BRIGHTON AND HOVE’S WILDLIFE FORUM
www.BHWF.org.uk

	MAPPING LOCAL WILDLIFE SITES: Meeting 12 October 2013 

Notes from meeting and decisions agreed.

Purpose: To find a way of managing the data which lists the Local Wildlife Sites, displaying this as 
a map and updating the key information relating to each site.

Present: Roger Carter, Jane Hawkins, Maureen Holt, Colin Leeves, James Newmarch,
John Patmore, Martin Robinson

1.   Listing local wildlife sites: Maintaining a list of the local wildlife sites LWSs is the foundation 
point on which all related information is based. This can be stored as a spreadsheet, a database or a GIS-linked attributes table.

Who stores the list? The Biodiversity Record Centre is a company based at Woods Mill (Sussex Wildlife Trust) storing wildlife records submitted by Sussex wildlife recorders (groups and individual naturalists). They received the entire dataset of BHCC LWS records in summer 2013. BHCC had an inconsistent way of including LWSs and subdividing them. This technically messy dataset can be viewed via the council's 'City Wildlife' website. BHWF members tried using the website but became disillusioned by its convoluted way of storing or viewing information. It is not clear how the Record Centre will manage and release this data. As a commercial body they will want a formal 'service level agreement' with BHWF; and they may charge a fee.

	* ACTION:  ??? to ask SBRC about procedure for accessing the LWS data and map.

The Booth Museum is the obvious place to store and maintain the LWS data for Brighton/Hove. However lack of expertise following staff shortages may make this aspiration impracticable.

It was agreed that BHWF should not be dependent upon a 'third party' and should maintain its own dataset. The details are covered below.

	* ACTION: James and John to draw up protocol for BHWF-held list of LWS information. 

2. 	Maintaining a Basic Dataset: Overall it is important to 'Keep it simple'. The data needs to collected, stored, amended and presented in a way that can be easily understood. However there is a danger of 'dumbing down' so much that basic elements relating to the wildlife site are missing. This point can be 'field-tested' by checking that all BHWF members can use it (see comment above about the failure of 'City Wildlife' to do this).

	* AGREED: The following details need to be stored

·	Unique Site Code (6 character: gives unique identifier – eg: 'grnrdg'). This acts as a 'Primary Key' for each site and does not change. Commercial databases are built using Primary Keys.
		- Site Name (note: this also includes 'New Sites' – see #4 below)
		- Grid Reference (for central point, OS as 5---,1--- which equals TQ+6figures)
		- Area – for whole site, Areas of sub-features - if useful.
		- Primary wildlife/geodiversity features - Phase1 habitat type (see JNCC, 1993), 			   physical morphology esp. geodiversity features/shape/slope/appearance, 
		  and soil type.
-	Key Species - Protected, BAP, Interesting Species, A 'Confidential Data' field needed.
·	Expanding on the details in the 'Primary wildlife features' section. Can include additional details not covered above. Provide links to site's own website where it exists and other information which relates to the site. Good example is 'Wild Park' which has no local group in place, but Peter Whitcomb writes 'Nature Notes' with descriptions of the wildlife recorded there. This could be made available online with a link from the longer description.
·	Key contact(s) in BHWF for more details
·	Date last amended, + by whom (name)

Where to store the BHWF data?
	One option is to use the current BHWF virtual space (on 'Google Drive')

	* ACTION: John and James take primary responsibility for producing and maintaining this 			dataset.
	* ACTION: John and James to write protocol for arranging the dataset and then discuss 			this with Bernard Evans.
	* AGREED: Others who can amend the core data are: Martin, Bernard Evans, Andrew 				Fitzgerald (*JMP to ask him first). Most critical for the site .shp polygons which 			are uploaded to the 'Google Map' for BHWF sites?

3.  New Sites (nb: this was agenda item #2): There may be only limited information, but the 
dataset needs to be flexible in being able to add New Sites.

·	Railway embankments with vegetation connecting habitats 
·	'Wildlife' to also include geological and geodiversity sites
Preston Park as a whole, although eastern side has potential to connect with Surrenden Road central reservation and greenspace near the Surrenden School campus.
·	Dyke Road Park (opposite Booth Museum) has potential for enhancing native biodiversity.
The council may seek our view in the future on other sites to add to their list.
	
	* ACTION: Add pLWS category = 'potential local wildlife site'.

4.  Sites Map: A physical map showing the location of Local Groups can seen from the link on the 	www.BHWF.org.uk home page.
·	These are mostly single location points
·	But Polygons can be added. eg: see 'Green Ridge' - a simplified boundary and colour infill.
	This can be added as ESRI .shp polygons from data supplied by BHCC to the Food 	Partnership. Note: previous BHCC data omitted the site names and had wrong geolocation!

	* AGREED: Just add the Site Code and Name to the map, no additional information at this 			stage. Interested viewers can request further details from BHWF.
	* ACTION:  John to provide technical information to Food Partnership to ensure .shp 				information is obtained.
	* ACTION:  James to make second attempt to obtain data from BHCC. Correct  GB 				projection for .shp files will be useful, but mainly the site codes and names 				plus details as they are held on the BHCC database. 

5.  Responding to Information Requests: These will come from two main sources – 1. general 
interest in nature; 2.  commercial consultants and planning officers.

·	Information on the location, boundary and features of each LWS will be needed.
BHWF needs to be competent in responding to these.

There were differing views on involvement in commercial EIA consultants' requests. Issues relating to legal status of our response, tracking the response, payment, bank account and tax made it a significant project to take on. Roger and James considered there were opportunities for BHWF to keep on top of proposed new developments  and influence planning applications at an early stage to benefit biodiversity.

These issues were previously raised (June 2013 on BHWF Discussion Board) but without any response from members. The BHWF response to the Dorothy Stringer Planning Application to fell trees and install a plastic sports pitch provides a test example for how professionally BHWF can respond to planning consultations. We can review our position in 2014 following experience gained in current planning consultations. 

* AGREED: Overall it was considered that the risks outweighed the benefits in responding 		formally to planning related information requests from commercial consultants. 
Therefore BHWF will normally not become involved in EIA consultations.

Roger Carter, John Patmore
Brighton and Hove's Wildlife Forum
19 October 2013

Reference: JNCC, 1993, 'Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit' (2010 Update), JNCC Peterborough

Note:  'Phase 1' still appears the most robust system. Full descriptions and relationship to BAP categories are available. It has a semi-natural habitat basis so is weaker in urban and built-up areas. The 'Integrated Habitat System', managed by Somerset Records Centre is supposed to incorporate many other classification systems. But there are 'Unknown terrestrial vegetation' / 'Unidentified woodland' / 'Undetermined...' and 'Unidentified habitat' categories which do not inspire confidence. Also SRC charge a fee for the full description!

Other options described in:  http://habitats.nbn.org.uk/whichClassification.htm

- END -