1. Parkland Plans with Higher Level Stewardship Jo Barnes and Ruth Garner
Historic Environment Lead Advisers for Natural England – East, London and South East

2. Agenda Introduction to Environmental Stewardship (ES)
Explain how Parkland fits into the objectives of ES
Demonstrate what we can achieve in Parklands through ES
Explain the opportunities for consultation with CGT’s in ES
Clarify the content and format of consultations with CGT’s
Identify NE staff involved in the consultation process
I’ve come here today to introduce you to Environmental Stewardship and explain how Parkland is one of NE’s objectives. [Then have a few examples of what we can achieve through HLS – Editor’s note – these have been removed for copyright reasons! Contact HLPO if examples are required]
I then want to briefly go over the consultation opportunites there are in the HLS process and where consultation would be most effective and then what format and content the responses should be.

3. Environmental Stewardship
ES is an agri-environment scheme open to farmers and other land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on their land
In return for looking after our wildlife, landscapes, historic features, and natural resources (soils and water), ES provides farmers and land managers with a financial incentive that supports and rewards them for this work
Land Managers can include institutions such as schools – ie Benenden School in Kent

4. Environmental Stewardship
Natural England (NE) manages Environmental Stewardship (ES) on behalf of Defra
Land entered into the ES must be registered on the Rural Land Registry and must be part of the farmed environment
Farmed environment =
all your farmed land (a whole farm scheme)
other non-farmed land. You may also enter land that does not contribute to your farming system but is still considered part of the farmed environment e.g. Large blocks of woodland, parcels of scrub, disused mineral sites, other neglected areas or vulnerable non-agricultural land that would benefit from protective management under ES (e.g. SSSI)
Land registry has become more flexible so that non farming land can form the main land use eg Basingstoke canal – tow path was the land

5. Environmental Stewardship
ES has three elements:
Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) – non-competitive so automatically guaranteed an agreement if enough basic level management options are delivered on eligible land and meet all scheme conditions. Promotes good stewardship of the countryside through simple and effective land management
Organic ELS (OELS) – as above for organic operatives
Effectively involves the on-going management of existing features ie hedgerow management with some small changes in farming practices such as reversion, establishing field buffers etc. There are no capital investment opportunities at this level

6. Environmental Stewardship
Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) – discretionary. Agreements allocated where they are likely to achieve most environmental benefit and good value for money.
NE want HLS agreements that will help manage, restore or create features set out in targeted area and theme statements.
Agreements involve more complex types of management and capital items are available
These are targeted, normally, invitation only agreements, in accordance with our target and theme statements available on the website. It is the higher level agreement that provides access to the capital investment funding.

7. Environmental Stewardship
Primary objectives:
Conserve wildlife (biodiversity)
Maintain and enhance landscape quality and character, by helping to maintain important features such as field boundaries
Protect the historic environment, including archaeological features and traditional farm buildings
Protect natural resources, by improving water quality and reducing soil erosion and surface run-off
The primary objectives of ES are to

8. Historic Environment and HLS
HLS includes options to protect the historic environment including:
Farm buildings
Parkland
Parkland structures ie bridges and follies
HELAs [Ruth Garner and Jo Barnes] obviously specialise in delivering the HE objectives within ES, primarily under the higher level scheme and we have the ability to address the following HE assets
[Images removed for copyright reasons]
This is a war shrine in the unregistered, municipal park of Stoneham in Hants. There was very good evidence as to how this monument looked and a substantial amount of match funding had been raised by a local ‘Friends of Avenue Shrine’ group. The roof and the railings have been reinstated and the tablets recording the dead installed.

9. Historic Environment and HLS
Upstanding archaeology – banks, mounds, WW structures and medieval ruins
Below ground archaeology – roman villas, flat cemeteries etc
Water meadows
Historic boundaries – railings, walls and ancient hedgerows
[Images removed for copyright reasons] These works to water meadows were undertaken under HLS and resulted in a prize winning habitat at Widney Brooks in the South Downs.

10. Historic Parkland and HLS
Important historic landscape feature in its own right
Important areas of permanent pasture especially where they are “islands” in arable landscapes
Preserve archaeological features, sometimes at the landscape scale
Key rare wood-pasture and veteran tree habitats
Obviously today we are going to look in detail at parkland in HLS and how CGT’s can help in this process.
Why is NE interested in Parkland as an objective?

11. Historic parkland and HLS
English Heritage’s Heritage Counts 2005
Mapped extent of parkland using 1918 and then 1995 Ordnance Survey (OS) maps, against Joint Character Areas
In 1918 parkland in England was concentrated in the SE – in the Cotswolds, Chilterns and High Weald
In 1918 the OS recorded ~400,000 ha of parkland
This is the “core” rather than full extent of designed landscape
By 1995, OS recorded less than 180,000 ha of parkland
In addition to Parkland being a fabulous natural environment resource and HE feature it is also exceptional vulnerable in the SE.
In 2005 English Heritage published Heritage Counts which looked at the loss and extent of Parkland in England between 1918 and 1995.
The OS focus on land use and land cover means there may be a degree of under-reporting of parkland in England in the 1995 data.
That’s a loss of over 50% of the regions parkland in under 100 years. NE have

12. This diagram is taken from the EH Heritage Counts 2005 report
This diagram is taken from the EH Heritage Counts 2005 report. It shows the devastating loss of parkland in JCAs in the SE.
Analysis of the mapped data suggests that smaller parks have suffered the greatest loss and may small parks have disappeared. Larger parks may still exist, but many are much reduced in their extent or include areas no longer categorised as parkland by the OS due to the change of land cover.
Arable farming probably represents the most dramatic change in use from parkland
This research influenced the HLS targets as we shall see.
Kent, Surrey and Berks have some of the most vulnerable parkland in the country. Verena will expand on the qualities of parkland in her presentation.

13. HE and HLS targeting
All target area statements have 3 objectives for HE assets:
Positive management of visible and below ground archaeological and historic features
Protect, maintain and restore historic landscapes and their features, such as parkland
Maintain or restore historic buildings
This combination of HE significance and NE significance means that Parkland is not only included as an NE objective but priority sites are also targeted in both our area statements and our regional theme statements.
All are aimed at sites that are assessed as a priority in the SE region.
HE features – SMs and undesignated that have been prioritised with advice from local Historic Environment Records (HERs)
Parklands – both designated (Registered Parks & Gardens, World Heritage Sites, Registered Battlefields) and undesignated that have been prioritised with advice from local HERs. However, CGTs could help inform NE here. 13

14. SE HLS non-target areas
NB GREEN AREAS ARE NOT TARGETED AREAS (map is a bit back to front)

15. HE and HLS targeting SE HLS theme statement:
Theme 5 – reducing risk to nationally designated assets identified by the Risk Survey
Theme 7 – reducing the damage caused to undesignated below-ground archaeological sites by cultivation, and protecting and enhancing visible undesignated HE features
Theme 5 – Registered Parks & Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Battlefields
Theme 7 – NE will liaise with local HERs (and potentially CGT) to identify the contribution that would be made to the maintenance of historic landscape character of an area by any proposals e.g. positive management of undesignated parklands where their survival makes a good, visible contritution to historic landscape character. 15

16. How we decide which parkland to invest in with HLS?
Since the spending review of 2010 NE have become more targeted
However we receive applications for up to 20 registered landscapes a year and a further 40 unregistered
We therefore need to prioritise parkland further

17. Which parklands could be considered eligible for HLS?
The following criteria should be met for a parkland to be considered eligible for HLS management or restoration options:
Registered landscape
Unregistered landscape that sustains another high value environmental feature such as an risk SM, or priority BAP habitat e.g. chalk grassland
Unregistered landscape that sustains multiple medium value environmental features such as below ground archaeology, protected species, BAP habitat, improved educational access
So how do you identify a parkland that would be eligible for HLS at the present time?
Obviously with the budget restrictions at the moment we have to be much more targetted than we would like as in the past NE have funded unregistered landscapes on the basis of their own merit.

18. Quarr Abbey on the Isle of Wight
[Image removed for OS copyright reasons]
This is Quarr Abbey in the IOW and is an example of an unregistered landscape that would qualify for HLS on the basis of its SSSI and risk.

19. Managing and restoring parkland requires evidence
There are a variety of opportunities within the HLS agreement process for consultation by NE with CGT’s
An informal consultation at pre-application phase, by
This would be an information gathering exercise to establish the sites eligibility for HLS – normally for low status sites
A more formal consultation by when the application is submitted
This would be to identify works required on the site and help with determining issues of significance

20. Involvement with Parkland Plans
The final opportunity is when a Parkland Plan is recommended as part of the HLS agreement
NE would notify the CGT by of the commissioning of a Parkland Plan
CGT would then determine their level of commitment to the project e.g.
One off contribution of information to the plan
Attendance at the inception meeting
Attendance meetings throughout the project
Comments on draft documentation .

21. Additional information for higher graded parkland
For Risk and other Grade I and II* parkland there is often a large amount of information on overall significance of the site
However, for decisions over the restoration of specific features within the parkland e.g. avenues, tree clumps, views etc, additional information is essential
This invariably means a parkland plan has to be produced, which is where CGT’s can most usefully input into the process.

22. What type of information can CGT’s provide?
Any research into the significance of particular features on the site in relation to other sites, or in relation to other features on this site
For examples:
Research identifying the rarity, and therefore value, of the e.g. survival of Capability Brown sluices on a site
Research identifying the overriding importance of a particular scheme of planting throughout the design life of the parkland
Research into the overriding significance of a certain period of the designed landscape

23. Addition information for lower graded and unregistered parkland
For Grade II and Unregistered parkland there is often little or no information about the development and significance of the site
Therefore any information setting the site in its regional or national context is invaluable
This is where CGT’s can really add the most value to the process.

24. Addition information for lower graded and unregistered parkland
Information could include:
research highlighting particular elements of value in the landscape
Site visit information suggesting the level of preservation on the site, its integrity
Biodiversity information detailing habitat survival on the site
Information indicating a significant time depth on the site

25. Example of unregistered parkland at Holmbush Park, Surrey
[Images removed for OS copyright reasons]
This is an unregistered parkland in Surrey. Very little was known about it when the application came in and as such the decision was taken to base a restoration scheme, through standard payments only, on the 1st edition OS. However during the site visit it was clear that the site held considerable interest and that there was a well established education use that could warrant further investment should further research of the site come to light or be undertaken to establish some regional value and significance.
Top picture shows a series of paddocks established on the pasture directly in front of the main house and the second photo shows the main ride from the rear of the house. This was managed under a woodland management option with a detail in the prescription to maintain the openess of the rides.

26. What format should the information be provided in ?
Information should be provided via and attached documents where possible, as many NE officers are home workers
The should include the following
CGT name and name of author
The name of the parkland
Grid reference of the feature if about a specific feature
List the number of bits of information
Identify the nature of the information e.g. observation at a site visit, individual research, verbal report etc.
State the subject of the information
A summary of findings
The summary should clearly state the significance and value of the feature or parkland being discussed.
The significance and value will normally be in relation to the national or regional collection of landscapes.

27. Consultations
DO NOT PANIC - it is at the discretion of the CGT as to whether a consultation response is provided
NE asks that consultations are politely declined where there is a shortfall in capacity

28. Deciding whether to provide a Consultation
NE work to tight deadlines and consultations during the lifetime of the application process are required within 21 days of the request
In terms of CGT involvement in the Parkland Plan process, if an interest is expressed by the CGT, NE advisers will issue invitations to the staged meetings which members can accept or decline

29. Who will be asking for Consultations
There are 5 NE teams across the SE region, nominally based in offices
Winchester – covering Hants and IOW
Oxford – covering Berks, Bucks and Oxon
Guildford – covering Surrey
Worthing – covering Sussex
Ashford – covering Kent
Addresses are available on the NE website
However, as mentioned before, many NE staff work from home

30. Who will be asking for Consultations
The teams are known as Land Management teams and each has a team leader:
Rachel Bailey - Hants and IOW
Jonathan Newman - Surrey, Berks and London
Caroline Svendsen - Oxon and Bucks
Kristoffer Hewitt - West and East Sussex
Mick Oliver - Kent
Within the teams there are between 5 and 10 land management advisers – these are the people who will be consulting you

31. What next?
NE advisers have been informed of the potential to include CGT’s within the HLS process
We anticipate a slow start to the process as NE advisers begin to integrate the consultation process into their ways of working and CGT’s find the capacity to respond
The details of this presentation with the consultation format guidance will be made available to CGT’s

32. We look forward to the development of a rewarding and productive partnership