Cambridgeshire

THE WILDLIFE TRUST FOR BEDFORDSHIRE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH LTD and CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL 2005. Appendices remain the copyright of their respective originators. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any type of retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, mechanical, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright owners. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Criteria
3.0
Selecting and Reviewing City Wildlife Sites Guidelines for the Assessment of City Wildlife Sites in Terms of Reference of the City Wildlife Site (CityWS) a) Criteria for the selection of County Wildlife Sites b) Vascular plants rare in old Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire Grassland Indicator Species Cambridge City Council and Wildlife Trust for Cambridgeshire
Revised – November 2005
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Access to wildlife is important for people living in urban areas. Within Cambridge there are two Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Plan identifies over a hundred City Wildlife Sites. The City Council is committed to conserving such sites and to promoting improved opportunities for access to wildlife through policies in the Development Plan, see Appendix 1. This is endorsed by national planning guidance, see Appendix 2. However, the interaction between wildlife and its physical environment is a dynamic one: new sites may become important and existing sites may become more or less valuable. It is therefore important to have a process for assessing new and existing sites and clear criteria against which the wildlife value can be assessed. Criteria for the Designation of City Wildlife Sites were adopted for inclusion in the Cambridge Local Plan as a result of representations made at the Local Plan Public Inquiry; the criteria appear as Appendix 4 in the Local Plan. The revised selection criteria set out in this Guidance follow further research carried out on behalf of the City Council and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire & Peterborough; they also incorporate minor revisions resulting from updates to the County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria. All significant revisions were approved at a meeting of the City Wildlife Sites Review Group in November 1999. During 2005 these selection criteria have been further refined in response to subsequent changes of the County Wildlife Sites Selection Criteria version 4.2 (2005). This work was undertaken as part of the Cambridge City Wildlife Site Re-survey Project undertaken by the Wildlife Trust for Cambridge City Council. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
2.0 CRITERIA
Sites will be evaluated against eight criteria: The evaluation will be against all eight criteria, however, sites that meet the diversity and rarity criteria (a-c) alone will be designated. Where this applies the results of the evaluation against (d-h) will assist in assessing the management needs of the site and the response to planning pressures. In exceptional cases, and where a site is close to qualifying under diversity and rarity criteria (a-c), the influence of the remaining criteria may lead to selection. Where sites do not fall within these criteria, protection may often already be afforded through other aspects of the existing planning policy framework. These criteria have been agreed by the City Wildlife Site Review Group (see Appendix 4) through a year-long process of discussion, consultation, research and field survey. Officers from the City Council, English Nature, the Wildlife Trust (Cambridgeshire) and the Cambridge Local Group of the Wildlife Trust comprise the Review Group. The criteria are based on and are in line with the County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria, which themselves are derived from the methods used to identify the nationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest1. 1 Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs Nature Conservancy Council, 1989 CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
HABITAT DIVERSITY AND SIZE

Woodland 2.4
recent2 woodlands 1ha or more in area and All recent woodlands between 0.5-1.0ha in area with five or more woodland plants and which comprise 10% or more mature woodland. All blocks over 0.5ha in area with four or more woody species.
Pollard willows
willows when in association with other semi-natural features such as grassland, ditches and rivers.
Veteran & pollard trees
Groups of two or more veteran trees of native species and associated semi-natural habitat. Groups of four or more mature pollards of native tree species. Smaller groups of mature pollards will be considered under this criterion if they have known invertebrate interest which is insufficient to merit selection under the invertebrate criteria (Expert advice should be taken before a decision is made).
Hedgerows
Hedgerows at least 100m in length and comprised of shrubs greater than 2m in width at the widest point, with four or more woody species, and with as least part of the hedge allowed to flower and fruit.
Grasslands
Grassland sites of any size supporting either: (a) two or more strong neutral grassland (b) four or more strong calcareous grassland (c) five or more neutral grassland indicator (d) six or more calcareous grassland indicator 2 See glossary for explanation of technical terms. 3 See Appendix 6 for Cambridgeshire Grassland Indicator Species. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Fens, Swamps and Marshes
The communities listed below are those found in the survey and, without comprehensive data available, are believed to represent fens, swamps and marshes occurring in Cambridge. (a) Good examples of topogenous fens of any size of the following National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities: supporting at least 0.25 ha (either in a block or as a number of small areas) of the following National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities: (c) Continuous area of fen of any category over 0.5 ha which is not appreciably degraded. Sites containing well developed vegetation mosaics which represent hydroseral zonation. (f) Chalk grasslands containing flushes, seepages or springs which are not appreciably degraded. Freshwater Habitats
The County Wildlife Site criteria will apply: (most ponds and gravel pits will fall into this vegetation type) 4 Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs Nature Conservancy Council, 1989 CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 (this type of community occurs in strongly calcareous water bodies, especially in flooded brickpits and chalk pits) Any linear water body with five or more species of submerged, floating and emergent species per 20m, or 10 submerged, floating, emergent and wetbank species per 20m. All chalk streams together with adjacent semi-natural habitat (grassland, marsh, swamp, scrub, trees and woodland) unless the stream has been grossly modified through canalisation and/or poor water quality. River Habitats
The County Wildlife Site criteria will apply in the following circumstances: (a) The River Cam County Wildlife Site will comprise the river together with adjacent semi-natural habitat (grassland, marsh, swamp, scrub, trees and woodland, and vegetation mosaics representing hydroseral zonation) unless the river has been grossly modified through canalization and/or poor water quality. Where a river or stream is grossly modified through canalization and/or poor water quality it will still be considered as a City Wildlife Site, due to its habitat corridor function through the built up environment. Areas of undeveloped floodplain, directly associated with the River Cam, and which do not qualify under other County or City Wildlife Site criteria, will be selected as a City Wildlife Site in association with the River Cam County Wildlife Site. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Habitat Mosaics
Any site over 1ha comprising two or more of the habitat types below, at least one of which is of or approaching City Wildlife Site standard, and when judged against the other five Ratcliffe criteria (paragraphs 2.34 – 2.45) is judged to score highly against two or more of these criteria: (i) open water including rivers, stream, CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
FAUNA DIVERSITY AND SIZE
Birds
A site should have qualified for four out of the last five years. However, cases for selection can be made for particularly vulnerable species on a site by site basis. A site which supports a range of breeding5 birds with a value equal to or exceeding the following indices.
Lowland fen without open water
Lowland open waters and their margins
5 Adapted for Cambridge City from Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs (NCC, 1989) and An Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Cambridgeshire (Vice County 29) (P.M.M.Bircham, J.C.A.Rathmell & W.J.Jordan, 1994) CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Lowland damp grasslands
Scrub

Woodland
Sparrowhawk 2 Hobby 4 Woodcock 2 Stock Dove Blackcap 1 Chiffchaff 1 Goldcrest 1 Spotted Flycatcher Nuthatch 3 Treecreeper 1 Jay 1 Redpoll 1 Bullfinch 1 CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 Sites with one of the following recorded in the last 5 years:
Amphibians and Reptiles
Any site supporting at least three amphibian species. Sites identified under this criterion should exclude garden pools, swimming pools and any known introduced populations.
RARITY
Vascular plants
The County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria will apply to sites supporting populations of Nationally Rare or Nationally Scarce species. Any site supporting a species which is rare in the county, see Appendix 5 (b).
Non-vascular plants
The County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria will apply: (a) sites supporting populations of Nationally (b) sites listed as important in the Bryophyte Sites supporting breeding populations of any protected species listed in Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Badgers Act 1992 and the Bern Convention. [Excludes species for which protection relates solely to control of exploitation, capture methods etc.] Confirmed breeding sites of any County-rare bird, see Appendix 5 (c). Confirmed breeding sites in the City of any bird listed below (defined as a species for which An Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Cambridgeshire has three or fewer breeding (categories 1, 2 or 3) tetrad records in Cambridge): CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 A site with breeding Sand Martins or Grey Herons.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Sites supporting breeding populations of any protected herptile species as listed in Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Bern Convention or EC Habitats Directive. [Excludes species for which protection relates solely to control of exploitation, capture methods etc.]
Invertebrates
County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria apply, see Appendix 5 (a).
NATURALNESS

Sites least modified by man will, in general be more highly valued. Human modification can mean something as drastic as building over all or most of site, or it can be as minimal as practising management such as mowing. The wildlife value of the site is usually, but not always, higher towards the least human-influenced end of the scale. Natural (or semi-natural) habitats are dominated by native species and they usually retain an overall species-richness and structural diversity. 2.35 Other features that qualify a site for if the site comprises parcels of long-established, undisturbed habitat type, such as fen communities; and (b) if the site supports relict species. The degree and nature of human modification of the site should be noted, including management and its effects. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
RECREATABILITY

Sites that are difficult or impossible to recreate are, in general, more highly valued than recreatable sites. As this is often extremely complex, each site should be considered on its own merits under this criterion, and the best judgment of the City Wildlife Site Review Group and its advisors will prevail.
POSITION IN AN ECOLOGICAL UNIT

Under this criterion, sites will be examined in relation to other wildlife sites and in relation to the developing concept of wildlife corridors (both in the sense of linear semi-natural features and speculative conduits). This is a highly complex and unresolved issue, so each site should be assessed according to its own merits by the City Wildlife Site Review Group, taking into account the results of current research into this concept.
HUMAN VALUE

Regard should be given to the range of human use for the site and the appreciation of its Wildlife Value: (b) access (whether by public right of way) (d) educational (use by schools and colleges); (e) visual (whether visible from adjacent land (g) whether there is, or would be, strong local (h) recorded history of the site (extent and quality of records, documentation and interest accumulated over time and whether there is an association of notable research). CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
POTENTIAL VALUE

2.42 Some sites could, through appropriate management or natural change, eventually develop a nature conservation interest substantially greater than existing at present. Borderline sites could support more species than at present with greater structural diversity. Aquatic sites, however poor, always have considerable potential. Sites recently created, modified or enhanced for wildlife and amenity may develop considerably greater interest in a few years than that existing at present. If, therefore, they are near (or have been of, and are expected to regain) City Wildlife Site standard, they should retain their selection status. The potential value under the appropriate foregoing criteria should be considered, i.e. Diversity, Rarity, Size, Position in an Ecological Unit, Human Value. COUNTY WILDLIFE SITES
Cambridgeshire County Council has adopted criteria for the selection of County Wildlife Sites. These generally impose a more rigorous selection procedure, but have been used in the development of the City Wildlife Site criteria. Where sites in Cambridge satisfy the full County requirements they will be selected as County Wildlife Sites. The County Council assess new sites and review existing ones on an ongoing basis. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 SELECTING AND REVIEWING CITY WILDLIFE SITES
A group drawn from the City Council, English Nature and the Wildlife Trust will co-ordinate the assessment of new sites and the review of existing ones. This group will also, as part of the review process, monitor the effectiveness of the CityWS selection process and update, if necessary, the lists of relevant species in the attached appendices. Appendix 4 gives draft terms of reference for the CityWS Review Group. The Environment Committee of the City Council will endorse the selection of new sites for inclusion in the Local Plan at its next review. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
GLOSSARY
THESE DEFINITIONS ARE FOR GUIDANCE ONLY.
Breeding bird

Calcareous grassland indicator species. A vascular plant species associated with
unimproved calcareous grassland. A strong indicator is strongly associated.
Emergent species. Aquatic plant normally rooted in the substrate below water, with aerial
parts emerging above the water.
Herptile.
Generic term for reptiles and amphibians.
Hydrosere. A continuum of vegetation types which replace each other as an ecological
succession proceeds from open water to woodland.
Mature pollards.
Any group of pollarded trees with mature features.
Mature woodland. Comprised of tree species that have attained their full development.
Mosaic (habitat or vegetation).
A configuration of plant communities, in which more than one habitat-type (or community within a habitat-type) are mixed.
Neutral grassland indicator species.
A vascular plant species associated with unimproved neutral grassland. A strong indicator is strongly associated.
NVC communities. Plant communities as defined in the National Vegetation Classification,
published in British Plant Communities, ed. Rodwell, J., 1991 et sec, CUP.
Old Cambridgeshire.
The former administrative county of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely prior to amalgamation with Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough; still used as a
unit for biological recording (broadly equivalent to vice-county 29).
Passage bird.
Migratory species that occurs in spring or autumn, but does not breed.
Pollard.
A tree which has been cut at about head height to protect its regrowth from browsing animals.
Recent woodland.
In this context, woodland that is not ancient, which has developed from seed or from planting, and is less than 400 years old.
Topogenous fen.
A fen area derived from an accumulation of water due to land form e.g. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 Unimproved grassland.
Grassland in which species diversity has not been detrimentally affected by agricultural improvement, such as draining, reseeding, use of artificial fertilisers,
use of herbicides.
Wintering bird.

Woodland plant.
Plant characteristic of Cambridgeshire woodland. See County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria.
Woody species.
Shrub or tree species (not scrambling plants) used for assessing scrub or hedgerow value. See County Wildlife Site Selection Criteria. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
APPENDICES
1:
Guidelines for the Assessment of City Wildlife Sites in Cambridge City Terms of reference of the City Wildlife Site (CityWS) Review Group a) Criteria for the selection of County Wildlife Sites b) Vascular Plants rare in old Cambridgeshire CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Appendix 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Cambridgeshire Structure Plan
The Cambridgeshire Structure Plan, adopted December 1995, contains the following polices.
SP12/3 DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN, OR WHICH IS LIKELY
TO ADVERSELY AFFECT:
- RAMSAR
SITES PROPOSED, BY ENGLISH NATURE, FOR THE ABOVE DESIGNATIONS
OTHER THAN IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES OF AN OVERRIDING NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL NEED.
SP12/4 THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES WILLL IDENTIFY AND SEEK TO
SAFEGUARD COUNTRYSIDE HERITAGE SITES WHICH MERIT CONSERVATION
FOR THEIR HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, NATURE CONSERVATION,
SCIENTIFIC OR LANDSCAPE IMPORTANCE. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN, OR WHICH
ADVERSELY AFFECTS, COUNTRYSIDE HERITAGE SITES WILL NOT NORMALLY
BE PERMITTED. MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
WILL BE SOUGHT WHERE APPROPRIATE.
SP12/5 THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES WILL NOT NORMALLY GRANT
PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
EFFECT ON THE INTEREST OF NATURE CONSERVATION, PARTICULARLY IN
ZONES WHICH ARE ESPECIALLY VALUABLE FOR WILDLIFE AS FOLLOWS:
THE CHALKBELT STRETCHING FROM NEWMARKET TO NORTH OF ROYSTON THE RIVER VALLEYS AND WASHES OF THE OUSE, NENE, CAM AND GRANTA THE LIMESTONE AREAS NORTH AND WEST OF PETERBOROUGH SP12/7 ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE EXPECTED, WHERE POSSIBLE, TO
PROVIDE FOR THE RETENTION OF EXISTING HABITATS AND WILDLIFE
FEATURES AND FOR THE CREATION OF APPROPRIATE NEW HABITATS.
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 SP12/8 THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES WILL PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE
AND ASSIST, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT AND
ENHANCEMENT OF FEATURES OF AMENITY, LANDSCAPE, WILDLIFE,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.
SP12/9 THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES WILL CARRY OUT AN EXTENSIVE
AND SUSTAINED CAMPAIGN FOR PLANTING OF TREES AND WOODLANDS AND
FOR THE CREATION OF OTHER FEATURES OF AMENITY, LANDSCAPE AND
WILDLIFE INTEREST.
Cambridge Local Plan
The Cambridge Local Plan, adopted 21st November 1996, contains the following policies.
NE9 NATURAL PROCESSES AND NATURE CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS
(INCLUDING IMPLICATIONS FOR THE QUALITY OF LAND, WATER AND AIR)
WILL BE AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHEN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
ARE DETERMINED AND PLANNING BRIEFS AND OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA ARE PREPARED.
NE10 DEVELOPMENT ON THE FLOOD PLAIN OF THE RIVER CAM AND THE BIN
BROOK WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED WHERE THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT:
B) INCREASE THE RISK OF FLOODING OR BE SUBJECT TO FLOODING ITSELF; AND C) HAVE A HARMFUL EFFECT ON THE NATURE CONSERVATION INTEREST OF THE RIVER CAM, THE BIN BROOK OR THEIR FLOOD PLAINS.
NE11 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER COURSES AND THEIR BANKS AND TO
ENCOURAGE THE REHABILITATION OF THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN
NEGLECTED. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO ENSURE WHERE IT IS
RESPONSIBLE, AND OTHERWISE ENCOURAGE, THAT AN ADEQUATE FLOW OF
WATER IN ALL COURSES IS MAINTAINED.
NE12 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO CONSERVE THE NATURE
CONSERVATION INTEREST OF THE CITY WILDLIFE SITES IDENTIFIED ON THE
PROPOSALS MAP, OR SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY, BY
CONTROLLING THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT IS
ALLOWED ON SUCH SITES. IN CONSIDERING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
AFFECTING CITY WILDLIFE SITES THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT:
A) MEASURES TO PROTECT THE NATURE CONSERVATION INTERESTS; CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 B) PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT HABITATS; C) THE WILDLIFE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE, IN TERMS OF BOTH THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND ITS INTRINSIC IMPORTANCE.
NE13 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO PROTECT SITES OF SPECIAL
SCIENTIFIC INTEREST AND SITES IDENTIFIED AS HOLDING SPECIES
PROTECTED UNDER THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 BY NOT
ALLOWING ON OR ADJOINING TO THEM DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL HAVE AN
ADVERSE IMPACT.
NE14 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO PROTECT CITY WILDLIFE SITES BY
NOT NORMALLY GIVING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR LAND RECLAMATION,
LAND DRAINAGE AND OTHER LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT EITHER ON, OR
LIKELY TO MATERIALLY EFFECT, SUCH SITES. WHERE THESE ARE PROPOSED
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL, WHERE APPROPRIATE, REQUIRE A FULL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND WILL LIAISE WITH NATURE
CONSERVATION BODIES ON THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE ASSESSMENT.
IN THE EVENT OF THE PROPOSAL BEING GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION,
EXISTING FEATURES OF NATURE CONSERVATION INTEREST WILL BE
RETAINED DURING WORKS, SITE RESTORATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
NE15 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHERS, TAKE STEPS
TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF GREEN
SPACES, WETLANDS, WATER COURSES AND OTHER FEATURES, INCLUDING
HEDGES AND CORRIDORS. THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON THE
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ILLUSTRATED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP WILL BE AN
IMPORTANT FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CONSIDERING
PLANNING APPLICATIONS.
NE17 THE CITY COUNCIL WILL REQUIRE DETAILS OF ALL TREES EXISTING ON
SITES WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED, INCLUDING THE TYPE AND
POSITION OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES INDICATED AS PART OF THE
SURVEY/PROPOSALS. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED
SERVICES, WILL BE DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING
TREES. APPLICATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SITES WHERE TREES EXIST
WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNTIL SUCH DETAILS ARE PROVIDED. PLANNING
PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE GIVEN WHERE THE CITY
COUNCIL IS NOT SATISFIED THAT DUE REGARD HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE
SUCCESSFUL RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES AND, WHERE IT CONSIDERS IT
APPROPRIATE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW TREES.
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Appendix 2
NATIONAL POLICY GUIDANCE
The importance of wildlife and the need for its protection is recognised in a wide body of
legislation, including the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the
Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
The White Paper This Common Inheritance says that wildlife is an integral part of Britain’s
towns and refers to direct and indirect measures to ensure its conservation. It stresses that the
‘key to the protection of wildlife is the protection of the habitat on which it depends’, draws
attention to the important role of SSSIs and indicates clearly that the planning system has a
role to play in protecting wildlife. Green open space is important for recreation and ‘helps to
breath life into urban areas’.
In October 1994 the Government published Planning Policy Guidance note 9 (PPG9) on
Nature Conservation, the first restatement of policy since Circular 27/87. PPG9 outlines the
key role that the planning system has in meeting the Government’s objectives for nature
conservation and in integrating the needs of conservation and development. It advises ‘the
Local Planning Authority should have regard to the relative significance of International,
National, Local and informal designations in considering the weight to be attached to nature
conservation interests’. One key repercussion of PPG9 for the City is the raised status it
accords to nature conservation value of locally designated non-statutory sites. Providing such
sites are of ‘substantive nature conservation value’ PPG9 states that they should be treated as
a significant material consideration. There are no clear criteria as to what constitutes
‘substantive’, though it can be assumed that a site should, at a minimum, be significant in a
local context. The importance of the City Council and Wildlife Trust initiative to develop
clear criteria for the selection of City Wildlife Sites is therefore reinforced.
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Appendix 3

GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES IN
CAMBRIDGE CITY
These guidelines are based on those contained in A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe ed.
1977) which are in common use in the selection of SSSIs, the standard English Nature
management plan format and the selection of County Wildlife Sites.
Because of the relative complexity of the evaluation system and especially the varying
emphases that may be put on the different elements of a site in the urban context, no attempt
is made to adopt a scoring system.
It should be remembered that urban ecology is a very young science. The importance of some
specifically urban habitats is only beginning to be recognised. Concepts such as ‘corridors’
and ‘networks’ of sites within urban contexts are generating considerable discussion and are
the target of continuing research. The precautionary principle should be adopted whenever
possible when assessing the value of sites.
The need for up-to-date survey information is of the utmost importance in the assessment
process. Urban sites are subject to rapid change. However, the difficulties of carrying out
ecological surveys at certain times of the year must be taken into account.
In the urban context the importance of people’s contact with wildlife and wildlife habitats in
their home and work environments is given a much higher priority than in rural areas, this is
reflected in the guidelines.
Guidelines
Size - In general, larger sites are more highly valued than smaller ones, all else being equal.
Amongst aspects of size to be considered are the relative size of the site compared with sites
of similar type, the extent of individual components of the site, and whether the site is of
sufficient size that small changes within will not lead to loss of the site’s interest. Larger sites
provide for increased opportunities of the zoning of human activities that may lessen their
impact on the wildlife interest.
Diversity - Both diversity of habitat within a site and diversity of species within each habitat
will be taken into account.
Naturalness - Sites least modified by man are valued more highly. The degree and nature of
modification should be noted.
Rarity - Rarity of communities, habitat and species in the national, county and City context.
The increasing knowledge of the value of some purely urban habitats will need to be taken
into account within this section.
Recreatability - Sites that are difficult or impossible to recreate are highly valued.

CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 Recorded History - Existence of long standing historical records can add to the importance of a site for continuing scientific research and will also add to the social and cultural importance of the site for people. Position in an Ecological Unit - This is particularly important in the urban context in relation to the concepts of corridors and networks; also in relation to the availability of wildlife habitats for people. The relationship with other wildlife sites will be assessed. Sites otherwise of low value that are the only available wildlife sites in a built up area will achieve a higher importance. Human Value - A much more important criterion within urban areas than most rural areas. The types and levels of human usage of a site should be recorded. Education use and community involvement in the management will be especially important. Some sites, even if not accessible to the public, may be important visually or as reservoirs for wildlife using adjacent public areas. Potential Value - Certain sites could, through appropriate management or even natural change, eventually develop a nature conservation interest substantially greater than that existing at present. Note may be made of those factors which would limit such potential being achieved. Opportunity for increased human use must also be taken into account especially in areas where few areas of public open space are available. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Appendix 4
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE
CITY WILDLIFE SITE (CityWS) REVIEW GROUP

1.
The Review Group has been set up in response to a recognised need to maintain an authoritative and reputable system for designating wildlife sites in Cambridge. The Terms of Reference of the Review Group were agreed following a discussion between representatives of Cambridge City Council, English Nature, the Wildlife Trust (City Group) and the Wildlife Trust (Staff) at a meeting on 4th August 1993. For the purposes of designating or de-designating a site all members of the Review Group must either be present or must submit their comments and recommendations in writing. The Review Group will comprise representatives as above plus individuals with a specialised knowledge of a particular site, its habitat, or species therein, asked to attend on an ad hoc basis. The Review Group will have two main functions: Initially it will be concerned with drawing up clear criteria against which existing CityWS and proposed CityWS can be evaluated. These criteria will be based on guidelines drawn up by the Wildlife Trust (Development of SINC Designation in Cambridge City, April 1993). These will be designed specifically for habitats found in Cambridge and will also stay abreast of developing national city designation methodology. The Review Group will commission survey (or re-survey) work to gather information about sites to an agreed format; the Group will decide the minimum information level required for site selection. The Group will then apply the criteria to sites and recommend selection or deselection to the City Council accordingly. The Review Group will meet at least once a year and the meetings will be convened by the Wildlife Trust. The Review Group will not normally consider the implications of specific development proposals for City sites, including CityWS, unless the developer has requested the deselection of a site. In cases when development is approved and implemented the Group will recommend to the City Council whether the designation should be upheld, amended or deleted. Surveys will be commissioned by the Review Group as funding becomes available. Surveys of sites will be carried out by surveyors selected by and acceptable to all members of the Group. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2 A rolling programme of survey, site selection and re-survey will be developed. Priority will be given to sites subject to development proposals. Each site will be re-surveyed every 5 years if resources are available. Information about the sites surveyed will be stored in a database held at the Wildlife Trust. These Terms of Reference will be reviewed after a year (from October 1994) and revised if necessary. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Appendix 5 (a)
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF COUNTY WILDLIFE SITES
The following selected Criteria used for County Wildlife Sites will apply to the four
categories of plants and animals indicated in the City criteria.
1.
Butterflies
Sites supporting populations of nationally rare or scarce species.
Sites supporting one of the five strongest populations in the county of nationally
declining species.
Dragonflies
All sites supporting populations of nationally rare species.
Sites supporting one of the five strongest populations of nationally scarce species.
Any site supporting twelve or more species.

For sections 1 and 2 above all records should have been made within 5 years of the
selection date. Only confirmed breeding records should be considered. Recent deliberate
introductions should not be included.

3.
Saproxylic beetles
Sites with an ecological continuity index greater than 8 should be considered for
inclusion. Records should be post-1945.
Water beetles
Any site supporting more than 35 species should be considered for inclusion.

5. General

a)
Any site with an invertebrate index exceeding 500 (calculated as summation of
nationally rare = 100 and nationally scarce = 50) should be considered for inclusion.
Records should have been made since 1980.
Any site with an A, B or C grading in the JNCC Invertebrate Site Register.
Any site supporting significant populations of Red Data Book or nationally scarce
species. (Butterflies and dragonflies are dealt with under sections 1 and 2 above).
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
6. Further
Invertebrate data needs to be interpreted carefully, not least because, more than in most groups, the apparent interest of a site can be greatly influenced by recording effort. Also, a site may score highly on a miscellany of species without these collectively indicating a site or habitat of very high quality. Specialist advice should be sought from the Wildlife Trust for all prospective sites. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES_version 2.2
Appendix 5 (b)
VASCULAR PLANTS RARE IN OLD CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Species recorded in 3 or fewer sites in the old county (largely vc. 29) and which have been
present at the site for 5 years or more since 1970. Nationally Rare and Nationally Scarce
species not included. Data provided by G.Crompton and D.Wells.
Nomenclature follows New Flora of the British Isles 1st Edition C.A.Stace CUP 1991
Adoxa moschatellina
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CITY WILDLIFE SITES Appendix 5(b) continued

Lysimachia nemorum
Plantago maritima Potamogeton alpinus Potamogeton gramineus Potamogeton praelongus Potentilla argentea Puccinellia distans Puccinellia maritima Quercus petraea Ranunculus sardous Rosa micrantha Rubus anglocandicans Rubus britannicus Rubus cardiophyllus Rubus criniger Rubus flexuosus Rubus insectifolius Rubus lindleianus Rubus nemorosus Rubus pedemontanus Rubus polyanthemus Rubus proiectus Rubus pruinosus Rubus pyramidalis Rubus rufescens Sagina apetala ssp. apetala Sagina maritima Salicornia ramosissima Salix aurita Salix myrsinifolia Salix repens Sambucus ebulus Schoenus nigricans Seriphidium maritimum Sorbus torminalis Sparganium natans CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CAMBRIDGE CITY WILDLIFE SITES
Appendix 5 (c)
COUNTY RARE BREEDING BIRDS
Garganey
Pochard
Marsh Harrier
Hobby
Quail
Stone Curlew
Black-tailed Godwit
Long-eared Owl
Short-eared Owl
Tree Pipit
Grey Wagtail
Black Redstart
Redstart
Wheatear
Cetti's Warbler
Wood Warbler
Pied Flycatcher
Bearded Tit
Nuthatch
Golden Oriole
Hawfinch
In all cases a site should have qualified for four out of the last five years.
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CAMBRIDGE CITY WILDLIFE SITES
Appendix 6
CAMBRIDGESHIRE GRASSLAND INDICATORS

Nomenclature follows New Flora of the British Isles 1st Edition C.A.Stace CUP 1991
*signifies a strong indicator
Neutral Grassland
Calcareous Grassland
Alchemilla filicaulis ssp. vestita* Lady's-mantle Common Spotted Orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii* CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CAMBRIDGE CITY WILDLIFE SITES Appendix 6 continued

Neutral Grassland
Calcareous Grassland
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CAMBRIDGE CITY WILDLIFE SITES Appendix 6 continued

Neutral Grassland
Calcareous Grassland

Source: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5247E6E9-E4AF-4B3A-BD1E-4874A4FFFA9E/0/CiWSselectioncriteria.pdf