Publicly available planning figures show 17,000 planning applications were assessed in London between January and March last year (2011). In the same period, GiGL delivered just 144 data searches. While not all applications have a potential impact on London’s biodiversity and open spaces, this gap in numbers is very worrying and means less than 1% of planning applications in London are being informed by the GiGL partnership’s data.

Our concern has been two-fold. Firstly that planning applications are not being properly informed, and secondly, that potential partners and customers are by-passing GiGL and using the limited information we make available via the National Biodiversity Network’s Gateway tool.

The NBN’s Gateway tool displays collated data from the local record centre network, national schemes and societies. It is invaluable for genuine researchers who can make free use of its data and functionality. It is not, however, a free alternative to engaging with local records centres for potential partners and customers.

In Greater London, over half the species data currently available via the NBN Gateway belong to GiGL partners. These data are displayed in accordance with our accessing data policy and in the case of protected species are generalised to 10km resolution, making them accurate enough to inform national distribution maps but not to inform local planning decisions. In order to use these data via the Gateway, users must first apply for permission from the GiGL team. Unfortunately, many potential customers and partners have been using the Gateway without permission from GiGL in preference to funding GiGL’s services, something we can easily trace using the behind the scenes functionality of the Gateway tool.

New guidance from the National Biodiversity Network will change this for the better. This guidance for local authorities and environmental consultants covers a range of planning-related activities, from desk studies by environmental consultants to the broad range of responsibilities of local authorities.

The guidance advocates working with the relevant local records centre (including GiGL in Greater London) as the local delivery partners of the National Biodiversity Network and the recognised sources of up to date and high resolution information on the end users’ areas of interest. Most crucially for GiGL, in trying to tackle inappropriate use of the NBN Gateway, the new guidance sets out the terms and conditions of its use.

We will regularly assess use of our partners’ NBN-hosted data to ensure users seek our permission for its use where relevant. These regular assessments will also ensure that our partnership and other service users  reflect the full range of organisations and individuals that need access to our partnership’s data to inform local, regional and national decisions. We will also be working closely with the National Biodiversity Network, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Association of Local Government Ecologists and other relevant organizations through ALERC to further strengthen the guidance and to ensure that decision-making in London is based on the most up to date and accurate data available.

An article providing information to consultants was published in the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s December edition of ‘In Practice’, and guidance for local authorities was written in conjunction with the Association of Local Environmental Records Centres (ALERC) and the Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) and distributed to local authorities by the local records centre network.

The green shows areas of open space. The light pink, smooth edged areas are the old ‘as the crow flies’ areas of deficiency, created by setting a buffer from the relevant sites. The darker pink with jagged edges are the more accurate data that Julie is currently working on. (You may have noticed a reduction in electricity and a slowing of the internet at night-time as a result.)

Have you ever wondered how many recreation grounds there are in Richmond? Or, what golf courses in Greenwich are called? Or, what area is covered by nature reserves in Newham? Wonder no more. GiGL are coming ever closer to being able to accurately answer all your open space questions. And it’s not only the simple questions we can answer.

This time last year we told you all about our open space dataset and how we were bringing it up to date. We have made significant and measurable progress over the past 12 months, both on the main dataset itself, and on services that make use of it.

We are currently updating GLA survey information on open spaces with more recent information from the boroughs from 2008 onwards. We have now completed this task for two thirds of the boroughs – a significant improvement to the quality and quantity of data available. Data are now available in a consistent format for the whole of Greater London. Open space typologies have been standardised, using both PPG17 categories and sub-categories, along with information on access and ownership types.

The information on site designations has also been updated and improved. Where sites are designated as sites of importance for nature conservation (SINCs), the code that identifies a SINC is given along with the percentage of the open space site which is covered by that designation. Information on other nature designations (SSSIs, SPAs, SACs, Ramsar sites, NNRs and LNRs) is also provided. London borough partners also receive information about the percentage of the site that falls within metropolitan open land and greenbelt.

Other designations indicated in the open space dataset are London commons, village greens and squares, sites on the English Heritage Parks and Gardens Register and Green Flag winners from 2010 and 2011.

A major part of GiGL’s open space work over the past year has been to create a dataset of spaces designated as public open space (POS). Spaces are divided into a site hierarchy (Regional, Metropolitan, District, Local, Small and Pocket Parks) that provides a benchmark for the provision of public open space across the capital, categorising spaces according to their size, facilities and local importance.

GiGL has sourced the POS designations from published borough documents, and by liaising with some borough officers. In cases where the designations are unclear, or where information is not available, GiGL has surmised likely designations from other information in the open space dataset.

The London Plan sets out a desirable maximum distance which Londoners should travel in order to access each hierarchy level of public open space. Areas outside of these distances are classified as areas of deficiency. By mapping these areas of deficiency, the provision of POS across Greater London can be analysed and open spaces planned and managed accordingly by relevant partners.

Previously, areas of deficiency have been based on distance as the crow flies, which gave no indication of the true distance people would  have to travel to access an open space. GiGL has developed a new method of accurately mapping areas of deficiency based on actual walking distances along roads and paths. This involves locating access points and using a clever piece of “network analysis” software to calculate walking routes based on the Ordnance Survey’s information on roads and paths.

GiGL’s open space and areas of deficiency datasets attracted the London Borough of Ealing to become a GiGL partner this year. We were pleased to trial this new method with Ealing, working closely with borough officers to produce accurate maps of areas of deficiency to public open space, which have been published in the borough’s green space strategy. These will be used to analyse open space provision in the borough. Ealing Planning Policy officer Ian Weake says of our work:

“Prior to joining GiGL, Ealing had been grappling with the task of preparing deficiency mapping of public open space in the borough, with limited success. The in-house mapping process had been particularly time consuming and the maps produced had been crude and limited. We were very keen to trail GiGL’s new methodology.  GiGL were able to tailor the outputs for our particular needs, and we were able to take advantage of their data sources, particularly in relation to open space adjoining but outside of the borough boundary. The new maps give us a very clear and accurate understanding of deficiency in the borough which has been key to informing the development of policies and proposals in our green space strategy and emerging Local Development Framework documents.  We hope to be able to take advantage of GiGL’s new methodology to map deficiency in relation to other types of open space too.”

The model also includes areas from sites outside borough boundaries, giving a more accurate idea of where areas of deficiency lie than using data from only within the borough.

GiGL’s work on AoD mapping is ongoing, but we plan to send the new AoD to POS datasets to GiGL partners in their data exchanges soon. If you would like any further information on POS or AoD, or if there is a project you would like our help on, please contact julie@gigl.org.uk.

John O’Neil, a PhD student at Glasgow Caledonian University, used GiGL’s open space data to assess the quality of the green network in Islington. His research has resulted in the creation of a new tool to help you get the most out of your green infrastructure.

Strategic and local planning policies increasingly seek to improve quality of life, to conserve and enhance biodiversity and respond to the challenges of climate change by providing high quality networks of urban green spaces.

Existing approaches generally assess quality at a site level but don’t assess the quality assessment of the green network as a whole. SIGNpost: (spatial indicators for the green network) is a new approach to quality assessment for use by policy makers and is underpinned by indicators of quality which can be applied at the neighbourhood, local authority, sub-regional or city-wide scales, complementing site level quality audits.

SIGNpost has been devised by analysing research literature, and through workshops with green network practitioners in planning, parks management and biodiversity. Using this two-fold approach, my research has identified six principles that are important for understanding the quality of the network: quantity, flood risk, proximity, biodiversity, linkage and cooling.

Each principle is assigned two specific indicators that can be organised into three groups to reflect the scope of quality: greenness (or the amount of green space), public accessibility and environmental performance. A scoring system for the quality of each indicator (‘A’ (high), to ‘D’ (low)) is linked to a suggested policy response to developing the green network. For example, a score of ‘A’ would be linked to a policy response to ‘protect and conserve’, while a policy strategy to ‘create and reinvent’ the network would apply to a score of ‘D’.

The ultimate aim of the SIGNpost tool is to help develop landscape-scale policies which maximise the benefits of the urban green network.

SIGNpost exploits data that is already widely collected to prepare open space strategies. This means the tool should not create an additional burden on resources, provided that good quality and up-to-date data is available.

Open space data made available by GiGL and the London Borough of Islington was invaluable in piloting SIGNpost. The indicators were applied to Islington and the results of the pilot discussed with council officers who felt that the results accurately reflected the state of the borough’s green network. This is an encouraging sign that existing datasets can, with SIGNpost, add value by providing information which is relevant at the network level. This should add to the pool of evidence available to policy makers to develop policy, prioritise interventions, and monitor outcomes over time.

John O’Neil, MA, MRTPI. PhD Research Student, Glasgow Caledonian University. john.oneil@gcu.ac.uk

We are seven months into the year-long CLARE (Connecting London’s Amphibian & Reptile Environments) project and the partners* have been busy raising awareness of herpetofauna and generating a wider interest in wildlife recording in the capital.

There is a dearth of information on amphibian and reptile populations in London, especially reptile populations. CLARE has focussed on finding every possible source of information on the subject. Strategic surveys may appear to be the obvious route but CLARE has instead been taking advantage of another often over-looked source of information – the public.

At events, both large and small over the summer months, CLARE gathered information on sightings of London’s herpetofauna from the public. This process not only uncovered over 150 new records for London, but also inspired a wider audience to record all manner of wildlife, and share this with GiGL.

At one such event, two young herp-enthusiasts (a boy and a girl) recounted their first meeting with a slow-worm – and an earlier meeting with CLARE staff at the Thames Festival. Word-for-word, they repeated what they had learned from CLARE, including that slow-worms are not snakes but legless lizards, and were able to name all the common native amphibians that are found in London.

We hope that our presence at events like the Mayor’s Thames Festival will continue to be as successful in raising awareness long into the future.

The public has been and will continue to be an invaluable source of wildlife records. One advantage of collecting data in this way is that the recorded species can be validated at the event using photos and comparisons. This saves a lot of time later on during the validation and verification process.

While gathering data from the public, CLARE have been developing relationships with other organisations and local groups to encourage London-wide sharing of herpetological data.

As the spring of 2012 approaches, CLARE will re-focus efforts on surveying and actively gathering data. Knowing where to begin looking for small creatures in an area the size of Greater London is an issue that needs to be tackled before we can begin surveying. Thanks to GiGL’s vast database and modelling skills, we now know the best locations to focus our survey efforts.

Using the GLA’s open space habitat data, we assigned each habitat type a ‘likelihood of presence’ score for each amphibian and reptile species found in London. Together with existing herp data, these scores helped produce maps that show the top 10% most likely locations for reptiles and amphibians to occur within London. The likelihood of a particular animal occurring in a particular area increases if two or more suitable habitats fall within it.

When plotted alongside the existing herpetofauna records these maps reveal areas of potentially suitable habitat for which we have no records. It is these areas which CLARE will target for surveying.

These maps also highlight potential re-introduction sites, helping us to deliver on one of London’s Biodiversity Action Plan targets to increase the distribution of amphibians and reptiles in Greater London.

With help from volunteers and London Wildlife Trust staff, CLARE will set up a number of long-term monitoring programmes. Herpetofauna survey training will be provided this spring, improving the skills of a wider audience and increasing the availability of herpetofauna data in the future.

If you are interested in helping out on any surveys this year please get in touch with Sophie, CLARE Project Officer: e:  Sophie.hinton@arc-trust.org t: 020 7261 0447/m: 07810 184 501 or tell us your sighting by visiting the CLARE form.

*CLARE Project partners: Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC), GiGL, London Wildlife Trust and London Amphibian & Reptile Group (LARG)

www.arc-trust.org/CLARE

Kate Mitchell, Hackney Biodiversity Officer

Hackney’s first biodiversity action plan went to public consultation in 2011 and is due to be formally adopted by the borough early this year. The delay in the BAP’s adoption hasn’t prevented the borough starting its delivery.

A GiGL biodiversity audit, together with local knowledge from the Hackney Biodiversity Partnership, helped us to understand the current biodiversity resource and formulate priorities for action. As a competent authority we need to make evidence-based decisions and GiGL provides us with an invaluable service across our work, particularly in our green space and planning teams.

Data collation and use have been written into the BAP, placing GiGL at the centre of its successful delivery. Hackney is actively promoting this two-fold approach to data in the borough:

Utilising data

As part of their service level agreement, Hackney has integrated GiGL datasets into their planning system. Buffers have been set around designated sites, priority habitats and protected species to flag biodiversity issues to planners using the M3 planning system. Any planning application which falls within the buffer area is required to submit biodiversity assessments and surveys. These assessments must be informed by a data search from GiGL, as per Hackney’s advice note Biodiversity Validation and Biodiversity Assessments.

Hackney’s Leisure and Green Spaces department also uses the borough’s service level agreement to inform site management and decision making. Since 2010, GiGL data has informed the management plans for each of Hackney’s Green Flag Award parks. The council’s project managers are also required to check GiGL data before commencing any park-based work, as detailed in the Hackney Projects Biodiversity Checklist.

Submitting data

Hackney is actively promoting the submission of wildlife records to existing recorders and interest groups through the council’s website and at a recording workshop, at which GiGL made a presentation. Useful data have already been submitted by local recorders, including almost 200 fungi records at Abney Park and 250 additional moth records. Hackney is now working with GiGL on a wider, public campaign in summer 2012 to encourage local residents to have a go at recording in their local green spaces.

The council is also seeking to mobilise its existing data held in electronic or paper format. Ruth Bramwell, Hackney’s biodiversity intern, recently undertook an audit of all known surveys and reports of Hackney Marshes, the largest green space in the borough and a Metropolitan SINC. Ruth worked with GiGL to discover which of these records they already held. She is now contacting all of the report authors whose data is not held by GiGL to encourage them to submit their data.

GiGL have been incredibly helpful in advising us how to get the most out of our SLA. Through integrating their information into our systems, I feel confident in our decisions knowing that we’re using the best available data.

Camden

Richard Harris, London Borough of Camden

One of the key principles of planning is that development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas. GiGL contributes significantly to this by collating, managing and making available detailed information on biodiversity and habitats in Camden.

Ecological assessments carried out as part of planning applications contain a wealth of data including habitat and protected species surveys, but this information is too often consigned to the planning archive where it remains unused and largely inaccessible.

Camden has turned this around, writing into planning guidance for the borough a requirement that new data submitted to the council by consultants be made available to GiGL and digitised to improve Camden’s evidence base. We use the following wording in our standard informative on planning applications:

‘You are advised that the biodiversity information/ecological assessments provided as part of this application will be made available to Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) – the capital’s environmental records centre. This will assist in a key principle of PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) by building up the database of up-to-date ecological information and this will help in future decision making.’

Once planning permission is in place, nature conservation volunteers perform a vital function, retrieving and collating ecological assessments before submitting them to GiGL. While this process is ensuring new data makes it to GiGL, our next challenge is to tackle our archive records.

Where appropriate, section 106 agreements have been used to secure financial contributions to fund the data collation and retrieval service provided by GiGL – something GiGL naturally consider to be very sensible and a great idea for other boroughs.

We all know that London is an historic city, but perhaps not so many of us give much thought to its geological history. The London Geodiversity Partnership (LGP), which formed in 2008, is a group of individuals and organisations with an interest in geology and the environment, who aim to promote and protect the capital’s vast geodiversity ‘the variety of rocks, fossils, minerals, landforms, soils and natural processes, such as weathering, erosion and sedimentation, that underlie and determine the character of our natural landscape and environment’.

The LGP is influential in the designation of local geological sites across London. Designation of these sites is one way of recognising and protecting important geodiversity and landscape features for future generations to enjoy. Sites are designated as either regionally or locally important geological sites (RIGS or LIGS). They are designated for their historic value, their aesthetic landscape value or their value for professional and amateur earth scientist study.

In London, sites range from natural exposures such as the black park gravel on Putney Heath, to natural landforms, such as the London Clay hillock near Chingford Hatch, to disused quarry works, such as Riddlesdown Quarry- the finest chalk exposure in London.

In 2009, the London Geodiversity Partnership and the GLA published a London Plan implementation report called London’s Foundations, which documented the city’s geodiversity, audited its key sites and listed those designated as RIGS and LIGS. For this report, designated sites were mapped by the British Geological Association and the GLA. This GIS dataset has now been given to GiGL to manage and maintain on behalf of the London Geodiversity Partnership.

London’s Foundations is currently being revised by the GLA, which has given the geodiversity partnership an opportunity to recommend more sites across London for designation. GiGL are working with the partnership to digitise the new site boundaries and supply site and London wide maps for the new document. The process of site recommendation and designation is on-going as the partnership continue to audit sites across the city. GiGL will continue to work with the partnership to keep the geodiversity dataset up to date.

Local geological sites are non-statutory designations equivalent to sites of importance for nature conservation (SINCs). RIGS are equivalent to metropolitan SINCs and LIGS are equivalent to sites of borough or local importance. There are also seven statutory SSSIs in Greater London designated for their geological features. GiGL now supplies information about RIGS and LIGS alongside information about SINCs in their data search reports.

This is helping the LGP raise awareness of geodiversity sites and helping to encourage the inclusion of recommended geodiversity sites into local development frameworks. It is important that clients, such as environmental consultancies, know about the geological value of sites so that development plans can be altered to prevent any damage to sensitive areas or to enhance the educational value of geological features.

As well as designating sites, the London Geodiversity Partnership works to raise awareness of London’s geology. In 2010, they published an action plan which provides a framework for understanding, conserving and using London’s geodiversity resources. As part of this they are also involved in educational projects, such as Building London, which provided a summary of building stone resources in London, and designing a geological Green Chain Walk, a geotrail that runs from the Thames Barrier to Lesnes Abbey.

More information about the geodiversity dataset can be found on the GiGL website or more information about the London Geodiversity Partnership can be found on their website, www.londongeopartnership.org.uk.

In the winter of 2008, we discussed how GiGL had been commissioned by the Capital Woodlands Project to help identify areas of London lacking street trees.

In this article, we return to the subject but take a broader look at street trees in London and at aspects of street tree data management.

The London Assembly’s 2007 report, Chainsaw Massacre, highlighted ‘the unfortunate practice of removing broadleaf trees to avoid subsidence damage claims’. At the same time, they found that ‘Londoners value the shade and cooling that urban street trees offer in the summer, how they improve street environments and reduce noise and dust from road traffic [and] crucially, how they also mop up carbon emissions’.

This report led to the creation of the Mayor’s street trees programme, which aimed to plant 10,000 additional street trees by March 2012 across 40 priority areas – those with the fewest street trees that would most benefit from the social, economic and environmental improvements that trees provide. It has been a major success. Applications for the fourth and final round of the programme have now closed and the final 500 trees will be planted this winter.

It is especially satisfying that the priority areas were identified using a GIS model that GiGL created.

In creating the model, GiGL collated data from the London boroughs on street tree location, height, girth, canopy and age, and other attributes. Recognising the potential of this London-wide dataset for other projects, GiGL worked with The Forestry Commission and the London Tree Officers Association to create a bespoke data exchange agreement. This allows two-way exchange of tree data between GiGL and its partners but, at the request of the tree officers association, does not provide the data to the National Biodiversity Network or to commercial customers.

Currently around a third of boroughs have agreed to participate in this exchange of tree data and we hope more will join as the benefits become clear. The usefulness of a London-wide tree data set is also apparent to the GLA, and to the London Assembly who state, in their recent report Branching Out, ‘There is a ready and robust dataset available through GiGL, but it would require boroughs to agree to submit their data on an annual basis. We do not think this would present a disproportionate bureaucratic burden or be expensive. … it would allow a records management organisation (such as GiGL) to manage the data on boroughs’ behalf, thereby alleviating tree departments of that cost’.

With GiGL managing a London-wide tree dataset, we could carry out useful statistical analyses, using tree data alongside other GiGL datasets, under existing borough service level agreements. For example, we could:

•    Work out trees at risk of disease using records from the London Invasive Species Initiative.

•    Estimate the proportion of different tree species to the overall canopy.

•    Based on surrounding species and habitats, to inform planting of the right tree in the right place.

•    Ensure tree records contribute to other agendas, such as:

• Nature improvement areas
• London Biodiversity Partnership habitat suitability model
• London Wildlife Trusts garden campaign
• All London Green Grid

We have also been approached by the London Tree Officers Association about the possibility of putting their tree data on the soon to be launched iGiGL mapping interface. If funded, this project could enable members of the public to find trees of interest and request specific services such as pruning and disease treatment, and specify how urgent the request is. It could also aid borough tree officers responding to such requests, and allow the general public to add new tree records where these appear to be missing from the borough data, for instance where a tree is in private garden.

All things considered, we have come a long way since the Chainsaw Massacre report, and we hope to build on successes to date so that the GiGL partnership can soon realise the full benefits of a London wide tree dataset.

Orientus ishidae

Last year I undertook a photographic invertebrate study of a seemingly insignificant park in London. I was interested in what I would find in a small urban park. I chose Warwick Gardens in Peckham as it was close to my home, making it easy to pop there for a couple of hours each day.

My mission was to photograph everything that moved.

The habitat turned out to be great. The park is flanked by a railway line and gardens, where hawthorn, chestnut, hazel and hornbeam trees grow. The council has allowed the borders to go wild with barley grass, thistles, nettles, green alkanet, comfrey and black horehound. Plants like ivy, rose and bramble overflow from the gardens alongside sycamore, hazel and lilac. And much of the grass is punctuated with yarrow and ragwort.

From March until December I spent every possible day crouched in the bushes with my camera uncovering a plethora of insect life. I found blue wasps, barkflies, bugs, more bees and wasps than I can name, and a leafhopper that turned out to be the first recorded sighting in the UK. A lilac bush where a lot of insects were sunning themselves was where Orientus ishidae chose to hang out.

To help with species identification, I uploaded all my photos onto Flickr where I found a whole community of entomologists more than willing to share their knowledge. One day in September, I had a notification from Tristan Bantock, the national recorder for shieldbugs, about a leafhopper I had photographed. Tristan told me this was the first recorded UK sighting of Orientus ishidae.

My first reaction was “blimey”. I really wasn’t expecting to find a new species. Tristan arranged to visit the park where we found another Orientus ishidae which he took away to formally identify. The find caused a stir in the leafhopper community and the next two weeks saw a flurry of entomologists visiting the park with sweepnets – much to the amusement of regular park users.

Orientus ishidae is a beautiful looking leafhopper with an orange mosaic pattern on the wings. It prefers hazel to other plant species.  The railway line that runs along the side of the park is one possible explanation for how it landed in Peckham, having been swept in by the passing trains. I found a couple more in the following weeks sitting on the lilac.

I am immensely proud that my small survey could throw up something so significant, and happy that all the hours I spent in the bushes with a camera put Peckham on the entomological map. For a while I became a local celebrity after an account of my find appeared in the local press, and the local bookseller told all her customers about it. It was a delightful story to tell all the park users who had spent months asking me “What are you doing?”. Some of them are now equipped with a photo of the leafhopper as I have recruited them to look out for it.

For me, the most interesting outcome from this survey has been the variety of insects I found. According to Tristan, there are some ‘significant’ species living in Warwick Gardens, including Rhaphigaster nebulosa, Synophrophsis lauri, Rhyparochromus vulgaris, Arocatus longiceps and southern green shield bugs. I hope this project goes some way to highlight the importance of our urban habitats.

I am planning a talk with a slideshow in March where the local residents can come and learn about the bug life in their local park. I would like them to feel proud of what is on their doorstep. And I would like to encourage everyone to stop for a couple of minutes and peep into the bushes – you never know what you might find.

© AskAuk.com

In this our 10th edition of the GiGLer, we take a quick look at how things have changed over the five years of the GiGLer’s existence.

In the early summer of 2006, we had just launched as an open space and biodiversity records centre after our two-year development phase and had four staff. Five years on and we’re a fully fledged environmental records centre with seven members of staff: a director, project and data development manager, 2 data officers, records officer, data assistant and a Royal Parks officer.

Our partnership has increased from 19 organisations in 2006 to over 50 in 2011. We now include government agencies, local authorities and public and private sector bodies in our membership.

The increase in staff has brought significant improvements to the expertise and services we offer and to the range of data we manage. We have undertaken over 2,500 data searches during the past five years, and have achieved a 40% increase in the number of searches undertaken annually between 2006 and 2011.

The partnership has improved its data holdings by over one million species records and 8,500 habitat records. We’ve also created new datasets to reflect the wider audience for GiGL services, including London’s open space network, the non-statutory public open space hierarchy, and tree coverage.

The GiGL team has also been involved in some significant projects in London and further afield, many of which have been covered in the GiGLer.

From involvement in World Heritage Site bids, to demonstrating how environmental records centres can utilise the tools developed by the National Biodiversity Network. From helping to organise national conferences for the UK’s environmental records centre staff to setting up the professional body that now represents them. You can search the online archive of all previous articles from within this edition of the GiGLer, which also details our recent key achievements including the launch of the garden research project results, improvements to our data search service, implementation of the habitat suitability maps, creation of the All London Green Grid Evidence Partnership and the new greenspace related search facilities on our website.

We also include a whole new section of guidance to help you get the best out of our partnership’s data and related products and services.

© AskAuk.com

The All London Green Grid (ALGG) is a strategic project which provides a framework for the creation, enhancement and management of multifunctional green and open spaces across the whole of Greater London. GiGL is working with the project’s leaders, Design for London, to provide the evidence behind this important initiative.

The ALGG has eight key objectives, including:

• improving access to open space and nature,
• managing flood risk,
• enhancing connections between distinctive destinations,
• producing healthy communities and
• promoting productive landscapes.

The green grid divides London into twelve areas, based predominantly on the landscape and character of different areas of London. The green grid works with local and regional organisations and interest groups to help identify the projects and opportunities specific to each of the twelve areas . The ALGG is achieving its aims by highlighting strategic links between these projects.

Evidence is essential to direct the formation of these strategic corridors, links and projects. It is vital to show the current situation and also to highlight possible opportunities for improvements. GiGL’s open space information has provided the baseline evidence, and we are also working to provide a London-wide dataset on the locations and designations of public open space, and associated areas of deficiency to accompany this.

GiGL is further assisting the ALGG by coordinating an evidence partnership for the project. We have brought together organisations in London who own or manage data which is potentially valuable to the workings of the green grid. In February, GiGL chaired a meeting of the evidence partnership which was agreed by all to be very useful in assessing what information was available and how that information is being/should be used.

The partnership aims to ensure that accurate evidence is available to support all of the objectives of the green grid. Whilst GiGL is able to provide information on access to open space and nature from our partnership, other organisations are able to contribute information for other aspects of the green grid’s work.

For example, English Heritage holds a vast amount of information relevant to London’s distinctive destinations. The evidence partnership has agreed to maintain an up to date catalogue of data available for use by the green grid that highlights what data are available from where and when they are likely to be updated. It will also contain information on what licenses are needed to use and publish the different datasets.

Through partnership working, the ALGG is not only able to access a large range of data sets, but also a wealth of expertise and advice. Members of the evidence partnership should be used to guide the All London Green Grid in the best use of available data.

The evidence partnership currently consists of Design for London, English Heritage, the Environment Agency, the Greater London Authority, GiGL, Groundwork, London Biodiversity Partnership, the London Tree Officers Association, Natural England and Sustrans. If you or your organisation would like to be involved, please contact julie@gigl.org.uk.