This policy direction is very ambiguously explained and, although the policy itself is generally good, it will need much greater clarification to avoid misinterpretation by developers and those assessing planning applications. The thrust of the policy should be very clearly related to the policies on Great Place/Climate Change. We are not clear how this policy interacts with the open space standards referred to in BG/EO but would strongly advocate for specific targets to be set for the provision of the different types of Green Infrastructure wherever possible (see also our comments under BG/EO).
1st bullet: GI to be “appropriate to its local context” – we agree with this general direction but this phrase should be clarified.
2nd bullet (Supporting delivery of biodiversity net gain, including by providing links between habitats within and beyond the site boundary, and connecting where appropriate to the wider ecological network ) – we agree with this in general but again it should be worded more clearly. We welcome the recognition of the need for a ‘bigger, better, more joined up’ approach which is now an accepted biodiversity principle, but we are concerned by the phrase ‘carefully balancing the needs of wildlife and people’ which would be very difficult to define in practice.
5th bullet (Enhancing access and connectivity) – we think this has the same meaning/intention as 2 and 3 and so could be deleted to reduce complexity.
6th and 7th bullets (Providing environmental enhancement; and Supporting climate mitigation and
adaptation) need further explanation with perhaps an example, so that these general statements are comprehensible in the context of the Local Plan.
Within this GI policy, we would like to see a clear statement that provision of green space (one of the forms
of GI) should respect the Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (which have been used in Suffolk and Shropshire). These standards are that green space should:-
● Be at least 2 ha in size, and no more than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home; and
● Include at least:
○ one accessible 20 ha site within two km of each home;
○ one accessible 100 ha site within five km of each home; and
○ one accessible 500 ha site within ten km of each home;
In addition, the Standards call for a minimum of one ha of statutory Local Nature Reserves per thousand population.
We support the policy direction that development should meet the GI Standard given in Building with Nature.
We support most of the final components of this policy, including the list of strategic GI initiatives, but are unclear what is meant by the five “dispersed initiatives” and how development can contribute to these in practice.
We support the policy of Expanding Greater Cambridge’s ‘urban forest’. The tree and hedge cover in the Greater Cambridge area is too low and thus we are pleased to see projects to increase this. See also our response to BG/TC.
We are pleased to see Allotments and Community Gardening listed in this section. Allotments can contribute to a number of policy targets, including under climate change, biodiversity and green space, wellbeing and great places. There is a large unmet demand for allotments in Cambridge, as evidenced by long waiting lists. The current standard for allotment provision in new settlements in both the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire local plans is 0.4 hectares per 1000 residents. To ensure the demand for allotments is met across Greater Cambridge, we need an assessment of current levels of provision, and a plan (encompassing both existing and planned settlements) to achieve this level of provision everywhere.
Adequate quality of provision must also be included in the standard, for example on-site water supply (ideally using harvested rainwater or other suitable supply rather than potable water), provision of accessible plots for disabled allotment holders, and the possibility for appropriate structures such as sheds and polytunnels to be incorporated into allotment sites.