The overall intent and policy direction of this policy is welcomed and supported.

However we note that “It will also need to continue to recognise that in some cases development on open space may be appropriate if it has limited qualities and would lead to overall quality or quantity improvements.” We do not support this approach where applied to private benefit. More green space is needed, as identified elsewhere. We do not believe that a circumstance can exist whereby the only way to improve the quality of an open space is by allowing private development on it. There are other ways of raising funds to support open space improvements. The draft plan should include a policy that any loss of open space to private development must be offset by the provision of at least an equal amount and quality, within the adjacent neighbourhood.

Raising funds or the stewardship of the ongoing maintenance of open spaces is a challenge and an issue of national concern. One of the ways that funds can be raised for this work is through offering the public a service, for example a café in a park. The wording of this policy should allow for developments that would provide a public benefit and support the ongoing maintenance of the open space (eg café).

The supporting text notes:
‘Access to a range of open spaces for different activities, for all ages is an essential part of sustaining healthy communities, supporting the local environment, and encouraging social interaction with local people.’

Open space also performs a valuable function in reducing recreational pressure on other vulnerable sites, especially where there is sensitive wildlife. We comment further on this in respect of Policy BG/EO and the provision and enhancement of open spaces.

Many open spaces also have an important heritage function, either directly or as a contribution to the setting of the historic city and/or individual heritage assets. We would like to see this recognised within the wording of the draft Plan.