Oxfordshire’s new LNRS Project Manager will present an update on the progress and plans of the LNRS steering group. The Board is asked to welcome Chloe Edwards and provide key comments on progress, plans and ambitions.
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed Chloe Edwards, Local Nature Recovery Strategy Policy Manager, Oxfordshire County Council, to the meeting in order to provide an update on the progress and plans of the LNRS project, including any emerging themes and issues.
Chloe indicated that since taking up her post in August she had been seeking to collate the different stakeholder perspectives of what the LNRS should contain and achieve at the start of its development, so that as much as possible the final document would reflect those views. The consensus position amongst the views expressed to date was that the LNRS should be ambitious and be designed around function and deliverability if it was to be considered to be a success. It was felt that there should be cohesive targets and objectives within the strategy and it was likely that the target of seeking to restore 30% of the county’s land for nature by 2030 would feature, but the Board was encouraged to suggest other local or national nature recovery policy objectives.
A project plan was being developed for consideration by the Steering Group which would include governance arrangements. Working groups reporting into the steering group had been created including ones around the themes of evidence, stakeholder engagement and communications. In addition to working with Matt Whitney as the LNP Manager, Chloe indicated she was working with various members of the Board on the project and was also liaising and networking with colleagues in neighbouring areas so as to ensure a joined up approach.
In the discussion that followed, members of the Board commented on the importance of the LNRS Policy Manager role in providing a central point of focus and co-ordination in the development of the LNRS and warmly welcomed Chloe to the role.
It was suggested that early contact should be made as part of stakeholder engagement with the Planning Advisory Group of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership, particularly in light of the issues arising around the impact of consideration of biodiversity net gain within the planning and Local Plan process.
In response to a question on anticipated timescales for the completion of drafts that views might be sort on, Chloe informed the Board that the programme was not yet set, but that looking at what other similar responsible authorities were doing this could involve the submission of a strategy around the end of 2024, early 2025 to HM Government. It was necessary to work back from that date to factor in stages such as consultation and a final review process. In addition, the decision making processes of the County Council as the responsible authority had to be taken account of. It was currently expected that priority engagement with farmers and owners of agricultural business about what they wanted from the LNRS would take place during autumn/winter of 2023.
Action: The Chair asked that when it was ready the expected timelines and programme be shared with the Board and it would be helpful if this could include any points in the process whereby engagement with the LNP Board would be most useful.
Prue Addison commented that there were four members of the LNP Board on the LNRS working group which was meeting on a monthly basis and therefore there was a good opportunity for information exchange between the two. Matt Whitney spoke to the expected engagement of all the LNP Board subgroups in the LNRS development process and commented that a methodology for considering and ranking suggested LNRS priorities was also being put together, taking into account and making clear any trade-offs.
The Chair asked for the Board’s reaction to the headline ambition of 30% of land to be connected and protected for nature’s recovery by 2030, otherwise known as ‘30 by 30’. A wide range of views were expressed, which are summarised below:
· 30 by 30 was a good high level aspirational target, but it would also be necessary to think beyond the headline information to more specific data as the situation was complex.
· There was a need for target habit extents within the LNRS.
· The real ecological network would need to be significantly larger than 30% because a large proportion of that land would not meet the criteria for 30 by 30 designation.
· The LNRS should set out what quantum of change was required to guide action by specifying how much protected priority habits were going to be increased and within specified timescales.
· It was recognised that 2030 was only seven years into the future and there was a need to plan over a much longer term horizon given that the LNRS would not be published for another two years. 30 by 30 was a valid initial aspiration by stakeholders should be asked to think far beyond 2030.
· 2030 by 2030 was an overall national target – it needed to be worked out what the impact of such a target would be locally in Oxfordshire and local decision makers should not constrained that they could not go above 30%.
· The LNRS should embed the principles of a science first, science based approach.
· Whilst not an alternative to 30 by 30, a suggestion from the LNP Forum had been around setting a percentage target, (perhaps around 90%) related to regenerative farming and the wider landscape. The initiative for all households to be within 15 minutes of green space or water, (‘Green and 15’), was another potential source of a target measure linked to health and nature which also would also align with the development of green infrastructure framework and standards from Natural England.
· Nationally, one study had estimated between 5-8% of land and water was current connected and protected for nature, (some were lower), which demonstrated the scale of the challenge to move this to 30% by 2030.
· New management plan guidance was to be published by DEFRA which would contain targets for all the protected landscapes, including a habitat extent target which would include a mechanism for applying the national target to individual AONBs.
The Chair commented on the apparent importance of getting the outputs from the LNRS process into local government decision making processes, particularly in relation to the development of Local Plans and that conversations around this should have already started.
Councillor David Rouane clarified that although Oxfordshire County Council had responsibility for the development of the LNRS, the District and City Councils were the local planning authorities. The Districts and City Councils were all at different stages of their next Local Plan processes, but the process was largely a continuous one. It was also important to be cognitive of the reality that decision making on Local Plans whilst informed by a scientific evidence base it was a democratic process and therefore a political one.
Ian Boll spoke to the delicate role of the role of the Planning Inspectorate in considering Local Plans and also highlighted the impact of Local Plan development on the resources of the councils and that it would be a busy period with pressure on capacity.
Chloe Edwards thanked the various members of the Board for their contributions and commented that she would be speaking to colleagues within each of the councils around how to engage with each of their council’s Local Plan processes and their respective decision making processes including when they might expect to receive LNRS documentation for consultation.
She commented that from the discussion the general principle of 30 by 30 was ambition that was supported, but that the reality of the situation was that it was a more complicated picture.
The Chair thanked Chloe for her appearance and commented that a further update in the future would be welcomed.