MINUTES OF THE STORT VALLEY PROJECT 

MEETING: 7th FEBRUARY 2001 HELD AT SAYSBURY MANOR SAWBRIDGEWORTH


PRESENT: Steve Karn (Chairman)
Warren Richards (Secretary) 
Tony Vidler (Sbw A/S) Burt Puncher (Sbw A/S) 
Liz Greenwood (EHDC) Michael Brown
Eric Hayward (East Park & Kingsmead Res Ass)
Graham White (Herts & Middx Wildlife Trust)
Bob Reed and Andy Sapsford (Essex Wildlife Trust)
Jonathan Wilshaw (CMS) Monya Billings 
John Rider Ted Burrow
David Thorogood (Agenda 21 EHDC)
David Mead Hazel Mead


APOLOGIES: Lanier Pole Jacqueline Dore
Janet Ralph Diana Richards (Sbw Town Council) 
Bob Wright Maureen Wright
Michael Vincent (Treasurer) Stan Barker
Joyce Vincent 

MINUTES:
The minutes of the last meeting were distributed prior to the meeting 
and accepted. 

MATTERS ARISING:
Mouchel Road Plan. Members were reminded that there was a public consultation to have your say on traffic planning in the town in the Chamber this coming Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

CPRE Letter. The Sec tabled the invitation to go on a course to learn how to take action with the Local Plan. Fair Green One-way. The Sec tabled a note he had written while composing the minutes around Ted B request for a single traffic flow to give pedestrians a safe pavement. This note proposed one-way traffic between east end of Bell St and Fairway. The direction of  this one-way flow would depend on the future direction in Bell St. 

Photographic Competition. David M offered to pickup this task with Joyce V and talk to possible sponsors with a view of promoting it at the May Fair. Lockkeeper's Cottage. The EHDC have kept us informed on the progress of  this application in response to our letter giving our support to the application. 

Pishiobury Management Plan. Members were disapointed with the tone of  some Press articles saying that there are problems with funding Pishiobury Park. The Press puts this interpretation on it because moneys will not be released by EHDC until the Management Plan is agreed by full Council (March 2001). Also The Town Council has voted against giving grants to the Park until the standard of the Park has improved.
Post Meeting Note. However it should be noted that major work has been undertaken by CMS in managing woodland to the North and repairing the footbridge in the centre of the Park in the last two months. 

Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust. Warren R tabled copies of their Magazine, Autumn 2000 giving a detailed insight into the management of Rye Meads wetlands for us to take inspiration for managing our piece of wetland. 

AGENDA ITEMS:
1 Management of New Land. Jonathan Wilshaw of CMS gave us a talk on managing the new land at the end of Springhall Lane he circulated a map showing the two parcels of  land. The higher ground opposite Nursery Wood (6.79 acres) marked area A and the lower running beside the Pishiobury Meander (4.52 acres) marked area B. Land which is not managed undergoes Succession- rank grass, scrub and finally woodland.
Area A could be manage with 3 or 4 cattle but would need a lot of  preparatory work. Pull  ragwort and eradicate in grazing areas, fence and supply water. Fencing  should be in small compartments for easymanagement. Do not plant wildflowers but supply suitable habitat for natural seeding.
Area B requires sympathetic cutting to see what is there and then manage drainage channel and river margins. In general maintain hedgerows, priority route (homo sapiens) and post  notices of activities.
The way forward is to write a management brief and involve Countryside Stewardship and the Park Ranger Judy Raymond of CMS.
We thanked Jonathan for his talk and wished him well in his new job. The subject was opened up to the floor and Bob R and Andy S gave us a rundown on a paper they had prepared last weekend on Areas B ecology and management options. One interesting suggestion is the cuttings from Area B have to be removed, which could be put in the Pit in Area A to encourage snakes. See copy of report attached*. 
2 AGM. It was noted that our next meeting is our AGM where we have to elect our new committee; anyone wishing to be nominated should phone the Sec on 01279-723347. Our Chairman Steve K did not wish to stand in the coming year.
3. Stansted Expansion. The Sec attended the Stansted Mounfitchit Parish Council meeting to protest against expansion to 15mppa (million passengers per annum). The letter composed in response to the meeting was tabled and agreed to be sent on behalf of the SVP*. John R asked for more on the environment, this will be added in a covering letter. Members thought the airport should have its own hospital. It was also reported that Mori was cold calling to get reaction to set questions.
4. Publicity/Funding. John R has applied to HCC Agenda 21for a grant and expects a positive answer any day. He would like consideration to the purchase of stationery, funding a website and running an exhibition. Post MN John has received £250 grant.
5.Geese on Lawrence Moorings. The response from Epping Forest DC is that it is up to the owner what happens to the Geese and if they are required to be removed they already have somewhere for them to go. A member reported that the present owners are moving.
6.May fair. It was agreed by members to have a stall at the Fair and donate £10. Suggestion for activities were, launch quiz, a display about the new land, prints and plants for sale.
7. Logo. The logo needs to be integrated with details we need to generate for a letter page.
8. AOB. What is happening at Keksey's Farm? How is the Order on the Esbies estate being actioned as no movement on the ground is visible?

7. DNM. The 7th March 2001 at 8.00pm in Sayesbury Manor. Note meeting in June on Thursday 7th.
* Items held in SVP file in Reference section of Sbw Library. 

Ecological Assessment of the water meadow between Pishiobury Park and theMore Pool carried out by Andrew Sapsford and Bob Reed 4/2/01.

Introduction and findings.
We believe that the meadow in question represents a first class opportunity to restore wet grazing meadow much of which has been lost locally in recent years due to a combination of lack of grazing and inappropriate use including ploughing and turf stripping.
We found the following features and have made a series of recommendations.

1. There is a network of drainage ditches and channels, which have become choked and silted. They contain a growth of Pond Sedge, Common Reed and Brooklime. The main ditch runs from East to West and empties into the backwater by the Osier Bed. There appears to be a very much older system of channels which run to join this main drain. It is suggested that these ditches be restored in sections to create linear ponds. They would only need to be one digger shovel in width and to be approx 3Ocms in depth. This would encourage amphibians to spawn and restore the freshwater invertebrate life, which they used to contain. The spoil from the restoration could be piled on the wet side as a raised "bund" which we have found to increase biodiversity on Sawbridgeworth marsh. The culvert under the track along the north side should be restored to encourage public use of this hard track. The ditch should not be made to connect with its original outflow point, as the aim is not to drain the area but to maintain water levels in the summer months.

2. There is a line of large, derelict willows on the eastern boundary. We feel that these should be left to decay naturally as they provide a wide range of habitats. Young willow recruits are in evidence as future replacements.

3.The eastern end of the meadow is undergoing the early stages of  marshland succession although as a whole the area is fortunate in not having any significant scrub encroachment. The change consists of an increasing area of sedge beds- whilst of interest in themselves they are replacing a more scarce and desirable habitat. The remainder consists of tussocky grass with clumps of a species of Hard Rush growing on waterlogged  (Feb), peaty soil.  Due to the lack of grazing the vegetation is becoming matted and this will prevent the  growth of less competitive and more desirable species. 

4.There is an overgrown hedge on the northern side, which is becoming increasingly fragmented and is in need of management. We feel that the hawthorn could be laid and that the hazel would initially respond best to coppicing. There are some useful bramble thickets, which should be retained.

We feel that there are a variety of options open for the management of  the wetland area.

Option 1. Do nothing-let nature take its course. To do so will mean deterioration in the wildlife value as the area reverts to scrub and ultimately to sallow or willow carr.

Option 2. Limited intervention. Limited ditch re-instatement as described to create linear ponds. Re-cut and lay hawthorns. Coppice hazels. Replant gaps with native species.

Option 3. Option 2 + Annual, mechanical cutting of the meadow using a forage harvester in September. Remove cuttings from the site.

Option 4. This is the best option but may not he viable. Option 2 + cattle, not horse, grazing from March to Nov. Possibly use stock from the park for short periods of  intensive grazing using electric fencing or similar.

 We would see the following objections and possible difficulties to these options.

Option 1. The area would lose its wildlife value and a superb opportunity to restore a wet meadow would be lost.

Option 2. Ditches can be hazardous and cause obstruction. Public access would need to be taken into consideration as would access for a forage harvester or similar. Disposal of the soil as "bunds" would help avoid nutrient enrichment of the meadow and the growth of nettles etc. There would need to be some way of informing the public about cutting of the hedge so that it is seen as a positive action. The coppicing of the hazels would yield a quantity of top and cordwood. The tops could be used to protect areas of replanting and  the cordwood as rotting piles well away from a place in which they could be incorporated into campfires.

Option 3. The cuttings from the forage harvester will not burn and will only rot slowly to give peaty heaps, which will encourage nettles etc. Consider using part of the old gravel pit as a disposal site where the cuttings will not cause much environmental harm and may provide a useful site for Grass Snakes to nest.

Option 4. Cost and maintenance of fencing as well as availability of stock for grazing. The public may well interfere with stock and fencing.

In all these schemes there would have to be monitoring. Baseline and follow-up surveys would be needed for the flora, amphibians and freshwater invertebrates.

Bob Reed and Andrew Sapsford. 
4/2/01.