We welcome many aspects of the policy relating to the need for new, larger and enhanced open spaces, but as written it potentially could lead to more green lawns with scattered trees, lacking wildlife habitat and biodiversity, landscape appeal and other genuine amenity value found in many recent new developments.
We support the need for open space for all the activities mentioned, with an understanding that such spaces should be managed wherever possible to maximise biodiversity (reduced grass mowing, zero pesticide use, planting of trees and hedges and wildflower areas).
The policy direction under BG/GI should also apply here – development should require open space:
● “As an integral part of the development, so that it informs the overall development design. This should include identifying, retaining and enhancing existing natural features of value.
● Across all phases of development.
● To be successful for the lifetime of the development, including providing plans for management, maintenance and funding.”
We agree that multi-functionality is useful where appropriate, but this should not be used as an opportunity to reduce the overall amount of open space made available - most green spaces are not suitable for all activities (for example, allotments and sports pitches). To maximise benefits to both people and wildlife, it is
important to provide a diverse range of green spaces. Retention of any existing mature habitats and features (for example trees, hedges, ponds, pasture) within a development site should be a priority (Cambourne provides a good example). New green spaces can include community woodland, flower meadows, wetlands – not just the typical short-mown grass and flowerbeds. Where possible, communities should be involved in planning and managing the use of their green spaces, e.g. through ‘Friends of…’ groups with support from Council officers. In particular, we welcome the inclusion of community food growing opportunities in this policy and would like to see greater emphasis on this type of open space, with the recognition that allotments cannot be conflated with other open spaces as these are not publically accessible to all.
Given that SUDS, habitat, recreational space etc can be delivered by the same parcel of land as long as the overall green space provision is adequate, we request some reflection on whether SUDS could be treated
as open space – e.g. if a balancing pond is also part of a community park, it could be managed in a more wildlife-friendly and accessible way than if it wasn’t; in the same way ponds could be made a more frequent component of parks and grassy open spaces.
The proposed review of open space standards is welcome but must not result in their watering down. The
current standards for types of open space provision per head of population [1], [2] must be seen as a minimum that developers have to meet. We were very concerned that the original proposals for NE Cambridge failed to meet these standards, and it was only after strong public push back in the consultation that the plans were amended to meet the minimum requirements for different types of green space per resident.
[1] Cambridge Local Plan, October 2018. Appendix I, table I.1
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/6890/local-plan-2018.pdf
[2] South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, October 2018. Policy SC/7.
https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/17793/south-cambridgeshire-adopted-local-plan-2018.pdf