EX90 Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI ... - Medway Council

Natural England Executive Board 

Meeting number: 88 

Date: 11 March 2013 

Item number: 02 

Paper ref: EB/88/02 

Title: Proposal for SSSI – Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill, Kent 

Sponsor: Jim Smyllie, Executive Director – People, Landscape & Biodiversity 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill lies on the Hoo Peninsula in north Kent, north-east of Rochester. The 

site comprises a mosaic of habitats, including long-established semi-natural woodland (areas of which 

are recorded as ancient semi-natural woodland), dense scrub and neutral grassland. The site is also of 

importance for its breeding nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos. The total area proposed for 

notification as Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill is 351.16 ha. The site includes all of the land 

previously notified as Chattenden Woods SSSI by reason of its nationally important woodland, neutral 

grassland and breeding birds. 

1. Notification and confirmation process 

1.1. The attached notification and supporting information documents are presented to the Executive 

Board for approval to notify Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill as a SSSI under section 28C of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as inserted by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way 

Act 2000. 

1.2. The notification document will be sent (if approved) to the owners, occupiers and statutory 

authorities. It includes a summary of the special interests and site boundary, information on the 

consultation process and the legal documents. The supporting information document presents 

the detailed information which has been used to assess the importance of this site and will be 

available on request from the local team. 

1.3. Having determined that land within and extending beyond an existing SSSI is of special interest for 

reasons including and exceeding those previously notified, Natural England’s normal practice is to 

enlarge the existing site under section 28C. This enables us to include land not previously notified 

and to subsume any other existing sites within the area in question, as well as to revise the 

reasons for notification and other legal documents. The rationale for the use of section 28C in this 

case is set out below under ‘the decision-making process’. In this regard, the attention of the 

Executive Board is drawn to section 2.1 of the notification document, in particular the 

enlargement of the previously notified Chattenden Woods SSSI (128.96 ha). Enlargement of an 

existing SSSI entails drawing a boundary that includes but extends beyond the existing site, as well 

as replacing the other legal documents. A proposed enlarged site is therefore assessed for special 

scientific interest in its entirety, not as an existing site and a proposed extension separately. With 

effect from the date of this proposed notification under section 28C (if approved), the previous 

notification of Chattenden Woods SSSI would cease to have effect. 

Page 1 of 50

1.4. Subject to approval, the formal notification will be issued in mid March 2013, initiating a four 

month consultation period with owners, occupiers and other interested parties. The local team 

will seek to resolve all objections as far as possible. The notification of Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill under section 28C would take immediate effect when notified. Natural England may 

confirm or withdraw the notification under section 28C within nine months of the notification 

date. If it does neither, the notification ceases to have effect. 

1.5. If there are no outstanding objections, the approval to confirm notifications under section 28C has 

been delegated to the Director of Landscape and Biodiversity. Otherwise, the case must be 

considered by the Board of Natural England. 

2. The decision-making process 

2.1. These decisions are often contentious as they can cause considerable concern to landowners and 

occupiers or third parties who are affected by the proposed changes to the SSSI. For this reason 

the notification and confirmation of any SSSI raises the very real prospect of a legal challenge 

being brought against Natural England. It is therefore imperative that the Executive Board has an 

understanding of their powers and duties and the law which governs the manner in which 

decisions on SSSI ought to be made. We recently obtained Leading Counsel’s advice (attached at 

Annex 2) on Natural England’s powers and duties as part of our preparation for the decision on 

whether the notification of Benty Grange SSSI should be confirmed. The Advice is however also 

relevant to the matters that the Executive Board need to consider, and the weight that they 

should give to certain information when deciding whether to notify a SSSI. 

2.2. Section 28C(1) provides that, where Natural England is of the opinion that any area of land which 

includes, but also extends beyond, a SSSI is of special interest, Natural England may decide to 

notify that fact. The attached notification and supporting information documents provide 

information on the scientific case. As Counsel has confirmed the decision for the Executive Board 

is a scientific one – does the science support the proposal? However when considering enlarging a 

SSSI, Natural England has discretion about whether to notify (enlargement of SSSIs is a power, not 

a duty). 

2.3. There has been no case law on the extent of the discretion accorded to Natural England when 

exercising its powers under section 28C. English Nature took legal advice on this point. The advice 

drew an analogy to the situation in section 28(5), relating to confirmation of notifications, where, 

in fact, the legislative provision is phrased such that the Board has a discretion to confirm a SSSI or 

not. There has been case law on this point and both the High Court and Court of Appeal were 

clear that if the science supports the designation of a SSSI then the Board should designate it as 

such. In other words, as regards section 28(5) there is very little discretion if the science indicates 

that the site is of special scientific interest. Similarly, legal opinion, including that of Defra’s 

lawyers, is that when considering notifying a site relying on its powers under section 28C the 

Executive Board in fact has very little, if any, discretion if the science supports the notification. 

2.4. Natural England also has a number of general legislative duties under section 40 of the Natural 

Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) (duty to have regard to the purpose of 

conserving biodiversity) and section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 (duty to have regard to the 

needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas) that it 

needs to be aware of when considering SSSI notification. However as stated above, any judgment 

must be based on the scientific case for the special interest of the site in question and therefore 

ordinarily the regard which is due to other general legislative duties will be minimal. Indeed 

Counsel has indicated that no regard would be due to matters referred to in section 37 when 

Page 2 of 50

Natural England is considering whether to withdraw or to confirm a notification. The same 

principle would apply to notification. Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill is not a rural area and is 

primarily a military site not used for agriculture, so section 37 considerations would not appear to 

be applicable in any case. 

2.5. Having taken account of the general legislative requirements outlined above, if approved, officer 

advice is that Natural England will be exercising its discretion in terms of section 28C for the 

following reasons: 

a) Sound ecological principles: 

Specialist surveys have identified nationally important numbers of breeding nightingale, 

ancient and long-established semi-natural woodlands, and unimproved neutral grasslands 

within and adjacent to the previously notified SSSI. 

Inclusion of the additional areas of special interest with the previously notified SSSI as a 

single enlarged site, is compatible with a ‘whole system’ approach to the management and 

protection of the special interests. 

b) Having taken account of our duties under the NERC Act and the Countryside Act, we are satisfied 

that these duties require no further consideration at this stage. 

2.6. In considering the specification of any operations likely to damage the special features Natural 

England has to decide whether or not such operations are likely to damage those features. The 

reasons for the selection of each of the operations in this case are set out in section 4 of the 

supporting information document, which the Executive Board should make reference to when 

considering the recommendation to approve the list of operations. The specification of these 

operations may engage a person’s rights under the European Convention on Fundamental Rights 

and Freedoms but in Counsel’s opinion the statutory regime which requires a person to apply for 

consent allows a fair balance to be struck at that point between likely harm to the nature 

conservation interests and any likely detriment to the owner/occupier. This coupled with the fact 

there is a right of appeal if consent is not granted means this regime is not disproportionate and 

does not infringe the owner/occupier’s human right to quiet enjoyment of their possessions. 

2.7. When expressing its views on management, Natural England should seek to promote its general 

purpose whilst having regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity (as required by section 40 

of the NERC Act) and giving such regard as it considers appropriate in all the circumstances to the 

needs of agriculture and forestry and to the social and economic interests of any rural area (in 

accordance with section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968). In this respect it may also bear in mind 

that the statement has no legal effect itself. It should have regard however to the Code of 

Guidance issued by the Secretary of State in 2003 which states: 

3. Science 

“the Secretary of State expects the [statement of views on management] to be a simple 

statement of the way in which the land needs to be managed in order to maintain its special 

interest.” 

3.1. Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill supports a diverse mosaic of semi-natural habitats, including 

ancient and long-established semi-natural woodland, scrub and neutral grassland. It is of special 

interest by reason of the following nationally important features that occur within and are 

supported by the wider habitat mosaic: 

Page 3 of 50

3.2. Ancient and long-established semi-natural woodland – The extensive woodland represents one of 

the best examples of coppice-with-standards woodland on the London Clay. The dominant 

woodland community is of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) type W10 pedunculate oak 

Quercus robur – bracken Pteridium aquilinum – bramble Rubus fruticosus woodland. Two subcommunities 

are represented: the W10a typical sub-community and the W10b wood anemone 

Anemone nemorosa sub-community. The woodland is largely comprised of pedunculate oak 

standards with ash coppice of varying age structure. ‘Lowland mixed deciduous woodland’, which 

includes the woodland communities present in Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill, is a habitat of 

principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. These woodland habitats are 

a ‘reason for notification’ of the current Chattenden Woods SSSI but the proposed enlarged site 

would increase the total woodland area included from 110 ha to 163 ha, and increase the area of 

ancient semi-natural woodland included from 18 ha to 55 ha. 

3.3. Unimproved neutral grassland – Rough Shaw is an area of dense and scattered scrub on a north 

facing slope with tall-herb neutral grassland along its upper margin. The tall-herb neutral 

grassland includes stands of the unimproved nationally scarce NVC type MG5 crested dog’s-tail 

Cynosurus cristatus – common knapweed Centaurea nigra grassland, which conform mainly to the 

MG5b lady’s bedstraw Galium verum sub-community. Three fields in the north of the Lodge Hill 

Training Area include more extensive areas of MG5 grassland of a similar nature to the stands at 

Rough Shaw. These areas represent semi-natural grassland on base-rich London Clay attributable 

to the MG5b sub-community. A notable occurrence in all three fields is dyer’s greenweed Genista 

tinctoria, a species associated with unimproved meadows, pastures and heaths. MG5 grassland is 

a ‘reason for notification’ of the current Chattenden Woods SSSI but the proposed enlarged site 

would increase the total area included from around 1 ha to approximately 12.6 ha, the majority of 

which is within the Lodge Hill Training Area. These grasslands form part of the ‘lowland meadows’ 

habitat, which is listed as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in 

England. 

3.4. Breeding nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos – The site supports a nationally important number of 

nightingales during the breeding season, with 85 territorial males representing 1.3% of the GB 

breeding population. Nightingale is not a ‘reason for notification’ (in its own right) of the current 

Chattenden Woods SSSI, but is the principal reason for proposing the notification of an enlarged 

SSSI under section 28C, rather than additional land under section 28B (the latter would not allow 

the inclusion of new ‘reasons for notification’). This is consistent with the current SSSI selection 

guidelines which were produced by the Nature Conservancy Council in 1989. They provide the 

accepted standard for identifying features (including birds) of national importance and are used by 

all the statutory nature conservation agencies as well as providing a reference for others with an 

interest in the selection of SSSIs. 

3.5. Since 1991 JNCC, working with the nature conservation agencies, has co-ordinated the production 

and revision of the selection guidelines. A series of revisions have been made by the JNCC in the 

form of additional and revised chapters, although the underlying rationale remains intact and fit 

for purpose. The birds chapter has not been revised and is still relevant to SSSI selection for birds 

today, although some elements need updating to reflect changes in bird abundance and 

conservation status since 1989. The birds chapter includes guidelines for selecting nationally 

important aggregations of birds exceeding 1% of the GB population of a particular species and this 

will be retained through any revision of the chapter. 

3.6. The basic principle of identifying important bird features based on numbers of individuals or pairs 

remains valid and continues to be the most widely applied approach to recognising and 

Page 4 of 50

designating nationally and internationally important bird features. The use of 1% of a national or 

international population as a measure of the importance of a bird aggregation has a long history. 

It was first established as part of the criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance 1 

and has been adopted by the Ramsar Convention, the UK SPA selection guidelines and the SSSI 

selection guidelines. It is therefore internationally accepted and, in the UK, is widely applied by the 

statutory nature conservation agencies and others, including RSPB and BTO. Chattenden Woods 

and Lodge Hill satisfies the SSSI selection guidelines because it supports over 1% of the national 

breeding population of nightingales. 

3.7. Nightingale is not listed in schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Annex I to the EC 

Birds Directive or section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (species of 

principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England). It is an amber-listed ‘Bird of 

Conservation Concern’ 2 and is subject to the general provisions protecting wild birds and their 

eggs and nests in part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A species inclusion on the 

amber list is not a factor in judging whether a site is of special interest by reference to the SSSI 

selection guidelines (as described above) but is presented here to note that the notification 

proposal, should it be approved, would make a contribution towards the conservation of a species 

that has been identified as being of conservation concern. 

3.8. The map (see section 7 of the supporting information document) of nightingale territories 

recorded across Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill during the 2012 national nightingale survey, 

which has been checked and verified by the BTO, indicates that nightingales use both woodland 

coppice and scrub habitats, with the greater number using scrub. Twenty-seven (0.4% GB) of the 

territories located in 2012 were within the previously notified SSSI, with the remaining 58 (0.9% 

GB) in the extension areas. The BTO has advised that the territory assessment for Chattenden 

Woods and Lodge Hill is considered to be conservative, so the figure of 85 territories determined 

should be taken as a minimum, for the following reasons: 

 

 

these are the 'raw' survey data and no account has been taken of detectability, unlike the 

provisional national population estimate (see below), so we are comparing the minimum 

estimate for the site population with the provisional maximum estimate for the national 

population; and 

in local high density areas (such as many parts of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill), it can be 

very difficult for observers in the field to separate individual territories, so two or more 

territories may be counted as a single territory, resulting in the total number being underestimated. 

3.9. Nightingales at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill depend on a dense cover of shrubs in the form 

of coppiced woodland and scrub habitats. A wide range of structural diversity of scrub is required 

in a mosaic with open grassy areas. Nightingales have been recorded using other habitats at some 

locations, such as bare ground beneath mature trees, open scrub with dense nettle beds and open 

rides, and such habitats may also be important at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill. While 

nightingale territories tend to be centred on scrub of intermediate growth, it is probably normal 

1 Atkinson-Willes, G.L., Scott, D.A. & Prater, A.J. 1982. Criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance. In: 

Proceedings of the conference on the conservation of wetlands of international importance as waterfowl habitat. Cagliari, 

Italy, November 1980, pp 1017-1042. Supplemento alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina, 81 (1). 

2 Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A & Gregory RD 2009. Birds of 

Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British 

Birds 102: 296-341. http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u12/bocc3.pdf 

Page 5 of 50

for birds to use a home range encompassing a wider range of habitats while breeding 3 . It is 

therefore important to maintain the extent, quality and diversity of all these habitats as each are 

likely to support different aspects of nightingale ecology. 

3.10. Nightingales depend on a range of habitats in Britain, including scrub, woodland (including 

coppice), woodland edge, glades and rides, carr, new and young plantations and thick hedgerows. 

There has been a recent shift in habitat distribution of nightingales in Britain, with a greater 

proportion now occurring in scrub compared to woodland and coppice 4 . The proportion of British 

nightingales in coppice decreased from 13.6% to 8.6% between 1976 and 1999, and increased in 

scrub from 28.4% to 46.7% during the same period. This is not simply because of a reduction in 

availability of coppice (as much apparently suitable coppice is unoccupied) and we consider that 

scrub offers a more suitable habitat. 

3.11. The regular use of a site by a sufficiently high number of birds to merit SSSI notification is normally 

established by data collected over several consecutive years. Although this is frequently possible 

in the case of non-breeding waterbirds, which are monitored annually at many locations, it is 

rarely achievable for breeding species. For example, some scarce breeding species are subject to 

comprehensive monitoring only once every twelve years. Consequently, some SSSIs and SPAs 

have been designated for breeding species on the basis of one year’s data only. In such cases 

regular use of the site over a number of years can be established by reference to other data which, 

although not based on comprehensive surveys, can at least be used to indicate the presence and 

broad abundance of breeding birds over a number of years. This is a well established and 

accepted technique applied to cases where species are infrequently monitored. 

3.12. This approach has been adopted for nightingales due to the lack of comprehensive, dedicated 

surveys preceding 2012. The data from preceding years, although not covering all parts of the 

site, or not employing surveys specifically designed to record nightingales, are still of value in that 

they provide firm evidence that breeding birds have been present in considerable numbers since 

at least 2009. 

3.13. Sole use of the 2012 data to provide an estimate of nightingale numbers in the SSSI is justified 

because they are the most recent data, they cover the entire site, they are based on a 

methodology specifically devised to most accurately survey nightingales and they were collected 

by an expert surveyor 5 . The differences between numbers recorded in earlier years and those 

recorded in 2012 are thus due to varying methodology and coverage. Although it is possible that 

habitat improvements have occurred since the previous survey in 2010, it is extremely unlikely 

that scrub and woodland habitats could have changed to such an extent to account for such a 

dramatic increase over such a short time span 4 . 

3.14. The estimate of numbers of birds present on the site in 2012 is considered to represent numbers 

present annually rather than an exceptional peak. Although above-average numbers of 

nightingales often occur in Britain in years with warm, dry weather in spring 6 this is unlikely to be 

3 Holt, C.A., Fuller, R.J. & Dolman, P.M. 2010. Experimental evidence that deer browsing reduces habitat suitability for 

breeding common nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos. Ibis 152: 335-346. 

4 Wilson, A.M., Henderson, A.C.B. & Fuller, R.J. 2002. Status of the nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos in Britain at the end of 

the 20 th Century with particular reference to climate change. Bird Study 49: 193-204. 

5 Hewson, C.M. & Fuller, R.J. 2012. Factors potentially affecting the viability and success of biodiversity offsetting to 

compensate for nightingale habitat loss. BTO report. 

6 Marchant, J.H., Hudson, R., Carter, S.P. & Whittington, P. 1990. Population trends in British Breeding Birds. BTO, Thetford. 

Page 6 of 50

the case in 2012. The peak arrival time for nightingales in Britain is late April to early May 7 which, 

in 2012, coincided with exceptionally cold and wet conditions. April was the coldest since 1989 

and one of the wettest on record, with many regions recording twice the normal rainfall 8 . The 

cool, unsettled conditions persisted into May, with warmer conditions arriving only in the last 

week 9 . It is therefore highly unlikely that numbers of nightingales recorded in the SSSI in 2012 

were unusually high. In any event, as the 2012 site data were collected at the same time as the 

national survey, from which the latest national estimate has been derived, we can be confident 

that the comparison of SSSI numbers with national numbers is reliable because broad population 

effects due to weather will apply equally to numbers recorded at both the site level and nationally. 

In conclusion, it is considered that the 2012 estimate most accurately represents the numbers of 

nightingales using the site in recent years. 

3.15. It is estimated that the SSSI supports 1.3% of the GB nightingale population. This is based on the 

provisional national estimate of 6,250 to 6,550 singing males present in 2012 (Hewson & Fuller, 

BTO 2013 – attached as annex 3). In summary (but elaborated below in 3.16 to 3.19) this estimate 

is calculated by: 

taking account of the detectability of birds within surveyed tetrads (these formed the survey 

units); 

estimating the numbers present in tetrads known to have recently held birds but that were not 

surveyed in 2012; and 

estimating the numbers present in tetrads not known to have recently held territorial 

nightingales. 

3.16. The total number of tetrads surveyed in 2012 for which information is currently available to BTO is 

2,148. These contained an estimated 3,111 nightingale territories (i.e. the simple sum of 

estimated numbers of territories before application of any detectability correction). 

3.17. Raw survey counts were corrected for survey inefficiency (i.e. birds missed during surveys of sites 

that were covered) using detectability modelling. This estimates the probability of territories being 

detected on a tetrad by tetrad basis. Based on the dataset as currently available, and after 

correcting for detectability, the total number of territorial nightingales in tetrads surveyed in the 

2012 survey was close to 4,000 territorial birds. 

3.18. The number of territories likely to be present in ‘known nightingale tetrads’ (all locations where 

there was recent evidence, compiled from a range of sources, of nightingale occupancy) that were 

not covered in the survey was estimated by interpolation in two ways: (1) by using the relationship 

between the detectability-corrected counts in tetrads covered in 2012 and the predicted 

abundance from the model used to generate the map of abundance for the 2007-11 Atlas; and (2) 

by using the change in abundance between the 1999 nightingale survey and the 2012 survey in 

tetrads covered in both surveys. Method 1 (Atlas interpolation) estimates approximately 1100 and 

method 2 (interpolation using change since 1999) estimates approximately 1400 territories in 

these un-surveyed ‘known nightingale tetrads’. BTO consider that both methods are likely to have 

overestimated numbers of territories. The detectability-corrected total number of nightingale 

territories in both surveyed and un-surveyed ‘known nightingale tetrads’ was therefore around 

5,100 or 5,400 territorial birds depending on which method is used to interpolate for un-surveyed 

squares. 

7 Wernham, C., Toms, M., Marchant, J., Clark, J., Siriwardena, G. & Baillie, S. 2002. The Migration Atlas: movements of the 

birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO, Thetford. 

8 British Wildlife 2012. Volume 23(5): 349. 

9 British Wildlife 2012. Volume 23(6): 424. 

Page 7 of 50

3.19. The number of nightingales present in tetrads not known to hold nightingales was estimated using 

the rate at which nightingales were detected in a sample of randomly-selected tetrads which had 

been incorporated into the 2012 nightingale survey. These were tetrads not known to hold 

nightingales that were embedded within landscapes predicted to be occupied by nightingales. The 

correction was applied only for tetrads within 10-km squares known to be occupied by 

nightingales according to Atlas 2007-11 data and 2012 nightingale survey data. This estimated that 

around 1150 nightingales had been missed in tetrads not known to contain the species. BTO 

consider that this is likely to have over-estimated the number in these tetrads and that this 

potential source of over-estimation is likely to be the major source of error in the population 

estimate and will lead to an over-estimate. The total number of nightingales throughout the 

British range was therefore estimated to be around 6250-6550 territorial birds. This is likely to be 

an over-estimate due especially to the methods used to interpolate for un-surveyed tetrads. 

3.20. These sequential analyses have taken the raw survey data, corrected for detectability in surveyed 

tetrads, and incorporated estimates of territories in areas that were not surveyed, both in known 

nightingale areas and elsewhere. The BTO has described the remaining analyses which it intends 

to complete by late 2013 (see annex 3) and advised that these are not likely to have a significant 

effect on the population estimate. 

3.21. The BTO has also provided information on the quality assurance applied to the provisional 

estimate (including sampling design, field protocols, observer selection, checking of field data, 

data entry, and the multi-stage analytical approach described above), and the credentials and 

roles of the staff involved various aspects of the survey (attached as annex 4). 

3.22. The nightingale population is sampled annually by the BTO/RSPB/JNCC Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). 

The trend analysis from BBS indicates with a high degree of confidence (95%) that the UK 

population fell by between a fifth and two thirds between 1999 and 2010, and it is most likely that 

the population was halved. The change is assessed as statistically significant. 

3.23. Had the magnitude of the decline in the UK nightingale population (90% decline since the 1960s) 

been apparent at the time of the last ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ assessment, the species 

would have been placed on the red list rather than its current amber status. Whilst the rate of 

decline was greatest prior to 1978 (17% per annum), the species is still declining at a rate of 

approximately 3% per annum 5 . 

3.24. These population declines have gone hand in hand with a range contraction towards the southeast 

of the country; thus populations in Kent, Sussex and other south-eastern counties are 

becoming more important for the national status of the species. Preliminary results from the 

latest BTO Atlas, with breeding season fieldwork conducted between 2008 and 2011, show that 

the species is being lost from some areas within even these core counties 5 . A preliminary 

analysis 10 carried out for the BTO of 2012 survey results in Kent suggests a 26% decline within the 

county since 1999. 

3.25. The site provides an extensive area of scrub, woodland and associated habitats of established 

value to breeding nightingales. It is also situated in the core of the nightingale’s range in Britain 

and its location in south-east England is optimal for attracting migrating birds arriving from 

northern France. Nightingales show strong site-fidelity in the breeding season with 40% of males 

returning to the same locations in Kent in subsequent years 7,11 . Social behaviour is also an 

10 Henderson, A. 2012. Nightingale survey: preliminary results for Kent. Report to the British Trust for Ornithology. 

11 Woodcock, A. 1992. The Burham, Eccles and New Hythe Nightingales. Kent Bird Report 1991: 137-140. 

Page 8 of 50

important factor in settlement at breeding locations, with the presence of a cluster of singing 

males more likely to stimulate other birds to settle 12 . Given the substantial population at the site, 

it is likely that social attraction provides a strong stimulus for further settlement following the 

return of site-faithful males. 

3.26. The favourable site attributes of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill indicate that it is highly likely 

to persist as a major breeding location for nightingales, subject to maintenance of current habitat 

extent and quality and wider population changes. The longer term future of any breeding bird 

population is unknown although the location of the site in the species’ core area in Britain means 

that it is likely to persist longer than it would in a more peripheral location. 

The proposals in the context of the SSSI notification strategy 

3.27. In July 2012, Natural England’s Board approved Natural England’s Designations Strategy. One of 

the work streams within the Designations Strategy relates to the notification of SSSIs, which is 

addressed in more detail in Natural England’s SSSI Notification Strategy, which was approved by 

the Executive Board in 2008. The SSSI Notification Strategy is being implemented through two 

parallel and complimentary strands of work: review of the features and boundaries of all existing 

SSSIs; and assessment of SSSI coverage nationally on a habitat and species group basis. The 

proposal to notify Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill under section 28C follows review of the 

previously notified Chattenden Woods SSSI. The proposed inclusion of breeding nightingale as a 

feature of interest is made in accordance with priorities for SSSI notification that have been 

identified by the draft SSSI notification strategy review for birds. The review has assessed 

coverage of all bird species within the SSSI series and identified those where further coverage may 

be required. It has not yet reached the stage of finalising lists of candidate sites to address 

shortfalls in coverage. 

3.28. Selection of this site is supported by Natural England’s grassland, woodland, and bird specialists. 

In addition, the specialists have confirmed that selection of this site for the relevant features is 

consistent with ongoing work under the SSSI notification strategy, as summarised below: 

3.29. The key features of this proposal in terms of the SSSI notification strategy are related to the 

extensions and additional interest features in the context of the previously notified SSSIs. 

Specifically: 

 

 

The site includes extensive areas of ancient and long-established semi-natural woodland, as 

well as adjoining areas of scrub and neutral grassland. Collectively, these habitats support a 

nationally important number of breeding nightingales. There is overlap between the features 

of each of the different components of the proposed SSSI; for instance, nightingales breed in 

coppice woodland and scrub habitats throughout the site, including at Rough Shaw and the 

former Lodge Hill Training Area (where they overlap with neutral grassland in both locations). 

Accordingly, there is no basis for excluding parts of the site without diminishing the ecological 

coherence of the whole. 

The extensions significantly increase the area of suitable habitat for nightingale over and 

above those included within Chattenden Woods SSSI. The inclusion of all of the suitable 

habitat for nightingale will help to ensure the long term sustainability of this species’ 

population in the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill area. 

12 Holt, C.A., Hewson, C.M. & Fuller, R. 2012. The nightingale in Britain: status, ecology and conservation needs. British Birds 

105: 172-187. 

Page 9 of 50

The inclusion of entire blocks of semi-natural habitat to form a near-continuous area of SSSI 

that supports a common population of breeding nightingales in particular, would make a 

significant contribution to ecological connectivity in this part of the Hoo Peninsula. 

Natural England’s draft SSSI notification strategy for birds has identified breeding nightingales 

as a species not previously listed as a notified feature in its own right on any SSSI (although 

they are included as a contributing species in woodland and scrub breeding bird assemblages). 

It is recommended that all known aggregations reaching or exceeding 1% of the GB population 

are notified, in accordance with existing SSSI selection guidelines. Improving coverage for 

nightingales, along with four other relatively scarce breeding woodland birds of conservation 

concern, is considered a priority. 

In 1999, the nightingale population was concentrated within five counties in south-east 

England. These five counties held 77% of the total population: Kent (26%), Suffolk (19%), 

Sussex (15%), Essex (9%) and Norfolk (7%). Available information indicates that the site is 

currently the most important location in Kent for nightingales, both in terms of numbers and 

density. Kent’s position as the most important county for nightingales in Great Britain (as 

revealed by national surveys in 1980 and 1999) suggests that this, apparently the most 

important site in Kent, should receive highest priority for notification. 

4. Submissions made by interested parties regarding the scientific case 

4.1. Section 6 (below) describes engagement with interested parties around the proposed notification 

but there have also been recent submissions concerning the science and evidence around this 

case from Medway Council (dated 14 February 2013), Land Securities (19 February 2013) and RSPB 

(28 February 2013). These are attached for the Executive Board’s information as annexes 5, 6 and 

7 respectively. 

4.2. In summary, the RSPB urges Natural England to now notify this site as an SSSI and considers that, 

when placed in the context of the “robust and reliable” provisional national population estimate, 

the results of the 2012 survey at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill are sufficiently robust to 

conclude with certainty that the area is of national importance for breeding nightingales. 

4.3. The submissions from Medway Council and Land Securities both assert that it would be unsound 

for Natural England to enlarge the notification of Chattenden Woods SSSI on the basis of either 

breeding nightingales or MG5 grassland. The main points made in support of these assertions are 

set out below with our consideration of the matters raised. The letter from Medway Council also 

includes a number of factual inaccuracies and we have sought to highlight and correct these below 

in the interests of clarity. 

Status of nightingales 

4.4. The status of the nightingale as an amber-listed Bird of Conservation Concern has been 

questioned. Specifically, evidence is put forward by Medway Council to show a decline of between 

2.2% and 6.7% from 1999 to 2012, which falls below the 25% decline over 25 years required for 

amber listing. This evidence is based on national population estimates from 1976, 1980, 1999 and 

2012. Unfortunately, it is not possible to derive a trend from these estimates as each (excluding 

the 2012 figure) is now considered to represent a significant underestimate 4, 12 . It should also be 

noted that there is an error in the first table in the Medway Council letter: the number of recorded 

singing males in 2012 is 3,111, based on information which is currently available to the BTO. The 

figure of ‘close to’ 4,000 quoted by Medway Council is the detectability-corrected figure within 

Page 10 of 50

surveyed tetrads provided by the BTO, and is therefore not directly comparable with the figures 

presented in the same row of the table for previous national surveys. 

4.5. Although it is understood that nightingales are too scarce and local to be effectively monitored by 

national schemes such as BBS, the indication of a significant and long-term decline by these 

schemes should not be ignored: a review 4 of a larger sample of sites extracted from county bird 

reports supports the indication of a significant decline (40% between 1988 and 1991 alone). In 

conclusion, despite the limitations of national monitoring, other information on population trends, 

in addition to the clear evidence of a significant range contraction, indicates that a decline of at 

least 25% is beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly this was the view of the panel of experts 

responsible for the ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ listing. 

4.6. Regardless of the amber-listing of nightingales, neither the ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ status 

of individual bird species nor their rates of decline are directly relevant to SSSI selection. Species 

on the red, amber and green lists are all included as notified features where they occur in numbers 

exceeding 1% of the national population. The 1% selection guideline is related to important 

concentrations of birds where statutory designation is most effective and where habitat loss or 

other adverse effects would be of greatest concern. Where red and amber listed species occur in 

aggregations exceeding 1% of a species national population, then SSSIs can make a significant 

contribution to their conservation but it is the aggregation rather than the red or amber listing 

that is the basis for this. In this regard the most common and widespread species are not included 

as SSSI features under this guideline simply because they are usually too widespread and 

abundant to exceed the 1% level at any individual site. This is not related to conservation status, 

as illustrated by the absence of many relatively common and widespread red-listed species as SSSI 

features. 

4.7. Regarding Natural England’s draft SSSI notification strategy review for birds, it adds no weight to 

the specific consideration of the nightingale as a feature at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill. The 

presence of nationally important numbers of nightingales at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill is 

sufficient to consider the species as eligible for selection under the SSSI selection guidelines. The 

draft notification strategy review for birds simply recommends that increased coverage for 

nightingales is considered a priority. The other scarce woodland breeding birds currently 

prioritised by the draft review are: lesser spotted woodpecker, willow tit, wood warbler and 

hawfinch. Each species is selected based on its relatively small, declining and increasingly localised 

population. 

4.8. It is asserted by Medway Council and Land Securities that SSSI notification for nightingales is 

inappropriate because the species is absent from various listings of conservation priority and 

threat. Fifty-nine species not listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, under section 41 of the NERC 

Act or on the ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ red list, and many of which are relatively abundant 

and widespread, are already notified features of SSSIs. A further nine such species, including 

nightingale, have been recommended as new features for existing SSSIs and new SSSIs. By 

comparison, only 31 species which are on one or more of the above lists are currently notified 

features on SSSIs. In total 68 amber-listed species are already notified features on SSSIs (in their 

own right, with others forming part of breeding bird assemblages) and, to date, a further 18, 

including nightingale are recommended for consideration of additional SSSI notification. The great 

majority of these notifications would affect existing SSSIs. The principle of selecting large 

aggregations of birds as SSSIs applies irrespective of the status of the species concerned. Such 

large aggregations are inherently vulnerable to pressures impacting upon the areas where they 

Page 11 of 50

aggregate, which have the potential to affect significant proportions (greater than 1%) of their 

national populations. 

1999 population estimate 

4.9. Recent work by BTO (pers. comm.) indicates that the 1999 national population estimate is an 

underestimate of actual nightingale numbers present at that time. It has not been possible to 

reliably quantify the extent of the underestimate. In any event, the 1999 estimate is no longer 

required to establish the national importance of nightingale numbers a Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill because we now have the provisional national population estimate for 2012. 

Application of the SSSI selection guidelines to breeding nightingales 

4.10. The application of the 1% guideline to nightingales is correct and consistent with current practice. 

Although the guidelines state that the 1% approach in practice covers mainly colonial and rare 

species, it is not exclusive to those species. The 1% approach is often applied to colonial and/or 

rare species because they are most likely to occur in sufficiently high concentrations to exceed the 

1% threshold within individual sites. In practice, other species also occur in sufficient 

concentrations to exceed 1% thresholds and have been included as notified features. Of the 51 

breeding species which are currently notified features in their own right of SSSIs in England, 25 are 

colonial or semi-colonial and four are rare (as defined by ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’). Seven 

of the remaining 22 species are scarce and localised passerines, including similarly opportunistic 

and short-lived species such as the woodlark and Dartford warbler. 

4.11. Although relatively recently developed on disturbed land, the scrub habitat at Lodge Hill is itself 

natural, having established entirely as a result of natural succession. It is therefore no less natural 

than other scrub habitats which have been notified on other SSSIs and which also require 

management to maintain them. 

4.12. The proposed enlarged SSSI is proportionate and situated around a relatively discrete 

concentration of nightingale territories. This is entirely consistent with the approach adopted 

elsewhere for breeding birds with a similar biology to nightingales (e.g. woodlark and Dartford 

warbler). 

Applying the 1% threshold 

4.13. It is agreed that nightingale numbers based on count data alone will underestimate actual 

numbers. Measures have therefore been taken to account for missed birds. The analysis by 

Medway Council appears to omit this important detail as indicated by their reference to the 

underestimate affecting the 1999 estimate. Here Medway Council cites the 1999 estimate of 6,700 

pairs but go on to state that subsequently it was concluded that the 1999 survey missed 32% of 

the birds. In fact the 6,700 population estimate already accounts for this underestimate. 

4.14. Similarly, the 2012 estimate accounts for underestimates arising from low detection of breeding 

birds and gaps in coverage. This is clearly described in BTO’s explanation of the derivation of the 

provisional estimate (see annex 3), including the reasons why the provisional estimate is more 

likely to be an overestimate rather than an underestimate. Overall, given recent advances in the 

understanding of nightingale breeding biology and resulting refinements to the 2012 survey 

methodology, and despite its provisional status, it is considered that the current estimate is the 

most accurate population estimate for nightingales to date. 

Page 12 of 50

4.15. Regarding the possible existence of other areas in Kent which support nationally important 

numbers of nightingales and their overlap with SSSIs which include nightingales as a notified 

feature, Medway Council’s summary tables contain some errors and omissions. Firstly, the first 

table on page 7 of the letter implies that five areas in Kent supported more than 1% of the 

national population in 1999. In fact the 1% threshold in 1999 was 67 territories, so only one of the 

listed sites meets (precisely) the threshold and the others are all below it. The second table on 

page 7 of Medway Council’s letter purports to identify SSSIs in Kent where nightingales are a 

notified feature in each of five areas based on provisional results of the 2012 survey. A corrected 

version of the table is presented below (see table 1), which demonstrates that each of these areas 

has at least one existing SSSI notified for breeding bird assemblages that include nightingales as a 

cited feature. It is not entirely clear how Medway Council selected sites for inclusion in this table, 

which appears to be a subset of a list of groups of tetrads with totals of 25 or more singing 

nightingales in 2012. The full list 10 includes six additional areas, including several SSSIs. 

4.16. It is not entirely clear what point Medway Council is seeking to make in its reference to the study 

of nightingales in the East Anglian Fens in 1999 and 2000. The 382 territories referred to were 

located in a study area of 360,000 ha. The 85 territories located at Chattenden Woods and Lodge 

Hill in 2012 are equivalent to 22% of this total but in an area of less than 0.1% of that of the East 

Anglian Fens study area. This would seem to support the selection of Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill in supporting a nationally important number of nightingales in a very discrete site. 

Table 1: SSSI overlap with provisional results of 2012 nightingale survey in Kent 

Area described in BTO survey 

(Henderson 2012) 

New-Hythe, Snodland, Eccles, 

Burham TQ76ABCFG 

Orelstone Forest, Great Heron 

Wood & area (including Faggs, 

Longrope, BIrchett Woods) 

TQ93KLMQRSTVWXY + TR03C 

Faggs, Longrope, Birchett 

Woods 

TQ93SWX 

Great Heron Wood TQ93KLQR 

Woods south of Pluckley 

TQ84W+TQ94BCGKL 

Church, Grimshill, North 

Bishopsden Woods 

TR05Z+TRO6V+TR15E+TR16A 

Chattenden area TQ77KLMRS 

SSSIs present in listed 

tetrads 

Holborough to 

Burham Marshes 

Wouldham to Detling 

Escarpment 

Peters Pit 

Orlestone Forest 

Ham Street Woods 

Alex Farm Pastures 

Dungeness, Romney 

Marsh and Rye Bay 


Ham Street Woods 


Marsh & Rye Bay 



Marsh & Rye Bay 

Page 13 of 50 

Nightingale as cited 

feature as part of bird 

assemblage? 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

1999 2012 

90 44 

107 77 

68 36 

21 18 

Hoad’s Wood Yes 51 25 

Church Woods, Blean 

Ellenden Wood 

Chattenden Woods 

Tower Hill to Cockham 

Wood 

Dallam Farm 

Northward Hill 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

47 45 

50 90

4.17. The case for the notification of nightingales at Lodge Hill is not considered in isolation. 

Comparison with notified features of all existing SSSIs in England shows that no site currently 

includes nationally important numbers of breeding nightingales as a ‘reason for notification’ in 

their own right and that SSSI coverage for this species is provided solely through breeding bird 

assemblages. The current series may therefore omit areas that are important for nightingales but 

do not support wider diverse assemblages of breeding birds. A full review of nightingale 

distribution is necessary to identify any concentrations that would be eligible for selection. At 

present this information is not available and we only have site level data for the Chattenden 

Woods and Lodge Hill area. 

Use of one year of survey data at the site 

4.18. The regular use of a site by a sufficiently high number of birds to merit SSSI notification is normally 

established by data collected over several consecutive years. Although this is frequently possible in 

the case of non-breeding waterbirds, which are monitored annually at many locations, it is rarely 

achievable for breeding species. For example, some scarce breeding species are subject to 

comprehensive monitoring only once every twelve years. Consequently, some SSSIs and SPAs have 

been designated for breeding species on the basis of one year’s data only. In such cases regular 

use over a number of years can be established by reference to other data which, although not 

based on comprehensive surveys, can at least be used to indicate the presence and broad 

abundance of breeding birds over a number of years. This is a well established and accepted 

technique applied to cases where species are infrequently monitored. 

4.19. This approach has been adopted for nightingales due to the lack of comprehensive, dedicated 

surveys preceding 2012. The data from preceding years, although not covering all parts of the SSSI, 

or not employing surveys specifically designed to record nightingales, are still of value in that they 

provide firm evidence that breeding birds have been present in considerable numbers since at 

least 1999. 

2012 nightingale survey 

4.20. It is true that the nightingale survey at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill in 2012 included more 

survey visits than required by the national survey, and was therefore able to identify more 

nightingale territories than surveys using fewer visits at other locations. Importantly, this has not 

resulted in an overestimate in comparison to the provisional national estimate because, as 

explained by BTO (see annex 3), the national estimate accounts for differences in the detection of 

nightingales resulting from differences in survey effort. It does prevent an accurate comparison 

with other specific sites subject to lower survey effort because corrected figures are not currently 

available for individual sites. The tetrad data do, however, provide an indication of areas which are 

likely to exceed 1% of the national population. Table 1 (above) suggests that few areas in Kent 

held more than 1% of the national population in 2012, even when taking underestimation into 

account. Any that do appear to support over 1% when the full data are available will be 

considered for SSSI notification. 

4.21. Medway Council point to the lack of survey coverage in 2012 of potentially suitable areas for 

breeding nightingales at Kingsnorth and Shakespeare Farm (both in Kent but not part of 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill) as evidence that the 1% threshold (and by implication the 

provisional national estimate) is unreliable. Once again BTO’s description of the derivation of the 

national estimate addresses this point. It is clearly not possible to count every bird and so, as with 

many other bird surveys, interpolation to account for areas not covered by the survey is a critical 

component of the estimate. 

Page 14 of 50

4.22. Medway Council also suggest that poor weather conditions during 2012, both in England and 

abroad, could have affected nightingale numbers. It is possible that such an effect took place but, 

as weather conditions are likely to similarly affect numbers both nationally and locally, the 

comparison of numbers at a national and site level is unaffected. 

4.23. In conclusion, Natural England believes that the provisional 2012 national estimate is reliable and 

BTO have provided an explanation of how it has been derived, including how differences in survey 

effort and gaps in coverage have been taken into account. The explanation of how these analyses 

are likely to have overestimated numbers is clear and reasonable. 

Failure to identify possible grassland interest in Lodge Hill Training Area prior to October 2012 

4.24. It is asserted by Medway Council that Natural England should have been aware of the existence of 

possible grassland interest within the Lodge Hill Training Area at an earlier stage, partly due to the 

Kent Wildlife Trust having asked that the grassland interest of the proposed enlarged SSSI be 

considered. Natural England staff understood the Kent Wildlife Trust’s request to refer to the 

grassland within the Rough Shaw area of the existing Chattenden Woods SSSI. The only habitat 

survey available to Natural England prior to October 2012 was part of the Environmental 

Statement prepared on behalf of Land Securities by Thompson Ecology. Whilst we had no reason 

at the time to doubt the robustness of this survey, it does now appear that the Thompson Ecology 

survey unfortunately overlooked or wrongly classified extensive areas of MG5 grassland as more 

species-poor, rank and semi-improved or improved grassland communities. 

4.25. Had there been any indication of the existence of unimproved grasslands within the Training Area 

then Natural England would have sought access to this closed military site to carry out full NVC 

surveys. The MG5 grassland communities were encountered purely by chance whilst Natural 

England staff were on a site visit to assist the land owners in identifying areas where ordnance 

clearance could take place without causing damage to nightingale habitat. 

The grassland is not of a type readily recognised as MG5 and is not of a quality which warrants SSSI 

designation 

4.26. Lodge Hill Training Area includes around 11.5 ha of grassland in three discrete blocks (no more 

than 300m apart) that most closely conforms to MG5 Cynosurus cristatus-Centaurea nigra neutral 

grassland. The goodness of fit to the NVC description is only moderate but there is no other NVC 

type or provisionally identified novel NVC type 13 that more closely matches this vegetation. Also, 

the context of the site in terms of soil and geology would support the NVC determination of MG5 

neutral grassland. Species typical of agricultural improvement, such as perennial rye-grass, are 

absent or at low frequency and the presence of species such as dyer’s greenweed is indicative of 

old grasslands. 

4.27. The other point is that the MG5 stands at Lodge Hill are, by comparison with the published NVC, at 

the lower end of the species-richness spectrum and contain a higher frequency of species typical 

of disturbance. However, the time of survey was less than ideal (November) and it is possible that 

some species may have been missed or under-represented in terms of their cover and bryophytes 

were not recorded. Also, the recent history of the site in terms of its military use and lack of 

grazing/cutting management will have contributed to the current unfavourable condition of the 

vegetation. 

13 Rodwell, JS, Dring, JC, Averis, ABG, Proctor, MCF, Malloch, AJC, Schaminée, JNJ, & Dargie TCD, (2000) Review of coverage of 

the National Vegetation Classification. JNCC Report, No. 302. JNCC, Peterborough. 

Page 15 of 50

4.28. MG5 is one the scarcest and most threatened of England’s lowland semi-natural grassland types 

(

6. Issues 

6.1. Natural England is required to form a view on the special interest strictly on the basis of the 

scientific information, informed as appropriate by published selection guidelines. The following 

issues are presented to give additional context to the Executive Board’s decision. 

6.2. Initial preparations for a detailed notification review of Chattenden Woods SSSI commenced in 

January 2012 following a request from the RSPB (letter received on 13 January 2012) to consider 

the importance of the site and land adjacent to it for nightingales. Contrary to the RSPB’s 

assertions in that letter, there was no evidence at the time to show the presence of nationally 

important numbers. The RSPB noted the 2012 national survey as a means for establishing the true 

nightingale population of the area. Accordingly, Natural England’s Kent Land Management Team 

included nightingale in the ‘rapid notification review’ results for Chattenden Woods SSSI as a 

feature to be considered further and planned for a ‘detailed notification review’ to be carried out 

following the results of the 2012 survey. 

6.3. The preliminary results of the 2012 nightingale survey became available in mid-June 2012 and 

indicated (for the first time) that the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill area supports a nationally 

important population. RSPB immediately drew this to the attention of Natural England and other 

interested parties, including the Inspector of the Medway Council Core Strategy Examination in 

Public. On 2 July 2012, the Executive Board commissioned relevant teams to commence 

assessment of the evidence for SSSI notification and, if appropriate, to prepare a case for formal 

consideration. 

6.4. From June 2012 land owners were contacted by email or telephone to request permission to 

survey land and offering the opportunity to discuss the Integrated Site Assessment and 

notification review process. The Director of the Chattenden Syndicate (which runs a small scale 

shoot within woodland that it owns) met with Local Team Advisers during a recent Integrated Site 

Assessment. In a subsequent telephone conversation, the Syndicate Director was supportive of 

the notification because he felt it would help to protect the woodland. No responses have been 

received from the other private landowners. 

6.5. A substantial part of the existing SSSI and most of the proposed extension is owned by the 

Ministry of Defence (MoD). The proposed extension has been allocated for development in 

Medway Council’s draft Core Strategy, which is currently subject to Examination in Public. It is also 

subject to an outline planning application for development, including 5000 houses, three schools 

and substantial employment uses. The allocation of this land for development has been in 

Medway Council’s development plan for many years and is seen as critical to the soundness of the 

Core Strategy. Due to the expiry of the current adopted development plan, this year, if the draft 

Core Strategy is found to be unsound, it could leave Medway without an adopted development 

plan. 

6.6. The outline planning application was submitted by Land Securities, the commercial partner of 

MoD. As part of the development process, it is expected that land ownership will pass from MoD 

to Land Securities in the coming months. 

6.7. The overlap between the proposed development area and the proposed SSSI extension is 

significant, because nightingales are distributed such that it has been necessary to draw the 

proposed extension boundary so that it coincides closely with the boundary of the development 

allocation. Land Securities and Medway Council have advised that the development proposal is 

not capable of substantial adjustment in scale. Thus if development were to proceed, the 

Page 17 of 50

proposed SSSI extension would be lost almost in its entirety. Conversely if the existing habitat 

proposed for SSSI notification is to be retained, the development will not be able to proceed. 

There is little or no potential for the scientific interest and the development to be accommodated 

together within the area currently proposed for development. 

6.8. It is the role of the planning system to balance the nature conservation interests against other 

interests. Notification of the development allocation would clarify the status of the land in relation 

to the guidance in the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF). This includes: Proposed 

development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse 

effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other 

developments) should not normally be permitted. 

6.9. In the interim, on a precautionary basis, we have advised the Inspector of the Core Strategy 

Examination that the land should be considered as important, on the level of an SSSI. In addition 

we have advised that retention of the habitat on site is the lowest risk scenario for the local 

nightingale population but that, should planning permission be granted, compensatory habitat 

creation should be capable of reducing the impact. 

6.10. In the period from September to December we engaged in a stakeholder consultation, 

commissioned by Medway Council and run by the Environment Bank, to assess the deliverability of 

compensatory habitat. During this process BTO advised that it should be feasible to create new 

nightingale habitat. Also Medway Council undertook a search of possible sites for habitat 

compensation. The Environment Bank final report concluded that, ‘restoring and creating c.650 ha 

of nightingale habitat would compensate for the loss of Lodge Hill nightingale habitat and that 

there is a reasonable prospect that this can be achieved within Kent’. The feasibility and scale of 

habitat compensation will be discussed further by stakeholders in relation to the Core Strategy 

and outline planning application. 

6.11. The Inspector of the Core Strategy examination has announced that the examination hearings will 

be reopened to consider, amongst other matters: whether there is a reasonable prospect of 

effective habitat compensation; and whether further provision should be made for alternative 

development sites. Through that process we will continue to communicate frequently with the 

Land Securities, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Medway Council and other main 

stakeholders, including RSPB. 

6.12. The RSPB has specifically asked Natural England to consider SSSI notification at Lodge Hill to 

include the nationally important number of breeding nightingales recorded by the 2012 survey. 

The RSPB has publicly expressed this in their submissions to the Examination in Public. The Kent 

Wildlife Trust has also asked that Natural England considers the importance of the neutral 

grassland interests when reviewing the SSSI notification. 

6.13. Two of the land owners (MoD and Medway Council) and one interested party (Land Securities – 

MoD’s commercial partner) are considered likely to object to SSSI notification. Both RSPB and 

Kent Wildlife Trust are likely to be highly supportive of SSSI notification. 

7. Summary and recommendations 

7.1. It is recommended that the Executive Board: 

a) Note the use of discretion in line with the provisions of sections 28C. 

b) Note that the notification under section 28C would cause the previously notified Chattenden 

Woods SSSI to cease to have effect. 

Page 18 of 50

c) Approve the enlargement of the previously notified Chattenden Woods SSSI and change of name 

to Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. 

d) Approve the extension of 222.19 ha to the previously notified area. 

e) Approve the statement of Natural England’s views about management and the lists of interest 

features and operations requiring Natural England’s consent. 

Page 19 of 50

Annex 1 

Definitions of Favourable Condition for 

designated features of interest 

These definitions relate to all designated features on the 

SSSI, whether designated as SSSI, SPA, SAC or 

Ramsar features. 

Kent Land Management Team 

International House 

Dover Place 

Ashford 

TN231HU 

Kent 

Name of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill 

Names of designated international sites 

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 

Special Protection Area (SPA) 

Ramsar 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Relationship between site designations 

n/a 

Version control information 

Status of this Version 

(Draft, Consultation Draft, Final) 

Prepared by 

Consultation Draft 

Date of this version 1 March 2013 

Date of generic guidance on 

favourable condition used 

Other notes/version history 

Lorraine Smith / Phil Williams 

CSM Guidance: Woodland (January 2003) 

CSM Guidance: Birds (January 2004) 

CSM Guidance: Grassland (February 2004) 

No previous version 

Quality assurance information 

Checked by Name 

Mick Oliver 

Signature 

Date 

1 March 2013 

Definitions of Favourable Condition: Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

(Consultation Draft, March 2013) 

Page 1 of 18 

www.naturalengland.org.uk

Definitions of Favourable Condition: notes for users 

Definitions of Favourable Condition 

The definitions comprise one or more condition definitions for the special interest features at this 

site. These are subject to periodic review and may be updated to reflect new information or 

knowledge. They will be used by Natural England to determine if a site is in a favourable 

condition. The standards for favourable condition have been developed and are applied 

throughout the UK. 

Standards for favourable condition are defined with particular reference to the specific 

designated features listed in Table 1, and are based on a selected set of attributes for features 

which most effectively define favourable condition as set out in Tables 2, 2a and 3. When an 

SSSI‟s features meet these attributes, then they are said to be in „favourable condition‟. 

Explanatory text for Tables 2 and 3 

Tables 2, 2a and 3 set out the measures of condition which we will use to provide evidence to 

support our assessment of whether features are in favourable condition. They have been 

tailored by local staff to reflect the particular characteristics and site-specific circumstances of 

individual sites. Quality Assurance has ensured that such site-specific tailoring remains within a 

nationally consistent set of standards. The tables include an audit trail to provide a summary of 

the reasoning behind any site-specific targets etc. In some cases the requirements of features 

or designations may conflict; the detailed basis for any reconciliation of conflicts on this site may 

be recorded elsewhere. 

Use under the Habitats Regulations 

The Definitions of Favourable Condition (DFCs) are used to periodically measure and assess 

the condition of both notified SSSI features and designated European Site features. 

Where SSSIs also form part of a European Site (such as a SAC or SPA), a separate document 

containing specific European Site Conservation Objectives will have been prepared. These 

objectives are those referred to in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 

(the “Habitats Regulations”) and the Habitats Directive 1992. They are for use when either the 

appropriate nature conservation body or a competent authority is required to make an 

„appropriate assessment‟ of the likely effects of a proposed plan or project on the integrity of a 

European Site under the relevant parts of the respective legislation. The European Site 

Conservation Objectives are available at www.naturalengland.org.uk. 

The concepts of „site integrity‟ and „favourable condition‟ are similar and the assessment of a 

site‟s condition will measure attributes that also represent aspects of a site‟s ecological integrity. 

However, the periodic determination of a site‟s condition is separate from a judgement about the 

effect upon a site‟s overall integrity. This is because the DFCs do not represent a 

comprehensive or definitive list of all of the elements that might contribute to site integrity, 

merely those that are most appropriate to monitor in order to rapidly determine site condition. 

The full range of factors that are components of a site‟s integrity, and which may need to be 

considered by an appropriate assessment, will be specified in the European Site Conservation 

Objectives. Some of the information contained within the DFCs may however contribute to such 

assessments. 



Page 2 of 18

Table 1 Individual designated interest features 

BAP Broad 

Habitat type 

/ Geological 

Site Type 

Specific designated 

features 

Explanatory 

description of 

the feature for 

clarification 

SSSI notified interest 

features 

SAC qualifying interest 

features 

SPA qualifying 

interest features 

dependency on 

specific habitats 

Annex 1 

species 

Migratory 

species 

Waterfowl 

assemblage 

Ramsar criteria 

applicable to specific 

habitats 

1a Wetland 

characteristics 

2a Hosting rare 

species &c 

3a 20000 

waterfowl 

3c 1% of 

population 

Broadleaved, 

Mixed and 

Yew 

Woodland 

Quercus robur-Pteridium 

aquilinum-Rubus fruticosus 

woodland (W10) 

Lowland 

Pedunculate Oak – 

Bracken – Bramble 

woodland 

* 

Lowland 

Neutral 

Grassland 

Aggregation of breeding bird 

species; Nightingale Luscinia 

megarhynchos. 

MG5 Cynosurus cristatus – 

Centaurea nigra 

The site‟s coppice 

woodland and 

scrub habitat 

supports 1% or 

more of the British 

breeding 

population. 

Crested Dog‟s-tail – 

Common 

Knapweed lowland 

hay meadow and 

pasture 

* 

Page 3 of 19 


(Consultation Draft, March 2013)

Scrub habitat 

Scrub habitat is not 

a notified feature 

but supports the 

feature listed below. 

(*) 

Aggregation of breeding bird 

species; Nightingale Luscinia 

megarhynchos. The site 

supports 1% or more of the 

British breeding population. 

The site‟s coppice 

woodland and 

scrub habitat 

supports 1% or 

more of the British 

breeding 

population. 

* 

NB. Features where asterisks are in brackets (*) indicate habitats which are not notified for specific habitat interest (under the relevant 

designation) but because they support notified species. 



Page 4 of 19

Table 2 Habitat extent objectives 

Extent - Dynamic 

balance 

To maintain the designated features in favourable condition, which is defined in part in relation to a balance of habitat 

extents (extent attribute). Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards. 

On this site favourable condition requires the maintenance of the extent of each habitat type (either designated habitat 

or habitat supporting designated species). Maintenance implies restoration if evidence from condition assessment 

suggests a reduction in extent. 

Habitat Feature (BAP Broad 

Habitat level, or more 

detailed level if applicable) 

Broadleaved, Mixed and Yew 


Neutral Grassland 

Estimated extent (ha) 

and date of data 

source/estimate 

Site Specific Target range and 

Measures 

163.5 hectares No loss of semi natural woodland 

No loss of ancient woodland. 

Maintain active management of young age 

growth in at least the following Units 2, 4, 5, 

6. 

Found in Units 1 & 3 and 

amounts to 12.6 hectares 

in total of MG5b:- 

Unit 1 – 11.6 ha 

Unit 3 - 1 ha within an 

area of MG1e (3.1ha) 

Total area (ha), mapped in relation to a 

reference level to be determined, in period 

mid-May - late July (pastures). 

No reduction in area and any consequent 

fragmentation without prior consent 

Comments 

See map 1 for extent of feature. 

Loss = .5 ha or 0.5% of the stand 

area whichever is smaller. 

Nightingale requires young age 

growth coppice 

Recoverable reduction = 

unfavourable 

Non-recoverable reduction = partially 

destroyed. 

See map 2 for extent of grassland. 

Scrub habitat 

Suitable habitat occurs 

across ENSIS units 1, 3, 

7 and 8. 

No loss in scrub habitat (units 1, 3, 7, 8) 

Scrub should be managed on a rotation to 

ensure a varying age structure (variation 

across 0 – 10 years) 

These targets define the habitat 

requirements for favourable condition 

for breeding nightingale. 

Page 5 of 19 



Audit Trail 

Rationale for habitat extent attribute 

(Include methods of estimation (measures), and the approximate degree of change which these are capable of detecting). 

Habitat extents taken from NVC surveys of woodland and grassland (2012). 

Rationale for site-specific targets (including any variations from generic guidance) 

Other Notes 

Page 6 of 19 



Table 2a Species population objectives 

Population balance 

To maintain the designated species in favourable condition, which is defined in part in relation to their 

population attributes. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific 

standards. 

On this site favourable condition requires the maintenance of the population of each designated species or 

assemblage. Maintenance implies restoration if evidence from condition assessment suggests a reduction in 

size of population or assemblage. 

Species 

Feature 

(species or 

assemblage) 

Nightingales 

List 

supporting 

BAP Broad 

Habitats 

Scrub habitat 

Broadleaved, 

Mixed and Yew 


Population Attribute (eg 

presence/absence, population size or 

assemblage score) 

Number of territories at time of notification is 

85. 

Site Specific Target range and 

Measures (specify geographical range 

over which target applies ie site, BAP 

broad habitat or more specific) 

Variation in territory numbers should be 

within 25 % of total at notification. 

Comments 

Requires scrub of 

varying age structure 

and actively managed 

coppice woodland. 

Audit Trail 

Rationale for species population attributes 

(Include methods of estimation (measures), and the approximate degree of change which these are capable of detecting). 

Nightingale data provided by BTO national nightingale survey 2012. 




Page 7 of 19

Other Notes 

Page 8 of 19 



Table 3 Site specific Habitat/geological condition objectives 

To maintain the Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI in favourable condition, with 

particular reference to relevant specific designated interest features. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following 

site-specific standards: 

Site-specific details of any geographical variation or limitations (where the favourable condition standards apply) 

Site-specific standards defining favourable condition 

Criteria feature Attribute Measure Site-specific Targets Comments Use for 

term in 

Conditi 

on 

guidance 

Assess 

Broadleaved, 

mixed and yew 


Structure and 

Natural 

processes 

Assess by field survey using 

structured walk. 

Age/size class variation within 

and between stands; presence 

of open space and old trees; 

dead wood lying on the ground; 

standing dead trees 

Understorey (2-5m) present over at least 

50% of total stand area. (between 0 and 

30 years with a full range of growth stages 

within this continuum) 

Canopy cover present over 40-70% of 

stand area. At least three age classes 

spread across the average life expectancy 

of the commonest trees. 

Up to 10% of total area maintained as 

permanent open ground - rides, glades 

Maintain active management of young age 

growth in at least the following Units 2, 4, 

5, 6. 

The woodland is a 

traditional coppice with 

much of it remaining in 

active management. 

Dense understorey present 

in recently coppiced areas 

with much bramble growth. 

Canopy will be sparse in 

recent coppice plots. 

Optimal age structure of 

coppice habitat for 

nightingales is 3 – 10 

years. 

ment? 

Yes 

At least 10% of the total area of woodland 

Deadwood mainly in areas 

Page 9 of 19 



to be relatively undisturbed mature/old 

growth stands or a scatter of large trees 

allowed to grow to over-maturity/death on 

site. 

of unmanaged coppice. 

Regeneration 

potential 



Successful establishment of 

young stems in gaps or on the 

edge of a stand 

A minimum of 3 fallen lying trees >20 cm 

diameter per ha and 4 trees per ha 

allowed to die standing. 

In stands with growth maintained as less 

than 30 years old, re-growth from coppice 

stools to maintain canopy cover after 5 

years (with new seedlings of native 

species 5/ha) 

Seedlings growing in gaps in the canopy 

at levels to ensure maintenance of 

canopy. 

All planting material of locally native stock. 

Regeneration generally by 

natural processes only. 

Look for good regeneration 

from coppice stools 

following cutting 

Assess this attribute by 

walking through the wood 

in spring/summer. 

Yes 

Composition 



Cover for native versus nonnative 

species (all layers) 

No planting in sites where it has not 

occurred in the last 15 years. 

At least 95% of cover in any one layer of 

site-native. 

At least 50% oak in canopy. 

Wide variety of native species in canopy 

and scrub layer. 

Death, destruction or replacement of 

native woodland species through the 

effects of introduced fauna or other 

external unnatural factors, not more than 

5% by number of area in a 5 year period. 

Where cover in any one Yes 

layer is less than 100% 

then the 95% figure applies 

to the area actually 

covered. 

Oak is the dominant 

canopy tree and standard 

in coppice areas. 

Species present include 

aspen, hazel, wild service, 

midland thorn, ash, field 

Page 10 of 19 



maple, birch, wild cherry, 

hornbeam, sallow, birch 

wayfaring tree, privet. 

Indicators of 

local 

distinctiveness 



Ground flora type 

90% of ground flora cover referable to 

relevant NVC community: W10a/b 

Presence of notable plants including 

bluebells, wood anemone, stinking iris, 

wood melick, bird‟s-nest orchid. 

In recently coppiced areas 

the canopy will be very 

open. 

W10a/b – oak bramble 

community 

Ground flora will be 

suppressed under older 

coppice coups and under 

mature hornbeam. 

Yes 

33 ancient woodland 

specialists recorded in 

2012. 

Audit Trail 

Rationale for limiting standards to specified parts of the site 


The site is a coppiced woodland hence the targets for young age growth and the open canopy flexibility. 

Rationale for selection of measures of condition (features and attributes for use in condition assessment) 

(The selected vegetation attributes are those considered to most economically define favourable condition at this site for the broad habitat 

type and any dependent designated species). 



Page 11 of 19

Other Notes 


To maintain the Lowland neutral grassland at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI in favourable condition, with particular reference 

to relevant specific designated interest features. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of the following site-specific standards: 




term in 

Conditi 

on 

guidance 

Assess 

Lowland neutral Sward structure: 

grassland - MG5 bare ground 

Cynosurus cristatus- 

Centaurea nigra 

lowland 

Sward structure: 

litter 

Record extent of bare ground (not 

rock) distributed through the 

sward, visible without disturbing 

the vegetation. Record in period 

late May -early July, before hay 

cut. Also record sometimes in 

aftermath grazing period in hay 

meadows. 

Record cover of litter where in a 

more or less continuous layer, 

distributed either in patches or in 

one larger area. Record in period 

late May -early July, before hay 

cut. Also record sometimes in 

aftermath grazing period in hay 

meadows. 

No more than 5% 



Total extent no more than 25% of the sward 

Outside target indicates 

problems with stock 

management eg poaching, 

supplementary feeding. 

Outside target indicates 

biomass removal is insufficient 

eg not cut for hay or insufficient 

grazing. 

ment? 

Yes 

Yes 

Page 12 of 19

Sward 

composition: 

grass/herb ratio 

Sward 

composition: 

positive indicator 

species 

Sward 

composition: 

indicators of 

waterlogging 

Proportion of non-Graminae 

(“herbs”), in period mid- May - 

early July, before hay cut 

(meadows). 

Record the frequency of positive 

indicator species in period mid 

May -early July, before hay cut, 

(meadows), or mid-May - late July 

(pastures). Agrimonia 

eupatoria, Alchemilla spp., 

Anemone nemorosa, Centaurea 

nigra, Euphrasia spp., Filipendula 

ulmaria, Filipendula vulgaris, 

Galium verum, Genista tinctoria, 

Lathyrus linifolius (=montanus), 

Lathyrus pratensis, Leontodon 

hispidus/L. saxatilis, 

Leucanthemum vulgare, Lotus 

corniculatus, Pimpinella saxifraga, 

Polygala spp., Potentilla erecta, 

Primula veris, Rhinanthus minor, 

Sanguisorba minor, Sanguisorba 

officinalis, Serratula tinctoria, 

Silaum silaus, Stachys officinalis, 

Succisa pratensis, Tragopogon 

pratensis, small blue-green Carex 

spp. (leaves less than 5mm wide) 

(C. flacca). 

Record % cover of Juncus spp, 

Deschampsia cespitosa, large 

Carex spp. (leaves more than 

5mm wide) eg Carex acutiformis, 

large grasses (leaves more than 

10mm wide, stout stems) ie 

Glyceria maxima, Phalaris 

arundinacea, Phragmites australis. 

40-90% herbs Low proportion outside target 

indicates eutrophication, usually 

from fertilisers, or insufficient 

removal of biomass, leading to 

dominance by grasses. 

At least two species/taxa frequent plus at least 

four species/taxa occasional throughout the 

sward. 

No species/taxa together or singly covering more 

than 10% of the sward 

Choice of species related to 

NVC type and restriction to 

unimproved grassland, 

considered satisfactory when 

inside target. 

Species chosen to indicate 

waterlogging problems when 

outside target eg from raised 

water tables 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Record in period mid-May - late 

Page 13 of 19 



Sward 

composition: 

negative indicator 

species 

Sward 

composition: 

negative indicator 

species 

July (as it is a pasture). 

Record the frequency and % cover No species more than occasional throughout the 

of negative indicator species in sward or singly or together more than 5% cover 

period mid May -early July, before 

hay cut, (meadows): Anthriscus 

sylvestris, Cirsium arvense, 

Cirsium vulgare, Galium aparine, 

Plantago major, Pteridium 

aquilinum, Rumex crispus, Rumex 

obtusifolius, Senecio jacobaea, 

Urtica dioica. 

Record the frequency and % cover No more than 5% cover. 

of all tree and scrub species, 

considered together. 

Invasive species chosen to 

indicate problems of 

eutrophication and disturbance 

from various sources when 

outside target eg poaching, 

stock feeding. 

Invasive species outside target 

shows that habitat is not being 

managed sufficiently eg not cut 

for hay each year or 

inadequately grazed 

Yes 

Yes 

Audit Trail 



Generic targets have been used. 




Other Notes 



Page 14 of 19



Page 15 of 19


To maintain the nightingale populations and breeding bird assemblage at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI in favourable 

condition, with particular reference to relevant specific designated interest features. Favourable condition is defined at this site in terms of 

the following site-specific standards: 




term in 

Conditi 

on 

guidance 

Assess 

Aggregation of Scrub habitat 

breeding bird 

species; Nightingale 

Luscinia 

megarhynchos. 

Suitable habitat occurs across No loss in scrub habitat (units 1, 3, 7, 8) 

ENSIS units 1, 3, 7 and 8. Scrub should be managed on a rotation to 

ensure a varying age structure (variation 

across 0 – 10 years) 

These targets define the 

habitat requirements for 

favourable condition for 

breeding nightingale. 

ment? 

Yes 

Aggregation of 

breeding bird 


Luscinia 

megarhynchos. 

Broadleaved 


Suitable habitat occurs across Maintain active management of young age 

ENSIS units 2, 4, 5 and 6. growth in at least the following Units 2, 4, 5, 

6. 

Optimal age structure of 

coppice habitat for 

nightingales is 3 – 10 

years. 

Yes 

Page 16 of 19 



Audit Trail 


These units are where breeding nightingales are supported by the scrub habitat and coppice woodland. 





Other Notes 



Page 17 of 19

Annex 1 Map(s) of key areas for monitoring 

(These may be habitat maps, areas where specific targets apply, location maps etc, NOT just boundary map of SSSI or units) 

[Insert electronic images of maps] 

Page 18 of 19 



Annex 2 Location of features by unit 

Features units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

Broadleaved, * * * * * * 

mixed and yew 


Lowland neutral * * 

grassland 

Aggregation of 

breeding bird 


Luscinia 

megarhynchos 

* * * * * * * * 



Page 19 of 19

Annex 2 – Leading Counsel’s Advice

Insert Leading Counsel’s advice here

Annex 3 

A provisional population estimate from the 2012 Nightingale survey 

Raw survey counts were corrected for survey inefficiency (i.e. birds missed during surveys of sites that 

were covered) using detectability modelling. This estimates the probability of territories being detected 

on a tetrad by tetrad basis, using the number of times individual territories were found or missed during 

repeated surveys, together with the effects of the date, time of day and duration of each visit across 

surveys of all tetrads 1 . 

Based on the dataset as currently available, and after correcting for detectability as outlined above, 

the total number of territorial Nightingales in tetrads surveyed in the 2012 survey was close to 4000 

territorial birds. 

The number of Nightingales likely to be present in ‘known Nightingale tetrads’ 16 that were not covered 

in the survey was estimated by interpolation in two ways: (1) by using the relationship between the 

detectability-corrected counts in tetrads covered in 2012 and the predicted abundance from the model 

used to generate the map of abundance for the 2007-11 Atlas; and (2) by using the change in abundance 

between the 1999 Nightingale survey and the 2012 survey in tetrads covered in both surveys. Method 1 

(Atlas interpolation) estimates approximately 1100 and method 2 (interpolation using change since 

1999) estimates approximately 1400 Nightingales in these un-surveyed ‘known Nightingale tetrads’. 

Method 1 may have under-estimated the number present for a few high density tetrads but overall the 

method is likely to have over-estimated numbers because the regression predicted some Nightingales to 

be present even in tetrads with very low predicted suitability according to the Atlas model. Method 2 is 

likely to have over-estimated numbers because those ‘known Nightingale tetrads’ that were surveyed in 

both years are likely to have been better locations for Nightingales than tetrads that were not surveyed 

in 2012 or in either year. 

The detectability-corrected total number of Nightingales in both surveyed and un-surveyed ‘known 

Nightingale tetrads’ was therefore around 5100 or 5400 territorial birds depending on which method 

is used to interpolate for un-surveyed squares. 

The number of Nightingales present in tetrads not known to hold Nightingales was estimated using the 

rate at which Nightingales were detected in a sample of randomly-selected tetrads which had been 

incorporated into the 2012 Nightingale survey. These were tetrads not known to hold Nightingales that 

were embedded within landscapes predicted to be occupied by Nightingales. In these 197 tetrads, 28 

Nightingales were estimated to be present once detectability was taken into account. The correction 

(28/197)*number of tetrads was applied only for tetrads within 10-km squares known to be occupied by 

Nightingales according to Atlas 2007-11 data and 2012 Nightingale survey data. This estimated that 

around 1150 Nightingales had been missed in tetrads not known to contain the species. In practice, this 

is likely to have over-estimated the number in these tetrads as, according to the Atlas predictions, the 

random tetrads were, on average, considerably more suitable for Nightingales than tetrads for which 

the correction was applied. This potential source of over-estimation is likely to be the major source of 

error in the population estimate and will lead to an over-estimate. 

16 Tetrads (2x2-km squares) formed the survey units. The sample tetrads consisted a) of all locations where there was recent 

evidence, compiled from a range of sources, of Nightingale occupancy (the ‘known Nightingale tetrads’) and b) a sample of 

tetrads for which there was no evidence of Nightingale presence but which were situated within the range of the species.

The total number of Nightingales throughout the British range was therefore estimated to be around 

6250-6550 territorial birds. This is likely to be an over-estimate due to the methods used to 

interpolate for un-surveyed tetrads. 

We stress that this is the best estimate that we are able to produce at the present time. Further 

refinements to this estimate will include: a) using a more complete and thoroughly checked database – 

this is unlikely to make a significant difference because un-input data were accounted for in the above 

calculations; b) removing, via GIS, possible duplicates of territories recorded at the boundary of more 

than one tetrad – likely to be a very small number; c) adding casual records of around 600 territories – 

we do not expect that these will greatly affect the population estimate as they will either duplicate birds 

recorded in surveys of ‘known Nightingale tetrads’ or will not increase the count for a tetrad beyond the 

current detectability-corrected or interpolated counts; d) some of the ‘known Nightingale tetrads’ not 

surveyed in 2012 will probably be surveyed in 2013. As the interpolations that have been applied for 

currently ‘missing’ sites may well have over-estimated numbers in many tetrads, these additional 

surveys are unlikely to have significant impact on the population estimate. 

Chris Hewson & Rob Fuller 

British Trust for Ornithology 

30.01.13

Annex 4 – BTO details of quality assurance of provisional population estimate

Insert BTO quality assurance info here

Annex 5 – Letter from Medway Council

Insert Medway Council letter here

Annex 6 – Letter from Land Securities

Insert Land Securities letter here

Annex 7 – Letter from RSPB

Insert RSPB letter here

ADVICE 

1. I am asked to advise Natural England on the discharge of its functions under section 

28(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”) and, in particular, on 

what regard (if any) it may have to the potential consequences of the notification of an 

area of special nature conservation interest for an owner or occupier of land within it 

when deciding whether to withdraw or to confirm that notification (with or without 

modifications). 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 28 OF THE 1981 ACT 

2. Section 28 of the 1981 Act provides inter alia that: 

“(1) Where Natural England are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by 

reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, it shall be the duty 

of Natural England to notify that fact - 

(a) to the local planning authority (if any) in whose area the land is situated; 

(b) to every owner and occupier of any of that land; and 

(c) to the Secretary of State. 

... 

(3) A notification under subsection (1) shall specify the time (not being less than three months 

from the date of the giving of the notification) within which, and the manner in which, 

representations or objections with respect to it may be made; and Natural England shall 

consider any representation or objection duly made. 

(4) A notification under subsection (1)(b) shall also specify - 

(a) the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which 

the land is of special interest, and 

(b) any operations appearing to Natural England to be likely to damage that flora 

or fauna or those features, 

and shall contain a statement of Natural England's views about the management of the land 

(including any views Natural England may have about the conservation and enhancement of 

that flora or fauna or those features). 

(5) Where a notification under subsection (1) has been given, Natural England may within the 

period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification was served on the 

Secretary of State either- 

(a) give notice to the persons mentioned in subsection (1) withdrawing the 

Page 1 of 22

(b) 

notification; or 

give notice to those persons confirming the notification (with or without 

modifications). 

In the case of a notification given in relation to land lying below mean low water mark ...this 

subsection is subject to section 28CB(4) and (6). 

(6) A notification shall cease to have effect- 

(a) on the giving of notice of its withdrawal under subsection (5)(a) to any of the 

(b) 

persons mentioned in subsection (1); or 

if not withdrawn or confirmed by notice under subsection (5) within the 

1 

period of nine months referred to there, at the end of that period . 

(7) Natural England's power under subsection (5)(b) to confirm a notification under subsection 

(1) with modifications shall not be exercised so as to add to the operations specified in the 

notification or extend the area to which it applies. 

(8) As from the time when there is served on the owner or occupier of any land which has 

been notified under subsection (1)(b) a notice under subsection (5)(b) confirming the 

notification with modifications, the notification shall have effect in its modified form in 

relation to so much (if any) of that land as remains subject to it.” 

3. There are certain features of section 28 relating to a notification under subsection 

(1)(b) that are relevant when considering how the functions vested in Natural England 2 

under subsection (5) falls to be discharged. 

4. The substantive part of such a notification comprises four elements: 

(1) notification that an area of land is in Natural England’s opinion of special 

interest; 

(2) a specification of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical 

1 

2 

Subsection (6)(b) does not apply in a case where notice has been given to Natural England under section 

28CB(3). This concerns “sub-tidal” land, that part of the notification of which the ministerial authority may 

“call-in”. If the authority gives notice that it is considering doing so, the period for confirming or 

withdrawing the notification is extended. The ministerial authority may give Natural England a direction 

under section 28CB (a) that the notification (if confirmed) must include, or exclude, the whole or any part 

of the sub-tidal land or (b) that the decision whether it should be included in the notification (if confirmed) 

should be taken by Natural England. 

In this advice I shall refer to bodies such as English Nature that were Natural England’s predecessors in 

having the functions created by section 28 of the 1981 Act vested in them as “Natural England” for the sake 

of simplicity. 

2 

Page 2 of 22

features by reason of which the area is of special interest; 

(3) a specification of those operations appearing to Natural England to be 

likely to damage that flora or fauna or those features; and 

(4) a statement of Natural England's views about the management of the land 

(including any views it may have about the conservation and 

enhancement of that flora or fauna or those features). 

5. The only alternatives to a decision to confirm the notification containing these four 

elements (with or without modification) within the period required that are open to 

Natural England are (i) a decision to withdraw the notification or (ii) taking no decision 

in that period, with the result in either case that the notification ceases to have effect. 

6. Plainly, if Natural England decides that, in its opinion, none of the area notified is of 

special interest, it must decide to withdraw the notification. 

7. If Natural England remain of the opinion that the area or part of it previously notified 

is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical 

features, however, then in my opinion Parliament did not intend that it should be able 

to withdraw the notification. Nor in my view could Natural England reasonably do so. 

3 

If it did so, it would be obliged (by virtue of section 28(1)) to notify that fact again . That 

notification (under section 28(1)(b)) would then again contain the four elements 

mentioned above including any modifications which Natural England would have 

made had it confirmed the original notification with modifications. Such an exercise 

4 

would be pointless . Moreover a decision withdrawing a notification without a further 

3 

4 

Where an Act imposes a duty, it is implied, unless the contrary intention appears (which in this case it does 

not), that the duty is to be performed from time to time as occasion requires: see section 12(1) of the 

Interpretation Act 1978. 

Thus, if Natural England decided that the area it had notified as being of special interest is too small, 

Parliament has enabled Natural England to extend the area (and thus protect the extended area) by a 

further notification (subject to the procedure for objection) once the initial notification has been confirmed: 

3 

Page 3 of 22

notification at the same time would create a period in which the special interest of the 

land would not be protected, which would be inconsistent with Parliament’s intention 

5 

to protect such land whenever in Natural England’s opinion is of special interest . 

8. In my opinion that indicates that Parliament did not intend to confer a discretion on 

Natural England to withdraw a notification because it thought it was undesirable given 

its consequences. Had it wished to do so, no doubt it would also have conferred a 

discretion (rather than imposed a duty) on Natural England to notify an area which it 

6 

thought to be of special interest (as it has done, by contrast, in other cases ). It would 

have given Natural England a general discretion to “denotify” an area. Instead a 

notification under section 28(1)(b) may cease to have effect, so as to deprive the area of 

7 

protection , only when Natural England notify the fact that they “are of the opinion that 

5 

6 

see sections 28B(1) and (3) and 28C(1) and (4) of the 1981 Act. Similarly, if Natural England decided that 

there were additional operations likely to damage the matters by reason of which the area was of special 

interest, Parliament has enabled it to add them by a notice varying the notification once it has been 

confirmed: see section 28A of the 1981 Act. 

Thus the original scheme under the 1981 Act was amended so that notification would have immediate 

effect, rather than only coming into effect after objections and representations had been considered. 

Parliament thus removed the opportunity that an owner or occupier had under the original scheme to carry 

out an operation likely to damage matters that gave an area its special interest without obtaining consent 

before restrictions were imposed having been warned that they might be. Similarly Parliament amended 

the 1981 Act in the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 to remove the ability an owner or occupier had 

to carry out such an operation without any consent within an area Natural England thought to be of special 

interest once four months had elapsed from notice of the proposal being given to Natural England, even 

if Natural England had refused consent in that period. 

See eg the power to make an order designating an area a marine conservation zone (“MCZ”) under section 

116 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Section 117 of the 2009 Act provides inter alia that: 

7 

“(1) The appropriate authority may make an order under section 116 if it thinks that it is desirable to do so 

for the purpose of conserving? 

(a) marine flora or fauna; 

(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat; 

(c) features of geological or geomorphological interest. 

(7) In considering whether it is desirable to designate an area as an MCZ, the appropriate authority may have 

regard to any economic or social consequences of doing so. 

(8) The reference in subsection (7) to any social consequences of designating an area as an MCZ includes a 

reference to any consequences of doing so for any sites in that area (including any sites comprising, or 

comprising the remains of, any vessel, aircraft or marine installation) which are of historic or archaeological 

interest.” 

Where a notification of an area which includes an area already notified is given under section 28C of the 

1981 Act, the original notification ceases to have effect: see section 28C(5) of the 1981 Act. But the area 

4 

Page 4 of 22

all or part of a site of special scientific interest..is not of special interest by reason of any 

8 

of the matters mentioned in section 28(1)” and that notification has been confirmed . 

9. If it is not open to Natural England to withdraw a notification, the only other decision 

9 

open to it , is to “confirm” the notification containing the four substantive elements 

mentioned above with or without modification, albeit any modification may not add to 

the operations specified in the notification or extend the area to which it applies. In my 

view doing so requires an exercise of judgment about each element in the light of any 

objections, representations or further information that has become available in addition 

to the information available at the time of the initial notification. It does not involve a 

discretion, for example, to exclude part of the area if it is of special interest (for the 

reasons given above) or to delete from operations specified as likely to damage the 

matters by reason of which an area is of special interest any operation likely to have that 

effect. What Natural England has to decide is whether or not to confirm (with or 

without any modification) whether such operations are likely to have that effect. 

10 

10. This approach commended itself to Lightman J in R (Fisher) v English Nature . As 

he put it, 

“18...English Nature has a duty under section 28(1) to notify an area of land if it holds the opinion 

that the statutory criteria are satisfied. If (for example) English Nature is of the opinion that an 

area of land is of special interest because of the bird population which it supports, then it must 

notify. Section 28(1) affords scope for judgment: it affords no scope for discretion. The 

8 

9 

10 

previously notified is protected by the new notification. 

See section 28D of the 1981 Act. 

As opposed to failing to take a decision. In my view deliberately failing to take a decision which Natural 

England could take within the period because it did not wish that the notification should have the effect 

that Parliament has prescribed would be an unlawful abdication of the function vested in Natural England. 

Moreover in my opinion Natural England would once again be the subject of a duty to notify the fact that 

the area was of special interest in accordance with section 28 if its previous notification ceased to have 

effect. 

[2003] EWHC 1599 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 503. 

5 

Page 5 of 22

notification has immediate legal effect. English Nature must however thereafter within nine 

months decide whether to withdraw the notification or confirm it (with or without 

modifications) or it will lapse. Though section 28(5) in setting out the alternative courses 

available to English Nature uses the word “may”, a term which ordinarily connotes a discretion, 

notwithstanding the obiter dicta in R v Nature Conservancy Council, Ex p London Brick Co Ltd [1996] 

Env LR 1 to the contrary, as it appears to me, if English Nature continues to be of the opinion that 

the statutory criteria are satisfied, the discretion can only lawfully be exercised one way, that is 

in favour of confirming the notification. They cannot lawfully withdraw the notification or allow 

it to lapse. For any other course than confirmation would bring into play once again the 

immediate duty of English Nature to make the notification, and the legislature cannot sensibly 

have intended this roundabout method of continuing the legal consequences of the continuing 

opinion of English Nature that the statutory criteria are satisfied. 

19. The statutory scheme requires English Nature at two distinct and successive stages to 

exercise its expert judgment on three matters: (1) to determine whether the statutory criteria are 

satisfied; and if so (2) to specify the flora, fauna, or geological or physiological features by reason 

of which it is of special interest; and (3) to specify any operations likely to damage the flora, 

fauna or those features. The first stage is the notification stage and the second is the confirmation 

stage when the decisions at the notification stage require reconsideration in the light of 

objections, representations and further information received in the interim. English Nature in 

determining whether the area is of special interest for any of the four possible statutory reasons 

will have regard to the fact that the judgment is called for in the context both of their nature 

conservation function and of legislation directed at nature conservation and designed to place 

constraints on landowners required in the interests of such conservation. There is no requirement 

that the land is of national importance... 

20. In view of the arguments before me I must underline one consequence of the fact that the 

exercise required of English Nature is exclusively one of judgment. If English Nature is of the 

opinion that the statutory criteria are satisfied, it has no discretion to decline to notify or confirm 

(and accordingly displace section 28 and the statutory scheme of which it forms part) by reason 

of a preference for the application of some other statutory or non-statutory scheme or by reason 

of any objection to or dissatisfaction with the legal consequences of notification or confirmation.” 

11 

11. In that case in the Court of Appeal , Wall LJ did not disagree with this analysis. He 

approached the conclusion, however, in a different way. As he put it, 

“133. If English Nature were correct to notify, were they right to confirm? The judge took the 

11 

See [2004] EWCA Civ 663, [2005] 1 WLR 147. 

6 

Page 6 of 22

view that once notification had occurred, English Nature had, in effect, no discretion to refuse 

to confirm if they maintained their opinion, after hearing objections, that the site was still an SSSI. 

But did that mean, for example, that English Nature could have no regard to the consequences 

of confirmation, notably in the context of article 1 of the First Protocol? This is the point which 

troubled Carnwath LJ. 

134. Although I do not disagree with the judge's construction of section 28 of the 1981 Act, I 

would approach the analysis from a slightly different direction. English Nature are a creation of 

statute, and derive their powers from statute. Section 28(5) of the 1981 Act sets out the powers 

English Nature have in this context. They can (1) withdraw the notification or (2) confirm the 

notification (with or without modifications) or do nothing for nine months, at which point, as the 

judge pointed out, the original notification ceases to have any effect, and the duty to notify 

revives, provided English Nature remain of the same mind. 

135. What, in my judgment, is of critical importance, and gives the statutory procedure meaning, 

is the process whereby English Nature satisfy themselves whether or not their original 

identification of the land as an SSSI remains correct. That process requires investigation, 

consultation and the consideration and analysis of objections. Any suggestion that remaining of 

the same opinion involves no expenditure of physical or intellectual energy, or that confirmation 

is an automatic rubber stamp, is plainly wrong. Thus I would prefer to construe section 28(5) of 

the 1981 Act as giving rise to the exercise of a power not to confirm, which is to be exercised in 

accordance with the conclusion reached as a result of the outcome of a genuine, open-minded 

consultation/investigation process. Once the section 28(1) factors and the appropriateness of the 

matters specified under section 28(4) have been reconsidered, there is only a limited basis upon 

which it would be open to English Nature to refuse to confirm a notification under section 28(5).” 

12. Wall LJ thus considered that Natural England could refuse to confirm a notification 

under section 28(5) of the 1981 Act “only on a limited basis” “in accordance with the 

conclusion reached” on reconsideration of “whether or not their original identification 

of the land as an SSSI remains correct”. This would appear to be no different from the 

conclusion reached by Lightman J with which Wall LJ said that he did not disagree. It 

certainly provides no support for any suggestion that Natural England could 

reasonably withdraw the notification if it remained of the opinion that the area or part 

of it is of special interest. Indeed Wall LJ recognised that, if it did, “the duty to notify 

revives, provided English Nature remain of the same mind”. 

7 

Page 7 of 22

CONVENTION RIGHTS 

13. In considering the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European 

Convention on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (“A1P1") of any owner or occupier 

within an area notified under section 28 of the 1981 Act to the peaceful enjoyment of his 

possessions, it is important to consider which feature of any notification, potentially at 

least, may interfere with them. 

14. The notification of the fact that Natural England are of the opinion that the area is 

of special interest and of the fauna, flora or features by reason of which it is of special 

interest do not themselves involve any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of such 

12 

a person’s possessions . 

15. Similarly the statement of Natural England’s views about the management of the 

land does not of itself involve any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of such a 

person’s possessions: the 1981 Act imposes no obligation on anyone to comply with 

13 

them . 

16. What may have the potential to engage an owner or occupier’s rights under A1P1 

is the specification of those operations appearing to Natural England to be likely to 

damage the matters by reason of which an area is of special interest when that list is 

12 

13 

As Lightman J pointed out in R (Fisher) v English Nature supra at [42], “the claimants do not, and cannot, 

contend that the mere notification or confirmation of English Nature's opinion would in itself be 

incompatible with their Convention rights. English Nature's opinion of itself does not interfere with the 

peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in any respect. It simply represents English Nature's opinion.” 

As Sullivan LJ observed in R (Boggis) v Natural England [2009] EWCA Civ 1061, [2010] PTSR 725, at [28], 

“the statement of English Nature's views was just that, a statement of its views with no further statutory 

significance”. What may give rise to an obligation with respect to the management of the land is the making 

of a management scheme and the subsequent service of a management notice under sections 28J and 28K 

of the 1981 Act. 

8 

Page 8 of 22

14 

combined with section 28E and 28P of the 1981 Act . These sections make it a criminal 

offence for any owner or occupier of land within the area notified to carry out such an 

operation without a reasonable excuse (which includes an authorisation given by a 

15 

planning permission or by a public authority in certain circumstances ) or otherwise 

than in accordance with a management scheme, a management notice, an agreement 

with Natural England, or a written consent granted by Natural England after it has been 

16 

informed of a proposal to carry that operation out . If Natural England refuse any such 

consent, or if it imposes a condition on it, with which an owner or occupier is aggrieved, 

17 

either may appeal on the merits to the Secretary of State against such a decision . 

17. In my opinion this statutory regime requiring written consent to be obtained for 

such an operation allows a fair balance to be struck in respect of any proposal to carry 

out such an operation between (a) the extent of any likely harm to interests of nature 

conservation (if consent is given) and (b) any likely detriment to an owner or occupier 

(if consent is refused), on the merits, taking into account all other relevant 

considerations, when there is a specific proposal to carry such an operation out. In my 

opinion that legislative scheme respects the rights of such an owner or occupier under 

A1P1 and will secure that they are not infringed if such a fair balance is struck when 

determining whether consent should be granted or refused. 

18. In such circumstances the question is why the mere requirement for an owner or 

occupier to obtain consent for a particular specified operation that is likely to damage 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Notification will also give rise to an obligation on other authorities to consult Natural England before 

granting any consent for operations likely to damage the matters by reason of which an area is of special 

interest: see section 28I of the 1981 Act. But what may give rise to any interference with anyone’s 

possessions in such a case is not Natural England’s right to be consulted but the statutory scheme that 

requires consent to be obtained for any such operation regardless of any such effect. 

See section 28P(1) and (4) of the 1981 Act. 

See section 28E(1), (3) of the 1981 Act. 

See Section 28F of the 1981 Act. 

9 

Page 9 of 22

the matters by reason of which an area is of special nature conservation interest (as 

opposed to any decision refusing such a consent) is itself incompatible with A1P1. 

19. I have great difficulty in seeing how that could be said to be so. If there is no 

proposal to carry out such an operation that is likely to damage the matters by reason 

of which an area is of special interest, in practice there is no restriction on an owner or 

occupier carrying that operation out. If the owner or occupier proposes to carry such 

an operation out, the question whether consent should be granted for it can be 

18 

considered at that time in terms of the specific proposal and on the merits . The only 

conceivable reason for Natural England to abdicate any form of control over an 

operation that would otherwise be specified could be that, in no circumstances whatsoever, 

could Natural England ever be justified in refusing consent for such an operation, or in 

granting consent subject to conditions, notwithstanding that the carrying out of an 

operation of that description is likely to damage the matters by reason of which an area 

is of special interest. How Natural England could make that speculative assessment 

with confidence I do not know, particularly in the absence of any sufficient information 

about how such an operation may be proposed to be carried out and other potentially 

relevant considerations, including (insofar as their rights under A1P1 are concerned) 

any sufficient information about what the likely consequences for an owner or occupier 

will be of any restriction on carrying such an operation out, when such an operation is 

proposed to be carried out. 

20. Moreover in my opinion Parliament did not intend that Natural England should 

have to make any such speculative assessment. What it was required Natural England 

to specify in the notification were “any operations appearing to Natural England to be 

likely to damage the flora, fauna or geological or physiological features by reason of 

18 

There is nothing to stop an owner or occupier making such a proposal once the area is notified, whether 

or not he also makes representations or objections to the notification itself. 

10 

Page 10 of 22

which the land is of special interest”, not those which it considers prior authorisation 

is necessary or desirable. What Parliament then required Natural England to do was 

to confirm (with or without modifications) its specification of “any operations appearing 

to Natural England to be likely to damage” the matters by reason of which an area is 

of special nature conservation interest. In my view what that involves is a judgment 

about the operations likely effect on those matters. It does not involve a judgment on 

whether an operation’s likely effect on those matters justifies a restriction on carrying 

them out without a relevant authorisation. Parliament itself thought that such a likely 

effect did justify such a restriction. 

21. The decisions in the two main cases determined by the Court of Appeal on the 

application of A1P1 to the decision whether to confirm a notification (with or without 

modifications) do not confront this issue directly given the way in which the claim in 

each case was developed. In R (Fisher) v English Nature supra, there was in fact no 

complaint about the operations which had been specified. In R (Trailer and Marina 

19 

(Leven) ) v the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs , the 

claim that sections 28-28Q of the 1981 Act were incompatible with A1P1 was one that 

was advanced mainly on the ground that there was no (or no sufficient) provision for 

compensation for the restrictions which that legislative scheme imposed. 

22. The point was directly addressed, however, by Lightman J in R (Fisher) v English 

Nature supra. He observed that: 

“A challenge to the confirmation of the specification of OLDs and that the specification of these 

restrictions imposed disproportionate restrictions on ownership rights has now been disavowed. 

In any event, it would be unsustainable because...it is not in dispute that the operations specified 

are likely to damage the stone curlew. All that their specification requires is that consent is 

obtained for them before they are carried out on pain of committing a criminal offence. If and 

when the claimants ever propose to carry out such an operation, a fair balance can be struck in 

19 

[2004] EWCA Civ 1580, [2005] 1 WLR 1267. 

11 

Page 11 of 22

determining whether consent should be granted between the acknowledged public interest in 

protecting the stone curlew and the claimant's interests in carrying out any such operation. Such 

a regime is not disproportionate nor is it alleged to be.” 

These remarks were, of course, obiter. 

23. In Fisher there was in fact no complaint about the compatibility of the legislation 

with A1P1 or about the operations which had been specified. The main point taken in 

that case was that confirmation of the notification was disproportionate since more 

targeted controls could be imposed if the area was designated as Special Protection Area 

and notification thus served no useful purpose but imposed some unnecessary further 

20 

restriction . When considering the appeal in that case, notwithstanding the fact that he 

had some difficulty understanding the complaint in those circumstances in the absence 

21 

of a challenge to the legislative scheme that required notification , Wall LJ stated that: 

“141. Speaking for myself, I would accept that if designation as an SSSI could be shown to have 

a disproportionate impact on the claimants, and one which English Nature had failed to take into 

account, that failure could found an argument for judicial review of the decision. This, as I 

understand it is essentially the basis of the article 1 of the First Protocol argument. However, this 

argument in my judgment fails on the facts.” 

Although equally obiter, Wall LJ did not explain how confirmation of a notification 

could be shown disproportionate given the lack of any challenge to (a) the list of 

operations and (b) the compatibility of the scheme itself with A1P1 that required 

notification of the area as a SSSI if English Nature was of the opinion that it was of 

22 

special interest, particularly if it had thought it of international importance (as it did) . 

20 

21 

22 

See eg [2003] EWHC 1599 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 503, at [5] and [45]; [2004] EWCA Civ 663, [2005] 1 WLR 

147, at [123]-[125], [142]-[146]. 

See “143. ...In the absence of an attack on the lawfulness of the scheme itself, I struggled to ascertain why 

it was that the imposition of an SSSI on the claimants was so disproportionate as to render the decision to 

confirm unlawful. ..”. 

See his observations at [126]-[128]. 

12 

Page 12 of 22

What he may have had in mind, however, as giving rise to such an argument was proof 

that the notification served no useful purpose, although he did not disagree with 

Lightman J that that would in substance involve a challenge to the compatibility of the 

23 

legislation requiring notification . In my view Lightman J was plainly correct in taking 

that view since the legislation requires notification of an area of special interest 

regardless of what other controls over activities within it may exist. 

24. Wall LJ may also have had in mind an argument based on a resulting 

24 

disproportionate financial effect on land values . That latter point was one that arose, 

and was rejected, subsequently, in R (Trailer and Marina (Leven) v the Secretary of 

25 

State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs , when the Court of Appeal rejected 

a claim for a declaration that sections 28-28Q of the 1981 Act were incompatible with 

A1P1 given the absence of any provision for compensation. 

25. In the Court of Appeal the Appellants eschewed any challenge to those provisions 

in respect of any notification given after the amendments effected by the Countryside 

and Rights of Way Act 2000. Their case was based on the fact that the effect of an earlier 

notification was substantially modified so as to make the restrictions permanent (rather 

than temporary) and that the change had been made without compensation being 

26 

provided for some (or all) of those whose possessions were affected . As Neuberger LJ 

23 

24 

25 

26 

See [143] and [147] referring to Lightman J’s judgment at [45]. 

See at [143]-[144]. 

[2004] EWCA Civ 1580, [2005] 1 WLR 1267. 

As Neuberger LJ stated, “It is only the transitional provisions of the 2000 Act which Mr Rabie suggests 

infringe rights under article 1 of the First Protocol. We should explain why this is. When exercising its 

powers of notification under section 28, as amended by that Act, English Nature will have to make sure that 

it does not infringe Convention rights, which it should be in a position to do. Thus there can be no question 

of the powers of notification granted to English Nature under the 1981 Act, as amended by the 2000 Act, 

being in conflict with Convention rights. Mr Rabie's argument only runs with *1282 respect to notification 

already given under the 1981 Act. These were largely "toothless" when that Act was passed, but have been 

given teeth by the transitional provisions of the 2000 Act. It is Mr Rabie's case that the giving of teeth in 2000 

to some of the notifications effected under the 1981 Act, may result in infringement of the article 1 of the 

First Protocol rights of the owners of land subject to such notification.” The statements about Natural 

13 

Page 13 of 22

(as he then was) stated, 

“67. [The Appellant].. contends that there may be cases in which the effect of the transitional 

provisions of the 2000 Act on a notification under section 28 of the 1981 Act has been to curtail 

the uses of the land to such an extent and to depreciate the profit earning capacity, and hence the 

market value, of the land to such an extent that either or both of the following conditions is 

satisfied, namely: (i) the effect of the restriction and reduction is such that what appears on its 

face to be a restriction in use in fact amounts to a de facto expropriation within the terms of 

article 1 of the First Protocol, and/or; (ii) the effect of the restriction and reduction is such as to 

represent a disproportionate burden on the owner of the land concerned, even taking into 

account what one might characterise as the otherwise general lawfulness of the legislation. 

70. To demonstrate such an incompatibility in principle.. it would be necessary to show that there 

are no primary or delegated powers which, if properly exercised, would prevent the use of the 

statute from invading the Convention right or rights. Given that the asserted incompatibility is 

with article 1 of the First Protocol, a number of such provisions become relevant. There are the 

powers of English Nature under section 28E and those of the Secretary of State under section 28F, 

[to grant consent for a specified operation] each of which is capable of accommodating 

Convention rights. ...There may also, in certain cases, be recourse to planning permission so as 

to engage section 28P(4)(a), or to the service of a purchase notice under Chapter 1 of Part VI of 

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If none of these provisions assisted, because they resulted 

in adverse decisions for the landowner, it would be necessary for him to attack the decision as unlawful by 

reason of their violation of a Convention right, rather than to attack the statute which provided for them 

as incompatible with that right. 

71. The 1981 Act, as amended in 2000, is not, therefore, in our judgment, vulnerable to the 

accusation of inherent incompatibility with article 1 of the First Protocol....” 

26. In my view the logic of this analysis would apply equally to a notification given after 

the amendments made to the 1981 Act by the 2000 Act. The decision whether or not to 

grant consent for a proposed operation that has been specified as likely to damage the 

matters by reason of which an area is of special interest is one capable of considering the 

England’s “powers” of notification under the 1981 Act as amended (which are obiter if they are intended 

to represent Neuberger LJ’s views rather than Mr Rabie’s explanation) are hard to follow: Natural England 

has a duty to notify if it is of the opinion that an area is of special interest and what the notification contains 

that imposes restrictions, namely the list of specified operations, is not something that Natural England has 

any discretion about once it appears that an operation is likely to damage the matters by reason of which 

the area is of special interest. 

14 

Page 14 of 22

impact on any owner or occupier’s possessions, including the absence of any 

compensation for a refusal of consent, so as to secure the fair balance A1P1 requires. 

Moreover the Court of Appeal’s view that any complaint that the restrictions imposed 

were incompatible with that Convention right would have to be directed, not at the 

statute, but at the decisions refusing consent for such an operation, echoes the obiter dicta 

of Lightman J in R (Fisher) v English Nature supra that I have quoted above. 

27. I recognise that neither case itself decides the relevant question that I have identified 

in paragraph [18] above directly. When carefully analysed, however, what the Courts 

said in each case tends on balance in my view to support my answer to that question. 

That answer is that what Natural England have to consider, when deciding whether or 

not to confirm (with or without modifications) that part of the notification which 

specifies operations appearing to Natural England to be likely to damage the flora, 

fauna or geological or physiological features by reason of which the land is of special 

interest, is simply whether or not or not those operations are likely to have that effect. 

28. Answering that question merely involves judgment about the operations likely effect 

on those matters. It does not involve a judgment (a) whether an operation’s likely effect 

on those matters justifies a restriction on carrying them out without a relevant 

authorisation or (b) whether consent for such an operation could never be refused or 

granted subject to conditions, given the effect of any resulting restriction on the 

enjoyment of an owner or occupier’s possessions. The requirement to obtain an 

authorisation for such an operation is one compatible with those persons’ rights under 

A1P1, just as the requirement Parliament has imposed to obtain planning permission 

and other environmental consents is. 

15 

Page 15 of 22

OTHER MATTERS 

29. Natural England has a general purpose and some general duties. How these may 

affect decisions in connection with sites of special scientific interest depends on the 

specific legislation dealing with such sites. In my view effect can only be given to such 

general provisions if, and to the extent that, doing so is compatible with the specific 

legislation dealing with such areas. 

(a) section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 

30. Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 provides that: 

“In the exercise of their functions under this Act, the [National Parks and Access to the 

Countryside Act] 1949 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it shall be the duty of every 

Minister, and of Natural England, the Council and local authorities to have due regard to the 

needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas.” 

31. In my view the requirement to have “due regard” to these matters in the exercise of 

Natural England’s functions imposes a requirement to have such regard to them as (in 

Natural England’s view) is appropriate in all the circumstances in the context of the 

27 

particular function being discharged . Plainly no regard is due to anything which is 

legally irrelevant to any decision that has to be taken when discharging the particular 

function in question. 

32. What Natural England may think might help meet the needs of agriculture and 

forestry or be in the economic and social interests of a rural area is irrelevant in my view 

to the question (a) whether an area is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or 

geological or physiological features or (b) whether an operation is likely to damage 

27 

See eg R (McDonald) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2011] UKSC 33, [2011] PTSR 1266, per Lord Brown 

at [23] (on similar wording in what was section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). 

16 

Page 16 of 22

them. Accordingly in my opinion it would not be appropriate to have any regard to 

them in answering those questions. 

33. By contrast what Natural England may think about them may be relevant to Natural 

England’s views about the management of land (including any views it has about the 

conservation and enhancement of that flora or fauna or those features), matters about 

28 

which any notification must contain a statement . What regard Natural England may 

consider it to be appropriate to give to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the 

economic and social interests of rural areas in the statement of its views in any 

notification, and when considering whether to confirm that element of the notification 

(with or without any modification), will depend on all the circumstances. It may be 

influenced in that respect by the information reasonably available at each stage and the 

fact that the views expressed in the statement have no legal effect as such on how the 

land falls to be managed. It will no doubt be influenced by other factors in considering 

what its views on management may be including, for example, its duty under section 

40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. Under that section it 

“must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with a proper exercise 

of those functions to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. 

....Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, 

restoring or enhancing a population or habitat.” 

In considering its views on management it should also (other things being equal) seek 

to give effect to its general purpose set out in section 2 of the Natural Environment and 

Rural Communities Act 2006 and have regard to the statutory guidance issued by the 

Secretary of State (both of which are discussed further below). 

34. However, just as the desirability of notifying an area as one of special interest is 

28 

They may likewise be relevant to the content of a management scheme or management notice. 

17 

Page 17 of 22

irrelevant in my opinion to the decisions whether that area should be notified and 

whether any notification should be withdrawn or confirmed (with or without 

modifications) for the reasons given above, so equally irrelevant to those decisions (and 

for the same reasons) are the matters referred to in section 37 of the 1968 Act . Thus, if 

Natural England decided to withdraw the notification because it thought (for example) 

that its existence would be contrary to the needs of agriculture or fishery, it would be 

duty bound immediately to notify the area again so long as it is of the opinion that it is 

of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiological features. 

Had Parliament intended Natural England not to notify an area, or to withdraw a 

notification, because a notification is contrary to the needs of agriculture or forestry or 

to the social and economic interests of any rural area, it would have given Natural 

England a discretion whether to notify, and to denotify, a SSSI in such circumstances. 

Whilst Natural England may denotify an area if it is no longer of special interest, it may 

not do so because it thinks the notification to be undesirable. In my opinion, therefore, 

no regard is due to matters referred to in section 37 of the 1968 Act when Natural 

England is considering whether to withdraw or to confirm the notification. 

35. But such regard as is appropriate should be given to them when considering 

whether or not to grant consent to carry out any proposed specified operation. 

(b) Natural England’s general purpose 

36. Section 2 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 provides 

that: 

“(1) Natural England’s general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, 

enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing 

to sustainable development. 

(2) Natural England's general purpose includes- 

(a) 

promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity, 

18 

Page 18 of 22

(b) conserving and enhancing the landscape, 

(c) securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, 

understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment, 

(d) promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging 

open-air recreation, and 

(e) contributing in other ways to social and economic well-being through 

management of the natural environment. 

(3) The purpose in subsection (2)(e) may, in particular, be carried out by working with local 

communities.” 

29 

37. In my view, other things being equal , Natural England should seek to promote its 

general purpose when discharging its functions insofar as that is compatible with the 

specific legislation vesting any function in it. 

38. Plainly the specific legislative regime governing sites of special scientific interest 

(including its provisions for management agreements, management schemes and 

management notices) provides a framework for identifying and protecting areas of 

special interest for nature conservation and for their conservation, enhancement and 

management. In respect of certain elements in that framework, Natural England is 

merely called on to make certain judgments (in consequence of which certain results, 

such as notification, are prescribed). In respect of others, such as whether consent for 

any proposed specified operation should be granted and (if so) subject to what 

conditions and how management should be conducted, it has a discretion which it 

should exercise (other things being equal) to promote its general purpose as explained 

in section 2 of the 2006 Act. 

CONCLUSION 

39. As explained above, the substantive part of a notification under section 28(1)(b) of 

the 1981 Act comprises four elements: 

29 

There may of course be other considerations that may be relevant. For example Natural England may not 

be able to afford to do all it might otherwise wish to do. 

19 

Page 19 of 22

(1) notification that an area of land is in Natural England’s opinion of special 

interest; 

(2) a specification of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical 

features by reason of which the area is of special interest; 

(3) a specification of those operations appearing to Natural England to be 

likely to damage that flora or fauna or those features; and 

(4) a statement of Natural England's views about the management of the land 

(including any views Natural England may have about the conservation 

and enhancement of that flora or fauna or those features). 

40. The first decision that Natural England has to make under section 28(5) of the 1981 

Act is whether to withdraw or confirm the notification (with or without modification. 

For the reasons given above, in my opinion Natural England may not withdraw the 

notification if it remains of the opinion that the area or any part of it is of special interest. 

It may only confirm the notification, with or without modification. 

41. In considering whether to confirm (with or without modification) the specification 

in the notification of any operations likely to damage the flora, fauna, or geological or 

physiographical features by reason of which the area is of special interest, Natural 

England has to decide in my opinion whether or not such operations are likely to 

damage those matters and to confirm the list with or without modifications accordingly. 

42. When considering whether to confirm the statement of views on management 

contained in the notification (with or without modification), other things being equal, 

in my opinion Natural England should seek to promote its general purpose set out in 

section 2 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, whilst having 

regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity (as it must given section 40 of that Act) 

and giving such regard as it considers appropriate in all the circumstances to the needs 

20 

Page 20 of 22

of agriculture and forestry and to the social and economic interests of any rural area (in 

accordance with section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968). In my view Natural England 

may also have regard, when considering the statement of its views on management, to 

the potential impact on specific owners and occupiers of land in the area. In that respect, 

it may wish to bear in mind (if it so wishes) that this statement has no legal effect itself 

and that, before any management scheme may be formulated, Natural England must 

give owners and occupiers potentially affected an opportunity to make representations 

30 

and objections to any proposed management scheme . In any event, however, in my 

opinion it should also have regard to Code of Guidance issued by the Secretary of State 

31 

in which it is said that: 

“The Secretary of State expects this [statement of views on management] to be a simple statement 

of the way in which the land needs to be managed in order to maintain its special interest.” 

John Howell QC 

Wednesday, 20 February 2013 

Blackstone Chambers 

30 

31 

See section 28J of the 1981 Act. 

At [16]. 

21 

Page 21 of 22

The discharge of Natural 

England’s functions under 

section 28(5) of the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981 

ADVICE 

Richard Barlow, 

Browne Jacobson LLP, 

Mowbray House, 

Castle Meadow Road, 

Nottingham NG2 1BJ. 

Page 22 of 22

Ref: RJF/SF/let/4549 

L5 February 2013 

Maddy Jago 

Director, Landscape and Biodiversity 

Natural England 

Mail Hub Block B 

Whittington Road 

Worcester WR5 2LQ 

BTO 

Looking 

out forbirds 

British Trust for Ornithology 

The Nunnery 

Thetford 

Norfolk lP24 2PU 

@ ++q (o) 18427soo5o 

@ +++ (o) 1842 Tsooio 

Dear Maddy Jago 

Thank you for your letter of 11 February concerning the provisional Nightingale population estimate. 

Responses to the points you raise are as follows: 

a) The total number of surveyed tetrads for which information is currently available to us is 2,L48. 

These contained an estimated 3,71.1territories (i.e. the simple sum of estimated numbers of 

territories before application of any detectability correction). 

b) Regarding Quality Assurance on BTO surveys, a full statement is available on our website 

(http://wvYy[.bto.orsfresearch-data-services/data-serviceydata-qualitv). 

This is enclosed in full 

as an Appendix. 

Specifically, in relation to the 2012 Nightingale Survey, I can make the following points 

concerning data quality: 

(i) The sampling design adopted aimed to include an appropriate stratification of sample units 

(tetrads) that would enable us to assess population size throughout the range of the species. 

We included in our target sample all tetrads known to recently hold Nightingales (n = 

2433)plus an additional 300 tetrads not known to hold the species but that were (a) in 

potentially suitable landscapes, 

(b) within the British range of the Nightingale. 

(ii) Field protocols were designed to maximise the probability of detecting Nightingales. 

Detailed recording forms and instructions were provided to all observers. These protocols 

were based on recently published information concerning the behaviour of the species (see 

review by HOLT, C.A., HEWSON, C.M. & FULLER, R).2OL2. The Nightingale in Britain: status, 

ecology and conservation needs . British Birds, tOS,172-L871. 

(iii) Visual and audio identification resources for Nightingale, and potential confusion species, 

were provided via BTO website/survey page. 

(iv) Observer selection and checking of field data: BTO Regional Representatives (RRs) selected 

reliable fieldworkers and checked the data returned to them. BTO staff also checked all 

returned recording forms and systematically interpreted the counts made in terms of 

territories. 

(v) Computer entry of the data was undertaken from the interpreted recording forms. A tO% 

sample of the input data was double checked and the error rate was found to be very low. 

trl 

qt 

u"Ui"r.n"C 

Contl....2 

www.Dto.org 

Registered Charity No" 216652 (England& Wales) SC039193 (Scotland) 

Company Limited by Cuarantee No. 357284 (England& Wales) 

Patron HRH The Duke of Edinburph KC KT

Ref: RJF/SF/|eIAS49 

15 February 2013 

Maddy Jago 

Page2 

(vi) The multi-stage analytical approach described in the document you have already received 

was developed by Dr Chris Hewson and Prof Rob Fuller. Expert statistical advice was sought 

from the BTO'statistician Dr Alison Johnston. Dr Johnston recommended and advised on 

the modelling approach used to estimate detectability and make an appropriate correction. 

The calculations were worked through several times. 

(vii) Credentials and roles of the individuals on the BTO staff involved in the various aspects of 

the survey are as follows: 

Dr Greg Conway and John Marchant: Joint survey organisers responsible for developing field 

protocols, interacting with BTO RRs, checking / interpreting the recording forms and 

overseeing data input. Both have many years of experience of organising extensive bird 

surveys through the BTO's observer network. 

Dr Chris Hewson: One of the BTO's Senior Research Ecologists. He led on designing the 

sampling and undertook the analysis with input from Alison Johnston and Rob Fuller. 

Dr Hewson has undertaken much research on scrub and woodland birds, including 

Nightingales, both in Britain and west Africa, and has published several relevant papers in 

the peer-reviewed literature. 

Dr AliJohnston: A professional statistician with wide statistical interests and experience with 

a particular interest in how statistical techniques can reduce the bias in surveys, for example 

by estimating detectability or taking account of observer error or experience. She is 

responsible for statistical advice across the organisation. Ali is Visiting Fellow in the 

University of Cambridge, Conservation Science Group and Affiliated Researcher of the 

National Centre for Statistical Ecology. She publishes regularly in the scientific literature' 

Prof Rob Fuller: Science Director at the BTO with responsibility for the Ecological Change 

Group. Responsible for supervising the 2012 Nightingale Survey. More than 20 years 

experience of working on responses of biodiversity, especially birds, to land-use change and 

habitat management. Particular interest in the ecology of birds in shrubland and woodland 

environments. Has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers and in 2012 published 

Birds and Hobitat- Relationships in Changing Landscapes Cambridge University Press 540pp. 

Honorary Professor, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. 

c) We think that points a) to c) in our original document are unlikely to be completed before the 

end of April 2013, though this depends on staff availability. Point d) concerns integrating any 

new counts made in 2013 and this will take somewhat longer - probably well into late summer 

/ autumn 2013. Consequently we will not be in a position to finalise the Nightingale population 

estimate until late 2otg. 

Yourssincer- 

e 

Professor Rob Fuller 

Science Director, Ecological Change 

encl. 

Appendix: Quality of BTO Data

Appendix 

Quality of BTO data 

Maintaining the standards and quality of data gathered in extensive surveys 

of birds 

The British Trust for Ornithology has pioneered methodologies for the systematicoilection of data on the 

abundance, distributian, habitat associations, movements, survival, behaviour and breeding performance of 

N:irds over large geographical areas. This is achioved r:sing networks of volunteers who continue to rnake a 

huge conlribution to our understanding of the statns and ecology of birds in ihe United Kingdom. The data 

are gathered using carefully designed protocols within variou schemes and enquiries, each of which has a 

different purposs, methodology and set of objectives. $onre of these schernes collect data on an annual 

basis, for example the Breeding Bird $urvey (BBS), the Wetland Bird $urvey {WeB$}, the Nest Recsrds 

Scheme and the Ringing Scheme. Others are of short duration. For irrstance, distribution atlases take 

place at approximately 20 year intervals and gather data over a four or five year period. The BTO has also 

traditionally undertakenational surveys of the distribution, abundance and habitat use of seiected species, 

most of which are carried out in a single year, though they may be repeated periodically. A smaller number 

of enquiries have aimed to answer specific questions relating to bird behaviour" 

The purpose of this document is to expiain the approaches used to ensure that, in each of these 

circumstances, the data are of a high standard, both in terms of sampling and their collection in the field, 

that they meet the objectives of the scherne concerned in the most effective way, and that there is a cieer 

understanding of the strengths and limitations of each survey. The intention is not to describe individual 

surveys, details of which are available on the BTO's website wrw.bto.orq, but to outline the principles by 

which the BTO operates its gathering of data through volunteer neturorks. 

A key requirement is that survey design should minimise biases within the data, so as not to undermine the 

scientific objectives of the scheme. In practice there are three main issues that have to be addressed in 

designing and operating schemes: 

{i) that data should be representative of the relevant geographical area er habitats about which conclusions 

are drawn; 

{ii) that, for long{erm surveys, the data must be c*mparable over time and that temporal comparability is 

not compromised by changes in observer qualiiy, field nrethods or distribution of samples; 

{iii) that potential biases arising from variation in detectability between habitais and species needs to be 

accounted for, and whether anaiysis of the data without correcting for detectability can be justified" 

$ampling 

Meny STO surveys are based on sample ccunts {e.9. BBS and many single specie surveys). Many of 

these involve a random selection of survey unlts. Appropriate stratification is used so that the sampie data 

ars repfesentative of the region / environment being studied" Stratification is usually by land cover type or 

some other habitat features, occasionally by human population density. l-lowever, in surveys targeted on 

pariicular species, the stratification will be selecl*d to reflecthe ecolcgy of the species concerned, so that 

the full range of conditions potentially occupied are sampled. Random sampling is straightforward where 

reguiar units such as 'l-km grid squares are used. lt is less easy where a particular habitat is being 

sampled, or an uncommon or patchily distributed species is the subject. In such cases the BTO 

endeavours to adopt sampling regimes that sarnple acro$s a wide range af variation and that avoid 

skewing data towards particular conditions. In some cases professional workers may be engaged to

undertake intensive random sampling where volunteers are selecting their own sites; this can be u$ed to 

correct for any bias that may bs evident in the wider volunteer $urvsy and to enslire adequate coverage of 

areas at the edge of ranEe, in remote areas or where habitat is sub-oplimal. 

Same datasets are constrained by the volunteers whc contribute to them and the circumstances in which 

they operale. lt is important not to infer results that cannot be substantiated. For instance, it is reasonable 

to reporthat the nurnber of Knot ringed in the UK doubled between two years, as long a$ account is taken 

of any changes in effort and the elernent of chance that is involveci 

catching birds of this species. 

$tatistical advice and analysis 

The BT0 employs several staff who are highly experienced ecologicaI mi:dellers and stati$tical 

analysts. Statistical advice is sought at the design stage of projecis and analytical advice is sought in the 

interpretation of large-scale survey data. The BTO endeavours to maintain expertise in thc latest relevant 

analytical techniques and, where nece$sary, will seek specialist exper"t advice from outside the 

organization. 

Protocols and instructions 

Each scheme and project has ils own protocol for the collection of data in the field. Where new methods 

are being used, these are generally trialled before use on a large scale. fixtreme care is taken with 

instructions for schemes and surveys, to maximize the probability that different observers will collect data in 

the same way and that indivieJual observers will record informatir:n consistently {e.9. between years}" lf 

observer behaviour were to vary systerfiaticatly with region or habitat, this could introduce a serious bias 

into the results; recognizing the need to avoid such potential bias is an important part of the development of 

prolocols and instructions. Some schemes produce regular newsletters and bulleiins ihat may include 

guidance and training. 

Observer ability 

All observers, whether professionals or volunteers, vary to some degree in acuity and ability to identify 

birds. The BT0 endeavours to ensufe that observers have the necessary ability and level of skill, which 

will vary according to the survey. For example, a breeding bird census of all species in woodland requires 

a very different level of knowledge and skill to undentakirrg counts of nests in a heronry or rookery. Ne st 

recording, bird ringing and censuses each reqr-rires different types of skill. The ST0 aims to match the skill 

levels of observers to surveys. lt does this in three main ways. Firstly, by being entirely clear about the 

expected skill tevels of observers who participate in particular surveys. Secondly, by organizing many 

surveys through networks of regional organizers who attempt to find sbservers with appropriate skills (for 

examp[e, within WeBS, the skills required for counting waterfowl on a local pond are very differento those 

where flocks of waders need to be countedlestimated). Thirdly, within some surveys differentiers of datacollecticn 

are provided, requiring different levels of expertise * e.g. collecting individual records, randorn 

walks and survey$ of assigned plots. 

Training 

In order to maximise data qualily, it is necessary to provide opportunities for volunteers to develop both 

their skills and confidence. The BTO runs several training courses each year in scheme methods and bird 

identificaiion. Mentoring is used in projects organised by the Demography Team. Sonre schemes produce 

regular newsietters and bulletins that may include periodic advice about field methods. Mandatory and 

l*ngthy training, to an extremely high standard, is required to participate as an independent ringer, though 

this is largely for bird weifare reasons.

Record validation 

Individual records are checked both by regional organizers and BT0 staff. Unusual records {these could 

be erroneous identifications, miss-keyedata or exceptionally large counts) are checked with observers 

and if neces$ary not accepted. $orne schemes, using online recording, have automated checks. For 

example, exceptionally high counts may be queried on entry. 

Minimizing computcr input errors 

For its longterm and largest surveys, the BTO is increasingly moving away from paper records to online 

data entry by observers" However, where paper records need to be input into databases, double inputting 

of data is routinely used" 

Publlcation and openness 

The BTO is entirely open about the sampling and lield rationales that it u$ss in its individual 

schemes. Many of the protocois are available on the website; all are available from the appropriate 

scheme organizer" The BT0 is committed to pubiishing results from its schemes and surveys in a variety 

of forms including peer-reviewed scientific journals where methods are subjected to the greatest scrutiny. 

Advice on survey developrnent and coverage issues 

ldeas for extensive surveys are generally developed by the staff in consultation with other ecologists and 

conservation professionals" For partnershiprojects (e.9" BBS and WeBS), sp*cific working group$ 

advise on the development and running of the surveys. For other extensive surveys, two committees * the 

Regional Network Committee and the Ringing Committee - have a role in advising on practical aspects 

such as the extent to which volunteers are likely to want to participate, pressures on local organizers, 

taciics for improving regional coverage etc.

Please contact: 

Lynn Utchanah 

Your ref: 

Our ref: 

Date: 14 February 2013 

Mr D Webster 

Chief Executive 


Foundry House 

3 Millsands 

Riverside Exchange 

Sheffield S3 8NH 

Director’s Office 

Regeneration, Community and Culture 

Medway Council 

Gun Wharf, Dock Road 

Chatham 

Kent ME4 4TR 

Telephone: 01634 331323 

Facsimile: 01634 331729 

Email: lynn.utchanah@medway.gov.uk 

Dear Dave 

LODGE HILL PROPOSED STRATEGIC ALLOCATION 

I refer to your email of 23 rd January 2013 concerning this matter, the contents of which are 

noted. Your continuing personal involvement in this matter is greatly appreciated. 

As you know Medway Council officers attended a meeting with some of your technical 

specialists in London on 21 st January. Representatives from Land Securities and DIO also 

attended. We are very grateful for your assistance in arranging this meeting and it has added 

considerably to our understanding of the situation we find ourselves in. 

Before that meeting we had been compiling a substantial evidence base relating to nightingales 

and, to a lesser extent, MG5 grassland. Your Executive Board papers from October 2012 and 

the meeting on 21 st January further informed this and we have continued to evaluate matters 

since then. 

I regret to say however that all this work has raised a number of quite fundamental concerns 

over both the “science” and how it is being applied in this case. 

I understand that your Executive Board may consider the matter again on 25 th February. I am 

therefore writing now to set out these concerns in order that you and your colleagues are fully 

aware of them. If the Board is asked to consider notification again I would ask that this letter is 

included with the papers. 

The various matters that need to be covered are best dealt with under a series of sub headings. 

Footnotes are also provided to source documents where appropriate. 

At the same time I want to emphasise that the Council remains fully committed to working 

through this matter with you and mitigating all reasonable environmental impacts. 

General Approach to the Nightingale Issue 

It is worth reminding ourselves that this issue arose specifically from a request to notify made by 

the RSPB. It was also made at a time when the RSPB had launched a public campaign on its 

1

website and was making very clear assertions about its view of the importance of the site for 

nightingales. Such an approach is not uncommon for the RSPB but it does mean that it is 

crucial that those of us with statutory duties to perform are clear about when it is acting as a 

conservation charity and when it is acting as a campaign organisation. We do not think this has 

always been the case in relation to Lodge Hill. 

At the meeting on 21 st January your staff described RSPB (and KWT) as “partners” and it is fully 

appreciated that this is the case in terms of reserve management, scientific research and so on. 

However in the case of Lodge Hill it is important to ensure that all relevant information is 

objectively assessed. 

Status of the Nightingale 

Much has been made of the fact that, in Britain, the nightingale is categorised as an Amber List 

species and that the next time the list is reviewed it will “inevitably” move to the Red List 1 . 

However our investigations show this to have no scientific foundation and there is clear 

evidence that it should not even have been placed on the Amber List in the first place. 

At National and International level the nightingale is categorised as a species of “least concern” 

(LC) 2 . This was most recently reviewed in the IUCN Red List in 2012 and the relevant entry 

states “the population trend appears to be increasing…” 

Domestically the Nightingale is categorised as an “Amber” species 3 but this warrants further 

examination. 

There are eight categories under which a species can be placed on the amber list. Many (of the 

126 species in total) on the list fall under a number of these but the nightingale is listed under 

only one. This is “moderate breeding population decline” (BDMp) defined as more than a 25% 

and less than 50% decline over the last 25 years or since the first BoCC review starting in 1969. 

No further details are provided for the nightingale. No source is given for the stated decline and 

it is not referred to elsewhere in the document where “species with increased conservation 

concern”, “long distance migrants” and Edge of range breeders” are highlighted. This is despite 

the fact that the nightingale is both a long distance migrant and an edge of range breeder. 

Clearly it was not considered to be of any special concern when the current list was drawn up in 

2009. 

A paper on the ‘Nightingale in Britain’ published in 2012 4 includes the following: 

“…annual monitoring by the BTO/RSPB/JNCC Breeding Bird survey (BBS) shows that 

nightingales in the UK declined by 60% between 1995 and 2009 (Risley et al, 2011).” It 

goes on “Incorporation of data from the Common Bird Census (CBC) (the predecessor 

to BBS) indicates that numbers of nightingales have fallen by more than 90% in the last 

40 years. Had the results of such analysis been available at the time of the most recent 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) review (Eaton et al 2009), the nightingale would 

have been placed on the Red List. Instead it was placed on the Amber List...” 

1 This assertion is made in the October 2012 Board papers and on the RSPB website 

2 Birdlife International. See: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=6593 

3 Birds of Conservation Concern 2009. Leaflet produced by Birdlife International, BTO, Natural England, 

RSPB and others. See: http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u12/bocc3.pdf and 

http://www.bto.org/science/monitoring/psob 

4 ‘The Nightingale in Britain: Status, Ecology and Conservation Needs’, Chas A. Holt, Chris M. Hewson 

and Robert J. Fuller, British Birds, April 2012 

2

However, in sharp contrast, in another paper 5 

respected nightingale experts, states: 

one of the authors, along with two other 

“The Nightingale is too scarce and locally distributed to be monitored effectively by national 

bird monitoring schemes such as the BTO/RSPB/JNCC Breeding Bird Survey (Noble et al. 

2000), the Common Birds Census (Marchant et al. 1990) or Constant Effort Site ringing 

(Baillie et al. 2001)” 

The same reference appears in BTO’s summary of the 1999 national nightingale survey 

referred to later in this letter. 

When all the available nightingale specific surveys are analysed the reason for this latter view 

becomes obvious. 

The summary results of the national nightingale specific surveys since 1976 are as follows. 

Count Type 1976 1980 1999 2012 

Recorded singing males 3,230 4,770 4,498 4,000^ 

Adjusted population estimate 4,000 N/A 6,700 6,250-6,550* 

Kent recorded singing males N/A 946 1,212 N/A 

Source BTO *Provisional 

^”Close to” 

This clearly shows: 

An increase, not a decline, in the assessed population since 1976 

Based on the very limited provisional data available for 2012, a decline of between 2.2% 

and 6.7% from 1999 to 2012 is possible but not likely. This is a very long way short of 

the 25% plus required for entry onto the Amber list. 

What is also apparent, from innumerable research papers, is that the nightingale is an 

opportunistic species. Territorial coverage varies from year to year and suitable habitat can 

quickly become over mature or otherwise unsuitable. For this reason fixed survey locations, as 

used for the BBS, are obviously not appropriate for this species. 

It is readily apparent therefore that the inclusion of the nightingale on the Amber List is, at best, 

highly suspect. There is no basis to suppose that it would qualify for the Red List in any future 

review if the right information is used. 

The Amber list criteria defines “rare” in the following terms: 

 

 

Rare breeder: 1-300 breeding pairs in the UK 

Rare non-breeders: less than 900 individuals 

However all nightingale surveys far exceed these figures and so the species cannot be defined 

as rare. 

An additional cause for concern related to the status afforded to the nightingale stems from the 

following reference in the papers considered by your Executive Board on 1 st November 2012: 

5 ‘Status of the Nightingale in Britain at the end of the 20 th Century with Particular Reference to Climate 

change’ A Bird Study published by Taylor & Francis, 2002. A.M. Wilson, A.C.B. Henderson and R.J. 

Fuller 

3

“Natural England’s draft SSSI notification strategy for birds has identified breeding 

nightingales as a species not previously listed as a notified feature in its own right on 

any SSSI (although they are potentially included as a contributing species in woodland 

and scrub breeding bird assemblages). It is recommended that all known aggregations 

reaching or exceeding 1% of the GB population are notified. Improving coverage for 

nightingales, along with four other relatively scarce breeding woodland birds of 

conservation concern, is considered a priority.” 

As far as we are aware the “draft SSSI Notification Strategy for Birds” is just that – a draft and 

so it should have no weight in deciding on such a significant issue as notification. What are the 

other four “relatively scarce breeding woodland birds” referred to and how have these been 

selected ahead of the other 121 species on the Amber List? Nothing so far as we know has 

been published. If, as suggested, all known aggregations reaching or exceeding 1% of the GB 

population are notified what is the expected landcover for SSSIs beyond the current 7% and 

previously estimated 8% in the JNCC guidelines 6 ? We would suggest that if a consistent 

approach was to be applied for all equivalent species most of the country would have to be 

notified. 

Applicability of JNCC Guidelines to nightingales 

It is apparent from the Executive Board papers and minutes that it is the 1% threshold that is 

thought to provide the scientific basis for the notification of the Lodge Hill development site. 

However, taking the papers at face value, the 1% guideline appears to us to have been 

misapplied. 

It comes from paragraph 3.1 of Chapter 14 Birds of the JNCC ‘Guidelines for the selection of 

biological SSSIs’ It falls under a heading “Breeding aggregations and localities of very rare 

species”. The text in full is as follows: 

“Localities which normally contain 1% or more of the total British breeding population of 

any native species and seabird colonies of over 10,000 breeding pairs are eligible for 

selection. In practice this guideline covers mainly colonial species (e.g. seabirds and 

herons, semi-colonial species (some grebes, ducks and waders) and rare species. For 

estimates of British populations, use the values in Appendix B and Table 27. In view of 

the mobility of some birds, this guideline applies to sites used for other essential 

activities by breeding birds for example display sites of lekking species and feeding 

areas as well as nesting sites. For its application to rare species (including further 

naturally colonising species not listed in Appendix B) it is important that any site 

considered should be used regularly and should normally be large enough to include all 

the areas required for the individuals concerned; it will rarely be appropriate for single 

pairs of wide ranging species. Care should be exercised also if the presence of rare 

birds is the only reason for considering a largely artificial habitat. In both cases the CSD 

Ornithology Branch should be consulted.” 

It is a matter of fact that the nightingale is neither a colonial or semi-colonial species. Nor is it a 

rare species. However these qualifications are not considered in the board papers and in the 

submissions made to the Core Strategy Examination (and presumably to Natural England) by 

RSPB. If some special case is being made under the guideline then that must be set out for all, 

including your Executive Board, to consider. 

We would also make the point that the large areas of scrub that have developed at Lodge Hill 

are very much a “largely artificial habitat”. They have become established on previously 

6 Paragraph 2.4 of the JNCC guidelines 

4

developed land that has been used for ordnance manufacture, army field training, heavy plant 

training and more for at least 150 years. 

For these reasons we do not consider that the nightingale should be considered under this 

guideline. 

Applying a 1% Threshold to Nightingales 

Notwithstanding our firm view that this guideline should not be applied to nightingales we do not 

consider there is solid evidence to support the assertion that Lodge Hill “normally” contains over 

1% the GB population. 

All nightingale experts readily acknowledge that, as a species, it is notoriously difficult to count. 

Females are exceptionally difficult to record at all and so surveys rely on finding singing males – 

generally during the hours of darkness. These in turn appear to stop singing when they have 

found a mate and the species is highly opportunistic and short lived meaning that few birds 

return to a previous territory. 

To compound matters, other than in the case of Lodge Hill in 2012, these surveys rely on 

volunteers and prior assumptions around what sites/habitats might be suitable as there is no 

capacity to survey all tetrads. 

Not surprisingly therefore the national survey accounts include the following: 

 

 

In the case of the 1976 survey cold nights during the first half of the census period and 

estimates from 5 counties “suggested under recording by 10%-32% (mean 20%)” and 

the results were therefore adjusted to “nearer 4,000 singing males” 7 

In 1980 8 , described as a “good year” 4,770 singing nightingales were recorded 

“representing an apparently remarkable increase of nearly 48% over the total found in 

1976”. Norfolk and Suffolk recorded a doubling of their populations (7% - 14%) and “In 

general increases occurred in the northeast and southwest with less increase in the 

central parts of the range” 

In 1999 9 4,498 singing males were located and again there are some interesting 

observations: 

o “At the time of the 1988-1991 breeding atlas the population was estimated at 

5000-6000 pairs but there has been little published information on population 

size or trends since this estimate and the species is too scarce and locally 

distributed to be monitored effectively by national bird monitoring schemes such 

as the BTO/RSPB/ JNCC Breeding Bird Survey, the Common Birds Census or 

Constant Effort Site ringing” 

o “County bird reports and avifaunas for counties across the Nightingale’s range 

had reported continuing decreases and local range contractions since the early 

1990s, but in contrast, a survey of Kent in 1994 located a record county total of 

1066 birds, with the population estimated to be in the range 1460-1535 pairs. 

The higher total was thought probably to be due to better coverage than in earlier 

surveys.” 

o “The 30% increase in Nightingales reported in Kent between 1980 and 1999 is 

thought to be due to more effective coverage but the striking 139% increase 

reported for Suffolk may reflect local increases there.” 

7 ‘Nightingale 1976’, BTO 



5

As a result the total population (in 1999) was estimated as 6,700 (95% confidence limits) but 

subsequently it was concluded that “It was estimated that the 1999 survey missed 32% of 

Nightingales and it is likely that the 1980 survey also resulted in a significant underestimate”. 

Moreover in yet another report 10 Henderson concluded: 

“Although more areas were visited three or more times in 1999 than previously, large 

parts of the county still received less coverage and it is also true that even making three 

visits does not guarantee finding all Nightingales in an area.” 

“The 1994 survey (Henderson 1996) concluded that, although 1,066 birds had been 

recorded, the true total could be in the range 1,460-1,535. This was because more 

intensive survey in randomly located tetrads indicated that the main survey underestimated 

the true total by 37-44%. This procedure has not been repeated for Kent for 

the 1999 survey but the national census data indicate that under-counting may have 

been as much as 50%. Because the survey in Kent was more extensive than elsewhere 

(covering all possible habitat rather than defined sites), the under-estimate here may not 

be so large and will also have been reduced a little by the inclusion in the results of the 

random square survey data.” 

“It remains likely that there was an under-estimate in 1999 but, because many of the 

areas with high densities were counted very effectively, it is possible that it was not so 

large as in 1994. An under-estimate of 20-30%, which seems reasonable, would imply a 

true county total of 1,450-1,575 singing males.” 

The point of all this is: 

 

 

That counting nightingales is a very inexact science; and 

In all the cases referred to, and after proper reflection, initial results have been 

judged to underestimate the situation – by up to 50%. 

Accordingly considerable care is required in determining a national total to use to calculate 

whether Lodge Hill (or any other site) meets the 1% threshold. 

This cannot be emphasised enough as the publication (by NE) of a BTO note of the 

“provisional” national survey results for 2012 mean they are impossible to objectively assess 

(no background data) and yet the note states that they are viewed as an “over-estimate”. This is 

simply not credible, for the reasons set out above. 

Why Now? 

The Council also has deep concerns as to why, at such a late stage in the planning process, the 

1% threshold is being applied when it is well known that a number of specific sites in Kent never 

mind elsewhere, held over 1% of the GB population as a result of the 1999 nightingale survey. 

If the 1% threshold is really held to be significant why was it not acted upon long before July 

2012? 

The KOS report by Andrew Henderson, already referred to, includes the following: 

“Kent clearly is of major importance for Nightingales in national terms and several areas 

within the county achieve national importance (holding more than 1% of the British 

population) in their own right. Table 6 lists (a) areas of national importance and (b) other 

areas holding at least 20 singing males. The precise definition of these areas is arbitrary but 

they are reasonably homogenous in terms of habitat and landscape. It is worth mentioning 

10 ‘Nightingales in Kent in 1999’, A. Henderson, KOS 

6

that the New Hythe and Holborough areas are almost contiguous. East Blean Wood is 

included to allow comparison with previously published lists of numbers in some of these 

areas (Harvey 1979, Henderson 1987). Three other areas with very dense concentrations 

are worthy of note, at Northward Hill (11 birds), Murston (11 birds) and Weatherlees, near 

Pegwell (10 birds).” 

Table 6. 

Notable concentrations of Nightingales in 1999 

(a) Nationally important areas holding at least 46 singing 

males 

New Hythe-Eccles 67 

Faggs, Longrope & Birchett Woods, Warehorne 60 

Woods south of Pluckley (Dering/The 52 

Forest/March) 

Church Wood (Canterbury) complex 48 

Chattenden Woods-Upnor 46 

(b) Areas holding 20-45 singing males 

Stour valley, Sturry-Grove 36 

Down Wood complex 35 

Trenleypark Wood area 33 

Clowes/Thornden/Honey Woods 32 

Denstead Wood complex 32 

Medway valley, Tonbridge-Yalding 29 

Old Park, Canterbury 29 

West Blean Wood 25 

Woods N of Ruckinge (Dickers-Pierland) 24 

Holborough-Burham-Wouldham 23 

Lower Higham-Cliffe 23 

Benenden-Hemsted 22 

Goudhurst-Bedgebury 22 

East Blean Wood 16 

On this basis an area substantially larger than the Lodge Hill site (Upnor being well to the south 

of Lodge Hill) was the fifth most important in the county in 1999. 

Outside of Kent the position is even more striking. For example an article in the International 

Journal of Avian Science 11 dating from 2005 includes:” The southeast corner of the East 

Anglian Fens supports a large concentration of Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos territories. A 

total of 382 territories were located in extensive surveys in 1999 and 2000, probably 

representing over 5% of the English population.” 

Discussions with your staff suggest that the likely response to this is that other significant areas 

already have SSSI protection. Accordingly we have also considered that, informed by Andrew 

Henderson’s draft report on the Kent 2012 results. Our findings are set out in the table below. 

Area described in BTO 

survey 

SSSI 

Nightingales 

Cited as a feature 

1999 2012* 

11 International Journal of Avian Science, 2005 Wilson, Fuller, Day Smith See: 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2005.00420.x/abstract 

7

Area described in BTO 

survey 


Nightingales 

Cited as a feature 

1999 2012* 

New Hythe – Eccles Holborough to 

Burham Marshes 

Not Noted 90 44 

Faggs, Longrope and 

Birchett Woods Warehorne 


Noted 107 

77 

Great Heron Wood 

Wood South of Pluckley 

(Dering/The Forest/March) 

Church Wood (Canterbury) 

complex 

Chattenden Woods-Upnor 

No 

68 36 

No 51 25 

Church Woods, Noted 47 45 

Blean 

Chattenden Woods Noted 

46 90 

(increase largely 

outside of SSSI) 

* Provisional figures. The report notes” All the totals and calculations reported here are based 

on numbers of nightingales actually heard and recorded. They do not take into account the 

numbers likely to have been missed either in 1999 or this year, but it should be noted that this 

may be significant: an under-estimate by 20-30% was considered likely in Kent in 1999.” 

What this shows is that: 

o The third most important site listed (Pluckley) was not a SSSI while parts of 

“Chattenden Woods-Upnor” was 

o Lodge Hill was grouped with Upnor suggesting a much larger area than Chattenden 

Woods SSSI plus Lodge Hill 

What it also sadly suggests is that notification has not, in practice, been kind to the nightingale – 

at least in Kent. In all cases population reductions appear to have occurred where it is a noted 

feature within a SSSI citation. Notification has clearly not been an effective tool in the 

conservation of the species. 

The issue remains as to why notification was not considered before July 2012 and the above 

evidence suggests that new strategies, not notification are needed to conserve the species. 

2012 Nightingale Survey 

To compound the situation even further, in 2012, Lodge Hill was not surveyed on a comparable 

basis to other areas either locally or nationally. An experienced BTO contract surveyor (as 

opposed to volunteers) undertook six surveys 12 (as opposed to the recommended three 

nationally) and full access was afforded to the site (when access is often refused to such sites). 

Prime facie there is therefore a case to suggest that singing males may have been overrecorded 

– at least compared to all other areas. 

12 ‘Factors Potentially Affecting the Viability and Success of Biodiversity Offsetting to Compensate for 

Nightingale Loss’ A report for Medway Council, BTO, Sept. 2012 

8

Because of the way the Lodge Hill specific results were tabled at the Core Strategy Examination 

by RSPB it is not possible to assess its significance relative to other areas by looking at that 

information alone. However if reference is made to the Henderson draft Kent report (with the 

caveat that is contains only provisional results) some further analysis is possible, bearing in 

mind that outside Lodge Hill results are only available for tetrads or hectads. 

This shows that there were 69 recorded territories within the Lodge Hill development site and 15 

in and adjacent to the existing Chattenden Woods SSSI. However in hectad TQ77 (essentially 

the western half of the Hoo Peninsula and including Lodge Hill) 156 singing males were 

recorded. As a result the development site therefore only accounts for 44% of the hectad 

population. 

That hectad comprises 25 tetrads. Of these 3 were not surveyed at all (nor were they in 1999). 

Of the remaining 22 no less than 12 had an increased population over 1999 and only 2 had a 

reduced population. Given that the development site accounts for parts of 5 tetrads only, 7 

outside the site also had increased populations. 

All of this is shown in the following table. 

Survey Results for Hectad TQ77 1999 and 2012 

Tetrad 1999 2012 Site SSSI Outside Comments 

A 0 0 

B 8 5 

C 4 6 

D 2 9 

E N/A N/A 

F N/A N/A 

G 0 0 

H 3 5 

I 4 16 

J 0 0 

K 9 11 4 0 7 1 adjoining development site 

L 19 39 22 13 4 13 SSSI; 22 development site 

M 4 15 0 13 2 Small part SSSI 

N N/A N/A 

P 0 0 

Q 0 0 

R 7 18 19 0 0 Note discrepancy between BTO nightingale 

map and draft Kent report 

S 11 7 2 1 4 

T 0 9 

U 0 1 

V 0 0 

W 1 0 

X 1 3 

Y 9 12 

Z 0 0 

Further, applying local knowledge shows, rather ironically, that much of this non Lodge Hill 

population was actually in and around Cliffe Pits and Pools and Northward Hill – both reserves 

managed by RSPB for species other than nightingale. 

9

The Council also has other concerns if the 2012 survey results are to be relied upon at this 

time: 

 

 

It is impossible to compare Lodge Hill with any other location – either within Kent or 

nationally and so its relative importance remains unknown 

The extent of areas not surveyed at all also remains unknown. What we do know is 

that the Hoo Peninsula is rather neatly covered by two hectads (TQ77 referred to 

above and TQ87). In TQ77 3 tetrads have never been surveyed and in TQ87 only 4 

out of 25 tetrads are surveyed. Those omitted include potentially suitable nightingale 

habitat at Kingsnorth and Shakespeare Farm. If this is replicated elsewhere then it is 

difficult to see how a reliable 1% threshold figure or a definitive list of sites above 

that figure could ever be determined from the 2012 survey. 

Finally, in relation to this aspect, we note that weather conditions during the 2012 survey period 

were frankly atrocious for both surveyors and nightingales. However we have not been able to 

determine rainfall quantities in the Sahel, which is acknowledged to be as significant for 

numbers in Britain as any local factor 13 . Therefore we do not know whether 2012 was a good 

year for nightingales or not. 

MG5 Grassland 

Fortunately we can be much briefer on this matter, although there are still matters that we need 

to draw to your attention. 

First is the issue of how this matter arose in the first place. Rob Cameron has kindly supplied 

his view of events and we have noted his account. However we remain of the opinion that the 

issue should have been resolved as part of the initial notification report in October. 

As the papers to the Executive Board in October 2012 make clear, Kent Wildlife Trust had 

specifically asked Natural England to consider the site for possible grassland interest. Your staff 

took this as a reference to Rough Shaw within the existing Chattenden Woods SSSI. However 

everyone involved with the outline planning application and KWT’s appearance papers to the 

Core Strategy Examination knew that they were referring to the development site and not the 

existing SSSI. Just as RSPB had raised the issue of nightingales so KWT was also trying to 

identify a factor that might stop development. 

As a consequence your papers took account of a detailed survey of Rough Shaw carried out in 

August but we were not informed of a possible problem within the development site until mid 

October. This is most unfortunate given that we are in a formal Examination process. 

That notwithstanding, the site was surveyed in November and we have recently been supplied 

with a ‘draft’ paper that will apparently be reported to the Executive Board as part of any renotification 

package. We have also been supplied with an assessment undertaken by Thomson 

Ecology for Land Securities/DIO and whose staff accompanied your surveyors in November. 

Having considered both documents very carefully we can see no convincing evidence that MG5 

occurs within the development area. At best there may be areas of grassland that do not readily 

fit into the standard grassland classification but these are not definitively MG5 and anyway are 

of very poor quality. 

Accordingly we would strongly suggest that Natural England should issue a statement closing 

this issue down as soon as possible. 

13 ‘The Nightingale in Britain: Status, Ecology and Conservation Needs’, Chas A. Holt, Chris M. Hewson 

and Robert J. Fuller, British Birds, April 2012 

10

Conclusions 

I regret having to write to you in these terms but as you can see a careful assessment of all the 

available evidence poses some fundamental questions about the notification package 

presented to your Executive Board in October. Specifically: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no sound basis for notifying sites solely for their nightingale interest due to the 

current classification of the species on the Amber list; indeed we see no basis for its 

inclusion on that list at all 

There is anyway no sound basis for applying paragraph 3.1 of the JNCC guidelines to 

the species 

There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the Lodge Hill development area 

accounts for more than 1% of the national population 

We are entitled to question why this whole matter has arisen now and not following the 

publication of the 1999 national nightingale survey results 

It seems to be the case that Lodge Hill is being considered in isolation and not as one of 

a possible collection of sites that might (or might not) hold over 1% of the national 

population of nightingales 

The “provisional” 2012 national survey results have been released in a very 

unsatisfactory form – lacking any background data or analysis - and suggesting possible 

over-estimation when the evidence from all previous surveys is the opposite 

As such the Council can only conclude that it would be unsafe for Natural England to notify the 

Lodge Hill site solely for its nightingale interest. Nor it there any case to cite MG5 grassland as 

a feature within the development site. 

Yours sincerely 

ROBIN COOPER 

Director – Regeneration, Community & Culture 

11

Land Securities 

5 Strand London WC2N 5AF 

T +44 (0)20 7413 9000 

F +44 (0)20 7925 0202 

info@landsecudties.com 

wv, v.land secu rities.com 

Your ref 

Our ref 

LodgeHill 

Rob Cameron 

Principal Advisor, Land Use 



Dover Place 

Ashford 

Kent TN23 IHU 

LandSecurities ;/, 

19 February 2013 

Dear Rob 

Lodge Hill 

I write in response to our meeting of 21st January 2013 at your offices. You prefaced the meeting by 

confirming that its purpose was to provide an opportunity for Medway Council and Land Securities to 

raise any scientific questions or points that we consider to be pertinent in the event that Natural England 

is minded to reconsider Lodge Hill for SSSI notification. At the end of the meeting, you invited the 

participants to formalise these in writing, to be taken into consideration by your Executive Board. This 

letter and enclosed Annex are submitted in response to this invitation, and we would ask that this is put 

before your Executive Board if it deliberates further on whether to notify Lodge Hill as a SSSI. 

In your letter to Brian McCutcheon of 12th October 2012, you confirmed the decision made by your 

Executive Board when it considered the notification of the site at that time, and attached the Executive 

Board meeting minutes. Paragraph 3.12 of .the minutes clearly articulated two sources of evidence, 

either one of which would be needed to help give the Board a 'sufficient level of confidence that the 

comparison between the national survey data and the site data was sufficiently robust to determine that 

the site carried over 1% of the national population'. 

The first 'evidence source' would be clarification of the RSPB comments on the 1999 GB data. To the 

best of our knowledge, this has not been provided. 

The second 'evidence source' would be a reliable national estimate figure from the 2012 survey. As you 

are aware, the BTO has now provided a provisional national nightingale population estimate based 

upon the 2012 surveys. Natural England's and RSPB's assertion of a persistent decline in the 

nightingale population on the scale suggested is simply not supported by the evidence. Despite the 

availability of the new national population estimate, our view is that any proposal to extend Chattenden 

Woods SSSI to include Lodge Hill on the basis of its nightingale population is unsound and open to 

challenge. The same applies to a SSSI designation based on the grassland habitats present within 

Lodge Hill. The enclosed Annex sets out more fully our reasons. 

Land Securities PLC Registered in England & Waes no 551412 Registered Office: 5 Strand London WC2N 5AF 

Pr,'.s € r :s.'e.=l t

Lodge Hill (cont 1 2) 

You have been clear through the discussions that we have had with you that any decision taken on 

SSSI designation would be based solely on the scientific evidence and we are pleased that you have 

confirmed that Natural England will not be using revised and unpublished criteria for the purposes of 

considering SSSI designation. For Lodge Hill, we remain very firmly of the view that there is insufficient 

robustness or logic in the available evidence to enable a confident and sound decision to be taken. 

We trust that you will fully consider this letter and enclosed Annex and we look forward to a response 

from you on this. 

Yours sincerely 

Stephen Neal 

Development Director 

London Portfolio 

stephen.neal@landsecurities.com 

D/L 0207 024 3874

Lodge Hill (cont/3) 

ANNEX 

Nightingales 

The conservation status of the nightingale is not such that it warrants specific site 

designation 

The nightingale is: 

Not on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive 

Not listed as a species of principal importance 

Not a UKBAP priority species 

Not identified as a priority in the Kent Biodiversity Action Plan 

Not Red listed 

Not on any of the lists provided by the Rare Breeding Birds Panel 

A common and widespread species within the State of the UK Birds 2012 report 

. The extension of the Chattenden Woods SSSI on the basis of nightingale populations 

would not be in accordance with the Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs, and 

has no precedent 

(a) 

As a matter of principle, the 1% criterion should not be applied to nightingales. The 

nightingale is territorial1 (the BTO consistently describes nightingales in this way2). The 

nightingale is widespread and locally common3 within its range. The RSPB and other 

conservation groups define rare breeders as a population range of 1-300 breeding pairs; 

the estimated nightingale population in 1999 and 2012 (around 6,700 and around 6,400, 

respectively) clearly demonstrates that the nightingale population cannot be considered to 

be rare. 

(b) In the absence of any restrictions on how widely a site is defined (during the meeting it was 

clarified that a site could be as big as the New Forest, for example), large swathes of the 

UK could qualify for SSSI notification based on application of the 1% criterion to 

widespread, territorial species. We don't believe this was intended when the guidelines 

were drafted, but if Lodge Hill were to be designated as a SSSI based on its nightingale 

population this would, in effect, establish a precedent for the wider application of this 

criterion elsewhere. This doesn't appear to us to be logical, and it would yield a significant 

number of SSSI sites that would be very large in area. The fact that there is no precedent 

for the designation of SSSI sites on the basis of the 1% criterion for nightingales or other 

1 The nightingale defends a territory of about 1ha from which other nightingale pairs are excluded and prevented from nesting by 

the resident birds. See for example Birds of the Western Palaearctic (Concise Edition) Snow & Perrins 1997 

2 BTO Provisional Population Estimate from the 2012 Nightingale Survey 

3 See for example State of the UK Birds 2012 and Snow & Perrins 1997

Lodge Hill (cont / 4) 

breeding bird species of similar population characteristics appears to serve as a corollary 

to this. We also note that the extent of land potentially being considered by Natural 

England as a SSSI appears to have been arbitrarily drawn, and extends further than the 

extent of the proposed Strategic Allocation for the Core Strategy (or 'red line' for the outline 

planning application)4. 

(c) 

There is no UK precedent for designating SSSIs on the basis of the 1% criteria for 

nightingale specifically. Nor are we aware of any SSSIs within the UK that are notified for a 

species with similar breeding behaviour, distribution and abundance as the nightingale, that 

were not listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive or rare at the time the Guidelines for the 

Selection of Biological SSSIs were published. 

(d) Natural England appears to be treating the 1% criterion as an automatic trigger which 

requires SSSI designation. If this is the case, then it doesn't appear to us to be consistent 

with the JNCC guidance, which states that the 1% criterion makes a site eligible for SSSI 

consideration which implies that judgement is necessary in order to determine whether to 

confirm a SSSI. 

The available data on nightingale populations is not sufficiently precise to be assured that 

more than 1% of the national population of nightingales regularly occurs at Chattenden 

Woods/Lodge Hill 

(a) 

There are fundamental questions about the ability to derive reliable estimates of population 

size and rates of population changes for nightingales, and as a consequence, about the 

soundness of using such data for the purposes of a SSSI designation. The 2012 national 

population identifies around 6,400 singing males, while the 1999 estimate was 6,700 

singing males. The scale of population decline that has been asserted by Natural England 

and RSPB, in the order of 50%-60%, is not supported by the evidence. Furthermore the 

2012 population estimate is suspiciously precise, and suggests a degree of confidence in 

the data which is unlikely to be warranted. 

(b) The 2012 national survey will provide only one year of national nightingale survey data. At 

our meeting Natural England confirmed that the 'bulk' of any future (SSSI) decision to be 

taken on the site would be based upon the 2012 data. This is unsound because it cannot 

reflect long-term trends or even an average. For example, it could be atypical; it could 

have been affected by the persistent cold damp weather during the survey period which 

could have diminished volunteer participation and, potentially, bird singing activity; key 

4 The Statement of Common Ground4 between Medway Council, RSPB and the Kent Wildlife Trust, which was prepared and 

submitted to the Inspector following the Lodge Hill Hearing Session, confirms that within the Lodge Hill Strategic Allocation site 

and outside the area of the existing Chattenden Woods SSSI that falls within the Strategic Allocation, there are 53 nightingale 

territories based on the 2012 survey


areas may have been omitted from the survey (to illustrate the point, a site with the 

characteristics of Lodge Hill may not have been identified for survey on the basis that it is 

brownfield land, in operational use by the military and in close proximity to settlements 

including a local and strategic road network). The BTO has advised that nightingales are 

very hard to surveys, and we understand that their numbers fluctuate from year to year. 

This means that it is difficulto accurately predict long-term trends or provide a reliable 

population estimate, and this is compounded by the fact that they have shifted habitat 

distribution over time. Therefore basing a SSSi decision on a single year's survey is 

fundamentally flawed. We would at least expect data to be collected over a five year 

period to get an average. 

(c) 

There is only one year of complete nightingale survey data for the Chattenden 

Woods/Lodge Hill site. The SSSI guidelines refer to the site needing to 'normally support 

more than 1%' (our emphasis). Natural England's cover papers states, inter alia, that 'the 

regular use of a site by a sufficiently high number of birds to merit SSSI notification is 

normally established by data collected over several consecutive years' (our 

emphasis). It is not robust or possible to demonstrate, based on a single survey year, that 

the site has supported a population of nightingales over 1% over a sustained period. 

(d) The surveys don't allow a like for like comparison between the Lodge Hill and the national 

nightingale populations. This is primarily because of the differences between the level of 

survey effort nationally (2-3 survey visits) and at Lodge Hill (around 6 survey visits). Whilst 

we appreciate that to some extent it may be possible to make allowances for this in the 

results (which we note has not been done for Lodge Hill), for a species - like nightingales - 

that are widely acknowledged to be difficulto survey it must follow that the more survey 

visits undertaken, the higher the likelihood of recording territories. This might suggest that 

the Lodge Hill survey is closer to real numbers of singing males as opposed to a lower 

index figure for other sites. Whichever way you view this there is a question of 

inconsistency of data collection, and limitations in terms of the ability to compare the site 

with a national population estimate. 

(e) 

The annual Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is an unreliable tool for calculating population 

numbers for a species known to shift distribution over time, and so the scale of reported 

decline in population may not be as extensive as has been claimed and should be treated 

with caution. The annual surveys are based on a very small sample size (with nightingales 

present, on average, in just 31 of over 3,000 1 km squares monitored annually), and near 

enough the same sample squares are monitored each year. We know that the nightingale 

s As shown by the discrepancies in the 1999 and 2012 data, surveying territorial widespread birds is more difficulthan surveying 

colonial birds 

s EB/Lodge Hill notification paper prepared by J Smyilie, September 2012

Lodge Hill (cont 1 6) 

population has changed habitat from woodland to scrub and has undergone a range 

contraction. We also know that nightingale populations will diminish when coppice 

woodland and scrub are allowed to mature. Caution is therefore necessary because the 

decline shown in surveys may represent redistribution of the population (with birds 

effectively moving out of monitored 1 km squares and into new unmonitored areas), rather 

than a decline per se. Natural England and RSPB are using the BBS to justify a scale of 

decline in the species, and we don't consider this to be robust. Our views on this appear to 

be supported by the 2012 survey results. We also note that nightingales are not 

considered by Fuller et al7 to be monitored effectively by national bird monitoring schemes 

such as the BTO's BBS. 

. Without serious, large scale habitat interventions, of a type not widely practised on SSSIs, 

the Chattenden WoodlLodge Hill area is unlikely to sustain the population of nightingales 

at current population levels 

(a) 

The concentration of territorial birds is a temporary phenomenon at Lodge Hill based on an 

optimal habitat structure occurring over an extensive area (a consequence of being taken 

out of a management regime). The 2012 survey results for Lodge Hill are therefore not 

reflective of the long-term, sustainable position. 

(b) When SSSIs are notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), there is a 

presumption that habitats were representative in an 'Area of Search' and being managed to 

maintain their interest. At Lodge Hill, the Board would effectively be considering notifying a 

temporary early successional habitat (of scrub colonising into grassland) that has created 

ideal conditions for nightingale for a relatively short period of time. The proposed 

development site is already partially woodland and the rest will change structure rapidly 

leading to a decrease in numbers of nightingale territories. Alternatively, expensive 

periodic site clearance would be required to have any hope of maintaining existing 

nightingale populations. In our view, the site is unlikely to be able to sustain the current 

nightingale population. 

(c) 

(d) 

It is relevant to consider the status of the nightingales in many SSSIs in the south-east 

following the notification of these sites, and whether site designation and subsequent 

management has been an effective tool for the conservation of nightingale at these sites. 

Even if it were possible to derive sufficiently accurate population estimates to ascertain that 

the population of nightingales at Chattenden Wood/Lodge Hill exceed the 1% criteria now, 

7 A M Wilson, A C B Henderson and R J Fuller, 2002, Status of the Nightingale Luscinia Megarhynchos in Britain at the end of the 

20th Century with particular reference to climate change Bird Study, Vol. 49, Iss. 3


Natural England could quickly find itself in the position of having designated a SSSI which 

no longer meets the selection criteria. 


° The grassland is not of a type readily recognised as MG5 and is not of a quality which 

warrants SSSI designation 

(a) 

The survey data for the grassland, coupled with the known history of the site, confirm that 

the grassland is not a species-rich hay meadow of the type described by Rodwell as MG5 

in British Plant Communities. There are known gaps in the National Vegetation 

Classification and we would argue that the grassland is of a type not covered by the 

original classification. Natural England have described the grassland as atypical MG5. 

The question that we would ask, therefore, is how far removed from typical does grassland 

need to be for it not to be classified as MG5. There is no guidance on this and it seems to 

us to be an entirely subjective and arbitrary matter, and not a robust basis upon which to 

consider designating the site as a SSSI. 

(b) The survey data for the grassland also suggests that, in comparison to other mesotrophic 

grassland SSSIs, the grassland is not sufficiently species rich to warrant designation as a 

SSSI.

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

Kent 

Notification under section 28C of the Wildlife 

and Countryside Act 1981 

Issued by Natural England’s Kent Land Management Team on [insert notification date].

Contact points and further information 

This notification document is issued by Natural England’s Kent Land Management Team. 

Our address for correspondence is: 


Ninth Floor 


Dover Place 

Ashford 

Kent 

TN23 1HU 

Telephone number: 0300 060 4790 

E-mail: 

phil.williams@naturalengland.org.uk 

Your contact point for enquiries relating to this notification is Phil Williams. 

A second document (Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI - supporting information) is available 

on request from the address above. This contains information and extracts from relevant 

documents that have been used in the decision to notify this SSSI. 

The date of notification of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI is [insert notification date]. 

Page 2 of 22

Contents 

1. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 

2. The legal background .............................................................................................................. 4 

3. Making representations ........................................................................................................... 5 

4. Reasons for notification ........................................................................................................... 5 

5. Interests that do not currently meet the SSSI selection guidelines ........................................... 6 

6. Site boundaries and relationships with other SSSIs ................................................................. 7 

7. Management of the SSSI ......................................................................................................... 7 

8. Supporting information ............................................................................................................. 8 

9. Legal documents ..................................................................................................................... 8 

Annex 1 Citation .................................................................................................................... 9 

Annex 2 Views about Management...................................................................................... 12 

Annex 3 List of operations requiring Natural England’s consent ........................................... 16 

Annex 4 Map(s) showing the land notified............................................................................ 19 

Page 3 of 22

1. Summary 

1.1 This document explains why Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill is notified by Natural 

England as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 

1.2 Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI comprises a mosaic of habitats, including ancient 

and long-established semi-natural woodland, scrub, and neutral grassland. It is a nationally 

important site specifically by reason of the following biological features of special interest 

that occur within and are supported by the wider habitat mosaic: 

 

lowland ancient and long-established semi-natural woodland; 

 

 

unimproved neutral grassland; and 

breeding nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos. 

1.3 Chattenden Woods SSSI, covering 128.37 ha, was last notified in 1984 for its lowland seminatural 

woodland, neutral grassland and assemblage of breeding birds chiefly associated 

with woodland. Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI includes Chattenden Woods SSSI 

and also enlarges the area notified to include substantial additional areas of special interest 

totalling 222.12 ha. 

1.4 The annexes to this document comprise the legal papers that detail the interest and the 

management required to maintain that interest. You have a right to make representations 

or objections to this notification. Part 3 of this document explains how to do this. 

1.5 Natural England’s consent is required by owners and occupiers before any of the 

operations listed in Annex 3 can be carried out. We will work closely with owners and 

managers, as well as other bodies, to ensure that existing operations and new works that 

are not considered likely to damage the special features of the SSSI can be carried out. 

2. The legal background 

2.1 Chattenden Woods SSSI is enlarged under section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 

1981, as inserted by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and is 

now known as Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. The Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill SSSI includes land within and extending beyond Chattenden Woods SSSI, as 

previously notified in 1984. With effect from the date of this notification under section 28C 

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the previous notification of Chattenden Woods 

SSSI given in 1984 ceases to have effect (section 28C(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside 

Act 1981). 

2.2 Part 9 of this notification document contains the following legal papers required by section 

28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: 

a citation detailing the reasons for notification (Annex 1) 

a statement of Natural England’s views on the management of the SSSI (Annex 2) 

a list of operations requiring Natural England’s consent (Annex 3) 

maps identifying the land subject to this notification (Annex 4). 

2.3 This notification has several effects. The key ones can be summarised as follows: 

 

owners and occupiers must give Natural England notice before carrying out, causing or 

permitting to be carried out any of the activities in the list of operations at Annex 3; 

 

 

owners of land included in the SSSI have a legal obligation to notify Natural England 

within 28 days if the ownership or occupancy of the land changes; 

it is an offence for any person intentionally or recklessly to destroy or damage the 

special features of the SSSI or to disturb any of the fauna; 

Page 4 of 22

other public bodies must consult Natural England before carrying out or authorising any 

works that may damage the SSSI. 

If you require any further information or advice on how this notification affects you, please 

do not hesitate to contact Natural England at the address shown at the beginning of this 

notification document. 

3. Making representations 

3.1 You have a legal right to make objections and representations about this notification. Any 

representations or objections should be made in writing by [insert date] to Natural 

England’s Kent Land Management Team at the addresses shown on page 2. You may 

wish to seek legal or independent advice and your representative may wish to write to us on 

your behalf. 

3.2 The Kent Land Management Team will consider your objections or representations and will 

try to resolve them. Any unresolved objections or representations will be considered by the 

Board of Natural England within nine months of this notification. If you wish to emphasise 

any of your objections or representations to the Board in person, you should tell us when 

you write to us. You will then be advised of the date and location of the Board meeting. 

Following consideration of objections and representations, the Board may confirm or 

withdraw all or part of this notification. 

3.3 Natural England has a policy of openness, which reflects our obligations under the 

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

This legislation provides a legal right of access to information held by public bodies. This 

means that we will provide information on how we make our decisions on SSSIs to any 

person on request. This includes details of objections and representations received. We 

will assume, therefore, that your representation or objection can be made publicly available 

unless you indicate with clear and valid reasons which (if any) part(s) of these you wish to 

be excluded from this arrangement. However, you should be aware that the requirements 

of the legislation may mean that we cannot comply with your request that this information 

be withheld. We do, however, respect people’s privacy and will take all reasonable steps to 

consult you before reaching a decision on disclosure of the information. 

As an individual with an interest in Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI, your 

information will be stored and processed on a computer database that will be operated 

within the Data Protection Act 1998. This Act gives individuals the right to know what data 

we hold on them, how we use it and to which third parties it is disclosed. For the purposes 

of the Data Protection Act, the data controller is Natural England, 3 rd Floor, Touthill Close, 

City Road, Peterborough PE1 1UA 1 . 

4. Reasons for notification 

4.1 Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI comprises a mosaic of habitats, including ancient 

and other long-established semi-natural woodland, scrub, and neutral grassland. It is a 

nationally important site specifically by reason of the following biological features of special 

interest that occur within and are supported by the wider habitat mosaic: 

 

Ancient and long-established semi-natural woodland 

The extensive woodland represents one of the best examples of coppice-withstandards 

woodland on the London Clay. The dominant woodland community is of 

the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) type W10 pedunculate oak Quercus 

robur – bracken Pteridium aquilinum – bramble Rubus fruticosus woodland. Two subcommunities 

are represented: the W10a typical sub-community and the W10b wood 

anemone Anemone nemorosa sub-community. The woodland is largely comprised of 

pedunculate oak standards with ash coppice of varying age structure. ‘Lowland 

1 From 18 March 2013: Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough PE1 1NG 

Page 5 of 22

mixed deciduous woodland’, which includes the woodland communities present in 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI, is a habitat of principal importance for the 

conservation of biodiversity in England 2 . 

Unimproved neutral grassland 

Rough Shaw is an area of dense and scattered scrub on a north facing slope with tallherb 

neutral grassland along its upper margin. The tall-herb neutral grassland 

includes stands of the unimproved nationally scarce NVC type MG5 crested dog’s-tail 

Cynosurus cristatus – common knapweed Centaurea nigra grassland, which conform 

mainly to the MG5b lady’s bedstraw Galium verum sub-community. 

Three fields in the north of the Lodge Hill Training Area include more extensive areas 

of MG5 grassland of a similar nature to the stands at Rough Shaw. These areas 

represent semi-natural grassland on base-rich London Clay attributable to the MG5b 

sub-community. A notable occurrence in all three fields is dyer’s greenweed Genista 

tinctoria, a species associated with unimproved meadows, pastures and heaths. 

These grasslands form part of the ‘lowland meadows’ habitat, which is listed as being 

of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. 

Breeding nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos 

The SSSI supports a nationally important number of nightingales during the breeding 

season. Nightingales use scrub and coppice woodland throughout the SSSI. 

Nightingale is an amber-listed ‘Bird of Conservation Concern’ 3 . 

5. Interests that do not currently meet the SSSI selection guidelines 

5.1 In addition to the reasons for notification described above, a number of other features have 

been considered because they appeared to be of some potential significance. None of the 

features described in this section is considered to be of special interest in its own right but 

they are presented here to give additional context to the notification and to document some 

of the wider biodiversity value of SSSI. 

5.2 The site supports a range of woodland and scrub breeding birds, including woodcock 

Scolopax rusticola, turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, cuckoo Cuculus canorus and linnet 

Carduelis cannabina, all of which are red-listed ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’; and stock 

dove Columba oenas, green woodpecker Picus viridis, whitethroat Sylvia communis and 

bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, all of which are amber-listed. Turtle dove and cuckoo are also 

listed as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. 

5.3 Recent records of invertebrates include the stag beetle Lucanus cervus, a species listed as 

being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England, and the 

nationally scarce 4 moths Elegia similella, Sitochroa palealis and Dichomeris alacella. 

5.4 The site supports small numbers of great crested newts Triturus cristatus and all four 

widespread British species of reptile: adder Vipera berus, grass snake Natrix natrix, 

common lizard Zootoca vivipara and slow-worm Anguis fragilis. All four widespread reptiles 

and great crested newts are listed as being of principal importance for the conservation of 

biodiversity in England. 

2 The England Biodiversity List has been developed to meet the requirements of Section 41 of the Natural 

Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). This legislation requires the Secretary of State to publish a 

list of species of flora and fauna and habitats considered to be of principal importance for the purpose of 

conserving biodiversity. 

3 Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A & Gregory 

RD 2009. Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel 

Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296-341. http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u12/bocc3.pdf 

4 Recorded from 16-100 10km grid squares in Great Britain. 

Page 6 of 22

6. Site boundaries and relationships with other SSSIs 

6.1 Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI lies on the Hoo Peninsula in north Kent, 

approximately 1 km north-east of Rochester. The site comprises several woodland blocks 

as well as associated areas of scrub and neutral grassland. The boundary has been drawn 

to include land supporting the features of special interest and those areas required to 

ensure the long-term sustainability of these features. 

6.2 The SSSI extends northwards from the A228 in the south to include scrub lying to the south 

and west of Chattenden Barracks, alongside and between Upchat Road, Woodfield Way, 

Kitchener Road and Lochat Road. To the west and north of Lochat Road, the boundary 

includes the extensive complex of woodlands centred on Great Chattenden Wood but also 

including Stone Horse Wood, Ash Wood, Bingham Roughs, Ratley Hills Wood and Berry 

Court Wood. The SSSI encompasses Round Top Wood to the east of Lochat Road as 

well as land to the north of Lochat Road around Lodge Hill Camp. The SSSI boundary 

continues to the east beyond Lodge Hill Lane to include the whole of the former Lodge Hill 

Training Area and Deangate Wood, as well as areas of woodland and scrub along the 

northern edge of Deangate Ridge Golf Course. Finally, to the north-east of Berry Court 

Wood and Lodge Hill Lane, the SSSI extends north-east to encompass the scrub and 

neutral grassland in Rough Shaw, and on to Lodge Hill Wood and Wybornes Wood. The 

boundary also includes the hedgerow connecting Lodge Hill and Wybornes Woods, and the 

spur of woodland protruding southwards from Lodge Hill Wood towards Lodge Hill Training 

Area. 

6.3 The boundary of the SSSI has been drawn to follow the nearest physical feature on the 

ground where possible. This usually follows existing walls, fence lines, ditches, drains 

tracks and roadsides. Further clarification of the precise location of the boundary in specific 

parts of the SSSI can be obtained from Natural England’s Kent Land Management Team at 

the address on page 2 of this document. 

6.4 As a general principle, the boundary follows management units, such as enclosure and 

property boundaries. Where the boundary follows a road, the inner edge of the road has 

been used and the road has therefore been excluded from the site. Where the boundary is 

drawn to a stream, ditch or drain, the outer bank has been used, therefore including the 

stream, ditch or drain in the site. Where there is no mapped feature that can be used to 

delineate the extent of an interest feature, the boundary has been drawn as a straight line 

from one point distinguishable on the ground to another. 

6.5 The nearest SSSIs to Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI are Tower Hill to Cockham 

Wood SSSI, which lies approximately 300 m to the south (notified for its geological 

features, invertebrates and woodland), and Dalham Farm SSSI approximately 700 m to the 

north-east (notified for its geological features). 

7. Management of the SSSI 

7.1 This notification includes at Annex 2 a statement of the management that Natural England 

considers is needed to conserve and enhance the features of special interest. Different 

management may be appropriate in different parts of the site and this statement is not 

intended to detail the exact requirements at specific locations. The statement is intended to 

explain how we can work with and support owners and managers in continuing to achieve 

positive management of the SSSI. 

7.2 This notification also includes a list of the operations requiring Natural England’s consent at 

Annex 3. The basis for the selection of these operations is set out in the supporting 

information document. Some of the operations may already be taking place and where 

they do not cause any damage they will be given consent. We will work with landowners 

and managers to agree lists of such existing and planned activities, which can be approved. 

Page 7 of 22

7.3 Where an operation has been granted a consent, licence or permission from another public 

body a separate consent will not generally be required from Natural England. However, 

other public bodies are required to consult Natural England before such consents, licences 

or permissions are issued. 

7.4 In particular, we recognise the important roles of the owners and managers of the land in 

managing this site. We will work with them to develop means to secure the continued 

sustainable management of the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. 

8. Supporting information 

8.1 The detailed information, which has been used to assess the importance of this SSSI, is 

available on request from the address on page 2 of this document. 

9. Legal documents 

9.1 Attached at Annexes 1 - 4 are the legal documents that are required by section 28C of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 

Page 8 of 22

Annex 1 Citation 

Citation 

This is a legal document on which you have a right to make objections or representations, as 

explained in part 3 of this notification document 

Page 9 of 22

Site name: Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI Unitary Authority: Medway 

Status: 

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified under section 28C of the Wildlife 

and Countryside Act 1981, as inserted by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and 

Rights of Way Act 2000. 

Local Planning Authority: 

Medway Council 

National grid reference: TQ747734 Area: 351.16 ha 

Ordnance Survey sheets: 1:50,000: 178 1:10,000: TQ 77 SE, SW 

Notification date: 

[insert date] 

Reasons for notification: 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI comprises a mosaic of habitats, including ancient and 

other long-established semi-natural woodland, scrub, and neutral grassland. It is a nationally 

important site specifically by reason of the following biological features of special interest that occur 

within and are supported by the wider habitat mosaic: ancient and long-established semi-natural 

woodlands, predominantly of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) type W10 pedunculate 

oak Quercus robur – bracken Pteridium aquilinum – bramble Rubus fruticosus woodland; 

unimproved neutral grassland of the nationally scarce NVC type MG5 crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus 

cristatus – common knapweed Centaurea nigra grassland; and breeding nightingales Luscinia 

megarhynchos. 

General description: 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI lies on the Hoo Peninsula in north Kent, north-east of 

Rochester. The site comprises a mosaic of habitats, including long-established semi-natural 

woodland (areas of which are recorded as ancient semi-natural woodland), dense scrub and 

neutral grassland. The site is also of importance for its breeding nightingales. 


The extensive woodland represents one of the best examples of coppice-with-standards woodland 

on the London Clay. The woodland is largely comprised of pedunculate oak Quercus robur 

standards with ash Fraxinus excelsior coppice of varying age structure. Other trees include field 

maple Acer campestre, hornbeam Carpinus betulus and wild cherry Prunus avium. The non-native 

sweet chestnut Castanea sativa is infrequent across the site. The shrub layer is varied with hazel 

Corylus avellana and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna generally predominant but with other species 

such as silver birch Betula pendula, aspen Populus tremula, willow Salix spp., wayfaring-tree 

Viburnum lantana and the scarce wild service-tree Sorbus torminalis also present. 

The field layer of the woodland is dominated by bluebells Hyacinthoides non-scripta, with bramble 

Rubus fruticosus and other climbers, particularly dog-rose Rosa canina and honeysuckle Lonicera 

periclymenum. Several scarce plants are present including the early-purple orchid Orchis 

mascula, broad-leaved helleborine Epipactis helleborine and stinking iris Iris foetidissima. 

Neutral grassland 

Rough Shaw is an area of dense and scattered scrub of hawthorn, gorse Ulex europaeus and 

brambles on a north facing slope, with tall-herb neutral grassland along its upper margin. The tallherb 

neutral grassland includes stands of unimproved neutral grassland. Typical herbaceous 

species present and that are typical of this grassland type include lady’s bedstraw Galium verum, 

common knapweed Centaurea nigra, common bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus, meadow 

vetchling Lathyrus pratensis, agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria and red clover Trifolium pratense. 

Page 10 of 22

Three fields in the north of the Lodge Hill Training Area include more extensive areas of 

unimproved neutral grassland of a similar nature to the stands at Rough Shaw. These areas 

represent semi-natural grassland on base-rich London Clay. A notable occurrence in all three 

fields is dyer’s greenweed Genista tinctoria, a species associated with unimproved meadows, 

pastures and heaths. 

Breeding birds 

The SSSI supports a nationally important number of nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos during 

the breeding season. Nightingales use scrub and coppice woodland throughout the SSSI. The 

extensive areas of woodland and scrub within the site will help to ensure that there is always 

sufficient area of habitat at a suitable stage of maturity to support breeding nightingales in 

nationally important numbers. 

In addition to the ‘reasons for notification’ described above, the site also supports a range of 

woodland and scrub breeding birds, including sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, woodcock Scolopax 

rusticola, stock dove Columba oenas, turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, cuckoo Cuculus canorus, 

tawny owl Strix aluco, green woodpecker Picus viridis, great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos 

major, whitethroat Sylvia communis, lesser whitethroat S. curruca, linnet Carduelis cannabina and 

bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula. The site supports small numbers of great crested newts Triturus 

cristatus and all four widespread British species of reptile: adder Vipera berus, grass snake Natrix 

natrix, common lizard Zootoca vivipara and slow-worm Anguis fragilis. Recent records of 

invertebrates include the stag beetle Lucanus cervus and the nationally scarce moths Elegia 

similella, Sitochroa palealis and Dichomeris alacella. 

Page 11 of 22

Annex 2 Views about 

Management 

Views about Management 


explained in part 3 of this notification document. 

Page 12 of 22

Views About Management 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 28(4) as inserted by 

Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 

A statement of Natural England’s views about the management of Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 

This statement represents Natural England’s views about the management of the SSSI for nature 

conservation. This statement sets out, in principle, our views on how the site’s special 

conservation interest can be conserved and enhanced. Natural England has a duty to notify the 

owners and occupiers of SSSI of its views about the management of the land. 

Not all of the management principles will be equally appropriate to all parts of the SSSI. Also, 

there may be other management activities, additional to our current views, which can be beneficial 

to the conservation and enhancement of the features of interest. 

This Statement does not constitute consent for any of the ‘operations requiring Natural England’s 

consent’. The written consent of Natural England is required before carrying out any of those 

operations. Natural England welcomes consultation with owners, occupiers and users of the SSSI 

to ensure that the management of this site conserves and enhances the features of interest, and to 

ensure that all necessary prior consents are obtained. 

Background 


long-established semi-natural woodland, dense scrub, and an area of neutral grassland. The site 

also supports a nationally important number of breeding nightingales. Many of these habitats and 

the species they support rely on fundamentally similar management whilst some have more 

specific requirements to maintain the interest features in favourable condition. 

Management principles 

Nightingales at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI depend on a dense cover of shrubs in the 

form of coppiced woodland and scrub habitats. Both habitats require management to maintain their 

suitability for nightingales. Other habitats such as bare ground beneath mature trees and open 

rides may also be important, and it will be beneficial to create and manage coppice and scrub 

habitat adjacent to these features. 

Broadleaved semi-natural woodland 

There are many different ways in which broadleaved woodland can be managed to conserve its 

value for wildlife. The following gives broad views on a range of regimes that may be appropriate 

on your site. 

A diverse woodland structure, with open glades, and in places a dense understory, and a more 

mature overstorey is important. A range of ages and species within and between stands is 

desirable. Ancient and veteran trees, must be retained as they support the greatest diversity of 

plants and animals due to the number of micro-habitats present on the trees themselves. 

Retention of dead and decaying wood, such as fallen logs, can provide habitats for fungi and 

invertebrates. However, work may be needed to make safe dangerous trees in areas of high 

public access. Both temporary and permanent open spaces benefit groups of invertebrates such 

as butterflies. They may require cutting to keep them open, and should be of sufficient size to 

ensure that sunny conditions prevail for most of the day. 

Page 13 of 22

Felling, thinning or coppicing may be used to create or maintain variations in the structure of the 

wood, and non-native trees and shrubs can be removed at this time. To avoid disturbance to 

breeding birds the work is normally best done between the beginning of September and the end of 

February. Work should be avoided when the ground is soft, to prevent disturbing the soil and 

ground flora. Normally successive felling, thinning or coppicing operations should be spread 

through the wood to promote diversity, but where there is open space adjacent plots should be 

worked to encourage the spread of species that are only weakly mobile. 

Coppicing must be carried out regularly on a rotational basis to ensure that a sufficient area of 

dense, shrubby re-growth between 3-10 years old (depending on soil richness) is available for 

nesting and foraging birds. Standard trees should be managed to provide the open conditions 

necessary for vigorous coppice growth. Natural regeneration from seed or stump re-growth is 

preferred to planting because it helps maintain the local patterns of species and the inherent 

genetic character of the site. 

Deer management and protection from rabbits or livestock are often necessary. Whilst light or 

intermittent grazing may increase woodland diversity, heavy browsing can damage the ground flora 

and prevent successful regeneration. Parts of a wood should be left unmanaged to benefit species 

that do best under low disturbance or in response to natural processes. Within these areas some 

trees will eventually die naturally and dead wood accumulate. Invasive species, such as 

Rhododendron or Himalayan balsam, should be controlled. 

Scrub 

Scrub habitats in the lowlands are low-growing communities where the main woody components 

are bushes or small trees, such as hawthorn, blackthorn and gorse. They can support a wide 

variety of species and ecological communities. In particular, the transitional zone between scrub 

and other habitats can be important for wildlife, especially invertebrates. 

Often, scrub is a transitional stage that will develop into woodland if left unmanaged. Encouraging 

structural diversity and a mosaic of age classes within areas of scrub is important in maintaining 

the diversity of species. For example, blackthorn scrub supports the greatest variety of bird and 

insect species in the early and middle stages of growth. As scrub habitats mature they develop a 

tall, continuous cover which is unsuitable for nightingales. 

Scrub should be managed by regular rotational cutting and/or layering, which should aim to 

maintain a mosaic of patches at different stages of growth, ranging from freshly cut to old closed 

canopy stands. Rotational cutting is necessary to create belts of low, dense, regenerating woody 

vegetation adjacent to older, taller scrub over bare ground, in a mosaic with open grassy areas. It 

is important that a sufficient area of scrub is available to retain existing numbers of nightingales in 

optimal habitats while adjacent areas are cut back. 

Open spaces, either temporary gaps created by cutting or more permanent areas such as rides 

and glades, benefit invertebrates such as butterflies. They should be of sufficient size to ensure 

that sunny conditions prevail for most of the day. Rides and glades may require cutting to keep 

them open and a diverse edge structure is important for most species of invertebrates. Scrub can 

also be cut in small patches to create an intimate mixture of scrub and grassland. 

Grazing is another method for managing scrub and on some sites may be a more suitable 

management tool than cutting. By its nature, grazing can help to create a patchy mosaic of scrub 

and other habitats. As with cutting, it can also help to maintain a range of age classes. However, 

stock levels do need to be carefully controlled. If grazing pressure is too high the structure of the 

scrub vegetation may become impoverished. Also, the scrub may not be able to regenerate 

naturally, leading to a loss of cover over time. Where the objective is to increase the area of scrub 

an initial period of fencing to control grazing may be required. 

Neutral hay meadow and pasture 

Neutral hay meadow and pasture requires active management if it is to retain its conservation 

interest. In order to maintain a species-rich sward, each year’s growth of vegetation must be 

removed. Otherwise the sward becomes progressively dominated by tall and vigorous grasses 

Page 14 of 22

which, together with an associated build up of dead plant matter, suppress less vigorous species 

and reduce the botanical diversity of the site. 

In neutral hay meadows, the above objective is traditionally achieved by closing the fields to stock 

in the autumn and cutting the resultant growth as hay, usually in early July. The precise timing of 

the cut depends on local factors, including past management and current weather conditions, but 

should be after ground-nesting birds have fledged their young and any short-lived, characteristic 

plants have set seed. The aftermath is then grazed in late summer/autumn. Aftermath grazing is 

important for maintaining a species-rich sward, both through controlling competitive grasses and 

through hoof-prints providing suitable sites for seedlings to establish. Heavy poaching must be 

avoided, however. 

On pasture land this management is achieved by grazing. The precise timing and intensity of 

grazing will vary both between and within sites, according to local conditions and requirements 

(such as, for example, type or availability of stock or the needs of individual plants or animals of 

conservation concern) but should aim to keep a relatively open sward without causing excessive 

poaching. Light trampling can be of benefit by breaking down leaf litter and providing areas for 

seed germination. 

No other management should be routinely required. Any surrounding, well-managed hedgerows 

and scrub may considerably add to the habitat in providing shelter for invertebrates. Occasional 

dressings of lime may be acceptable. 

All habitats 

The habitats within this site are highly sensitive to inorganic fertilisers and pesticides, applications 

of which should be avoided both within the site itself and in adjacent surrounding areas. 

Herbicides may be useful in targeting certain invasive species, but should be used with extreme 

care. Access to this site, and any recreational activities within, may also need to be controlled. 

Date notified: [insert notification date] 

Page 15 of 22

Annex 3 List of operations requiring 

Natural England’s consent 

List of operations requiring Natural England’s consent 



Page 16 of 22

Operations requiring Natural England’s consent 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 28 (4)(b) as substituted by Schedule 9 to the 

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 

The operations listed below may damage the features of interest of Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill SSSI. Before any of these operations are undertaken you must consult Natural 

England, and you may require our consent. 

It is usually possible to carry out some of these operations in certain ways, or at specific times of 

year, or on certain parts of the SSSI, without damaging the features of interest. If you wish to carry 

out any of these activities please contact a Natural England Adviser who will give you advice and 

where appropriate issue a consent. Please help us by using the ‘notice form’ (sent to you with the 

notification documents and available on request) to ask us for consent to carry out these 

operations. 

In certain circumstances it will not be possible to consent these operations, because they would 

damage the features of interest. Where possible your Natural England Adviser will suggest 

alternative ways in which you may proceed, which would enable a consent to be issued. To 

proceed without Natural England’s consent may constitute an offence. If consent is refused, or 

conditions attached to it, which are not acceptable to you, you will be provided with details of how 

you may appeal to the Secretary of State. 

Standard 

reference 

number 

Type of operation 

1. Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing and re-seeding. 

2. Grazing and alterations to the grazing regime (including type of stock, intensity or 

seasonal pattern of grazing). 

3. Stock feeding and alterations to stock feeding practice. 

4. Mowing or cutting vegetation and alterations to the mowing or cutting regime (such as 

from haymaking to silage). 

5. Application of manure, slurry, silage liquor, fertilisers and lime. 

6. Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weedkillers) whether terrestrial or 

aquatic, and veterinary products. 

7. Dumping, spreading or discharging of any materials. 

8. Burning and alterations to the pattern or frequency of burning. 

9. Release into the site of any wild, feral, captive-bred or domestic animal, plant, seed or 

micro-organism (including genetically modified organisms). 

10. Killing, injuring, taking or removal of any wild animal (including dead animals or parts 

thereof), or their eggs and nests, including pest control and disturbing them in their 

places of shelter. 

11. Destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant, fungus or plant remains, 

including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, dead or decaying wood, moss, lichen, fungal 

fruiting body, leaf-mould or turf. 

12. Tree and/or woodland management and alterations to tree and/or woodland 

management (including, planting, felling, pruning and tree surgery, thinning, coppicing, 

changes in species composition, and removal of fallen timber). 

13.a Draining (including the use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains). 

Page 17 of 22

Standard 

reference 

number 

Type of operation 

13.b Modification to the structure of water courses (streams, springs, ditches and drains), 

including their banks and beds, as by re-alignment, regrading, damming or dredging. 

13.c Management of aquatic and bank vegetation for drainage purposes. 

14 Alterations to water levels and tables and water utilisation (including irrigation, storage 

and abstraction from existing water bodies and through boreholes). Also the 

modification of current drainage operations (such as through the installation of new 

pumps). 

15. Infilling or digging of ditches, dykes, drains, ponds, pools, marshes or pits. 

20. Extraction of minerals including sand and gravel, topsoil, subsoil and spoil. 

21. Destruction, construction, removal, rerouting, or regrading of roads, tracks, walls, 

fences, hard-standing, banks, ditches or other earthworks, including soil and soft rock 

exposures or the laying, maintenance or removal of pipelines and cables, above or 

below ground. 

22. Storage of materials. 

23. Erection of permanent or temporary structures or the undertaking of engineering 

works, including drilling. 

26. Use of vehicles or craft. 

27. Recreational or other activities likely to damage or disturb the features of special 

interest or their habitats. 

28.a Game and waterfowl management and hunting practices and alterations to game and 

waterfowl management and hunting practice. 

Notes: 

i. This is a list of operations appearing to Natural England to be likely to damage the special 

features of this SSSI, as required under section 28 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act substituted 

by Schedule 9 to the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. 

ii. Where an operation has been granted a consent, licence or permission from another authority 

separate consent will not be required from Natural England. However, other authorities are 

required to consult Natural England before such consents, licences or permissions are issued. 

iii. Any reference to ‘animal’ in this list shall be taken to include any mammal, reptile, amphibian, 

bird, fish, or invertebrate. 

Date notified: [insert notification date] 

National Grid reference: TQ747734 

Page 18 of 22

Annex 4 Map(s) showing the land 

notified 

Map(s) showing the land notified 

This is a legal document on which you have a legal right to make objections or representations, as 


Page 19 of 22

Page 20 of 22

Insert boundary map here – A3 landscape format in colour 

Page 21 of 22

Insert extension map here – A3 landscape format in colour 

Page 22 of 22

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

Kent 

Supporting Information 

A supplement to the notification document 

Issued by Natural England’s Kent Land Management Team on 13/03/2013

Contact points and further information 

This supplement is issued on request by Natural England’s Kent Land Management Team and is 

intended to be read in conjunction with the notification document for owners, occupiers and other 

notified parties. Our address for correspondence is: 


Ninth Floor 


Dover Place 

Ashford 

Kent 

TN23 1HU 

Telephone number: 0300 060 4790 

E-mail: 

phil.williams@naturalengland.org.uk 

Your contact point for enquiries relating to this notification is Phil Williams. 

Page 2 of 37

Contents 

Summary 

1. Information used to support the selection of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

2. Explanation of how Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill meet the SSSI selection guidelines 

3. Assessment of the current condition of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

4. Selection of ‘operations requiring Natural England’s consent’ 

5. Site unit map 

6. Photographs 

7. Nightingale territory map 

8. MG5 grassland map 

Page 3 of 37

Summary 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI is notified under section 28C of the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981, as inserted by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. 


other long-established semi-natural woodland, scrub, and neutral grassland. It is a nationally 

important site specifically by reason of the following biological features of special interest that occur 

within and are supported by the wider habitat mosaic: 

 

 

 

Ancient and long-established semi-natural woodland – The extensive woodland 

represents one of the best examples of coppice-with-standards woodland on the London 

Clay. The dominant woodland community is of the National Vegetation Classification 

(NVC) type W10 pedunculate oak Quercus robur – bracken Pteridium aquilinum – bramble 

Rubus fruticosus woodland. 

Unimproved neutral grassland – Rough Shaw is an area of dense and scattered scrub on 

a north facing slope with tall-herb neutral grassland along its upper margin. The tall-herb 

neutral grassland includes stands of the unimproved nationally scarce NVC type MG5 

crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus – common knapweed Centaurea nigra grassland. 

Three fields in the north of the Lodge Hill Training Area include more extensive areas of 

MG5 grassland of a similar nature to the stands at Rough Shaw. A notable occurrence in 

all three fields is dyer’s greenweed Genista tinctoria, a species associated with unimproved 

meadows, pastures and heaths. 

Breeding nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos – The SSSI supports a nationally 

important number of nightingales during the breeding season. Nightingales use scrub and 

coppice woodland throughout the SSSI. 

Page 4 of 37

1. Information used to support the selection of Chattenden Woods 

and Lodge Hill SSSI 

Feature Data Source Author Date Content 

General Botanical Surveys of SSSIs 

in Kent (including proposed 

sites). Volume 1: A-K. 

Nature Conservancy Council 

Report 


Guidelines for selection of 

biological SSSIs. Published 

by Nature Conservancy 

Council, Peterborough 

The Natural History of 

Chattenden. Unpublished 

report 

British Plant Communities. 

Volume 1: Woodlands and 

Scrub. Published by 

Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge 

British Plant Communities: 

Volume 3: Grasslands and 

Montane Communities. 

Published by Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge 

The nature conservation 

value of scrub in Britain. 

Published by Joint Nature 

Conservation Committee, 

Peterborough. 

Wainscot Training Area 

Ecological Assessment. 

Report for Holdfast Limited. 

http://publicaccess.medway.g 

ov.uk/WAM/doc/Supporting% 

20Documents- 

487936.pdf?extension=.pdf&i 

d=487936&appid=1001&loca 

tion=dtmedwaydc&contentTy 

pe=application/pdf&pageCou 

nt=57 

State of the Natural 

Environment 2008. 

Published by Natural 

England, Peterborough. 

Kent and Medway Biological 

Records Centre search query 

1969-2012. 

A woodland NVC Survey of 

Chattenden Woods SSSI. 

English Nature internal 

report. 

Barter, G. 1979 Results of surveys of 

Chattenden Wood 

SSSI in the late 1970s 

Nature 

Conservancy 

Council 

E. Philp, 

Maidstone 

Museum 

Rodwell, J.S. 

(ed). 

Rodwell, J.S. 

(ed). 

Mortimer, S.R. et 

al. 

1989 National selection 

guidelines for 

biological Sites of 

Special Scientific 

Interest 

1989 Species lists including 

plants, invertebrates, 

birds, amphibians, 

reptiles and mammals 

1991 National Vegetation 

Classification (NVC) 

for woodlands and 

scrub communities 

1992 NVC for lowland 

grassland 

communities 

2000 Report looking at 

ecology, conservation 

and management of 

scrub and its value to 

wildlife 

Atkins Limited 2007 Surveys and 

assessment of 

habitats and species 

in the area of a 

proposed extension to 

the MOD training 

facility 

Natural England 2008 Review of the state of 

England’s natural 

environment 

Kent and Medway 

Biological 

Records Centre 

2012 Data for breeding 

birds and other 

species in the SSSI 

Davis, S. 1995 NVC survey, including 

list of ancient 

woodland specialists 

Page 5 of 37


A woodland NVC Survey of 

Chattenden Woods SSSI and 

surrounding woodlands. 

Natural England internal 

report 

Williams, P. & 

Smith, L. 

Birds 

Specialist support for 

notification of Chattenden 

Woods and Lodge Hill as a 

SSSI for woodland 

Criteria for selecting 

wetlands of international 

importance. In: Proceedings 

of the conference on the 

conservation of wetlands of 

international importance as 

waterfowl habitat. Cagliari, 

Italy, November 1980, pp 

1017-1042. Supplemento alle 

Ricerche di Biologia della 

Selvaggina, 81 (1). 

Population trends in British 

Breeding Birds. Published by 

the British Trust for 

Ornithology, Tring 

Survival of British sedge 

warblers Acrocephalus 

schoenobaenus in relation to 

West African rainfall. Ibis 

133: 300-305 

The Burham, Eccles and 

New Hythe Nightingales. 

Kent Bird Report 1991: 137- 

140. 

The nightingale in England – 

problems and prospects. 

British Wildlife 10 (4):221- 

230 

The Migration Atlas: 

movements of the birds of 

Britain and Ireland. Published 

by BTO, Thetford 

Status of the nightingale 

Luscinia megarhynchos in 

Britain at the end of the 20 th 

Century with particular 

reference to climate change 

Bird Study 49: 193-204 

Birds in Europe: population 

estimates, trends and 

conservation status. 

Published by BirdLife 

International, Cambridge 

2012 NVC survey, including 

list of woodland flora 

and target notes 

Goldberg, E. 2012 Support for notifying 

the site from Natural 

England’s woodland 

specialist 

Atkinson-Willes, 

G.L., Scott, D.A. 

& Prater, A.J. 

Marchant, J.H., 

Hudson, R., 

Carter, S.P. & 

Whittington, P. 

Peach, W.J., 

Baillie, S. & 

Underhill, L. 

1982 Basis for use of 1% 

thresholds for 

identifying important 

aggregations of birds 

1990 Nightingale population 

trends 

1991 Factors affecting 

British migrant 

breeding birds on their 

African wintering 

grounds 

Woodcock, A. 1992 Migratory habits of 

nightingales 

Fuller, R.J., 

Henderson, 

A.C.B. & Wilson, 

A.M. 

Wernham, C., 

Toms, M., 

Marchant, J., 

Clark, J., 

Siriwardena, G. & 

Baillie, S. 

Wilson, A.M., 

Henderson, 

A.C.B. & Fuller, 

R.J. 

BirdLife 

International 

1999 Nightingale habitat 

requirements 

2002 Migratory habits of 

nightingales 

2002 Results of 1999 

national nightingale 

survey 

2004 European nightingale 

population trends 

Page 6 of 37


Population trends of 

widespread woodland birds 

in Europe. Ibis 149 (Suppl. 

2): 78-97 

Population trends of breeding 

birds in woodlands over a 32- 

year period: relationships 

with food, habitat use and 

migratory behaviour. Ibis 

151: 464-486 

Berry Court Wood breeding 

bird survey (2009 and 2010). 

Unpublished report 

Experimental evidence that 

deer browsing reduces 

habitat suitability for breeding 

common nightingales 

Luscinia megarhynchos. Ibis 

152: 335-346. 

The Breeding Bird Survey 

2010. BTO Research Report 

597. Published by the British 

Trust for Ornithology, 

Thetford 

Wildlife Reports. British 

Wildlife 23(5): 349 

Wildlife Reports. British 

Wildlife 23(6): 424 

Nightingale survey: 

preliminary results for Kent. 

Report to the British Trust for 

Ornithology 

The nightingale in Britain: 

status, ecology and 

conservation needs. British 

Birds 105:172-187 

Lodge Hill Outline Planning 

Application on behalf of 

Defence Infrastructure 

Organisation: Masterplan for 

breeding birds. 

Environmental Statement 

Addendum 

Gregory. R.D., 

Vorisek, P., van 

Strier, A., 

Meyling, A.W.G., 

Jiguet, F., 

Fornasari, L., 

Reif, J., 

Chylarecki, P., & 

Burfield, I.J. 

Hewson, C.M. & 

Noble, D.G. 

RSPB 2009, 

2010 

Holt, C.A., Fuller, 

R.J. & Dolman, 

P.M. 

Risely, K., 

Kenwick, A.R., 

Dadam, D., 

Eaton, M.A., 

Johnston, A., 

Baillie, S.R., 

Musgrove, A.J. & 

Noble, D.G. 

2007 European nightingale 

population trends 


trends 

Breeding bird records 

for Berry Court Wood 

2010 Nightingale habitat 

preferences 


trends 

British Wildlife 2012 Weather report for 

April 2012 

British Wildlife 2012 Weather report for 

May 2012 

Henderson, A. 2012 Preliminary results for 

Kent from the BTO 

national nightingale 

survey 2012 

Holt, C.A., 


Fuller, R. 

Hyder Consulting 

UK 


trends 

2012 Breeding bird records 

in the SSSI 

Page 7 of 37


Factors potentially affecting 

the viability and success of 

biodiversity offsetting to 

compensate for nightingale 

habitat loss. BTO report 


Fuller, R.J. 

2012 Assessment of 

accuracy and 

representativeness of 

population estimates 

of nightingales in the 


Population estimates of birds 

in Great Britain and the 

United Kingdom. British 

Birds 106: 64-100 

A provisional population 

estimate from the 2012 

nightingale survey. BTO 

unpublished note to Natural 

England 

Letter dated 15 February 

2013 from BTO to Maddy 

Jago, Natural England 

Email dated 27 February 

2013 from BTO to Ben 

Fraser, Natural England 




SSSI for breeding birds 

SSSI notification strategy – 

birds. Draft Natural England 

internal report 

Survey of neutral grassland. 

English Nature survey 

Monitoring the condition of 

lowland grassland SSSIs: 

Part 1 – English Nature’s 

rapid assessment method. 

English Nature Research 

Reports 315 

Guidance on the survey and 

boundary definition of 

candidate grassland sites. 

Unpublished internal 

guidance note. 

National assessment of 

lowland neutral grassland. 

Paper to the Council of 

English Nature 

Musgrove, A., 

Aebischer, N., 

Eaton, M., Hearn, 

R., Newson, S., 

Noble, D., 

Parsons, M., 

Risely, K. & 

Stroud, D. 

Fuller, R. & 

Hewson, C. 


2013 National population 

estimates of breeding 

birds 

2013 Summary of analyses 

carried out and 

resulting provisional 

national population 

estimate 

Fuller, R. 2013 Additional background 

data for provisional 

nightingale population 

estimate and details 

of quality assurance 

carried out by BTO 

Conway, G. 2013 Centre points of all 

nightingale territories 

located in the Lodge 

Hill/Chattenden 

Woods area in 2012 

Drewitt, A. 2013 Support for notifying 


England’s senior 

ornithological 

specialist 

Drewitt, A. 

In 

prep. 

Priorities for SSSI 

notification for birds 

Williams, P 1998 Grassland recording 

card. 

Robertson, H.J. & 

Jefferson, R.G. 

Jefferson, R.G. & 

Robertson, H.J. 

Holmes, P., 

Pinches, C. & 

Jefferson, R.J. 

2000 Rationale behind the 

rapid assessment 

methodology, 

describes practical 

ways of making rapid 

assessments 

2001 Internal Natural 

England guidance on 

SSSI boundaries 

2005 Strategic review of the 

conservation of 

lowland neutral 

grassland in England 

Page 8 of 37


UK Biodiversity Action Plan 

(BAP) Priority Habitat 

Descriptions – Lowland 

Meadows. Published online 

at 

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/ 

UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc- 

Rev2010.pdf 

Biodiversity 

Reporting and 

Information 

Group (ed. A. 

Maddock) 

Chapter 6: Semi-natural 

grasslands. In: The UK 

National Ecosystem 

Assessment Technical 

Report. UK National 

Ecosystem Assessment. 

Published by UNEP-WCMC, 

Cambridge. 

http://uknea.unepwcmc.org/Resources/tabid/8 

2/Default.aspx 

Biodiversity: Action for Kent’s 

Wildlife. Lowland Meadows 

– current status. 

http://www.kentbap.org.uk/ha 

bitats-and-species/priorityhabitat/lowland-meadow/ 

Webpage accessed 5 

September 2012 

NVC grassland survey of 

Rough Shaw and Lodge Hill 

Training Camp, August- 

November 2012. Natural 

England internal report 




SSSI for grassland 

SSSI notification strategy – 

lowland grassland. Draft 

Natural England internal 

report 

Bullock, J.M., 

Jefferson, R.G., 

Blackstock, T.H., 

Pakeman, R.J., 

Emmett, B.A., 

Pywell, R.J., 

Grime, J.P. & 

Silvertown, J.W. 

Kent Biodiversity 

Partnership 

Williams, P. & 

Smith, L. 

2008 Describes the lowland 

meadow habitat as 

defined by the UK 

BAP 

2011 Estimates of the 

extent of lowland 

meadows in England 

and the UK 

2012 Description and status 

of lowland meadows 

in Kent as defined by 

the Kent Habitat 

Survey 2003. 

2013 NVC survey including 

assessment of the 

extent of grassland 

NVC communities 

Jefferson, R.G. 2013 Support for notifying 


England’s senior 

grassland specialist 

Jefferson. R.G. 

In 

prep. 

Priorities for lowland 

grassland SSSI 

notification 

2. Explanation of how Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill meets the 

SSSI selection guidelines 

This section explains how the information listed in section 1 has informed our decision to notify the 

SSSI, according to the Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs (Nature Conservancy Council, 

1989), hereafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’. 

2.1 Woodlands 

The Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI supports extensive areas of long-established seminatural 

woodland (see photograph 1 in section 6), parts of which are recorded as ‘ancient seminatural 

woodland’ (ASNW). The dominant woodland community in the SSSI most closely 

resembles the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) type W10 pedunculate oak Quercus robur 

– bracken Pteridium aquilinum – bramble Rubus fruticosus woodland. Two sub-communities are 

Page 9 of 37

epresented; the W10a typical sub-community and the W10b wood anemone Anemone nemorosa 

sub-community W10b. The Guidelines (Chapter 2, section 4.7, p.80) state that: 

‘Within an AOS [area of search] several examples of most types should be 

selected to account for the variation in woodland structure, floristic composition 

of tree and subsidiary layers and animal assemblages, to represent the various 

ways in which different types may naturally be combined, to give a geographical 

spread of sites, and to include any special features.’ 

The woodland vegetation communities are characteristic of those found on London Clay within the 

North Kent Plain National Character Area (NCA) 1 . The woodland complex covers 163.5 ha of 

semi-natural woodland (109.92 ha is within the previously notified Chattenden Woods SSSI), of 

which 54.71 ha is recorded as ancient semi-natural woodland on the Ancient Woodland Inventory 

(18.36 ha is within the previously notified Chattenden Woods SSSI), making Chattenden Woods 

and Lodge Hill the largest woodland complex of this type within the North Kent Plain NCA, outside 

of the Blean Complex 2 . Within the woodland complex at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill, the 

largest contiguous block totals over 93 ha. Across the whole of the woodland complex over 100 

woodland species have been recorded, 33 of which are woodland specialists, and many of which 

occur in the long-established semi-natural woodland. 

The Guidelines provide the basis for selecting woodland SSSIs in terms of both their floristic 

composition and their structural form. The Guidelines (Chapter 2, paragraph 1.5, p74) state that: 

‘The total area of ancient semi-natural and other woodland selected as SSSIs in 

each AOS should be sufficient to protect an adequate extent of, as well as the 

full range of variation in, native woodland communities and features against 

future threats, independently of other land-use policies.’ 

The proportion of England’s woodland resource within SSSIs is much less than for many other 

habitats (between 10 and 25% depending on whether all woodland or ASNW is considered). In the 

North Kent Plain there are around 4,584 ha of extant woodland regarded as ancient. Of this nearly 

25% comprises ‘plantations on ancient woodland sites’ (PAWS), woodlands that have usually been 

planted with non-native conifers, and/or converted to plantation stands with mixes of conifers and 

broadleaves for mainly commercial forestry. 

The most extensive woodlands within the North Kent Plain NCA are the Blean Complex (1,511 ha). 

The total area of woodland within the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI is 160 ha and is of 

key significance in the NCA. In addition, there is good continuity with dense scrub habitat and 

neutral grassland. 

In terms of judging the quality of individual woodland stands and sites, the Guidelines recommend 

a number of specific attributes which are applicable to Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill. The 

Guidelines (Chapter 2, section 3.4.1, p.77) state that: 

‘…A basic presumption is that [Natural England] should seek to protect the 

largest areas available of all the major types in an AOS...’ 

At over 160 ha Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill forms one of the largest remaining blocks or 

connected stands of long-established and ancient semi-natural woodlands in the NCA. The 

woodland is important in terms of its total area but also as part of a functioning habitat mosaic. 

Natural England’s emerging SSSI notification strategy for woodland endorses the approach to 

target the largest ancient and long-established woodland sites as priorities for SSSI selection and 

also emphasises the enhanced value of woodlands in combination with other adjacent semi-natural 

habitats. The Guidelines (Chapter 2, section 3.4.2, p.77) further state that: 

1 National Character Areas (NCAs) divide England into 159 natural areas each defined by a unique 

combination of landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity and economic and cultural activity. Chattenden Woods 

and Lodge Hill SSSI lies within the North Kent Plain NCA. NCAs are now used as ‘areas of search’ for the 

purposes of SSSI selection (where appropriate) in England. For more information on NCAs, see Natural 

England’s website: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/default.aspx 

2 Blean Complex is formed of four SSSIs: West Blean and Thornden Woods SSSI, East Blean SSSI, Church 

Woods SSSI and Ellenden Wood SSSI 

Page 10 of 37

‘Whole woods may be judged...in particular by their size, relative naturalness 

and diversity.’ 

The woodland occuring within the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI forms a number of large 

stands, most notably Great Chattenden Wood, which, in combination with adjoining woods, forms a 

contiguous block totalling over 93 ha. The woodlands occuring within the SSSI demonstrate a 

naturalness in species composition, comprising mainly of pedunculate oak standards with ash 

Fraxinus excelsior coppice, which is uncommon within the North Kent Plain NCA and in contrast to 

the Blean Complex, which is largely dominated by sweet chestnut Castanea sativa coppice and, in 

more natural stands, by hornbeam Carpinus betulus coppice. 

When considering the species richness of a site the Guidelines (Chapter 2, section 3.4.3, p.77) 

state that: 

‘The standard recording form covering all woodland contains about 400 species. As a 

rough guide, sites with 100-200 of these (25-50% of the total possible) can be considered 

rich in absolute terms.’ 

The botanical species richness of the woodlands within Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

has been recorded in the 1995 and 2012 NVC surveys, which documented over 100 woodland 

species across the site, 33 of which are woodland specialists, and many of which occur in the longestablished 

semi-natural woodland. The Guidelines (Chapter 2, section 3.4.4, p. 78) further state 

that: 

‘Coppiced woodland which is still worked on a regular rotation with a wide range of 

standard trees and mixed composition is to be preferred to single-species stands of 

neglected growth (40-70 years old) with few standards.‘ 

A large proportion of the woodland is actively managed, in particular Great Chattenden Woods and 

Berry Court Woods, which contain areas of recently coppiced woodland comprising ash, field 

maple Acer campestre, hazel Corylus avellana, and occasional hornbeam (see photograph 2 in 

section 6). Old boundary oak standards add diversity to the age structure of the woodland (see 

photograph 3 in section 6). 

The importance of the woodlands within a habitat mosaic is recognised within the Guidelines 

(Chapter 2, section 3.4.5, p.78) which state: 

‘Woods which adjoin or are in a mosaic with other habitats tend to be more 

valuable than those sharply abutted by arable or improved grassland...Within 

the wood, clearings (natural glades and managed rides)...variations in drainage 

and abundance of dead wood increase the importance of the site through 

greater diversity.’ 

The woodland feature adjoins areas of neutral grassland and dense scrub, which collectively form 

a network of semi-natural habitat that supports a range of species. Great Chattenden Woods, 

Berry Court Wood and Ash Wood contain an extensive network of wide rides (see photograph 4 in 

section 6), some of which lie wet and support a range of tall herbs (see photograph 5 in section 6). 

Berry Court Wood supports a pond on the lower slope adding further diversity to the habitat. 

Standing deadwood is generally well represented supporting invertebrates such as stag beetle 

Lucanus cervus. 

The Guidelines (Chapter 2, section 4.4, p.79) states that the selection procedure within each Area of 

Search (AOS) should: 

‘Identify the best, usually the largest, candidate stands, but taking account also of relative 

naturalness and diversity...’ 

The woodland is one of the best and largest examples of coppice with standards on London Clay 

within the North Kent Plain NCA. The woodland complex covers over 160 ha of semi-natural 

woodland, of which 53.59 ha is recorded as ancient semi-natural woodland on the Ancient 

Woodland Inventory, making Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill the largest woodland complex of 

its type outside the Blean Complex, within the North Kent Plain. The woodlands occuring within 

the SSSI demonstrate a naturalness in species composition, comprising mainly of pedunculate oak 

Page 11 of 37

standards with ash coppice, which is in contrast to the Blean Complex, which is largely dominated 

by sweet chestnut coppice and in more natural stands by hornbeam coppice. 

2.2 Neutral grassland 

Within Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI, the area known as Rough Shaw comprises a 

mosaic of dense and scattered scrub on a north facing slope with approximately 4 ha of tall-herb 

neutral grassland along its upper margin. Within this area of grassland is 1 ha of unimproved 

species-rich neutral grassland characterised by the nationally scarce NVC type MG5 crested 

dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus – common knapweed Centaurea nigra grassland, which conforms 

mainly to the MG5b lady’s bedstraw Galium verum sub-community. Three fields in the north of the 

Lodge Hill Training Area include more extensive areas of MG5 grassland of a similar nature to the 

stands at Rough Shaw. These areas represent semi-natural grassland on base-rich London Clay 

attributable to the MG5b sub-community. A notable occurrence in all three fields is dyer’s 

greenweed Genista tinctoria, a species associated with unimproved meadows, pastures and 

heaths. 

There is estimated to be 10,521 ha of lowland meadows in the UK and 7,282 ha in England 

(Bullock et al. 2011), of which

‘The nature of lowland grasslands, and especially meadow grasslands, is such that 

adequate representation in the SSSI series tends to involve a large number of small sites. 

Many of the remaining good meadow grasslands are individual fields which have chanced 

to escape improvement. Some communities are now so rare that the inclusion of all 

remaining examples is still an unsatisfactory and inadequate representation.’ 

The Guidelines (Chapter 3, section 3.7, p.95) further state that: 

‘Within the meadow grasslands, where extensive areas of any one type are rare, large 

single-type stands will tend to be more highly valued than equivalent areas of mixed types.’ 

Accordingly, the Guidelines set out an assessment framework that seeks to select all examples 

exceeding critical minimum standards, rather than a sample of representative exemplars, as is the 

case for more widespread and extensive habitats such as ancient semi-natural woodlands. 

A national strategic review of lowland neutral grassland conservation in 2005 undertaken by 

English Nature reaffirmed this approach and also concluded that, given the scarcity and 

vulnerability of these grassland types and evidence of their ongoing decline, all examples of the 

community type MG5 which are considered to satisfy the Guidelines should continue to be notified 

across its English range. This approach is retained in Natural England’s draft SSSI notification 

strategy for lowland grassland. 

The specific selection requirements in the Guidelines (Chapter 3, section 3.5, p.94) state that: 

‘Any single community of MG grassland in Table 9 of 5 ha or more...should be selected.’ 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI supports examples of the NVC type MG5 crested dog’stail 

Cynosurus cristatus – common knapweed Centaurea nigra grassland, which conform mainly to 

the MG5b lady’s bedstraw Galium verum sub-community. This type of grassland is now nationally 

scarce and is identified as being a lowland grassland community of high botanical interest in Table 

9 on p.96 of the Guidelines. With 12.6 ha of MG5 grassland, the Chattenden Woods and Lodge 

Hill SSSI exceeds the threshold area of 5 ha above which the Guidelines state that all examples of 

MG5 should be selected. 

2.3 Nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos 

Natural England’s draft SSSI notification strategy for birds has identified breeding nightingales as a 

species not previously listed as a notified feature in its own right at any SSSI (although they are 

included as a contributing species in woodland and scrub breeding bird assemblages). It is 

recommended that all known aggregations reaching or exceeding 1% of the GB population are 

notified, in accordance with the Guidelines. Improving coverage for nightingales, along with four 

other relatively scarce breeding woodland birds of conservation concern, is considered a priority. 

2.3.1 Numbers of nightingales in Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI is used by nationally important numbers of Nightingales 

Luscinia megarhynchos during the breeding season, with 85 territorial males representing 1.3% of 

the GB breeding population. The map (see section 7) of nightingale territories recorded across 

Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI during the 2012 national nightingale survey, which has 

been checked and verified by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), indicates that nightingales 

use both woodland coppice and scrub habitats, with the greater number using scrub. Twentyseven 

of the 85 territories located in 2012 were within the previously notified SSSI. 

In 1999, the nightingale population was concentrated within five counties in south-east England 

(Wilson et al. 2002). These five counties held 77% of the total population: Kent (26%), Suffolk 

(19%), Sussex (15%), Essex (9%) and Norfolk (7%). Available information indicates that the site is 

currently the most important location in Kent for nightingales, both in terms of numbers and density 

(Henderson 2012). Kent’s position as the most important county for nightingales in Great Britain 

(as revealed by national surveys in 1980 and 1999) suggests that this, apparently the most 

important site in Kent, should receive highest priority for notification. 

Page 13 of 37

The Guidelines (Chapter 14, section 3.1, p.244) state that: 

‘Localities which normally contain 1% or more of the total British breeding population of any 

native species…are eligible for selection.’ 

The basic principle of identifying important bird features based on numbers of individuals or pairs 

remains valid and continues to be the most widely applied approach to recognising and 

designating nationally and internationally important bird features. The use of 1% of a national or 

international population as a measure of the importance of a bird aggregation has a long history. It 

was first established as part of the criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance 

(Atkinson-Willes et al. 1982) and has been adopted by both the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of 

International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the ‘Ramsar Convention) and the UK 

selection guidelines for Special Protection Areas under the EC Wild Birds Directive. It is therefore 

internationally accepted and, in the UK, is widely applied by the statutory nature conservation 

agencies and others, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the BTO. 

There are four data sources for the numbers of breeding nightingales in the SSSI, the results of 

which are presented in table 1 (below): 

1999 National nightingale survey (Results summarised in Henderson, 2012) 

2009 Thomson Ecology Survey (Lodge Hill Environmental Statement addendum) 

2010 Kent Ornithological Society (Lodge Hill Environmental Statement addendum) 

2012 Validated results of the national nightingale survey (BTO) 

The 1999 national nightingale survey was undertaken by volunteers using standardised survey 

techniques devised by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). Volunteer surveyors were asked to 

visit all known nightingale sites at least three times between mid-April and early June with at least 

two visits in May (Wilson et al. 2002). Observers were also asked to visit between nightfall and 

08:00 hours when singing birds are most active. Data were collated, verified and analysed by BTO 

and were used to estimate the British population. 

The 2009 Thomson Ecology survey was a general breeding bird survey of all habitats within the 

SSSI. This employed the BTO’s Common Bird Census (CBC) method and the area was visited on 

five occasions from early March to mid July, with an additional evening survey of the Lodge Hill 

Training Area (Hyder Consulting UK 2012). Although the CBC method is rigorous and designed to 

identify individual territories of all breeding species, a survey limited to five visits (rather than the 

recommended ten) plus one evening visit is likely to underestimate territory numbers. Also, as the 

CBC method is not specifically targeted at the time of year and day when migratory nightingales 

are present and most active, it is likely to underestimate numbers in comparison to the results of a 

dedicated nightingale survey. The 2010 Kent Ornithological Society survey was specifically for 

nightingales and was similar in methodology to that of the Thomson Ecology survey (Hyder 

Consulting UK 2012). 

The 2012 national nightingale survey was similar to the 1999 survey with the exception that a 

minimum of two early morning visits were requested between 21 April and 20 May and nocturnal 

visits were optional. The BTO has advised that the territory assessment for Chattenden Woods 

and Lodge Hill is considered to be conservative, so the figure of 85 territories determined should 

be taken as a minimum, for the following reasons: 

 

 

these are the 'raw' survey data and no account has been taken of detectability, unlike the 

provisional national population estimate (see below); and 

in local high density areas (such as many parts of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill), it 

can be very difficult for observers in the field to separate individual territories, so two or 

more territories may be counted as a single territory, resulting in the total number being 

under-estimated. 

Page 14 of 37

Table 1 

Nightingale surveys of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill 

Survey Date Nightingale territories 

National nightingale survey 1999 46* 

Thomson Ecology Survey 2009 28 

Kent Ornithological Society 2010 44 

National nightingale survey 2012 85 

*Chattenden Woods-Upnor Area 

All surveys are considered to have been reliably undertaken and reported but it is probable that 

earlier surveys underestimate nightingale numbers because of methodological differences (see 

below). Only the 2012 survey results have been used to support the inclusion of nightingales as a 

feature of the SSSI. 

The regular use of a site by a sufficiently high number of birds to merit SSSI notification is normally 

established by data collected over several consecutive years. Although this is frequently possible 

in the case of non-breeding waterbirds, which are monitored annually at many locations, it is rarely 

achievable for breeding species. For example, some scarce breeding species (e.g. breeding 

nightjars Caprimulgus europaeus, woodlarks Lullula arborea and Dartford warblers Sylvia undata, 

which are features of many SSSIs and Special Protection Areas) are subject to comprehensive 

monitoring only once every twelve years. Consequently, some SSSIs and SPAs have been 

designated for breeding species on the basis of one year’s data only. In such cases regular use 

over a number of years can be established by reference to other data which, although not based 

on comprehensive surveys, can at least be used to indicate the presence and broad abundance of 

breeding birds over a number of years. This is a well established and accepted technique applied 

to cases where species are infrequently monitored. 

This approach has been adopted for nightingales due to the lack of comprehensive, dedicated 

surveys preceding 2012. The data from preceding years, although not covering all parts of the 

site, or not employing surveys specifically designed to record nightingales, are still of value in that 

they provide firm evidence that breeding birds have been present in considerable numbers since at 

least 1999. 

Sole use of the 2012 data to provide an estimate of nightingale numbers in the SSSI is justified 

because they are the most recent data, they cover the entire site, they are based on a 

methodology specifically devised to most accurately survey nightingales and they were collected 

by an expert surveyor (Hewson & Fuller 2012). The differences between numbers recorded in 

earlier years and those recorded in 2012 are thus due to varying methodology and coverage. 

Although it is possible that habitat improvements have occurred since the previous survey in 2010, 

it is extremely unlikely that scrub and woodland habitats could have changed to such an extent to 

account for such a dramatic increase over such a short time span (Hewson & Fuller 2012). 

The estimate of numbers of birds present on the site in 2012 is considered to represent numbers 

present annually rather than an exceptional peak. Although above-average numbers of 

nightingales often occur in Britain in years with warm, dry weather in spring (Marchant et al. 1990) 

this is unlikely to be the case in 2012. The peak arrival time for nightingales in Britain is late April 

to early May which, in 2012, coincided with exceptionally cold and wet conditions. April was the 

coldest since 1989 and one of the wettest on record, with many regions recording twice the normal 

rainfall (British Wildlife 2012a). The cool, unsettled conditions persisted into May, with warmer 

conditions arriving only in the last week (British Wildlife 2012b). It is therefore highly unlikely that 

numbers of nightingales recorded in the SSSI in 2012 were unusually high. In any event, as the 

2012 site data were collected at the same time as the national survey, from which the latest 

national estimate has been derived, we can be confident that the comparison of SSSI numbers 

with national numbers is reliable because broad population effects due to weather will apply 

equally to numbers recorded at both the site level and nationally. In conclusion, it is considered 

that the 2012 estimate most accurately represents the numbers of nightingales using the site in 

recent years and that it is a reliable basis for SSSI notification. 

Page 15 of 37

It is estimated that the SSSI supports 1.3% of the GB nightingale population. This is based on the 

provisional national estimate of 6,250 to 6,550 singing males present in 2012 (Hewson & Fuller 

2013). This estimate is calculated by: 

 

 

 

taking account of the detectability of birds within surveyed tetrads (these formed the survey 

units); 

estimating the numbers present in tetrads known to have recently held birds but that were 

not surveyed in 2012; and 

estimating the numbers present in tetrads not known to have recently held territorial 

nightingales. 

This provisional estimate is subject to some further refinements including additional data checks, 

the removal of possible duplicate records and the addition of any casual records not already 

accounted for in the earlier analyses. Additionally, some further survey work is planned in 2013 to 

check known nightingale locations missed in 2012 although, importantly, numbers in these 

locations have already been estimated and included in the provisional estimate. As the analyses 

undertaken to date have tended to overestimate nightingale numbers present in 2012 it is unlikely 

that these further refinements and additional surveys will significantly change the provisional 

estimate. In conclusion the 2012 estimate is robust and reliable and allows a confident assessment 

of the importance of the SSSI for nightingales in a national context. 

Nightingales at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill depend on a dense cover of shrubs in the form 

of coppiced woodland and scrub habitats. A wide range of structural diversity of scrub is required 

in a mosaic with open grassy areas. Nightingales have been recorded using other habitats at 

some locations, such as bare ground beneath mature trees, open scrub with dense nettle beds and 

open rides, and such habitats may also be important at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill. While 

nightingale territories tend to be centred on scrub of intermediate growth, it is probably normal for 

birds to use a home range encompassing a wider range of habitats while breeding (Holt et al. 

2010). It is therefore important to maintain the extent, quality and diversity of all these habitats as 

each are likely to support different aspects of nightingale ecology. 

Nightingales depend on a range of habitats in Britain, including scrub, woodland (including 

coppice), woodland edge, glades and rides, carr, new and young plantations and thick hedgerows. 

There has been a recent shift in habitat distribution of nightingales in Britain, with a greater 

proportion now occurring in scrub compared to woodland and coppice (Wilson et al. 2002). The 

proportion of British nightingales in coppice decreased from 13.6% to 8.6% between 1976 and 

1999, and increased in scrub from 28.4% to 46.7% during the same period. This is not simply 

because of a reduction in availability of coppice (as much apparently suitable coppice is 

unoccupied) and it appears that scrub offers a more suitable habitat. 

2.3.2 Analysis of nightingale population trends and implications for the SSSI 

Nightingales at Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI depend on a dense cover of shrubs in the 

form of coppiced woodland and scrub habitats. Maintaining the current numbers of nightingales in 

the SSSI will require detailed management planning and long-term habitat interventions. The key 

management principles are set out in the statement of Natural England’s views about the 

management of the SSSI, which forms an annex to the notification document. 

Annual monitoring indicates that nightingales in the UK declined by 60% between 1995 and 2009 

and by more than 90% since the 1960s (Risely et al. 2011; Holt et al. 2012), with the majority of the 

decline recorded since 1999. This reduction has been accompanied by a contraction in range 

towards south-east England. Nightingales in mainland Europe showed a steep initial decline in the 

1980s followed by stability, although more recent declines have been reported in the north-west of 

the species’ range (BirdLife International 2004; Gregory et al. 2007). This broader trend suggests 

that the population in Britain, on the edge of the species’ range, may be particularly affected by 

large-scale population changes, perhaps due to lower productivity or reduced overwinter survival 

(Holt et al. 2012). 

Had the magnitude of the decline in the UK nightingale population been apparent at the time of the 

last ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ assessment, the species would have been placed on the red 

list rather than its current amber status. Whilst the rate of decline was greatest prior to 1978 (17% 

Page 16 of 37

per annum), the species is still declining at a rate of approximately 3% per annum (Hewson & 

Fuller, 2012). These population declines have gone hand in hand with a range contraction towards 

the south-east of the country; thus populations in Kent, Sussex and other south-eastern counties 

are becoming more important for the national status of the species. Preliminary results from the 

latest BTO Atlas, with breeding season fieldwork conducted between 2008 and 2011, show that 

the species is being lost from some areas within even these core counties (Hewson & Fuller, 

2012). 

Preliminary data from the 2012 survey indicate that numbers in Kent have mirrored the national 

trend, declining by 26% since 1999 (Henderson 2012). Between 1999 and 2012 only three survey 

hectads have shown an increase in numbers, including the hectad TQ77 covering Chattenden 

Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. 

It is likely that a range of factors are responsible for the decline in nightingales in Britain. Habitat 

loss and deterioration due to rapid infrastructure and housing development, and reduced woodland 

management and increased deer populations are likely to be significant causes (Holt et al. 2012). It 

is also likely that increasing pressures in migratory and wintering areas due to low rainfall in the 

Sahel and perhaps agricultural intensification in West Africa have reduced adult survival, in 

common with other migratory species (Peach et al. 1991; Hewson & Noble 2009). The role of other 

potential effects such as increased predation and reductions in food quality and abundance are as 

yet unknown. 

The SSSI provides an extensive area of scrub, woodland and associated habitats of established 

value to breeding nightingales. It is also situated in the core of the nightingale’s range in Britain 

and its location in south-east England is optimal for attracting migrating birds arriving from northern 

France. Nightingales show strong site-fidelity in the breeding season with 40% of males returning 

to the same locations in Kent in subsequent years (Woodcock 1992; Wernham et al. 2002). Social 

behaviour is also an important factor in settlement at breeding locations, with the presence of a 

cluster of singing males more likely to stimulate other birds to settle (Holt et al. 2012). Given the 

substantial population at the site, it is likely that social attraction provides a strong stimulus for 

further settlement following the return of site-faithful males. 

In conclusion, although maintaining habitat extent and quality should help to maintain numbers of 

nightingales, without a full understanding or control of all factors which may affect the species, both 

in Britain and abroad, it is not possible to predict future population trends. This is no less true for 

many other migratory bird species and does not imply that any less importance should be attached 

to protecting and securing appropriate management of nightingale habitat in Britain. Given that 

habitat loss and deterioration have at least contributed to the species’ decline it is important to halt 

and reverse this effect whilst continuing to research and address other potential pressures. The 

favourable site attributes of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI indicate that it is highly likely 

to persist as a major breeding location for nightingales, subject to maintenance of current habitat 

extent and quality and wider population changes. The longer term future of any breeding bird 

population is unknown although the location of the site in the species’ core area in Britain means 

that it is likely to persist longer than may be the case in a more peripheral location. 

2.4 Site boundary determination 

The SSSI boundary has been drawn to include all of the ancient and other long-established seminatural 

woodland, unimproved neutral grassland and scrub in the Chattenden Woods and Lodge 

Hill area. All nightingale territory locations recorded in surveys in 2009, 2010 and 2012, and 

suitable habitat (scrub and coppice woodland) around each territory centre, have been included. 

This results in a readily identifiable boundary characterised by rather abrupt transitions to arable 

land, improved grassland, roads and built developments (see photograph 1 in section 6). 

Although the four areas of MG5 grassland are not contiguous and are separated by improved 

grassland and scrub (see photograph 1 in section 6 and the map in section 8) they are included 

within a single SSSI. Guidance on the justification of ‘archipelago’ SSSIs has been produced by 

Jefferson and Robertson (2001). This states that such sites can be justified where: 

Page 17 of 37

‘The component fields are similar in terms of their vegetation composition and occur on 

similar soil types / geology within a discrete landscape or occur in similar topographical 

situations - e.g. disjunct flushes along a valley; 

There is evidence that local habitat fragmentation has caused the current disjunct nature of 

the habitat (s) and that it/they would have formerly have been linked.’ 

The grasslands at Rough Shaw and the Lodge Hill Training Area clearly support similar vegetation 

communities. The fields all lie on the London Clay which is typically associated with MG5 

vegetation communities. It is also very likely that at one time these grassland communities 

occurred more continuously across the area. The grassland areas within Lodge Hill Training Area 

have been reduced in extent, particularly in the middle field which has numerous vehicle tracks 

intersecting blocks of dense scrub. It is likely that the MG5 in this middle field would formerly have 

been far more extensive and may have been contiguous with the stands to the east and west, 

which are still within 300 metres. 

Other lowland grassland types in the SSSI include stands of communities of generally lower 

botanical interest, namely MG1e false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius grassland, common 

knapweed Centaurea nigra sub-community. 

The Guidelines (Chapter 3, section 3.1, p.93) state that: 

‘The NVC communities MG1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are considerably modified types with generally 

low botanical interest...They can, however, be included within an SSSI where they form a 

mosaic with more important communities or a peripheral zone between higher-quality 

habitat and a clearly defined boundary.’ 

The semi-improved grasslands of MG1 occur in a mosaic with scrub and the stands of MG5 

grassland. 

3. Assessment of the current condition of the Chattenden Woods and 

Lodge Hill SSSI 

Site 

units* 

Interest features Reported condition** Date of last 

assessment 

1 Woodland, neutral grassland, breeding 

nightingale 

Unfavourable – declining 22 November 2012 

2 Woodland, breeding nightingale Favourable 14 June 2012 

3 Neutral grassland, breeding nightingale Unfavourable – no change 22 August 2012 



6 Woodland, breeding nightingale Favourable 3 August 2012 

7 Woodland, breeding nightingale Favourable 3 August 2012 

8 Breeding nightingale Favourable 6 September 2012 

* Site units are divisions used by Natural England for administrative purposes only. 

** Reported condition 

SSSIs are notified because of special biological or geological features. When these features are 

being managed so that their special nature conservation interest is being maintained they are said 

to be in favourable condition. This is a United Kingdom standard and the terminology and 

definitions are more fully described in ‘A Statement on Common Standards Monitoring’, produced 

by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in 1998. 

3.1 Reasons for adverse condition 

The unimproved neutral grasslands in units1 and 3 have been assessed as ‘unfavourable – 

declining’ and ‘unfavourable – no change’, respectively. The grassland in unit 1 is unfavourable 

due to the ratio of grasses to herbs in the sward and the level of scrub encroachment. This could 

be remedied by sensitive scrub removal (removing the arisings from the grassland) and restoration 

Page 18 of 37

grazing management to remove the biomass and encourage seed germination. In unit 3, 

unfavourable condition is due to the low frequency of positive indicator species, excessive cover of 

coarse grasses and the sward height being above the recommended level. Altering the grazing 

regime to increase the grazing pressure will address these issues. 

Page 19 of 37

4. Selection of ‘operations requiring Natural England’s consent’ 

Natural England selects operations from a master list when determining the list of operations 

requiring consent for individual SSSIs. The selection is based on the likelihood that the operations 

may cause damage to the special features that are the reasons for notification of the SSSI. As well 

as selecting operations from the master list, the precise wording of each operation may be tailored 

to suit the particular circumstances at the site. 

It is not possible to predict every possible eventuality that may arise on a site but the aim is to 

identify all operations where it is reasonably foreseeable that, if carried out at certain times or in a 

particular manner somewhere within the SSSI, they are likely to damage the special interest 

features. The table below records at least one reason justifying the inclusion of each operation in 

the list for Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. It is not intended to be exhaustive and in most 

cases there will be other ways in which the specified operation is likely to cause damage. 

Standard Type of operation 

reference 

number 

1. Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, 

harrowing and re-seeding. 

2. Grazing and alterations to the grazing regime 

(including type of stock, intensity or seasonal 

pattern of grazing). 

3. Stock feeding and alterations to stock feeding 

practice. 

4. Mowing or cutting vegetation and alterations 

to the mowing or cutting regime (such as from 

haymaking to silage). 

5. Application of manure, slurry, silage liquor, 

fertilisers and lime. 

6. Application of pesticides, including herbicides 

(weedkillers) whether terrestrial or aquatic, 

and veterinary products. 

7. Dumping, spreading or discharging of any 

materials. 

8. Burning and alterations to the pattern or 

frequency of burning. 

9. Release into the site of any wild, feral, 

captive-bred or domestic animal, plant, seed 

or micro-organism (including genetically 

modified organisms). 

10. Killing, injuring, taking or removal of any wild 

animal (including dead animals or parts 

thereof), or their eggs and nests, including 

pest control and disturbing them in their 

places of shelter. 

11. Destruction, displacement, removal or cutting 

of any plant, fungus or plant remains, 

including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, dead or 

decaying wood, moss, lichen, fungal fruiting 

body, leaf-mould or turf. 

At least one reason for listing 

Important habitats could be 

destroyed. 

Important habitats sensitive to over or 

under grazing. 

Could lead to localised nutrient 

enrichment or poaching which would 

damage important habitats. 

Inappropriate mowing can damage or 

destroy the structural diversity of 

important habitats. 

Important habitats sensitive to nutrient 

enrichment. 

Important habitats and associated 

flora/fauna all sensitive to these. 

Risk of obscuring/smothering 


Burning could damage or destroy 

grassland, scrub and woodland 

features, and disturb breeding birds. 

Could lead to unforeseen changes in 

community composition. 

Could lead to unforeseen changes in 

community composition. 

Damage to important habitats and 

direct loss of features. 

Page 20 of 37

Standard Type of operation 

reference 

number 

12. Tree and/or woodland management and 

alterations to tree and/or woodland 

management (including, planting, felling, 

pruning and tree surgery, thinning, coppicing, 

changes in species composition, and removal 

of fallen timber). 

13a. Draining (including the use of mole, tile, 

tunnel or other artificial drains). 

13b. Modification to the structure of water courses 

(streams, springs, ditches and drains), 

including their banks and beds, as by realignment, 

regrading, damming or dredging. 

13c. Management of aquatic and bank vegetation 

for drainage purposes. 

14. Alterations to water levels and tables and 

water utilisation (including irrigation, storage 

and abstraction from existing water bodies 

and through boreholes). Also the modification 

of current drainage operations (such as 

through the installation of new pumps). 

15. Infilling or digging of ditches, dykes, drains, 

ponds, pools, marshes or pits. 

20. Extraction of minerals including sand and 

gravel, topsoil, subsoil and spoil. 

21. Destruction, construction, removal, rerouting, 

or regrading of roads, tracks, walls, fences, 

hard-standing, banks, ditches or other 

earthworks, including soil and soft rock 

exposures or the laying, maintenance or 

removal of pipelines and cables, above or 

below ground. 

At least one reason for listing 

Woodland, dead wood features could 

be damaged or destroyed. All 

features vulnerable to incidental 

damage from unsympathetic tree and 

woodland management. 

Installation of drains could directly 

damage or destroy important habitats. 

Modification of structure of water 

courses could directly damage or 

destroy important habitats. 

Risk of direct and incidental damage 

to adjacent habitats. 

Alterations to water levels and tables 

and water utilisation could directly 

damage or destroy important habitats. 

Could directly damage or destroy 


Direct loss of interest features and 

indirect negative impact on hydrology. 

Direct loss of or incidental damage to 

important habitats and associated 

flora/fauna. 

22. Storage of materials. Risk of obscuring/smothering 


flora/fauna. 

23. Erection of permanent or temporary 

structures or the undertaking of engineering 

works, including drilling. 

Direct loss of or incidental damage to 


flora/fauna. 

26. Use of vehicles or craft. Vehicles can erode and compact soils 

and vegetation. 

27. Recreational or other activities likely to 

damage or disturb the features of special 

interest or their habitats. 

Could have a negative impact on the 

site’s habitats, and there is a risk of 

disturbance to breeding birds. 

28a. Game and waterfowl management and 

hunting practices and alterations to game and 

waterfowl management and hunting practice. 

Inappropriate location and types 

could damage important habitats, 

lead to unforeseen changes in 

community composition and disturb 

breeding birds. 

Page 21 of 37

Page 22 of 37

5. Site unit maps 

The maps on the following pages show the provisional boundaries of the site units, which are 

divisions used by Natural England for administrative purposes only. 

Page 23 of 37

Page 24 of 37

Insert site unit map here – A3 landscape format in colour 

Page 25 of 37

Page 26 of 37

6. Photographs 

Page 27 of 37

Page 28 of 37

Insert aerial photo here – A3 landscape format in colour 

Page 29 of 37

Page 30 of 37

Photograph 2: View across area of recent coppice within Great Chattenden Woods. 

Photograph 3: Oak standard within recent coppice in Great Chattenden Woods. 

Photograph 4: View south across Ash Wood. 

Photograph 5: Wet ride in Ash Wood. 

Page 31 of 37

7. Nightingale territory map 

The map on the following page shows the distribution of nightingale territories at Chattenden 

Woods and Lodge Hill recorded by the BTO National Nightingale Survey 2012. 

Page 32 of 37

Page 33 of 37

Insert nightingale territory map here – A3 landscape format in colour 

Page 34 of 37

Page 35 of 37

8. MG5 grassland map 

The map on the following page shows the location and extent of MG5 grassland at Chattenden 

Woods and Lodge Hill, as recorded by NVC surveys in August and November 2012 

Page 36 of 37

Page 37 of 37

EX90 Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI ... - Medway Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?