Delivering green infrastructure – concept to implementation
Introduction (JF)
Topics to be covered Green
infrastructure Policy context Open space SPD Master planning Design and management
GI Strategy in St Edmundsbury The
GI Strategy is required to ensure we plan sufficient green infrastructure as an integral part of growth To provide a framework to guide sustainable development.
Value of Green Infrastructure
Climate change adaptation Reducing economic and community risk Improved image and setting to help attract and retain investment in growth Improving health and well-being Accessible environments and strategic routes for recreation and tourism Improving the image and quality of transport gateways and corridors An ecological framework. Conserving and better managing natural resources Conserving and enhancing local distinctiveness and landscape character Delivering high quality public realm
Need and demand analysis Sustainable
resource management Socio-economic The growth agenda Accessible green space deficiency
Socio – economic factors
Deficiency in access in Bury St Edmunds Neighbourhood
District
National Planning Policy Guidance
The Local Plan National Planning Policy Framework
Joint Statement of Community Involvement
Core Strategy Masterplans
Vision 2031 Joint Development Management Policies
Open Space SPD
Affordable Housing SPD
Adopted 2010
Supplementary Planning Documents Adoption 2014
Section 106 SPD Adoption 2015
Stone Curlew
Woodlark
Nightjar Annex 1 Species within the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA)
Breckland SPA
Stone-curlew, nightjar and woodlark are vulnerable to predation from corvids and foxes and to disturbance caused by human activity, including dog-walking
St Edmundsbury and neighbouring districts (Breckland and Forest Heath) developed cross boundary policy approach to ensure no significant effect on the interest features of the SPA
Core Strategy Policy CS2 Three buffer zones established around the boundary of the Breckland SPA, as shown on the Core Strategy Proposals Map and as set out in Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy;
A 1500m buffer zone around those parts of the SPA which support or are capable of supporting Stone Curlews
A 1500m buffer zone around those parts outside of the SPA which have supported 5 or more nesting attempts by the Stone Curlew
A 400m buffer zone around those parts of the SPA that support or are capable of supporting Nightjar and Woodlark.
What is permitted within the buffers?
development that will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA the re-use of existing buildings/ development completely masked from the SPA by existing development; other development, provided an appropriate assessment demonstrates development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. Within 1500m nesting zones, development where mitigation will avoid/overcome adverse impact/alternative land available
Core Strategy Proposals Map
Core Strategy Bury St Edmunds Strategic growth areas: Policy CS11 Five
growth areas around Bury St Edmunds to provide for approx 4400 dwellings to 2031 Sites range in size from 400 to 1250 dwellings Recreational pressure on the SPA and open space requirements identified as an issue
Footprint Ecology recreational research
St Edmundsbury’s Core Strategy was subject to public examination in spring of 2010
The Inspector found the Core Strategy to be sound
The main area still of issue was the potential cumulative impacts of development on the SPA particularly in relation to recreational effects
The inspector went on to say that “…with the main part of the SPA being in neighbouring authorities where the significant areas of growth are located in much closer proximity to the SPA” “… any further research on visitor impact would need to be undertaken in conjunction with the adjoining districts.”
Footprint Ecology recreational research
St. Edmundsbury and Forest Heath District Councils approached Footprint Ecology to undertake a visitor survey to explore the consequences of development on the Annex I bird species associated with Breckland SPA.
In particular the work should address the implications of increased housing close to the SPA and potential changes in recreational use of the SPA which may result.
Survey approach: To
consider the evidence base relating to urban impacts, recreational disturbance and the bird interest of the SPA.
Present
the results of visitor survey work undertaken, and
Use
these results to understand the impacts of new development in terms of increased recreational access and potential adverse effects on the SPA.
Visitor Survey work
Majority of visitors were local (87%) travelling less than 10km
Local residents visited frequently and throughout the year with slightly higher numbers at the weekend
Visits were typically short – 2 hours or less
Visitor Survey work – cont.
Dog walking was the main activity (36% of local residents) with walking and cycling also popular
Half of all dog walkers lived within 5.5km
Cyclists travelled furthest (median distance of 31.7km)
Key findings of research
The majority of visitors are local residents (87%) living within a 10km radius. These visitors are coming to the Forest at least weekly, with many coming more frequently. People are therefore using Thetford Forest as their local greenspace. 91% of visitors arrive by car.
Suggested precautionary approach
A 10km zone extending out from SPA should be defined
Development within the 10km zone is likely to result in increased access and potentially recreational disturbance
Any new housing within that zone should be identified as development that would have a significant effect as a result of recreational disturbance on the SPA in the absence of any counteractive measures
The closer housing is to the SPA the greater the additional recreational pressure will be
Suggested counteractive measures included:
Provision of alternative greenspace equally, if not more, attractive than the European sites – link to green infrastructure projects through the Local Plan
When designing new recreational space need to consider distance to travel to site, facilities, experience and feel of site, and car parking
The challenge: to take account of this in the development of the site allocation Local Plans for the borough (Vision 2031)
Vision 2031 timeline February to April 2011 Issues consultation
March to April 2012 Preferred Options consultation
June to August 2013 Submission consultation
July 2014 Inspector’s report
April to May 2014 Modification consultation
January to February 2014 Examination
September 2014 - adoption
Strategic Sites Recreational
pressure on the SPA and open space requirements were considered during the development of the strategic site concept statements prepared alongside the Vision document
Fornham All Saints
Bury St Edmunds strategic growth sites
Fornham St Martin
North-West Bury St Edmunds
Great Barton
North-East Bury St Edmunds
Railway
H Westley Moreton Hall
Town Centre
S
Rougham Airfield
Suffolk Business Park
South-East Bury St Edmunds Hardwick Heath
Nowton Park
North West Concept Statement
Vision 2031 The documents included: Scope for buffers on strategic sites including amenity and recreational use Policy BV19 allocates15ha of land for amenity public open space for informal outdoor recreation at Rougham Road Policy BV26 Green Infrastructure - to protect and enhance and provide for community parkland on strategic sites Mitigation of recreational impact on the SPA was built in at an early stage before the HRA was undertaken
Rural Vision 2031
Policy RV7: 86 hectares of land at Park Farm, Ingham for leisure, recreation and tourism Policy RV21: 25 homes in Hopton – 400 metres from the Market Weston Fen component of the Waveney – Little Ouse Valley Fens SAC
significant increase in visitors could result in damage to vegetation on the site. Policy requires a development brief to be adopted before planning permission granted which must include proposals for influencing recreation in the surrounding area, to avoid a damaging increase in visitors to Waveney-Little Ouse Valley Fens SAC.
HRA Conclusions “These policies will individually and collectively, when implemented, provide alternative places for countryside recreation and therefore intercept some visitors who may otherwise have travelled to the SPA for recreation.” (Vision 2031 HRAs, September 2014)
Public Open Space Policy (POS) The
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The West Suffolk Planning Authorities – POS Applying the Policies Securing the Contributions Spending the Contributions
Public Open Space Policy (POS)
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Section 8 Promoting Healthy Communities, point 73
West Suffolk POS Policies http://westsuffolk.gov.uk/planning/Planning_P olicies/supplementaryplanningdocuments.cf m
Masterplanning
2003 Green Paper Outline planning applications to be phased out Masterplans could fill the gap – English Nature, CABE Green paper abandoned, but masterplans introduced in 2006 Local Plan 2008 Concept Statement process wins RTPI award 2010 Core Strategy adopted – requires masterplans for strategic growth of Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill 2012 NPPF – Pre-application engagement and front loading
And finally Ensure
these principles are carried through to the detailed planning applications
Design
the development to fit the landscape, don’t try and fit the landscape around the development.
Corporate priorities Increased
opportunities for economic
growth Resilient families and communities that are healthy and active Homes for our communities
Criteria Primary Size Diversity Naturalness Rarity Fragility Typicalness
Secondary Recorded history Position in ecological unit Potential value Intrinsic appeal
SUDs
Diver
Any questions?