Attendees:
Mike Waite (GLA)
Ruth Day (LNHS)
Mandy Rudd (LWT)
Richard Bullock (WWT)
James Farrell (Project Officer)
Peter Massini (EN)
Steve Gilbert (RSPB)

Apologies: David Bevan, Ralph Gaines

1.    Election of Chair: Peter Massini was elected as Chair.

2.    Notes of last meeting

There were no minutes of the previous meeting due to mathew frith’s departure to pastures new at English Nature in Peterborough. However, a copy of the HS&DTG report to the Steering Group had been circulated with the Agenda.

RD noted that at a previous meeting of the HS&DTG ground-rules had been agreed for recording on sites. These ground-rules had been publicised through the LNHS newsletter and the LWT Biological Recording Project but other data managers were unaware of the agreed rules and may be developing incompatible systems. JF suggested that a separate report should be produced for the Steering Group with a recommendation that partner organisations should achnowledge and adopt these ground-rules for location descriptions.

Subsequent to the last HS&DTG JF had written to Peter Harvey in respect of PH’s interest in the invertebrtae fauna (especially Hymenoptera) of Thames Terrace Grasslands. Peter Harvey is concerned about the conservation of these species especially in light of the significant development propsals far large areas of the east thames corridor where many of these species appear to have a stronghold. JF’s letter and Peter Harvey’s reply was circulated. The Topic Group agreed that JF’s letter had been an appropriate response and that PH’s concerns were best addressed through the appropriate London BAP habitat action plans (i.e. ‘Wastelands’ and ‘Grasslands, Meadows and Pastures) and relevant borough BAPs. It was also agreed that the London Biodiversity Partnership would not be preparing a specific Thames Terrace HA. However, the group agreed that the issues raised by Peter were important as invertebrate conservation is not being addressed as well as it should be. The group agreed that Peter should be invited to the next meeting of the HS&DTG.

(NB: as the next meeting of the HS&DTG will be the meeting to finalise the first tranche of HAPs and SAPs the Chair and JF agreed that it would be preferable to invite PH to the following meeting).

JF asked that the Group note that the Steering Group had agreed to the recommendation that the Wasteland HAP should be presented as a Habitat Statement.

3.    Progress of Action Plans/Statements

A table indicating the various stages of plan/statement development had been circulated with the Agenda. Most plans were progressing reasonably well but JF was concerned that some plans did not as yet have any lead contacts who would take the plan foreward after publication. Of particular concern were;

Woodland - GLA suggested as lead but no confirmation as yet

Wastelands - no lead identified. Action: PM to write to Ralph suggesting LWT as lead.

Bats - London Bat group had committed to lead but uncertainty over future funding of London Bat Officer.

Mistletoe - no lead identified. Action: JF to write to Trees for London.

Grey Heron - no lead identified. Action: JF to write to LVRP.

House Sparrow - GLA suggestedf as lead but no confirmation as yet

Peregrine - EN suggested. Action: PM to consult colleagues in London. (N.B. subsequent to the meeting EN confirmed that they would lead on this plan).

A Species Statement was being prepared for long-tongued bumble-bee. No work had been done on the Species Statement for house martin. SG offered to draft a statement for this species if the lead contact is unable to do so before the deadline for producing draft documents. Action: JF to speak to Jan Hewlett re:progress on House Martin Species Statement, then contact SG.

4.  Format of Vol.2 - the Action Plan

JF presented the suggested format for the second volume of the London BAP. Subject to a number of suggested minor clarifications and alterations, the Group were happy with the proposed format. Suggested alterations/modifications are set out below numbering corresponds to numbering in propsed format):

i    The links between the London BAP, the borough BAPs and the mayor’s strategy were deemed to be the most crucial and needed to be stated very clearly. Links with national and county BAPs are relevant but should not be presented in too much detail.

ii    The definition and purpose of flagships and indicators should be stated very clearly.

iii    There should be a strategic review of the BAP after a three year period. This strategic review should consider the apparent effectiveness of the BAP in taking forward biodiversity conservation objectives and establish the review periods for each of the individual HAPs and SAPs in light of progress with implementation.

iv    (Habitats and Species) Plans should be presented in the same order as the habitat audit.

v    (Exotic species). This paper should consider only plants at this stage and needs a more appropriate title.

vi    (Communications) Communications Planning Guidelines have already been agreed but a Action Plan/Strategy has not been drafted and is unlikely to be drafted before the forthcoming deadlines. Suggested therefore that Communications Planning guidelines are incorporated into Vol.2 as an appendix.

5.    Template for HAPs/SAP and covering letter for consultations

JF presented templates and guidance notes which will be sent to lead contacts preparing the final drafts of the HAPs. Subject to the minor modifications/alterations suggested below the Group endorsed these. Suggested modifications/alterations were:

i) Delete the phrase ‘’for the benefit of current and future generations" under Aims. This is a generic attribute that applies to aims for all action plans and should be stated within the overall aim for the London BAP. It does not need repeating within each action plan.

ii) Under Current Action states that information presented here should be brief, relevant and pertinent.

iii) Under Associated Species delete reference to species that are not currerntly found in London but which may be in the future.

JF to draft a covering letter for the consultation. The Group suggested that this covering letter should ask consultees to comment only on the factual content of the action plans and the relevancy/deliverability of the targets and actions (i.e. are targets/actions realistic and achievable). If a consultee has any concerns about targets/actions they should be asked to elucidate these clearly when replying to the consultation.

As previously suggested by the Group there would be a recommendation that there is a strategic review of the London BAP, three years subsequent to publication. There will also be a need to produce an Annual Report - a methodology will have to be devised for Annual Report production.

The Action Plan wil be launched at a Nature/Culture conference proposed to be held early in December.

RD asked how the Action Plan would be distributed. These had not been considered in detail as not all of those involved in the preparation of the BAP would need complete copies, only relevant action plans. The entire plan would be available on the Web. It was agreed that as a minimium a copy of the Plan would be sent to all borough central libraries.

PM flagged up the need to discuss how the individual action plans are taken forward subsequent to publication. This group may well need to have an overarching co-ordinating role.

The next meeting will be on Thursday 16^th November, 1pm at Romney House. The main purpose of this meeting will be to "sign off" all of the action plans prior to James completing the final editing. Be prepared for a focused, intensive meeting. We will need to make sure all of the plans are focused and consistent so that there is a good chance of actual implementation subsequent to their publication.