Housing Developments and iRecord

Can you share the name of the sites and your recorder name? It shouldn't be too difficult to create a filter that shows all the records.

The two sites are - Guild Field, Folders Lane, and Field adjacent to Guild Field, Folders Lane. Both are in Burgess Hill, Sussex. My recorder name is Ben Inman. The thing is I don't want my records to be available to myself, I can manage that - I want them to be easily available to council officers and planners. Could there not be a function where they simply click on an area and the records for that area come up? The whole process seems unneccessarily convoluted.   

It sounds like you need to set up a group activity. This will allow you create a filter for a precise area that you can draw on the map, and also add various other conditions that control what actions can be performed within the activity, and by whom. You can then invite others users to join your activity, which will provide a much more convenient way to view the list of records.

A word of warning: before you create an activity, pleaser note that it is currently impossible to delete it afterwards! In addition, you should also take great care when drawing the boundary on the map, because subsequent edits don't seem to "stick" (or at least, I could not find a way to do that). I would therefore advise creating a practice filter on the Explore Page first, so as to make sure it includes all the records relevant to your activity.

There are c. 230 records for Inman, ben 

Is that you?

Robert Homan

Hi Ben.

I'm not sure why you have had trouble finding records for your sites - I have gone to All records > Create Filter > "Search for site names containing..." and typed in "Guild Field", which has brought up 165 records (at a glance they all appear to be yours). Similarly I could search by grid reference, and choosing TQ3317 it brings up 384 records, the previous ones plus ones for a site called Ditchling Common. So I don't think you have to worry that they are not there or easily findable.

I do however think that the wildlife trust person you spoke to might have been unclear as to the likely process with regards to development. I think it is highly unlikely that a developer or planning officer would actually go into iRecord and look for the records there. The process in Norfolk, which I assume follows some sort of national guidelines, would be that a developer would appoint an ecologist who would carry out a "desk survey" to find what records existed. This would usually be done by them contacting the local biodiversity records centre to see what data is available (this would be SxBRC in your case). So the important thing is have your records entered into iRecord been downloaded by SxBRC? All biological records centres have access to iRecord data, but whether they download it might depend on staffing, procedures etc. I notice that the majority of your records have been verified, which is a good sign, however with regards to the butterflies they will probably have been verified by someone on behalf of Butterfly Conservation, who may or may not share that data with other parties.

In short I would recommend contacting someone at SxBRC to check they have your records. If not then it would be simple to download them from iRecord in spreadsheet form and email them across.

The other issue here is that most LRCs won't supply consultants with unverified records - for obvious reasons.  As most records are verified by volunteers, it depends on their time and availability, so can take some time to get through the system - and some groups may not have verifiers for your area.  What I would recommend is to put your records onto iRecord and then look in Explore My Records, run a filter for the site - then you can use the download button at the bottom and create a zip-file of them all.  Then you can send that on direct to whoever... and they are in the national system too.  You can't do this with other people's records though, UNLESS you have set up an Activity, then as Admin for that you can download everyone's records, so long as they entered them under the activity.  

Also - I agree with James's comments on whether or not the individual LRC regularly downloads them - might be worth asking them?

Thanks everyone for all your help. I created a filter and my stuff came up. I do wonder if a council officer or planner would do that - I didn't! Also I did not know the names of the people concerned until after planning permission had been submitted, and then it was too late - on the site for which planning permission has been submitted the developers did employ an ecological consultancy firm ( Lizard Landscape Design and Ecology ) who were on the site for one day at a strange time of year and have not consulted any records at all as far as I can see, never mind SxBRC. I will try and get my records lodged with SxBRC in future however. But the deadline for objections to the site has now passed. Aren't developers obliged to consult biological records?  One main reason  ( if not the main reason ) for making records is surely to protect these places. Isn't there an argument for making all these seperate recording systems join up somewhere? Things must slip through all the time.

- On the subject of verification - some of my records have been waiting almost a year ( but that's another matter! )

Based on the site details you had provided and the use of Lizard Landscape design and ecology I think I have found the planning application you refer to, for 40 houses.

I have gone through the supplied documents and found the ecological report (hopefully it will let me link directly to it - ViewDocument (midsussex.gov.uk)). On page 7 it confirms that a desk study was carried out by contacting SxBRC. The relevant text is: 

3.1.1 A desk study was conducted to establish the presence of priority habitats, protected species and statutory designated sites within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the proposed development site. Details of all protected and notable species within 2.0km of the site was provided by Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre (SxBRC).

I'm writing this in a "don't shoot the messenger!" way, but unfortunately the planning system in England means that there are various groups or species that are afforded high protection, and others that aren't. Also,. even if something very rare is found on a site, it doesn't mean the development won't go ahead, it might just be mitigated, e.g. not working during the bird breeding season, or digging a pond nearby to relocate Great Crested Newts. Basically you have done what you can by recording and logging your sightings. The ones, hopefully most of them, that got through to SxBRC will have been included in the ecological report. BUT that doesn't mean the development won't go ahead. If the site is great for butterflies but they are all relatively common species, that is highly unlikely to be enough to stop or alter it.

On a separate note, yes, it would absolutely be for the best if all recording schemes and systems joined up, so that records that get verified are available for both local and national research, plus planning decisions etc. There are a range of reasons why this doesn't happen, mostly based on a huge number of volunteers doing most of the verifications, different charities and organisations 'owning' aspects of the data and underfunding/understaffing of records centres and national equivalents, so without huge funding and restructuring from the government it remains a pipe dream.

James Emerson you're amazing!