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.
