BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces

Allocation of new sites is needed. Access to open spaces and managed access (to manage potential damage/harm) to woodlands (Gamlingay and Potton woods) are so important to residents mental wellbeing. Public access needs to be included in planning decision making from the outset.

Access to the Local Green Space Gamlingay First School Playing Fields (Green End, Gamlingay SG19 3LF) is currently restrictive and difficult for residents (owner Cambridgeshire County Council) Access rights to any public green space needs to be specified in the planning permission.

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

Access to Green Spaces as well as spaces themselves must be available to all users including equestrians. Once again, this policy, despite referring to the benefits of more natural spaces, refers only to walking and cycling access. Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan defines Active travel as walking, cycling and horse riding. The whole of this plan needs to include equestrians wherever it includes cyclists unless there is good reason for their exclusion e.g. central urban areas.

This needs to be balanced with less development, if possible

No new housing should be shoe-horned into existing villages. To the extent that open spaces already exist, that is great. To the extent that they do not, new developments of greenfield sites NEVER result in a net increase in open spaces. Even if an area that is not developed is privately owned, it still constitutes open space with the ensuing benefits of support for nature and wildlife, improved flood defences and views out of villages / a feeling of openness. Building developments on such land, even where they incorporate some open / green space, is still a substantial net decrease in open space compared to not having developed the land.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the policy and stresses its relevance if the CBC development is approved.

The Wildlife Trust supports this policy along the lines proposed, in as far as it goes, but see also our comments on policy BG/GI related to provision of sustainable levels of strategic natural greenspace which are not covered by existing open space policies or standards, which by themselves are woefully inadequate to the needs of the local population, without large-scale open access downland, moorland, coast or commons.

We support the ‘Proposed policy direction’ as outlined in the GC LP ‘First proposals’ document to provide green open space on new developments for recreation and socialising, while noting that these spaces should be multifunctional and provide opportunities for food growing, community orchards and space for nature. The latter is important to have on site to help provide a good environment and contribute to the widely recognised health benefits of green vegetation close to homes.
However, for maximum benefit to wildlife and people, it is important to retain and provide quality native species green infrastructure (as opposed to miniature ornamentals) in the area immediately around houses, rather than houses being marooned in an area of largely hard landscaping or green open space separated from islands of higher value green space around the edges. On many new housing developments, the landscaping close to homes tends to consist mainly of miniature ornamentals, which are often of little value for nature and are cut back so hard in maintenance regimes that they provide little green vegetation to enhance the appearance of the limited open space.
However, the enrichment of the habitat with some native species hedges and shrubs or non-natives known to be of benefit to wildlife (see reference below) close to homes will attract a wider range of birds into local green spaces and gardens. Provided these shrubs are maintained appropriately, to allow good growth and seasonal flowering and fruiting, they will provide good habitat for a wide range of invertebrates, birds and small mammals For sparrows in particular, hedges and shrubs for shelter are very important close to potential nest sites, such as in newly installed swift nest bricks. This would also provide a more pleasant environment to support the health and wellbeing of residents. These issues are particularly important where most of the quality biodiversity enhancement for a development is proposed either relatively remote from the main blocks of housing or are even in the form of financial contributions for off-site provision.
An excellent recent report produced by the NHBC Foundation from a collaboration with the RSPB and Barratt Developments gives significant guidance on these issues on page 29 onwards.
NHBC Foundation, Report NF 89, ‘Biodiversity in new housing developments: creating wildlife-friendly communities’ (April 2021). Available at:
Biodiversity in new housing developments: creating wildlife-friendly communities - NHBC Foundation

Submitted on behalf of:
Action for Swifts; Fulbourn Swifts; Over and Swavesey Swift Conservation Project 2020

Open Space Standards will be required to be reviewed through the Local Plan to reflect the differences between the City with its urban character and the more rural environment of the villages.

Open Space Standards will be required to be reviewed through the Local Plan to reflect the differences between the City with its urban character and the more rural environment of the villages.

Going forward the policy should acknowledge the requirements for providing BNG when calculating the typologies of open space provision.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

Supported
Fulfilment of S/NEC Policy through relocation of CWWTP to the Green Belt would be completely contrary to this Policy

Supported: Note: Fulfillment of S/NEC Policy through relocation of CWWTP to the Green Belt is contrary to this Policy

New open spaces MUST be created especially where developments have no gardens, allotments MUST be created and be within a reasonable walking distance (15 minutes) but 5 minutes for open spaces generally.

I feel it should be a requirement for provision of green and open spaces to be provided onsite when the development is removing land from the green belt. A financial contribution to improve off site factilities should not allowed in this case as the development is meaningfully changing the area and provision should be onsite to maintain character and open spaces as much as possible.

As well as singluar open spaces, the creation of green jogging and cycle routes which are enjoyable to use should be a major focus as they have high value for both recreation and transport.

The policy should explicitly refer to enhancing biodiversity as a component of open space provision in recognition of the enormous health benefits biodiversity brings ( as well as the associated recreational benefit).

There must be no reduction in the previous plan’s requirement for both informal and formal open space per 1000 new residents. As more and more modern homes will have less and less Gardens (if any) seriously consider increasing this and for open spaces to be within 5 minute walk and allotments within 15 minutes (stated earlier in response).

4.36. Green Infrastructure is intrinsic to good design and should be planned as part of all new developments, as proposed by Policy BG/EO. Evidence shows that small green spaces provided throughout development increase the amounts of physical activity that residents carry out and, and that these spaces are supportive of good mental health and wellbeing. MGH is aware of these benefits and propose new green infrastructure as part of the proposals at North Cambourne, where significant areas of the site will be used for green space in conjunction with sport, recreation, natural habitats and biodiversity offsetting.

No particular comments. Open spaces risk being dominated by multi-story buildings. As essential part of the character of Cambridge stems from it's lack of high-rise buildings and careful earlier planning controls, for example along the tow-path in Chesterton where, for a long period, single storey houses only were permitted.

This section mentions "We should promote outdoor activities, including by creating all-weather exercise areas" and "space for sports pitches, play space for children and teenagers, and more informal spaces."

Skateparks would be a great way to provide play space for children and teenagers, as well as many adults. Skateboarding and rollerskating exploded in popularity over the pandemic, and currently the facilities we have in Cambridge are not all-weather suitable, or big enough to support the number of people interested in skating at peak times (primarily in warm weather). Skateparks have excellent crossover between being informal social spaces and sports facilities.

Standards for community facilities like this should not be based simply in proportion to the number of residents: there should be lower limits so that smaller developments also meet the limit allocations. This will prevent deliberate piecemeal developments that escape or make a mockery of open space requirements by reducing them to an infeasible size.
Developers should not be permitted to double-count open spaces that are intended to meet two functional and incompatible criteria. Eg. the play area at Nine Wells, Cambridge, is co-located in a rainwater catchment area, the play area is submerged for large portions of the year.

Horningsea Parish Council believes that open spaces already exist on the Honey Hill land that is Green Belt. There is no operational need to move the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant to Honey Hill. The Horningsea Parish Council believes the public has the right to robustly question whether this relocation is a nationally significant infrastructure project when in fact there is already a fully functioning sewage works already in place.

Policies mentioned include (to) " promote outdoor activities, including by creating all-weather exercise areas." & create "space for sports pitches, play space for children and teenagers, and more informal spaces."
- Skateboarding is a perfect example of recreational activity that meets those exact criteria. Cambridge has plenty of sports pitches & children's play areas, but hardly anywhere for "informal spaces" such as skate facilities. Even less so when we consider "all-weather ones". More skate-able facilities (particularly covered) would have tremendous positive spill over on the youth of the city who feel particularly isolated and bored during winter months.

Policy BG/EO is supported in principle, noting that relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Works to the Greenbelt under Policy S/NEC would appear to conflict with this policy. It is currently unclear where this is recognised within the Plan suite to allow informed land use decisions to be made.

Strong support

The Cambridge East proposals align with the 2018 Local Plan requirements, with significant formal, such as sports pitches and urban squares, and informal, such as new accessible ‘countryside’ in the green corridor, proposed. In addition, the greenspace is to be dispersed, occurring throughout the development and within the developed areas themselves. The ambition is to ensure that where appropriate green spaces are multi-functional, but that they also have one key ambition that should not be compromised.

Marshall is placing a significant emphasis on the creation of active travel only streets and want to create a development that is less reliant on the car and that encourages people to travel by active means. The active streets will also become green spaces in their own right, providing opportunities for new playspace and areas to socialise within.

We agree that Local Plan policy should continue to require open space and recreation provision to be provided by new development, appropriate to the scale and location of the development and onsite where appropriate.

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

The supporting text notes a number of reasons why this policy is required and the many benefits it can deliver. We also believe there is a direct link between the provision of open spaces to ensure easing the recreational pressure on other sensitive areas of countryside such as important wildlife sites.

Recreational pressure on sensitive wildlife sites is only likely to increase and it is vital that other adequate alternative greenspace is provided and secured to avoid any adverse effects. The use of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) is discussed in the recent Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document - Consultation Draft July 2021. In our comments on that document we stated:

"Whilst it is appreciated that current Local Plan policies do not set out requirements in respect of SANG, Local Authorities should also take the lead in future development plans with clear overarching policies that provision of SANG may be required for certain residential developments. "

This comment applies equally to the current First Proposals.

In our research for the Cambridge Nature Network (http://cambridgenaturenetwork.org/) we identified that the creation of new accessible green space in Cambridgeshire has not kept pace with the increase in population over the past 20 years and this has been one of the main drivers of recreational impact on wildlife sites. In addition, many green space sites in Cambridgeshire are wetlands, meaning that although they might cover a large area, the amount of land that can actually be used by the public is often small or limited to paths. Unlike other counties Cambridgeshire does not have large areas of public access woodlands, downland/moorland/heathland or coastline and as a consequence there is poor access to countryside. Our research also identified that larger scale development (such as Cambourne) were providing larger areas of new greenspace but smaller developments were not and therefore it is these that are contributing most towards the problem as they have made up around 50% of the development in Cambridgeshire over the past 20 years. If the Local Plan is to be sustainable (ie not increase recreational impacts more than has already occurred) then ALL new development will need to make a contribution towards creating new strategic greenspace (if none is created through the development). The Local Plan should set out how these contributions are to be collected and the amount that would be required per person. We refer you to the submission by the s106 Officer for South Cambridgeshire District Council who has calculated that this should be £498 per dwelling.

It is important to consider that some public open spaces are not green spaces, such as the Market Square or Quayside but they should still be subject to similar policies that seek to protect and enhance their important features.