Because of the biodiversity importance of OMH the habitat was identified as a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat in 2007. However, such sites are threatened by redevelopment (due to their usual status as brownfield sites), inappropriate ‘restoration’, inappropriate management or natural succession. There is very little knowledge of the distribution of OMH, as there is no data that identifies OMH sites at a national level.

exeGesIS were awarded this project in 2011, which has increased understanding of OMH in England and Wales by identifying the key features that are found within such habitats and enhancing knowledge of the distribution of such sites. This involved the development of a new survey methodology and a survey of 98 survey sites to identify OMH habitat, as well as a survey of invertebrates on 50 of the sites - the largest single survey of its kind in the UK. These surveys provided invaluable information on the importance of OMH sites to conservation and the recognition of important sites remotely and in the field.

The results of this work were:

• A handbook for the identification and survey of OMH sites.
• A provisional national inventory of OMH sites in England and Wales, along with an inventory data capture rule base.
• An integrated OMH survey website, including a map of OMH sites and survey data entry forms.
• Field survey data supplied to the NBN Gateway.

Further information from Crispin Flower.

exeGesIS developed a methodology for monitoring GI delivery, making an assessment of the delivery agreement against the GI delivered. This was based upon Natural England's existing Integrated Site Assessment methodology and encompassed ecology, access, green roofs and other aspects of GI delivery. It also allowed users to create bespoke targets against which to assess the site, to allow site-specific features to be considered.

The methodology was tested on four sites in the vicinity of Hull in March 2013 that included a range of features. Targets were established based upon the delivery agreements for each site, against which the sites were assessed. Any targets that were not met were identified and discussed.

This work was further developed in a second contract. We facilitated a workshop to focus Natural England's requirements for the survey methodology and, using consensus building techniques, agreed a reduction in the number of assessed features to make the methodology more user friendly. We then redeveloped the survey form, consulting further with Natural England to ensure the survey was suitable to the target audience and easy to use. We also wrote a comprehensive survey handbook to be used alongside the survey form.

The work was documented in a report to Natural England that covered the methodology development, selection of survey sites, results, redevelopment of the methodology, an assessment of the appropriateness of the methodology and recommendations for further development.

Further information from Crispin Flower.

JNCC commissioned Exegesis to investigate and mobilise the available data on the 120 species covered by the Annexes, in preparation for the third report, due in June 2013. These data were sought from third-party data holders, initially determining the data that exists and then working towards mobilising it on the NBN Gateway so that it could be used for reporting. Mobilising the data also involved validating and preparing the data for submission where required.

Further information from Crispin Flower.

Data were collated to create a dataset of candidate Greenspaces, an access network dataset and an access point dataset, all of which were checked by local authority staff. In addition the data was validated by undertaking a survey of greenspace type, condition and access points for a sample of 250 non-Local Authority sites. 

Population for each settlement was calculated from national census data. Analysis was undertaken to determine the area within the distance criteria for each Greenspace access point.

These data were then used to calculate the percentage of the population in each settlement which passed the criteria. The results were reviewed by local authority staff via a website, which allowed comments to be left and read by others. The data was then reprocessed to produce the final outputs.

Further information from Claire Lush.