Green Infrastructure Scoping Study WC0809 Undertaken by the Landscape Institute (LI) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Theme 2 - Retrofitting Green Infrastructure into existing urban areas Theme 2.1 - State of Knowledge Relating to the Retrofitting of Green Infrastructure Theme 2.2 - Initial Conclusions on Opportunities for Retrofitting Green Infrastructure Version: 2nd April 2012 Lead Theme Researchers: Peter Joyce (Global to Local) Anne Finnane (Global to Local)

2

Table of Contents Theme 2.1 - State of Knowledge Relating to the Retrofitting of Green Infrastructure Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. UK case studies

Green Streets - Red Rose Forest Project The Value of Tress - The Torbay iTree pilot Dagenham - Using Flood Defence to Improve Communities Olympic Park, London

3. International case studies

Luckenwalde: Use of Wasteland as a GI Resource and as Part of a Linear GI Network New York High Line Parc Du Chemin De L’Ile, Nanterre The Berlin Biotope/ Green Area Factor Programme.

4. SWOT Analysis of Case Studies Theme 2.2 - Initial Conclusions on Opportunities for Retrofitting Green Infrastructure Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Review of existing measures 3. Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework 4. Use of Toolkit Elements to Achieve Green Infrastructure Retrofitting 5. Understanding rates of development 6. Summary and Conclusions

3

Theme 2.1: State of Knowledge Relating to the Retrofitting of Green Infrastructure

Executive summary Theme 2.1 sets out eight case studies from across the UK and internationally that will help local communities, and practitioners of the Green Infrastructure Partnership, to understand the extent of opportunities in relation to retrofitting Green Infrastructure (GI). These opportunities cover the following key topics:

• Use of strategic planning with long-term targets • Multi-functionality of benefits • Community and stakeholder engagement in planning and design stages • Quantification of benefits to justify resourcing • Use of wasteland to create usable public space • Introducing climate change adaptation measures • Improved biodiversity and habitat creation • Demonstration of sustainable management • Water purification • Sustainable transport links • Improved quality of life • Inward investment • Greater prosperity by encouraging tourism and resource use.

This section particularly focuses on the processes that have been undertaken to effectively achieve and promote GI retrofitting, and how these can be transferred across England through partnership working and stakeholder engagement that the Green Infrastructure Partnership aims to achieve. The case studies showcase the wide range of functions that GI can provide in urban areas, and the innovative methods which have been undertaken to successfully retrofit GI. The case studies cover the following topics:

• The benefits of strategies involving cross-sector ownership and a long-term vision for GI in the Red Rose Forest.

• Measures to quantify the economic benefits of GI through piloting of the i-Trees Eco tool in Torbay.

• Multi-functionality and the multiple benefits of effective green space management for flood management and recreation in the Dagenham Parklands.

• Embedding green infrastructure and biodiversity measures in the Olympic Park. • The social benefits of creating usable spaces through retrofitting public open

spaces from wasteland in the Luckenwalde Initiative in the Brandenburg region of Germany.

• The embodiment of cultural heritage and history through GI in the New York High Line's planting design with management of local communities.

• Parc Du Chemin de L’Ile’s holistic approach to ecological intervention and biodiversity through the management of the river Seine in France.

• The Biotope/Green Area Factor program of Berlin, Germany, has a “bottom-up” decentralised approach to GI planning which is transferable across countries within different policy contexts, evidenced by its implementation in the Western Harbour development in Malmo, Sweden, and since to areas of the UK through the European Green and Blue Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco-towns (GRaBS) project.

The report goes on to highlight the extent of opportunities in relation to retrofitting GI. It provides initial conclusions (SWOT analysis) on opportunities and constraints for applying best practice in retrofitting GI to future redevelopment areas in England.

4

1. Introduction This report is based on a review and analysis of eight best practice case studies on the retrofitting of GI. Four of the case studies are from the UK and four are examples from international studies. The case studies are first presented individually, followed by a process of identifying key features, which are essential in defining both good practice in relation to retrofitting, but also in defining knowledge gaps. The selected eight case studies are:

1. Red Rose Forest, North West of England, UK 2. Torbay i-Tree Eco model, UK 3. Dagenham, London, UK 4. Olympic Park, London, UK 5. Luckenwalde, Germany 6. New York High Line, USA 7. Parc Du Chemin De L’Ile, France 8. The Berlin Biotope Area Factor, Germany

The methodology used to analyse each case study is as follows:

• Identification of the background to each of these case studies, • Clarification of the main aims of each initiative, • Description of types of measures used, • Innovation demonstrated in fitting or retrofitting GI.

5

2. UK Case Studies Case Study 1: Red Rose Forest Red Rose is a community forest which consists of a partnership project covering six districts (Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Salford, Trafford and Wigan with Natural England and the Forestry Commission), responsible for a 40 year vision for the area In addition, a wider stakeholder group includes landowners, businesses, government agencies, environmental and voluntary bodies, countryside services, communities, schools and many individuals. The project has been used in recent years to drive the following major GI projects: Newlands In the Lower Irwell Valley, a new partnership with the Forestry Commission (which previously benefited from financial support from the now defunct North West Development Agency) is seeking to reinvigorate the valley landscape and turn a derelict and underused landscape into a recreational and landscape asset, providing local communities with confidence and attracting future investment.

Newlands has been particularly successful as an exemplar of brownfield land regeneration. In addition, it has been a key initiative for tackling environmental deficit. It has been used to reclaim large areas of brownfield across the Northwest, and has responded to regional economic and social needs by transforming sites into community woodlands. It has a wider remit than the Red Rose Forest, and has delivered across a number of sites in the Mersey Belt. Sites for selection were assessed using the Public Benefit Recording System (PBRS) and Additional Value Assessments (AVA’s) to allocate investment and create community woodlands according to greatest economic, social and environmental need in conjunction with the functionality of the site. Green Streets At a local neighbourhood level, the Red Rose Forest is promoting ‘Green Streets’ which seek to reintroduce street trees, planters, public art and street furniture back in to the street scene. Consultation techniques use a virtual street environment from which to develop interactive ideas. Work is taking place in Seedley and Langworthy.

Chat Moss Visioning The Red Rose Forest Team are acting as coordinators for a project that seeks to create a long-term vision for the mossland landscapes in Salford, Wigan and

6

Warrington. They have engaged consultants on behalf of a group of partners to establish a land-use masterplan which will encourage the long term sustainability of wildlife, farming and leisure across the mossland landscapes. Croal Irwell Regional Park The Red Rose Forest Team has acted on behalf of Salford, Bolton and Bury to drive forward the initial concepts and the vision for a Regional Park located in the Irwell Valley. In the longer term, through an active partnership, it is hoped that the Irwell Valley will become another element of Salford’s ‘tourism offer’ delivering a range of leisure, wildlife, and heritage opportunities that will promote new economic opportunities and healthy lifestyles for the conurbation. Main Aims of the Initiative The main aims of the initiative are in:

• Reducing the impacts of climate change by reducing peak urban summer temperatures in urban areas, and improving urban drainage in order to reduce the impacts of flash flooding

• Promoting physical and mental health • Reducing waste and promoting recycling • Developing sustainable transport • Improving biodiversity • Developing community cohesion and engagement • Improving educational attainment • Improving the local economy

Types of Measures Used The measures used are contained in an overarching vision, which forms part of the 40-year Forest Plan. These include:

• Developing the network of open spaces, waterways, gardens, woodlands, green corridors, street trees and open countryside that make up Greater Manchester.

• Advising on and promoting GI as a tool to improve the environment • Engaging local communities across Red Rose Forest, encouraging people to

use green spaces and get involved in green events and volunteering • Working with key partners to support the development of Regional Parks • Supporting environmental and community professionals through the Greater

Manchester Forest Network • Securing private sector involvement to improve where people live and work • Working with local councils to improve everyone's quality of life • Contributing to Biodiversity Action Planning for priority habitats and species • Working with schools on projects and campaigns that educate people in the

Red Rose Forest area • Working with universities and other tertiary institutions, including academic and

industrial placements and research. Innovation demonstrated in Retrofitting GI There are two areas which demonstrate outstanding innovation. These are the use of strategic planning to achieve an ambitious 40-year programme, and the major contribution to the localism agenda realised through the strong partnership formed to drive the project. In addition, rather like the Luckenwalde initiative in Germany (case study 5), it provides a multi-functionality of benefits, albeit on a far wider scale. It delivers a broadrange of policy objectives, including environmental improvement for recreation and tourism, health benefits, business growth and improved biodiversity.

7

The Red Rose Forest Partnership’s 40-year vision sets out the long term targets that the partnership has been working to since 1995. These cover seven nationally monitored targets as part of England’s Community Forest initiative. Current annual baseline targets across The Red Rose Forest Partnership are as follows:

• 50 ha of new woodland planted • 100 ha of existing woodlands brought into management • 50 ha of non-woodland habitat created or restored • 5km of hedgerow planted • 20 km of non-woodland areas opened for access • 20 km of new recreational routes created or re-opened • 700 events held within Red Rose Forest.

References Red Rose Forest website, www.redroseforest.co.uk/web

8

Case Study 2: Torbay i-tree Eco Project Pilot Background to Project The i-tree process was developed by the United States Forestry Service. It is increasingly being used worldwide, and particularly successfully by Torbay District Council, which conducted the UK’s first i-Tree Eco project. The i-Tree Eco model is broadly based on the US model to demonstrate the total value of carbon stored by the tree stock and not sequestered annually; the pollution removal of a number of greenhouse gases including sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates; and the structural values of the tree stock.. This reflects the cost that it would take technology to carry out the functions of trees such as scrubbing the air or locking up carbon. However, this has been adapted in the UK to multiply tonnes of carbon stored by the non-traded price of carbon (because this carbon does not form part of the EU carbon trading scheme). The cost is therefore that of not emitting carbon elsewhere in order to comply with the Climate Change Act 2008. Main Aims of the Initiative The main aims of the initiative were to:

1. Assess the structure, composition and distribution of Torbay’s urban forest 2. Quantify some of the benefits (ecosystem services) of Torbay’s trees in order

to raise awareness of the value of trees in the urban environment 3. Establish a baseline from which to monitor trends and future progress.

Types of Measures Used The i-Tree Eco project was used to evaluate the current structure of the urban forest (physical attributes such as species composition, tree density, tree health, leaf area and biomass), and the functions (benefits of ecosystem services) of the urban forest. A public/private partnership project was formed in 2010 consisting of the Borough of Torbay, Hi-line, Forest Research and Natural England to collect data and present findings. The project was a pilot of the i-Tree Eco model in the UK. 241 plots were visited in Torbay, and a wide range of tree and shrub species were surveyed to record their size and condition, and details of land type on which they grew. This information was combined with weather and pollution data to produce an estimate of the monetary value of a range of environmental services from local trees. Natural England have surmised that the value of carbon storage by Torbay’s trees is £5 million, and of sequestration around £0.2 million. Air pollution removal is suggested to be worth £1.3 million p.a.

Innovation demonstrated in Retrofitting GI The innovation demonstrated using this process was in being able to reveal the total value of carbon stored by the tree stock and not sequestered annually; the pollution removal of ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates; and the structural values of the tree stock. It has allowed quantification of the tree stock of Torbay in order to make the case for the existing GI, as well as to justify future planting. The following facts were obtained:

• There are 6 trees per person • There are 98,100 tonnes of carbon stored • 8% of the land area is plantable space

9

• The most important species is ash (11.6%) • The structural value of the trees is £280 million • Carbon sequestration is 4,280 tonnes p.a. • The current value of carbon stored in Torbay’s streets is £1,474,000.

In practical terms the information contained in the survey was used to justify an additional annual investment in Torbay’s tree maintenance budget, halting a decline which had continued for a number of years. It has also been used to develop strategies for maintaining and improving Torbay’s Urban Forest, and to ensure the long-term delivery of ecosystem services for the benefit of its residents. References i-Tree - Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests, www.itreetools.org/index.php Torbay District Council, i-Tree Eco Project in Torbay, www.torbay.gov.uk/itree

10

Case Study 3: Dagenham – Using Flood Defence to Improve Communities Background to Project Thousands of people living in disadvantaged areas of Dagenham and Havering are benefitting from an innovative project that has seen a flood storage area transformed into an exciting multi-functional community space. Beam Parklands won the prestigious Brownfield Briefing award for the 'Best Use of Landfill or Brownfield Land' in the year 2011.

Beam Parklands, a 53 hectare multifunctional wetland was delivered by a partnership between the Environment Agency, The Land Trust, London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, London Borough of Havering, London Development Agency and Design for London. The judges at the Brownfield Briefing Awards recognised that the benefits delivered by Beam Parklands show clearly that the best use of brownfield land does not necessarily mean development. The communities surrounding the Washlands site are amongst the most disadvantaged in the country, a problem compounded by a lack of access to quality public spaces. While the Washlands is currently used informally as a public space, although only to a limited extent, it is of poor quality and attracts some antisocial behaviour contributing further to the challenges facing the area. Dagenham Washlands is at present primarily a flood defence without good quality green space. The project, therefore, has the potential to uplift and help the regeneration the surrounding area, positively addressing social deprivation. Main Aims of the Initiative The Parklands project aims to:

1. Improve flood storage. The Parkland’s primary function is as a flood defence, and as such the land protects 570 residential properties, two primary schools, three social clubs and 63 industrial and commercial properties on its doorstep and downstream,

2. Demonstrate that the best use of brownfield land does not necessarily mean

11

development, 3. Deliver community benefits including improved health, bio-diversity and

education, 4. Show that an attractive well maintained open space delivers economic strength

by making the area more desirable to both people and businesses. Types of Measures Used The Parklands consist of:

• 10 ha of new priority habitats • 2 km of enhanced riverside frontage • Improved access for local communities by improving access • 30,000 m3 of additional flood storage.

Innovation demonstrated in Retrofitting GI What makes this wetland parkland innovative is that its primary function is as a flood defence and as such the land protects 570 residential properties, two primary schools, three social clubs and 63 industrial and commercial properties on its doorstep and downstream. However when it is not flooded, it is a multifunctional open space that the community can use, and where biodiversity can develop. A key aspect of the development is in the way it has treated urban deprivation, and how this can be tackled using retrofitted greenspace. The area was formerly subject to extensive vandalism, and is in one of the most deprived areas of the country. By providing a range of outdoor recreational landscapes, this problem has been tackled. The plans for the site were developed following consultation with the local community during the summer of 2009. This highlighted the need for improved green space access to local communities. The Washlands project also complements the £80m regeneration scheme of the adjoining Mardyke Estate that is to be renewed as Orchard Village. Money for the long term maintenance of the project has been secured by an endowment of £1.9 million from the Homes and Communities Agency's (HCA) Parklands allocation for the East London Green Grid. This financial endowment will make sure that the improved open space will be maintained for the benefit of the local community for future generations. References London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Beam Parklands, www.lbbd.gov.uk/LeisureArtsAndLibraries/Parksandcountryside/Pages/BeamValley.aspx The Land Trust, 31 January 2010, Using Flood Defence to Improve Communities, www.thelandtrust.org.uk/business/news-detail.html?NID=589

12

Case Study 4: Olympic Park, London Background to Project When London won the bid to host the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games the promised legacy of the regeneration of London’s East End was key to that success. At the core of the regeneration was the 102 hectare Olympic Park. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has demonstrated the highest standards of GI, respect for the natural environment of the Lower Lea Valley, incorporated climate change measures and increased connectivity and new route networks to bring people in contact with the natural environment and its health, social and educational benefits. From 2013 onwards, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, as it will be known, will be the setting for new communities and businesses. The ODA handed over the Olympic Park to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) to prepare the venues and overlay early in 2012. The transformation of the park following the Games will be carried out by the London Legacy Development Corporation from April 2012. Aerial view of the Olympic Park’s Parklands

Source: www.london2012.com The River Lee and its valley were neglected for decades. The creation of the Lee Valley Regional Park in the 1960’s began a process to address this neglect, but the southern portion of the river closest to the Thames continued to be the dumping ground for heavy metals and other soil contaminants. The ODA’s Olympic Park Masterplan addressed this challenge head on and described how the largest park to be built in the UK in over 150 years, would have 45 hectares of new habitat as integral to the design. Environmental enhancement measures addressed the remediation of the highly contaminated and neglected land. The new habitats include wetland areas, open river banks and grassland and will provide an enhanced setting for biodiversity, as well as improving flood storage and conveyance within the Valley. In addition to new habitats there are large areas of annual and perennial meadows, horticultural gardens and spectator lawns that will be changed to species rich lawns in transformation.

13

Main Aims of Initiative The Lower Lea Valley, within which sits the Olympic Park, is an Opportunity Area designated to accommodate large-scale development in the London Plan. The Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework, a strategic planning guidance, was developed with partners including London Boroughs and the London Development Agency, to set out the regeneration agenda for the area. In particular it sets out requirements for development proposals to fulfill key sustainability standards in relation to waste management, water conservation and recycling, use of ecologically sensitive materials and design, drainage, and consideration of flood risk and management. A key aim is to promote best practice in environmental protection. The All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and the Olympic Legacy SPG also provide the policy framework for the Park’s current and legacy developments. In addition to adopting the One Planet Living principles, there are a number of sustainability objectives relating to the London 2012 Olympic Park and Parklands set out in the ODA’s design strategy, Designing for Legacy, and the Sustainable Development Strategy. These include:

1. The reduction of carbon emissions through on-site renewables 2. Managing flood risk 3. Ensuring all buildings are completely accessible by public transport, walking

and cycling 4. Meeting the biodiversity and ecology targets by creating a species-rich habitat

of at least 45 hectares 5. Constructing the Parklands with recycled aggregates and certified and legally

sourced timbers, and 6. Conforming to all recognised inclusive design standards.

The following aims were specifically defined in relation to the protection and enhancement of wildlife on site:

• Provision of natural links along the river valley corridor to achieve ecological continuity including links to the ‘green grid’ (a network of open space across east London).

• Habitat preservation: for example, protective log walls have been built (using as many as possible of the trees cut down during site clearance), themselves creating a new habitat for amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and plants.

• Eradication of invasive species, such as Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed.

• Habitat features incorporated into the design of buildings such as the provision of nesting sites and the creation of green and brown roofs (which are also useful climate adaptation tools by slowing run-off).

• Planting during the Games and legacy will use species native to south east England (and ideally of locally-grown stock), which are suited to projected future climates – including being tolerant to drought.

• Habitat creation utilising some of the seed stock collected from the Olympic Park site prior to clearance.

• Creation of undisturbed areas for wildlife. Types of Measures Used Green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancement measures were embedded into both the masterplanning and detailed landscape design processes. These consist of a specific Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) based on the Biodiversity Action Plan Framework and inclusion of a biodiversity section in the Sustainable Design Requirements section of LOCOG’s Design Strategy for Temporary Venues and Overlay.

14

The BAP sets out the following key measures:

• Set targets for the creation of 10 habitat categories that corresponded to six UK BAP Broad Habitat types,

• Provided a degree of flexibility in the relative quantity of each habitat type to be delivered with a 20% limit on variability,

• Published guidance to ensure the integration of different habitat type functions across the Park,

• Published action plans for 28 species and species groups, including for plants and birds, known as Species Action Plans, which required specific installations,

• translocation of habitats and species. Key areas for action on green infrastructure and biodiversity have been The 10-year Landscape Management and Maintenance, a planning condition for the development, is the key document setting out descriptions of actions and works to be carried out, including staff requirements and governance structures.

• Minimising and mitigating the impact of construction activity where possible on existing species and habitats in the run up to 2012

• Developing new and enhanced water and land habitats within the Lower Lea Valley, from open water and wetlands to species-rich grasslands

• Implementing the Olympic Park Biodiversity Action Plan • Protecting sensitive habitats and species at other competition sites, through

development of venue environment management plans • Promoting awareness of the value of biodiversity and its links to sport and

healthy living.

Innovation Demonstrated in Installing GI A key innovative feature of the Olympic Park is to help the whole site adapt to future climate change, through its ability to cope with heavy rainfall events as well as providing shade under trees and vegetation – helping to combat ‘heat island’ effects. The integration of GI and biodiversity into the Olympic Park masterplan and various planning and delivery documents as highlighted also recognised the multiple benefits and contribution to other themes covering aspects such as economic regeneration, carbon, water management, access & inclusion, waste, health and connectivity. As with the Dagenham case study, consultation has been a key aspect of provision. Several rounds of consultation were held before plans were approved. The Olympic and Legacy Transformation Planning Applications were submitted to the Planning Decisions Team (PDT) in February 2007, which prompted a five week-long community consultation in February and March. The PDT studied the applications and as a result of this initial work, feedback from the local community in the first public consultation and additional suggestions from the ODA, there were some changes to the plans and some additional environmental information submitted. Reconfiguration of bridges and highway sections to improve connectivity were approved as a result. The second phase of consultation included delivery of leaflets explaining the applications delivered to 195,000 homes and community facilities within 2.5 miles of the centre of Olympic Park. The ODA also held a three day drop-in surgery in Stratford so that people could ask any questions in person and copies of the applications were lodged in local libraries and council planning offices.

15

References Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), October 2011, Olympic Parklands Green Infrastructure, http://learninglegacy.london2012.com/publications/olympic-parklands-green-infrastructure.php

ODA, October 2011, Delivering the Olympic Park Biodiversity Action Plan, http://learninglegacy.london2012.com/publications/biodiversity-action-plan-securing-ecology-objectives-for.php Greater London Authority, January 2007, Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework, http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/lowerleavalley-all.pdf GLA, September 2011, Olympic Legacy SPG, www.london.gov.uk/publication/olympic-legacy-supplementary-planning-guidance GLA, March 2012, The All London Green Grid SPG, www.london.gov.uk/publication/all-london-green-grid-spg Forestry Commission, www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_case_study_028_Olympic_park.pdf/$FILE/urgp_case_study_028_Olympic_park.pdf

16

3. International case studies Case study 5: Luckenwalde: Use of Wasteland as a GI Resource and as Part of a Linear GI Network Background to Project The City of Luckenwalde, in the Brandenburg region of Germany, had tried unsuccessfully for ten years to find an investor to develop a use for a large area of wasteland immediately adjacent to the main shopping street in the city centre and to a major public park. As a result, it sought a creative temporary solution which would leave future options open. This involved a contract with the site owner including regulations regarding the temporary use of the site as a public park and an annual, symbolic lease. The owner has the option of developing the property if necessary. A designed greenspace has been created as a resting and meeting place for all residents of the city, but especially for young people and families. The greenspace has been integrated into the permanent path network as a link between the park and the shopping area. Main Aims of the Initiative The main aims of the initiative are:

1. The removal of an inner city wasteland 2. Activation of inner city development potential 3. Upgrading of a public space 4. Creating a sense of place by giving the city centre a distinctive character. This

has allowed residents to identify more readily with their city and instil a sense of pride and ownership

5. Strengthening of the city centre as a place for living, experience and economy 6. Integration of retailers in the neighbourhood.

Types of Measures Used A number of measures were adopted. These included:

• Following unsuccessful attempts to utilize the empty site, setting up a contract with the landowner to use the site temporarily as public green space

• Development of a design concept for the area • Carrying out a landscaping upgrade of the area • Use of plant species suitable for transportation to another site if and when it

was needed for redevelopment • Integration into the path network between the Nuthepark and the Boulevard • Planting of rows of trees to form the structure of the site • Creation of sport and play provision • Opening of a public park.

Innovation demonstrated in Retrofitting GI The Luckenwalde initiative has demonstrated a number of key innovative solutions. One of these has been to return an area of wasteland into usable space by creating a retrofitted and usable public open space area at limited cost. A beach volleyball court

17

has been created, and a public meeting place provided in the centre of the heavily populated area. This has been achieved without making future development more difficult. As such, the creation of usable open space has provided social benefits out of unusable land. The other real innovation has been the co-operation of stakeholders. Costs were assisted by local donations and sponsorships. Residents were also heavily involved, in line with the UK Government’s localism agenda. This included much assistance provided by those living in areas of social deprivation in the inner city. References Luckenwalde-Innenstadt ‘temporary use of an empty site’, www.werkstatt-stadt.de/en/projects/167, Werkstatt-Stadt presents a collection of innovative projects from German federal urban development practice. These are captured in a database and are published on the internet.

18

Case Study 6: New York High Line Background to Project The High Line is a public park built on an historic freight rail line elevated above the streets on Manhattan’s West Side. It is owned by the City of New York, and maintained and operated by Friends of the High Line. Founded in 1999 by community residents, Friends of the High Line fought for the High Line’s preservation and transformation at a time when the historic structure was under the threat of demolition. It is now the non-profit conservancy working with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation to make sure the High Line is maintained as an extraordinary public space for all visitors to enjoy. In addition to overseeing maintenance, operations, and public programming for the park, Friends of the High Line works to raise the essential private funds to support more than 90 percent of the park’s annual operating budget, and to advocate for the preservation and transformation of the High Line at the Rail Yards, the third and final section of the historic structure, which runs between West 30th and West 34th Streets. Main Aims of the Initiative The main aims of the High Line initiative were to:

1. Define a comprehensive vision for the reuse of the High Line as an original 1.5-mile-long public open space

2. Identify design solutions to the challenge of providing plentiful access to the High Line's elevated platform, including access facilities and access systems integrated into existing and/or future construction surrounding the High Line

3. Conceive an innovative plan for the environment to be experienced by a visitor to the High Line's elevated platform

4. Define compelling treatments for the spaces beneath the High Line, including street and sidewalk crossings (which were publicly controlled), and underlying private lots and buildings (controlled by individual property owners).

Community objectives include:

• Preservation of historic/neighbourhood character • Controls for height and bulk in new construction • Controlled introduction of residential uses • Provisions to maintain current arts and manufacturing uses • Open-space creation • Traffic congestion mitigation • Creation of affordable housing • Controls on adult/nightclub uses.

Types of Measures Used Construction included the removal of tracks, ballast, and debris. The tracks were then mapped, tagged, and stored (some to be reinstalled in the park landscape). This was followed by sandblasting of steel, repairs to concrete and drainage systems, and installation of pigeon deterrents underneath the Line.

19

Landscape construction included the construction and installation of pathways, access points, seating, lighting, and planting. The route of the old High Line was designed with a unique linear paving concept. Long, narrow, parallel planting strips were created that combine and separate to form narrow or wide planting areas. Well designed plantings of perennials, trees and shrubs, have been created by Piet Oudulf. Many are of North American prairie origin, and often native to the area. All plantings have a naturalistic look reminiscent of the wild, self-seeded growth that characterized the abandoned rail line before it was transformed into an urban horticultural and theatrical venue. Innovation demonstrated in Retrofitting The innovation demonstrated was in using the derelict railway line to create a linear routeway above the streets of New York. The cultural heritage and history of the line have been conserved and interpreted through the High Line's planting design. This has been inspired by the self-seeded landscape that grew on the out-of-use elevated rail tracks during the 25 years after trains stopped running. The species of perennials, grasses, shrubs and trees were chosen for their hardiness, sustainability, and textural and color variation, with a focus on native species. Many of the species that originally grew on the High Line's rail bed are incorporated into the park's landscape. The other innovative aspect of the High Line project was the involvement of local communities through the setting up of the Friends’ group and its subsequent management. Friends of the High Line have preserved the entire historic structure, transforming an essential piece of New York’s industrial past. The Friends provide over 90 percent of the High Line’s annual operating budget and are responsible for maintenance of the park, pursuant to a license agreement with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation. Through stewardship, innovative design and programming, and excellence in operations, they have cultivated a vibrant community around the High Line. References Official Web site of the High Line and Friends of the High Line, www.thehighline.org

20

Case Study 7: Parc Du Chemin De L’Ile, Nanterre Background to Project Located in a degraded brownfield site between a highway interchange, a train line, the Seine River, a papermaking factory and a penitentiary, the Parc du Chemin de l'Ile is part a big rehabilitation intervention on the urban space linking La Defense (Paris business district) and Nanterre. Greenspace Infrastructure Overview Plan for Parc du Chemin

The following achievements have been recorded: • The park treats 36m3/h of Seine’s water • 1000m3 p.a. deposited by a windmill is sufficient capacity for the irrigating of

14ha of green spaces • The park produces 40 to 80m3 of green waste that are reused on site • In terms of maintenance, no chemicals are used on site and mulching is used

on plant materials to reduce transpiration • The total electricity consumption by the bioclimatic buildings is 200 kWh/year • There is a high degree of enhanced biodiversity.

Main Aims of the Initiative The Park project aims to:

1. Create a natural space on an existing discharge in a high-dense environment 2. Create green connections between neighbourhoods 3. Restore clean water to the Seine River that is polluted by the existing factory 4. Restore biodiversity on the site

Types of Measures Used There were a number of measures used in the construction of the Parc Du Chemin de L’Ile:

• Materials found on the site were recycled and used to build it • At the entrance of the park, a number of ponds filter the water pumped in the

Seine and store it, where it is then pumped by a windmill to be used in the park and the community gardens

• The whole watercourse, from pumping until storage is visible to the visitor • The park is full of scenic places to seat and enjoy the surrounding landscape

sitted on a bench or in the grass

21

• Several high quality places for recreation (for children, teenagers but also dogs) are available

• Several contemporary sculptures were placed all over the park • All the buildings are HQE certified (High Environmental Quality).

Water from the Seine is Filtered and Stored Before Later Use

Innovation demonstrated in Retrofitting The innovation demonstrated in this project is in the number of ecological interventions which have been achieved on one site. These include:

• Water management of the river Seine - Water from the Seine is moved by Archimedes screw pump and conducted to the top of a series of gardens used to filter and clean. Once treated the water feeds the aquatic gardens, the lotus basin, and the ditch are re-introduced into the Seine near the ‘Touradons gardens’,

• Bioclimatic architecture - This includes rainwater recovery; natural extraction of hot water from buildings using architectural flues; natural lighting techniques; use of natural insulation materials including wool and hemp; and the installation of highly insulated glass windows,

• Waste management - Techniques employed on the work site; waste evacuation and distribution into treatment fields; pollution management to limit the effect of transport; noise and dust reduction; and extensive use of recycled materials,

• Improved biodiversity - use of water basins with varying depth for different species,

• Use of different soils including organic topsoils, sand and gravel; use of materials including wood, pebbles and rocks; and using different planting including trees, hedges, flowers and grass habitats.

These benefits are environmental in terms of impact, however, there are considerable social benefits for the residents and communities of Nanterre. An improved quality of life has been achieved, making the area a better place to live and work. In addition, recreation and tourism increase the financial value of the improvements along with health benefits.

References www.greeninfrastructurewiki.com/page/Parc+du+Chemin+de+l%27Ile

22

Case Study 8: The Berlin Biotope/Green Area Factor Programme

Background to Project The Biotope/Green Area Factor program of Berlin, Germany is an innovative example of green urban infrastructure implemented at the parcel or building scale. From 1945 until 1990 West Berlin was an urban island within the German Democratic Republic and this unique isolation motivated research and public interest in urban ecology. Since the 1980’s West Berlin has had an active green movement, reflecting national policies such as the National Environmental Protection Law which empowered local authorities to develop landscape plans for urban areas, including the Biotope/Green Area Factor programme. The Biotope/Green Area Factor (BAF) program is based on the principle that modest, incremental and decentralized green infrastructure can have a significant cumulative effect to improve the urban ecology. Under the program, each parcel must mitigate its impacts on-site. A primary goal of the programme is to counteract ‘creeping impermeability’ by mandating that new or renovated buildings achieve a prescribed green factor rating. The “greening” is intended to provide several functions: evapotranspiration of water, retain and infiltrate stormwater, remove airborne particulates, support natural soil functions and provide plant and animal habitat. The programme is implemented at the neighborhood level, where priorities are decided, technologies selected and performance data collected and evaluated to measure progress towards goals. The programme sets green area targets based on land use: residential 60%, mixed use 40% and commercial/city center at 30% – recognizing that the targets must differ in response to land use intensity. When the policy is activated by a property sale or renovation, the owner is required to meet these targets by implementing greening techniques selected from a menu. Each technique is assigned a weight based on its contribution to the programme goals and calculated as a percentage of site area to determine the green factor. Techniques include: green roofs, bioswales, facade greening, pervious paving and plantings. Main Aims of the Initiative The main aims of the initiative hinge on the Biotope/Green Area Factor, which contributes to standardising and putting into concrete terms the following environmental quality goals:

• Safeguarding and improving the microclimate and atmospheric hygiene, • Safeguarding and developing soil function and water balance, • Creating and enhancing the quality of the plant and animal habitat, • Improving the residential environment.

23

Types of Measures Used The BAF is calculated from the ratio of the parts of areas of a site that have a positive effect on the ecosystem or the biotope development to the total area of the site. The BAF = ecologically effective area’s total land area. Corresponding weighting factors are assigned to the individual partial areas of a site, depending on their ‘ecological significance’. On the one hand, these partial areas form all of the area types on the surface area of a site, from the asphalt to the vegetation surface. On the other hand, those areas are also taken into account that can be included as compensation for surface areas that are ‘not available’. This concerns the green roofs and vertical walls as well as the separate roof areas from which rainwater is filtered off to the ground through vegetation soakaways. Innovation demonstrated in installing GI The Biotope/Green Area Factor demonstrates a ‘bottom-up’ decentralised approach to green infrastructure planning. While it has multiple goals and emphasises the beneficial aspects of infrastructure, it does not have an explicit spatial concept. The programme employs a fully opportunistic strategy and includes an adaptive component realised through monitoring of the cumulative effectiveness of the greening techniques (urban climate recording, urban species diversity, and water quality and total runoff). This has similarities to the Red Rose Forest project in being able to demonstrate multiple benefits, both in terms of environmental improvement and community benefits. References Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, A green city centre – BAF – Biotope area factor, www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/landschaftsplanung/bff/en/ziele.shtml Berlin: The Biotope Area Factor, www.grabs-eu.org/membersArea/files/berlin.pdf Landschaft Planen & Baue, Giseke, B., and Richard, M., 1990, The Biotope Area Factor as an Ecological Parameter, www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/landschaftsplanung/bff/download/Auszug_BFF_Gutachten_1990_eng.pdf

24

4. SWOT Analysis of Case Studies An initial SWOT analysis of these case studies identifies a number of opportunities which need to be addressed in the planning of GI. These are briefly described in the table below. Table 1. SWOT Analysis of GI Planning Case Studies

Strengths Weaknesses • Reduced environmental impacts • Biodiversity • SUDS • Use of greenways • Concern about climate change • Engagement with communities

• Analysis of adaptation measures • Social impacts • Barriers to woodland access • Wellbeing agenda • Financial impacts • Sustainable transport • Urban GI planning • Difficulty of quantifying benefits • Legislation and guidelines

Opportunities Threats • Localism agenda • Response to climate change • Long-term planning • Brown field retrofitting • Integrated solutions • Benefit quantification

• Other Government priorities • Limited funding • Lack of definitive knowledge

Strengths Reduced environmental impacts are exhibited in particular in the Parc Du Chemin de L’Ile, where many measures have been used to produce an integrated infrastructure covering sustainable buildings, water treatment, recycling of green waste, power efficiency measures and the reduction of chemical usage. Biodiversity is an area which has been well-tackled. It is a feature of the Parc Du Chemin de L’Ile, with the use of a range of soil types, landscapes and species. The Olympic Park is outstanding in this respect, with its use of a range of habitats and species native to the south east of England. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) reflect a raised awareness relating to potential flooding risk, and it is unsurprising that the Dagenham project has been awarded for its flood defence measures in combination with recreational opportunities in brownfield areas. The use of greenways is a feature of the Luckenwalde project, with its integration into the footpath networks linking the Boulevard and the Nuthepark. The New York High Line is exceptional in using a redundant freight rail line for recreation. Concerns relating to climate change are apparent, with SUDS and adapted landscape projects at Parc Du Chemin de L’Ile, Croal Irwell Regional Park and the Olympic Park specifically tackling the likely impacts of climate change. Community engagement is essential for the success of GI schemes, and is well demonstrated at Luckenwalde where a strong stakeholder engagement model, Croal Irwell, helped secure private sector involvement and community development. Finally, community involvement and leadership at High Line, with its Friends group, both guided the development and secured external funding for 60% of the project. The BAF approach in West Berlin demonstrates how a neighbourhood scale approach to retrofitting or enhancing existing GI can make a meaningful contribution to overall GI provision. Weaknesses There are a number of weaknesses demonstrated. An analysis of the way in which climate change adaptation measures can be addressed by retrofitting GI still lacks strength in depth. The EU GRaBS project led by the TCPA did much to examine

25

landscapes in the light of existing work completed by organisations such as the University of Manchester to identify the cooling impacts of landscapes retrofitted in urban environments, as well as developing guidelines for the use of SUDS. However, more work is needed of the type identified in the i-tree methodology produced by the US Forestry Agency, but so far only piloted in this country in Torbay. Recreational opportunities have been explored in a number of ways in the UK, and are accepted as a quantifiable benefit of retrofitted green space. However, the wellbeing agenda is a difficult area to quantify in terms of benefits, and work is necessary in the UK to produce definitive guidelines backed by thorough and scientific research relating to mental and social as well as recreational improvements. Forest Research has identified barriers to woodland access, particularly for ethnic groups, those on lower incomes, and women. The positive financial impacts of GI provision have been referred to by organisations, such as CABE Space (2006)1, with its work relating to increases in property values in the catchment of well-managed green spaces. However, financial benefits also include making an area a better place to live and work in, and thus encouraging inward investment, as well as reducing costs to the National Health Service and promoting tourism. These need to be quantified to encourage greater GI development in the UK. Sustainable transport links are formed by greenways, and areas next to watercourses for example. In the UK, instances of where this approach has been adopted include Maidstone District Council (‘Access to Maidstone’s Countryside’) and Southampton City Council with its Greenway network. However, the impacts in terms of reduced vehicular traffic flows and the degree to which pedestrian and cycling routes impact on the use of motorized vehicles needs further exploration. Integrated planning of GI landscapes in to the urban landscape needs to be developed, using examples such as the use of wasteland for a range of GI functions at Luckenwalde. The Valuing and Nature Network (NERC) has identified that not all benefits may be qualified in relation to the valuation of ecosystems - multi-criteria analysis and participatory approaches may be needed for benefits such as those relating to ethics and spiritual benefits. Finally, there is a role for central legislation and guidelines. Section 2.1 explores policy statements and guidelines in the UK, but indicates that these tend to be non-specific to the planning of GI. Threats Threats are posed to the evolution of good GI planning in the UK in a number of ways. These include the fact that priorities for the Government may not include GI planning, but may be more centred towards economic growth, health, education and other priorities. The current economic situation may mean that central and local government may lack the resources to fund GI improvements. Finally, a lack of definitive knowledge about the huge benefits of GI planning to communities, individuals and the economy may preclude positive action. Opportunities There are a number of opportunities, which are presented in relation to GI planning at present, and for the near future these include:

1. Localism agenda The move away from a centralised planning system in England puts a strong onus on the need for local communities to be involved

1 CABE, 2006, The value handbook. Getting the most from your buildings and spaces, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/the-value-handbook

26

in shaping the future of places and communities. There are opportunities for communities to be involved in the planning and delivery of GI strategies. The Croal Irwell Regional Park study indicates ways in which partnerships can be formed and developed.

2. Response to climate change GI has a strong role to play in reducing peak

urban summer temperatures in urban areas, and reducing the impacts of flash flooding. The i-tree initiative has demonstrated in Torbay the tonnage of CO2, which can be sequestrated by trees, and the financial value of trees in the environment.

3. Long-term planning This is vital to the planning of GI throughout the UK, and

at a local level. The Red Rose project has been successful in defining a Vision and a 40-year strategy delivered through its stakeholders to achieve a wide range of ambitious goals.

4. Use of brown field land. All areas suitable for GI infrastructure must be

considered for use in urban areas if retrofitting is to be successful at a national level. The Luckenwalde example indicates how wasteland can form a precious GI commodity without impinging on future development.

5. Integrated solutions GI can fulfill a wide range of objectives, including

sustainable transport networks, recreational opportunities, flood alleviation, pollution control, and community-building. Integrated solutions such as those demonstrated at Parc Du Chemin de L’Ile and Red Rose.

6. Quantify the benefits If the benefits of GI infrastructure are to be fully

exploited, then all significant benefits must be quantified. Ecological effectiveness must be calculated. This has been demonstrated to be possible using the Berlin Biotype, and the US i-trees initiative.

27

Theme 2.2: Initial Conclusions on Opportunities for Retrofitting Green Infrastructure Executive Summary Theme 2.2 reviews the range of policy measures impacting on the physical retrofitting of GI. This study, undertaken between January and March 2012, primarily focuses on the policies for GI set out through Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Guidance (PPGs)2. The anticipated effects of the new National Planning Policy Framework3 (NPPF) and the Localism Act 2011 on the delivery of GI are then considered, focusing on the processes that are highlighted in the case studies covered in Theme 2.1. Based on these analyses, the potential for a toolkit is then considered which could guide the actions of planners in the future, and to help make a case for the retrofitting of GI in the light of other priorities. This piece of work is used to provide a framework for recommendations of future work of the Green Infrastructure Partnership. Finally, this study reviews the available resources for assessing the rates of redevelopment in England, and the opportunities that are therefore available in terms of GI retrofitting. The review concludes that there are potential opportunities for GI retrofitting relating to the implementation of the Localism Act 2011 and the NPPF. The NPPF allows local authorities to embed local GI policies in their Local Plans and there is also the potential for greater understanding of the multiple benefits of GI at the community level through new initiatives such as Neighbourhood Planning. However, to realise this potential, both councils and local communities will need adequate access to information, training and resourcing. It will take time for the measures introduced in the Localism Act and the NPPF to bed down and it is only possible to have a provisional view as to how the planning reform measures will work in practice. It is also unclear how GI will be planned at the strategic, cross boundary level, including the role of the duty to cooperate set out in the Localism Act and what role bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships will play in strategic coordination. There is an opportunity to improve understanding of the value of retrofitted GI by using a quantified toolkit as described in Section 4 of this study. This could consider physical benefits such as adapting urban areas to climate change and reducing flash flooding; economic benefits such as increasing property values and encouraging inward investment; and well-being benefits such as improved physical and mental fitness and reduced health costs. However, although some attempts have been made to analyse these benefits, further research is necessary as discussed in Theme 1. A costed approach to the fitting of GI would assist planners and communities to be able to make more informed decisions about the type and location of GI. It would also assist practitioners in being able to demonstrate the financial value of GI. Nevertheless, individual decisions will always need to be made based on the needs of local communities and the physical characteristics of each area.

2 Note: The majority of the PPS and PPGs were withdrawn with the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the 27th March 2012. 3 Note: The scoping study was undertaken just before the final publication of the NPPF on the 27th March 2012.

28

1. Introduction Following on from the case studies and SWOT analysis of Theme 2.1, this section of the report analyses a range of existing measures that have an impact on opportunities for retrofitting GI. In keeping with the research brief and methodology, this review first examines the PPSs and PPGs series of guidance for information relating to GI (which have been withdrawn since 27th March 2012). An analysis is then conducted to examine the opportunities emerging for GI through Local Plans and Neighbourhood Planning in light of the Localism Act 2011 and the recently published NPPF. Summarising the findings of this research, Table 1 sets out the Project Team’s initial analysis of the opportunities for retrofitting GI through the NPPF and Localism Act, identifying the gaps in current understanding, and scope for improvement. Table 1: Initial conclusions on opportunities for retrofitting GI

Opportunities Gaps Scope for Improvement Localism agenda and the Localism Act 2011

• Opportunities for Local definition of GI

• Opportunities to decide climate change responses at a local level

• Knowledge on how Climate Change Partnerships will operate in the new policy context

• Better understanding of how strategic-level planning and management will function with the removal of Regional Strategies and the introduction of the duty to cooperate

• Lack of expertise of local communities to lead on neighbourhood-level plans

• Guidance/ best practice on strategic planning for GI using the duty to cooperate

• Guidelines to be drawn up clarifying how GI can be effectively championed in neighbourhood planning

• Guidance on how to undertake capacity building at a neighbourhood level

NPPF • Presumption in favour

of sustainable development

• Potential for climate change mitigation measures also improving well-being

• GI can be managed using specific designations

• Specific recognition for Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)

• Lack of policy detail on the implementation of GI in on matters such as brownfield sites

• Guidance for presumption against development in LWSs

• Clarity over use of planning designation to protect GI in brownfield sites

Use of a Toolkit • Toolkit could clarify

benefits of GI • Policy instruments could

improve GI retrofitting • Climate change

adaptation and mitigation measures could be improved

• Chance to improve the quality and function of existing GI

• Lack of research relating to costs and benefits

• Lack of sector advocacy on the application of CIL for GI

• Definitive research required relating to climate change measures

• Scientific approaches could be improved to quantify resources implications

• Clarity over role of CIL in GI retrofitting measures

• Further research based around role of GI in climate change measures

• More research in relation to well-being (see Theme 1)

29

2. Review of Existing Measures The state of the outgoing planning policy measures for the retrofitting of GI was variable. The impact of these measures on the opportunities for retrofitting GI prior to the publication of the NPPF is considered in Table 2 below. This table provides a review of relevant Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) documents, selecting those elements particularly relating to GI. It is important to note that with the publication of the NPPF on the 27th March 2012 the PPS and PPG series of guidance were withdrawn4. Detailed information about each PPS and PPG is shown as Annex A. Table 2: Overview of National Planning Policies

Document Overview of key objectives in relation to Green Infrastructure

PPS1 Delivering sustainable development • Considering the impact of development on social cohesion and exclusion • Protecting and enhancing the environment.

PPS Supplement

Planning and climate change • Conserve and enhance biodiversity • In selecting land, LPAs to take into account the contribution to be made from

existing and new opportunities for open space and green infrastructure

PPS3

Housing • Providing community and green and open amenity and recreational space • Facilitating the efficient use of resources, and seeks to reduce the impact of climate

change • Providing for biodiversity.

PPS9

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation • Development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-to-

date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas • Development plan policies should aim to maintain or add to biodiversity • Development plan policies should take a strategic approach to biodiversity and

incorporate it in to designs • Planning decisions should prevent harm to biodiversity conservation interests.

PPS12

Local Spatial Planning • Outlines how spatial planning should creating strong, safe and prosperous

communities • Provides a positive framework for environmental enhancement, and can be used by

local authorities as a policy hook for Green Infrastructure.

PPG17

Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation • Promoting accessibility and the location of more intensive recreational uses • Avoiding any significant loss of amenity and improving the quality of the public

realm through good design • Providing areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas • Meeting the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield in preference to

greenfield sites • Considering the scope for using any surplus land for open space, sport or

recreational use and assessing the impact of new facilities on social inclusion.

PPS25

Development and Flood Risk • Strategic assessment and management of flood risk as part of the planning process • New and updated guidance on the management of surface water, including the use

of SUDS • Updates on changes to UK Climate Change Projections in relation to flood risk

management measures.

4 Note: Alongside the publication of the NPPF the Government published technical guidance on development in areas at risk of flooding. This guidance retains key elements of PPS25 which are considered necessary and helpful by Government. www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppftechnicalguidance

30

3. Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework Localism Act 2011 The Localism Act may have a significant impact on how GI will be planned for in future development at local scales. Part 6 of the Localism Act on a reformed planning framework offers potential opportunities for integrating GI in the local and new neighbourhood planning approaches where communities chose to do so. Under the Act, Regional Strategies with their GI policies will be revoked subject to an Order from the Secretary of State. Plan-making responsibility will now fall solely on local planning authorities. Neighborhood forums and parish councils will have the power to lead on shaping the future of their places and communities through neighbourhood planning. This process has been described in the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, which came in to force on 6th April 2012. Key discretionary measures are included within the Act which will increase the power of local communities to engage in the design, planning and management of GI. These include:

1. The Community Right to Bid. This gives local communities the power to identify local assets, including land as an ‘Asset of Community Value’, and provides them with the opportunity to secure the asset if it comes up for sale.

2. The power to draw up a Neighbourhood Development Plan. This could

include GI provision but must be in general conformity with strategic priorities in the respective Council’s Local Plan.

3. Increases in local democracy and ownership by requiring developers to

consult local communities before submitting some applications could allow local communities to communicate GI aspirations.

4. Enabling local communities to forward development proposals through the

Neighbourhood Development Order and Community Right to Build. These can include GI as well as playgrounds and other facilities (homes, shops, etc.)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF, published on the 27th March 2012, has consolidated and replaced all existing planning guidance, including those relevant to the planning of GI identified in Table 2, into one single document. The draft NPPF was published for public consultation between 25th July and the 17th October 2011. The final NPPF was published by the Government during the final week of this study and therefore the analysis provided here is very much an initial overview. The NPPF allows Local Planning Authorities to be much more in control of the planning of their area within the parameters of the new framework and contains policy for enabling GI to be more effectively embedded in plan-making and development proposals. The main effects of the NPPF on local plan-making and planning decisions include the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ on the Development Plan of the Local Planning Authority and reinforce a strong plan led system. The core planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF include:

• The more effective use of land is encouraged by harnessing multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas and that land of “least environmental quality” should be developed first. Protection and enhancement

31

of the natural environment, and landscape, is included as a strategic priority for local planning

• Tackling climate change through mitigation and adaptation • Support public transport cycling and walking • Support improvements of health and welling

The NPPF makes the following references to GI and other aspects of the natural environment:

• Section 10 on Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change states that: “care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of Green Infrastructure.”

• Section 11 on the Natural Environment has the objective for the natural

environment that ‘planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing’.

• The section on Sustainable Communities contains proposals for a Local

Green Space designation, which will enable local communities to identify, for special protection, green areas of particular importance to them through local and neighbourhood plans. Identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. The proposed designation could be used where a green area holds a particular local significance because of its beauty, historic importance, recreational value, tranquility or richness of its wildlife. Details of this new designation will be consulted on in due course.

It is also significant for the delivery of GI in urban areas that while the NPPF prioritises brownfield land it makes clear that where land is of high environmental quality it should be preserved.

4. Elements of a Toolkit to achieve Green Infrastructure Retrofitting A detailed economic appraisal is beyond the scope of this brief study; however the following assessment points the way to further, more detailed work, which may be considered in relation to building the financial case for GI retrofitting. It is based on an appraisal of a number of studies in this area, and in particular the Green Infrastructure Valuation Toolkit produced by Green Infrastructure North West, which formed part of the North West Climate Change Action Plan. The next step recommended is for these elements to be analysed for inclusion in to a robust toolkit to guide the actions of future planners in the new policy context, which will help make a case for the retrofitting of GI in the light of other priorities (as detailed in the situational analysis of Section 2.1). It is proposed that a bespoke Toolkit to help planners retrofit GI in to new and existing development would include: Policies This element should include an overview of the potential for developer contributions and planning requirements, including the application of Section 106 agreements (S106) for GI retrofitting. Examples where this has been achieved include the Green

32

Streets Programmes of the Mersey and Red Rose Forests, which received significant levels of S106 funding. Although the Government has signaled a review of existing planning obligations as part of the Growth Review, the new Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations may provide similar opportunities. Other relevant non-planning policies include the Water Framework Directive, which is looking to improve the ecological status of rivers. In some instances, improvements could be achieved by GI or by the re-naturalisation of rivers. In Greater Manchester, the Environment Agency have suggested that the three reasons for failure in the ecological status of the rivers most likely to be solved by GI are diffuse pollution, physical modification, and point source intermittent (i.e. CSO overflows). They have mapped where rivers are failing for these 3 reasons and are suggesting that this is where, if a GI intervention was targeted, it could deliver most improvement towards good status or good ecological potential. Climate change policies, as outlined in Section 1.3, which are linked to the retrofitting of GI also offer opportunities to demonstrate the value of GI in adopting adaptation measures.

Land and Property Values Taking forward this element of the toolkit should include an analysis of the type of property likely to be enhanced by the retrofitting of GI, and this might be successfully divided between commercial and residential property uplift values. A distinction should be considered between GI which is newly created, and that which has been improved in quality. Catchment distances from properties need to be factored in to the equation, as it is clear from studies carried out be CABE and others that uplift is confined to catchments within a few minutes travelling range from GI. The quality of GI needs to be defined, as uplift will vary dependent upon this. The size of GI in relation to the total land area is also relevant. The number of people or households benefitting will need to be quantified. Average uplift can be calculated using HM Land Registry property values for the neighbourhood. Quantified health benefits Health benefits accruing from the provision of GI have not been fully researched, and are confined to studies such as Cycling England’s Cycling Demonstration Towns which indicate the value of cycling in relation to reduced mortality; Grahn and Stigsdotter (2003), and their assessment of reduced stress levels achieved by access to green landscapes; and the Park Life report from Green Space. It should however be noted that some work is being carried out to quantify mental well-being benefits through the use of validated questionnaires and monetary valuations. From these pieces of work, assumptions can be made about the value of GI if it encourages, for example, additional three hours of physical activity in the form of walking or cycling per week. On the basis of such assumptions, an extrapolation can be made in relation to health cost savings or savings resulting from reduced mortality rates.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation Information relating to this area is outlined in Section 1.3, which sets out the significant gaps in knowledge still remaining. As part of the GRaBS project however, STAR tools were developed to assess changes in surface temperature and runoff from different scenarios relating to the level of green cover in a neighbourhood. Some attempt has also made in initiatives such as the i-tree project highlighted in Section 2.1 to quantify the value of trees in removing carbon from the atmosphere. Some extrapolation could be made relating to the reduced cost of gas and electricity for heating in relation to the proximity of trees, or reduced building energy costs for cooling, particularly in the eventuality that peak urban summer temperatures are

33

likely to rise significantly. Carbon sequestration could be shown in relation to wooded and non-wooded landscapes, but further work is necessary in this area to quantify benefits.

Impact of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) There are a number of parameters which could be used in this element of the toolkit. These include water potentially diverted from the sewer system in terms of energy savings using a SUDS scheme, and subsequent CO2 reductions. Such an approach could also be applied to landscapes which reduce the impact of large surface water runoff episodes, and the financial and physical strain on conventional water treatment plants. Guidance to support Defra in the implementation of the sustainable drainage systems provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has been published for public consultation5.

Inward investment Further work is also necessary in this area, but financial value would certainly lie in the leveraging of private sector investment created, the benefits of employment creation, and image enhancement (i.e. making an area a better place to live and work in).

Biodiversity Biodiversity benefits could relate to increased recreational opportunities. This is difficult to quantify and needs more analytical assessment, but might include a willingness to pay for biodiversity improvements.

Tourism and recreation This is slightly easier to conceptualise than some other factors, and could be related to the average daily expenditure of visitors visiting an area of green space, or visiting a locality as a result of that green space being present. The number of visitors and frequency of use would be an important measure. However, the problem with this as an assumption is that some types of green space will fare better than others in terms of tourism spend. Yet, these types of space may, of course, have high value at a local level regardless of expenditure. Employment generated by tourism and recreation could also be included. Tourism and recreation would cover a diverse range of specific activities such as walking, angling, playing golf, water sports, etc.

Value of products generated This could relate to the value of products produced as a direct result of management of green space. It could include as an example the annual value of timber for wood chippings or pellets for bio-burners.

Other physical considerations Some locations by their very nature will have limited opportunities for retrofit, others will have more opportunities. Different types of development locations, and the density of dwellings, will provide different opportunities for including GI, and places which have no development taking place will also provide different opportunities. It should be possible to incorporate significant GI components, and to design highly functional GI from the outset, as part of the overall masterplan. This could include maintaining functional connectivity to the countryside where development is on agricultural land on the edges of an existing urban area.

5 Consultation closed on the 13th March 2012 for proposals on the Implementation of the Sustainable Drainage Provisions in Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act (2010), including the draft National Standards for SuDS, www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2011/12/20/sustainable-drainage-systems-1112/

34

A recent study in Greater Manchester (Hall et al, 2011) suggested that tree planting could potentially be increased by only 2.8% and 5.3% in high density residential areas, with the greatest increase found in 1960s driveway housing. Potential tree cover was less variable because most new trees would be planted into the pavement, which was equally common in all housing types. There may also be opportunities here to improve the quality or functionality of existing GI (e.g. wildflowers or trees in grass verges; SuDS included into parks, etc). 5. Understanding rates of development This part of the review provides a snapshot of the material available to gauge current rates of redevelopment in England, and how this might be taken forward as part of future research in to retrofitting of GI. It is difficult to get a quick understanding of the rates of re-development in England, and therefore draw conclusions as to what this means for opportunities for retrofitting GI. The desktop study undertaken in this review highlights the main source of information on this topic appears to be the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). DCLG collects land use change data for England on an annual basis but publishes them quarterly with update data (with information provided for each of the English regions6), and can be accessed at www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningbuilding/planningstatistics/livetables/landusechange. The DCLG also publishes statistics on housing, such as on housing stock, net housing supply and house building, and can be accessed at www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/livetables. The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), the Government’s national agency for housing and regeneration, is another useful source for information, with examples of green and open space being included into new development, and can be accessed at www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/view-document-list/keyword/green-space-and-open-space. DCLG’s annual reports on land use change in England (e.g. DCLG, 2011) can help us to understand the nature of development that is taking place and to look at trends. In 2010, in England, according to a provisional estimate:

• 76% of dwellings (including conversions) were built on previously-developed land7, a decrease from 80% in 2009.

• New dwellings were built at an average density of 43 dwellings per hectare, an increase from 41 dwellings per hectare in 2009.

• 2% of dwellings were built within the Green Belt (unchanged since 2004) and 5% of land changing to residential use (from any use) was within the Green Belt, down 2% since 2009.

• 9% of dwellings were built within areas of high flood risk (a decrease from 11% in 2009) and 5% of land changing to residential use was within areas of high flood risk (a decrease from 6% in 2009).

Of the land area developed in England between 2003 and 2006, 58% was ‘previously developed’ land, which was formerly developed and had become vacant or derelict, or which was in use but with known potential for redevelopment; 32% was

6 DCLG is currently consulting on proposals to change collection of land use change statistics and to stop the publication of regional statistics. Please see www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/consultchangesstats 7 Previously-developed includes residential gardens (DCLG, 2011)

35

agricultural land; and 10% was other land uses (not previously developed (Dixon, 2009; using data from DCLG, 2009). DCLG also have some information relating to development control statistics (e.g. DCLG, 2009) which can help us to understand the scale of development. In 2008/09, 'district level' planning authorities in England received 507,000 applications (a decrease of 22% compared to the previous year); around 489,000 decisions were made (18% lower than the previous year) with 387,000 permissions granted (or 83% of decisions). In 2008/09, minor developments (e.g. for less than 10 dwellings or less than 1000 m2 commercial floor space) accounted for 28% of all decisions; major applications amounted to 3% of all decisions. Householder developments (e.g. extensions and alterations) accounted for 48% of all decisions. 6. Summary and conclusions

• Opportunities exist in Local Plans for greater consideration, integration and implementation of GI measures. There are a number of policy hooks, set out in the NPPF, to enable Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to embed effective and robust GI policies through the planning system. Crucially these opportunities are discretionary and the degree to which they are taken up depends on awareness raising, skills and resources

• There will be different points of entry for LPAs depending on where they are with the plan-making process. Around half of LPAs in England have adopted Core Strategies or they are going through the examination process. These LPA’s will have 12 months to update their plans to be in general conformity with the NPPF8. Through the partial review of currently ‘up to date’ Local Plans LPAs should ensure they effectively consider, integrate and implement GI measures. In the half of all LPAs in England currently without an ‘up to date’ Local Plan (ie a Plan that pre-dates the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act) then there is potentially an even greater opportunity to consider, integrate and implement GI measures from the off-set. Table 3 below sets out current progress on Core Strategy adoption across England.

Table 3. Progress on the Core Strategy or the new Local Plan and across England

Key: NE = Northeast, NW = Northwest, YH = Yorkshire & Humber, EM = East Midlands , WM = West Midlands, EE = East of England, Lon = Greater London, SE = Southeast, SW = Southwest, Eng = Total England Source: TCPA research, March 2012

• Future work should analyse the data on land use change provided by DCLG in greater depth, to try to discern how much development of each type, density, and in which location is taking place. This should also highlight potential changes to scope, scale and frequency of such data through recent

8 Annex 1 of the NPPF sets out that Local Planning Authorities with Local Plans adopted since 2004 have a 12 month period (from the date of publication of the NPPF) to update their plans in accordance with the policies set out in the new framework

NE NW YH EM WM EE L SE SW Eng

Adoption 42% 23% 29% 30% 33% 51% 70% 43% 24% 40%

Examination in Public 0% 21% 19% 0% 3% 6% 18% 13% 16% 11%

Pre-Submission Stage 58% 56% 52% 70% 63% 43% 12% 43% 59% 49%

36

consultations. This could be linked to case studies and examples of what GI could be incorporated into the re-development and how.

• Whilst it seems that most development is on previously developed land, it would be useful to further explore the nature of this land. It could be that it is mainly green (e.g. gardens, and thereby by re-developing it we are losing green cover in urban areas) or that it is already has built structures and surfaces on it (where there may be scope to increase green cover.

• There is potential to further develop, trial and test the GI toolkit (developed from the Biotope Area Factor approach) developed in the NW of England as part of GRaBS, which sets targets to increase the GI on a particular site during re-development / development.

• There is the need to further explore the opportunities for retrofitting different GI types in different urban areas, building on the study by Hall et al (2011) which looked at tree cover in high density residential areas.

• Most of our existing urban areas may be subject to little significant change in form, thereby limiting retrofit opportunities. Special consideration needs to be given to funding GI creation and enhancement in these areas to ensure that they can increase the amount of green cover (needed to help adapt to climate change) and its functionality.

• The Localism Act 2011 provides a number of powerful opportunities for

communities to have a say in the future of their neighbourhoods, through Neighbourhood Planning and a number of new Community Rights, such as the Community Right to run Assets. However, in addition to LPAs, communities also needs skills training and a good place to start would be a ‘community manual to creating great places’ drawing together, in plain English, the benefits and tools available into one accessible booklet. Alongside this workshops and study visits would be useful, with the opportunity to share best practice and learning between community groups.

• With the new powers available to communities through the Localism Act 2011

they can have a long term management of local assets, for example a community park, however this needs to be planned for and financed at the start of the development, making sure that communities are reassured that this will not lead to a fragmentation of service delivery.

37

References City of York, January 2011, Green Corridors Technical Paper www.york.gov.uk/environment/Planning/ldf/evidencebase/GreenCorridorsTechnicalPaper/ Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2009, Development Control Statistics 2008-09: England. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1368876.pdf DCLG, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Policy Statements/ Planning Policy Guidance Notes information, www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy DCLG, 2011, Land Use Change Statistics (England) 2010 - provisional estimates. www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/lucs2010provisional Green Infrastructure North West, Building natural value for sustainable economic development: Green Infrastructure Valuation Toolkit, www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/html/index.php?page=projects&GreenInfrastructureValuationToolkit=true. Dixon, T., 20090, ‘Urban land and property ownership patterns in the UK: trends and forces for change’, Land Use Policy 26S (2009) S43–S53. www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/land-use/jlup/06_urban_land_and_property_ownership_patterns_in_the_uk.pdf Hall, J., Handley, J., and Ennos, A., 2011, ‘The potential of tree planting to climate-proof high density residential areas in Manchester, UK’, Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012), pp. 410– 417 Localism Act 2011, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/enacted Natural England, 2012, Green Infrastructure: Mainstreaming the concept – understanding & applying the principles of GI in South Worcestershire, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/46011 Natural England, Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment provides the most comprehensive dataset yet available on people’s use and enjoyment of the natural environment, www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx

38

Annex A – Details of Planning Policy Statements and Guidance in relation to Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) This Planning Policy Statement set out the previous Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. The document is split between the planning of sustainable development and its delivery. In terms of planning, the following principles have been articulated:

• Social cohesion and exclusion: ensure that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities is considered and taken into account by:

- seeking to reduce social inequalities - addressing accessibility (both in terms of location and physical access) for all

members of the community to jobs, health, housing, education, shops, leisure and community facilities

- taking into account the needs of all the community, including particular requirements

- relating to age, sex, ethnic background, religion, disability or income - delivering safe, healthy and attractive places to live and, - supporting the promotion of health and well being by making provision for

physical activity. • Protection and enhancement of the environment should be achieved by

including the following in plan policies: - up-to-date information on the environmental characteristics of the area - the potential impacts, positive as well as negative, on the environment of

development proposals (whether direct, indirect, cumulative, long-term or short-term) and,

- recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development without irreversible damage.

• Development plan policies should take account of environmental considerations by:

- mitigation of the effects of, and adaptation to, climate change through - the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the use of renewable energy;

air quality and pollution; land contamination; the protection of groundwater from contamination; and noise and light pollution

- the protection of the wider countryside and the impact of development on landscape quality; the conservation and enhancement of wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity; the need to improve the built and natural environment in and around urban areas and rural settlements, including the provision of good quality open space; the conservation of soil quality; and the preservation and enhancement of built and archaeological heritage

- the potential impact of the environment on proposed developments by avoiding new development in areas at risk of flooding and sea-level rise, and as far as possible, by accommodating natural hazards and the impacts of climate change and,

- the management of waste in ways that protect the environment and human health, including producing less waste and using it as a resource wherever possible.

• Prudent use of natural resources: minimising the need to consume new resources over the lifetime of the development by making more efficient use or reuse of existing resources, rather than making new demands on the environment; and should seek to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable resources.

39

• Sustainable economic development: the parts of this Statement relevant to GI planning are that areas should be left to ensure that tourism and leisure developments are included in order to allow the economy to prosper; and Ensuring that development plans take account of the regional economic strategies of Regional Development Agencies, regional housing strategies, local authority community strategies and local economic strategies.

• Integrating sustainable development in development plans: planning authorities are asked to take account of the range of effects (both negative and positive) on the environment, as well as the positive effects of development in terms of economic benefits and social well being.

In terms of delivery, the following are relevant:

- promote urban and rural regeneration by creating linkages between uses and thus create more vibrant places

- bring forward sufficient land of a suitable quality in appropriate locations to meet the expected needs for leisure and recreation – taking into account issues such as accessibility and sustainable transport needs, the provision of essential infrastructure, including for sustainable waste management, and the need to avoid flood risk and other natural hazards

- provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport

- enhance as well as protect biodiversity, natural habitats, the historic environment and landscape and townscape character

- address, on the basis of sound science, the causes and impacts of climate change, the management of pollution and natural hazards, the safeguarding of natural resources, and the minimisation of impacts from the management and use of resources.

Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (2007) The PPS Supplement sets out how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change and take into account the unavoidable consequences. Key planning objectives – conserve and enhance biodiversity, recognising that the distribution of habitats and species will be affected by climate change; Selecting land for development 23. In deciding which areas and sites are suitable, and for what type and intensity of development, planning authorities should assess their consistency with the policies in this PPS. 24. In doing so, planning authorities should take into account: – the effect of development on biodiversity and its capacity to adapt to likely changes in the climate; – the contribution to be made from existing and new opportunities for open space and green infrastructure to urban cooling, sustainable drainage systems, and conserving and enhancing biodiversity; and The PPS Supplement is accompanied by web-based Practice Guidance provided jointly by the HCA and the Planning Advisory Service.

40

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2006) PPS3 sets out the national planning policy framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives. A number of matters are laid down as important to consider in the provision of housing, and in particular assessing design quality. These are relevant to GI retrofitting in the following instances, where the proposal:

• Is easily accessible and well-connected to public transport and community facilities and services, and is well laid out so that all the space is used efficiently, is safe, accessible and user-friendly

• provides, or enables good access to, community and green and open amenity and recreational space (including play space) as well as private outdoor space such as residential gardens, patios and balconies

• facilitates the efficient use of resources , during construction and in use, and seeks to adapt to and reduce the impact of, and on, climate change

• provides for the retention or re-establishment of the biodiversity within residential environments.

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.The following key principles are laid out by PPS9 in relation to biodiversity:

• development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas. These characteristics should include the relevant biodiversity resources of the area. In reviewing environmental characteristics local authorities should assess the potential to sustain and enhance those resources

• plan policies and planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity conservation interests. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species; and to biodiversity interests within the wider environment

• plan policies on the form and location of development should take a strategic approach to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of biodiversity, and recognise the contributions that sites, areas and features, both individually and in combination, make to conserving these resources

• plan policies should promote opportunities for the incorporation of beneficial biodiversity features within the design of development

• development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity conservation interests should be permitted

• the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity interests which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (2008) PPS12 concentrates on creating strong safe and prosperous communities through Local Spatial Planning. It defines green infrastructure as "a network of multi-

41

functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities." PPS12 provides a positive framework for environmental enhancement, and can be used by local authorities as a policy hook for Green Infrastructure. In creating strong, safe and prosperous communities through local spatial planning, Para. 4.8 (Infrastructure) is very relevant. This states that the core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical, social and green infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution. This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and when it will be provided. The core strategy should draw on and in parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authority and other organisations. Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) PPG17 aims to meet Government objectives of the time in relation to outdoor recreation, and are stated in brief as follows:

1. Supporting an urban renaissance - local networks of high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces, sports and recreational facilities help create urban environments

2. Supporting a rural renewal - the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors can play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas

3. Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion - well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving people's sense of well being in the place they live

4. Health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness, and in the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others

5. Promoting more sustainable development - by ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible by walking and cycling.

In terms of assessment of needs and opportunities, the following principles are included:

1. Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities

2. As a minimum, assessments of need should cover the differing and distinctive needs of the population for open space and built sports and recreational facilities

3. Local authorities should also undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, the use made of existing facilities, access in terms of location and costs and opportunities for new open space and facilities

4. Audits should consider both the quantitative and the qualitative elements of open space, sports and recreational facilities

5. Assessments and audits are to allow local authorities to identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in their areas.

In relation to the planning of facilities, and identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sports and recreational facilities, local authorities should:

42

1. Promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with disabilities

2. Locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability

3. Avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity

4. Improve the quality of the public realm through good design 5. Look to provide areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas 6. Add to and enhance the range and quality of existing facilities 7. Carefully consider security and personal safety, especially for children 8. Meet the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield in preference to

greenfield sites 9. Consider the scope for using any surplus land for open space, sport or

recreational use, weighing this against alternative uses 10. Assess the impact of new facilities on social inclusion, and 11. Consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourist.

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (2010) PPS25 sets out the Government’s position in relation to protecting land that is required for current and future flood management. The document covers:

1. Strategic management of flood risk as part of the planning process: this provides additional advice on applying the sequential approach at the regional level over a longer time frame; clarification on the provision of a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA) with a planning application; and includes new case studies illustrating planning appeals where a sequential approach has not been properly followed, and new and updated case studies illustrating strategic approaches to managing flood risk

2. Assessment of flood risk: with reference to Environment Agency mapping of areas susceptible to surface water flooding and advice on the use of this map in spatial planning, particularly in flood risk assessment; guidance on the chance of flooding occurring during the lifetime of a development; advice on undertaking strategic flood risk assessments (SFRA); advice on the issues relating to guidance provided within SFRAs, including on the role of surface water management plans; guidance on the need for a proportionate approach to FRAs; updated guidance on climate change impacts; and new and updated case studies on regional flood risk appraisal, SFRAs and site-specific FRAs

3. Guidance on applying the sequential approach to other sources of flooding 4. New and updated guidance on the management of surface water, including

the use of SUDS 5. Update on changes to UK Climate Change Projections in relation to flood risk

management measures, and including suitable case studies 6. Residual risks associated with the breaching of flood defences.

PPS25 is accompanied by PPS25 Supplement on Development and Coastal Change and a Practice Guide.