Nature
Most of the Walks form a "green heart" to King's Lynn, rather than a formal planned park. The natural assets of the Walks are extremely important to users, even if they are playing sport. In other places, heritage projects have destroyed natural features: can we do things different?
Yes to
But please also
|
No to
|
| Do you agree? Support us! | |
|---|---|
Long-term Planning
Long-term tree replacement
It is amazingly good that we finally have a long-term plan being created for the Walks. It is a site of vital importance to the town and long-term planning is the only way to ensure the future of the environmental benefits.
The lottery bid submitted in July 2004 planned to fell over half of the Walks in the first 2 years of the project. That is not long-term planning and the Walks Action Group fought a successful campaign to improve it. Now, the proposal is to remove some of the trees and let them become established before considering what to do with the rest. The trees are being felled on a pattern, rather than on health grounds. The group is unhappy about that, but realises it's a big improvement over the bid approach.
Long-term tree care is practised elsewhere in Europe. The photograph shows a line of trees in the Schiller Park in Vienna, Austria. When trees become old and die, they are replaced with new trees in the same position. Even though the trees in the picture are not all the same age, it still gives the effect of a line of trees. This is what we would like to see in the Walks, maximising the possible shelter over all time. Above all, we must not see the gradual decline through underfunding that happened over the last few decades.
Unnecessary Tyre Tracks
Availability of high-quality management and staff training is essential, with input into the design of the park from the people who work there as well as the people who relax there. This photograph shows tyre tracks caused by driving maintenance vehicles over waterlogged ground. This happens in many places in the Walks, along the edges of Red Mount Walk and St John's Walk, or in the middle of Red Mount field.
In some other HLF-restored parks, users have noticed dead wood being left dangling from trees and increased waterlogging and path erosion as a result of excessive felling.
To avoid this happening to the Walks in the future, we need a park manager who is upset when he or she sees such things and has the power to act to correct them.
We also need to design the layout so that these problems are avoidable. I suspect that the vehicle above cannot easily use the nearby path because of the central lampposts: either a new vehicle or better lamppost locations need to be included in the plan.
These are not the sort of problems which can be fixed in a few months - some will take years to resolve. As with tree care, we need to "play the long game" for the Walks to prosper.
Wildlife
The Walks is a wildlife haven
Long-term management of the Walks should be a great benefit for biodiversity. First, we need to protect what is already there: if we remove one species while introducing others, there is no net gain of biodiversity.
There is an ecology report in the stage two bid, but we think it was done by one man on one day and is incomplete. The Walks are open along many sides, so not all wildlife is present in the park at any one time.
Fortunately, there is a more comprehensive wildlife survey in Appendix 6 (folder marked "Appendix C") of the stage one bid, available to view in Juniper House.
Mammals
Mammals aren't that numerous. We have:
- Muntjac deer
- Grey squirrel
- Bat species
- Brown Rat
We probably have some mouse species (as we have Tawny Owls) but we don't know which.
The Walks could, maybe should, support Short-tailed Field Vole and Water Vole. The 2004 survey was not conducted at the best time for finding them (according to Norfolk Biodiversity) and wasn't completed. You'd expect (but rarely see) rabbits and we've never seen foxes. As the second one likes to eat the first, these observations are probably linked.
Birds
Many of these birds feature on the Red and Amber lists of threatened species compiled by the RSPB in association with English Nature and many other organisations. For copies of the lists, see the Birds of Conservation Concern booklet available online.
| Species | 2000 | 2004 | WAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blackbird | 0 | 4 | W |
| Blackcap | 0 | ||
| Black-headed Gull (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| Blue Tit | 0 | 4 | W |
| Carrion Crow | 0 | 4 | |
| Chaffinch | 0 | 4 | |
| Chiff-chaff | 0 | ||
| Coal Tit | 0 | ||
| Collared Dove | 0 | W | |
| Common Gull (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Coot | 0 | ||
| Cormorant (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Cuckoo (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| Dunnock (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| Feral Pigeon | 0 | W | |
| Fieldfare (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Goldcrest (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Goldfinch | 0 | ||
| Great Black-backed Gull | 0 | ||
| Great Tit | 0 | 4 | W |
| Green Woodpecker (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| Grey Heron | 0 | W | |
| Greylag Goose (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Herring Gull (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| House Martin (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| House Sparrow (Red List) | 0 | W | |
| Jackdaw | 0 | W | |
| Kestrel (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Kingfisher (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Lapwing (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Long-tailed Tit | 0 | W | |
| Magpie | 0 | 4 | W |
| Mallard | 0 | 4 | W |
| Mandarin | 0 | ||
| Mistle Thrush (Amber List) | 0 | 4 | |
| Moorhen | 0 | 4 | W |
| Mute Swan (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Nuthatch | 0 | W | |
| Oystercatcher (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Pied Wagtail | 0 | ||
| Pink-footed Goose (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Pintail (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| Pochard (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Redwing (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Robin | 0 | ||
| Rook | 0 | W | |
| Shelduck (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Siskin | 0 | ||
| Song Thrush (Red List) | 0 | W | |
| Sparrowhawk | 0 | W | |
| Spotted Flycatcher (Red List) | 0 | ||
| Spotted Woodpecker (unsure which - Lesser is on the Red List) | W | ||
| Starling (Red List) | 0 | 4 | W |
| Stock Dove (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Swallow (Amber List) | 0 | W | |
| Swift | 0 | W | |
| Tawny Owl | 0 | W | |
| Tree Creeper | 0 | W | |
| Tufted Duck | 0 | ||
| Waxwing | 0 | ||
| Wigeon (Amber List) | 0 | ||
| Willow Tit (Red List) | 4 | W | |
| Wood Pigeon | 0 | 4 | W |
| Wren | 0 | W | |
| Totals | 63 | 12 | 31 |
Dave Cooper notes: "I've never kept a list of the birds I've seen in the Park. I'm surprised that several quite common species like greenfinch or yellowhammer don't appear, but I just can't recall seeing them in the park. Someone who is a bit more of an ornithologist would probably give a more detailed list."
MJ Ray notes: "I'm particularly surprised that the 2004 surveyor found less than a fifth of the species identified by the 2000 surveyor. I'm impressed that only one species from the 31 reported by the park users before they knew about the 2000 survey was missing from the bid lists."
Amphibia
Unsurprisingly (it was March) the 2004 bid research didn't find any amphibia. Newts are a lot more common than most authorities are prepared to admit: they are a real possibility. Frogs or toads haven't been spotted: does the very short grass make the habitat too exposed?
Reptiles
None of these either.
Other
The 2004 bid survey mentions otters and badgers. The researcher didn't find any signs, but these are both species that are currently expanding their range and are both possibilities for the future in a slightly more wildlife-friendly regime. Otters mainly because they are present on the West Norfolk rivers, and are likely to travel through, even if they don't adopt the river as part of their range.
The other things that don't get mentioned but could be possible are mink and polecat. Apparently the latter are also expanding fast, partly because of an decreasing loss rate due to gamekeepers, partly because of a plethora of their favorite food (rats!).
The other local mustelids (weasels and stoats) will turn up wherever there are rabbits, not otherwise.