BG/PO: Protecting open spaces

Support

We support this policy.

I support this policy and agree with all the objectives.
John Meed

Protection of open space is of vital importance. These spaces provide important contributions to the wellbeing of residents, particularly children and contribute materially to the character of villages

Draft Policy BG/PO (Protecting open spaces) in respect of site 40425 (Objection) - please see full text in attached titled: Draft Policy BG/PO (Protecting open spaces) in respect of site 40425 (Objection).

Draft Policy BG/PO (Protecting open spaces) in respect of site 40425 (Objection): The proposed policy
has no specific criteria for assessing the loss of open space (which would include sports pitches).
However, the proposed policy direction recognises 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 consider that Policy 67 of the adopted Plan is unduly restrictive in that it states a
specific distance within which replacement facilities should be located. The stated distance of 400
metres stated in criteria (b) has no apparent evidential basis and “a short walk” is not otherwise
defined. Future iterations of the emerging Plan must include policy wording which has specific criteria
against which the loss of any recreation or sports facilities would be assessed. This should not include a
specific, mandated distance or rigid criteria. Rather, it should have a range of criteria which relate to
the need of a proposed development. If a need for a replacement facility is demonstrated, the wording
should include flexible criteria for accessibility and suitability of an alternative site, against which a
proposed development can be assessed. Different facilities may have different catchment areas, or its
users may not live immediately in the area of the facility. A planning application should allow for an
appropriate assessment to be made in that case, to take account of the matters relevant to that case
and what impacts and benefits could be generated.
Most Cambridge University colleges, including Gonville and Caius College, do not have their own hockey
facilities. Individual college grass hockey pitches have been replaced with a three [1] pitch facility at the
University’s Wilberforce Road Sports Ground which enables University and club hockey to play the
modern game. The facilities have been expanded into an international standard hockey centre that has
increased participation and the diversity of participants in the game, improved the standard of play and
facilitated club growth throughout Cambridge. This hockey hub as well as shared use of pitches in other
colleges fulfil the College’s hockey needs. The Council needs to be mindful of the changing trends in
how university sports facilities and wider provision of sports facilities are managed. Emerging planning
policy should take account of this and not be unduly restrictive. This is in line with paragraph 98 of the
NPPF which takes a far more balanced approach to changes to sports pitch provision. Please see further
information in the site representation document for site 40425

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the policy and the importance of protecting existing open spaces and note the potential for Trumpington Meadows Country Park and Hobson's Park being designated as Local Green Spaces.

The Wildlife Trust supports this policy along the lines proposed, but see also our comments on policy BG/GI.

We support the ‘Proposed policy direction’ as outlined in the GC LP ‘First proposals’ document to ‘include policies which identify and protect open spaces, including village greens, parks, sports and recreation areas, allotments, community orchards and Protected Village Amenity Areas, and Local Green Space’
It is essential that the publicly owned open spaces are protected and developed by communities for social, amenity and biodiversity value to improve these environments, encourage community cohesion and contribute to the widely recognised health benefits of bringing nature close to homes and provide safe and attractive areas for recreation.
In our established city suburbs and villages, open green spaces such as those on housing estates, village greens, parks, recreation grounds, allotments, community orchards, cemeteries and burial grounds together with private gardens, green spaces and small areas of woodland provide a series of green networks to enable wildlife to traverse and thrive within the built environment. In many cases these networks link to green infrastructure in the surrounding countryside.
In recent years there has been a significant loss of privately owned gardens, green spaces and small patches of mature trees for house extensions, new housing plots, parking in front gardens and garden offices, and even where planning permission is required there is often little mitigation required for biodiversity loss. This appears to be steadily reducing the available green habitat within the city suburbs and villages and it seems likely that the value of the green networks is being reduced. The development of garden land and subdivision of existing plots is covered by proposed Policy H/GL in the ‘First Proposals’ document, but clearly these areas are linked as regards impact on biodiversity.
So, this emphasises the value of publicly owned green space and that it is important to have a Policy in place to enable local communities to take steps to protect them from future development. Parish Councils and local community volunteers can then develop them as multifunctional spaces including the enhancement of green infrastructure to benefit wildlife.
Submitted on behalf of Fulbourn Swifts Group

We should identify important ecological areas in the
which can be augmented and connected, and which should be avoided by new development. For example City and County Wildlife sites and pockets of special habitat in Conservation Areas.

Registration of Open spaces in planning Consultee neighbourhood lists.
At moment wildlife sites and Open Spaces cannot automatically be registered as neighbourhood sites, or with extreme difficulty. Custodians should be encouraged to register with planning authority. And planning authority must seek ownership of neighbouring Open Spaces for consultation.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

This policy does not distinguish between public open space and open space on education sites that in most cases is not accessible to the wider community. The plan recognises that in some cases development on open space may be appropriate if it has limited qualities and the development would lead to an overall improvement in quality or quantity. The department welcomes this approach, and recommends that on education sites, the loss of open space is considered on the basis of whether it is still needed (as demonstrated by the applicant) and what mitigations are proposed, such as enhanced quality of remaining open space or more inclusive accessibility.

Contrary to this policy is destruction of Green Belt at Honey Hill. This is a much loved local green space and performs the important function of Green Belt at this location. Proximity to villages of Fen Ditton, Quy, Horningsea and Teversham where there has been lack of consultation.

Protecting Honey Hill would be a good start. The best way to increase open spaces is not to trash the existing ones. Pouring a million tons of carbon rich concrete on to Green Belt land is a very stupid idea.

Aree with this policy in principle. However, the achievement of Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge, appears to contradict this policy as the development on Cambridge North East Area is predicated on the relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant to an area of Green Belt.
Note: Fulfilment of S/NEC Policy through relocation of CWWTP to the Green Belt is contrary to this Policy

None of these plans allows sports like roller blading, bmx, scooter and skateboarding unconditionally of the weather. There are huge communities of young and adult and mature people who struggle to keep up with their fitness levels or practise their loved sport during the rest of the year that isn't the summer. In particular, not only the plans do not create areas shielded from the weather but there is no lighting in skateparks which means anyone who works an office job or has another occupation which is many people doesn't not have a chance to practice their sport after finishing their work because sunset is at 4pm.

Agree with this policy in principle. However, the achievement of Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge, contravenes this policy as NECAAP relies on the relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant to an area of pristine open Green Belt from which north Cambridge and the necklace villages currently get much benefit and which is important to the historic setting of Cambridge

Supported: Note: Fulfillment of S/NEC Policy as a result of the requirement of CWWTP relocation to the Green Belt to fulfill it is contrary to this Policy

Criteria for designation of Local Green Space are quite restrictive and therefore policy-makers should consider other options for protecting existing open space just outside the development framework valued by the community. Existing Local Green Spaces, Protected Village Amenity Areas and Important Countryside Frontages should be retained. Two sections of The Causeway, Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth are an important connection between the street scene and the East Anglian Chalk landscape and should be considered for ICF designation. They have views south over open agricultural countryside towards the higher ground of Therfield Heath SSSI. The land to the south forms a break between the Kneesworth development framework and the Royston settlement boundary in the proposed North Herts DC 2011-2031 Local Plan.

I support the proposals which exclude any development in the area of Little Linton.
The settlements of Linton and Little Linton have historically had distinct identities. New development in the area would disrupt the historic open landscape, destroying the separation and damaging the individual character of each settlement. Land in this area is a valuable environmental resource, which should be protected.
I support the retention of the land between Little Linton and Linton within the designated countryside.
The direction of future development to other more sustainable locations is appropriate and will ensure that Little Linton and Linton retain their identity.

I support the proposals which exclude any development in the area of Little Linton.
The settlements of Linton and Little Linton have historically had distinct identities. New development in the area would disrupt the historic open landscape, destroying the separation and damaging the individual character of each settlement. Land in this area is a valuable environmental resource, which should be protected.
I support the retention of the land between Little Linton and Linton within the designated countryside.
The direction of future development to other more sustainable locations is appropriate and will ensure that Little Linton and Linton retain their identity.

Policy 67 seeks to protect Public Open space but does not adequately reflect the fact that, in environmental terms this aspects of open space is inherent to the location of the space itself . By admitting the possibility that open space with environmental qualities can be relocated, the policy is undermining the very protection that it is seeking to promote. Environmental qualities, including views and openness are not relocatable.The new Plan should continue existing Protected Open Space designations of sites previously assessed of environmental value, as well as recreational value. Policy 67 needs strengthening to reflect environmental location.

I support the proposals which exclude any development in the area of Little Linton.

The settlements of Linton and Little Linton have historically had distinct identities. New development in the area would disrupt the historic open landscape, destroying the separation and damaging the individual character of each settlement. Land in this area is a valuable environmental resource, which should be protected.

I support the retention of the land between Little Linton and Linton within the designated countryside.

The direction of future development to other more sustainable locations is appropriate and will ensure that Little Linton and Linton retain their identity.

I support the proposals to build at existing and forthcoming towns and larger settlements that exclude any development in the area of Little Linton.
New development in this area would disrupt the historic open landscape, destroying the separation and damaging the individual character of each settlement. Land in this area is a valuable environmental resource, which should be protected and valued. It is necessary to combat climate change and for well being. This resource was crucial during the pandemic.
I support the retention of the land between Little Linton and Linton within the designated countryside.

Ickleton PC strongly supports this policy. We are pleased to note that existing identified Local Green Spaces will be carried forward from the 2018 Adopted Plan.

I fully support this policy, which seems uncontroversial.

I support the proposals which exclude any development in the area of Little Linton. The settlements of Linton and Little Linton have historically had distinct identities. New development in the area would disrupt the historic open landscape, destroying the separation and damaging the individual character of each settlement. Land in this area is a valuable environmental resource, which should be protected.
I support the retention of the land between Little Linton and Linton within the designated countryside.
The decision of future development to other more sustainable locations is appropriate and will ensure that Little Linton and Linton retain their identity.

Environmental value sites need robust protection especially if also of recreational value. Policy should clarify that where environmental value is particular to its location e.g. its setting, part of network of green spaces,,or views it affords, cannot mitigated by a replacement offer elsewhere. Policy 67 insufficiently clear on this point-. Also Threatened with legal challenge as ineffective see 19/1734/FUL Clerk Maxwell. Plan should confirm existing Protected Open Space designations of sites previously assessed of environmental value. However Policy should make clear that sites of with environmental qualities unique to their location cannot be mitigated or replaced by relocation by elsewhere

No particular comments. The claim is made that 'Residents should have access to areas for growing food, caring for the natural environment, green open spaces' which seems to assume that people will not have their own gardens and will be living in flats. This is problematic because gardens have the potential to be excellent sources of biodiversity and to act as wildlife corridors.

This section remarks that "[the council] should provide accessible and all-weather exercise areas for all ages in green spaces." This should include skateparks! No skateparks in Cambridge are currently all-weather suitable due to lack of lights and rain coverings. Currently this means that skating is nearly a summer-only sport. Encouraging young people to spend time outdoors at all times of year is incredibly important for their mental and physical health, so a priority should be converting existing skateparks to be suitable for winter conditions (protected from rain, and/or suitable for use after dark. Darkness falls earlier than 4pm in winter!)

Horningsea Parish Council believes that the proposed relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant to Green Belt does nothing to protect open spaces and is a waste of taxpayers’ money.