

14 Parkland management or restoration 5,515 5,515 0% 0% 2% 2%

15

Wet grassland management or restoration for breeding waders or wintering waders and wildfowl 4,811 4,811 0% 0% 1% 1%

16 Archaeological features taken out of cultivation 1,062 3,390 4,452 0% 0% 1% 1%

17 Scrub management 3,799 3,799 0% 0% 1% 1%

18 Management of crops/soil erosion options 3,105 394 3,499 1% 0% 0% 1%

19 Semi-improved grassland creation 3,141 3,141 0% 0% 1% 1%

20 Nectar sources 1351 1,754 3,105 0% 0% 1% 1%

Total uptake (1) 203,448 0 159,611 363,065 55% 0% 37% 92%

ccn Strongly positive landscape effects



(1) Figures in the table do not always add up to total uptake as these figures are for all uptake in the ALT, some of which may

not be included in the top 20 option bundles.


318

Table A11.2: Eastern Arable ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle

Total uptake by scheme (ha) % total uptake by scheme

ELS UELS HLS Total ELS

UELS HLS Total

1 Permanent low-input grassland management 61,383 3,067 64,450 24% 0% 1% 25%



4


5


6 Field corners 9,991 769 10,760 5% 0% 0% 5%


8 Bird Seed Mixes 2,198 5,478 7,676 1% 0% 3% 4%

9 Mixed stocking 6,197 1,041 7,238 3% 0% 0% 3%


11 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 61 4,425 4,486 0% 0% 2% 2%



14 Semi-improved grassland creation 3,639 3,639 0% 0% 2% 2%


16

Wet grassland creation for breeding waders or wintering waders and wildfowl 2640 2,640 0% 0% 1% 1%

17 Lowland heathland management & restoration 2,501 2,501 0% 0% 1% 1%

18 Salt marsh management or restoration 2,440 2,440 0% 0% 1% 1%

19 Nectar sources 1,271 1,123 2,394 1% 0% 1% 1%

20 Archaeological features taken out of cultivation 355 1,929 2,284 0% 0% 1% 1%

Total uptake 108,424 509 102,761 211,694 49% 0% 37% 86%


319

Table A11.3: South Eastern Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle



1 Permanent low-input grassland management 38,813 775 37,588 23% 0% 0% 23%


3


4



6 Mixed stocking 7,040 1,081 8,121 4% 0% 1% 5%

7 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 5,801 5,801 0% 0% 4% 4%




11 Wider buffer strips in arable (4/6m-12m) 3,198 582 3,780 2% 0% 0% 2%

12 Supplement for difficult sites 3,571 3,571 0% 0% 2% 2%


14 Field corners 2,114 186 2,300 1% 0% 0% 1%

15 Management of archaeological sites under grassland 1,735 436 2,171 1% 0% 0% 1%

16 Bird Seed Mixes 529 1,226 1,755 0% 0% 1% 1%

17 Bracken control 1,503 1,503 0% 0% 1% 1%


19 Bracken control supplement 1,347 1,347 0% 0% 1% 1%

20 Lowland heathland creation 1,191 1,191 0% 0% 1% 1%

Total uptake 58,128 0 104,567 162,695 34% 0% 58% 91%


320

Table A11.4: Western Mixed ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle



UELS HLS Total

1 Permanent low-input grassland management 125,672 3 2,631 128,306 36% 0% 1% 36%

2 Mixed stocking 39,273 1,164 40,437 11% 0% 0% 11%



5



7 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 246 12,658 12,904 0% 0% 4% 4%

8




11 Cattle grazing on moorland 6,068 6,068 0% 2% 0% 2%



14 Bird Seed Mixes 932 3,275 4,207 0% 0% 1% 1%



17 Field corners 2,970 558 3,528 1% 0% 0% 1%

18 Hay making supplement 3,301 3,301 0% 0% 1% 1%

19 Management of crops/soil erosion options 2,617 413 3,030 1% 0% 0% 1%


Total uptake 206,686 7,598 139,657 353,941 57% 2% 29% 88%


321

Table A11.5: Upland Fringe ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Option bundle


Rank ELS UELS HLS Total ELS

UELS HLS Total


2 Mixed stocking 53,239 763 54,002 13% 0% 0% 14%

3 Maintenance & Restoration of moorland 21,910 4,232 18,714 44,856 6% 1% 5% 11%

4 Cattle grazing on moorland 35,254 30 35,284 0% 9% 0% 9%


6 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 2,068 9,891 11,959 0% 1% 2% 3%


8


9

Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration 1,211 5,487 6,698 0% 0% 1% 2%


11

Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping 6,523 6,523 0% 0% 2% 2%


13 Rush pasture management 4,686 23 4,709 1% 0% 0% 1%



16 Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement 2,388 2,388 0% 0% 1% 1%


18 Shepherding supplement 2,294 2,294 0% 0% 1% 1%


20 Bracken control 1,771 1,771 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total uptake 246,722 43,678 107,496 397,896 61% 11% 22% 94%


322

Table A11.6: Uplands ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle



UELS HLS Total

1 Maintenance & Restoration of moorland 365,451 51,256 404,740 821,447 20% 3% 22% 45%


3 Cattle grazing on moorland 151,058 317 151,375 0% 8% 0% 8%

4 Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement 125,935 125,935 0% 0% 7% 7%

5

Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping 103,491 103,491 0% 0% 6% 6%

6 Mixed stocking 73,779 1,904 75,683 4% 0% 0% 4%

7 Shepherding supplement 72,816 72,816 0% 0% 4% 4%


9

Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration 3,598 31,364 34,962 0% 0% 2% 2%


11 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 12,023 16,116 28,139 0% 1% 1% 2%


13


14

Enclosed upland semi-natural/rough pasture management 11,249 1,729 120 13,098 1% 0% 0% 1%

15 Rush pasture management 11,733 268 12,001 1% 0% 0% 1%

16 Bracken control supplement 10,185 10,185 0% 0% 1% 1%

17 Bracken control 7,437 7,437 0% 0% 0% 0%

18 Moorland re-wetting supplement 6,778 6,778 0% 0% 0% 0%



Total uptake 675,974 224,906 935,968 1,836,848 37% 12% 49% 98%


323

Appendix 12: ES Linear Options: Top 10 option bundles by length of uptake

Table A12.1: Chalk and Limestone Mixed (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle

Total uptake by scheme (m) % Total uptake by scheme


1 Hedgerow Management 33,856,891 33,856,891 77% 0% 0% 77%

2 Ditch management 2,212,311 36,433 2,248,744 5% 0% 0% 5%

3 Hedge & Ditch management 2,232,123 2,232,123 5% 0% 0% 5%

4 Fencing 1,448,492 1,448,492 0% 0% 3% 3%

5 Woodland fencing 1,323,432 1,323,432 3% 0% 0% 3%

6 Linear access 739,619 739,619 0% 0% 2% 2%

7 Hedgerows 503,028 503,028 0% 0% 1% 1%

8 Stone wall protection and management 469,288 1102 470,390 1% 0% 0% 1%

9 Management of hedgerows of very high environmental value 363,069 363,069 0% 0% 1% 1%

10 New hedge planting 137,797 137,797 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total uptake (1) 40,231,976 1102 3,473,637 43,706,719 92% 0% 7% 99%

Table A12.2: Eastern Arable (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle



1 Hedgerow Management 31,539,390

31,539,390 62% 0% 0% 62%



4 Linear access 825,505 825,505 0% 0% 2% 2%

5 Fencing 697,255 697,255 0% 0% 1% 1%


7 Hedgerows 350,323 350,323 0% 0% 1% 1%

8 Woodland fencing 345,449 345,449 1% 0% 0% 1%

9 Restoration / creation of ditches and dykes 234,928 234,928 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 Fencing along watercourses 190,474

190,474 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total uptake (1) 73,424,128 10,461 2,709,396 77,471,224 94% 0% 5% 99%




(1) Figures in the table do not always add up to total uptake as these figures are for all uptake in the ALT, some of which

may not be included in the top 10 option bundles.


324

Table A12.8.3: South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle





3 Woodland fencing 854,766 854,766 8% 0% 0% 8%

4 Hedge & Ditch management 801,490 801,490 8% 0% 0% 8%

5 Fencing 704,870 704,870 0% 0% 7% 7%

6 Linear access 167,071 167,071 0% 0% 2% 2%

7 Hedgerows 152,313 152,313 0% 0% 1% 1%


9 Restoration / creation of ditches and dykes 79,267 79,267 0% 0% 1% 1%

10 Fencing along watercourses 67,149 293 67,442 1% 0% 0% 1%

Total uptake 9,232,389 0 1,358,854 10,591,240 87% 0% 12% 99%

Table A12.4: Western Mixed ALT: Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle






4 Fencing 1,783,895 1,783,895 0% 0% 4% 4%


6 Stone wall protection and management 1,132,179 45,052 1,177,231 2% 0% 0% 2%

7 Hedgerows 930,851 930,851 0% 0% 2% 2%


9 Linear access 526,077 526,077 0% 0% 1% 1%

10 Fencing along watercourses 450,963 1,265 14,850 467,078 1% 0% 0% 1%

Total uptake 44,629,021 47,664 4,464,895 49,141,580 90% 0% 8% 99%


325

Table A12.5: Upland Fringe (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle




2 Earth bank management 3,844,983 3,844,983 12% 0% 0% 12%

3 Stone wall protection and management 3,555,025 203,145 3,758,170 11% 1% 0% 12%

4 Stone-faced Hedgebank management 1,400,352 4,058 1,404,410 4% 0% 0% 4%


6 Fencing

1,018,341 1,018,341 0% 0% 0% 3%


8 Ditch management 776,790 12,623 789,413 2% 0% 1% 3%

9 Hedge & Ditch management 749,063

749,063 2% 0% 0% 2%

10 Hedgerows 324,502 324,502 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total uptake 32,789,458 213,773 2,951,128 35,746,929 90% 1% 7% 98%

Table A12.6: Uplands (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake


Rank Option bundle ELS UELS HLS Total ELS UELS HLS Total

1 Stone wall protection and management 12,212,444 2,857,892 15,070,330 36% 9% 45%


3 Fencing 1,990,967 1,990,967 0% 0% 6% 6%

4 Stone-faced Hedgebank management 1,648,094 45,625 1,693,719 5% 0% 0% 5%

5 Woodland fencing 1,082,013 200 1,082,213 3% 0% 0% 3%

6 Earth bank management 755,414 83,804 839,218 2% 0% 0% 2%

7 Restoration of stone walls 728,431 728,431 0% 0% 2% 2%

8 Ditch management 635,173 2,397 637,570 2% 0% 0% 2%

9 Hedgerows 476,799 476,799 0% 0% 1% 1%


Total uptake 26,395,267 3,033,319 4,156,456 33,585,042 77% 9% 11% 97%

bd5303: monitoring the effects of environmental stewardship on...

Documents