integrated habitat network model dissemination report

EDAW Plc Norloch House, 36 King’s Stables Road, Edinburgh EH1 2EU, Scotland T +44 (0)131 222 3000 F +44 (0)131 222 3030 www.edaw.com

Integrated Habitat Network Model GREEN NETWORK PARTNERSHIP Local Authorities & Key Stakeholders Workshop Report Findings 6th November 2008


Introduction EDAW were employed to assist Forest Research in undertaking six workshops with each of the local authorities in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley and the one with the key stakeholders. The list of workshops and attendees is contained in Appendix A.

The Workshop EDAW and Forest Research prepared an agenda and presentation to run the half day workshops. These can be found in appendices B and C respectively.

The Findings The following pages summarise the discussions held at the workshops.

The Way Forward This sets out the key themes raised and puts forward some suggested actions and opportunities.


What was said at the Workshops 02.09.08 North Lanarkshire Council Scenario Feedback Broad area view was useful – not just what EIA process would flag up anyway Doesn’t give more detail than we have already Planners would probably consult us ecological issues Good way to support our (biodiversity) decisions Less use for planners Spatial tool that prompted thinking on design of spaces and management of landscape

regimes If had the right brief the model helped explore the how to combine provision of new habitats,

examine what to retain and how/what to influence development briefs in detailed sites How do you prioritise habitats? Helped think about type and character of new habitats,

spaces How is data shared and made available? Yes, could see it is useful Potentially see use in cases where loss of space will occur and to argue case for creating

new habitat and what type as a replacement Group Discussion What is model methodology? If people are going to use it they have got to trust the validation of data – relevance, date,

coverage, surveyor, sources Its not as complete as we thought – missing species and habitats How updatable is it? SNH is pulling out of being a consultee on applications – is this just another burden on local

authorities Why settle on woodland, grasslands and wetlands? What are the focal species? Model must be kept up to date and validated The more species, the more complex, the more difficult to negotiate with developers,

therefore focus on small number of protected species Trying to get away from speculation of potentially present species therefore the model’s

usefulness as a negotiation toll is tenuous Seems like more of a Masterplanning tool than a negotiation tool How might it integrate SUDS? If going to be serious got to have thorough training on how its works and what it doesn’t do Council increasingly asking for surveys – would the model affect how we commission them,

how we request availability, sharing, format, etc. What is the trigger that prompts the development control officer to look at the model – 2

houses, 200 houses? What would be the next habitats you would look at? – bogs, moss, LBAP, SINCS? There might be potential to identify long-term planning gain on management Could future versions include sensitivities on quality of habitat?


What was said at the Workshops 03.09.08 Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and East Renfrewshire Councils Scenario Feedback Design of open spaces Management regimes Provision of information Will developers take this (the model) on board Group Discussion A few people misread the plans – colours, etc. – idiots guide required and good training too Good way to support decision making Need other data species, etc. dangerous by showing areas could see use of model in allocating land in development plans, writing guidance and on

issues of detailed design and landscape management all well and good but what about information on quality of habitat – key need ability to prioritise habitat – of same kind which is bets to keep - and between different

types which is more important and why? Species protection – issue with SNH pulling out of consultation on applications unless there is

design does this help planners understand ecology better? Quality/ robustness of data – will it be updated Is there a “flag” on quality of sources – reputations and validity Feedback Forms Lack of trust and confidence in the model and knowledge of subject would inhibit planner

using the model This is a strategic Masterplanning device Model is rather general in some respects, but could be advantageous in influencing large

developments Could be used to bring developers into the fold, maybe better less specific? Very useful in Masterplanning and defence of sites at PLI Must be easy to use or wont get used Could development management be given a quick checklist to enable easy use Actual access to GIS model and training would be good A means to prioritise habitats More habitats would be good Must no get too hung up on current info Must be accessible and understandable to laymen – definitions, etc. Training essential A checklist about when to use it Barrier to use may be willingness of staff, lack of senior staff support, training and quality of

info. CASE STUDY East Renfrewshire Council have 2 strategic proposals requiring preparation of masterplans – the model may be useful in doing this. Renfrewshire has a site for 500 units in community growth area – good pilot potential Renfrewshire would like to pilot hedgerow study


What was said at the Workshops 23.09.08 Glasgow City Council Scenario Feedback/ Group Discussion Do we start afresh – made us think about water on peat Questions the allocation of land Made us think about better use of what’s there, use structure of place and connect it to

surrounding areas What happens beyond application area – pressure later but could it be protected now – give

LA control Link woodlands and pull them through site Case to reduce management burden if use grasslands – less onerous feature – balance with

play Process is a bit hit and miss – there needs to be top down pressure to use model – currently

landscape gets dumped and dealt with too late Model made us look at type of space and relationship to people movement – extend habitat to

join up more meaningfully By focusing on model and habitat – questions arose relating to woodland retention, wetlands/

SUDS, land-use allocation, type and location of open space, movement of people, long-term management and maintenance and process of when and how to use the model

Feedback Forms Ensure quality information integrated Encourage / force planners to use it A lot to take in but still lack of information Unclear about role of habitats – also some habitats missing Lack of political will – make it an obligatory tool How does the model get updated Quality of control of data essential Topographical data would be good Could see problems in trying to write legal agreements where would undertaken relates to

model Species data at relevant resolution essential Lack of training/ specialist staff could inhibit use More information on selected species and quality of habitats needed – how is this assessed

and vetted? How do we engage with planners – none turned up despite being invited.


What was said at the Workshops 02.10.08 Stakeholders

Scenario Feedback It raised questions about why locate development in certain locations relative to habitats Opportunity to reiterate importance to keep good quality habitats] What habitat is more valuable? What control would a LA have to enforce? Land owners are a constraint off site Never get feedback from planners Model might help consultation process relating to applications and development plans FCS got constraints mapped in GIS – could this be dovetailed with model Cant see benefit of model – not a substitute for surveys Danger data out of date or lost Connections between spaces, water bodies and how development related to it all was

discussed Quality of information key Group Discussion FCS acquisition team would certainly have a use for it Expect model to guide but only in broad terms and guidelines Where loss of habitat, model may help (FCS) respond positively (where otherwise FCS would

have to say no or object to proposals) to loss so long as things happen – provision of other habitat, order in which things happen and the establishment of mechanism to control. Monitor, manage

Feedback Forms Needs to be web based Get it into the corporate plans Need to put in place LA training Increased integrity of surveying needs This is brilliant and much needed tool Needs more testing on the ground Not easily accessible and note relevant to SEPA Will the model be free How is the tool going to persuade developers to take it into account.


What was said at the Workshops 03.10.08 East Dunbartonshire Council Group Discussion Monitoring will be key to success of model Do habitat networks work? Is it being used? Is it making a difference? How does the cross over with developers commissioning surveys that say there is not a

species in the habitat work? How did you build this up? What procedures and protocols are in place to verify or certify surveys? Credibility key What about ownership and copyright on the model and base mapping? How are scenarios run Must get planners on side but need evidence on model for others A very short statement on evidence would be good to give confidence Have you tested the private sector with the model? What about impact on land values? Feedback Forms Time, resources and training will be constraints Will be difficult convincing elected members and other departments and developers it is a

good thing Private sector will need to be on board to implement Evidence need to see evidence to show positives and that it will not effect land values Case studies would be useful to show how model works – could it show cost savings to

encourage better design Need expert support to planners Recognition of model in policy Council currently use 2 GIS systems Need to see rules on how to use and maintain this data over time Methodology required to be robust if to be used for PLI Useful for pre-application discussions Need to available online for and GIS for planners Links to path network missing We are under pressure to issue decisions quickly, so concerned about time required. CASE STUDY: Woodilee would be a good case study as you could compare what has happened with what could have happened?


What was said at the Workshops 29.10.08 South Lanarkshire Council Group Discussion Worry about level of consultation – given importance and requirement for greater consultation

as a result of the planning act What degree of confidence is there in the theoretical model on how it actually happens on the

ground? Validation is essential The Council have now asked for the model to be part of the scope of EIA for community

growth areas at Newton and Hamilton West. This is immediate and the Council is keen to work with GNP and the model

How is GNP going to roll this out? What are the expectations on when to look at it and what to do when you have? Need to now more about process and checklists Pressure on to make quick decisions Will this make better decisions This doesn’t stop us having to consult SNH Where does this sit with SNH protected species Is this model saying how/ who do species surveys? Supplement or substitute? Who uses it – expectations of use Terrific for new local plan and green network Is this an ecologically valid tool – linked to science Next steps – pilots get focused now on how to use it Council probably got at least 16 large sites where this could be applied Need to find level for its use before prejudging its benefits Apply to large sites and see what could be applied to smaller sites How does this sit with – who owns the survey data Is it going to be presented as a trigger Concerned about analysis of information What protocols need to be in place – what to do, what to ask, how to discuss, what to say,

when to say it, who uses it, how run scenarios, etc. Calibration/ validation Need to think about LBAP Think about the process from having the information, through training, making model

available, what questions being asked, how to review/ refine development layouts, when to bring in other experts, when to have discussions, what other processes is it tied into, how does it link to EIA, how would it be reported, how can works be conditioned or written into a section 75 agreement.


Issues Going Forward From the workshops, the facilitator notes, group scenarios and feedback there are clearly a number of key themes arising in relation to how the model should be developed to ensure its greatest level of use in future. In general, the workshops we had with planners were the most interesting and useful. On a couple of occasions unfortunately, where we were expecting planners (who had been invited), none turned up. The lack of interest from planners, where they didn’t turn up, was a telling point and must be addressed going forward. 1 Where could it be used?

It was clear the groups we met felt there were 2 clear areas of potential use: - local plan preparation - Masterplanning

2 Validation

Firstly, at every workshop the question of robustness, credibility or validation came up. Particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to local preparation and the potential for the model to be scrutinised at a Public Local Inquiry the key message was it needed to be defendable. Therefore, the whole process of how the model was created, tested, calibrated and the method by which scenarios would be run would need to be documented and tested prior to use. There were 2 reasons for this (1) confidence – do I trust it and its sources; and (2) is it a methodology that is accepted by the key organisations and practitioners. On the latter point, it might be worth considering a peer/ practitioners review panel to oversee. Secondly, how will the model be kept up to date and how many more habitats would be included? It was clear that even if the model existed, the most relevant data was going to be essential in making this a tool that people would use. Being transparent about the sources and dates of survey data will be key. Like the validation of the method for the model, the credibility of the sources and survey work is essential. How will this be presented? Thirdly, the operating IT systems and their operators would need to be reviewed to ensure that the IHN Model was made available in the right places and made accessible to the right people. Will the model be easily accommodated on the Council’s IT network (are they different from LA to LA) and will it be able to be made available on staff desktops (who, why?). Are there cost implications on software user licences? How and who updates the model source data? Fourthly, access and use by the private sector needs to be carefully considered. How will the private sector gain access to the model information in GIS, how will it be allowed to run scenarios and who do they liaise with to undertake that work? To build a strong working relationship between Councils and the private sector that enables both parties to share survey data and for the Council to make the model available for private sector organisation to use – external access (possibly via the internet) needs to be considered. This also brings into question the cost of running scenarios? Is it free? Is there a charge per scenario? Who does it? How long does it take? Can it be done say, during design workshops, or does it require to be run overnight or a few days? Who does the QA checks and verifies the modelling work? How is it issued? What are the rules for presenting data? Are there any copyright issues?


3 Training This was seen to be essential. The key messages:

(a) hands on training delivered in person not via the internet or CD’s; (b) probably need a day long session; (c) need for a easy to read (but detailed) manual on how to use the model; (d) target planners and technical support; (e) it should cover the GIS model – habitat base data; the process of how to run

scenarios and the requirements of the model; (f) training must be practical on “how to” following senior official commitment to use the

model; and (g) use case studies to deliver some aspects of this training.

4 Protocols and Manuals

Idiot’s Guide A step by step idiot’s guide on how to use the model is required. Would be good to work with a Council planning and technical support team to prepare this guide. South Lanarkshire Council in particular raised this issue (Stuart McMillan, Planning Team Leader) A detailed checklist and set of Council protocols are required. Would be good to work with a Council planning team to establish the right type and level of protocols required. South Lanarkshire Council in particular raised this issue (Stuart McMillan, Planning Team Leader) Regional Advisor It was clear that a mechanism for promoting and managing the overall model would be required. Discussions took place around the idea that an appointment of a regional IHN advisor/ manager be created at the GNP. This could be a post that is rolled out in other regions, and if so, a network of region IHN Model managers would exist. There needs to be a place/ person that any planner from a local authority can contact/ call when requiring advice, scenario’s run, etc. This regional advisor could potentially coordinate the commissioning of the work required to update the model annually and ensure consistency of use across all LA’s and promote its use.

5 Political and Senior Management Support

There is clearly a need for greater buy-in and support for the model at a higher management and political level within the Councils. We were getting feedback that the model needed to be championed at a level that would force/encourage the planners to want to find out more and use it. Quite often we had confirmation that planners were going to turn up at the workshop, but at the last minute had to pull out due to workload. Our perception, was that the model was being looked at as if “we don’t have time for this”, “its not relevant to me”, “nobody is telling me to do it”. The GNP should be targeting senior planning officials, preferably the Heads of Departments and key politicians/Councillors with planning interests.


6 Pilots and the Next Issue

In refining the model, parallel to preparing for the April 2009 update and the preparation of training materials there would appear to be a period of 4-5 months in which time and resources could be given to the above issues. The practical use and application of the model will be the acid test. A number of case studies were suggested as potential pilots for the model. The following four cover different scenarios: (a) Renfrewshire Council are undertaking a Hedgerow Study – how might a project like this provide a

new habitat for the model and what are the key issues in terms of survey/ surveyors, etc; (b) South Lanarkshire Council have requested that the developers responsible for Masterplanning

the Newton and Hamilton West Community Growth Areas use the IHN Model as part of the scope of works in their EIA;

(c) East Renfrewshire Council are looking at two community growth areas (approx 500 residential

units each) that they believe could be used to pilot the use of the IHN Model; and

(d) East Dunbartonshire Council have a project called Woodilee, which has already received planning permission, but might be useful to examine on a retrospective basis to test the what if’s in a less contentious planning context – i.e. it has got planning permission.

The GNP should discuss with the relevant LA’s how these case studies might be used, how it would work and when it would need to take place. Selecting appropriate case studies from the above list and possibly working with a Council in relation to the protocols/ guides over the next 4-5 months would inform the next stage and help establish a programme of action. It is vital that whatever happens next, the GNP must be ready to follow up any release of model data in 2009 with detailed training events and a committed programme of action and support – for at least 12 months, but probably more, given the nature and length of projects and plans where the model is likely to be of most use.


Appendix A The following workshops have now been completed 02.09.08 North Lanarkshire Council Attendees

Nicola Duenas (Landscape Designer Development Projects Team, Planning) [email protected] Derek Taylor (Planning Officer, Sustainable Development Team, Planning) [email protected] Paul Baker (Ecologist, Conservation and Greening) [email protected] Alison Graham (SINC Biodiversity Officer, Conservation and Greening) [email protected] Gerry Lewis (Conservation Officer, Conservation and Greening) [email protected]

Vicky Abernethy (Conservation and Greening Manager) Brian Cairns (Access Liaison Officer, Development Projects Team, Planning) Laura Whyte (Biodiversity Officer, Conservation and Greening)

03.09.08 Renfrewshire Council Inverclyde Council East Renfrewshire Council Attendees

Judith Chalmers, Renfrewshire Council [email protected] Sydney Maitland, Renfrewshire Council [email protected] Jennifer Gough, Renfrewshire Council [email protected] Petrina Brown, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire LBAP [email protected]

Catherine Lambert, Renfrewshire Council [email protected] Ian Walker, East Renfrewshire Council [email protected] Julie Nicol, East Renfrewshire Council [email protected]


Alan Williamson, Inverclyde Council [email protected] Charlie Cairns, Inverclyde Council [email protected]

23.09.08 Glasgow City Council Attendees

Carol Maclean, Biodiversity Officer (LES) [email protected] Judith Parsons, Landscape Architect (DRS) [email protected] Sheila Russell, Ecologist [email protected] Keith Watson, Biodiversity Officer (LES) [email protected] Ian Gibson, Senior Ecologist (DRS) [email protected] John Grierson, Project Management Design [email protected] Geoff Foord, Strategic Drainage (DRS) [email protected]

02.10.08 SNH, RSPB, Forestry Commission, NFU, Greenspace Scotland, SEPA,

Central Scotland Forest Trust, FWAG Attendees Fiona Stewart, SNH

[email protected] Ea O’Neill, Greenspace Scotland [email protected] Toby Wilson, RSPB [email protected] Janet Beveridge, NFU [email protected] Emilie Wadsworth, CFST [email protected] David King, FWAG [email protected]


Arthur Keller, SNH [email protected] Tommy McGrory, FCS [email protected] Maida Ballarim, FCS [email protected] Tom Hobbs, FCS [email protected] Malcolm Crosby, FCS [email protected] Phillip Wilson, SEPA [email protected] Jimmy Hyslop, SNH [email protected]

03.10.08 East Dunbartonshire Council

Attendees Heather Raphael, Planner (Strat. Applications), Development Management [email protected] Alan Aitken, Senior Planner (Strategic), Development Management [email protected] Jennifer Mullen, Planner (Householders), Development Management [email protected] Kevin Aryue, Planner (Customer Care), Development Management [email protected] Helen Atkinson, Planner (Major Applications), Development Management [email protected] Mark Carey, Validation Officer [email protected] Maria Veerapen, Planner (Major Applications), Development Management [email protected] Robbie McNaugher, Planner (Performance) [email protected] Stewart McNally, Planner (Strategic), Development Management [email protected]


Bob Steedman, Senior Planner, Policy [email protected] Nigel Hopper, Planning Manager [email protected] Neill Hunter, Technical Officer [email protected]

29.10.09 South Lanarkshire Council

Attendees Chris Walker, Project Development Officer, Landscape & Greenspace [email protected] Sheila Alderson, Planner, Local Plans and Structure Plans [email protected] Stuart McMillan, Planning Team Leader [email protected] Karen Brown, Planner [email protected] Gail Rae, Planning Team Leader [email protected] Linda Dickson, Planning Team Leader [email protected] Steven Clark, Planning Team Leader [email protected] Cathy Bradly, Planning Team Leader [email protected] Simon Pilpel, Landscape/Access Officer [email protected] Malcolm Muir, Countryside and Greenspace Manager [email protected]

West Dunbartonshire Council requested that their workshop be postponed into 2009 as the Planning Department was going through a Public Local Inquiry with its Local plan and could not make staff available during this period. Andrew Bayne (EDAW) discussed this with Ally Corbert (Green Network Partnership) and it was agreed that this was OK, and that it would be beneficial to undertake the final local authority workshop in Spring 2009 as it would offer the opportunity to the GNP to test/ raise any further ideas or an advanced version of the model.


Appendix B: Outline Workshop Agenda 14.00 Coffee/ Welcome

14.10 Introduction Who we are and why we are here. Structure of the session.

Context – Importance of Habitat in planning, development and design decisions. Working on a tool for daily decision making – a tool to foster better conversations about habitats in

planning decisions/ policy – not about trying to make you all experts.

Outputs and Feedback from the day – introduce the model, explore its uses, identify where it can be improved and tailored to your needs.

14.25 The Model Present an overview of the Integrated Habitat Network Modelling – what it does, it is unique, GCV leading the way, availability and robustness, future plan – review, update, management, application.

14.45 Applying the Model

Its relevance to you – How the model can be applied to make your life easier - aid critical

decisions.

Tiers of application – development plan preparation, policy making and formulation of standards, cross (LA) border awareness/ integration, development and design briefs, master

planning, design coding, assessing impact/ opportunity of applications, application review,

discussion and assessment, legal agreements, landscape management & maintenance. 15.00 Testing Scenarios

Facilitated group discussion and working. Based upon a case study.

16.00 Feedback/ Questionnaire Facilitated group discussion and completion of questionnaire.

16.30 Close


Appendix C: Outline Workshop Presentation

1

06/11/20081

Integrated Habitat Network Modelling

A Valuable Asset for Plan Making and

Creating High Quality Places

WORKSHOPAndrew Bayne, EDAW & Mike Smith, Forest Research

South Lanarkshire Council29 October 2008

06/11/20082

Introduction

06/11/20083

TODAY

• Setting the Context – Why Bother with Habitat?

• An outline of the Habitat Model

• How will it help YOU?

• Testing a “real” scenario

• Where has it worked before?

• Feedback

06/11/20084

THE BENEFITS OF THE IHN

• Provides a comprehensive “live” database

• Saves time and money

• More informed decisions

• Better biodiversity

• Better places

• Better and more integrated policies/ proposals

• more sensitive and practical development proposals

• Helps prioritise, structure and guide

06/11/20085

Source: CABE Making Contracts work for wildlife: how to

encourage biodiversity in urban parks

06/11/20086

Green Network: 2006 Structure Plan (Operative from 29 April 2008)

2

06/11/20087

Key Diagram: 2006 Structure Plan (Operative from 29 April 2008)

06/11/20088

The Basics

Source: CABE Start with the Park

Source: CABE Making Contracts work for wildlife: how to

encourage biodiversity in urban parks

06/11/20089

2 Challenge the myths

1 You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone

06/11/200810

4 Keep it clean

3 Keep it appropriate

06/11/200811

5 Keep it dynamic

6 Size matters

06/11/200812

7 Safety in numbers

8 The sum is bigger than the parts

3

06/11/200813

9 More structure meansmore diversity

10 It’s a matter of life and death

06/11/200814

11 Life on the edge

12 Remember the bigger picture

06/11/200815

The Values of biodiversitySource: CABE Making Contracts work for wildlife: how to encourage biodiversity in urban parks

1 It’s good for people

06/11/200816

2 It involves communities

3 It’s cost-effective

06/11/200817

4 It creates a sense of place

5 It’s good for wildlife

06/11/200818

6 It contributes to sustainability

7 It contributes to a greener infrastructure

4

06/11/200819

BETTER CONVERSATIONS

06/11/200820

ProcurementProcurementOfficerOfficer

SurveyorSurveyorArchitectArchitect

EngineerEngineerBioBio--diversitydiversity

OfficerOfficer

Planner/ Planner/ Urban Urban

DesignerDesigner

Economic Economic Development Development

OfficeOffice

Landscape Landscape ArchitectArchitect

DeveloperDeveloper

BETWEEN PROFESSIONS

06/11/200821

The Model

06/11/200822

GREEN NETWORKS

• Networks for People: Multi functional Green Networks

• Biodiversity Networks: Glasgow and Clyde Valley (GCV) Integrated Habitat Network

• Networks of People: Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement

06/11/200823

Glasgow & Clyde Valley Integrated Habitat Network (IHN)

PURPOSE: to create a strategic framework for functioning habitat networks across the GCV area focusing on key habitat types:

• woodland habitats;• grassland; and• wetlands.

….and why do we want them?

To provide a DECISION SUPPORT TOOL that can identify areas that are ecologically connected and can be used to target and justify conservation effort in relation to policy drivers.

06/11/200824

Each habitat has been looked at in terms of :

• functional connectivity

• relationship to designated sites

• balancing priorities/resolving

• conservation conflicts

• planning issues

• potential for targeting of agri-environmental incentives.

5

06/11/200825

BEETLE: Biological and Environmental Evaluation Toolsfor Landscape Ecology

• Initially for woodlands: Forest Habitat Networks - National Scale Analyses- Regional Scale Analyses e.g. Grampian- Landscape Scale Analyses e.g. Glen Affric

• Lowland Habitat Network project

• Integrated Habitat Networks for a range of habitats- Glasgow and Clyde Valley - Falkirk

• Multifunctional green networks

06/11/200826

FRAGMENTATION Process

Woodland removed

Woodland area reduced

Woodland dissected

06/11/200827

Woodland area reduced

Local extinction risk

increases

Isolation of woodland increases

Chance of re-colonisation

declines

FRAGMENTATION Consequences

06/11/200828

SPECIES DISPERSAL

• Different species have different dispersal abilities and habitat requirements

• Habitat networks are defined by the ability of species to move through the landscape from one habitat patch to another

• The different species selected are used to represent key functions of particular habitats and the species that use them

06/11/200829

LANDSCAPE PERMEABILITY

High permeability

Low permeability

NaturalStructurallyComplex

UnnaturalStructurally

Simple

Semi-natural scrub, bracken

Heathlands

Unimprovedgrasslands

Semi-improvedgrasslands

Improved grassland, arable

Habitat Characteristics

Urban, water

06/11/200830

INTEGRATED HABITAT NETWORKS METHODOLOGY

Aim

• To model the functional connectivity of green space and how these relate to each other

Approach

• Classification of each landcover type into one of biodiversity categories (habitats)

• Employ GIS modelling to represent the functional connectivity of each network

6

06/11/200831

Functional connectivity – the landscape structure mattersGreenspace patches identified

Predicted connectivity based on 300 m dispersal

Landscape permeability

Functional connectivity

The networks are defined as areas of greenspace that are functionally connected

06/11/200832

MAXIMUM DISPERSAL DISTANCES

06/11/200833 06/11/200834

06/11/200835 06/11/200836

7

06/11/200837 06/11/200838

06/11/200839

ANALYSIS: OPTIONS FOR STUDY AREA

• Target habitat restoration

• Use flood risk data for targeting

• Use SUDS as a tool for delivery

• Increase permeability of development landcover -corridors, stepping stones etc.

• Conservation strategies based on habitat function rather than species protection

06/11/200840

Landscape-scale action: policy drivers• Planning strategies: structure and master planning

• Biodiversity conservation strategies: BAP and LBAP

• Water Framework directive: Basin Management Plans

• Climate change: resilient landscapes

Landscape-scale action: management driversOperational• Habitat scale – guide management, operations, plans

Strategic• Country/region scale – strategic planning, policy, targeting grant aid

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NETWORK OUTPUTS

06/11/200841

Applying the

Model

06/11/200842

THE POTENTIAL

• More integrated approach to land-use planning and design

• Better awareness of habitat

• Better quality and credibility of base mapping

• Development plan preparation

• Policy formulation – open space/SUDS, conversation, development, greenbelt, countryside, recreation

• SPG and standards

• Master plans/ development briefs/ codes

• Applications – design, layout, S75 agreements, infrastructure design

• BEST USE OF SCARCE RESOURCES

8

06/11/200843 06/11/200844

WINCHBURGH, West Lothian: Structure Plan

06/11/200845

WINCHBURGH, West Lothian: Emerging Local Plan

• A Local Plan Proposition

• Inviting Developer Response

06/11/200846

WINCHBURGH, West Lothian: Finalised Draft Local Plan

06/11/200847

Developer’s Master Plan – Landscape Framework

06/11/200848

9

06/11/200849

Developer’s Master Plan – Integrated Approach

06/11/200850

06/11/200851 06/11/200852

Developer’s Master Plan – A Better Plan

06/11/200853

Urban Habitats & Connections

06/11/200854

Integrated SUDS Design

10

06/11/200855

Designing Urban Fringes – Sensitively!

06/11/200856

Designing Natural Areas and Managing Public Access

06/11/200857

Testing Scenarios

06/11/200858

INTRODUCTION

• Split yourselves into groups

• Appoint a leader – who will report back

• You are going to come up with a better plan in the knowledge of the IHN

• Key objective is to prioritise the improvement to the habitat network

06/11/200859

THE CHALLENGE

You are to:

• improve this plan

• List issues for discussion with the developer

• Write headlines for guidance, standards and/or policy

….as the basis to guide this site’s future development

HOW and WHAT would you do….in the knowledge of the IHN model data?

06/11/200860

11

06/11/200861

Scenario DiscussionIssues & Ideas

06/11/200862

Feedback

QuestionnairePlease complete the questionnaire provided

Any Comments?

06/11/200863

Thank You

integrated habitat network model dissemination report

Documents

edaw plc norloch house

workshop edaw

model methodology

kings stables road

edinburgh eh1

scotland t

introduction edaw

present species