None – a full complement!

Paul Sinnadurai (EN) had left London, and the Chair’s position was now vacant. Mathew Frith (LWT) agreed to stand and was elected unanimously.

Agreed

Outstanding actions:

RD to seek advice from Colin Plant regarding moths – AOB item

Species statements – AOB item

Bat action plan – a written request to London Bat Group has received no response. DD stated that a London-wide, maybe generic plan, should be favoured which can adopted by each borough LBAP.

ACTION: MF to pursue with Pete Guest of LBG

‘Making the links’ – no response to DD’s paper

ACTION: All to consider for next meeting

JF reported that the StGp endorsed the list of habitats and species from this Group – a case of ‘rubber-stamping’.

StGp agreed to set up a web-site, JF to pursue with aim of putting the audit on it. There will be a ‘holding page’ as soon as possible. Dave Dawson raised issue of ‘data capture’, that there needs to be an established discipline in terms of data submitted and sources, especially if updating audit. Also will need to make sure that audit versions are dated if updating is to regularly occur.

Alister Hayes (LB Bromley, SE LBBF rep) presented a paper (co-authored with MF) on the cultural element of the BAP, and work is now in progress to further develop this.

MM reported issue of 50 miles of canals within region, 26 miles in London cutting across 15 local authorities. Has made initial contacts. MF raised issue of the future of the London Canals Committee, which seems likely to be affected through the establishment of the Greater London Authority. MM reported difficulty in ‘pinning down’ individuals.

CD stated that the potential partnership was massive – over 1500 people currently listed on the TGP database. A working group will be set up, which will move away from a purely biodiversity approach, and look at agriculture, waste, and other issues as well. The working group is to be large but workable, and will need to incorporate both Kent and Essex representatives.

ACTION: CD to pass names of working group to JF.

Wastelands

JF reported that through the London Wastelands Forum, Annie Chipchase is in the process of drawing up a list of potential partners.

Jeremy Dagley (CoL, Epping Forest) has agreed to be initial contact in discussion with Alister Hayes (LB Bromley), Meg Game (LEU) and others. JF also raised the issue of the Forestry Commission, which appears to be gathering woodland managers in London in preparation of its own business plan.

ACTION: JF to liaise more closely with Forestry Commission.

Jenny Bowen reported that they were lucky to have the initial London Biodiversity Partnership audit compiled by Alex Colón (now LB Redbridge). The partners are primarily London boroughs covering 28 sites, along with the LEU, LWT, golf courses, and the Commons Conservators. It appears that there is either existing restoration or no work occurring on the ground, but there is significant room for awareness-raising.

ACTION: JB to pass details to JF.

MF reported that London Wildlife Trust were going to be adopting a broad-brush approach. No progress has yet been made apart from identifying potential partners such as the Royal Horticultural Society, garden centres, and suppliers. BioRegional in Sutton may be interested, and RD reported the FFPS’s Good Bulb Guide as a useful resource.

ACTION: London Wildlife Trust to pass details to JF.

MF reported that a list of potential partners for a core working group would include the London boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Sutton, the Corporation of London, Downlands Countryside Management Project and English Nature. FRCA have agreed in principle to advise and feedback, but because of staff constraints would be unwilling to attend meetings. A wider group would include the boroughs of Hillingdon and Lewisham, Kent and Surrey Wildlife Trusts, and local community and recording groups.

ACTION: MF to produce list of potential partners to JF.

JF – see earlier action point.

RH stated that the EA will take the lead, probably in partnership with London Wildlife Trust. No officer within the Agency has been identified as yet, but Rob Strachan is a possibility.

JF reported that RSPB had produced a SAP, and SG stated that this was a short, probably internal document, but which needed clarification. This had been produced in consultation with LWT. An interim draft SAP has been produced by Dusty Gedge (lead contact), but requires further work.

ACTION: SG to qualify status of RSPB SAP.

RB reported that a number of partners had already been approached: Derek Coleman (BTO), EA, Steve Crosby (TWU, Kempton Park), Mike Dennis (LNHS), Tim Hill (LVRPA), Annie Chipchase (LLP), Dusty Gedge, Jim Gooch (RMC Aggregates), Chris Corrigan/SG (RSPB), Mike Pollard (Rye House Marsh), Ron Foster (Redlands).

ACTION: RB to produce list of potential partners to JF.

JF reported that Derek Coleman is keen to be an initial contact.

ACTION: JF and Derek Coleman to prepare questionnaire for landowners.

JF (on behalf of EN) reported that there are c4 in-bred populations within London, and that work will probably need to involve the London Amphibian & Reptile Trust, London Wildlife Trust and local authorities.

MF is to ascertain the role of Peoples Trust for Endangered Species in London, given its location in the capital and lead partner status at the national level.

ACTION: MF to produce list of potential partners to JF.

MF reported that he had identified a potential lead contact – Alan Holmes (LB Redbridge) who attends the Bucks BP Working Group. JF reported that Ken Page (Surrey) and Ken Adams (Essex) may also be useful contacts. MF has been invited to the next meeting in April, but cannot attend (JF to attend in absence).

JF reported that Plantlife are not keen to be a lead partner, and that Thames water are happy to use their land as a test site. A DETR/Plantlife report in April is to list distribution and identify restoration sites in the UK, some of which are in London.

JF reported that Plantlife and Common Ground had both turned down role of lead partner. RD suggested that BSBI and the Royal Parks should be approached. DD suggested that schools may provide an opportunity to obtain new records.

House sparrow

JF reported that Helen Baker (LNHS) is unable to take role as lead contact, but is willing to provide advice and data. DD said that he would lend support, but that we have to be careful about our approach. MF reported that LWT maybe in a position to take this further as and when resources permit.

JF referred to the accompanying paper, which attempted to clarify the role and format of species statements. There was general agreement that some species would require a stand-alone document, others simply a paragraph within a Habitat Action Plan. The categories defined in the accompanying paper were generally thought to be reasonable. It was not thought advisable to produce a separate Action Plan for species that depend on the built environment.

As a result the discussion, pellitory-of-the-wall was removed from the list of species statements. JF offered to write Species Statements, but specialists should be found to do so wherever possible.

JF said that there are to be no new structures, and that there should be flexibility in terms of the frameworks for each Action Plan. Much will depend on partners, size and resources, although MF urged that will be important to get the process right from the start so that ownership is obtained by all prospective partners. JF suggested that prospective partners should be contacted personally beforehand, and not just invited via a ‘cold’ letter.

RB raised the point of venues to hold workshops. JF and others referred to the availability of rooms at the GLA, WWT, LWT, UCL, EN, BTCV, as well as local authorities.

MF also raised the matter of volunteer costs, in terms of time spent, travel etc. These would be useful to ‘cost’ and log as a means of identifying matching ‘funds’. For example, in Lewisham the Plan is taking account of time spent at LBAP meetings, whether for volunteers (c£8 per hour), local authority staff or other organisations’ staff (at their respective hourly rate). Such practice could be easily undertaken from the start in Action Plan workshops.

There was discussion as to the continuation of the Biodiversity Officer post. SG stated that there was need for progress if the Partnership were to submit a renewed bid to Bridge House Estates (BHETF), and suggested that we aim for their May Committee, and hope for a summer decision. CD asked about the contingency if the bid failed. At present there is no contingency plan.

JF suggested that Action Plan workshops should be underway by mid-June at the very latest, and that draft plans need to be delivered to him by 15^th September 2000.

RD outlined her paper, saying that there needed to be a standard means of grouping records, as there was a variety of methodologies. DD had submitted a detailed paper in response, but left the meeting before the discussion. Discussion referred to the LWT garden survey using the 878 post code zones within Greater London, the inaccuracies in grid references in The London Report, and the difficulty of locations along linear features, especially rivers.

RH reported that the EA departments have recorded river reaches differently. They are attempting to standardise, as there are differences between tidal Thames (property-based) and the tributaries (500m stretches). Maps can be supplied but these will be difficult at present, although they have GIS maps for each borough.

MM reported that BWB is producing a national BAP in April, with guidance notes for each region. They can define particular stretches of named canals.

RH stated that on canals and tributaries key sites are to be identified. Where good data is known for a key site, this can be targeted for monitoring. There are 600 separate databases held by the EA.

DB asked whether the EA have an overview of the New River, RH confirmed.

RD stated that the LEU sites do not necessarily match UDP.

Finally, the group agreed to standardise practise in the Recorder 2000 database and other compatible databases for recording taxa in London. This reiterated, for the most part, the agreement made at the Data Recording Topic Group on 25^th September 1997, taking into account the progress on some matters since that time. The following first level of location descriptions would be used:

* ACTION: RH agreed to provide information in advance of next Topic Group meeting

MF noted that an important element from the agreement in 1997 was the submission by the LEU of SNCI boundaries so that these can be effectively mapped on GIS. This still needs to be undertaken, as grid references for SNCIs will not be enough if recorders are unaware of the boundaries of the site they are on.

DB introduced this topic by noting contradictions in the Audit. The international dimension of London’s biodiversity, especially flora, seems to be missing. JF responded that the Group was well aware of these issues in the preparation of the Audit, and accepted that they hadn’t materialised in the final publication. RH stated that the EA are preparing a historical map of London, which includes its floral heritage.

ACTION: DB to prepare paper of exotic species for next meeting.

ACTION: ALL to provide necessary info on ‘London’ species to DB.

JF introduced the paper from John Dobson about moth species listed on the audit. He questioned whether they were good indicators, and that better examples exist that should be represented – e.g red-belted clearwing for private gardens.

RD stated that Colin Plant has published all available information in his book.

ACTION: RD to make further contact with Colin Plant.

MF introduced the details of the grant to the Group, and asked EN as to whether they would be making recommendations for funding in relation to regional priorities. Surely an application which had strategic benefits in a wide area of London should outweigh more parochial site-based schemes? JB [EN] responded that she didn’t know, although nationally it was very much on a ‘first come first served basis.’

ACTION: JB to raise with EN possibility of assessing London applications as to whether they meet both national and London priorities.

14.00, Monday 5^th June 2000, at London Wildlife Trust offices, Harling House, SE1.

This will include a demonstration of Recorder 2000, GIS and the Biological Recording Project’s contribution to the London Biodiversity Partnership’s work.