17 October 2002
14 May 2003


Minutes of October 17, 2002
London Wildlife Trust

Present
Sam Willitts (EN,Chair)
Mandy Rudd (LWT)
John Archer (GLA)
Annie Chipchase (LNHS)
Debbie Cousins (EA)
Alister Hayes (LBBF)
Bill Butcher (SERC)
William Moreno(LBP)

Response to Consultation - Feedback
The responses to the consultation document were generally positive although it was noted there hadn't been an overwhelming response.

There was no single LNHS response. The Society wished to discuss at their next Council meeting the paragraph that had originally been provided for the document regarding funding (as it had not been formally agreed through Council). This may have resulted in some LNHS members holding off responding. Individual recorders had generally welcomed the document with some concerns expressed. Other recording groups (London Bat Group, Butterfly Conservation) had given very encouraging responses.

Consultants had given the clearest message of support, welcoming a one-stop shop for biodiversity data and some would consider entering into service level agreements (SLA), if there was sufficient work in London for their organisations to justify it.

London Boroughs had provided only a few responses and these were mainly from ecology/conservation staff. It was agreed that a more targeted and detailed approach would be necessary to gain a clear idea of the support that a LRC could expect from the Boroughs. (Alister thought ten or fewer would be likely to sign up. This was considered to be unviable. A contract only basis of support was thought not to be an option to consider at this stage).

A few negative responses had been received, these provided very useful information on the issues and perceptions regarding a LRC that need to be addressed (summarised elsewhere).

Draft Letter to Boroughs Planners/Conservationists/Education Staff
A discussion of some of the Boroughs' issues followed: It was suggested that Boroughs felt that they were being asked to split the costs of a Records Centre between them (1/33rd each) and that EN or another statutory organisation should be putting up at least half the costs and then asking them for contributions.

There was a need to clarify the role of the GLA. Some Boroughs felt that as the London Ecology Unit had become part of the GLA it should be delivering this sort of information as they were paying for it through the levy to the GLA. Some also felt that the GLA was a reincarnation of the GLC and had a similar remit and funds, this is not the case, but if it did have the same funding it would certainly be funding a LRC. Boroughs felt they were being asked to commit to a SLA and that they would not be keen to sign up to a long term commitment to funding. Asking them to agree to a renewable discreet term of funding may be more acceptable.

The letter should have an explanation of the need to show a clear partnership approach to enable external funding applications to be submitted. This could best be exhibited by an in-principle commitment by Boroughs to signing up to a SLA. The leverage this would gain and other inputs of monies need to be made clear.

A discussion of how best to approach the Boroughs followed: It was agreed that Mandy's draft letter was a very useful start.

Most Boroughs now have a cabinet structure and we should target the relevant portfolio holders (Councillors) and copy the letter to the Director of the portfolio (they don't like to be surprised) and to those borough staff who have responded already. If the Borough does not have a cabinet structure letters should go to Head/Chair of the Environment Committee and copied to relevant staff as above. These contact details need to be accurate. It was suggest that calling up current Borough contacts would be the most efficient way to gain this information. ACTION: EN

Planning departments only have budgets for staff costs. Particular areas to target are Social, Health and Education budgets. We need to provide an example of a successful record centre (preferably a city) Possibly Birmingham EcoRecord. ACTION:

Planning departments only have budgets for staff costs. Particular areas to target are Social, Health and Education budgets. We need to provide an example of a successful record centre (preferably a city) Possibly Birmingham EcoRecord. ACTION:

We need to show the risks and possible costs of not supporting a LRC. Potential for Public enquiry costs if have poor information? Need real scenarios, planning and Highways examples. EIAs? The Cornwall case was agreed to be a useful scenario.

It was suggested that it could be useful to mention the possibility of changes to Species licencing and that this could become a responsibility of the Boroughs. Although it is unlikely that any detail of this can be provided as any changes are likely to await the review of the planning process.
The letter must clearly come from the London Biodiversity Partnership and could mention the Memorandum of Understanding (if borough signed up to it).

It was agreed that comments on the draft letter should be sent to Mandy as soon as possible for a redrafting and further comment from the Steering Group. A letter needs to be produced by 1st November in time for the next meeting of the LBBF to allow discussion. The letter should then be sent out requesting a response by Christmas (20/12/02?). Responses will probably require chasing up. ACTION: ALL

Discussion of a Name for the Records Centre
It had become apparent that many different names were being used for the possible records centre. There is a certain amount of confusion regarding the status and relationship to records centres within Boroughs and levels other than the County level. There is a need to provide a clear identity.
After a short discussion it was agreed that the records centre should be called the London Biodiversity Records Centre (LBRC). It was agreed this name should be used by everyone in any future discussion and communication regarding the records centre.

A.O.B.
It was raised that their could be issues as to where the records centre sits within the London Biodiversity Partnership (LBP) and that there were potentially issues that needed to be considered regarding funding in relation to the forthcoming LBP business and funding plans. This was referred to the LBP management group. ACTION: LBP

There is a need to be aware of other projects that could overtake or become part of the development plan process. In particular the recent discussions at the London Parks and Greenspaces Forum regarding a GIS based database of greenspace for London. Mandy is due to attend a meeting of this forum. ACTION: LWT

Mandy agreed to attend the next meeting of the LBBF to assist in their discussions of the Development plan. ACTION: LWT

The date of the next meeting will be decided once the letter to Boroughs has been produced.


Back to top