BG/GI: Green infrastructure

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan map shows the land as being within the proposed Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor (8). Paragraph 175 of the NPPF 2021 reinforces a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing green infrastructure and paragraph 186 of the NPPF 2021 sets out this should be done at the plan making stage which we agree with. However, the Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor covers a large area of land and it is considered this corridor should just be focused on the large strategic developments at Cambourne and Bourn Airfield as the purposes of the policy should be strategic in nature and is therefore unreasonable to cover the whole of Caxton.

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan map shows some of the Land at 20 Bourn Road, Caxton (site ref: 40453) at the southern end as part of the existing green infrastructure network although this part of the site is a small grassed field in private ownership. Both the Land at 20 Bourn Road, Caxton (site ref: 40453) and Land south of Bourn Road, Caxton (site ref: 52991) are shown as being within the proposed Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor (8). Paragraph 175 of the NPPF 2021 reinforces a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing green infrastructure and paragraph 186 of the NPPF 2021 sets out this should be done at the plan making stage which we agree with. However the Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor covers a large area of land and it is considered this corridor should just be focused on the large strategic developments at Cambourne and Bourn Airfield as the purposes of the policy should be strategic in nature and is therefore unreasonable to cover the whole of Caxton.

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan map shows the land as being within the proposed Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor (8). Paragraph 175 of the NPPF 2021 reinforces a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing green infrastructure and paragraph 186 of the NPPF 2021 sets out this should be done at the plan making stage which we agree with. However, the Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor covers a large area of land and it is considered this corridor should just be focused on the large strategic developments at Cambourne and Bourn Airfield as the purposes of the policy should be strategic in nature and is therefore unreasonable to cover the whole of Caxton.

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan map shows some of the Land off Brockholt Road, Caxton (site ref: 40254) as part of the existing green infrastructure network although this part of the site is a grassed field in private ownership. This land is also shown as being within the proposed Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor (8). Paragraph 175 of the NPPF 2021 reinforces a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing green infrastructure and paragraph 186 of the NPPF 2021 sets out this should be done at the plan making stage which we agree with. However, the Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridor covers a large area of land and it is considered this corridor should either just be focused on the large strategic developments at Cambourne and Bourn Airfield as the purposes of the policy should be strategic in nature and is therefore unreasonable to cover the whole of Caxton.

Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping- final report 2021- Gamlingay Parish currently split in half with the policy for area 8 Western Gateway. Western side of Gamlingay has valued woodland edge environments bordering Central Bedfordshire (White Wood and Potton Wood). Land also historic acid grassland and heathland environment which would benefit in being included in 8 Western Gateway proposal area. Consider extending the policy area to cover whole of parish up to Central Bedfordshire border.

8 Western Gateway proposal is supported. However the proposed boundary to the area cuts Gamlingay parish in half. It does not include important woodland edge environments to the west and south of the settlement bordering central Bedfordshire. There is opportunity to include some acid heathland and grassland habitats and enhanced managements practices within the Western Gateway area. The boundary should be redrawn to include the whole of gamlingay parish up to the Central Bedfordshire border.

Policy document flawed - only refers to cycling and walking not horse riding - discriminatory - all access needs to be inclusive. Roman Road at Babraham is not a footpath! Good ideas - regarding health and well being of all. 'escaping to nature' supports the protection of rural grass bridleways for soft surface users - walkers, dog walkers, runners equestrians. Essential that public access, links and enhancements to the PROW and green spaces built into development conception not as an afterthought. Urban greening and de-paving also supports protection of rural grass paths.

Yes, but do not provide concrete busways or cycle lanes that disfigure the landscape.

I welcome the focus of Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure in the local plan, and support the objectives and proposals.
While I welcome the priority habitats identified in Initiative 3, there is also a vital need to improve the biodiversity of arable land across an important area of chalk farmland.
Initiative 14 is lighter on content than some of the others. The attached paper gives four reasons why this is problematic, and suggests practical ways in which the initiative could be strengthened through additional objectives.

West Wickham Parish Council strongly support this policy. As a Parish with several disconnected woodland areas would like to highlight the importance of linking natural habitats with diverse hedgerows or belts of trees.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the requirement for new developments to include green infrastructure and the emphasis on the River Cam corridor and the Gog Magog hills and chalkland fringe. We also stress the importance of maintaining and improving the Hobson’s Brook/Vicar’s Brook Green Corridor. There is a need for the Councils to increase the investment in assets such as Trumpington Meadows Country Park and Hobson's Park and protect them from development. We share the concern about water demand and the risk to the River Cam and other resources including Hobson's Brook from Nine Wells.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the requirement for new developments to include green infrastructure and the emphasis on the River Cam corridor to the south of the city (Infrastructure initiative 2C) and the Gog Magog hills and chalkland fringe (Infrastructure initiative 3).

We also stress the importance of maintaining and improving the Hobson’s Brook/Vicar’s Brook Green Corridor, as a key element in the Green Corridors and Fingers strategy for Cambridge. The corridor is under pressure from committed development including CBC, Cambridge South Station, Hobson’s Park and Nine Wells LNR. We are very concerned at the conversion of parts of the green corridor into sports pitches and associated infrastructure, which has undermined the value of the corridor, and hope that any further planning applications for this type of use will be rejected.

We have welcomed and benefitted from the emphasis on green spaces within the Southern Fringe developments, including Trumpington Meadows Country Park and Hobson's Park. There is a need for the Councils to increase the investment in long-term care of these assets and to protect them from development threats such as Cambridge South Station, and to continue to support groups such as the Wildlife Trust and community initiatives.

The Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment adopted in 2003 should continue to apply as a planning material consideration.

We support the continued initiative for allotments and community gardens (Dispersed initiative 13, page 174).

We stress the concern about the impact of growth on water demand and the risk to the River Cam and other resources including Hobson's Brook from Nine Wells.

We also stress the concern about the potential growth of CBC and the impact this will have on the Gog Magog hills and chalkland fringe.

The Wildlife Trust strongly supports this policy along the lines proposed. We welcome the inclusion of the 14 strategic GI priority areas and themes. The provision of significant strategic natural greenspace is essential if Cambridge is to grow sustainably (we have no downland, moorland or coast) and this will need to be significantly funded through new development. The suggestion within the HRA of the use of a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace standard at 8 Ha / 1000 population is a good start. Current open space standards referred to within BG/PO and BG/EO are woefully inadequate without corresponding strategic GI provision.

The adoption of a green infrastructure standard should be a recommendation, not a requirement. Developments should not be opposed where all reasonable steps have been taken to protect and incorporate green infrastructure.

Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in an SPD.

Appraisal Scoping Report flagged the risk associated specifically from phosphates and nitrates arising from growth and development and those from agriculture and GARDENS.
Especially the redevelopment of Gardens, associated with new house building, adjoining Nature reserves or designated sites or connecting through watercourse to nature reserves or designated wildlife sites.
The use of chemical herb/ pesticide, fertiliser or siltation in domestic gardens adjoining nature reserves should be accounted for in BNG and long term management to reduce pollution and impacts on flora and fauna and insects.

The adoption of a green infrastructure standard should be a recommendation, not a requirement. Developments should not be opposed where all reasonable steps have been taken to protect and incorporate green infrastructure.

Regardless of the chosen approach, it would be useful to include further guidance/information in a supplementary planning document (SPD).

The proposed policy identifies two strategic green corridor initiatives which append important Landscape Character Areas in Huntingdonshire:
• Area 5 – the Great Ouse Fenland Arc (Willingham, Swavesey), this area sits adjacent to Huntingdonshire District Council’s Green Infrastructure Priority Area (Local Plan policy LP3), the Ouse Valley Character Area (also defined in the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD); and
• Area 8 Western Gateway Multifunctional Green Corridor (Cambourne & Bourn) adjoins the South East Claylands Landscape Character Area.

Policy BG/GI supports the protection and enhancement of green and blue infrastructure corridors and linkages to the benefit of flora, fauna and recreational uses. This is supported by Huntingdonshire District Council.

Area 8 relates closely to the West Cambridgeshire Hundreds which are a collection of ancient woodlands mostly located in South Cambs. However, they do also include Waresley and Gransden Woods within Huntingdonshire. As such, this is an area that Huntingdonshire District Council would suggest working together with Greater Cambridge to protect and promote interconnectedness between the woodlands.

This comment is in relation to Item 3 - Gog Magog and chalkland fringe and refers to the Green Call for Sites submitted by Foxton Parish Council Ref URN G023. Opus Consultation ref 53032

Please refer to the LUC report to see where our proposal for Foxton may fit in. It is disappointing that SCDC initially left our bid off the map (then rectified after the PC complained) and then did not include our bid and four others in the LUC briefing. It therefore appears that our bid has not been properly considered in the LUC work, and subsequently the SCDC strategic GI map and policy. In the table our bid is GO23, but the brief description makes no attempt to see how it might fit into the strategic themes and areas. Para 2.9 says that these bids were considered alongside the GI opportunity zone long list, but there is no evidence of this. The LUC report and hs identified a number of these to which our proposal is relevant, and these are outlined below.

Firstly, a couple of general observations. There appears to be no reference in the LUC report to the earlier GI strategies, particularly the 2011 strategy. In addition, whilst it is good to see the Natural England ANGSt standards used to inform the analysis, the consultants could have saved themselves some work if they had looked at the Natural England ANGST report for Cambridgeshire. This was used as part of the analysis for our Neighbourhood Plan, as justification for our Local Plan bid and can be found under the Neighbourhood Plan section of the Foxton Parish Council website.

Foxton proposal as it links to the GI strategic objectives and themes
The 16 ha site is part of the Cambridgeshire CC County Farms Estate, and links the southern development boundary of the village with the CCC owned community woodlands on the hill. In landscape terms it is very important (ref: Foxton Landscape Character Assessment) and is included in several of the Neighbourhood Plan policies: FOX/5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15. The grade 2 agricultural land is currently farmed under a five year tenancy. There has never been any agri-environment grant schemes on this site or the land south of the woodland.

As referenced in the Neighbourhood Plan (para 7.17 and community aspirations page 90), the PC considers that this key site provides a superb opportunity to create new chalkland habitat, open to informal recreation, with enhanced hedgerows and woodland management. The community is already working in partnership with CCC to reinstate management of the woods, but unfortunately the CCC objected to our inclusion of this site and the policies above in the formal consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan. The community would love to work with the tenant and landowner to create a section of wildlife corridor linking the chalk stream tributary, Fowlmere SSSI close by and the agri-environment land to the east of the road, which links to Hobson Brook and is of course Green Belt land. An exemplar project perhaps?

Our proposal links to the Cam Corridor 2C, the pollinator corridor identified by Buglife (the site lies just north of the line shown on the map), the woodland expansion and resilience theme (the woodland and the land around is shown on figure 3.3, and environmentally friendly farming.

It is surprising that expansion of chalk meadow habitat only gets a mention under the Gog Magog strategic area. Much of our part of south Cambridgeshire is chalk, providing such opportunities for enhancement and re-creation.

The ANGST analysis shows Foxton as being outside the 2km, 5km and 10km catchments. This therefore informed our desire to create more informal accessible natural greenspace for local residents. The proposed site lies immediately south of the village and is crossed by a well-used public footpath, so provides ideal access opportunities.
This site could be a candidate for delivering 20% biodiversity offset gains.
The report identifies the County Farms Estate and community Friends groups as potential delivery partners for some of the opportunities.
The Wildlife Trust has a Living Landscape project for creating wildlife corridors that connect smaller sites
in table 1.5, among the key challenges are improving biodiversity and green spaces, and improving wellbeing and social inclusion.

The policy seeks to identify the existing Green Infrastructure (GI) network and the strategic initiative intended to enhance it. It defines Green Infrastructure as the network of green spaces and routes, landscapes, biodiversity, water bodies and heritage which provide a range of benefits for people wildlife and the planet. It seeks to define 14 area-specific dispersed long term priority enhancements to the GI network – described as strategic initiatives that will include providing green space for people to enjoy. Strategic initiative 7 defines the West Cambridge green infrastructure buffer – Coton Corridor. This area is shown in figure 54 of the Great Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals, within which is a substantial Ministry of Defence Land holding which includes Barton Road Rifle Range. Barton Road Rifle range is a core defence facility, being only 1 of 3 ranges in the country where long distance practice firing can take place. It is extensively used for both sniper training and pre-deployment training. The MOD holdings extend outside of the operational range area and are held for operational defence purposes.

The NPPF at paragraph 92 explains that planning policies should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which include the provision of safe and accessible (my emphasis) green infrastructure. The NPPF defines GI as a network of multi-functional green and blue spaces. The rifle range by its very nature is not a multi-functional green space and holds a very specific single purpose for the essential training of military personnel. The nature of military activities means the land is enclosed and public access is not permitted. Accordingly, the range is neither safe nor accessible to fall within the definition or functional purpose of GI.

It is important to recognise that the landholdings are required for the purpose of national defence and the planning process serves to protect such national infrastructure (as per paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework). The MOD’s land holding would not provide public recreation or multi-functional use to be considered GI. In addition, the proposed boundary to this designation does not follow easily identifiable and physical features on the ground for the boundaries of GI to be permanent and to endure throughout and beyond the plan period. For assistance a copy of the MOD ownership boundary has been included.

In accordance with paragraph 97 of the NPPF planning policies should promote public safety and defence requirements. It is fundamental that policies within the new local plan do not affect adversely the operation of this key training facility. Designating the site as GI would introduce constraints and potential incompatible uses that could place unreasonable restrictions on how the MOD currently and in the future use the land. We would strongly recommend that the proposed boundary is amended to avoid any of the MOD ownership and that any GI boundary ensures GI compatible uses are sufficiently located so as not to constrain defence operations now or in the future.

As with Policy BG/BG, this policy appears more specific and onerous than OS21, but the strategic outcomes are the same. We request a degree of flexibility and pragmatism in the final drafting of this policy.

The elephant in the room is the fact that Honey Hill is not mentioned. it will be destroyed if the WWTP is moved, it goes against the principle of doubling nature and net biodiversity gain. You can’t have one without the consequences of the other.

Figure 54 shows a map of proposed strategic green infrastructure initiatives. Area 4 is described as Enhancement of the eastern fens. This appears to contradict the proposed CWWTP relocation to part of that area. The policy needs clarification as it requires all new development to help deliver or contribute to support delivery of the green infrastructure strategic initiative objectives. Just putting a development on an area of green belt contradicts this principle.

It is definitely worth using an objective and professionally respected scheme to judge plans and proposals, and to measure performance.

Figure 54 shows a map of proposed strategic green infrastructure initiatives. Area 4 is described as Enhancement of the eastern fens. This appears to contradict the proposed CWWTP relocation to part of that area. The policy needs clarification as it requires all new development to help deliver or contribute to support delivery of the green infrastructure strategic initiative objectives. Putting any development on an area of green belt contradicts this principle, and in this case it is unnecessary as the site of the operationally satisfactory WWTP is not a requirement for the NECAAP (GCP response to AW scoping) .

Supported : Note S/NEC Policy will impact on aspirations for Enhancement of Eastern Fens GI as a result of required relocation of CWWTP to fulfil S/NEC policy identified as Honey Hill

We support the policy to protect and improve chalk streams.

This section should include protection of the Geodiversity of the area and many of the strategic Green Infrastructure areas have also a geological dimension.
Builders and developers should be encouraged to facilitate any request from a suitably qualified group / institution to view results of groundworks to identify and record any potential geological features that have been exposed prior to them being covered / destroyed. For example the swales in the Marleigh estate near the airport showed excellent examples of peri-glacial involutions before they were completed and buried.(see image attached)

Unfortunate the Opportunity Mapping Final Report unavailable.
North Cambridge Green Space should surely also cover the area south west of Histon, bounded by the A14 and the Oakington-Dry Drayton road. There are four woodlands with high levels of community use (two designated Local Green Space & Important Natural Habitat in the Neighbourhood Plan); also meadows. The footpaths have high use for amenity. This is already a green lung but there is opportunity here to also contribute to doubling nature: for example, the density of farmland birds is lower here than on the north side of Histon.

Some developments will have no gardens particularly urban areas. All homes with no gardens MUST have recreation space within a 5 minute (for example) walk. A policy of no dense buildings except when within 5 minutes walk of open community space is essential.

The policy should include specific reference to implementation of the government's stated objective of protecting
30% of land for nature by 2030.
In addition it should embrace the "wildbelt designation" concept as outlined in the Wildlife Trust's "Planning A new way forward"