4. Additions

Dear Sirs

With regard to the above, I welcome the additional land being (R7) acquired by Hockley Marsh (Brandy Hole Marsh extension), many walkers are put at risk of being stranded on the existing footpaths no. 8 and 9 Hullbridge which run across this Marsh due to coastal erosion. We hope that this path can now be diverted onto the edge of this new land to facilitate this much needed safe alternative route and allow the old path to be extinguished and removed. This would allow recreational activities ie. walks to commence in a safe and healthy manner, give less disturbance to birds and remove a danger to existing users of the old path. If the new path was created it would require little work except for the occasional clearance as most of the area proposed is already clear and would only require little seasonal clearance work.

If the new area of additional land is adopted, I hope that some consideration can be given to this proposal.

Many thanks.

Councillor Brian Hazlewood
Chairman of Footpath Committee
Hockley Parish Council

I welcome the addition of further wildlife sites.

Herewith Comments from the Rochford and Southend Local Group of the Essex Wildlife Trust to the initial draft report form EECOS regarding designation of Local Wildlife Sites.
We would first like to welcome the addition of significant new sites in the District such as the intertidal zone of the River Roach above Stambridge Mills and the new sites at Barling both of which were overdue for recognition. We would comment that the saltmarsh/freshwater transition zone reedbed of the River Roach Site does extend slightly more upriver than appears on the identification map . We would suggest extension to a point adjacent to the westernmost boundary of the Sewage farm rather than the easternmost. One committee member has actually seen kingfisher flighting along this stretch on 2 occasions. This boundary till ends lower than the traditional local marker of freshwater transition which was marked by what was known historically as the "Salt Bridge" now the bridge adjacent to the Horse and Groom Public House
We recognise that it has been difficult for EECOS to make multiple survey visits to sites and thus seasonal flora and fauna present on certain sites may not have been apparent to them. We would however like to draw two sites to your attention.
In particular we are concerned at the suggested delisting of the Finches Nature Conservation area in Canewdon . This site provides habitat for the 2nd largest population of the Glowworm ( Lampyris noctiluca) in Essex . This species whilst not Essex Red Data Book is nevertheless locally scarce. The only larger population recorded recently in Essex is at One Tree Hill in Langdon Hills Country Park. The Finches Glowworm population has been regularly surveyed each summer by the Essex Glowworm Survey organised by Dr Tim Gardiner of Writtle Agricultural College from whom population data can be requested. The core of the population is to be found in the Finches Nature Area but the largest display areas for the females are usually on the verges of Gardiners Lane Canewdon extending approximately 200 yards in either direction on both north and southern verges. Proper management of these verges is therefore important for sustaining this population. The glow-worms are a well known local sight and of considerable public interest locally.
We would also like to record that The Great Crested Newt has been noted by Mr Julian Kaye ( Essex Wildlife Trust warden of Lower Raypits and Lion Creek Reserves) during pond dipping at Finches wildlife area. We are aware that presence of a BAP species does not in and of itself qualify the site for inclusion as an LWS but would suggest that its presence goes towards its inclusion.
Finches also possesses an area of marginal bog to the north side of the large central pond which during the summer is home to a large invertebrate population .
We note the addition of a field adjacent to Hullbridge Rd Rayleigh to the LWS list as an example of unimproved grassland and would like to add another site of unimproved Grassland some 300 yds. further north where last year members of the EWT Local Group Committee photographed approximately 200-300 flower spikes of green winged Orchid during their Spring Flowering on an approx 1/3 acre field fronting Hullbridge road Grid Reference TQ 806 938 ( Full Reference 5806 16 193855).
We would also remind Rochford District Council that even sites that sensu strictu may not qualify under the various criteria on a national scale may have considerable intrinsic value on a district scale for instance Rayleigh Mount , we would also like to see a commitment to resurvey of the soon to be expanded Cherry Orchard Country Park in the future. We accept that it may already benefit from stronger protection in law than that afforded a LWS but feel that a blanket statement that it is unlikely to qualify at all in the future somewhat harsh given the new habitat creation and wildlife initiatives being put in place by Patrick Mckenna and team at the Rochford District Council themselves.
It is undoubtedly the case that time and economics have limited the number of sites that EECOS could have surveyed for this report . Since, as is mentioned in their report, most new species identification at new sites will be by amateur groups such as Southend Natural History Society and Essex Field Club it is imperative that a regular system of review allowing submission of findings from such people be established to allow addition of new sites as they are identified. This is already an intention stated by the Rochford District Council. We would suggest that there should be an annual opportunity for addition to the Local Wildlife Sites list on the grounds that small habitat areas, which these generally are, with small fragile populations of species may well disappear within the timeframe of larger 3 or 5 year plans often beloved of local plan developers.

We would further suggest that a mechanism for reporting LWS candidate sites to the District Council is established between the LWS reviews. This should be in an electronic format available for Public Access and easy checking by Planning Officers . The aim of such a list would be to provide an information resource concerning sites that might benefit from further ecological assessment, should an attempt be made to secure planning approval over such a site before it can be formally added to the list of Local Wildlife Sites. This will be of particular important if such LWS reviews are to be less frequent than annually.
With Kind regards

I.C Jobson
Planning Representative (Rochford and Southend Local Group)
Essex Wildlife Trust