Agenda item

To receive a presentation from Robert Deane of Rural Focus (see also report/PDF supplied). To note the draft plan and raise and discuss any issues arising.

Robert Deane of Rural Focus Ltd. explained that a Nature Recovery Plan was being developed following one of the pledges made in the Colchester Declaration ‘to work towards the creation of Nature Recovery Plans (NRP) for each AONB.’ The context for this work was explained, including the findings of the National Landscapes review and the 25 Year Environment Plan which encouraged the development of a Nature Recovery Network. The Environment Bill would introduce statutory Nature Recovery Strategies at a County level and the new Environmental Land Management Schemes looked likely to include Local Nature and Landscape recovery schemes.

The aims of Malvern Hills AONB NRP were to inform and advise, to help to support work at scale, to harness collective effort and to direct resources. The area covered was the AONB plus 3km around the boundary.

The work which had been carried out to date on the NRP included an online survey, one to one discussions and a workshop with partners. As a separate but related process, the AONB Unit had also worked with others to map the provision of ecosystem services (the way nature provides benefits for people) as well as ecological opportunities in the study area.

The consultation work carried out thus far had revealed that most people felt the plan should be about nature in its broadest sense and that it should work with and support farmers and landowners. Also, that it should look at habitat networks rather than going to a detailed field by field approach. This steer had been sed to inform a first draft of the plan.

The next steps were to take account of all the comments that might be received, carry out more one to one sessions, review the mapping data for accuracy, to draft a table of actions and to consider what the future monitoring requirements would be.

Committee members discussed the draft plan and made various comments:

·       A member was pleased to see that that there was mention of geology in the plan. In the AONB there were three SSSIs for geology and it was queried whether quarries should be considered as a habitat in their own right as the areas were unique.

·       Questions were asked about why sustainably produced food should be described as ‘secure’ and was the reference to clean and ‘plentiful’ water showing that there was an ambition to store more water? In response it was explained that secure food resources referred to food being from our own resources, and ‘plentiful’ water was a government term which was not about storage of more water in reservoirs but rather enabling constant supplies and considering the effects of climate change.

·       There was concern around the term ‘encouraging activism’ because for farmers activism often meant illegal activity. It was explained that the plan sought to recognise activism in terms of generating community involvement in helping to solve the nature and climate crisis but it was acknowledged that the term could cause concern so a change of term would be considered.

·       It was felt that it was difficult to define the character of nature in a particular area as nature was dynamic. Various species were invasive and could easily spread to new areas. It was queried whether there should be an effort to manage the spread of such species to maintain the particular character of an area. The view was that within the plan there could be a focus on the health of habitats rather than species but also that we need to accept that nature was dynamic.

·       It was agreed that the report could be shared with other landowners but there was a caution that the plan was still an early (and incomplete) draft and was therefore subject to change. Once a final draft was available this would be widely distributed for consultation.

·       It was asked what was meant by “managing game birds for sustainable woodland and hedgerow management”. The response was that the phrase was taken from the Landscape Management guidelines and it was agreed that some of the management guidelines in the plan needed to be made more specific.

·       Following a query about monitoring, it was explained that this would be at a high level. There was an awareness that there was a shortage of data and some of the data that was available contained inaccuracies. It was also acknowledged that there was a lack of resources available for this work.

·       It was suggested that more consideration should be given to re-wilding. This could have a place, however, it was reported that the consultation exercise had shown that people favoured nature friendly farming rather than splitting land into areas with separate objectives. A reminder was given that the AONB was a cultural designation which was shaped by people, it was not a pristine wilderness.

·       It was not anticipated that this plan would have a great influence on planning issues as planning guidance and policy was already in place, from national to local levels. However, it could have a role in discharging duties related to Biodiversity net Gain, for example.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

a)     Noted the draft plan; and

b)    Raised and discussed any issues arising.