About this page
How this part of the Local Plan Options Document works
These Development Management policy option pages contain the following sections:
Policy background
- Relevant national policy or regulations
- National or regional trends
- Local situation and needs/li>
- How we have dealt with this issue in the past
- The thinking behind the policy
Policy options for the new Local Plan
We may suggest a variety of approaches:
- Keeping existing policy as it is
- Making small changes
- Replacing the policy with something that is substantially different
- Identifying factors or events which may affect this policy in the future
Policy option analysis
- A list of the advantages and disadvantages that we have identified for each of the policy options we are presenting.
Read the Natural Environment Topic Paper, for in-depth focus about this topic, and the evidence which informs our policy. Visit our library of Local Plan Options supporting documents to learn more.
Explore the policy
Select a section below to read more.
9.191 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines Green Infrastructure (GI) as a network of multi-functional green and blue spaces and other natural features, urban and rural, which can deliver a wide range of environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for nature, climate, local and wider communities and prosperity.
9.192 In January 2023 Natural England published The Green Infrastructure Framework – Principles and Standards for England (GI Framework). This was a commitment in the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan. It supports the greening of towns and cities and connections with the surrounding landscape as part of the Nature Recovery Network. The GI Framework will help local planning authorities and developers meet requirements in the NPPF to consider GI in local plans and in new development.
9.193 As part of the GI Framework Natural England has developed a set of GI Principles:
9.194 ‘The GI Principles underpin the Framework. They provide a baseline for different organisations to develop stronger GI policy and delivery. The principles cover the why, what and how to do good GI.’
9.195 In addition to principles GI Standards are outlined, which are a key component of the GI Framework. The Headline GI Standards are for use by local planning authorities and other stakeholders informed by local knowledge and evidence to:
- Develop a vision for local green infrastructure and understanding of current green infrastructure provision, needs and priorities
- Set key local green infrastructure targets
- Monitor and evaluate green infrastructure provision
9.196 The five Headline standards are:
- S1: GI Strategies
- S2: Accessible Green Space
- S3: Urban Nature recovery
- S4: Urban Tree Canopy
- S5: Urban Greening Factor
9.197 The Urban Greening Factor (UGF) is a planning tool designed to improve the provision of GI and increase the level of greening in urban environments. It is designed to be applied to major developments and sets a target score for the proportion of GI within a development site for specific land uses.
9.198 B&NES local policy addresses GI through policy CP7 (adopted as part of the Core Strategy and policy NE1 (adopted as part of the Placemaking Plan)
9.199 Policy CP7 as existing requires work in partnership with key public and private bodies, local communities and the voluntary sector to protect and enhance the GI network and ensure a strategic approach is taken.
9.200 Policy NE1 requires amongst other things for major development proposals to provide a plan of the existing green infrastructure assets within and around the development site.
9.201 The detailed background and evidence relating to the following options is set out in the Natural Environment Topic Paper.
9.202 NPPF paragraph 181 sets out that plans should, amongst other things:
9.203 ‘take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries.’
9.204 Regarding the NE GI Framework Principles and Standards, the UGF is not covered under the existing policy framework for B&NES, whilst other parts of the GI Framework are covered to some extent. The B&NES GI Strategy (2013) is being reviewed and will be guided by the GI Framework. Targets and requirements will need to be supported by a robust evidence base. As such, the following options are proposed:
Option A
Leave the policy as existing.
Advantages of Option A
- Limited issues from a development management perspective.
- The policy as it is written provides flexibility and scope for Development Management Officers to negotiate.
Disadvantages of Option A
- There would be limited requirement for the management and monitoring of implementation of GI.
- Would be out of date with respect to government guidance NE GI Framework.
- Not well integrated with other policies i.e. BNG, landscaping, open spaces and sustainable drainage.
- Does not reference the GI Strategy – which is being updated alongside the Local Plan in line with the NE GI Framework. This document will set targets and identify the strategic GI network and priorities for GI enhancement.
- Does not reference accessible greenspace standard, urban nature recovery standard, urban greening factor and urban tree canopy cover standard (as per NE GI Framework).
- Will not meet the spatial priorities set out within the local plan.
Option B
New GI policy consolidating NE1 and CP7 and to include Natural England GI Framework standards. Key requirements will be to seek a GI plan, with 30-year management and monitoring for major applications. Detail to be guided by the forthcoming revised B&NES GI Strategy.
Advantages of Option B
- The approach will allow for the management and monitoring of GI, which can align with BNG, and will enable GI to contribute and support other policy objectives. This could/ should provide scope to simplify the Local Plan.
- AProvides support for the delivery of the B&NES GI Strategy ambitions and targets.
- Will provide a more concise and stronger policy and presents benefits for a more concise plan.
- The option will assist in delivering greater benefits to residents, communities, and to wider society.
Disadvantages of Option B
- The policy approach to be taken forward will be subject to viability testing as the Draft Local Plan is prepared. There is a risk this policy option may not be viable and won’t be included in the Draft Plan. This option may require weighing up or balancing benefits against other spatial priorities i.e., amount / type of housing provided on site.
- Work required to ensure sufficient evidence to justify the approach.
- Question as to whether there are resources in place for monitoring GI – whether there is overlap with BNG i.e. will this approach be covered in the BNG Plan.
Option C
New GI policy consolidating NE1 and CP7 which presents Natural England GI Framework. With a separate policy for the GI Framework Urban Greening Factor (UGF) i.e., all major commercial/ residential development to provide a locally agreed UGF Score.
Advantages of Option C
- Will help to address the council’s Corporate priorities.
- The approach will require the management and monitoring of GI.
- Allows for consistency between the local plan and revised GI Strategy.
- Having an UGF will assist in securing no loss of green infrastructure.
- A separate UGF policy will give more focus to this Standard than the other 4 headline standards.
- An UGF policy can be used alongside BNG to help set the quantity and functionality of Green Infrastructure that should be delivered on-site.
- The option will assist in delivering greater benefits to residents, communities, and to wider society.
Disadvantages of Option C
- The policy approach to be taken forward will be subject to viability testing as the Draft Local Plan is prepared as noted for option 2.
- Having sufficient evidence to justify the approach.
- Requiring submission of UGF assessment may be considered an additional administrative burden.
- A GI policy and a separate UGF Policy will present similar issues as existing i.e., two GI related policies. Will not meet the aim of having a more concise plan.
- Would bring into question why Standard One of the GI Framework does not have a separate policy - for developers to provide a GI Plan that sets out management and monitoring of GI.
- Resourcing concerns and overlap with BNG as noted above for option 2.
Discussion questions
Question 1
Which of the policy Options A to C do you prefer? Please say why
Question 2
Are there any approaches which can be taken to ensure the policy can better reflect the Council’s Corporate priorities?