LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PRODUCTION OF  AND CONSULTATION ON  THE DRAFT MAPS FOR MAPPING AREAS 1 AND 2  
Recreation

Breadcrumbs

NCAF 14/1 Mapping - What we've learned

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PRODUCTION OF AND CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT MAPS FOR MAPPING AREAS 1 AND 2

Introduction

1. The exercise of producing draft maps for region 1 and 2 and consulting on them has in general terms, gone well. There are some things we have done that have worked very well, but there are also some things that can be improved. This paper sets out what we have done well, what we can improve on for future mapping areas, and what lessons we have learnt from the whole experience. 

What has worked well.

2. The Agency feel that the mapping methodology has, in general terms proved to be robust. It has provided a clear and consistent framework against which the mapping has been carried out. However, there are 2 small changes required, one is to improve the clarity of the criteria, and the other is to give the Agency greater flexibility to exercise its discretion to exclude small areas of open country on the grounds that they are too small to serve a useful purpose, (this is expanded on in more detail in the main lessons section of this paper).

3. The Agency has been pleased with the responses to the consultation. We feel that we have been effective in getting our message out to the general public and interested parties. This view is supported by the consultation statistics for region 1 and 2 which show that:

  • over 3000 people attended the roadshows held in region 1 and 2;
  • our website has received over 6 million hits; and
  • over 8000 people have actively participated in the consultation process by submitting comments on the draft maps. 
What we could have done better

4. In developing any new process there are bound to be teething troubles, which do not come to the fore until they are tried and tested for real. This is particularly true of the way in which we have used some of the data sets to identify qualifying habitat. In some areas the mapping was not as accurate as it could have been due to the age and reliability of the data sets. If we had been more discriminating in the use of these data and had up to date aerial photography to corroborate them, some of the inaccuracies could have been avoided. 

The main lessons we have learnt.

5. In reviewing the process that we have gone through to produce the draft maps for region 1 and 2, we have learnt a great deal. It is important that we take on board these lessons and apply them to the future mapping regions to improve the quality of the draft maps. The main lessons we have learnt are:

  1. We need to be more discriminating in the use of some data sets, in particular the quality of some phase 1 habitat data is questionable. In future where phase 1 data is the only data available it will be corroborated with aerial photography and/or site visits.
  2. We need to acquire and use all the high quality up to date aerial photography that is available. In regions 1 and 2 we only had patchy coverage. Where the photography was available we were able check the accuracy of the maps more effectively. 
  3. We need to adjust the criteria for excluding small areas of open country on the grounds that they are too small to serve a useful purpose, to give us greater flexibility in making judgements about these areas. 
  4. We need to make the meaning of 'excepted land' clearer. This has caused considerable confusion during the consultation. In future areas we intend to put some explanatory text onto the map legend to explain about excepted land.
  5. We need to make it clearer what we mean by 'openness'. We intend to do this by including some explanatory text in the revised methodology. This will be supplementary to the criteria for moor, heath and down.
  6. We need to carry out field visits to help us make decisions on cases which are difficult to determine.
  7. The data for East Sussex commons is not reliable, as the registers have not been formally reconstituted after the originals were destroyed by fire. We are currently evaluating how we show registered common land in East Sussex on the provisional map for area 1.
  8. We need to do more to help user groups understand the selection process for open country. We have received a large proportion of comments asking for land to be added to the provisional map on the grounds that it qualifies as open country. On further investigation, it often reveals that the land is wholly or predominantly improved or semi-improved grassland, and therefore does not qualify as open country.