Oxfordshire local nature recovery strategy phase 3 consultation: analysis of responses

This report summarises the response to the public consultation on the draft Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) for Oxfordshire, which ran from 18^th October until 1^st December 2024. There was a high response, with a total of 2,143 responses including 41 emails, 127 survey responses and 1975 pins on the map (of which 435 were blank). These were analysed using a combination of AI and manual approaches to identify key themes, which are presented in this report. The survey responses demonstrated very high enthusiasm and engagement with the strategy, and all the responses shared a deep level of local knowledge. Overall, 74% agreed or strongly agreed that the draft strategy was a helpful set of priorities and actions to improve biodiversity in Oxfordshire, and only 12% disagreed. Several key themes emerged around how the strategy could be improved and strengthened. Key requests for change are summarised below. <ul> <li> <strong>Length and usability. </strong>The documents contain rich detail but are very long. There needs to be a concise summary, and separate guidance documents for farmers, planners, communities, businesses and funders. There needs to be an overarching vision and/or a set of principles. There were also suggestions for restructuring the Description of the Strategy Area to reduce repetition, and making the map more user-friendly. It was suggested that there could be catchier names for zones on map (Core, recovery, wider landscape) and distinct names for local areas.</li> <li> <strong>Urban areas </strong>are poorly represented. The importance of urban nature for people’s health and wellbeing should be emphasized, and more urban opportunities should be included on the map, including urban corridors.</li> <li> <strong>Large areas for nature</strong> are needed as well as a network of smaller areas. This comment was made by only a few responses but was strongly argued. It links to existing initiatives in the Bernwood-Otmoor-Ray region.</li> <li> <strong>The wider benefits of nature recovery</strong> for people need to be much more strongly recognized, to give the strategy more traction and to ensure it delivers multiple benefits and avoids trade-offs. This includes both the benefits for health and well-being, and other ecosystem services such as flood regulation, carbon storage, urban cooling and food production.</li> <li> <strong>Development concerns and other land use conflicts</strong>. Many comments expressed concern and distress about loss of green spaces to development. There were calls for more clarity on how the LNRS would interact with planning policy, both from residents wishing to protect their treasured nature-rich green spaces and from planners noting potential conflicts with areas allocated for development in Local Plans. However there were also comments about how the LNRS could help to guide future Local Plan allocations, and inform green infrastructure within planned developments. Other land use conflicts included the impacts of farming and recreation on nature, and the potential loss of farmland due to some nature recovery actions. Some responses noted the need to balance multiple needs, and the related need for a land use strategy for Oxfordshire (some of which goes beyond the legal powers of an LNRS).</li> <li> <strong>Water quality. </strong>Several comments noted that water quality improvement is essential for nature recovery, as well as for human health and wellbeing. There were suggestions for how the LNRS could support water quality to some extent through encouraging nature-based solutions, but also strong agreement that the sources of water pollution must be tackled though working with water companies and farmers.</li> <li> <strong>Delivery and funding</strong>. More detail was requested on how the LNRS will be delivered and funded. There were useful suggestions for how to develop partnerships, funding and training to help deliver the LNRS.</li> <li> <strong>Community engagement</strong>. More emphasis was requested on the critical role of communities for delivering the strategy, and the importance of co-designing projects and plans using local knowledge, values, needs and preferences. Many examples of work being undertaken by various community groups were reported, though it was noted that many of these have little or no funding.</li> <li> <strong>Targets, monitoring and evaluation.</strong> There were requests to state the national and international 30x30 target (30% of land to be restored for nature by 2030) so that people could see how Oxfordshire’s LNRS could play a part in delivering this. More information was requested on whether there were specific targets for the total area to be restored, possibly split by potential measure or broad habitat. Targets should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) and there should be clear plans for monitoring and evaluation. Many monitoring activities are already being carried out by community groups and volunteers, and more citizen science activities could play a role in future.</li> <li> <strong>Changes to priorities, potential measures and priority species</strong>. Although the Statement of Biodiversity Priorities and the Species Priority List were felt to be very comprehensive, there were various requests to add, remove or change specific priorities, potential measures and priority species which are summarised in this report.</li> <li> <strong>Changes to the Local Habitat Map</strong>. There were many requests for changes to parts of the map as well as many comments which supported the current mapping. Requests for change included: <ul> <li> <strong>Mapping potential measures to exact land parcels</strong> rather than using hexagons, which make biodiversity net gain calculations very difficult and hard to justify on land at the edges of hexagons.</li> <li> <strong>Mapping more appropriate measures</strong>. Many examples were noted where the LNRS suggests an option that was not felt to be appropriate, such as grassland restoration on an existing woodland, new grassland creation on an existing grassland, or wetland or woodland creation on sports fields, playgrounds, allotments, orchards, churchyards and cemeteries. In some cases, farmers preferred grassland measures rather than woodland creation measures. The importance of always carrying out an ecological survey to check local habitats and species rather than purely relying on the LNRS map was stressed.</li> <li> <strong>Connecting gaps</strong> in the network and smoothing it out, perhaps with fewer isolated areas on the map.</li> <li> <strong>Adding extra areas</strong>, including the full extent of all of the Conservation Target Areas, buffers around SSSIs and other designated sites, joining up habitats to make a larger area in the Bernwood-Otmoor-Ray region, more urban green space, areas with important habitats and species, and areas where landowners, managers, community groups or other individuals wish to take action or have planned, ongoing or completed restoration work. There were also requests to map some of the unmapped measures (including fens, reedbeds, scrub, habitat mosaics, verges, and wildlife corridors).</li> <li> <strong>Removing areas. </strong>There were a few requests to remove specific areas from the mapping. These included requests from a developer, utility company and local planning authorities to not map biodiversity actions on sites where future development has been planned.</li> </ul> </li> <li> <strong>Information about local habitats, species and activities</strong>. Many comments reported the presence of habitats and species in particular areas, and others gave information about planned, completed or ongoing nature recovery activity across Oxfordshire.</li> <li> <strong>A range of views on habitat management</strong>. Although there was broad support for most of the potential measures, the comments sometimes revealed conflicting views on habitat management, especially around intervention in ancient woodlands, and allowing scrub or ponds on grasslands.</li> </ul> <strong>What will the LNRS team do next?</strong> All of these findings will be shared with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy team and the group of organisations and people who are working to finalise the strategy. These responses will be actioned as far as possible and the LNRS team will publish a paper showing what was done in response to each of these key requests for change. This will be published with the final version of the strategy. See the LNRS timeline on their webpage.