Green Infrastructure Strategy Report

September 2009 ST EDMUNDSBURY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY

Final Report

Prepared for St Edmundsbury Borough Council by Land Use Consultants

ST EDMUNDSBURY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY – FINAL REPORT

Prepared for St Edmundsbury Council by Land Use Consultants

September 2009

43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798 [email protected]

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 A Definition of green infrastructure...... 1 Purpose and scope of the GI Strategy ...... 2 Report structure...... 2 PART ONE: CONTEXT AND EVIDENCE BASE ...... 7 2. POLICY AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT...... 9 Overview - Promotion of green infrastructure in planning policy ...... 9 Growth...... 11 Existing green infrastructure strategies ...... 18 Policy and guidance relating to green infrastructure environmental themes – key messages 23 3. CHARACTERISATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS...... 29 Open Space, recreation and access links...... 29 Biodiversity...... 45 Place and character ...... 53 Cultural heritage ...... 59 4. NEED AND DEMAND ANALYSIS...... 67 Sustainable resource management...... 67 Socio-economic...... 70 The growth agenda...... 81 Accessible green space deficiency...... 82 5. SPATIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE93 PART TWO: VISION, STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ...... 95 6. A VISION FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN ST. EDMUNDSBURY ...... 97 7. ACTION ZONE VISIONS ...... 99 A: Black Bourn and Little Ouse Headwaters ...... 99 B: Brecks...... 100 C: River Valleys ...... 101 D: Bury St. Edmunds...... 103 E: Haverhill ...... 103 F: Historic Parkland and Woodland ...... 104 G: Ancient Farmland ...... 105 8. POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR ACTION ZONES AND ACCESS LINKS ...... 113

i 9. PROJECT BUSINESS PLAN...... 141 Project Prioritisation...... 141 Table 9.1 Project prioritisation plan zone A ...... 143 Table 9.2 Project prioritisation plan zone B...... 144 Table 9.3 Project prioritisation plan zone C ...... 145 Table 9.4 Project prioritisation plan zone D...... 147 Table 9.5 Project prioritisation plan zone E ...... 150 Table 9.6 Project prioritisation plan zone F ...... 152 Table 9.7 Project prioritisation plan zone G ...... 152 Table 9.8 Project prioritisation plan - green corridors...... 153 Detailed consideration of capital and revenue costs to guide future investment in the green infrastructure network...... 157 Towards a shortlist ...... 169 Next steps – recommendations for St Edmundsbury Borough to take delivery forward.....177

ii FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Study area Figure 2.1: Growth Figure 2.2: Growth area and growth points Figure 2.3: Green infrastructure context Figure 3.1: Open space by typology Figure 3.1a: Open space by typology – Bury St Edmunds Figure 3.1b: Open space by typology – Haverhill Figure 3.2: Access links (Borough wide) Figure 3.3: Density of Public Rights of Way Figure 3.4: Nature conservation sites Figure 3.5: Biodiversity opportunity mapping Figure 3.6: Suffolk County Council Landscape Character Types Figure 3.7: Cultural heritage designations Figure 4.1: Flood risk Figure 4.2a-d: Indices of deprivation 2007 Figure 4.2e-g: Indices of deprivation 2007 and percentage of households that are flats (2001) Figure 4.3a-d: Deficiencies in access to natural green space Figure 4.4a-d: Deficiencies in access to natural green space – detailed insets for Bury and Haverhill Figure 7.1: Proposed green infrastructure network Figure 7.2: Green infrastructure opportunities: Bury St Edmunds Figure 7.3: Green infrastructure opportunities: Haverhill

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Detailed policy context

Appendix 2: BAP targets and key statutory protected nature conservation sites within St Edmundsbury Borough

Appendix 3: Summary description of the place and character of St Edmundsbury Borough

Appendix 4: Key historic landscape sites and features in St Edmundsbury Borough

Appendix 5: Summary of Stakeholder Workshop 1

Appendix 6: Summary of Stakeholder Workshop 2

Appendix 7: Stakeholder workshop attendees

Appendix 8: Glossary of terms

Appendix 9: Existing GI initiatives in St Edmundsbury

iii Acknowledgements

Land Use Consultants’ team comprised of Kate Ahern, Andrew Tempany, Flora Wehl, Fiona Akins, Harriet White, Richard Gowing, Matt Parkhill and John Jeffcock (authors) and Graham Savage and Steven Cuthbert (GIS). The study was steered by a steering group comprising of Ian Poole, Jaki Fisher and Damien Parker (St Edmundsbury Borough Council), Rachel Penny (Natural England), Peter Holborn (Suffolk County Council), Simone Bullion (Suffolk Wildlife Trust), Neil Featherstone (Brecks Partnership). In addition consultation was undertaken with a range of stakeholders, whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged. However the views in the report are those of Land Use Consultants.

iv 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Land Use Consultants was appointed by St Edmundsbury Borough Council (SEBC) in April 2009 to prepare a Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy for the borough. The GI Strategy enables bold and imaginative consideration of GI in the borough, in response to proposed future growth primarily at Bury St. Edmunds and Haverhill, as well as key service centres. The Strategy will enhance existing GI and connections and provide a holistic consideration of GI deficiency, and likely future need in light of the growth within the borough, to inform priorities for new GI and the Local Development Framework. 1.2. Part 1 of this report (Context and Evidence Base) establishes the policy context for green infrastructure and the baseline in terms of environmental character and existing GI initiatives. It provides a GI need and demand analysis and summarises key opportunities to inform the vision and GI action plan for St Edmundsbury. It provides the context for Part 2: Vision, Strategy and Action Plan which sets out a vision for GI in the borough and a framework for delivery.

A DEFINITION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 1.3. GI is defined in Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Spatial Planning as follows: ‘Green Infrastructure is a network of multi 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’1. 1.4. GI considers both public and private assets. GI can be considered in a spatial dimension, in the context of links/corridors at a conceptual/thematic level e.g. sustainable living as individual elements within sites such as trees and their contribution to shading and cooling, and as part of wildlife corridors. The multi functional character of GI means that it considers cultural landscape and ecological assets/habitats along with concepts such as sustainable water and resource management and use of river corridors and floodplains for amenity green space, and biodiversity. 1.5. GI can provide a range of environmental, social and economic functions, and positive health benefits. The Town and Country Planning Association’s ‘Biodiversity by Design’ Guide2 outlines the purpose of GI as follows: ‘Green infrastructure should provide for multi-functional uses i.e. wildlife, recreational and cultural experience, as well as delivering ecological services, such as flood protection and microclimate control. It should also operate at all spatial scales from urban centres through to open countryside’.

1 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps12lsp 2 Biodiversity by Design: A guide for Sustainable Communities, Town and Country Planning Association (2004)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy1 September 2009 Final Report 1.6. There are several policy drivers for GI, including the Sustainable Communities Plan which includes the following commitment:

x ‘We will promote more and better publicly accessible green space in and around our communities, for example through the creation of new country parks and networks of green spaces within towns and cities’.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GI STRATEGY 1.7. The study area comprises the whole of St. Edmundsbury borough (approximately 657km2 (see Figure 1.1). Importantly, the study does not simply fit within the borough boundaries but connects and integrates with GI assets and opportunities in adjacent areas (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire). It also links with actions and proposals in existing GI strategies and plans. The landscape of the area is varied, featuring a broad range of habitats including internationally important designated sites whilst also including urban, suburban, urban-fringe and rural environments. 1.8. The increasing development pressure, particularly around Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill, is likely to have significant implications for the area’s landscape and environmental assets and also highlights the need to achieve sustainable development with a clear sense of place within the borough. The production of a Green Infrastructure Strategy is therefore a timely exercise which aims to respond to these pressures and to capitalise on any associated opportunities for environmental enhancement. 1.9. The Green Infrastructure Strategy for St Edmundsbury will form part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework. It provides an analysis of existing green infrastructure provision in the context of future growth and sets out a ‘greenprint’ (protection and enhancement of existing green infrastructure and the provision of new green infrastructure in advance of, and alongside, future development) for new and enhanced existing green infrastructure. It will be used to support the delivery of spatial options within the Local Development Framework.

REPORT STRUCTURE 1.10. The specific deliverables of this study are:

x A technical report comprising the Context, Evidence, GI Vision and Strategy and Action Plan;

x Mapping of the GI Strategy as GIS (Geographical Information System) files;

x A separate Executive Summary;

x A separate non technical information pack as a background for stakeholders, planners and developers delivering green infrastructure in St Edmundsbury (a user guide).

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy2 September 2009 Final Report Part One: Context and Evidence Base - This includes the following stages: x A summary of the relevant policy and strategic context. x Map based characterisation and identification of existing green infrastructure assets, validated through stakeholder consultation. These assets include: - Open space, recreation and access links; - Biodiversity; - Place and character; and - Cultural heritage. x Review of existing GI initiatives within the borough (see Appendix 9). x Analysis of the need and demand for GI within the borough; set out under four key themes: - The growthagenda; - Sustainable resourcemanagement; - Socio-economic/Quality of Life; and - Key green infrastructure deficiency. x Summary of GI analysis, key issues and opportunities to provide a framework for the GI vision, strategy and action plan.

Part Two: Vision, Strategy and Action Plan sets out a vision for green infrastructure in St Edmundsbury to 2031, supported by a proposed green infrastructure network and component projects and an action plan prioritising green infrastructure opportunities. Supporting green infrastructure planning and design principles are set out in the separate Information Pack.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy3 September 2009 Final Report

%UHFNODQG St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy Figure 1.1: Study Area

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ )RUHVW+HDWK ERXQGDULHV &RXQWLHV

&DPEULGJHVKLUH

(DVW&DPEULGJHVKLUH (VVH[

1RUIRON

6XIIRON

0LG6XIIRON

(DVW&DPEULGJHVKLUH

6RXWK &DPEULGJHVKLUH .P

%DEHUJK

6RXUFH2UGQDQFH6XUYH\

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ %UDLQWUHH

7KLVPDSLVUHSURGXFHGIURP2UGQDQFH6XUYH\PDWHULDOZLWKWKH3HUPLVVLRQRI2UGQDQFH6XUYH\RQEHKDOIRIWKH&RQWUROOHURI+HU0DMHVW\·V6WDWLRQHU\2IILFH&URZQFRS\ULJKW8QDXWKRULVHGUHSURGXFWLRQLQIULQJHV&URZQFRS\ULJKWDQGPD\OHDGWRSURVHFXWLRQRUFLYLOSURFHHGLQJV6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJK&RXQFLO/LFHQFH1R )LOH6??6W(GPXQGVEXU\*UHHQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH6WUDWHJ\?*,6?7KHPHV?$UF*,6?BB6WXG\B$UHDB/RFDWLRQB5HY$P[G

PART ONE: CONTEXT AND EVIDENCE BASE

2. POLICY AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT

2.1. A review of national, regional and local planning policy sets the context for this GI Strategy. The review helps ensure that the GI Strategy fully addresses the challenges and opportunities posed by proposed growth and opportunities for GI to meet and deliver a range of policy objectives. The policy review also informs the development of functional objectives by which to evaluate green infrastructure proposals devised in the strategy.

OVERVIEW - PROMOTION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLANNING POLICY

National Policy 2.2. Government policy is increasingly recognising the need to plan for and provide green infrastructure. At a national level, the Sustainable Communities Plan includes the following commitments:

x “We will promote more and better publicly accessible green space in and around our communities, for example through the creation of new country parks and networks of green spaces within towns and cities.” 2.3. Natural England similarly recognises in its Strategic Direction3 document that the natural environment is under pressure from development across the country and that whilst new developments usually make some provision for green space; it is often of limited natural value. Green infrastructure contributes significant to the four strategic outcomes Natural England has identified in this document, namely:

x A healthy natural environment;

x People are inspired to conserve and value the natural environment;

x Sustainable use of the natural environment;

x Decisions that collectively secure the future of the natural environment. 2.4. Natural England’s recent Green Infrastructure Guidance4 recognises the important contribution green infrastructure can make to these outcomes and also to the place- making agenda, whereby spatial planning decisions are embedded in and informed by an understanding of character.

3 Natural England (2008) Strategic Direction 2008-2013 4 Natural England, LUC (2009) Green Infrastructure Guidance NE176

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy9 September 2009 Final Report Planning Policy Statements. GI is relevant to the following National Planning Policy statements:

PPS 1: Creating Sustainable Communities sets out the Government’s objectives with regard to sustainable communities. Its objectives include protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities (the framework for the ‘place-making’ agenda to which GI can contribute).

PPS 3: Housing requires that borough housing plans should have regard to any local greening or design plans such as green infrastructure strategies. The document also sets out some clear principles to guide local development, including ensuring dominant landscape/ecological features are retained as is any significant biodiversity value.

PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS7 sets out the Government’s objectives of thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, with consideration to be given to improving the sustainability and quality of local neighbourhoods and communities.

PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation seeks to ensure all planning policies and decisions aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, with the intention that harm to these resources shall be prevented. Additional emphasis is placed on habitats and species not subject to specific legal protection, such as BAP priority habitats and species, landscape features of importance for wildlife as corridors or stepping stones for movement, and local wildlife sites.

PPS 12: Local Spatial Planning states that core strategies ‘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’. It requires that the evidence also covers who will provide the infrastructure and when it will be provided.

PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk seeks to develop opportunities offered by new developments to mitigate flood risk, particularly through maximising the benefits of green infrastructure for flood storage, SUDs, and re-creating functional floodplains, all of which have landscape and biodiversity benefits.

PPG 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation requires local authorities to assess local needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities. Opportunities for new provision and potential increased usage of existing provision through better design, management and maintenance are to be identified. It also recognises the importance of green infrastructure in nature conservation and air quality.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy10 September 2009 Final Report Regional Policy 2.5. The East of England Plan5 sets out policies for enhancing the environment and includes references to the implementation of green infrastructure. 2.6. Policy ENV 1: Green Infrastructure requires the identification, protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure to ensure biodiversity is maximised, flood risk is reduced, sustainable transport networks are improved and a healthy environment is available. 2.7. Policy SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development identifies the need to achieve sustainable development and adapt to climate change by protecting and improving the environment, quality of life, local character and natural resources. 2.8. Policy SS8: The Urban Fringe which requires local development documents to ‘ensure that new development in or near the urban fringe helps to enhance the character, appearance, recreational value and biodiversity of its setting (including protection of internationally designated sites).

Local Policy 2.9. The Core Strategy Submission Document6 is accompanied by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which outlines the infrastructure projects required to deliver the development strategy of the Core Strategy. Green infrastructure is one of the six forms of infrastructure identified. More specifically, Policy CS2: Sustainable Development states that the identification, protection and conservation of green corridors and green spaces will be integral to achieving a high quality and sustainable environment. The strategies outlined for Haverhill and Bury St Edmunds state that the provision of good quality green infrastructure will remain a high priority, as will the need to address localised issues of deprivation. 2.10. The findings of this study have informed GI policies in the Core Strategy and will inform future Development Plan documents in the context of planned growth. Green infrastructure is considered a ‘must have’ deserving the same advanced planning and on-going management as other forms of structural infrastructure.

GROWTH 2.11. The East of England Plan (Policy H1) proposes significant housing growth in the study area and surrounding districts during 2001-2021. The minimum housing growth proposed over the plan period for the study area is shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1. The location of Growth Areas and Growth Points in the East of England is illustrated in Figure 2.2. It is useful to be aware of where green infrastructure extends across administrative boundaries and will need to serve communities other than St. Edmundsbury.

5 Government office for the East of England (2008) East of England Plan 6 SEBC (2008) Core Strategy Preferred Options and Strategic Sites Issues & Options

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy11 September 2009 Final Report Table 2.1: Regional Housing Provision 2001 to 2021 (source: East of England Plan)

District Minimum additional Already built (April Minimum still to dwelling provision 2001 – March 2006) build (April 2001 – March 2021) (April 2001 – March 2021) St Edmundsbury 10, 000 1, 960 8, 040 Total for Suffolk 61, 700 13, 600 48, 100 Breckland 15,200 (6000 at 3,460 11,740 Thetford) Cambridge 19,000 2,300 16,700 Norwich 14,100 3,490 10,610

2.12. Bury St Edmunds is recognised (Policy BSE1) as the sub regional centre for West Suffolk, and as such is a designated ‘key centre for development and change’. Housing growth here will be accompanied by employment and service growth reflecting the town’s strategic position between Cambridge and Ipswich. 2.13. Homes for the Future7, the Government Green Paper on housing describes green infrastructure as an essential part of growth, a key mechanism for delivering environmental improvements and central to achieving sustainable communities. The paper identifies the value of GI for improving the urban-rural fringe, protecting and restoring the countryside, providing access to nature, and integrating green space into the urban environment. 2.14. The Local Government White Paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities8 directs local authorities to adopt national indicators as part of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS), which will act as a measure for central government to manage performance outcomes delivered by local government. National indicators which are targeted for Suffolk9 and are relevant to GI include:

x NI 8: Adult participation in sport and active recreation; x NI 56: Obesity among primary school age children in Year 6; x NI 186: Per capita reduction in CO2 emissions in the LA area; x NI 175 Access to services and facilities by public transport, walking and cycling; x NI 188: Planning to Adapt to Climate Change; x N1 197: Improved Local Biodiversity.

2.15. In each authority, targets against the set of national indicators will be negotiated through new Local Area Agreements (LAAs). 2.16. The Suffolk Local Area Agreement10 (LAA) includes a set of priority outcomes and targets which reflect and include national indicators (such as NI188: Planning to Adapt to Climate Change) as well as a set of locally developed targets. To ensure these targets are delivered at an appropriate level, each local authority or partnership has developed a SCS. In addition, the new LAA supports the delivery of

7 CLG (2007) Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable - Housing Green Paper 8 CLG (2006) Strong and Prosperous Communities - The Local Government White Paper 9 http://www.localpriorities.communities.gov.uk/LAAResults.aspx 10 http://www.transformingsuffolk.co.uk/

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy12 September 2009 Final Report a range of outcomes which contribute to both Cabinet Commitments and themes from the Vision 2025 document for St Edmundsbury. In the context of large-scale planned growth, Vision 2025 establishes a long-term vision for St Edmundsbury which aims to improve the quality of life for everyone who lives and works in the borough, and seeks to bring together key organisations and individuals to support delivery of this vision and its objectives. An objective of Vision 2025, which is of relevance to this strategy, seeks to value, protect and enhance the distinct landscapes and biodiversity within the borough. Vision 2025 has been produced in consultation with the community and provides a very clear focus to LAA priorities. Since its adoption, council officers have been monitoring progress against actions and reporting this progress to the Policy Development Committee. 2.17. The Community Strategy for West Suffolk11 sets the overall strategic direction and long-term vision for the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of West Suffolk in a way that contributes to sustainable development. The key objectives of this partnership include maximising the potential of all children and young people and developing and maintaining a safe, strong and sustainable community. These objectives have developed into eight strategic priorities (implementation will directly contribute to the achievement of LAA targets). The delivery of green infrastructure will have a beneficial effect on four of these priorities:

x Make Western Suffolk a safer place and build a stronger community; x Protect our natural and built environment and local biodiversity, and ensure sustainable development; x Alleviate poverty and reduce health inequalities; x Encourage sustainable tourism.

2.18. A priority of the Community Strategy is ‘Creating the Greenest County’, under which the county aims to be an exemplar in tackling climate change and protecting and enhancing its natural environment. ‘Creating the Greenest County’ 12 aims to deliver against this, and other priorities of the Strategy, bringing together a broad range of organisations in the county to support delivery. 2.19. The East of England Plan provides guidance for local authorities and organisations to manage future growth. It determines the scale and distribution of housing and economic development across the region. 2.20. Policy H1 Regional Housing Provision 2001 to 2021 proposes significant housing growth within the study area and surrounding districts during 2001-2021, with 10,000 new homes for St Edmundsbury. 2.21. Policy E1 Job Growth requires 18,000 new jobs for the Mid Suffolk/St Edmundsbury/Forest Heath region over the plan period (with policy E2 requiring land to be allocated to accommodate this growth). 2.22. Policy BSE1 Bury St Edmunds Key Centre for Development and Change identifies Bury St Edmunds as the sub regional centre for West Suffolk and as a key centre for

11 West Suffolk Local Strategic Partnership (2006) Making Life Better 12 http://www.greensuffolk.org/

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy13 September 2009 Final Report development and change. Employment and service growth is expected to reflect the town’s strategic position between Cambridge and Ipswich.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy14 September 2009 Final Report 15200 %UHFNODQG St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 2.1: Growth in the study area

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ 6400 6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ERXQGDULHV )RUHVW+HDWK 1DWXUDVLWHV

+RXVLQJJURZWKLQWKH566 8600 (DVW&DPEULGJHVKLUH

8300 10000 0LG6XIIRON

8600 (DVW&DPEULGJHVKLUH

6RXWK &DPEULGJHVKLUH .P

23500 5600 %DEHUJK

6RXUFH(DVWRI(QJODQG566 (DVWRI(QJODQG5HJLRQDO$VVHPEO\ 0D\

'DWH 7700 5HYLVLRQ %UDLQWUHH

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

King's Lynn Figure 2.2: Growth areas and LINCOLNSHIRE growth points

Key NORFOLK Norwich 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

&RXQW\DQG8QLWDU\$XWKRULW\ Peterborough ERXQGDULHV /RQGRQ6WDQVWHG&DPEULGJH 3HWHUERURXJK /6&3

.H\*URZWK$UHDORFDWLRQV

*URZWK3RLQWV Thetford $GGLWLRQDO*URZWK3RLQWV

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Bury St Edmunds

Cambridge SUFFOLK

Bedford

Ipswich BEDFORDSHIRE

Felixstowe Harwich

Stevenage Colchester Luton

HERTFORDSHIRE .P We lwyn Gard en Cit y ESSEX Harlow Hatfield St Albans Chelmsford Hemel Hempstead 6RXUFH&/*

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

Stratford 7KLVPDSLVUHSURGXFHGIURP2UGQDQFH6XUYH\PDWHULDOZLWKWKH3HUPLVVLRQRI2UGQDQFH6XUYH\RQEHKDOIRIWKH&RQWUROOHURI+HU0DMHVW\·V6WDWLRQHU\2IILFH&URZQFRS\ULJKW8QDXWKRULVHGUHSURGXFWLRQLQIULQJHV&URZQFRS\ULJKWDQGPD\OHDGWRSURVHFXWLRQRUFLYLOSURFHHGLQJV6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJK&RXQFLO/LFHQFH1R )LOH6??6W(GPXQGVEXU\*UHHQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH6WUDWHJ\?*,6?7KHPHV?$UF*,6?BB*URZWKB3RLQWVP[G

EXISTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES 2.23. There are currently three existing green infrastructure strategies surrounding St Edmundsbury. These are described in the box below, and shown spatially in Figure 2.3.

Cambridgeshire Sub Region Green Infrastructure Strategy (2005, Cambridgeshire Horizons) A strategic level study which identifies both existing green infrastructure corridors and enhancement potential together with current and suggested GI initiatives. Key Opportunities x Identifies an enhancement corridor along the Icknield Way which extends into the borough at Lackford. It also suggests chalk grassland enhancement projects along its course;

x The River Lark which enters the borough at Lackford is recognised as a strategic enhancement corridor;

x The River Granta corridor west of Haverhill, and which flows in to Cambridgeshire, is identified as an enhancement project to create a focal feature for biodiversity and access enhancement and creation;

x Acknowledges the River Stour as a strategic GI corridor;

x Identifies the Wicken Fen project north of Newmarket which will enhance and re-connect areas of fenland;

x Acknowledges the Roman Road route which extends east of Cambridge to Haverhill as a strategic green infrastructure corridor;

x Opportunity to connect with areas of chalk landscape north of Haverhill, particularly areas of chalk grassland restoration such as the Devil’s Dyke restoration project south of Newmarket.

Thetford Green Infrastructure Study (2007, Land Use Consultants) A detailed level study identifying existing green and blue infrastructure and enhancement potential for the Thetford Growth Point. Key Opportunities x The Ouse and Lark river corridors are identified for biodiversity enhancement (wetland habitat creation and management) and for new pedestrian/cycle routes with links to Thetford Forest Park and The King’s Forest;

x A proposed cycle link to connect Bury St Edmunds with Thetford using the disused railway line south of Nunnery Lakes is identified;

x Euston Park is acknowledged as a key destination site together with King’s Wood, with the need for improved public access recognised;

x Identifies an objective for the Brecks heathland zone to create a network of

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy18 September 2009 Final Report linked heathland habitats south west of Thetford around Lakenheath, Weather and Horn Heaths and Berner’s Heath;

x Proposed level 1 green link identified adjacent to the A134 which runs south into St Edmundsbury;

x Proposed green gateway site in close proximity to the borough at Elde Hill;

x Identifies the St Edmund and Icknield Way together with The Peddars Way, a national trail which extends to the Norfolk coast from Rushford;

x Castle Hill within The King’s Forest is identified as a strategic heritage asset.

Forest Heath Draft Green Space Strategy (2009, Forest Heath District Council) A draft high level green space mapping study. Key Opportunities x Identifies an area around Ickworth House for a possible ancient woodland enhancement project;

x The Ouse Washes, the largest area of washland in the UK, is identified north of Newmarket. The area currently features a habitat restoration project;

x Identifies the River Lark enhancement corridor and ‘The Devil’s Dyke’, a long Anglo- Saxon embankment scheduled as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);

x Recognises the need to work more closely with ‘The Brecks Project’ and the Forestry Commission to promote access and recreation within the District;

x Identifies a project at Mildenhall Woods which involves Forest Enterprise managing the woods for biodiversity and improving recreation opportunities.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy19 September 2009 Final Report St Edmundsbury Wash and Fens GI strategy Green Infrastructure Strategy LINCOLNSHIRE Figure 2.3: Green Infrastructure Context Key NORFOLK F PETERBOROUGH St Edmundsbury Borough boundary Peterborough Green Grid Greater Norwich Strategy GI strategy County boundaries Fenland District Council District boundaries Natural Greenspace Study GI strategy undertaken or in progress

Thetford GI Study (LUC)

Forest Heath (in progress)

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Cambridge Sub-Region GI Strategy St. Edmundsbury (LUC) SUFFOLK

BEDFORDSHIRE Bedfordshire and Luton Strategic GI Plan

Braintree Green North Hertfordshire GI Plan Spaces Strategy (LUC) 08164Km

ESSEX

HERTFORDSHIRE Date: 28/08/2009 Revision:

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey information with the permission of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright, Land Use Consultants, Licence Number 100019265 File: S:\4600\4639 St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy\GIS\Themes\ArcGIS9\4639-01_043_Existing_GI_Strategies.mxd

POLICY AND GUIDANCE RELATING TO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL THEMES – KEY MESSAGES 2.24. In addition to identifying the plan and policy context for this study, a desk based review was undertaken of legislation and planning policy in relation to the themes which set the baseline for the study, namely:

x Open space, recreation and access;

x Biodiversity;

x Place and character;

x Cultural heritage;

x Quality of life (socio economic data including deprivation);

x Sustainable resource management (including water resources, food production and climate change adaptation). 2.25. Key policy messages in relation to these themes are set out below. This sets out high level message in relation to national/regional and local policies organised by environmental theme. The relevant legislative and policy context (national/regional/local) under these themes is provided in Appendix 1.

Open space, recreation and access x Seek to target improvements in health provision (and opportunities for access to recreational provision for health) to the most excluded community and social groups;

x Recognition of the importance of provision for sport, not only in its own right but as a tool to advance core social goals, such as crime reduction, health, education and social inclusion/cohesion;

x A high quality natural environment is a key aspect of the vision for the East of England, with green infrastructure crucial not only for access to nature and recreation, but also in terms of wider quality of life criteria – social and mental well being;

x Improve the permeability of and links between urban areas and the wider countryside, to enhance connections between sites of recreational focus (opportunities for sustainable transport).

Biodiversity x Seek to maintain, enhance, restore, re establish or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, preventing harm to such interests and features, with consideration given to the potential impacts of development;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy23 September 2009 Final Report x Highest levels of protection are accorded to sites designated for their nature conservation and geological interest at an international, pan European and national level;

x In addition to the network of designated nature conservation sites, emphasis should also be given to non statutorily designated sites (such as County Wildlife Sites or sites of county/regional importance), habitats and species and which are not subject to specific legal protection, such as Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats and species, or landscape features which act as important corridors for wildlife.

Place and character x Recognition of the value of all landscapes (not just designated landscapes), seeking to conserve, enhance and restore characteristic landscape features and those which contribute to sense of place – contribution of green infrastructure to place- making;

x Recognition of the regional significance of the woodland assets within the study area, and the environmental, economic and social benefits afforded by trees and woodlands.

Cultural heritage x Recognition of the links between heritage assets and biodiversity (e.g. landscape setting);

x Identification and evaluation of the value of individual sites, striking a careful balance between the need for growth and the conservation of historic assets, and with protection to be given to all aspects of the historic environment wherever possible;

x Recognition of the importance of green spaces and their potential in conserving/protecting archaeological remains.

Quality of life x Promotion of developments within Development Plans which support the creation of socially inclusive communities, e.g. through delivery of safe, attractive and healthy places to live, and supporting health through provision of opportunities for recreational activity;

x Promotion of proposals which contribute to the health agenda – opportunities for walking and sustainable travel routes and links;

x Promotion of safe, inclusive and crime free communities, where crime and fear of crime does not undermine community cohesion;

x Sustainable and environmentally friendly design which contributes to place, character and local distinctiveness;

x Recognition of the critical importance of a high quality natural environment to the health agenda.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy24 September 2009 Final Report Sustainable resource management x At a national level planning authorities are required to consider how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change, e .g. green infrastructure to facilitate urban cooling, and to conserve and enhance biodiversity;

x Within the East of England and the area encompassing the study area, the potential for green infrastructure to address urban heat island effects, create carbon sinks and alleviate flood risk, has been noted;

x Water is a particularly scarce resource within the region and efforts should be directed to creative, sustainable proposals to conserve the resource and reduce instances of water loss. Green infrastructure can play a key part through functional flood storage in time of drought, water balancing/Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and urban greening/green roofs to slow run off;

x Consideration of the environment (in its wider sense, including place and character) in relation to planning and determining renewable energy schemes;

x Account should be taken of existing as well as proposed green infrastructure, for its value in terms of sustainable drainage, shading and cooling and biodiversity protection and enhancement;

x ‘Making space’ for water, flooding and SuDS in spatial planning and proposals for sustainable development;

x Recognition of the importance of wetlands and the range of ecosystem services they can provide;

x Balancing renewable energy development with the significant environmental constraints within the East of England Region (nature conservation sites);

x At the borough level, consideration should be given to the maintenance of an adequate supply of allotments.

Pointers for the St Edmundsbury GI Strategy, arising from the Policy Review Green Infrastructure proposals should: x Form an integral part of the LDF process, ensuring growth is delivered in a sustainable way with advance planning for GI (acting as mitigation/compensation for new development) – a ‘greenprint’ to plan positively for future change;

x Inform green space targets (green space provision adequate for population size), deliverable and achievable principles for open space provision alongside new development, providing inclusive equal access to recreational provision to contribute to the health agenda, with enhanced accessibility in areas of deprivation, such as at Haverhill (health, income, education and crime deprivation);

x Cater for the widest range of users, social and community groups, their ages and interests, e.g. formal recreation/sport and opportunities for more low key

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy25 September 2009 Final Report Green Infrastructure proposals should: recreation, facilitating access to and enjoyment of nature (educational value of GI and ‘wild or natural play’);

x Form a key part of healthy, safe communities, through the creation of visible, permeable environments and clear access links. An appropriate balance should be struck between this and providing meaningful recreational opportunities for children and youth groups to aid their physical and mental development;

x Complement national, regional and local level guidance such as the Rights of Way Improvement Plan and Local Transport Plan, and any priority objectives identified within these;

x Ensure the cultural identity of the landscape is conserved and enhanced through appropriate management, planting, conservation and restoration where appropriate. This may also present a key opportunity to enhance the landscape setting of the principal towns e.g. to the northern edges of Bury and Haverhill;

x Seek to maintain, enhance, restore and re-establish biodiversity interests;

x Adopt a ‘whole landscape’ approach, which should also extend to biodiversity, considering not just designated habitats but all sites with potential;

x Ensure areas of heathland and woodland are conserved to enhance the local identity and sense of place, particularly in relation to the landscape setting of principal towns such as Bury St Edmunds;

x Respond to targets set out in the BAP for priority habitats (wet woodland, floodplain grazing marsh) to include conservation and appropriate management and creation of appropriate areas of habitat, to link habitats and increase their resilience to climate change (e.g. wetland habitats along river corridors such as the Lark, Linnet and Stour);

x Consider climate change adaptation measures which can contribute to and enhance landscape setting, such as urban greening (through street trees and green/brown roofs);

x Ensure that all GI responds to ‘place’ and the context of St Edmundsbury. Adopt a ‘whole’ landscape approach to the borough rather than concentrating on specific sites. Ensure that all decisions on growth and GI seek to protect, manage and create local landscape character, as appropriate. Use tools such as Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) to assist in decision-making;

x Respond to the impacts of climate change through appropriate management of resources with conservation and enhancement of the environment and delivery of spaces with flexible environmental functions – multifunctionality;

x Recognise the value of existing green infrastructure assets whose functional potential could be enhanced through simple changes in management;

x Ensure the flood attenuation potential of green space is maximised through SuDs as an integral part of new development (space for water) and functional

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy26 September 2009 Final Report Green Infrastructure proposals should: floodplains particularly in close proximity to new development, in addition to provision for flood storage in time of drought.

Linking the environmental themes and functions 2.26. The table below sets out the relationship between the baseline themes and the environmental functions that have been used to focus green infrastructure planning within St Edmundsbury:

Environmental Datasets used Environmental functions and social themes Open space, St Edmundsbury Function: To provide sustainable recreation and Borough Open Space Access, recreation and transport/access routes access Assessment (2005); movement – choices for Local and Borough ‘responsible travel’ parks; Sustrans routes, Definitive Rights of Way and Improvement Plans; Access Land including Registered Common Land; Doorstep Greens and To provide recreational Millennium Greens; opportunities Forestry Commission Land; National Trust owned land; Estates and reserves (LNRs)

Biodiversity National and Function: To provide, conserve International Nature Habitat provision and and manage wildlife Conservation enhancement habitats Designations; Local Nature Conservation Designations; Key wildlife sites and habitats, and key species Function: To provide records; Access to nature opportunities for access Ecological Network to nature, for Mapping and Heathland educational/social/health Opportunity Mapping; benefits, e.g. outdoor Strategic Natural Areas; classroom/wild play BAP Priority Habitats

Place and character National Character Function: To provide and enhance Areas; Landscape setting and landscape setting and East of England context for links between landscape Integrated Regional development and townscape Landscape Framework (evolving); To provide a high Suffolk Landscape quality environment in Character Assessment which to live and work (2008)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy27 September 2009 Final Report Environmental Datasets used Environmental functions and social themes Cultural heritage Historic Landscape Function: To provide and enhance Characterisation (HLC); Landscape setting and landscape setting and Scheduled Ancient context for links between landscape Monuments (SAMs); development and townscape – Registered parks and opportunities for gardens of historic interpretation of interest; cultural heritage assets Listed Buildings To provide a high quality environment in which to live and work

Quality of life St Edmundsbury Function: To provide recreational Economic Development Access, recreation and opportunities, to assist Strategy (2005); movement in addressing St Edmundsbury Draft deprivation issues Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (2006); Indices of multiple Function: To provide a high deprivation (IMD); Landscape setting and quality environment in Western Suffolk Crime context which to live and work and Disorder Reduction Strategy

Sustainable resource Forest Heath District Function: To provide sustainable management Council and St Water resource management of water Edmundsbury Borough management resources e.g. floodrisk Council Strategic Flood alleviation, water Risk Assessment and balancing and flood Water Cycle Study storage (2009); Woodland for Life - Regional Woodland Function: To contribute to Strategy for the East of Shading and cooling climate change England (2003); adaptation through Placing Renewables in creation/provision of the East of England (East microclimate and use of of England Regional water resource Assembly) management (e.g. evapotranspiration, slowing run off through green roofs etc.)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy28 September 2009 Final Report 3. CHARACTERISATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS

3.1. This section of the report sets out a baseline characterisation of the borough, under the following themes:

x Open space, recreation and access links;

x Biodiversity;

x Place and character;

x Cultural heritage. 3.2. Under each theme the report summarises the existing situation, references relevant supporting information, notes characteristics relevant to green infrastructure and identifies key issues and opportunities to focus green infrastructure planning.

OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND ACCESS LINKS Data sets used

St Edmundsbury Borough Open Space Assessment (2005) and typologies

Local and borough parks

Sustrans routes

Rights of Way

Definitive Rights of Way

Rights of Way Improvement Plans

Access Land including Registered Common Land

Doorstep Greens and Millennium Greens

Forestry Commission land

National Trust owned land

Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)

Nature Reserve with access e.g. SWT

Other known access land, e.g. identified through Stakeholder Consultation Workshop 1)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy29 September 2009 Final Report Summary 3.3. Existing provision for open space and recreation sites in the borough is mapped in Figure 3.1 (with detailed maps for Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill in Figures 3.1a and Figures 3.1b). Figure 3.2 shows the main access links (RoW/cycle paths, etc.).

Open space x The 2005 St Edmundsbury Borough Open Space Assessment defines a range of open spaces broadly within the PPG17 typology;

x There is a varied range of open spaces sites (scale and typology) within the two key towns of Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill – generally a good level of provision and quality of open space and generally well managed;

x Comparatively few open space sites fall within outlying villages and rural areas within the borough (generally limited to amenity green space and playing fields);

x Important open space within the borough and outwith the PPG17 study typology includes King’s Forest, Thetford Forest Park (accessible, Forestry Commission ownership), which is considered of regional significance in green infrastructure terms. This is part of the landscape of the Brecks, which has a dedicated Countryside Management Plan. Also Bradfield Woods National Nature Reserve (open access) and National Trust sites (Ickworth Park – paid entry, park is open all year, with house and gardens open seasonally);

x Several Country Parks are located within the borough, and which are in the Borough Council ownership e.g. West Stow (in close proximity to wetlands at Lackford Lakes) and Nowton, to the south of Bury St Edmunds, in addition to East Town Country Park within Haverhill. The County Council owns and manages Country Parks at Clare and Knettishall Heath;

x Strategically significant open space sites within Bury St Edmunds include Abbey Gardens (open access, highly valued among local residents) and Hardwick Heath (140 ha of open parkland, open access, paid car parking), in addition to recreational sites of restricted access (members only) such as Bury St Edmunds Golf Course.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy30 September 2009 Final Report Abbey Gardens, Bury St Edmunds

x Haverhill, by comparison, contains a number of smaller local sites (recreation grounds and town parks) as well as Local Nature Reserves associated with the disused railway line.

Access links x The borough is crossed by a network of paths and rights of way (PROWs), which connect Bury St Edmunds and other settled parts of the borough to important green infrastructure sites such as Ickworth Park and Thetford Forest Park;

x Rights of Way provision is often concentrated on most settled areas and where a more intact landscape structure persists, with a sparser network to the northern part of the borough (see Figure 3.3 for information on the density of Rights of Way);

x Two Sustrans Routes fall partly within the borough. These are Sustrans National Routes 13 and 51 and Regional route 30 (a small part of which falls within the borough). National Route 51 connects Bury St Edmunds with Stowmarket;

x The borough is also partly crossed by two long distance routes - the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way;

x The Peddar’s Way National Trail starts at Knettishall Heath Country Park and follows the route of a Roman road to the Norfolk Coast Path (some 150km);

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy31 September 2009 Final Report x The Icknield Way regional route runs from Ivinghoe Beacon in the Chilterns to Knettishall Heath in the Brecks (Norfolk), and can claim to be the oldest road in England, dating back more than 4,000 years. It is fully accessible;

x The Stour Valley Path is the other key long distance route, within the borough, following a 96km route along the valley from Newmarket to Cattawade. A range of circular walks have been planned by the Stour Valley Project and Dedham Vale AONB, with an information pack available to walkers who wish to follow the route in stages, using public transport;

x The Lark Valley Path is a waymarked route of some 20km which is located between Mildenhall and Bury St Edmunds. The path encompasses riverside, woodland, heathland and parkland. Sites such as West Stow Country Park, Culford Hall and Lackford Wildfowl Reserve are on the route;

x The Angles Way – a long distance path on the Norfolk and Suffolk border, running from Great Yarmouth in the east to Knettishall Heath in the west.

Pointers for Green Infrastructure

Open space 3.4. Relevant points raised in the Open Space Audit are:

x Perceived deficiency in provision for children and young peoples’ groups, e.g. in terms of sports provision (tennis) and opportunities for cycling. Particular needs (e.g. for the early teenage group) are often perceived as neglected, and there is the need for a better age ‘hierarchy’ of play and recreational provision in this respect;

x Outside of the main towns there is also a lack of closely accessible formal recreational provision, being largely concerned with ‘countryside’ pursuits such as shooting and fishing;

x Allotment provision is variable across the borough. There are some 200 individual sites (mainly in Bury St Edmunds), but there is a long waiting list. Allotment provision is sporadic in the villages, with some sites under used;

x There appears to be a deficiency in semi natural green space in the northern part of Bury St Edmunds. In its recommendations the 2005 Open Space audit suggested potential for a new park to the north of the town to meet this deficiency;

x The council currently owns some 335 ha of open space and 30 ha of woodland. Management needs and costs are an issue, with the Open Space audit having suggested the imposition of a potential commuted sum/tariff payable on new developments, to take account of capital and ongoing revenue costs;

x Priorities for green infrastructure are in terms of linkages and enhancing connections, or in terms of different management regimes to better fulfil a wider range of environmental functions, with targeted creation of new green space in areas of deficiency or need;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy32 September 2009 Final Report x The southern part of Haverhill is a centre of deprivation and the 9th most deprived ward in Suffolk. There is generally a deficiency of open space provision here.

Access links 3.5. The Open Space Audit shows that the reasonably extensive paths and rights of way network is generally well used (see Figure 3.3 for information on the density of Rights of Way). Particular points (and potential opportunities) relate to:

x Some localised areas of deficiency;

x Need for a better and more consistent level of maintenance and signage;

x A connected network, with better integration e.g. in relation to road crossings and across farmland;

x Beyond the Sustrans routes, provision for cyclists is sparse. There is the opportunity for improved ‘shared use’ provision for a range of other users such as horse riders and cyclists;

x There is an opportunity for greater community involvement in paths and rights of way (PROW) management;

x In addition Environmental Stewardship schemes may offer the opportunity for enhanced access on and across farmland, particularly in the northern part of the borough. 3.6. Other points (and potential opportunities) in relation to open space, recreation and access links identified by stakeholders at the workshop held on 18th May 2009, are set out in Appendix 5.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy33 September 2009 Final Report

7KHWIRUG)RUHVW .QHWWLVKDOO+HDWK &RXQWU\3DUN St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy Figure 3.1: Open space by typology /LWWOH+HDWK 7KHWIRUG+HDWK /15

0DUNHW:HVWRQ)HQ Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ 6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ERXQGDULHV

7KH.LQJV)RUHVW 2SHQ6SDFH$VVHVVPHQW

&DYHQKDP,FNOLQJKDP+HDWKV 115 $OORWPHQWV $PHQLW\JUHHQVSDFH :HVW6WRZ &RXQWU\3DUN &HPHWHU\FKXUFK\DUG /DFNIRUG/DNHV 666, &LYLFVSDFH (VWDWH &RXQWU\SDUN %XU\6W(GPXQGV*ROI&RXUVH 1DWXUDOVHPLQDWXUDOXUEDQJUHHQVSDFH 2XWGRRUVSRUWV 3RFNHWSDUN

kj5RXJKDP(VWDWH $EEH\*DUGHQV 5HFUHDWLRQJURXQG +RO\ZDWHU0HDGRZV 6FKRROSOD\LQJILHOGV 1RZWRQ&RXQWU\3DUN +DUGZLFN+HDWK 6PDOOXUEDQSDUN 8UEDQSDUN

,FNZRUWK 2WKHURSHQVSDFH QRWLQFOXGHGLQDVVHVVPHQW &RPPRQODQG %UDGILHOG:RRGV 115 2SHQDFFHVVODQG )RUHVWU\&RPPLVVLRQODQG &RXQWU\SDUNV 1DWLRQDO7UXVWRZQHGODQG 6XVVH[:LOGOLIH7UXVWUHVHUYHV 6LWHRI6SHFLDO6FLHQWLILF,QWHUHVW kj 3ULYDWHHVWDWHVZLWKJRRGDFFHVV / .P 0HOGKDP:DVKODQG

8SSHU&RPPRQ 6RXUFH6(%&6&&6:71DWLRQDO7UXVW )RUHVWU\&RPPLVVLRQ6XVWUDQV1DWXUDO(QJODQG &ODUH&DVWOH &RXQWU\3DUN

3XGGOH%URRN3OD\LQJ)LHOGV 'DWH 5HYLVLRQ +DYHUKLOO*ROI&RXUVH

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy Figure 3.1a: Open space by typology - Bury St Edmunds

Key 6FKRROSOD\LQJILHOG 7ROOJDWH5HFUHDWLRQ 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ %XU\6W(GPXQGV *URXQG 2SHQ6SDFH$VVHVVPHQW *ROI&RXUVH 6W%HQHGLFWV6FKRRO 3OD\LQJ)LHOGV $OORWPHQWV $PHQLW\JUHHQVSDFH .LQJ(GZDUGV6FKRRO 2SHQ6SDFH 1DWWHUHUV:RRG &HPHWHU\FKXUFK\DUG &LYLFVSDFH 5DP0HDGRZ $SSOHGRZQ3DUN 6SULQJODQH &RXQWU\HVWDWH

7HQ$FUH)LHOG &RXQWU\SDUN 2DNHV5RDG 1DWXUDOVHPLQDWXUDOXUEDQJUHHQVSDFH +RPH&RYHQW 2XWGRRUVSRUWV %XU\6W(GPXQGV /HLVXUH&HQWUH 3RFNHWSDUN :HVWOH\6FKRRO 5HFUHDWLRQJURXQG 3OD\LQJ)LHOGV 6FKRROSOD\LQJILHOGV +HOGKDZ5RDG *DLQVERURXJK 6PDOOXUEDQSDUN 5HFUHDWLRQ*URXQG 5HFUHDWLRQ*URXQG 8UEDQSDUN %RURXJK&HPHWHU\ 2WKHURSHQVSDFH

&RPPRQODQG 5LYHU/LQQHW /D\KLOO&RYHQW 2SHQDFFHVVODQG :DON 1R0DQ VPHDGRZ +RO\ZDWHU0HDGRZV 5XJE\&OXE /HJRIPXWWRQ 1DWLRQDO7UXVWRZQHGODQG +RUULQJHU&RXUW $EEH\*DUGHQV 3OD\LQJ)LHOGV +DUGZLFN+HDWK

1RZWRQ&RXQWU\3DUN

,FNZRUWK 6W0DU\ V &KXUFK .P

6RXUFH6(%&6&&1DWLRQDO7UXVW )RUHVWU\&RPPLVVLRQ6XVWUDQV1DWXUDO(QJODQG

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy Figure 3.1b: Open space by typology - Haverhill

Key

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

6RXUFH6(%&6&&1DWLRQDO7UXVW )RUHVWU\&RPPLVVLRQ6XVWUDQV1DWXUDO(QJODQG

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

St Edmundsbury

5H Green Infrastructure Strategy JL R Q Figure 3.2: Access Links DO5 RXW H

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

1DWLRQDO7UDLOV

3HGGDUV:D\

5HJLRQDO5RXWHV

$QJOHV:D\

,FNQLHOG:D\3DWK

6W(GPXQG:D\

6WRXU9DOOH\3DWK

/RFDO5RXWHV RXWH 5 1DWLRQDO %XU\WR&ODUH:DON XWH DWLRQD O5R 1 1 D WLR 6XVWUDQV Q D O 5 R /RFDO&\FOH5RXWH X W H 5LJKWVRIZD\

/ .P

6RXUFH6XVWUDQV

H W

X 6XIIRON&RXQW\&RXQFLO R

5 O

Q R

L 'DWH W

D 5HYLVLRQ 1

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy Figure 3.3: Density of Public Rights of Way

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

0HWUHVSHUVTXDUHNLORPHWUH

6RXUFH6XVWUDQV 6XIIRON&RXQW\&RXQFLO

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

BIODIVERSITY Data sets used

National and International Nature Conservation Designations

Local Nature Conservation Designations

Key wildlife sites and habitats, and key species records

Ecological Network Mapping

Strategic Natural Areas

BAP Priority Habitats

Summary 3.7. All statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites are mapped in Figure 3.4 with the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping shown in Figure 3.5.

Statutory nature conservation sites x Two small areas are designated Special Areas for Conservation, covering 312ha. Breckland SAC is composed of numerous composite SSSIs, only one of which (Thetford Heath) occurs on the northern boundary of the borough. Similarly, of the composite SSSIs which make up Waveney & Little Ouse Valley Fens SAC, two occur to the north east of the borough (these are described in Appendix 2);

x One Special Protection Area (Breckland SPA) located in the north western part of the Borough, covering 3814ha13. This partly overlaps with Breckland SAC and is described in Appendix 2;

x The distribution of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) is very uneven across the borough. SSSIs are described in Appendix 2, and cover 4644ha (7% of the borough), including:

x 9 SSSIs over 50ha in size with the largest two sites being Breckland Forest SSSI and Breckland Farmland SSSI at 1817ha and 1594ha respectively;

x A relatively large tract of SSSI designated land occurs in the north west of the borough, including Breckland Farmland SSSI, Breckland Forest SSSI and Thetford Heath SSSI. Collectively these three SSSIs account for over 79% of SSSI land in the borough. Beyond this area the remaining SSSIs are fairly small in size, isolated from one another across the borough;

x Bradfield Woods SSSI and Thetford Heath SSSI are also designated as National Nature Reserves (NNR) with full access.

13 NOTE: Some of these sites overlap so the total area of designated sites will not be the sum of all the designations.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy45 September 2009 Final Report Non-statutory nature conservation sites x The distribution of Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within the borough is restricted to the urban areas of Thetford, Bury St. Edmunds and Haverhill (covering only 33ha in total);

x The distribution of County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within the borough is varied, with a particular concentration to the southwest of Bury St Edmunds, adjacent to Horringer. These sites cover approximately 3540ha (5% of the borough).

Distribution, extent and significance of habitats within the borough x Principal Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats in the study area include: o Wet woodland – mainly distributed in a fragmented strip running east-west to the south of Bury St Edmunds; o Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh – mainly in the valley of the Black Bourn; o Small areas of lowland heathland in the north of the borough; o Other key habitats include lowland deciduous woodland, lowland beech and yew woodland, lowland calcareous grassland, lowland meadow, lowland dry acid grassland, reedbed, lowland fen and purple moor-grass and rush pasture, however, these habitats are of a relatively low extent within the study area and/or largely contained within Statutory Nature Conservation Sites (see above);

x The Ecological Network Mapping Project14 aims to identify and encourage development of ecological network priorities and ways in which they can be implemented. Key objectives include: o Restoring natural and functioning wetland habitats to major rivers; o Significantly increasing the connectivity of woodland in core areas; o Significantly increasing the area of calcareous and other grassland; o Increasing the area of heathland; and o Creating green space in urban areas and urban fringes in Thetford. 3.8. The objectives in bold above are particularly relevant to St Edmundsbury. The Ecological Network Map is shown on Figure 3.5.

Pointers for green infrastructure 3.9. Particular points (and potential opportunities) relate to:

x The distribution of BAP Priority habitats as indicated by Natural England’s GIS inventories is highly fragmented across the borough;

14 Norfolk Wildlife Trust (2007) Breckland District Ecological Network Mapping

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy46 September 2009 Final Report x The need to enhance and create wetland habitats, heathland mosaic, wood pasture, and woodland within the Brecks and across the county border, as indicated by the Ecological Network Mapping Project;

x The need to enhance woodland connectivity, as indicated by the Ecological Network Mapping Project. 3.10. A detailed assessment of the condition and key threats/vulnerabilities to the statutory nature conservation sites are provided in Appendix 2. 3.11. Other points (and potential opportunities) in relation to biodiversity identified by stakeholders at the workshop held on 18th May 2009, are set out in Appendix 5.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy47 September 2009 Final Report

+RSWRQ)HQ 7KHOQHWKDP)HQ St Edmundsbury .QHWWLVKDOO Green Infrastructure Strategy +HDWK Figure 3.4: Nature conservation sites (XVWRQ :HVWRQ)HQ 3DUN

)DNHQKDP:RRG(XVWRQ 6DSLVWRQ*UHDW*URYH Key %UHFNODQG )DUPODQG 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ERXQGDULHV %UHFNODQG )RUHVW 6SHFLDO$UHDVRI&RQVHUYDWLRQ 6$&V

6SHFLDO3URWHFWLRQ$UHDV 63$V &XOIRUG3DUN 0LFNOHPHUH DQG/DNH 6LWHVRI6SHFLDO6FLHQWLILF,QWHUHVW 666,V

1DWLRQDO1DWXUH5HVHUYHV 115V /DFNIRUG/DNHV /RFDO1DWXUH5HVHUYHV /15V

&RXQW\:LOGOLIH6LWHV &:6

563%UHVHUYHV

6XIIRON:LOGOLIH7UXVWUHVHUYHV

5RDGVLGH1DWXUH5HVHUYHV 515 ,FNZRUWK3DUN )UHH 5XVKEURRNH :RR G :RR G ,FNZRUWK3DUN

%UDGILHOG:RRGV

6WUDGLVKDOO$LUILHOG .P 7U X Q GO H\ :DGJHOO V:RRGV

6RXUFH1DWXUDO(QJODQG6(%&1&&6&&

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy Figure 3.5: Biodiversity opportunity mapping

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ ERXQGDULHV +HDWKODQGFUHDWLRQVFRUH

EcoNet 2007

6RXUFH6&& 1RUIRON(FRORJLFDO1HWZRUN0DSSLQJ3URMHFW

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ &RUHELRGLYHUVLW\DUHDLQGLF1RUIRON %UHFNVFRUHDUHD )OXFWXDWLQJZDWHUERGLHV 'DWH %UHFNVEXIIHU]RQH /DUJHVFDOHZHWODQGFUHDWLRQ 5HYLVLRQ EUHFNVKHDWKFRUHDUHD :DYHQH\NPEXIIHU

&RUHZRRGODQGDUHDV :HWODQGKDELWDWHQKDQFHPHQW]RQH

PLACE AND CHARACTER Data sets used

National Character Areas

East of England Integrated Regional Landscape Framework

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment (2008)

Summary 3.12. National, regional and local level landscape character information was used to build up a picture of the place and character. An understanding of place is essential to provide the context and template for GI and decisions on future growth. The character of St. Edmundsbury is described below: 3.13. At a national scale, three character areas fall within the borough15 (see Figure 3.6). These include the South Suffolk and North Essex Claylands, which occupy the majority of the borough, including the main urban areas of Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill and the South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands which extends into the north eastern boundary of the borough. A small part of the Breckland character area extends into the north western part of the borough. A short summary of characteristics is set out in Appendix 3. 3.14. The East of England Integrated Regional Landscape Framework provides the landscape context at a regional level. The borough is dominated by two landscape types; the Wooded Plateau Farmlands, which occupies the southern half of the borough and the Wooded Estate Sandlands, which covers the north west of the borough from Bury St Edmunds to Thetford. The north east of the borough features three landscape types; Wooded Plateau Claylands, Plateau Estate Farmlands and Estate Farmlands. A short summary is set out in Appendix 3. 3.15. The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment (2008) provides the local level landscape baseline for the borough (see Figure 3.6). The main landscape character types and a short summary of their characteristics include:

x Undulating Ancient Farmlands (15) – ‘upland’ bordering Stour and Glem rivers forming an elevated plateau of chalky clay till. An undulating landscape with irregular field patterns and mature hedgerows. Regular blocks of ancient woodlands around poorly drained clay hills and steep slopes dissected by valleys;

x Undulating Estate Farmlands (16) – Undulating landscape distinctive through presence of parkland and complex arrangements of plantations (Dalham, Ickworth and Nowton). Tree cover extensive in northern parts, and combines with parkland to create enclosure. The area extends to the south of the borough and provides the setting to the south of Bury St. Edmunds and north and south of Haverhill. It has a strong estate character;

15 Countryside Agency, 1999 Countryside Character Volume 6: East of England CA12

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy53 September 2009 Final Report x Plateau Estate Farmlands (6) – Broadly flat plateau landscape to the north of Bury St. Edmunds. A large scale arable farmland forming a transitional zone between the claylands of central Suffolk and Breckland sands of the north-west. Large scale rectilinear enclosure and regular woodland plantations;

x Estate Sandlands (3) – Dry slopes and central plateau of the Brecks forming the north west part of the borough. Extensive areas of heathland and acid grassland and large continuous blocks of commercial forestry (Thetford Forest/the King’s Forest);

x Ancient Plateau Claylands (1) – Flat or gently rolling arable landscape in the north east part of the borough, incised by small river valleys (Black Bourn) and overlain with ancient enclosure field patterns. Rural character with winding lanes, paths, medieval greens and commons in local villages;

x Rolling Valley Farmlands and Furze (12) – an area bordering the Little Ouse along the northern east boundary of the borough. Prominent river terraces and small areas of gorse heathland. Co-axial field systems with straight boundaries and mixed hedgerows. Woodlands are fragmented on valley sides;

x River Valleys – the following valley types are identified within the borough: o Valley Meadows and Fens (19) - covering part of the River Lark corridor and the Black Bourn, in the northern part of the borough; o Valley Meadowlands (18) – covering the Lark as it extends through Bury St. Edmunds and the River Stour and tributaries in the southern part of the borough (the Lark Valley Floor is bordered by the Rolling Estate Sandlands Landscape Type and Stour valley floor is bordered by a landscape type of Rolling Valley Farmland); o Wooded Valley Meadowlands and Fens (23) - along the Little Ouse forming the northern boundary of the borough; o Rolling Estate Farmlands (8) – which cover the upper Stour tributaries north and west of Haverhill. 3.16. Refer to Appendix 3 for more detail of the borough’s national, regional and local level landscape character.

Pointers for green infrastructure 3.17. In relation to St Edmundsbury’s local-level character types, particular points (and potential opportunities) affecting the place and character of the borough, as set out in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment (2008) are as follows:

Undulating Ancient Farmlands (15) x Conserve and enhance the network of mature hedgerows which define areas of ancient enclosure;

x Conserve, enhance and extend the network of ancient woodland, connecting existing isolated blocks;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy54 September 2009 Final Report x Conserve historic greens and restore former greens associated with smaller villages through appropriate management and, where appropriate, suitable planting;

x Restore and enhance access to the medieval deer parks around Hundon;

x Restore historic field patterns especially larger open areas around former airfields.

Undulating Estate Farmlands (16) x Restore remnant hedgerows and ancient field patterns, particularly around southern parts (e.g. Clare) where intensive farming is present;

x Conserve and enhance areas of historic parkland and facilitate access where appropriate;

x Consider opportunities to enhance access to parks such as Ickworth and Nowton;

x Enhance the setting south of Bury St. Edmunds and north and south of Haverhill.

Plateau Estate Farmlands (6) x Restore heathland and common land north and east of Bury St Edmunds (Blackthorpe Heath, Conyers Green, Pakenham Heath, Troston Common, Ixworth Heath, Thurston Heath etc.);

x Buffer and mitigate the impact of the A14 trunk road with appropriate landscape enhancements;

x Management of 18th, 19th and 20th Century Landscape Parks;

x Enhance setting to the north and east of Bury St. Edmunds and conserve key views into and out of the town.

Estate Sandlands (3) x Restore and enhance heathland and acid grassland that is distinctive of the Brecks;

x Improve access to the River Lark, Black Bourn and Little Ouse river valleys;

x Enhance access and associated management of Thetford/King’s Forest.

Ancient Plateau Claylands (1) x Conserve and enhance the network of rural lanes, rights of way and medieval greens and commons;

x Enhance the ancient enclosure field pattern throughout the landscape;

x Improve access to the network of small river valleys;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy55 September 2009 Final Report x Conserve, enhance and connect isolated ancient woodlands.

Rolling Valley Farmlands and Furze (12) x Improve connectivity of valley side vegetation with clayland and farmland landscapes away from the valley sides, particularly through hedgerow restoration;

x Enhance remnant heaths, which are dominated by poor dry grassland and gorse (or furze);

x Improved access to the Little Ouse and Black Bourn river valleys. 3.18. Refer to Appendix 3 for more detail on the borough’s national and regional level landscape context. 3.19. Other points (and potential opportunities) in relation to place and character identified by stakeholders at the workshop held on 18th May 2009, are set out in Appendix 5.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy56 September 2009 Final Report 14 13 14 St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 4 23 Figure 3.6: Suffolk County Council 3 12 Landscape Character Types 14 6 12 21 Key 13 3 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ 17 /DQGVFDSHFKDUDFWHU7\SHV /&7V 1 19 $QFLHQWSODWHDXFOD\ODQGV 19 $QFLHQWUROOLQJIDUPODQGV (VWDWHVDQGODQGV 6 3ODQQHGIHQODQGV 9 3ODWHDXFOD\ODQGV 9 3ODWHDXHVWDWHIDUPODQGV 14 3 5 5ROOLQJHVWDWHFKDONODQGV 18 7 5ROOLQJHVWDWHIDUPODQGV

6 5ROOLQJHVWDWHVDQGODQGV 6 5ROOLQJYDOOH\FOD\ODQGV 6 5ROOLQJYDOOH\IDUPODQGVDQGIXU]H 6 17 17 20 5ROOLQJYDOOH\IDUPODQGV 6HWWOHGFKDONODQGV 12 20 18 6HWWOHGIHQODQGV 22 16 8QGXODWLQJDQFLHQWIDUPODQGV 8QGXODWLQJHVWDWHIDUPODQGV 8UEDQ 17 22 9DOOH\PHDGRZODQGV 10 9DOOH\PHDGRZV IHQV :RRGHGFKDONVORSHV 2 :RRGHGIHQV 15 :RRGHGYDOOH\PHDGRZODQGV

National Character Areas (NCAs) :RRGHGYDOOH\PHDGRZODQGVDQGIHQV

1 11 8 16

.P 11

11 8 8 6RXUFH6&& 18 17

%UHFNODQG 6RXWK6XIIRONDQG 1RUWK(VVH[&OD\ODQG 'DWH (DVW$QJOLDQ&KDON 2 7KH)HQV 5HYLVLRQ 6RXWK1RUIRONDQG 17 17 +LJK6XIIRON&OD\ODQGV

CULTURAL HERITAGE Data sets used

Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC)

Scheduled (Ancient) Monuments (SAMs/SMRs)

Registered parks and gardens of historic interest

Listed Buildings

Summary 3.20. The rich history of St Edmundsbury is evident in the many cultural heritage designations found across the borough, including 4 Registered Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest, 74 Scheduled Monuments and 2477 listed buildings, as shown in Figure 3.7 and summarised as follows:

x Distinct variation in historical landscape character between the northern and southern borough landscapes;

x The landscape south of Bury St Edmunds includes: - Pre18th Century Enclosure interspersed with areas of Post-1950s agricultural landscape; - Intact landscape with historic field boundaries and smaller scale irregular enclosure; - Pockets of post 1950s landscape (larger, regular enclosure), resulting from agricultural intensification.

x The landscape north of Bury St Edmunds includes: - 18th Century and later enclosure interspersed with pockets of woodlands and post medieval parks most notably at Euston and Culford; - The Kings Forest, a large area of plantation woodland is identified north of Culford; - Large areas of post 1950s agricultural landscape are evident around north eastern parts of the borough.

x Registered Parks and Gardens in the borough include Ickworth House, Euston Park, Culford Park and Abbey Gardens and precincts in Bury St Edmunds (refer to Appendix 4 for further detail). In addition Shadwell Park lies just north of the borough boundary;

x The borough and its wider setting contain many examples of Roman use including three roman routes, along the course of the A11, Peddars Way (a national trail) and the Icknield Way along with numerous Romanic settlements. The River Lark features several SAMs along its course including the site of a Roman Villa east of Icklingham;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy59 September 2009 Final Report x There is much evidence of historic settlement along the Stour Valley, e.g. medieval settlements such as Clare;

x Bury St Edmunds grew around the site of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds (scheduled monument), built in 1020 to house the remains of King Edmund;

Abbey ruins and precincts, Bury St Edmunds

x Located to the south of Thetford, RAF Barnham (scheduled monument) was used during the 1950s as an atomic bomb store on Thetford Heath;

x Elveden Park, west of the borough, forms the landscape setting to Elveden Hall, the former English seat of the Sikh ruler Maharajah Duleep Singh and his family (a focus for Sikh pilgrimages and the ‘Sikh Trail’);

x The Kings Forest is a commercial plantation laid out from the 1920s on the sites of former heathland, unproductive landed estates and unstable sand dunes;

x Network of scots pine tree lines/windbreak hedgerows (planted as part of agricultural enclosure from the 18th Century) traverse the borough; clearly visible within the landscape and from the roads;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy60 September 2009 Final Report Scots Pine lines are a distinctive component of the cultural landscape

x Clare Common, which is the site of the former manor of Erbury. It has been continuously used as grazing land in the centuries following the demolition of the manorial buildings, and was granted to the people of Clare by Queen Catherine of Aragon, for use as common pasture by the poor;

x The Thurlow Estate, one of the largest agricultural estates in Suffolk and which encompasses the estate villages of The Thurlows.

Pointers for green infrastructure 3.21. General points in relation to cultural heritage include a lack of general awareness of important historic sites (need for interpretation) and a need for improved connectivity in terms of pedestrian/ green transport links between cultural sites. 3.22. The following points outline the key points and opportunities within the borough with regard to the specific sites identified above and described in Appendix 4.

x Opportunity to connect Romanic and medieval sites along the Lark river valley. References to sites through excavation and restoration where appropriate;

x Conserve the setting of Ickworth Park primarily from the western settlement edge of Bury St Edmunds. Opportunity to enhance this green gap with new access between the park and town along the River Linnet;

x Improve access and enhance the landscape setting to the River Lark particularly between the Grade 11 listed Culford Park (although the park itself is in private

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy61 September 2009 Final Report ownership with no access, other than the public footpath which crosses it) and the wildlife reserve and Country Park at Lackford Lakes;

x Opportunity for improved access and interpretation surrounding the mill/fish ponds associated with Abbey Gardens;

x Connect to cultural assets/links identified in Thetford GI Study (i.e. Euston with Shadwell Park);

x New public footpaths/cycle routes could be formed with cultural sites as destination points with opportunities for interpretation and education. Many SAM sites are located on private land so access agreements would need to be sought with landowners;

x Create and enhance shared green links (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders) along the course of historic Roman roads providing reference to their cultural significance with interpretation materials;

x Restore elements of the cultural landscape such as pine lines and heathland with new planting and re creation to create a clear identity and sense of place for the borough. 3.23. Other points (and potential opportunities) in relation to cultural heritage identified by stakeholders at the workshop held on 18th May 2009, are set out in Appendix 5.

SUMMARY OF KEY GI ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES This box summarises the key issues (and potential opportunities) identified during the first stakeholder workshop held on 18th May 2009.

Open space, recreation and access links x Disused railways provide key opportunities for developing Green Corridors for recreation (access/links) and biodiversity e.g. Bury St Edmunds – Thetford line; Haverhill to Cambridge line;

x River corridors are important strategic opportunities – both ecological corridors and potential green space;

x The need to enhance existing routes (not necessarily more routes) e.g. improvement of the Lark Valley Path to allow disabled access;

x Ickworth Park is a key GI resource for Bury St Edmunds and the south of the borough generally but access for walkers and cyclists from Bury St Edmunds is very poor;

x Lack of publicly accessible land between Bury St Edmunds and Ickworth Park inhibiting proposed SUSTRANS route 51 (National Trust and St John’s College Oxford are land owners). Key opportunity for route to follow the Linnet corridor;

x The need for accessible natural green space north of Haverhill;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy62 September 2009 Final Report x The A14 is both a barrier to north – south access in the borough as well as a main east – west corridor (opportunity for verges and green space management and tree planting along main corridors);

x Lack of information on routes with disabled access;

x Cycle route: Bury St Edmunds to King’s Forest to Thetford has been looked at in the past and is a key opportunity (but archaeological issues to be resolved) - this would link to identified GI corridors in the Norwich GI strategy;

x The need to enhance visitor facilities at Bradfield Woods.

Biodiversity x Consider recreational zoning carefully in relation to biodiversity e.g. habitat carrying capacity;

x The A14 is an important wildlife corridor but also a barrier (opportunities for connecting habitats);

x Loss of hedgerows to agricultural intensification (past) and also Dutch Elm disease (past) has changed the vegetation structure;

x Need to consider buffer zones for Breckland SPA in relation to any development proposed in proximity to these;

x Implications of SFRA/Water Cycle study;

x The need to expand the woodland network to provide greater resilience in the face of climate change. Place and Character

x The need to conserve and enhance the distinctive character of river valleys throughout the borough;

x The need to conserve the distinctive character of river valley villages to the east of Haverhill (Stoke by Clare, Clare and Cavendish);

x Land is heavy and consequently very wet near to Haverhill, which does not encourage recreational activities (opportunity for other GI functions);

x Loss of grassland/pasture due to changing agricultural practice in the borough, resulting in ‘boring ploughed land’. Environmental stewardship schemes directed in these areas could encourage positive change to the landscape character;

x Enhancement of landscape setting through strategic green infrastructure and structural landscape to compensate for development to the urban fringes of Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy63 September 2009 Final Report Cultural Heritage

x The need to conserve the strong estate parkland character south of Bury St. Edmunds, including its concentration of Halls, Manors and historic parkland (e.g. Nowton Park and Hardwick Heath – used as a Prisoner of War Camp during WW11);

x The need to conserve and enhance historic field boundaries and ancient woodland throughout the borough, e.g. Bradfield Woods;

x The need to conserve and enhance medieval deer parks around Bury St. Edmunds;

x The need to conserve and enhance the historic value of the Stour Valley in the southern part of the borough, including Clare Priory;

x Understanding of the borough’s strong military influence, especially the Brecks, e.g. airbases, airfields and pill boxes are distinctive features in the landscape;

x Strong influence of horse studs/racing in eastern parts of the borough, changing the landscape character.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy64 September 2009 Final Report St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 3.7: Cultural heritage (XVWRQ3DUN designations Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ 5HJLVWHUHGSDUNVDQGJDUGHQV 6FKHGXOHGPRQXPHQWV /LVWHGEXLOGLQJV

&XOIRUG3DUN

Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) $EEH\*DUGHQV

,FNZRUWK

WKFHQWXU\DQGODWHUHQFORVXUH 3RVWDJULFXOWXUDOODQGVFDSH $QFLHQWPRQXPHQW 3RVWPHGLHYDOPLOLWDU\ %XLOWXSDUHD 3RVWPHGLHYDOSDUNDQGOHLVXUH &RPPRQSDVWXUH 3UHWKFHQWXU\HQFORVXUH +RUWLFXOWXUH 8QLPSURYHGODQG ,QGXVWULDO :R R GO D Q G 0HDGRZRUPDQDJHGZHWODQG

6RXUFH(QJOLVK+HULWDJH

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

4. NEED AND DEMAND ANALYSIS

4.1. This section sets out an analysis of need and demand for green infrastructure to take account of growth within the borough to 2031. The need and demand analysis considers green infrastructure from human perspectives (e.g. national and local standards set in respect of accessible natural green space) and spatial priorities for green infrastructure in respect of social deprivation, but also in terms of environmental function (sustainable water resource and floodrisk management, in response to climate change; and enhancing biodiversity through creation of wetland habitats, heathland mosaic, wood pasture, and woodland to meet regional and local BAP targets). 4.2. Several documents and datasets have been reviewed to identify key GI issues and opportunities. These are set out under the following themes:

x Sustainable Resource Management;

x Socio-Economic;

x The Growth Agenda;

x Accessible green space deficiency.

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Data consulted

Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Water Cycle Study (2009) (SFRA)

Woodland for Life - Regional Woodland Strategy for the East of England (East of England Regional Woodland Strategy Steering Group, 2003). http://www.woodlandforlife.net

Placing Renewables in the East of England (East of England Regional Assembly)

UK Biomass Strategy (Defra, May 2007)

Flood Risk 4.3. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) aims to identify key flood risk areas, inform strategic land allocations, and integrate flood risk and water cycle management into the spatial planning of the area. The SFRA identifies the following characteristics in St Edmundsbury:

x Main rivers in the borough include: the River Lark, River Linnet, Culford Stream, Cavenham Stream, Sapiston Pakenham Stream, and the Black Bourn in central and northern parts of the borough (which drain the chalk uplands east of the area); and the River Glem, River Stour and Stour Brook in southern parts of the borough;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy67 September 2009 Final Report x There is poor drainage in southern parts of the borough (clay and boulder geology). Conversely, the northern area has well drained permeable sandy and loamy soils. Any new development should respond to the underlying geology to ensure the most appropriate types of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) are incorporated at the pre-development planning stage;

x A changing climate and future development will have significant impacts on the borough’s ability to effectively cope with periods of flooding from all forms, particularly in urban areas;

x The Meldham Washlands act as a significant flood attenuation basin to the north of Haverhill and have been identified as a strategic area of land which is not to be developed. The washlands capture and limit water flow through Haverhill;

x Several areas along the River Stour and A1092 are subject to repetitive flooding due to river water backing up, blockages or inundation of several crossings (such as at Wixoe);

x Rural runoff is a significant risk across the borough, affecting mostly agricultural locations, Class B roads and minor roads such as at Culford, Fornham All Saints (located along the River Lark Valley north of Bury St Edmunds);

x The borough is geologically susceptible to groundwater flooding, due to the low lying nature of the land, the underlying permeable aquifers and repeat long-lasting rainfall events. A significant risk area is the area to the southeast of Stanton, along the line of the Grundle (an ephemeral watercourse that only springs when groundwater levels within the chalk rise);

x The chalk aquifers in central and northern parts of the borough are sensitive to impacts of climate change.

Needs and opportunities in relation to green infrastructure planning x 4.4. The SFRA identifies GI as a key opportunity to provide strategic surface and fluvial water management measures to assist in reducing the levels of flood risk across the catchment. Specific opportunities include:

x Strategic flood risk mitigation at the Meldham Washlands, north of Haverhill;

x Rivers Lark and Linnet corridors to the north, south and west of Bury St Edmunds provide key opportunities for GI;

x The SFRA (shown at Figure 4.1) advises the borough to avoid any development in areas within Flood Zone 2 and 3. These areas are promoted as ideal green infrastructure sites and particularly if any development is considered;

x Surface water management where development is proposed is critical e.g. at Bury St Edmunds (targeted for residential development) and Haverhill and east of Stanton (targeted for employment development – Shepherd’s Grove Industrial Area);

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy68 September 2009 Final Report x Significant opportunities exist to improve water quality and achieve environmental enhancements through various ongoing and future strategic urban and rural initiatives in conjunction with the future growth plans, including sustainable drainage systems, and catchment sensitive farming;

x Prevention of polluted runoff, such as runoff from highways or agricultural sites, through the use of oil interceptors;

x Expansion of floodplain and riparian woodland to aid downstream flood control, particularly on land that may be unsuitable for agricultural production due to winter flooding16;

x In areas with a more permeable geology, the following SuDS should be considered:

- pervious pavements (which allow water to permeate the underlying soil) - filter drains/strips (linear drains filled with permeable materials) - swales, ponds, wetlands, and scrapes - soakaways (sub-surface structures which dispose of water via infiltration) - green roofs (vegetated roofs which reduce run off volume and rate). x In areas where the underlying conditions are predominantly impermeable or of limited permeability, SuDS should focus on the use of surface water attenuation systems, such as:

- retention ponds/sub-surface storage - wetlands - filtration devices/sand filters - detention basins - open channels/swales. Food and Fuel Production 4.5. A borough-wide demand for allotments was identified in the Open Space Assessment, as well as during the stakeholder consultation on 18th May 2009. 4.6. The Regional Woodland Strategy (2003) promotes the use of wood for heat and power generation, and the development of ‘regional wood heating opportunity maps’ based on woodland resources, the natural gas grid, and existing or planned wood heating facilities. There is currently a well-developed market for firewood in the East of England, although some of this is imported from as far afield as West Yorkshire. 4.7. The UK Biomass Strategy identifies the potential to use up to 350,000 ha across the UK by 2020 to grow perennial energy crops. The Placing Renewables in the East of England study identifies the region as a key contributor in meeting these targets.

Needs and opportunities in relation to green infrastructure planning x Restoration/creation of orchards, allotments and community gardens in Haverhill (raised during the stakeholder consultation on 18th May 2009);

16 As promoted in the Regional Woodland Strategy

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy69 September 2009 Final Report x Inclusion of areas for local food production, in particular close to existing or planned residential areas;

x Opportunities to enhance woodland planting and management for fuel production. Woodland planting would also provide a benefit for flood management (discussed above).

SOCIO-ECONOMIC Data consulted

St Edmundsbury Economic Development Strategy (2005)

St Edmundsbury Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (2006)

Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)

Western Suffolk Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy

4.8. The St Edmundsbury Economic Development Strategy identifies a number of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats which influence the borough’s local economy. Key points which relate to GI are summarised below:

Strengths Weaknesses

- Perceived high quality of life with good - Decline in farm income and agricultural amenities employment - Historic beauty and charm - Ageing population - Attractive, unspoilt rural character - Approaches to Bury St Edmunds are - Good transport links (train station to ‘visually uninviting’ Cambridge/London; proximity to - Poor public transport access in rural Cambridge, Stansted, A14 and M11) areas - Attractive countryside - Poor access to/from Haverhill (i.e. poor - A growing, relatively young population road links to Cambridge & Bury St in Haverhill Edmunds, no rail links) - Haverhill has few facilities for young people Opportunities Threats

- Tourism - Capacity and condition of the A14 - Develop walks and cycle routes linking Haverhill within the surrounding countryside - Improve entrances to Bury St Edmunds - Develop farmers markets & initiatives to promote local produce in rural areas - Promote rural cycle, walking and horse- riding routes

4.9. The St Edmundsbury Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report identified a number of relevant demographic characteristics in the borough:

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy70 September 2009 Final Report x St Edmundsbury has a relatively high number of ‘residents who are happy with their neighbourhood as a place to live’ (Suffolk Speaks Survey, 2005), with 86% of residents being ‘very satisfied’ and ‘fairly satisfied’ with living in the borough;

x In 2005, the weekly household income in the borough was £449, equating to an annual household income of £23,348. Although this is significantly lower than the county and regional averages (£518/wk), the earnings increased by 5.9% between 2004 and 2005, above the county average of 3%;

x In 2005 the borough’s resident population was 100,500; of which 59% resided in the two urban centres (Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill). The population is predominantly White, British (95%, based on the 2001 census), which is significantly higher than the Regional average;

x The borough has a greater proportion of 65+ people (22%), when compared to the Region (18%). When looking at the two urban centres in isolation, Haverhill has a younger population (33% under 24) and Bury St Edmunds has an older population (24%). This is likely to have implications on the types of GI in demand;

x The borough’s working population is ranked third highest in the county at 82.1%, with 49.3% of the population is in the central age bracket (25-64 years). However, the proportion of people 65+ is increasing (particularly in St. Edmundsbury and Haverhill) and likely to create further social care needs in future (the 65+ age group in Bury St Edmunds jumped 48% between 1991 and 2001, four times the increase experienced in Suffolk and the region);

x Bury St Edmunds accounts for 58% of total employment and Haverhill 17%. The three largest sectors in the borough (public, manufacturing and distribution) account for 73% of total employment. Haverhill is more industrial in nature with more than three times the proportion of manufacturing employment compared to Bury which is dominated by public sector employment accounting for almost one third of total employment;

x Residents within the borough are among the healthiest in the county, with the exception of Kedington, Northgate and Haverhill South wards;

x Although crime rate has increased from 69.6/1000 population in 2003-4 to 76.8/1000 in 2004-5, this increase does not surpass the regional average;

x At the time of the 2001 Census, 62% of the working population aged between 16 and 74 usually travelled to work by car/van. Commuting patterns are largely contained within the borough, with 71% of people living in St Edmundsbury, also working in the borough. 4.10. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) provides a composite view of socio- economic deprivation in an area, and reveals the following in St Edmundsbury:

x In general, the borough is an affluent area with few pockets of deprivation;

x There are no Local Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the borough within the most deprived percentiles (<20%), and only 5 LSOAs fall within the next most deprived

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy71 September 2009 Final Report percentile (20-40%), immediately to the west of Haverhill and Bury St Edmunds (see Figure 4.2(a)). 4.11. The various indices that make up the IMD are: health, income, education, environment, crime, barriers to housing and location of flats. An analysis of these indices identifies the following:

Health x In general, St Edmundsbury is a healthy borough. A large proportion of the wards fall within the least deprived percentile 80-100%;

x The most deprived wards in the borough (20-40%) are mainly distributed to the southwest of Haverhill and to the north and east of Bury St Edmunds.

Income x In general, the borough is an affluent area with few pockets of income deprivation;

x The most deprived wards (between 10-40%) in the borough are distributed in west Bury St Edmunds (Northgate, St Olaves and Minden wards) and in Haverhill (all wards) (see Figure 4.2).

Education x There is notable deprivation in Haverhill (all wards), and a small pocket of deprivation in north west Bury St Edmunds (in Northgate and St Olaves wards) (refer to Figure 4.2e).

Living Environment x Living environment refers to both ‘indoor’ (e.g. quality of housing) and ‘outdoor’ (e.g. air quality and road traffic accidents) environments. Key findings from this dataset are that no LSOAs fall within the most deprived percentiles (<20%). However, deprivation in respect of ‘Living environment’ is comparatively high (a large proportion of the borough falls within the medium percentiles 20-60%).

Crime x Crime rates in St Edmundsbury are below the county average17, and the borough ranked 299th (out of 376 areas across England and Wales) for rate and volume of BCS comparator recorded crime in 2003-04, making it amongst the safest boroughs in England and Wales;

x 2 LSOAs fall within the 10-20% most deprived percentile (see Figure 4.2). These fall within Minden ward (in west Bury St Edmunds) and East Haverhill ward.

17 As noted in the Draft SA Scoping Report and by the Suffolk Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy72 September 2009 Final Report Location of flats x The percentage of households that are flats (i.e. least likely to have access to private gardens) is very low. As expected, flats are concentrated in central Haverhill and Bury St Edmunds (near town centre and Northgate ward). As such the need for private garden space is less of an issue in light of the relatively low density of flatted development within the borough.

Summary: Needs and opportunities in relation to green infrastructure planning x St Edmundsbury is an affluent area with few pockets of deprivation. The key factors to consider when planning the GI network will be to enhance existing environmental assets and strengthen opportunities for safe, well-designed and accessible green space for a variety of users (pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders) with different needs (e.g. 65+ age group concentrations). This will be particularly important in the two urban centres, where deprivation is greatest;

x In Haverhill, it will be important to ensure that provision is made for a wide variety of social groups and their needs within the GI network – natural play (outdoor classroom, healthy living, access to nature), and recreational facilities for young teenage/adolescent groups.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy73 September 2009 Final Report

/LWWOH2XVH St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 4.1: Flood Risk

Key 7 K H%ODFN%RXUQ 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

)ORRG]RQH

5 LYHU/ DUN

5LYHU/LQQHW

5LYHU*OHP

6RXUFH(QYLURQPHQW$JHQF\

5LYHU6WRXU 'DWH 5HYLVLRQ

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 4.2a-d: Indices of Deprivation

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ ,QGLFHVRIGHSULYDWLRQSHUFHQWLOHRI (QJODQGZLGHUDQN /62$

0RVWGHSULYHG /HDVWGHSULYHG

a) IMD b) Health

6RXUFH2IILFHIRU1DWLRQDO6WDWLVWLFV 2IILFHIRU1DWLRQDO6WDWLVWLFV

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ c) Crime d) Income

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 4.2e-g: Indices of Deprivation

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ ,QGLFHVRIGHSULYDWLRQSHUFHQWLOHRI(QJODQGZLGH UDQN /62$

0RVWGHSULYHG /HDVWGHSULYHG 3HUFHQWDJHRIKRXVHKROGVWKDWDUHIODWV 0RVWOLNHO\WRKDYH DFFHVVWRSULYDWHJDUGHQV e) Education f) Environment /HDVWOLNHO\WRKDYH DFFHVVWRSULYDWHJDUGHQV

6RXUFH2IILFHIRU1DWLRQDO6WDWLVWLFV 2IILFHIRU1DWLRQDO6WDWLVWLFV

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ g) Percentage of households that are flats

THE GROWTH AGENDA 4.12. As set out in Table 2.1 in the Policy Section, the East of England Plan proposes significant housing growth in the study area (Policy H1), and Bury St Edmunds is identified as the sub regional centre for West Suffolk and a key centre for development and change (Policy BSE1). Of the 10,000 homes to be built (from 2001- 2021) and the 5400 homes from 2021-31, the distribution is as follows: 50% in Bury St Edmunds, 34% in Haverhill and 16% distributed amongst the villages. 4.13. Population projections from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) show a 12% increased in population in St Edmundsbury until 2021, to a total population of 117,000 (see Table 4.1). Population projections have also be generated based on the housing targets in the RSS18. Given the RSS housing targets19, and assuming new dwellings have an occupancy rate of 2.27 persons per household20, this equates to an 18% increase in population, to a total of 121,110 by 2021 – or just over 4,000 more people than the ONS projections, as shown in Table 4.1. Haverhill is likely to experience the greatest change in population (26% increase), based on RSS housing targets.

Summary: Needs and opportunities in relation to green infrastructure planning 4.14. The population growth in St Edmundsbury will put increased pressure on several sectors, which can be addressed by GI:

x Increased pressure on sewage and water resources can be mitigated in part by the use of water attenuation and sustainable drainage systems;

x Increased pressure on the road and transport network can be mitigated by the provision of walking and cycling routes that link to transport hubs, service centres, and recreational assets;

x Increased pressure on formal and informal recreational facilities can be mitigated by the provision of improved and new green spaces, including linear routes;

x Increased pressure on health resources can be mitigated in part by the provision of walking and cycling routes, and accessible green spaces, as above.

18 EERA East of England Plan 2001-2021 19 These projections are based on the 8,040 new homes still to be built as of 2006 from the 10,000 proposed in the East of England Plan 2001-2021 (pg.32), and therefore do not take into account houses built since 2006. 20 King D, Hayden J, and Jackson R (2005) Revised 2001-based Population and Household Growth in the East of England, 2001-2021 (http://www.eera.gov.uk/).

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy81 September 2009 Final Report Table 4.1: Population projections Population increase Location 2009 population 2016 population 2021 population 2009-2021 ONS population projections* East of England 5, 773, 000 6, 179, 500 6, 471, 000 12% St Edmundsbury 104, 600 111, 700 117, 000 12% Population 2007 increase Location population*** 2016 population 2021 population 2007-2021 Population growth assumptions against Regional housing targets** St Edmundsbury 102, 859 n/a 121, 110 18% Bury St Edmunds 37, 464 n/a 46,589 24% Haverhill 23,716 n/a 29,922 26% *Source: Office of National Statistics 2006-based sub national population projections ** Source: East of England Plan 2001-2021 (NOTE: These targets will be revised in East of England Plan review to 2031). Figures assume the 50/34% split of the 8, 040 (excluding the 1, 960 already built) new home allocation targeted for Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill i.e. an increase of 9,125 in Bury St Edmunds and 6,206 in Haverhill. *** Source: Based on the 2007 ward population estimates (ONS, 2009). Bury St Edmunds Parishes included are: Southgate, Moreton Hall, Eastgate, Westgate, Minden, Abbeygate, Risbygate, St. Olaves and Northgate. Haverhill Parishes included are: North, East, South and West Haverhill.

ACCESSIBLE GREEN SPACE DEFICIENCY Data consulted

St Edmundsbury Borough Council Open Space Assessment (2005) The Office of National Statistics 2006-based sub national population projections 2007 Ward population estimates (ONS, 2009) The East of England Plan 2001-2021 Regional housing targets

Scope of the analysis 4.15. This section sets out the findings of a quantitative analysis of provision of accessible green space in St Edmundsbury. Accepted local and national standards for the provision of accessible green space are used to provide a benchmark. Consideration is also given to future needs taking into account population trajectories to 2021.

Method for defining open space deficiency 4.16. An assessment against the Accessible Natural Green Space Standard (ANGSt) has been carried out to provide broad indications of areas of open space deficiency in the borough (refer to Figure 4.3). Datasets containing ‘publicly accessible’ land have not been available for this study. Therefore, to build a comprehensive layer of accessible natural green space for the deficiency mapping, the following GI types have been included (see table 4.2 overleaf).

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy82 September 2009 Final Report 4.17. Spaces which are not readily accessible have been excluded from the analysis (including allotments and outdoor sports facilities where payment or membership is required, and any other types of green infrastructure which are not publicly accessible, including private sites designated for their nature conservation value, or which require prior arrangement and/or payment). Formal recreation spaces have also been excluded from the analysis (a detailed analysis of provision of sports facilities is provided in the Open Space Assessment).

Existing provision standards 4.18. St Edmundsbury’s Open Space Assessment (2005) provides an assessment of the borough’s open space provision, with a particular focus on the two urban centres of Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill. The typology and number of accessible green spaces in the borough (131 sites in total) are summarised in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Current green space in St Edmundsbury Existing quantity Accessible green space type (no. of sites) Amenity green space 20 Natural / semi natural urban green space 13 Country parks 6 Pocket parks 0 Urban parks 3 Cemetery / churchyards 2 Common land* 14 Open access land* 37 Forestry commission land 30 Suffolk Wildlife Trust Reserves (with public 6 access) Total accessible open spaces 131 * ‘Common land’ and ‘open access land’ often overlap; however, this will not affect the deficiency mapping.

4.19. Both the Open Space Assessment (2005) and the Replacement St Edmundsbury Borough Local Plan (2006) set out recommended standards for the provision of green space, in terms of the quantity and accessibility of open spaces, as identified in Table 4.3. Both standards provide a good starting point for the analysis of green space provision per head of population, and for the development of recommendations for open space provision in future developments.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy83 September 2009 Final Report Table 4.3: Existing open space provision standards in St Edmundsbury Open space Open Space Assessment Local Plan 2006 type 2005 Quantity Accessibility Quantity Accessibility standard standard standard standard Amenity Open 0.5ha / 1000 800m from 1ha / 1000 25m2 per dwelling Space: including population dwelling population (this excludes Parks (not highway verges, Country parks), structural planting, Natural Green shelter belts, spaces and woodland and areas Amenity areas of open water). (> 0.2ha) Recreational For pitch: 1.2ha 800m from For Bury St Comprising:- 1.6ha Open Space / 1000 dwelling Edmunds and of playing pitches population Haverhill: and 0.6ha of courts, 800m from 2.2ha / 1000 greens and For non-pitch: dwelling population miscellaneous 0.4ha / 1000 facilities. population For rural sub- Comprising:- 1.2ha areas: 1.6ha / of playing pitches 1000 and 0.4ha of courts, population greens and miscellaneous facilities.

Children’s For Local Area 60m from For LAP: 1 minute walking playgrounds for Play (LAP): dwelling 0.6ha / 1000 time (60m straight 0.6ha / 1000 population line distance) population (14m2 / dwelling) For Local 240m from Equipped Area dwelling For LEAP: 5 minutes walking for Play (LEAP): 0.3ha / 1000 time (240m straight 0.3ha / 1000 population line distance) population (8m2 / dwelling) For 15 minutes walking Neighbourhood 600m from For NEAP: time (600m straight Equipped Area dwelling 0.12ha / 1000 line distance) for Play (NEAP): population 0.12ha / 1000 (3m2 / population dwelling)

For Early Teenage: 0.12ha / 1000 Not population* specified

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy84 September 2009 Final Report Open space Open Space Assessment Local Plan 2006 type 2005 Quantity Accessibility Quantity Accessibility standard standard standard standard Allotments 6 plots (towns On or off- 0.2 ha / 1000 To be provided on only) site population sites of not less than 0.4-1.6ha in size close to residential areas, within a maximum walking distance of residential areas of 800m. Total provision 3.12 ha / 1,000 population standard *to be deducted from either recreational or play provision depending on its content.

Scale and distance thresholds 4.20. Four tiers of accessible green infrastructure spaces have been defined based on Natural England’s ANGSt Model21. The ANGSt model sets standards based on a review of the functions and values of natural green space as a provider of experience of nature to local communities. The ANGSt approach is based on distance thresholds, and defines the maximum distance that any resident should have to travel to reach accessible natural or semi-natural green space. The four tiers have been set out in Table 4.4 below:

Table 4.4: Green infrastructure tiers Maximum travel Tier Minimum size distance Sub-regional 500ha 10 km County 100ha 5 km District 20ha 2 km Neighbourhood 2ha 300 m

4.21. Application of these thresholds to St Edmundsbury and its environs allows an understanding of the extent to which the population is served by green infrastructure at a range of scales.

Key areas of deficiency 4.22. Figure 4.3 shows the four green infrastructure tiers (sub-regional to neighbourhood) as applied to the accessible natural and semi-natural green space in St Edmundsbury, with more detailed consideration given to Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill at Figure 4.4. In each figure, accessible green space over the relevant size threshold is shaded in green, and the distance threshold (i.e. the catchment area served by the green space) is shown in yellow. Deficiencies in each tier have been summarised in Table 4.5.

21 English Nature (2003) English Nature Report 526: Accessible Natural Green Space Standards in Towns and Cities: A Review and Toolkit for Implementation

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy85 September 2009 Final Report Table 4.5: Summary of Green Infrastructure Deficiency GI Tier Key sites Summary of deficiency Sub-regional* The King’s Forest, North western parts of the borough (over 500 ha) which lies along the have adequate provision, but eastern western borough and particularly southern parts are boundary to Forest deficient. Heath. County - Knettishall Heath St Edmundsbury is largely deficient in (100-500 ha) Country Park access to sites between 100-500ha, - Lackford Lakes with the exception of areas along the - Redgrave and Lopham northern and north western boundary. Fen (within Breckland District) District Bury St Edmunds Bury St Edmunds and Clare village (20-100 ha) - Hardwick heath have good district scale provision of - Nowton Park GI. The borough is largely deficient in - Holywater meadows sites between 20-100ha, including - Abbey Gardens Haverhill. Elsewhere - Bradfield Woods - Lackford Lakes - Upper Common (Clare) - West Stow Country Park - Market Weston Fen - Grove Farm (within Thurston Parish, 0.8km from borough boundary) Neighbourhood** Haverhill Bury St Edmunds, Haverhill and the (2-20 ha) - Meldham Washland villages of Stanton, Ixworth and - Puddle Brook Playing particularly Clare have good provision Fields of sites or habitats between 2-20ha. - East Town Country However Bury St Edmunds and Park Haverhill have some localised Elsewhere deficiencies (central and northern Bury - Micklemere, St Edmunds; and southern Haverhill). Pakenham - Hopton Fen - Thelnetham Fen * Sub-regional sites 10km outside the study area have been included in the assessment, including Thetford Forest and West Harling Heath. ** Name attribute data is not available for most small green spaces.

GI provision by population - 2009 4.23. In order to understand how well the populations of Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill are served in terms of provision per head of population (which is often used as a measure to underpin standards), an analysis of accessible green infrastructure measured against the population of each parish within these urban centres has been undertaken, using the open space typologies set out in Table 4.2.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy86 September 2009 Final Report 4.24. The provision of open space in southern, northern, north western and central eastern parts of the borough exceeds the standard for informal open space set out in the Open Space Assessment (2005) of 3.12 hectares per thousand head of population (as set out in Table 4.2 ). 4.25. However, four Wards are within the most deprived percentile (<1ha / 1000 population); three of which fall in Bury St Edmunds. These are Northgate, St Olaves, Minden (located between the Lark and Linnet Valleys, straddling the A14 in north west Bury St Edmunds) and Wickhambrook Wards (located southeast of Bury St Edmunds, along the western borough boundary). 4.26. Other areas which have less than 3.12ha / 1000 population include Chedburgh and Barrow wards (south west of Bury St Edmunds), Westgate Ward (in south Bury St Edmunds, south of the River Linnet), Risbygate (located in central west Bury St Edmunds), Fornham, Ixworth and Stanton (north of Bury St Edmunds) and South Haverhill. 4.27. Quantitative provisions for allotments are set out in the Local Plan 2016 (0.2 ha / 1000 population in Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill). With the exception of north and south Bury St Edmunds, both Haverhill and Bury St Edmunds are deficient. This is consistent with the needs analysis in the borough’s Open Space Assessment, which identifies a severe shortage of allotments.

GI provision by population - 2021 4.28. Population growth assumptions against Regional housing targets have been calculated and set out in Table 4.1. As there is no information available yet on the location (i.e. ward) targeted for new housing in Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill, it is not possible to analyse accessible green infrastructure measured against the population growth assumptions. 4.29. However, based on the proposed increase of 15,331 people in Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill to 2021, and quantitative standards in the Open Space Assessment (3.12ha / 1000 population), at least 24ha of new accessible open space will need to be created in Bury St Edmunds and 16ha in Haverhill (applying the percentage split for population increase, as set out in table 4.1). A key issue will be to ensure that any new urban extensions are well provided for both in terms of linkages to this green infrastructure and the provision of high-quality, neighbourhood scale open spaces.

GI provision by population – 2021-2031 4.30. Allowing for further 5400 homes to 2021, this would mean an additional 12,258 residents. Applying the existing quantitative standard of 3.12ha / 1000 population, would equate to 19ha of additional new accessible open space for Bury St Edmunds to 2031, and 13ha in Haverhill.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy87 September 2009 Final Report

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 4.3a-d: Deficiencies in access to natural green space

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ERXQGDULHV

$FFHVVLEOHRSHQVSDFH

$FFHVVLEOHRSHQVSDFHFDWFKPHQWV

a) Deficiency in access to sites 2-20ha b) Deficiency in access to sites 20-100ha

6RXUFH6(%&

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ c) Deficiency in access to sites 100-500ha d) Deficiency in access to sites over 500ha

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure 4.4a-d: Deficiencies in access to natural green space (Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill)

Key

6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\

6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ERXQGDULHV

$FFHVVLEOHRSHQVSDFH

$FFHVVLEOHRSHQVSDFHFDWFKPHQWV

a) Deficiency in access to sites 2-20ha in Bury St Edmunds b) Deficiency in access to sites 20-100ha in Bury St Edmunds

6RXUFH6(%&

'DWH 5HYLVLRQ c) Deficiency in access to sites 2-20ha in Haverhill d) Deficiency in access to sites 20-100ha in Haverhill

5. SPATIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

5.1. This section condenses the analysis outlined in previous sections to spatially identify strategic zones and corridors of opportunity for GI in St Edmundsbury. The process involved the following steps: i. reviewing the environmental characterisation; ii. grouping existing strategic green infrastructure assets into four key functional ‘typologies’ (as illustrated in Table 5.1), in addition to identifying strategic open space deficiency.

Table 5.1: Review of existing green infrastructure functions and strategic deficiencies in accessible open space 1. Landscape - Registered Historic Parks setting and and Gardens context - Scheduled monuments - Selected HLC data to indicate time depth i.e. Post- medieval park and leisure, Pre-18th century enclosures 2. Habitat - SACs, SPAs, SSSIs, LNRs, provision / NNRs access to - SWT sites and reserves nature

3. Water - Rivers and Flood Zone 3 resources

4. Recreation - Open Space Assessment and Health typologies - PRoWs, Sustrans routes - Common land, open access land, Forestry Commission land and National Trust owned land 5. Strategic - Key areas of Sub-regional, deficiency in County, District and accessible open Neighbourhood-scale space accessible open space deficiency (based on ANGSt analysis) - Key areas with poor access to allotments (based on local standards)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy93 September 2009 Final Report iii. reviewing existing GI initiatives already in place; iv. iv) interpreting the needs and demands analysis. 5.2. Using these steps, as well as field survey information and the aspirations defined by stakeholders during the stakeholder consultation held on the 18th May, 2009 (list of stakeholders at Appendix 7); five GI ‘Action Zones’ have been defined, which are complemented by a hierarchy of multi-functional ‘Green Corridors’. These provide an overarching framework for the proposed GI network.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy94 September 2009 Final Report PART TWO: VISION, STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN

6. A VISION FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN ST. EDMUNDSBURY

6.1. This section provides a vision for a multi-functional Green Infrastructure (GI) for St Edmundsbury borough. 6.2. The 20-30 year VISION for the Green Infrastructure of St Edmundsbury is: A borough which recognises, understands and celebrates its rich landscape of woodland, parkland and rolling farmland incised by river valleys and waterways, its distinctive Brecks heritage with its internationally and nationally important habitats and species, its wealth of historic features, high quality built character and enhanced network of paths and open spaces. St. Edmundsbury provides a unique place for people to live, work and enjoy. The GI network allows access to nature, wildlife to thrive, culture and communities to flourish and adaptation to climate change for people, habitats and wildlife species. A borough where the integrated Green Infrastructure network contributes to a high quality of life. GI assets (new and existing) provide a catalyst for reinvigoration and sustainable growth of market towns and local centres, creating a strong sense of place, attracting inward investment promoting sustainable travel, supporting the local economy, protecting sensitive habitats and conserving and enhancing local variations in landscape character. A place where all residents have good access to high quality green places close to residential / urban areas, accessed via a hierarchy of multifunctional green corridors, which provide sustainable links through the towns and villages. The green corridors provide multifunctional routes for commuting, informal recreation, connectivity and movement of wildlife, and understanding the cultural, social, historical and natural sense of place of St. Edmundsbury. Existing GI assets are enhanced and provide a template for new places and spaces; all are of high quality and managed sustainably. In Bury St Edmunds, the GI network in and around the town recognises its distinct medieval street pattern, built character, views out of the historic town core (such as from Abbeygate Street to Morton Hall) and open spaces which provide a setting for the historic core, in addition to the river valley setting at the confluence of Lark and Linnet. Valley landscapes are protected, conserved and enhanced. The rivers and waterfronts are improved and accessible providing a green corridor for movement of people and wildlife. Routes link to high quality green spaces providing a focus for activities and relaxation for all ages and users. New community parkland will use the existing high quality GI as model to deliver and improve access, recreation and biodiversity to existing and new communities. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) are integrated with development and new green space contributes to the creation of buffers between towns and surrounding villages, maintaining and enhancing landscape setting. In Haverhill, the river valley and disused railway will provide a focus for the GI network, building a strong sense of place and identity for the town. The streetscapes and green spaces will have a unified management strategy, providing an attractive, safe, pedestrian/cycle friendly place to live and visit. Sustainable drainage systems will play a key role in new developments. Integral to new development will be a variety of well-maintained multifunctional green spaces, accessed via wide streets lined by large canopy trees and footpaths.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy97 September 2009 Final Report The vision for St. Edmundsbury GI will be implemented in conjunction with future growth over the next 20 years, through a phased, pragmatic and realistic delivery plan.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy98 September 2009 Final Report 7. ACTION ZONE VISIONS

7.1. A series of ‘action zones’ have been defined to focus green infrastructure planning within the borough. These are based on character and opportunities for functional links. They form the framework for a series of potential green infrastructure projects. The action zones and component projects are identified on Figure 7.1, with more detailed consideration given to green infrastructure opportunities in Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill at Figures 7.2 and 7.3 respectively. 7.2. The action zones are as follows: A: Black Bourn and Little Ouse Headwaters B: Brecks C: River Valleys D: Bury St Edmunds E: Haverhill F: Historic Parkland and Woodland G: Ancient Farmland 7.3. The visions below encapsulate the GI objectives for each zone within the borough. They set out the existing GI assets to be protected and managed and opportunities for new GI. They provide the overview for the detailed delivery plan.

A: BLACK BOURN AND LITTLE OUSE HEADWATERS

7.4. The headwaters and tributaries of the Black Bourn and Little Ouse form a functional wetland system in line with the National Vision for Wetlands22. A mosaic of wetland habitats occurs along the natural river channels and extends up the minor tributaries. A mix of wet woodland and floodplain grazing marsh, meadow and fen fringes the Black Bourn extending the fen

22 http://www.wetlandvision.org.uk/

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy99 September 2009 Final Report habitat at Weston. Wet grassland and dry heath extend along the Little Ouse connecting the heathland at Knettishall. Landscape and habitat enhancements beyond the valleys include new broad-leaved woodland planting to enhance the setting of landscape parks, as at Euston Park and link and connect fragmented woodland sites such as at Fakenham Magna and Great Grove, and the small blocks of woodland south of Stanton forming woodland corridors through the landscape. Heathland restoration and extension of existing/former heath create a mosaic of woodland heath and arable land on the plateau land between the valleys. 7.5. The Icknield Way Path and Peddars Way long distance routes and the Angles Way along the Little Ouse River are complemented by new multi functional routes along the river valleys. These include the Black Bourn Valley Green Corridor and Little Ouse Green Corridor, which connect existing and new GI sites and are integrated with the local rights of way network, enhancing accessibility though the area. Local level links serve the expanded key service centre at Ixworth and Stanton. A cycle route (local link) connects Bury St Edmunds to the Norfolk Cycleway. Small local level green spaces meet local recreational needs and enhance the setting of the settlements. South of Stanton ‘The Grundle’ a small ephemeral watercourse is conserved and enhanced as a reserve providing green infrastructure to deliver flood control, biodiversity and access benefits to meet green space deficiencies in this new key service centre.

B: BRECKS

7.6. The internationally important heathland, farmland and forest of the Brecks is conserved, enhanced and restored for its landscape and biodiversity interest, as well as its access functions creating a landscape mosaic of heath, forest and farmland. Restoration of heathland extends and connects existing sites and smaller isolated sites and links to wider heathland initiatives in the Brecks. Pine lines are conserved and enhanced and used as movement corridors where appropriate to facilitate access to nature. 7.7. Existing GI sites and places at The King’s Forest and West Stow Country Park are conserved and enhanced and managed sustainably for visitor and recreational use. Facilities for visitors are improved at more robust sites such as Lackford Lakes and West Stow; such sites interpret and facilitate understanding of more sensitive habitats and places of the Brecks.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy100 September 2009 Final Report 7.8. Key routes include the Icknield Way which is connected and enhanced with local level links to villages, key cultural assets and biodiversity sites. These, in turn, connect with the routes and GI of the intervening River Valleys (River Lark and Black Bourn) and places of interest/accessible sites such as Livermere Park. Bury St. Edmunds has a multi functional link to the Brecks via the new Thetford – Stour Valley Green Corridor and cycle route (local link) between Bury St Edmunds and the Norfolk Cycleway.

C: RIVER VALLEYS

7.9. The small river valleys, which are so characteristic of St. Edmundsbury, are functioning wetland systems with natural river courses bordered by a mosaic of wetland vegetation and habitats, providing opportunities for adaptation to climate change. Their cultural heritage (archaeological sites and parks and gardens) is understood and managed, and assets are enjoyed via multi functional access links along the valley corridors. The valleys provide a focus for landscape and habitat enhancement, which extend to the valley sides and surrounding farmland. The river valleys provide an important conduit for the movement of people and wildlife, and a valuable setting to the towns and villages of St Edmundsbury.

Lark and Linnet Valleys 7.10. In line with neighbouring GI strategies (Cambridgeshire, Thetford and Forest Heath), the vision will be to enhance landscape character, access, habitat provision and cultural features along the River Lark and Linnet valleys to improve wildlife diversity and provide an important north-south conduit for the movement of wildlife and people via existing routes (St Edmund Way) between West Stow Country Park, Lackford Lakes, Bury St Edmunds and Ickworth Park. The proposed Thetford – Stour Valley Green Corridor (Green Corridor No 1 on Figure 7.1) will be a key multifunctional route in this zone. 7.11. Key assets to be conserved and enhanced include Lackford Lakes, West Stow Country Park, West Stow Heath, the Reptonian landscape of Culford Park, Hengrave Hall (although private with no public access), Bury St Edmunds Abbey gardens and precinct, Holywater Meadows, Nowton Park, Ickworth Park and the British Sugar site at Bury St Edmunds (long term restoration of the residue beds and lagoons is a possibility).

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy101 September 2009 Final Report Little Ouse Valley 7.12. In line with the Little Ouse Headwaters Project and Thetford GI Study, the vision is for enhanced landscape character, access and habitat provision along the Little Ouse Valley to improve wildlife diversity and provide an important east-west conduit for the movement of wildlife and people via existing routes (Anglers Way and Icknield Way) between Barnham Camp and Thelnetham Fen, with access extended along a new Little Ouse Green Corridor (Corridor No 5 on Figure 7.1). 7.13. Key assets to be conserved and enhanced include Euston Park, Barnham Heath, Knettishall Heath Country Park, Hopton Fen and Thelnetham Fen.

Black Bourn Valley 7.14. Enhanced landscape character, access and habitat provision along the Black Bourn valley to provide an important north-south conduit for the movement of wildlife and people via the proposed Black Bourn Valley Green Corridor (Corridor No 2 on Figure 7.1) and provide multifunctional access links to new Key Service Centres at Ixworth and Stanton. 7.15. The valley provides a wetland corridor of floodplain grazing marsh and fen (at Pakenham Fen, Sapiston and Honington), with areas of wet woodland and carr woodland where it meets the Little Ouse.

Stour and Stour Brook 7.16. A conserved and enhanced landscape character, reflecting the aspirations of the Dedham Vale and Stour Valley Projects. Access, habitat provision and flood management along the River Stour valley provide an important east- west conduit for the movement of wildlife and people, improving recreation, amenity and education value for the residents and visitors alike, and safeguarding against flooding. The Stour Valley Path and the proposed Stour Brook and Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridors (see Figure 7.1) will be key multifunctional routes in this zone, linking Haverhill to its river valley setting. 7.17. Key assets to be conserved and enhanced include East Town Park in Haverhill, West Town Park, Railway Walk, Clare Priory, Clare Castle Country Park, the Stour Valley Path and Trundley and Wadgell’s Woods.

River Glem Valley 7.18. Enhanced landscape character, access and habitat provision along the River Glem Valley, provides an important east-west conduit for the movement of people and wildlife via the proposed Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy102 September 2009 Final Report D: BURY ST. EDMUNDS

7.19. In Bury St Edmunds, the GI network in and around the town enhances its distinct medieval street pattern (in line with the Bury St Edmunds Streetscape Strategy), built character and river valley setting at the confluence of Lark and Linnet. The rivers and waterfronts are improved and accessible providing a green corridor for movement of people and wildlife, and for SuDS. GI Routes connect within the town providing a sustainable access network and link to existing green spaces – Nowton Country Park, Abbey Gardens and Ickworth Park, which are conserved and enhanced. New community parkland will use the existing high quality GI as a model to deliver and improve access, recreation and biodiversity. Green Infrastructure in Bury St. Edmunds provides a focus for activities and relaxation for all ages and users. The Lark Valley Path and the proposed Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor, the St Edmund Way to Bradfield Woods Green Corridor (refer to Figure 7.1) and the Bury St Edmunds Circular Green Corridor (local link) will be key multifunctional routes in and around the town. 7.20. New development provides strategic green space and corridors, in addition to advance landscape works to provide landscape and visual mitigation. Green space contributes to maintaining the distinctiveness and separate identity of the surrounding villages.

E: HAVERHILL

7.21. In Haverhill, the river valley and disused railway provide a focus for the GI network, building a strong sense of place and identity for the town and linking it to its river valley setting. The streetscapes and green spaces have a unified management strategy, providing an attractive, safe, pedestrian/cycle friendly place to live and visit. Sustainable drainage systems will play a key role in new developments. Housing developments are integrated with a variety of well- maintained multifunctional green spaces and accessed via wide streets lined by

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy103 September 2009 Final Report large canopy trees and footpaths. The Stour Valley Path and the proposed Stour Brook Green Corridor are key multifunctional routes in and around the town. New green space provides a resource for existing and new communities and responds to place and the river valley setting, notably opportunities for flood management. 7.22. New development provides strategic green space and corridors, in addition to advance landscape works to provide landscape and visual mitigation. Green space contributes to maintaining the distinctiveness and separate identity of the surrounding villages.

F: HISTORIC PARKLAND AND WOODLAND

7.23. An area of strong estate parkland character and network of managed woodland, which provides an historic setting to Bury St Edmunds. Assets include Ickworth Park, Saxham Hall, Nowton Park and Bradfield Woods. The field boundary network is restored and woodlands created to form woodland corridors, which connect and link existing clusters of ancient woodland and facilitate access to existing sites such as Bradfield Woods. Existing rights of way are maintained to a high quality and linkages are improved with new connections to the Lark and Linnet river valley corridors and into the centres of population at Bury St. Edmunds and villages, including the Key Service Centre at Barrow. The new circular Bury St Edmunds Green Corridor provides an access hub into this zone. The Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor is a key multifunctional route, as is the woodland corridor link to Bradfield Woods. The on-road Sustrans route 51 provides a cycle link between Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy104 September 2009 Final Report G: ANCIENT FARMLAND

7.24. The historic landscape character of ancient field boundaries defined by hedges, small settlements and village greens, ancient woods and medieval deer parks is conserved and enhanced. The dense network of rights of way is well maintained with new links created to provide local access in areas of deficiency and improve connections to the small villages and Key Service Centres of Kedington, Wickhambrook and Clare, and into intervening tributary valleys of the River Stour. The Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor is a key route in this zone (see Figure 7.1). Areas of ancient woodland are conserved and actively managed and connected through new woodland creation to form multi functional woodland corridors through the landscape. To the north of Haverhill the washlands of the River Stour provide flood management, biodiversity, and low key recreational functions for the expanding town.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy105 September 2009 Final Report

/LQNWR3HGGDUV:D\DQG /LQNWR1RUIRON&\FOHZD\ St Edmundsbury Green .P 1RUIRON&RDVW3DWK 7KHWIRUG)RUHVW /LQNWR / !! Infrastructure Strategy 7KHWIRUG)RUHVW !! !!.QHWWLVKDOO Figure 7.1: Proposed strategic C.7 +HDWK&3 6RXUFH1DWXUDO(QJODQG(QJOLVK+HULWDJH /LQNWR B ! 5.1 ! «¬5! ! GI network 6XVWUDQV 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJK&RXQFLO 7KHWIRUG)RUHVW ! ! O5RXWH !! LRQD Key !! A.4 ! 5HJ !!! !!! (XVWRQ3DUN 6W(GPXQGVEXU\%RURXJKERXQGDU\ 'DWH ! ! ! ! ! ! 6XUURXQGLQJORFDODXWKRULW\ERXQGDULHV 5HYLVLRQ% !!!!!!!!!1.1 !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ^_ .H\6HUYLFH&HQWUHV !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! A A.1 ! ([LVWLQJ*,$VVHWV !!!!!!!!!B.2 ! !!!!!!!!! ! ([LVWLQJVWUDWHJLF*,DVVHW !!!!!!!!!B.1 ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! A 1DWLRQDO5RXWHV !!!!!!!!!.LQJ V)RUHVW 1.1 !!!!!!!!!B ! ! 3HGGDUV:D\ !!!!!!!!! C.8 ! ^_ !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! A.3 Stanton 1DWLRQDO6XVWUDQV !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! 5HJLRQDO5RXWHV !!!!!!!!! !! «¬2 !!!!!!!!!D.7 !!! A.2 1 5HJLRQDOWUDLOV /DFNIRUG/DNHV !!!!!!!!!&XOIRUG3DUN!! !! !! !!! 5HJLRQDO6XVWUDQV :HVW6WRZ&3 !! !! Ixworth !! ! C ^_ ! ! /RFDO1DPHG5RXWH C.3 ! ! ! ! C.5 ! %XU\WR&ODUH:DON ! ! ! 2.1 C.1/C.4! /RFDO&\FOH5RXWH 'HVLJQDWHG1DWXUH&RQVHUYDWLRQ6LWHV B.3 ! ! ! C ! B ! !! ! D.4 &RXQW\:LOGOLIH6LWHV ! D.1 D.8 !! !! !! D.10 ! Bury St Edmunds 6SHFLDO$UHDVRI&RQVHUYDWLRQ /LQNVWR6XVWUDQV5RXWH D.6 ! 7KXUVWRQ6WDWLRQ 6SHFLDO3URWHFWLRQ$UHD D.5 D ! WR&DPEULGJH ! 6LWHRI6SHFLDO6FLHQWLILF,QWHUHVW ! F F. 2 3 $EEH\*DUGHQV 1DWLRQDO5RXWH ! ! C.2 F. 2 /RFDO1DWXUH5HVHUYHV ! D.4 ^_ !!!!!1.3 «¬1 D.6 !4 ! !!!! 6FKHGXOHG0RQXPHQW 1DWLR F 1 Barrow ! ! !!!!!!D.3 DWLRQDO5RXW ! ! F. 2 !!!!C.5 D.7 ! 5HJLVWHUHG3DUNVDQG*DUGHQV ! ! !! !!!!! D.8 QDO5R ! ! ! !!!! 1RZWRQ ! ! 2SHQVSDFH H ! !!!!!,FNZRUWK3DUN &RXQWU\3DUN XWH ! !!!!!! ! 2! 5LYHU ! ! ! !!!!!!!! F. 2 !!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! 3URSRVHG*,$VVHWV !!!!!!!! !! ! C.6!!!!!! ! ! *UHHQ&RUULGRUV $FFHVV ! !! ! F. 2 ! F ! C ! F. 1 ! ! !( ! ! ! 7KHWIRUGWR6WRXU9DOOH\*UHHQ&RUULGRU ! 3.1! 5 6W(GPXQGV:D\WR%UDGILHOG:RRGV ! ! ! %UDGILHOG ! ! ! 3.1 !( *UHHQ&RUULGRU ! ! ! ! «¬3 :RRGV ! ! ! ! F F *UHHQ&RUULGRUV :HWODQGV ! ! /LQNWR5DWWOHVGHQ9DOOH\ !( ! DQG6XVWUDQV5RXWH %ODFN%RXUQ9DOOH\&RUULGRU ! ! ! !( 6WRXU%URRN*UHHQ&RUULGRU G ! ! ! !( ! ! G.2^_ Wickhambrook /LWWOH2XVH*UHHQ&RUULGRU ! I.4 3URSRVHGORFDOOLQNV ! ! E.7 *,SURMHFWV /LQNWR,FNQLHOG ! G ! !!! :RRGODQG(QKDQFHPHQW&RUULGRU :D\3DWK ! ! !!! C ! ! !! ! C.11 6WDQWRQ:RRGODQG ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!G.1 ! 6W(GPXQG:D\WR%UDGILHOG:RRGV !! ! ! 6 :HVWOH\ ! G.3 ! G /LQNWR/DYHQKDP/RRS ! 7KH6D[KDPV ! ! DQG6XVWUDQV5RXWH ! ! ! /LGJDWH :LFNKDPEURRN G ! ! /LQNWR ! ! 7KH7KXUORZV 6WUDGLVKDOO 5RPDQ5RDG G Haverhill C! ! ! ! 1DWLRQDO5RXWH $FWLRQ=RQHV !E.1! E.7 !E.3 !!!!!! Kedington %ODFN%RXUQDQG/LWWOH ! !!!!!E.5 ^_ ! $ E.2 !!!!! E.7 ! Clare ! 2XVH+HDGZDWHUV ! !!!!!4.1 ! C E.2 ^_ E.4 !!!! &ODUH&DVWOH&3! !! % %UHFNV !!!!!(DVW7RZQ3DUN ! !!!!! !C.8 & 5LYHU9DOOH\V ! E ! /LQNWR C.10 ' %XU\6W(GPXQGV «¬4 C.9 +DUFDPORZ:D\ ( +DYHUKLOO ) +LVWRULF3DUNODQGDQG:RRGODQG * $QFLHQW)DUPODQG /LQNVWR*UHDW

H Rev B Rev ODFH XJK%XU\6W GHÀFLHQW DQG QVF\FOLVWV IRRWSDWKVDQG HYHUDOVLWHVRI SURYHDFFHVVWR LPSURYHWKH &UHDWLRQRIZRRGODQGSODQWLQJ Level 1 Green corridor 1 Green Level /HYHO*UHHQFRUULGRU 3RWHQWLDOQHZ35R:V Key 3URSRVHGVHPLQDWXUDOJUHHQVSDFH River :HWODQGUHVWRUDWLRQDQGFRQVHUYDWLRQ ([LVWLQJJUHHQVSDFH 33*W\SRORJLHV /DQGVFDSHHQKDQFHPHQW 3RWHQWLDOQHZLPSURYHG¶JDWHZD\·VLWH landmarks town Key Schools :RRGODQGFUHDWLRQ :RRGODQGEHOWVWKURXJKUHVLGHQWLDOVXEXUEV SURYLGLQJDODQGVFDSHEXIIHUDQGPRYHPHQW FRUULGRUVIRUZLOGOLIHDQGSHRSOH ,PSRUWDQW*,WRFRQVHUYH 5RXJKDP$LUÀHOGDQGPXVHXPDNH\ cultural landmark and historic asset $EEH\*DUGHQV3UHFLQFW&RQVHUYHYLHZVWR DEEH\FDWKHGUDO QRWHGE\VWDNHKROGHUV D.6: Project DORQJWKH$DSSURDFKHVWRHQKDQFH ODQGVFDSHWRZQVFDSHFKDUDFWHUDQGSURYLGH OLQHDUKDELWDWVWRDVVLVWZLOGOLIHPRYHPHQWV DFURVVWKHODQGVFDSHIRUFHUWDLQVSHFLHV MAP GI OPPORTUNITY FIGURE 7.2 BURY ST EDMUNDS FIGURE 7.2 BURY New wetland wetland New $GYDQFHODQGVFDSHSODQWLQJ 3RWHQWLDOVLWHIRUDQHZFRPPXQLW\SDUNODQG DVVXJJHVWHGE\ &UHDWLRQRI¶JDWHZD\V·LQWR%XU\6W(GPXQGVDWWKH$ $OWHUQDWLYHSRWHQWLDOVLWHIRUDQHZFRPPXQLW\SDUNODQGQDWXU Creation of the Bury St Edmunds Green Corridor (local green (local green Corridor of the Bury Green Creation St Edmunds

Project D.7: D.7: Project JUHHQVSDFHDORQJVLGH5LYHU A134 Lark and 2SSRUWXQLW\WREULGJHWKH$ QRWHGE\VWDNHKROGHUV Project D.2: Project OLQNV ²DZHOOGHÀQHG/HYHOVKDUHGXVHSDWKZD\IRUSHGHVWULD DQGKRUVHULGHUV ZKHUHDSSURSULDWH ZKLFKEXLOGVRQH[LVWLQJ EULGOHZD\VWRSURYLGHDUDGLDOURXWHDURXQGWKHWRZQOLQNLQJV interest. D.8: Project D.1: Project VWDNHKROGHUV WRPHHWGHOLYHUVLJQLÀFDQWELRGLYHUVLW\JDLQVLP VHPLQDWXUDOJUHHQVSDFHLQQRUWKHUQ%XU\6W(GPXQGV FXUUHQWO\ SURYLGHZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW LHFDSWXUHDQGOLPLWZDWHUÁRZWKUR Edmunds). D.5: Project &RPSLHJQH:D\URXQGDERXWWRSURPRWHWKHWRZQDVDQDWWUDFWLYHS WRZRUNDQGYLVLWZLWKDFOHDUVHQVHRILGHQWLW\DQGRISODFH UHODWLRQVKLSWRLWVODQGVFDSHVHWWLQJ visual landmark (British Sugar factory) Key D.1: Project site) (British Sugar restoration reserve &RPPXQLW\DOORWPHQWVEHVLGHWKH5LYHU/DUN Heath Hardwick 2SSRUWXQLW\IRU/HYHOJUHHQ in link along disused railway Valley Lark River Park Nowton River Lark River 3URSRVHG7KHWIRUG6WRXU9DOOH\*UHHQZD\ 3URSRVHG6W(GPXQGVEXU\:D\WR %UDGÀHOG:RRGV*UHHQ&RUULGRU

River Lark RGODQG YHU/LQQHW LYHUVLJQLÀFDQW LVWZLWKZDWHU

River Linnet Golf course $GYDQFHODQGVFDSHSODQWLQJ 6XIIRON&RXQWU\&OXE QRWHGE\VWDNHKROGHUV D.8 Bury train station St Edmunds Creation Creation UHTXLUHVLPSURYHGOLQNVEHWZHHQ 1RWDEOHRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRDOLJQQHZ : No Man’s No Man’s : Ickworth Park ) Enhance the wooded character south of Bury Enhance the wooded St Edmunds local links to link IRRWF\FOHSDWKVDQGEULGOHZD\VZLWKH[LVWLQJ WRZQVFDSHFKDUDFWHU +DOO VXVWDLQDEOHPDQDQJHPHQWRIVKHOWHUEHOWV Project 1.2 Project H[LVWLQJJUHHQVSDFHV Edmunds and woodland and woodland Edmunds Fornham St MartinFornham and Bury (train St Edmunds Project D.5/6: D.5/6: Project of ‘gateways’ into Bury St ‘gateways’ of KHGJHURZVDQGSLQHOLQHVVXUURXQGLQJ+HQJUDYH schools and countryside 2SSRUWXQLW\IRUFLUFXODU Project D.4: D.4: Project project C.2 project Project D.11 Project 0HDGRZV)ORRGDWWHQXDWLRQ SUDS scheme station and town centre) along the River Lark Valley Valley Lark along the River centre) station and town 3URSRVHG7KHWIRUGWR6WRXU 9DOOH\*UHHQZD\OLQNEHWZHHQ Bury and Ickworth St Edmunds 3DUNDORQJWKH5LYHU/LQQHW ( SODQWLQJWRHQKDQFHODQGVFDSH Project E.2: E.2: Project ZLWKQHZEURDGOHDYHGVHPLQDWXUDOZRRGODQGJUDGLQJLQWRZHWZR ORZODQGPHDGRZDQGÁRRGSODLQJUD]LQJPDUVKKDELWDWDORQJWKH5L DQG/DUN7KLVZRXOGHQKDQFHWKHVHWWLQJRI,FNZRUWK3DUNGHO ELRGLYHUVLW\JDLQV LQFUHDVHGFRQQHFWLYLW\RIZRRGODQG DQGDVV PDQDJHPHQW$OVRSURMHFW

. Rev A Rev Project Project Project E.7 Project Opportunity for a new community community Opportunity a new for Opportunity to improve ‘gateway’ ‘gateway’ Opportunity to improve Key parkland community new Potential enhancement along Biodiversity planting) new (i.e. corridors green Notable Existing woodland stakeholders) (as noted by Existing greenspace (PPG17 typologies) enhancement Landscape site ‘gateway’ new/improved Potential landmarks town Key Schools River corridor 1 Green Level corridor 2 Green Level PRoW new Potential stakeholders) (as noted by *UHHQ&RUULGRUÀQJHUV $OVR GI OPPORTUNITY MAP GI OPPORTUNITY FIGURE 7.3 HAVERHILL Stour Valley Stour Valley Path in planting alongside perimeter roads Woodland housing extensions in northnew Haverhill E.5: Project at old exhibition parkland to the north of Haverhill to consultation), site (noted during stakeholder PHHWFXUUHQWGHÀFLHQFLHVDQGSURYLGHDGLVWULFW potential space for scale (ANGST) accessible green on the northern housing developments new settlement edge. and hedgerows of woodland, The dense network to the north and east of Haverhill trees veteran should be conserved (noted during stakeholder parkland should respond new Any consultation) WRUHÁHFWWKLVZHOOWUHHGIUDPHZRUN Park East Town E.2: Project Hill roundabout A1017/Rowley at into Haverhill E.3 Opportunity for a new green corridor along corridor green Opportunity a new for link travel’ ‘green to provide a disused railway Yeldham and Great Haverhill between

Stour Brook amenity, recreation and education value. recreation amenity, O Signage along the Stour Brook Green Corridor will Corridor Green Signage along the Stour Brook historical and natural heritage, enhancing the valley’s enhancing the valley’s historical and natural heritage, assist in providing an interpretive trail of cultural, social, social, trail of cultural, an interpretive assist in providing biodiversity in conjunction with improvements in access. in access. in conjunction with improvements biodiversity Green corridors should be multi-functional and enhance should be multi-functional corridors Green ) site should continue to ) site should continue E.1 ( Enhance woodland Enhance woodland Project E.4: Project to A1017 bypass planting along harsh settlement edge improve Meldham Washlands The wetland woodland, of wet creation gains through biodiversity also opportunities to enhance are There beds. and reed ponds, natural play signage, interpretive the existing access through DUHDVDQGIXUQLWXUHLQ¶ÁRRGVDIH·DUHDV IXQFWLRQDVDQLPSRUWDQWÁRRGPDQDJHPHQWJUHHQVSDFH KRZHYHUWKHUHDUHRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRGHOLYHUVLJQLÀFDQWDGGLWLRQD Stour Brook Opportunity for combination of circular Opportunity combination of circular for cyclists and (for and linear routes routes to pedestrians) using existing footpaths between travel’ ‘green and support promote villages. and surrounding Haverhill noted by stakeholders) noted by stakeholders) roundabout roundabout Opportunity to will upgrade Stour Brook Stour Brook species-rich grassland along Opportunity for creation of Opportunity creation for hedgerows, (as noted by stakeholders) (as noted by hedgerows, existing access of the A1017 bypass road, at road, A1017 bypass of the along a disused SDWWHUQZLWKKHGJHURZVDORQJÀHOGV DV at the ‘Spirit Of Enterprise’ at the Green Corridor Corridor Green Harcamlow Way Harcamlow enhancing the network of woodland and of woodland enhancing the network the base of woodland belts, to belts, the base of woodland 3XGGOH%URRNSOD\LQJÀHOGV the south-facing embankments railway, linking to railway, This area should focus on conserving should focus and This area on conserving should focus and This area Project E.2: Project enhancing the pre-18th Century enhancing the pre-18th landscape improve biodiversity (as noted by (as noted by biodiversity improve improve ‘gateway’ into Haverhill into Haverhill ‘gateway’ improve

8. POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR ACTION ZONES AND ACCESS LINKS

Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Action Zones A. Black Bourn and Little Ouse Headwaters The headwaters and tributaries of Project A.1: Enhance the 999 99x Land owners the Black Bourn and Little Ouse wooded character of this zone (through form a functional wetland system with hedgerow restoration and Environmental in line with the National Vision for new broad-leaved semi natural Stewardship Wetlands . A mosaic of wetland woodland grading into wet Schemes) habitats occurs along the natural woodland of the river valleys. x Forestry river channels and extends up the This would enhance the setting Commission minor tributaries. A mix of wet of Euston Park, deliver (FC) through woodland and floodplain grazing significant biodiversity gains English marsh, meadow and fen fringes (increased connectivity of Woodlands the Black Bourn extending the fen woodland and hedgerows) and Grant Schemes habitat at Weston. Wet assist with water management (EWGS) grassland and dry heath extend Project A.2: Stanton 99999 9x Local Trust & along the Little Ouse connecting Woodland Enhancement Suffolk Wildlife the heathland at Knettishall. Corridor – enhance the Trust (SWT) Landscape and habitat wooded character south of x SEBC enhancements beyond the valleys Stanton with creation of semi x Forestry include new broad-leaved natural woodland to link areas Commission woodland planting to enhance the of ancient woodland to form (FC) through setting of landscape parks, as at wooded green corridors to link EWGS

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 113 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Euston Park and link and connect into the key service centres of fragmented woodland sites such Stanton and Ixworth. as at Fakenham Magna and Project A.3: ‘The Grundle’ 9 99 99x Suffolk Wildlife Great Grove, and the small blocks Nature Reserve - an ephemeral Trust (SWT) of woodland south of Stanton watercourse that only springs x Environment forming woodland corridors when groundwater levels within Agency through the landscape. the chalk rise. This reserve Heathland restoration and would alleviate flooding issues extension of existing/former heath in this area, deliver significant create a mosaic of woodland biodiversity gains and improve heath and arable land on the access to semi-natural green plateau land between the valleys. space in Stanton to meet The Icknield Way Path and deficiencies. Peddars Way long distance routes Project A.4: Acquisition of 9 9 9 9 9 x SWT and the Angles Way along the farmland adjacent to Market x Landfill Little Ouse River are Weston Fen to restore to a Communities complemented by new multi nature reserve containing a Fund functional routes along the river mosaic of fen, wet scrub valleys. These include the Black woodland and dry grassland Bourn Valley Green Corridor and (managed by seasonal grazing) Little Ouse Green Corridor, which wetland. This will improve connect existing and new GI sites biodiversity, wildlife and and are integrated with the local recreation (via interpretive rights of way network, enhancing trails), and help to secure the accessibility though the area. site’s hydrology (in the light of Local level links serve the climate change). expanded key service centre at

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 114 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Ixworth and Stanton. A cycle route (local link) connects Bury St Edmunds to the Norfolk Cycleway. Small local level green spaces meet local recreational needs and enhance the setting of the settlements. South of Stanton ‘The Grundle a small ephemeral watercourse is conserved and enhanced as a reserve providing green infrastructure to deliver flood control, biodiversity and access benefits to meet green space deficiencies in this new key service centre. B. Brecks The internationally important Project B.1: Improved and 99 x Suffolk County A key threat to the heathland, farmland and forest of sustainable visitor management Council (SCC) ecological condition of the Brecks is conserved, enhanced within existing recreational x SEBC Breckland SAC/SPA is and restored for its landscape and sites and destinations (King’s x Forestry physical damage to habitats biodiversity interest, as well as its Forest, West Stow Country Commission and disturbance of sensitive access functions creating a Park) including well routed x The Brecks fauna (e.g. stone curlew landscape mosaic of heath, forest trails, board walks, peripheral Countryside Burhinus oedicnemus and

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 115 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. and farmland. Restoration of paths, hides and screening, Project nightjar Caprimulgus heathland extends and connects directing visitors away from europaeus)23. Breckland existing sites and smaller isolated sensitive areas. In parallel, supports approximately sites and links to wider heathland create an interpretive trail to 60% of UK breeding initiatives in the Brecks. Pine lines raise awareness/educate visitors population of stone curlew. are conserved and enhanced and on existing habitats (heathland used as movement corridors and pine forest) and manage where appropriate to facilitate access to safeguard sensitive access to nature. areas within the SAC/SPA. Existing GI sites and places at Project B.2: Targeted 999x SEBC Provision of carefully The King’s Forest and West Stow creation of additional habitats x Forestry designed and high quality, Country Park are conserved and similar to those found in the Commission alternative green spaces for enhanced and managed SAC/SPA (i.e. lowland (FC) recreation to deflect visitor sustainably for visitor and heathland, acid grassland, mixed x SWT pressure on SAC/SPA. The recreational use. Facilities for woodland, arable grassland x Landowners precise design and location visitors are improved at more margins) to form a landscape (through of new sites must be based robust sites such as Lackford ‘buffer’ and improve the overall Environmental on an assessment of local Lakes and West Stow; such sites resilience to visitor pressure of Stewardship demand. New sites must interpret and facilitate the site by bolstering species Schemes) offer an experience of large understanding of more sensitive populations. semi-natural open space habitats and places of the Brecks. comparable to Breckland and must cater for dog Key routes include the Icknield walkers. Local residents Way which is connected and will need to be consulted

23 Langston, R., Drewitt, A. & Liley, D. (2007). Bird conservation and access: coexistence or compromise? British Wildlife. 19: 1-9. The Brecks Countryside Project

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 116 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. enhanced with local level links to and may take time to adopt villages, key cultural assets and new recreational visiting biodiversity sites. These, in turn, patterns. connect with the routes and GI of Project B.3: Conserve and 999 9x Landowners Although these belts are the intervening River Valleys (River restore scots pine lines, which (through not BAP Priorities, they are Lark and Black Bourn) and places were planted as part of Environmental important landscape of interest/accessible sites such as agricultural enclosure from the Stewardship features, which provide a Livermere Park. Bury St. 18th Century and are a key Schemes and sense of time depth. Edmunds has a multi functional feature of the Brecks landscape. Inheritance Tax link to the Brecks via the new The pine lines and wooded Relief, if Thetford – Stour Valley Green corridors may also facilitate applicable) Corridor and cycle route (local movement of people and x Natural England link) between Bury St Edmunds wildlife. (NE) and the Norfolk Cycleway. x Brecks Partnership C. River Valleys – Borough-wide zone vision The small river valleys, which are so characteristic of St. Edmundsbury, are functioning wetland systems with natural river courses bordered by a mosaic of wetland vegetation and habitats, providing opportunities for adaptation to climate change. Their cultural heritage (archaeological sites and parks and gardens) is understood and managed, and assets are enjoyed via multi functional access links along the valley corridors. The valleys provide a focus for landscape and habitat enhancement, which extend to the valley sides and surrounding farmland. The river valleys provide an important conduit for the movement of people and wildlife, and a valuable setting to the towns and villages of St Edmundsbury. C. River Lark and Linnet Valleys (Also see the Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor for other projects concerning improved or new access) In line with neighbouring GI Project C.1: Improve the 99 x SCC Archaeological issues to be strategies (Cambridgeshire, existing Lark Valley Path and x SEBC resolved along the River Thetford and Forest Heath), the Sustrans ‘Fornham link’ x Forest Heath Lark. vision will be to enhance bridleway (route 51) northwest District Council landscape character, access, of Bury St Edmunds to create a x Sustrans habitat provision and cultural sustainable transport route

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 117 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. features along the River Lark and focused on wetland habitat x EEDA Linnet valleys to improve wildlife nodes offering access to wildlife diversity and provide an important and recreation opportunities north-south conduit for the and links to Lackford Lakes, movement of wildlife and people West Stow Country Park and via existing routes (St Edmund Icknield Way. Way) between West Stow Project C.2: Create a new 999 x SCC Negotiations between key Country Park, Lackford Lakes, multifunctional riverside x SEBC land owners between Bury Bury St Edmunds and Ickworth accessible route between Bury x Sustrans St Edmunds and Ickworth Park. The proposed Thetford – St Edmunds and Ickworth Park, x National Trust Park (National Trust and St Stour Valley Green Corridor will via the Linnet valley. The x Landowners John’s College Oxford). be a key multifunctional route in surface should be suitable for (through this zone. pedestrians (including disabled Environmental access) and cyclists. Stewardship Key assets to be conserved and Schemes and enhanced include Lackford Lakes, Inheritance Tax West Stow Country Park, West Relief, if Stow Heath, the Reptonian applicable) landscape of Culford Park, x Developers Hengrave Hall (although private Project C.3: Extension of SWT with no public access), Bury St 9999 x Lackford Lakes nature reserve Edmunds Abbey gardens and x Landowners and creation of new reedbeds, precinct, Holywater Meadows, (through wetland scrapes/ponds and wet Nowton Park, Ickworth Park and Environmental grassland through land the British Sugar site at Bury St Stewardship acquisition or agreements with Edmunds (long term restoration Schemes e.g. landowners. This would of the residue beds and lagoons is Farmland bird complement the above initiatives)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 118 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. a possibility). sustainable transport route x Environment (refer to Project C.1) and link Agency (EA) to visitor facilities at West Stowe/King’s Forest (see B.1). Project C.4: Improve signage 99 x SCC along riverside paths for x SEBC orientation and interpretation x Forest Heath of historic assets and sites of District Council interest, as appropriate i.e. x EEDA Romanic and medieval sites, x English Heritage historic parks, gardens and x National Trust halls, nature reserves and industrial sites such as the British Sugar site at Bury St Edmunds, providing a learning asset to residents and visitors alike. Project C.5: Habitat 999 9 x SEBC restoration and enhancement x SWT along the river channel to x EA create a mosaic of wetland x Developers habitats. Project C.6: Enhancement of 999 9x Landowners existing pine lines belts and (through restoration of hedgerows and Environmental designed landscape Stewardship features/plantations should be Schemes and

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 119 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. an integral part of the river Inheritance Tax corridor enhancement, Relief, if particularly near Hengrave Hall, applicable) Culford Park and Ickworth Park x NE where stewardship agreements x FC through (and possibly Inheritance Tax English Relief) could provide funding. Woodland Grant Schemes (EWGS) x SEBC x EA C. Little Ouse River Valley (Also see the Little Ouse Valley Green Corridor for other projects concerning improved or new access) In line with the Little Ouse Project C.7: Creation of new 9 9 9 9 9 9 x SWT Headwaters Project and Thetford areas of floodplain grazing x SCC GI Study, the vision is for marsh, reedbeds and fens x Landowners enhanced landscape character, should be an integral part of the (through access and habitat provision along river corridor enhancement, Environmental the Little Ouse Valley to improve particularly to the east of Stewardship wildlife diversity and provide an Rushford. The project should Schemes) important east-west conduit for work in partnership with the x English the movement of wildlife and Little Ouse and Waveney Valley Woodland people via existing routes (Anglers Fens Project (SWT) and the Grant Scheme Way and Icknield Way) between Little Ouse Valley Headwaters (EWGS) –

24 http://www.greatfen.org.uk/

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 120 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Barnham Camp and Thelnetham Project, local communities, notably Fen, with access extended along a landowners and agencies to woodland new Little Ouse Green Corridor. improve access and creation and biodiversity. management Key assets to be conserved and grants schemes enhanced include Euston Park, This project should be x Potential to Barnham Heath, Knettishall undertaken in parallel with model land Heath Country Park, Hopton Fen Project 5.1 (refer to the Little acquisition / and Thelnetham Fen. Ouse Green Corridor ) as well delivery of as the River Valley Park project public benefit on (R1) within Thetford GI the Great Fen Strategy, which identifies the Project Little Ouse as part of a (Cambs)24 strategic blue link for navigation, watersports (canoeing), riverside access (path) and river valley landscape and biodiversity enhancement. C. Black Bourn Valley (Also see the Black Bourn Valley Green Corridor for other projects concerning improved or new access) Enhanced landscape character, Project C.8: Creation of new 999 99x Landowners Although the valley has access and habitat provision along areas of broad-leaved semi (through good coverage of entry the Black Bourn valley to provide natural woodland grading into Environmental level stewardship an important north-south conduit wet woodland and floodplain Stewardship agreements; capital works for the movement of wildlife and grazing marsh or wet lowland Schemes) (e.g. restoration of people via the proposed Black meadows (depending on x EWGS hedgerows and creation of Bourn Valley Green Corridor and management), back-water x SWT new habitats along arable provide multifunctional access wetlands and reedbeds fringing edges) will need to be

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 121 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. links to new Key Service Centres the Black Bourn should be an delivered through HLS at Ixworth and Stanton. integral part of the river schemes, which are corridor enhancement. This discretionary. The valley provides a wetland will provide a continuous corridor of floodplain grazing wildlife corridor between marsh and fen (at Pakenham Fen, Pakenham Fen and the Little Sapiston and Honington), with Ouse River, and enhance the areas of wet woodland and carr landscape character of the river woodland where it meets the valley. Little Ouse. C. River Stour and Stour Brook Valleys (Also see the Stour Brook Valley Green Corridor for other projects concerning improved or new access) A conserved and enhanced Project C.9: Given low cover 999 99x Landowners Although the valley has landscape character, reflecting of semi-natural habitats, (through good coverage of entry the aspirations of the Dedham creation of a mosaic of lowland Environmental level stewardship Vale and Stour Valley Projects. meadow, flood plain grazing Stewardship agreements, there are only Access, habitat provision and marsh, reedbeds, ponds and Schemes) 2 HLS sites at Little Bradley flood management along the wet woodland should be an x FC through and Stoke by Clare. Capital River Stour valley provide an integral part of the river EWGS works (e.g. restoration of important east-west conduit for corridor enhancement, to x Dedham hedgerows and creation of the movement of wildlife and provide a continuous wildlife Vale/Stour new habitats along arable people, improving recreation, corridor and enhance the Valley Project edges) will need to be amenity and education value for landscape character of the river x EA delivered through HLS the residents and visitors alike, valleys. This could be x SWT schemes (which are and safeguarding against flooding. combined with opportunities discretionary). The Stour Valley Path and the for reconnecting reaches of the However where this proposed Stour Brook and Stour with areas of its former project falls into the Thetford to Stour Valley Green floodplain creating a mosaic of Dedham Vale/Stour Valley

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 122 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Corridors will be key running water, backwaters and Project area, there may be multifunctional routes in this wetland habitats. scope for delivery in zone, linking Haverhill to its river combination with small valley setting. grants such as for landfill. Key assets to be conserved and Project C.10: Creation of 999 99x Environment enhanced include East Town Park balancing ponds at Wixoe Agency in Haverhill, West Town Park, crossing to attenuate peak x EEDA Railway Walk, Clare Priory, Clare flows within the drainage Castle Country Park, the Stour system and alleviate repetitive Valley Path and Trundley and flooding issues near the A1092 Wadgell’s Woods. (due to river water backing up, blockages or inundation). C. River Glem Valley (Also see the Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor for other projects concerning improved or new access) Enhanced landscape character, Project C.11: Creation of 9999 99x Landowners Although the valley has access and habitat provision along new areas of semi-natural (through good coverage of entry the River Glem Valley, provides an woodland and wet woodland, Environmental level stewardship important east-west conduit for flood plain grazing marsh and Stewardship agreements; capital works the movement of people and re-wetting of certain areas to Schemes) (e.g. restoration of wildlife via the proposed Thetford create additional fen habitat x Voluntary hedgerows and creation of to Stour Valley Green Corridor. should be an integral part of the Countryside new habitats along arable river corridor enhancement, to Management edges) will need to be enhance the landscape Service delivered through HLS character of the river valley. x FC through schemes. EWGS x NE x EA x

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 123 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. D. Bury St Edmunds (see also projects within the River Lark) In Bury St Edmunds, the GI Project D.1: Creation of a 99 9 9 x SCC Negotiations with land network in and around the town new community parkland to x SEBC owners to acquire or lease enhances its distinct medieval deliver significant biodiversity x SWT land. Need to street pattern (in line with the gains, improve access to semi- x Green Light accommodate substantial Bury St Edmunds Streetscape natural green space in northern Trust capital projects (visitor Strategy), built character and river Bury St Edmunds (currently x British Sugar facilities/WCS) and ongoing valley setting at the confluence of deficient) and provide water x Developers revenue needs such as Lark and Linnet. The rivers and management (i.e. capture and staffing. Consideration waterfronts are improved and limit water flow through Bury timescale/phasing if British accessible providing a green St Edmunds). Potential sites Sugar site is delivered. corridor for movement of people include: Large new areas of semi- and wildlife, and for SuDS. GI - the British Sugar site, west of natural habitat should be Routes connect within the town Compiegne Way (opportunities designed to take account of providing a sustainable access for wetland restoration once recreation and biodiversity, network and link to existing green mineral site has been restored in addition to flood spaces – Nowton Country Park, and decontaminated). attenuation / alleviation and Abbey Gardens and Ickworth - rural land between Thetford climate change adaptation – Park, which are conserved and Road, Fornham St Martin and potential to link wetland enhanced. New community the River Lark (opportunities habitats. parkland will use the existing high for new allotments to meet quality GI as a model to deliver deficiency). and improve access, recreation - land to the north west of Bury and biodiversity. Green St. Edmunds adjacent to the Infrastructure in Bury St. golf course at Fornham, as part Edmunds provides a focus for of the strategic direction of growth.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 124 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. activities and relaxation for all Project D.2: Creation of the 999 9x SCC Ensure safe road crossing ages and users. The Lark Valley Bury St Edmunds radial route – x SEBC point for pedestrians, Path and the proposed Thetford a well-defined Level 2 shared x Sustrans cyclists and horse-riders to Stour Valley Green Corridor, use multifunctional route which x East of England (where appropriate, with the St Edmund Way to Bradfield enhances existing footpaths and Development waiting areas), especially Woods Green Corridor and the bridleways to provide a radial Agency (EEDA) over the A14. Bury St Edmunds Circular Green route around the town, linking x Green Light Corridor (local link) will be key several sites of interest Trust multifunctional routes in and including Nowton Country x Developers around the town. Park, Ickworth Park, the River Lark Valley and the proposed New development provides Thetford – Stour Valley Green strategic green space and Corridor. The route should corridors, in addition to advance include way markers (to landscape works to provide provide orientation and landscape and visual mitigation. distance travelled) and Green space contributes to interpretative signage. maintaining the distinctiveness Woodland creation in and separate identity of the association with the corridor surrounding villages. provides an enhanced setting and landscape mitigation in relation to new development. Project D.3: Enhancement of 999 9x Land Owners existing pine lines and (through restoration of hedgerows Environmental should be an integral part of the Stewardship landscape in and around the Schemes and

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 125 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. town, particularly near Inheritance Tax Ickworth Park where Relief, if Environmental Stewardship applicable) agreements (and possibly x NE Inheritance Tax Relief) could x FC through provide funding. EWGS Project D.4: Enhancement of 999 x SCC Negotiations with land public access between the x Land Owners owners to select north western settlement edge (through appropriate routes. of Bury St Edmunds and Environmental Breckland SPA. Notable Stewardship and opportunities to align new Inheritance Tax foot/cycle paths and bridleways Relief, if (where appropriate) with applicable) existing hedgerows and pine x NE lines surrounding Hengrave x EEDA Hall. x Developers Project D.5: Creation of 999 9x SCC In regard to new planting, ‘gateways’ into and out from x SEBC sight lines will need to be Bury St Edmunds at the agreed with the highways A14/Westley Road roundabout authority. and the A134/ Compiegne Way roundabout and station to promote the town as an attractive place to work and visit, with a clear sense of identity and of place, improve

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 126 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. the relationship to its landscape setting. Gateways should recognise the function of the town as a ‘gateway’ to the Brecks. Project D.6: Creation of 999 9x SEBC In regard to new planting, woodland planting along the x SCC sight lines will need to be A14 approaches to enhance x Highways agreed with the highway landscape / townscape Agency authority. It will also be character and provide linear important to secure habitats to assist wildlife appropriate cutting regimes, movements across the primarily outside of landscape for certain species. A sensitive seasons (adult life survey should be undertaken of stages) for invertebrates the A14 road verges to identify and post-summer flowering habitats which are of high to allow setting seed of quality to maintain and grassland species. extend/enhance. Special engineering features (e.g. tunnels, ledges) combined with fencing where appropriate, can be used to assist in maintaining links for animals across roads. Project D.7: Wetland Green 9 9 9 9 9 9 x SWT Negotiations with Corridor along the Lark to the x SEBC landowners to acquire or south east of Bury St. Edmunds, x Developers lease land. east A134 (link to Nowton

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 127 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Country Park, access link and habitat/landscape creation/restoration and enhancement) Project D.8: Advance 999 9x SEBC Land take – needs to be landscape planting in relation to x Developers factored into developers’ development sites, to provide x Growth Area land budgets. Needs to be landscape and visual mitigation Funding planned sufficiently in and habitat connectivity. advance to provide benefit. Project D.9: Planning and 9 9 x SEBC Availability of management guidance for SuDS x EA funding/resources x CIRIA25 Project D.10: Country park 9 9 9 9 9 9 x SCC Land take – needs to be for strategic scale development x SEBC factored into developers’ at Great Barton, to the north x Developers land budgets. east of Bury St Edmunds Project D.11: No Man’s 9 9 9 9 9 9 x SEBC Liaison with Environment Meadow. Flood water x SWT Agency. Sensitive design to attenuation and SUDS scheme x EA respect biodiversity and x Developers character of site. E. Haverhill In Haverhill, the river valley and Project E.1: Improve and 9 9 9 9 9 9 x SCC Large new areas of semi- disused railway provide a focus expand the Meldham x SEBC natural habitat must offer

25 http://www.ciria.org.uk/suds/

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 128 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. for the GI network, building a Washlands site to provide a x SWT extensive recreational strong sense of place and identity nature reserve to deliver x Green Light opportunities and deliver for the town and linking it to its significant biodiversity gains, Trust significant biodiversity gains. river valley setting. The provide low key access to semi- x Environment These areas should also be streetscapes and green spaces natural green space (no built Agency designed with opportunities have a unified management features) in northern Haverhill for flood attenuation / strategy, providing an attractive, (currently deficient) and alleviation and adaptation to safe, pedestrian/cycle friendly conserve water management climate change in mind. place to live and visit. Sustainable function (i.e. capture and limit drainage systems will play a key water flow through Haverhill). role in new developments. Project E.2: Improve 999 9x SEBC In regard to new planting, Housing developments are ‘gateways’ into and out from x SCC sight lines will need to be integrated with a variety of well- Haverhill at the ‘Spirit Of x Braintree DC agreed with the highways maintained multifunctional green Enterprise’ roundabout (at x Essex CC authority. spaces and accessed via wide A1307/A1017 junction) and the streets lined by large canopy trees A1017/Rowley Hill roundabout and footpaths. The Stour Valley to promote the town as an Path and the proposed Stour attractive place to work and Brook Green Corridor are key visit, with a clear sense of multifunctional routes in and identity and of place, improve around the town. New green the relationship to its landscape space provides a resource for setting. existing and new communities Project E.3: Creation of 9 9 9 9 9 x SEBC Ensure safe road crossing and responds to place and the Green Corridor ‘fingers’ to the x Developers (i.e. point for pedestrians, river valley setting, notably north of Haverhill. These will urban extension) cyclists and horse-riders opportunities for flood improve existing footpaths and (where appropriate, with management. bridleways to provide well- waiting areas), especially

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 129 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. defined Level 2 multifunctional over the A1017. New development provides routes (where appropriate); strategic green space and improve access between the corridors, in addition to advance Stour Brook and Stour Valley landscape works to provide Path, linking several sites of landscape and visual mitigation. interest including East Town Green space contributes to Park and Puddle Brook Playing maintaining the distinctiveness Fields. The routes should and separate identity of the include way markers (to surrounding villages. provide orientation and distance travelled) and interpretative signage and promote understanding of habitats and cultural heritage assets such as Roman relics and buildings (e.g. Kedington Church). Project E.4: Enhance 999 9x SEBC In regard to new planting, woodland planting along the x SCC sight lines will need to be A1017 bypass road to improve x Braintree DC agreed with the highways harsh settlement edge and x Essex CC authority. It will be provide grassland enhancement important to secure to create linear habitats to appropriate cutting regimes, assist wildlife movements primarily outside of across the landscape for certain sensitive seasons (adult life species. A survey should be stages) for invertebrates undertaken of the A1017 road and post-summer flowering

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 130 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. verges to identify habitats to allow setting seed of which are of high quality to grassland species. maintain and extend/enhance. Special engineering features (e.g. tunnels, ledges) combined with fencing where appropriate, can be used to assist in maintaining links for animals across roads. Project E.5: Haverhill 999 99x SCC Negotiations with land Community Parkland – new x SEBC owners to acquire or land. green space created to the x Developers Local consultation to north of the town (Exhibition establish local need, demand Site), including footpath and and requirements. cycle links to and from residential areas. Project E.6: Streetscape and 99 x SEBC Availability of resources and signage strategy for Haverhill x EEDA funding. Project E.7: Advance 999 9x SEBC Land take – needs to be landscape planting in relation to x Developers factored into developers’ development sites, to provide x Growth Area land budgets. Needs to be landscape and visual mitigation Funding planned sufficiently in and habitat connectivity. advance to provide benefit. F. Historic Parkland and woodland An area of strong estate parkland Project F.1: Acquisition of 99999 9x SEBC Negotiations with land character and network of farmland adjacent to Bradfield x SWT owners to acquire or lease managed woodland, which Woods to restore these areas x Natural England land.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 131 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. provides an historic setting to Bury to woodland and increase (NE) St Edmunds. Assets include connectivity of woodland. Also x FC through Ickworth Park, Saxham Hall, opportunity for recreational EWGS Nowton Park and Bradfield access to Bradfield Woods. Woods. The field boundary Project F.2: Enhance the 9999 99 x Land Owners network is restored and wooded character south of (through woodlands created to form Bury St Edmunds with new Environmental woodland corridors, which connect broad-leaved semi natural Stewardship and link existing clusters of woodland grading into wet Schemes and ancient woodland and facilitate woodland (Woodland Inheritance Tax access to existing sites such as Enhancement Corridors 2, 3, 4 Relief, if Bradfield Woods. Existing rights and 5, shown on Figure 7.1), applicable) of way are maintained to a high lowland meadow and floodplain x FC through quality and linkages are improved grazing marsh habitat along the EWGS with new connections to the Lark River Linnet and Lark. This and Linnet river valley corridors would enhance the setting of and into the centres of population Ickworth Park, deliver at Bury St. Edmunds and villages, significant biodiversity gains including the Key Service Centre (increased connectivity of at Barrow. The new circular Bury woodland) and assist with St Edmunds Green Corridor water management (e.g. provides an access hub into this creation of wetland zone. The Thetford to Stour scrapes/ponds and wet Valley Green Corridor is a key woodland to hold water up- multifunctional route, as is the stream). In addition, woodland woodland corridor link to could be coppiced and wood Bradfield Woods. The on-road used as biofuel.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 132 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Sustrans route 51 provides a cycle link between Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge. G. Ancient Farmland The historic landscape character Project G1: Restoration of 99 9x Land Owners of ancient field boundaries characteristic hedges along field (through defined by hedges, small boundaries to restore the Environmental settlements and village greens, ancient irregular field pattern. Stewardship ancient woods and medieval deer This will also facilitate Schemes) parks is conserved and enhanced. movement of wildlife. x NE The dense network of rights of Project G.2: Restoration of 9 9 9 9 9 9 x Community-led Legal and land-ownership way is well maintained with new historic greens and former regeneration complexities, reliance on links created to provide local greens associated with smaller schemes in volunteers and potential access in areas of deficiency and villages through appropriate partnership long-term issues concerning improve connections to the small management and suitable with SEBC, sustainability (leading to villages and Key Service Centres planting. Opportunity for Green Light abandonment). of Kedington, Wickhambrook and allotments/community gardens. Trust SWT and Clare, and into intervening NE tributary valleys of the River Stour. Project G.3: Enhance the 999 99 x Land Owners Land take for all large scale The Thetford to Stour Valley wooded character north of (through woodland projects i.e. loss Green Corridor is a key route in Hundon with new broad-leaved Environmental of productive farmland. this zone. Areas of ancient semi natural woodland grading Stewardship woodland are conserved and into wet woodland along the Schemes) actively managed and connected River Glem and its tributaries x FC through through new woodland creation to (Woodland Enhancement EWGS form multi functional woodland Corridor 6 on Figure 7.1). This corridors through the landscape. would enhance the medieval

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 133 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. To the north of Haverhill the deer park landscape character washlands of the River Stour as well as deliver significant provide flood management, biodiversity gains (increased biodiversity, and low key connectivity of woodland) and recreational functions for the assist with water management expanding town. (see project E.1). (e.g. creation of wet woodland to hold water up-stream). Strategic Green Corridors (Level 1) The Level 1 Green Corridors will enhance existing routes and improve linkages between existing and proposed green infrastructure resources to define a borough-wide network of multifunctional corridors for the movement of people and wildlife. Although the Green Corridors will support the vision of each zone for enhancement and restoration, their function will focus on providing green routes for informal recreation and commuting, and in many cases, an interpretive trail of cultural, social, historical and natural heritage. 1. Thetford to Stour Valley Green Corridor This Green Corridor will weave Project 1.1: Creation of new 9999 x SCC (as Precise route will need to through a diversity of zones for shared use route (for highways be negotiated e.g. loss of restoration and enhancement, pedestrians, cyclists, horse authority, and as bridges, requiring including the Little Ouse, Lark, riders) along a disused railway primary alternative access (via new Linnet and Glem River Valleys, line to provide access between negotiator) bridge or side access). Land Brecks Heathland, Historic Thetford, The Kings Forest and x SEBC ownership issues regarding Parkland and Woodland, and the Lark Valley Greenway (at x Sustrans surface upgrading. Ancient Farmland. The Green Fornham St Genevieve). x Land owners Sensitivity of species and Corridor alignment will enhance Proposed route should include (through habitats (King’s Forest). existing routes (including St signage and interpretation of Environmental Requires a further detailed Edmund Way and a disused sites of interest i.e. The Kings Stewardship study to define appropriate railway) and use the local Forest and linkages to other Schemes) route through the landscape and townscape as a routes (Icknield Way, ‘Duke’s x EEDA Breckland SPA. learning asset to provide an Ride’ and the proposed Level 2

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 134 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. interpretive trail of cultural, social, or local links to Livermere historical and natural heritage. Park, Thetford Forest and the The Green Corridor will promote Norfolk Cycleway, shown on health and well being by Figure 7.1). The approximate encouraging active exercise and length of this stretch of the opportunities for contact with route is 15km. nature. Its alignment is also Project 1.2: Improved links 9 x SCC Precise route will need to consistent with the neighbouring (for pedestrians and cyclists) x SEBC be negotiated e.g. potential GI Green Corridors (Thetford and between Fornham St Martin, x Sustrans for links via the River Lark Forest Heath). Where Bury St Edmunds train station, x Developers with a safe crossing point appropriate, planting alongside the town centre of Bury St x EEDA over Thetford Road, past greenway verges (e.g. grassland, Edmunds and Abbey Gardens the proposed British Sugar broad-leaved woodland belts and precinct, via the River Lark redevelopment site, linking scrub) would also improve habitat Valley and St Johns Street. The to the train station, The links and facilitate species approximate length of this A14, Tesco site and movement. stretch of the river is 3km. This adjacent industrial site project should form part of a present access constraints In addition to those identified in wider initiative to prepare an along the Lark Valley. the River Lark and Linnet valleys Area Action Plan for Bury St zone, key assets and points of Edmunds, which could re- interest along the way include The connect the town to its Kings Forest, Little Heath, waterfront. Thetford Heath, Chevington Hall, Project 1.3: Creation of a new 9 x SCC ancient woods and remains of shared use riverside path (for x SEBC post medieval parkland pedestrians and cyclists) x Land owners landscapes, the proposed between the town centre of (through Mildenhall Woods project (part of Bury St Edmunds, Ickworth Environmental

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 135 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. Forest Heath green space Park and Chevington via the Stewardship strategy), several historic villages River Linnet valley. This route Schemes and with greens (e.g. Stansfield, will improve the existing track possibly Stradishall and Wickhambrook) between ‘No Man’s Meadows’, Inheritance Tax and medieval moated sites (e.g. Holywater meadows and Relief) Giffords Hall, Denston Hall and Glastonbury Road. It will also x Sustrans Purton Green). The Green link into the proposed Sustrans Corridors will also provide link to route to Newmarket (route 51) Livermere Park, Stansted Wood in at Chevington. The Essex and other long distance approximate length of this paths (Icknield Way and the route is 11km. This project Stour Valley Path). should form part of a wider initiative to prepare an Area Action Plan for Bury St Edmunds, which could re- connect the town to its waterfront. Project 1.4: Enhance existing 9999 x SCC Precise route will need to footpaths and bridleways to x SEBC be negotiated (preferably create a new shared use route x Sustrans between along field (for pedestrians, cyclists, horse x Land owners boundaries, beside the river riders) between Chevington (through valley, to avoid disruption and Hawkedon, via the River Environmental to agricultural activities). Glem Valley. This will Stewardship essentially extend the proposed Schemes) Sustrans route (route 51) south of Bury St Edmunds to link to

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 136 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. the Stour Valley Path and the ‘Lavenham Loop’ Sustrans route. 2. Black Bourn Valley Green Corridor Located between Bury St Project 2.1: Enhance existing 99 x SCC Precise route will need to Edmunds and Icknield Way, this footpaths and bridleways to x SEBC be negotiated; with safe Green Corridor uses and links to create a new shared use route x Land owners road crossing points (e.g. existing routes (including a Roman (for pedestrians, cyclists, horse (through over Mount Road) and well- road between Thurston and riders) between Bury St Environmental defined access for horse- Ixworth) and link to the proposed Edmunds, Thurston and the Stewardship riders to avoid user Thetford to Stour Valley Green Icknield Way, via the River Schemes) conflicts. Corridor and Icknield Way, Black Bourn valley. This will x Sustrans forming a circular long distance essentially enhance existing x EEDA route in the northern part of the Sustrans route (route 51) east borough. of Bury St Edmunds, provide a link to Livermere Park Passing by part of Euston Park, (proposed Level 2 greenway), isolated villages along the Black the Norfolk Cycleway and the Bourn valley floor, a community proposed on-road Sustrans owned ‘wild space’ at Honington, route (National Route 13) to and WW2 relics (e.g. Honington Knettishall Country Park. Airfield, Rougham Airfield and museum, pill boxes e.g. at Rougham, Hengrave, Lackford and Bury St Edmunds), the Green Corridor will use the local landscape and townscape as a

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 137 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. learning asset to provide an interpretive trail of cultural, social, historical and natural heritage. 3. St Edmund Way to Bradfield Woods Green Corridor This Green Corridor extension will Project 3.1: Enhance existing 9999 x SCC Precise route will need to link Bury St Edmunds with footpaths and bridleways to x SEBC be negotiated; with safe Bradfield Woods and enhance create a new shared use route x SWT (for road crossing points (e.g. existing routes (including St (for pedestrians, cyclists, horse visitors centre) over the A134) and well- Edmund Way and a disused riders) between St Edmund x Sustrans defined access for horse- railway). Opportunity for new Way and Bradfield Woods x EEDA riders to avoid user visitor facilities at the entrance to NNR. This will link to the conflicts. the site, to meet user needs. proposed on-road Sustrans route (route 13) south of Bury St Edmunds. This Green Corridor could potentially extend beyond the borough boundary to link to the Rattlesden Valley and the existing on-road Sustrans route to Stowmarket (National Route 51). 4. Stour Brook Valley Green Corridor Signage, in the form of an Project 4.1: Urban river 9999 9x SEBC interpretive trail of cultural, social, corridors – this will upgrade x SCC historical and natural heritage, will existing access along the x Sustrans enhance access to the countryside disused railway to provide a x Land owners for residents of Haverhill as well green link through Haverhill, (through

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 138 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. as improve the valley’s amenity reconnecting the town to its Environmental and education value. river valley, with links to the Stewardship Meldham Washlands and the Schemes) Stour Valley Path. Also x Dedham enhancement to the river at Vale/Stour Lords Croft Lane – provision of Valley Project alternative looped routes. x EEDA 5. Little Ouse Green Corridor This Green Corridor will follow the Project 5.1: Creation of a new 9 9 9 9 x SCC The riverside path Little Ouse corridor, providing riverside path to provide access x SEBC alignment needs to be access between the proposed along the river between x Sustrans agreed with Breckland Thetford to Stour Valley Green Barnham Camp and Knettishall x Breckland District Council / Norfolk Corridor and Icknield Way Path. Heath Country Park, with District Council County Council (i.e. which Its alignment is also consistent associated signage and / Norfolk side of the river it will with the neighbouring Thetford GI interpretation of sites of County Council follow, links across the Green Corridor. Creation of new interest, as appropriate i.e. links x SWT River) and negotiated with areas of floodplain grazing marsh, beyond the borough to land owners. reedbeds and fens should be an Thetford, Redgrave & Lopham integral part of the river corridor Fen (via Angles Way) and enhancement, to improve habitat Norfolk (via Peddars Way & links and facilitate species Norfolk Coast Path). Proposed movement. route should avoid adverse impacts on sensitive habitats and species. The approximate length of this stretch of the river is 10km. This project should be undertaken in parallel

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 139 September 2009 Final Report Name and Vision Outline Projects GI Function Potential Potential Constraints Delivery NOTE: A ‘given’ constraint for most (if not all) projects will be site surveys (landscape / archaeology / ecology), land take (requiring feasibility studies and negotiation with land owners) and community consultation for new routes / links. If schemes involve Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and several landowners, this would require voluntary co operation of all landowners. All projects affecting Natura 2000 (SPA/SAC) sites will Access, recreation, movement and Access, recreation, leisure provision Habitat nature Access to Landscape setting and context productionEnergy and conservation andFood production productive landscapes water and attenuation Flood management resource Shading and cooling require Appropriate Assessment. with Project C.7, to deliver biodiversity benefits.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 140 September 2009 Final Report 9. PROJECT BUSINESS PLAN

9.1. This section sets out an approach to prioritising project opportunities identified in the previous chapter, and also identifies a ’shortlist’ of projects for St Edmundsbury Borough Council to consider taking forward. Projects which meet the broadest range of functions have also been costed in outline by a quantity surveyor for capital items, with consideration also given to revenue costs. Many of the components of these projects relate to other projects within the proposed network, and the costs can therefore be used to guide future levels of investment needed.

Project Prioritisation 9.2. Tables 9.1 – 9.8 overleaf set out the approach developed for prioritisation of projects within the green infrastructure network. Projects have been prioritised where appropriate against the range of environmental functions (that is, spatial attributes which respond to/are derived from planning policy themes) they fulfil, in addition to meeting high level policy objectives. Policy objectives are high level examples, rather than an exhaustive list. Where projects can deliver specific objectives of complementary work such as the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, these are identified. Benefits provide by the projects are identified in green, and offset against a set of identified constraints to achievement (shown in red), which include indicative levels of capital costs based on cost banding, in addition to revenue (ongoing management) activity. In terms of evaluating projects’ priority rating, this has been undertaken with reference to the need and demand analysis. 9.3. No ‘weighting’ is assigned to specific environmental functions as they are considered equally important, and the basis of green infrastructure planning should be one of multi functionality. Similarly constraints are not weighted according to importance (as a project may have very substantial cost implications but still deliver substantial benefits in terms of multi functionality). Prioritisation is therefore a balance, and based on judgments as to functional desirability and deliverability. Projects are also matched to potential delivery partners in the priority and actions column. 9.4. The following Local Area Agreement Indicators, as used in the Suffolk Local Area Agreement, have been used to inform the project prioritisation exercise:

x NI6 Participation in regular volunteering

x NI21 Dealing with local concerns about anti social behaviour and crime by the local council and the police

x NI56 Obesity in primary school age children in year 6

x NI175 Access to services and facilities by public transport, walking and cycling

x NI188 Adapting to climate change

x NI197 Improved local biodiversity – Active management of local sites 9.5. Indicative project cost bands are as follows:

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy141 September 2009 Final Report x Low (L) = Up to £20,000

x Moderate/Low (M/L) = £20,000-75,000

x Moderate (M) = £75,000-150,000

x Moderate/high (M/H) = £150,000-750,000

x High = £750,000-5million

x Major project = £5million plus 9.6. Projects are assigned the following priorities and indicative phases: H: To be delivered as early as possible from 2012 to 2021 (development dependent projects in this category are to be commenced in the earliest phases of development e.g. from 2012 approximately, so that they can occur in parallel with any planned development. M: To be delivered from 2017- 2031. L: To be delivered after 2031, although phased delivery can be considered to deliver smaller components earlier and concurrent with other development, if appropriate. 9.7. Since growth area locations and the exact timescale for future masterplanning and delivery of urban extensions within Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill are as yet unconfirmed, it is not possible to comment with any robustness on more detailed consideration of phasing, other than within these broad bands.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 142 September 2009 Final Report TABLE 9.1 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE A Project + - No Policy support LAA Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue Land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project targets delivery and funding needs take/land constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partner or Envt Social Economic supported Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling an eligibility assembly additional suggested funding streams and partners: /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect /context option? /access works, lead in governance times Zone A:

A1 9 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 Low – 9 9 9 LOW - Land owners Moderate Enhancement Contribute Contribute to Regional N1197 Delivered Ongoing Compensated Site specific Not connected with development. Natural England of the to Regional woodland through (per individual management through HLS investigation – land/ Low priority but deliver through (NE) Headwaters Biodiversity Health strategy N1186 Envt land unit need ecology/ Environmental Stewardship landscape Action Plan Strategy (Potential use Steward- entered into) (management archaeology Forestry character (BAP) of timber ship and met through plan) Funding Streams Commission (FC) product/ English Envt through EWGS East of Environmental Stewardship wood waste) Woodland Stewardship England Plan Grant Governance Models Policy ENV Scheme 3 (EWGS) Through Environmental Stewardship European Landscape Convention (ELC)

A2 9 9 N116 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate – 9 9 9 HIGH - Land owners High Stanton Contribute Regional N1188 Delivered Ongoing Loss of Survey work as part If delivered through Environmental NE Woodland to woodland through Offset through management productive of Envt Stewardship Stewardship Enhancement Biodiversity strategy N1197 Envt Envt need farmland agreements Forestry Corridor Action Plan (Potential use Steward- Stewardship (management (compensated Funding Streams Commission (FC) (BAP) of timber ship plan) through HLS) Environmental Stewardship SWT product/ ENV 3 wood waste) Governance Models St Edmundsbury ELC Borough Council Through Environmental (SEBC) Stewardship

A3 9 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 LOW - Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) ‘The Grundle’ Contribute Contribute to Indirect N1197 As and Potentially high Site specific Ongoing Loss of Funding Streams to BAP regional through when land investigation – land/ Nature cost (+ land management productive health reduced N116 is available ecology Reserve purchase) (management farmland Environmental Stewardship ENV 3 strategy flooding /archaeology plan) Governance Models ELC liability employment Through SWT; Friends Group (voluntary)

A4 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 Very High 9 9 9 MEDIUM - NE SWT Contribute to as and Site specific Market N1197 Very high cost Loss of Can contribute more directly to FC Weston Fen regional when land albeit can be investigations – land/ reversing wetland habitat N116 productive SEBC Nature health is available spread by farmland ecology/ fragmentation (delivering ecological Reserve strategy phasing. archaeology. network) Opportunity for funding Funding Streams through Landfill Landfill Communities Trust; English Communities woodland grant scheme (EWGS); Fund Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Through SWT; Friends group

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 143 September 2009 Final Report TABLE 9.2 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE B Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Zone B:

B1 9 9 N156 9 9 9 Moderate – 9 9 9 MEDIUM - FC High Improved Potential to Potential to N175 Already exists, Availability of funding, In light of future growth of Brecks visitor contribute to contribute to (depends on is focused on a working within Bury to 2031 (to alleviate Partnership management ROWIP ROWIP area) change in constraints set by pressures) /Brecks within existing (objective A.3 management HRA/AA Countryside sites and – improved Funding Streams Project destinations off road way- East of England Development SEBC marking); Agency (EEDA); Regional Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) Suffolk County Health Council (SCC) Strategy Governance Models Local Planning Authority (LPA)

B2 9 N1188 9 9 9 Moderate – 9 9 9 MEDIUM - FC High Targeted BAP N1197 Loss of Loss of productive In light of future growth of SEBC creation of (depends on farmland farmland, constraints Bury to 2031 (to alleviate additional ENV 3 area) outside forest created by HRA/AA pressures on Brecks area) Landowners habitats ELC estate NE (potentially Funding Streams offset through EWGS; Environmental Envt Stewardship Stewardship) Governance Models Through SWT; Through Environmental Stewardship agreements

B3 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 High 9 HIGH - Landowners Conserve and ENV 3 N1197 Ongoing (Key part of iconic Breckland NE restore Scots management landscape – must be sustained). Pine ELC Brecks shelterbelts Funding Streams partnership Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Through Environmental Stewardship

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 144 September 2009 Final Report TABLE 9.3 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE C Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project supported delivery an and funding assembly /access constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partner or Envt Social Economic Access /rec Habitat Access Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility additional works, suggested funding streams and partners: provision to setting landscapes resource effect lead in times governance Nature /context Zone C:

C1 9 9 NI18 9 9 9 High 9 9 HIGH - Developer; ENV1 Walks for Can be Consultation/ Archaeology SUSTRANS, Improvements Health, ROWIP NI110 delivered in Levelling/ publicity/ land /ecology/land Project can form a key part of EEDA to the existing (Objectives A – smaller grading and purchase/ legality surveys; a multi functional network and Lark Valley better signed, phases provision of issues can be delivered on a phased SCC Path maintained and depending on minimum width Feasibility /viability basis subject to available surface study funding. Green link towards SEBC; accessible availability of adjoining Local network,; B.10 funding from Bury can be partly delivered through developer Planning – Off road SUSTRANS Authorities bridleway and contributions (CIL), in addition to SUSTRANS/EEDA. (Forest Heath cycle routes), DC) and Regional Funding Streams Health Strategy; also ‘access’ EEDA; RIF; Community parts of PPS1 Infrastructure Levy (CIL); Sustrans; Housing growth fund. Governance Models Through Sustrans

C2 9 N156 9 9 9 9 High –Very 9 9 HIGH - Sustrans High Accessible Contribute to N1175 As/ when Land ownership Land/Ecology/ Especially to Bury urban edge SEBC Local Transport negotiation Archaeology riverside to land available (could be (potential to deliver through the Linnet Plan (LTP) and N1188 delivered surveys; feasibility developer contributions) SCC Valley, Rights of Way phased basis) study NT between Bury Improvement Funding Streams St Edmunds Plan (ROWIP) EEDA; Sustrans; RIF Landowners and Ickworth (Objective B.8 – Park improved Governance Models NE routes between Developers urban areas and Through Sustrans the countryside) Regional Health Strategy Regional Social Strategy

C3 9 9 NI 156 9 9 9 9 9 High - Very 9 9 9 HIGH - SWT High East England As and when Land, archaeological Extension of N1188 (land purchase) Specialised To alleviate county scale N Plan Policy land available and ecology surveys Lackford management in deficiency Lakes Nature ENV1 N1197 relation to Funding Streams EA Reserve wetland features EEDA; RIF; CIL; Environmental Stewardship Governance Models SWT; Environmental Stewardship

C4 9 9 N1175 9 9 9 Moderate – 9 HIGH - SEBC Low Improved Contributes to Depending on Availability of Implement as early as possible SCC signage to wider availability of (signage funding for expanded urban areas, for riverside sustainable budget people to use GI network. strategy/implem EEDA paths development -entation) objective in Funding Streams English PPS1; also EEDA; RIF ROWIP He

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 145 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project supported delivery an and funding assembly /access constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partner or Envt Social Economic Access /rec Habitat Access Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility additional works, suggested funding streams and partners: provision to setting landscapes resource effect lead in times governance Nature /context (Objective A) Governance Models rita ge N/A; Through SEBC grounds maintenance. National Trust

C5 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate - 9 9 HIGH - EA High River channel ENV1 Contributes to N1197 Specialised Liaison with Key opportunity for sustainable Developers habitat place making Environment water resource management NERC Act Depending on management in SEBC restoration and health area (could be relation to Agency priorities Funding Streams and ELC lower costs if wetland SWT outlined in PPS1 enhancement about changes features CIL; Growth Area Fund in management) Governance Models LPA/SWT; Friends Groups

C6 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate - 9 9 9 HIGH - FC High ENV1 As and when Survey and Enhancement N1197 Ongoing Secures long term future of GI Landowners land is investigation, of existing Depending on management asset and delivers LCA priority. Scots Pine NERC Act entered into particularly into NE area Funding Streams lines and ELC Envt ecology SEBC restoration of Stewardship Environmental Stewardship; hedgerows EWGS SWT /designed landscape Governance Models Through Environmental Stewardship

C7 9 9 9 NI 156 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 High –Very 9 9 9 HIGH - SWT High Little Ouse ENV1 PPS25 N1188 As and when Land, archaeological Funding Streams Specialised NE land available and ecology surveys River Land purchase management in Corridor ELC N1197 EEDA; RIF relation to EA enhancement NERC Act wetland Governance Models features SWT; other voluntary trusts; SCC Little Ouse Valley Headwater Project.

C8 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - FC (EWGS) Black Bourn ENV1 PPS25 N1197 As and when Significant Land, archaeological If development directed at Key Landowners Valley land available ongoing and ecology surveys Service Centres otherwise enhancements ELC specialised medium. NE management Liaison with NERC Act Environment Funding Streams SWT Agency EWGS; EEDA; RIF, Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

C9 9 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate - 9 9 9 HIGH - FC (EWGS) High Stour and ENV1 PPS25 PPS1 N1197 As and when Significant Land, archaeological Potential for connections to EA Stour Brook land available ongoing and ecology surveys Stour Valley Path, in close Valleys ELC specialised proximity to any development Landowners Liaison with corridor NERC Act management in Haverhill NE enhancements Environment Agency Funding Streams SEBC Environmental Stewardship; SWT

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 146 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project supported delivery an and funding assembly /access constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partner or Envt Social Economic Access /rec Habitat Access Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility additional works, suggested funding streams and partners: provision to setting landscapes resource effect lead in times governance Nature /context EWGS Dedham Vale/Stour Governance Models Valley Project LPA

C10 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate 9 9 9 HIGH - EA High -High Alleviation of ENV1 PPS25 N1197 If more than Management of Loss of Surveys, funding To prevent flooding - in line EEDA flooding on one pond is edges productive availability, need for with flood management plan. land adjacent ELC delivered farmland detailed feasibility Funding Streams to the A1092 NERC Act study EEDA RIF CIL Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

C11 9 9 NI 156 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 High – Very 9 9 9 HIGH - FC through High EWGS ENV1 As and when Land, archaeological River Glem N1188 Specialised To alleviate county scale Valley land available Land purchase management in and ecology surveys deficiency NE corridor N1197 relation to Funding Streams enhancements wetland EA features Environmental Stewardship EWGS RIF EEDA Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

TABLE 9.4 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE D Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Zone D:

D1 9 9 9 N118 9 9 9 9 9 Very High 9 9 9 HIGH - Suffolk Council A Community ENV1 PPS 1 PPS 1 NI 156 Could be Significant Surveys, consultation, To meet identified green space Green Light Trust Parkland for delivered ongoing local needs and demands deficiency, although recognise Bury St ELC N1175 on a phased management analysis the potential for phased SEBC Edmunds N1188 basis delivery. Can also contribute SWT alongside to meeting future green space N1197 developme need SCC nt. Funding Streams British Sugar EEDA; RIF; CIL; EWGS (if Developers woodland created)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 147 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Governance Models Community Land Trust; Friends Group

D2 9 9 N118 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate 9 9 MEDIUM - Sustrans High-High PPS 1 PPS 1 Although partly Surveys, Bury St NI 156 As and Already existing links, priorities EEDA Edmunds local when land on existing Feasibility study for investment elsewhere first. ROWIP N1175 routes Developers green links available (radial route) (Objectives Funding Streams A.3, B.8, N1188 Green Light Trust B.10) EEDA; RIF; CIL; Environmental Stewardship SEBC Governance Models SCC Environmental Stewardship /Sustrans

D3 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 HIGH - FC High ENV1 As and Survey and investigation, Historic N1197 Depending on Ongoing Secures long term future of GI Landowners Breckland when land area management particularly into ecology asset and delivers LCA priority. NERC Act is entered NE Funding Streams ELC into Envt Stewardshi Environmental Stewardship p Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

D4 9 9 9 N118 9 9 9 9 Moderate 9 9 9 HIGH - Sustrans High-High Access to the ENV1 PPS 1 PPS 1 NI 156 As and Surveys, feasibility study If development delivered in EEDA Brecks when land northern fringe of Bury, NERC Act ROWIP N1175 is entered otherwise Medium priority. Developers (Objectives ELC N1188 into Envt Green Light Trust B.5, - improve Stewardshi Funding Streams access to N1197 p SCC open access CIL; Environmental land; B.10) Stewardship Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

D5 9 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 MEDIUM - SEBC High Creation of ENV1 PPS 1 PPS 1 N1197 (individually) Ongoing Consultation, surveys Limited functional value/benefit SCC gateways to NERC Act ROWIP ROWIP depending on management Funding Streams and from Bury specification St Edmunds (Objectives (Objective ELC B.4, B.8) B.4) Collectively it EEDA; CIL would be a major Governance Models project. LPA

D6 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 MEDIUM - SEBC High Woodland ENV1 N1197 Ongoing Land, ecological, A large woodland resource Highways Agency archaeological surveys, planting to the management already exists in the borough, A14 NERC Act feasibility, consultation consider more multifunctional SCC ELC projects first. Funding Streams EWGS; Environmental Stewardship if on farmland; CIL (if in relation to development

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 148 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context edges) Governance Models SWT; Environmental Stewardship

D7 9 9 N156 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 HIGH - SWT Low ENV1 PPS 1 Delivered Land take, loss Land, ecological, Wetland N1175 Ongoing Delivered alongside Lark Valley SEBC green space alongside Dependant management of productive archaeological surveys, Green Corridor corridor to NERC Act N1188 developme farmland; land feasibility, consultation Developers on scale, Funding Streams the Lark, ELC N1197 nt changes in ownership south east of management negotiations EEDA; RIF; CIL Bury St could reduce Edmunds cost. Governance Models Friends Groups; partnership between LPA/SWT

D8 9 9 N16 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 High SEBC high Developers Advance ENV1 PPS 1 NI188 Delivered Depending on Ongoing Land take Land, ecological, Essential piece of GI in advance planting in in advance archaeological surveys, of development/part of NERC Act N1197 extent of management relation to of and planting; may feasibility, development design mitigation development alongside ELC be eligible for Funding Streams developme Growth Area nt Funding CIL; RIF Governance Models Friends Groups; Community Land Trusts established in relation to new developments

D9 9 9 9 NI188 9 9 N/A – is a Moderate – N/A - Securing funding High SEBC guidance low Planning and ENV1 ‘Making Space PPS 1 project Depends on To ensure that SuDS are EA management for Water’ rather than source of properly planned and guidance for NERC Act considered in relation to new CIRIA PPS1 capital funding for SuDS ELC project study developments ‘Making Space Funding Streams for Water’ EA

D10 9 9 9 NI16 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 High SCC high ENV1 PPS1 PPS1 Delivered Land take Land, ecological, Great Barton NI188 Depending on Ongoing If delivered alongside SEBC Country Park alongside archaeological surveys, development as an essential NERC Act NI197 extent of management Developers developme scheme and feasibility piece of community ELC nt nature of infrastructure. Can also meet design. May future green space need be eligible for Funding Streams Growth Area Funding CIL; RIF Governance Models Friends Groups; Community Land Trusts established in relation to new developments

D11 9 9 NI188 9 9 9 9 9 9 Potentially Moderate 9 9 High SEBC if delivered Depends on ENV1 PPS25 Land, ecological, No Man’s NI197 alongside nature of Ongoing Essential piece of GI in step SWT Meadow flood developme scheme. May management archaeological surveys, with development attenuation NERC Act feasibility, EA nt be eligible for Funding Streams and SuDS ELC funding Developers

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 149 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context through CIL; RIF EEDA

Governance Models Friends Groups; Community Land Trusts established in relation to new developments

TABLE 9.5 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE E Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Zone E:

E1 9 PPS25 N1175 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 HIGH - SEBC Low Meldham ENV1 N1188 Potential Management Flood risk Meets need and demand in SCC Washlands for low key costs survey/modeling relation to flood management Green Space NERC Act managemen EA Funding Streams ELC t change SWT RIF; CIL SCC Governance Models SWT

E2 9 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 MEDIUM - SEBC high Gateways to ENV1 PPS 1 PPS 1 N1197 (individually) Ongoing Consultation, surveys In view of limited functional SCC and from depending on management value/benefits Haverhill NERC Act ROWIP ROWIP Braintree DC (Objectives (Objective specification Funding Streams ELC B.4, B.8), B.8) Collectively Essex CC Local they would EEDA; CIL form a major Transport Governance Models Plan (LTP) project. LPA

E3 9 9 N156 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - SEBC Green ENV1 PPS 1 N1175 In line with Development Feasibility, consultation, Can form green space Management Developers corridors to new masterplans surveys component of new the north of NERC Act ROWIP N1188 developme development Haverhill (Objective nt ELC B.4), LTP N1197 Funding Streams RIF; Housing Growth Fund; CIL; EWGS (if woodland creation is involved) Governance Models Community Land Trust; Friends Groups

E4 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 HIGH - SEBC High Enhanced ENV1 N1197 Ongoing Land, ecological, Provides mitigation for any SCC archaeological surveys, woodland management development that may occur planting to the NERC Act feasibility, consultation adjacent to road Braintree DC A1017 Bypass ELC Funding Streams Essex CC

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 150 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context EWGS; Environmental Stewardship (if on farmland); CIL (if in relation to development edges – set tariff) Governance Models SWT; Environmental Stewardship

E5 9 9 9 N18 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - SEBC ENV1 Regional PPS1 Alongside Purchase of Land, ecological, A N156 (land Ongoing To meet deficiency in SCC Community Health and developme purchase) management land and archaeological surveys, accessible green space; also Parkland for NERC Act Social N1175 nt associated feasibility, consultation potentially meets need in Developers Haverhill ELC Strategy N1188 negotiations relation provision for a variety of social needs including youth N1197 provision. Also opportunities for local food production, revealed in the Need and Demand Analysis. Can also contribute to meeting future green space need Funding Streams Developer contributions; CIL; RIF Governance Models Friends Groups; Community Land trust

E6 9 9 9 NI175 9 9 N/A - is a Moderate N/A N/A 9 HIGH – if planned in relation EEDA research /low, although to future development, to Streetscape Contribute to Contribute to PPS1 rather than depends on Availability of ensure it integrates, and to SEBC and signage objectives of objectives of capital securing funding/resources contribute to place-,making strategy for LTP/ROWIP LTP ROWIP project funding agenda Haverhill (Objective A.4) Funding Streams PPS1 EEDA/SEBC

E7 9 9 N16 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate- 9 9 9 High SEBC high ENV1 PPS 1 Delivered Land take Land, ecological, Advance NI188 Depending on Ongoing Essential piece of GI in advance Developers planting in in advance archaeological surveys, of development/part of NERC Act N1197 extent of management relation to of and planting; may feasibility development design mitigation development alongside ELC be eligible for Funding Streams developme Growth Area nt Funding CIL; RIF Governance Models Friends Groups; Community Land Trusts established in relation to new developments

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 151 September 2009 Final Report TABLE 9.6 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE F Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Environmental Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Zone F:

F1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - FC (through EWGS) Extension of ENV1 Regional Woodland N1188 As and Although Ongoing Purchase/ lease Land, ecological, Funding Streams Bradfield Health and For Life – when land there is an management of land archaeological surveys, SWT Woods NERC Act Social managing N1197 available opportunity feasibility Environmental Stewardship; Strategy woodlands to deliver in EWGS; EEDA; Private sector SEBC ELC sponsorship for phases NE productivity Governance Models SWT; Other trusts/ friends groups

F2 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - FC (through EWGS) Landscape ENV1 PPS25 N1197 As and Significant Land, archaeological and To maintain setting of Ickworth character when land ongoing ecology surveys Landowners enhancements ELC available specialised Funding Streams south of Bury management Liaison with NE NERC Act Environment Agency Environmental Stewardship; St Edmunds EWGS Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

TABLE 9.7 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN ZONE G Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Zone G:

G1 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 Moderate - 9 9 9 MEDIUM – LOW - Landowners Low Restoration of ENV1 N1186 As and Management Loss of Surveys, particularly Delivered as and when entered NE historic field when land Can be met picked up farmland those related to into Environmental boundary NERC Act N1175 is entered through HLS through HLS biodiversity Stewardship agreement. patterns ELC into Envt Stewardshi Funding Streams p Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

G2 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Moderate 9 9 9 MEDIUM - Green Light Trust

Restoration of ENV1 Regional N1186 As and Dependent Ongoing Land ownership Community Contributes to objectives of SWT Social and management consultation, survey historic village when on size LCA. Opportunity for funding NERC Act Health N1197 work particularly NE greens funding is through HLF Strategies archaeological ELC available Funding Streams SEBC HLF; Parks for People; CIL (set tariff)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 152 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Governance Models Friends Groups

G3 9 9 N1188 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 MEDIUM – LOW - FC (through EWGS) Enhancement ENV1 PPS25 (in N1197 As and Significant Land take Land, archaeological and Funding Streams of wooded relation to when land ongoing ecology surveys Landowners character ELC areas of wet available specialised Environmental Stewardship; north of woodland) management Liaison with EWGS NE NERC Act Environment Agency Hundon Governance Models Environmental Stewardship

TABLE 9.8 PROJECT PRIORITISATION PLAN - GREEN CORRIDORS Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context Strategic Green Corridors:

1.1 9 N18 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - Landowners Limited, Thetford to ROWIP N156 occasional Land ownership Detailed surveys due to Phased delivery NE Stour Valley (Objectives issues to proximity to Breckland N175 pathway Funding Streams SCC Green A.3, A.4, B.1, maintenance resolve SPA (take account of Corridor B.4, B.5, B.8, N188 Appropriate EEDA; Sustrans; RIF; CIL (set Sustrans B.10) Assessment); feasibility tariff); Environmental studies SEBC LTP Stewardship FC Regional Governance Models Health Sustrans/ LPA EEDA strategy

1.2 9 N18 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - Landowners Limited, Feasibility and delivery Lark Valley ROWIP N156 occasional Land ownership studies, land ownership Would provide better access Sustrans Green (Objectives pathway issues to to station corridor A.3, A.4, B.1, N175 resolve SCC maintenance Funding Streams B.4, B.5, B.8, N188 SEBC B.10) EEDA EEDA LTP RIF Developers Regional Sustrans Health strategy CIL (set tariff) Governance Models Sustrans/ LPA

1.3 9 N18 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - Landowners Limited, Feasibility and delivery Riverside path ROWIP N156 occasional Land ownership studies, land ownership Link to Sustrans route NE to the Linnet (Objectives issues to pathway Funding Streams Sustrans Valley A.3, A.4, B.1, maintenance resolve B.4, B.5, B.8, N175 EEDA SCC B.10) N188 RIF SEBC Sustrans FC

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 153 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context LTP CIL (set tariff) EEDA Regional Environmental Stewardship Developers Health strategy Governance Models Sustrans/ LPA

1.4 9 N18 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 LOW - Landowners Limited, Enhancement ROWIP N156 occasional Land ownership Detailed surveys due to Lack of proximity to housing NE of existing (Objectives pathway issues to proximity to Breckland or new development paths and A.3, A.4, B.1, N186 resolve SPA; feasibility studies Sustrans maintenance Funding Streams bridleways to B.4, B.5, B.8, N175 SCC the River B.10) EEDA Glem N188 SEBC LTP RIF FC Regional Sustrans Health strategy Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Sustrans/ LPA

2.1 9 N18 9 9 9 High 9 (Existing 9 MEDIUM - EEDA Limited, routes) Black Bourn ROWIP N156 Upgrading/ occasional Feasibility, signage In light of other routes being Sustrans Valley Green enhancing pathway strategy, surveys available Corridor LTP N186 existing SCC maintenance Funding Streams Regional N175 links SEBC Health EEDA strategy N188 Landowners RIF NE Sustrans Environmental Stewardship Governance Models Sustrans/ LPA

3.1 9 N18 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 MEDIUM - EEDA St Edmund ROWIP N156 Feasibility, signage Other routes available SCC Way to (Objectives strategy, surveys Bradfield A.3, A.4, B.1, N175 Funding Streams Sustrans Woods B.4, B.5, B.8, N188 EEDA SEBC Green B.10) Corridor RIF LTP SWT Sustrans Regional Health Governance Models strategy Sustrans/ LPA

4.1 9 9 N18 9 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 HIGH - EEDA Stour Brook ENV1 ROWIP N156 Management of Feasibility studies, Connect with urban extensions SCC Valley Green habitats created surveys at Haverhill Corridor NERC Act LTP N1175 SEBC Funding Streams Regional N1188 SWT Health EEDA strategy N1197 Sustrans RIF Landowners Sustrans NE Dedham Environmental Stewardship Vale/Stour Valley Project Governance Models Sustrans/ LPA; Friends Groups

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 154 September 2009 Final Report Project No + - Policy support LAA targets Environmental functions met Phased Capital costs Revenue needs Land take/land Other logistical PRIORITY AND Project partner or supported delivery an and funding assembly constraints e.g. ACTIONS: what to do next; partners: Envt Social Economic Access Habitat Access to Landscape Energy Productive Water Cooling option? eligibility /access additional works, lead in suggested funding streams and /rec provision Nature setting landscapes resource effect times governance /context

5.1 9 9 N156 9 9 9 9 9 High 9 9 9 HIGH - SCC Little Ouse ENV1 ROWIP N1175 Wider Taking account of SPA; If delivered in combination SEBC Green management feasibility studies and with project C7 Corridor ELC LTP N1188 implications of surveys Funding Streams Sustrans NERC Act Regional associated adjacent habitat Health and EEDA SWT Social creation RIF Norfolk County Strategies Council Sustrans Breckland Council Moving Thetford Governance Models Forward Sustrans/ LPA

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 155 September 2009 Final Report

DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF CAPITAL AND REVENUE COSTS TO GUIDE FUTURE INVESTMENT IN THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK 9.8. Table 9.9 overleaf sets out some more detailed capital cost estimates for key projects within the network, to guide the level of future investment. Many of the components within the cost schedules are also common to other projects proposed in the green infrastructure network, and as such the costs can be used to build a broader picture of outline costs for the network.

A note on the capital cost estimates – qualifications and exclusions 9.9. It should be noted that the outline capital works estimates do not allow for cost of land or site purchase, interest or finance charges or legal/local authority fees or loss of income whilst works are executed. Also excluded are site preparation, grading/levelling and any remediation/de-contamination works that may be required to implement the green infrastructure works. These additional costs should be the subject of detailed site investigations and Feasibility Studies at the site planning and investigation stage of design development. Similarly no allowance is made for other measures which may be necessary such as tree protection fencing or protective fencing for planting to establish, together with provision of street furniture, as these cannot be known at this stage. Cost estimates are exclusive of VAT and all professional fees which would be required to implement the works and inspect them on site. They also exclude main contractor’s preliminaries and contingency sums. As such the cost estimates represent a guide to the level of investment required and should not be used for a detailed design budget exercise. 9.10. In terms of phasing, the capital cost estimates do NOT allow for inflationary uplift since phasing bands are only broadly described.

Revenue costs 9.11. Table 9.10 sets out estimated revenue costs for a select typology of projects within Phase 1 (2012-21), to provide an illustration of the implication of ongoing management needs and the level of investment required. Again, many of the components within the cost schedule are common to other projects and as such the costs can be used to build a broader picture of revenue costs for the network. The detailed projects have been identified as being of high importance and are therefore likely to be implemented in Phase 1: 2012 to 2021. The revenue costs provided are estimated annual costs at mid point of development Phase 1 taking into account a predicted inflationary increase on 2009 baseline rates of 22%26. The annual revenue costs are

26 Inflation rates: Inflation at present is increasingly unpredictable. The latest published indices (July 2009) have been used to calculate 2009 baseline rates. The percentage increase from 2005 to 2007 was 5%, however, there has be a decrease in 2008 of 2% and predicted decrease in 2009 of 3%. Inflation rates for the development phasing have been difficult to establish and published forecasts are not yet available beyond 2011. Estimates have therefore been made in consultation with a Quantity

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy157 September 2009 Final Report presented as an annual unit rate27 for each element of the project and as an overall project revenue cost. The methodology and assumptions used to generate the revenue costs are set out in table 9.10.

Surveyor. The increase from 2009 to mid point of Phase 1 is estimated at 22% based on an assumed annual average addition of 4-5% from 2012 to 2021. This assumes that there is a recovery in the economic world and that no extreme unexpected economic world events occur e.g. oil shortages, wars etc. Using this assumption, the increase for Phase 2 (2017-2031) would be 45%. The revenue costs for these development phases should be reviewed at implementation or when published indices become available. It should be noted that these projections cannot be very reliable as all manner of changes could occur in the world economy over the next 22 years. Contingency sums and provisional sums are shown in italics as the cost at mid year of Phase 1; these costs will need to be reviewed at implementation to reflect published inflationary forecasts. Reactive repair/ replacement contingency sums are based on 2.5% of capital costs. The inflation rates for the development phasing are different for the contingency sums as these are based in capital costs.

27 Annual rates Annual rates are estimated based on comparable industry rates along with using Schedule of Rates set out in the following publications: x Carillion. 2005. PSA Schedule of Rates for Landscape Management Third Edition x National Urban Forestry Unit, 1998. Tree or Turf: Best value in managing urban green space x Langdon, 2009 Spon’s External Works and Landscape Price Book Twenty-eighth Edition The annual rates provided are estimates only and should be reviewed at implementation of each development phase.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 158 September 2009 Final Report Table 9.9: Outline Capital Costs Project Description Unit/quantity Capital Costs (to present as unit cost and total)

Unit Cost £ Total £

Urban stretch of Wetland creation (scrapes and wet meadows) Thetford to Stour Valley Green 1no. 300m in length x 5m width wetland meadow. 1,500 m2 6.50 9,750 Corridor (project 1.1). Total length: 5no. shallow pond scrapes 1m deep (30mx5m) with natural marginal 5 Nr 2,800 14,000 6km plant scrapes Wet woodland planting – native species (possibly oak/ ash and alder). 1ha Assume whips at 450mm to 900mm height planted in a 1.8m grid. 3,600 Nr 3.50 12,600

Shared use path. 2.5m wide Coxwell gravel path with timber edging 6km 84.00/m 504,000

Also provide rate for construction of 100 linear metres as above 8,400/100m ––

Community Park 1.8m Coxwell gravel paths with timber edging. 2.5km 66.00/m 165,000 (Bury St Edmunds – project D.1). Total Also provide rate for construction of 100 linear metres as above 6,600/100m –– area: 20ha 60% of area to be grassland (seeded, of which 40% to be meadow 12 ha (4.8ha 34,800 grassland and the remainder to be amenity grassland) meadow)

Creation of ponds to perform balancing/ SUDS function with allowance 2ha (6,000m3, 7.00 42,000 400sqm for native marginal planting 400m2) 20.00 8,000

Natural play provision 1no. Range: 400,000 to 450,000 500,000 Skate Park 1no. Range: 160,000 to 230,000 300,000 Fenced hard surfaced multi use games court with markings 1no. 82.00/m2 70,000 850m2

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 159 September 2009 Final Report Project Description Unit/quantity Capital Costs (to present as unit cost and total)

Unit Cost £ Total £

Bollard low level lighting along footpaths 50no. 300.00 15,000 Electrical work Item 14,000 14,000 Service trenches and associated works Item 22,000 22,000

Waymarking signage 6no. 850.00 5,100

Interpretation panels 2no. 1,300 2,600

Benches 12no. 6 800.00 4,800 6 2,000.00 12,000 Estate fencing around perimeter boundary 2km 80.00/m 160,000

Tree avenue. 50 No. ANS Grade specimen trees (20-25 girth) with 50No. 400 20,000 underground guying and irrigation tubes

25% of area to be shrub planting (of which 50% to be high grade 25,000m2 14 350,000 ornamental, 30% medium grade/ semi ornamental planting and 20% native 15,000m2 10 150,000 shrub mix) 10,000m2 7 70,000

Meldham Interpretation panels 2no. 1,300 2,600 Washlands (project E.1)

Creation of broad Natural regeneration (the desired method supported by EWGS) 58 ha 100,000 leaved woodland near Bradfield Seed collection and manual dispersal 78 days 150 per day 11,700 Woods (project F.1). Total area: Staff/contractor time to oversee seed operation 3 years 81,000 58ha Supply and installation of deer fence around perimeter 3.4km 15.00/m 51,000

Improve footpath links with neighbouring villages 7.5km 1/m 7,500

Environmental (woodsman) art (Provisional sum of £5,000) 1 No. 5,000 5,000

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 160 September 2009 Final Report Project Description Unit/quantity Capital Costs (to present as unit cost and total)

Unit Cost £ Total £

Interpretation panels - Rustic timber (similar to those used by wildlife 4no. 1,500 6,000 trusts)

Wayfinding signage - Rustic timber fingerposts 40no. 100 4,000

Visitor reception building, interpretation, toilets, small office 100,000

Lark Valley Path 2.5m wide Sustrans route with crushed stone surface and timber edging 8km 90.00/m 720,000 improvements Also provide rate for construction of 100 linear metres as above (project C.1). 9,000/100m –– Total length: 8km Wayfinding signage - Rustic timber finger post 10no. 800 8,000

Kissing gates - Rustic timber 5no. 500 2,500

Wetland habitat creation. Excavation of scrapes and seeding with native wetland species (as per 6no. 2,800 16,800 project number 1) Creation of reedbeds 1no. 9,750 9,750

Individual Rates Item Rate

100m planting of native hedgerows. Double staggered row at 400mm centres. Assume mixed native species £75/100m whips, 450 – 900mm ht.

Resurfacing 100 linear metres of 1.8m wide footpaths (to existing tarmac wearing course) £1,800/100m

Resurfacing 100 linear metres of 2.5m wide Sustrans path (to existing tarmac wearing course) £2,500/100m

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 161 September 2009 Final Report

Table 9.10: Revenue Costs

Project Description or landscape Unit/ Description of activity Annual Annual Annual Predicted feature rate in project rate in annual project quantity 2009 revenue Mid year revenue costs costs 2009 of Dev. Phase 1

Urban stretch of Wetland meadow (300m x 1,500 m2 Cut twice per annum removing all £0.216 £324 £0.263 £395 Thetford – Stour 5m). arisings. Valley Green Corridor (project 5no. shallow pond scrapes 750m2 Three visits per annum (incl. spring tidy, £2.693 £2,020 £3.286 £2,465 1.1). Total length: 1m deep (30mx5m) with summer invasive weed removal and 6km natural marginal planting autumn winter tidy).

Wet woodland – native 10,000m2 Coppicing and thinning sections of £0.100 £1,000 £0.122 £1,220 species (oak/ ash and alder). woodland on one occasion per year. Litter picking 52 times per year.

2.5m wide Coxwell gravel 15,000m2 Raking level, removing and disposing of £0.264 £3,960 £0.322 £4,830 shared use path debris 12 times per year. Litter collection 52 times per year. Resurfacing 50% of the area every three years.

Total £7,304 £8,910

Community Park 1.8m Coxwell gravel path 4,500m2 52 visits per year. Raking level, litter £1.144 £5,148 £1.396 £6,280 (Bury St Edmunds – clearance, removing and disposing of project D.1). Total debris. Resurfacing 50% of the area area: 20ha every three years.

60% of the area to be Amenity 20 cuts per annum £0.733 £52,776 £0.894 £64,370 grassland (seeded, of which grassland 40% to be meadow

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 163 September 2009 Final Report Project Description or landscape Unit/ Description of activity Annual Annual Annual Predicted feature rate in project rate in annual project quantity 2009 revenue Mid year revenue costs costs 2009 of Dev. Phase 1

grassland and the remainder 72,000m2 to be amenity grassland) Meadow Cut twice per annum removing all £0.070 £3,360 £0.086 £4,130 grassland arisings. 48,000m2

Balancing/ SUDS ponds with 400m2 Three visits per annum (incl. spring tidy, £3.360 £1,350 £4.099 £1,640 allowance 400m2 for native summer invasive weed removal and marginal planting autumn winter tidy).

Natural play provision 1no. Weekly inspection with Bi-annual full £1,620 £1,975 engineer inspection. Plus sweeping and litter collection 52 time per year. Plus £11,250 Plus £13,725 contingency for contingency for renewal/ renewal/ repairs repairs

Skate park 1no. Weekly inspection with Bi-annual full £1,090 £1,330 engineer inspection. Plus sweeping and litter collection 52 times per year. Plus £4,375 Plus £5,340 contingency for contingency for renewal/repairs renewal/repairs

Fenced hard surfaced Multi 1no. Weekly inspection with Bi-annual full £610 £740 Use Games Court with engineer inspection. Plus sweeping and markings litter collection (52 times per year) and Plus £1,750 Plus £2,135 marking out. contingency for contingency for renewal/ renewal/ repairs repairs

Bollard low level lighting 50no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £31.475 £1,575 £38.400 £1,920 along footpaths for repairs/ replacements.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 164 September 2009 Final Report Project Description or landscape Unit/ Description of activity Annual Annual Annual Predicted feature rate in project rate in annual project quantity 2009 revenue Mid year revenue costs costs 2009 of Dev. Phase 1

Waymarking signage (metal) 6no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £76.502 £460 £93.332 £560 for repairs/ replacements. Interpretation panels (metal) 2no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £114.775 £230 £140.260 £280 for repairs/ replacements. Benches 12no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £122 £1,465 £148.840 £1,780 for repairs/ replacements. Estate fencing around 2,000m Inspection and cleaning £0.416 £830 £0.508 £1,000 perimeter boundary Plus £4,880 contingency for renewal/ repairs

Tree avenue. 50no. ANS 50 trees Watering (16 occasions per annum), £53.339 £2,670 £65.074 £3,255 Grade specimen trees (20- mulching (once per annum) and 25 girth) with underground formation pruning guying and irrigation tubes.

High grade ornamental 25,000m2 8 visits per annum including weeding, £4.049 £101,225 £4.94 £123,500 shrub planting annual mulch and pruning

Medium grade/ semi 15,000m2 4 visits per annum including weeding, £3.108 £46,620 £3.792 £56,880 ornamental planting annual mulch and pruning

Native shrub mix 10,000m2 Cyclical cutting 50% of total area per £0.200 £2,000 £0.244 £2,440 year

Total £223,029 £272,080

Meldham Interpretation panels (metal) 2no. 52 visits per annum. Inspection and £114.775 £230 £140.026 £280 Washlands (project cleaning plus allowance for repairs/ E.1) replacements. Total £230 £280

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 165 September 2009 Final Report Project Description or landscape Unit/ Description of activity Annual Annual Annual Predicted feature rate in project rate in annual project quantity 2009 revenue Mid year revenue costs costs 2009 of Dev. Phase 1

Creation of broad Woodland management. 58ha Cutting glades, coppicing, thinning and £569.32 £33,020 £694.57 £40,285 leaved woodland Natural regeneration of litter picking around boundary and near Bradfield broad leaved woodland adjacent to footpaths. Woods (project species. F.1). Total area: 58ha Rustic wooden post and rail 1,000m Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £2.216 £2,220 £2.704 £2,705 around perimeter of for repairs/ replacements. woodland

Loose gravel footpath 1.8m 13,500m2 12 visits per year. Raking level, litter £0.264 £3,570 £0.322 £4,350 wide clearance, removing and disposing of debris. Resurfacing 50% of the area every three years. Environmental (woodsman) 1no. Inspection and cleaning (52 occasions £160 £195 art per annum). Plus £125 Plus £155 contingency for contingency for renewal/ renewal/ replacement replacement

Rustic timber interpretation 4no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £90.164 £360 £110.00 £440 panels for repairs/ replacements.

Rustic timber wayfinding 12no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £68.310 £820 £88.338 £1,060 timber posts for repairs/ replacements.

Visitor building with space 1no. Inspection, annual maintenance and £19,650 £23,980 for interpretation, toilets services and small office.

Visitor Centre Manager 1no. Full-time £21,660 £26,430

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 166 September 2009 Final Report Project Description or landscape Unit/ Description of activity Annual Annual Annual Predicted feature rate in project rate in annual project quantity 2009 revenue Mid year revenue costs costs 2009 of Dev. Phase 1

Total £81,460 £99,445

Lark Valley Path 2.5m wide Sustrans route 20,000m2 12 visits per year. Raking level, litter £0.264 £5,280 £0.322 £6,440 improvements with crushed stone surface clearance, removing and disposing of (project C.1). Total and timber edging debris. Resurfacing 50% of the area length: 8km every three years. Wayfinding signage - Rustic 10no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £68.310 £685 £88.338 £885 timber finger post for repairs/ replacements.

Kissing gates - Rustic timber 5no. Inspection and cleaning plus allowance £48.978 £245 £59.753 £300 for repairs/ replacements.

6no. shallow pond scrapes 900m2 Three visits per annum (incl. spring tidy, £2.693 £2,425 £3.286 £2,960 1m deep (30mx5m) with summer invasive weed removal and natural marginal planting autumn winter tidy).

Creation of reedbeds 1,500m2 Cyclical cutting of reeds (50% of total £0.533 £400 £0.650 £490 area per annum). Clearance once every two years. Total £9,035 £11,075

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 167 September 2009 Final Report Individual Rates Item Annual Rate mid Phase 1

Maintaining 100m planting of native hedgerows (cut and remove arisings) £215/100m

100 linear metres of 1.8m wide footpaths (tarmac) (Raking level, litter clearance, removing and disposing of debris. £60/100m Resurfacing 50% of the area every three years). 100 linear metres of 2.5m wide sustrans path (tarmac) (Raking level, litter clearance, removing and disposing of £80/100m debris. Resurfacing 50% of the area every three years).

Community Park (Bury St Edmunds) – staff costings 1no. Park Manager £40,000 p.a. (on cost e.g. salary plus other overheads such as transport, or which approximately £30-33,000 salary) 2no. Support staff at £25,000 each p.a. (on cost, of which approximately £17,000 per worker as salary)

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 168 September 2009 Final Report TOWARDS A SHORTLIST 9.12. The following sets out a shortlist of green infrastructure projects, to be delivered in the period 2012-2021. The prioritisation exercise has revealed a significant number of projects which rank highly in terms of prioritisation. In order to deliver projects which deliver the most targeted range of benefits in light of growth to 2021 and 2031, we have refined this list further, to identify key projects which the Green Infrastructure Project Group will need to consider in the period from 2012-2021, as the Area Action Plans for Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill develop. 9.13. Projects are considered in relation to the following categories:

x Capital projects delivering socio economic benefits to the Bury St Edmunds fringe and ‘Green Chain’

x Capital projects delivering socio economic benefits to the Haverhill fringe

x Capital projects delivering environmental enhancements to the wider countryside

x Capital projects delivering access enhancements and linkages 9.14. The projects under these respective headings are identified in the table below, together with tasks/next steps for a Green Infrastructure Delivery officer and or/a Green Infrastructure Delivery Panel (refer to ‘next steps’ at the end of this section for more information as to possible roles and remit of such an individual /organisation).

Table 9.11. Project shortlist and next steps 9.15. Note that this should be read in conjunction with tables 9.1 – 9.8 in relation to suggested funding streams and outside investment.

Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

Capital projects delivering socio economic benefits to the Bury fringe and ‘Green Chain’

Project C.1: Green infrastructure Green infrastructure project Improvements to Lark project officer or officer/delivery panel: Valley Path Delivery Panel from SEBC; SCC; Liaise with Forest Heath District SUSTRANS; EEDA Council in relation to land ownerships and cross boundary issues, and commission a feasibility study (including preparation of relevant consultancy briefs, site specific surveys and investigations, route options and capital costs – direct and indirect – and identification of specific ongoing revenue activity);

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy169 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

Undertake local community consultation to determine viability and desirability/refine route; Liaise with local SUSTRANS branch in relation to involvement and funding at Feasibility stage; also consider setting a CIL tariff for urban stretches of the route and which may pass through proposed development areas; Let contract with construction and maintenance contractors to implement scheme (or appoint consultants to administer the works); Liaise with County Council in updating Definitive PROW map, and SEBC Parks department in relation to future management; Organise targeted visitor surveys for future monitoring.

Project D.1: A Green infrastructure Green infrastructure project community parkland for project officer or officer/delivery panel: Bury St Edmunds Delivery Panel from SEBC; Liaison with developer and developer’s consultants at all Developers; Suffolk stages of the planning and design County Council (SCC); process, including pre application British Sugar; discussions. Ensure points of GI Suffolk Wildlife Trust Strategy (including identified (SWT); Green Light environmental functions for the Trust project) and supporting design principles contained within the GI Information Pack are taken on board. Identify and negotiate appropriate funding sources, such as through the RIF (coordinate funding bid), Growth Area Fund and CIL (set appropriate tariffs for implementation/ongoing management);

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy170 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

Identify ongoing governance model e.g. a Friends Group or a Community Land Trust and identify appropriate community representatives or developers to help achieve this aim. The objective is for ongoing revenue costs, management and ‘ownership’ to be considered from the outset; Commenting on planning application scheme(s) (as a consultee) as these are developed; Involvement in inspection of works on site as they progress, and advising adopting body if this is not the LPA; Use audit trail generated through RIF and Growth Area Fund bids and CIL agreements, together with site inspections, to monitor the progress of the works; also liaise with developer in organising future visitor surveys.

Project D.2: Bury St SEBC; SUSTRANS; Green infrastructure project Edmunds local green EEDA; SCC; officer/delivery panel: links (radial route) Developers; Green Light Trust Liaise with local landowners in relation to land ownerships, and commission a feasibility study (including preparation of relevant consultancy briefs, site specific surveys and investigations, route options and capital costs – direct and indirect – and identification of specific ongoing revenue activity); Undertake local community consultation to determine viability and desirability/refine route; Liaise with local SUSTRANS branch in relation to involvement and funding at Feasibility stage; also with EEDA and consider

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy171 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

setting a CIL tariff for urban stretches of the route (liaise with development companies) and which may pass through proposed development areas; Let contract with construction and maintenance contractors to implement scheme (or appoint consultants to administer the works); Liaise with County Council in updating Definitive PROW map, and SEBC Parks department in relation to future management; Organise targeted visitor surveys for future monitoring. Note that as much work as possible should be done ‘in house’ for this project.

Project D.7: Wetland SEBC; SWT; EA Green infrastructure project green space corridor to officer/delivery panel: the River Lark Liaise with local landowners in relation to land ownerships, and commission a feasibility study (including preparation of relevant consultancy briefs and site specific surveys and investigations), prepare capital cost estimates – direct and indirect – and identify specific ongoing revenue activity). This should occur at the earliest possible stage, to plan for the project in advance of development; Undertake local community consultation to determine viability and desirability and local needs in relation to green space; Liaise with local SUSTRANS branch in relation to involvement and funding at Feasibility stage;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy172 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

also with EEDA (as part of project C.1); Also co ordinate as part of a wider bid to the RIF and consider setting a CIL tariff for off site contributions by developers (‘strategic pot’); Investigate potential for voluntary Friends Group (in partnership with the SWT), in relation to future management; Let contract with construction and maintenance contractors to implement scheme (or appoint consultants to administer the works); Organise targeted visitor and habitat surveys for future monitoring against baseline.

Capital projects delivering socio economic benefits to the Haverhill fringe

Project E.5: A Green infrastructure Green infrastructure project community parkland for project officer or officer/delivery panel: Haverhill Delivery Panel from SEBC; Liaison with developer and developer’s consultants at all Developers; Suffolk stages of the planning and design County Council (SCC) process, including pre application discussions. Ensure points of GI Strategy (including identified environmental functions for the project) and supporting design principles contained within the GI Information Pack are taken on board. Identify and negotiate appropriate funding sources, such as through the RIF (coordinate funding bid), Growth Area Fund and CIL (set appropriate tariffs for implementation/ongoing management);

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy173 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

Projects D.8 and E.7: SEBC; Developers Green infrastructure project Advance planting for officer/delivery panel: development Liaison with developer and developer’s consultants at all stages of the planning and design process, including pre application discussions. Ensure points of GI Strategy (including identified environmental functions for the project) and supporting design principles contained within the GI Information Pack are taken on board. Identify and negotiate appropriate funding sources, such as through the RIF (coordinate funding bid), Growth Area Fund and CIL (set

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy174 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

appropriate tariffs for implementation/ongoing management); Identify ongoing governance model e.g. a Friends Group or a Community Land Trust and identify appropriate community representatives or developers to help achieve this aim. The objective is for ongoing revenue costs, management and ‘ownership’ to be considered from the outset; Commenting on planning application scheme(s) (as a consultee) as these are developed; Involvement in inspection of works on site as they progress, and advising adopting body if this is not the LPA; Use audit trail generated through RIF and Growth Area Fund bids and CIL agreements, together with site inspections, to monitor the progress of the works; also liaise with developer in organising future visitor surveys.

Capital projects delivering environmental enhancements to the wider countryside

Project F.1: Extension SEBC; SWT; FC; Green infrastructure project to Bradfield Woods Natural England (NE) officer/delivery panel: Liaise with local landowners in relation to land ownerships, and commission relevant surveys - ecology, land and archaeology; Prepare cost estimates and coordinate funding bid (e.g. EWGS grant aid); Work with relevant partners in respect of future governance.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy175 September 2009 Final Report Projects Who? Next steps, roles and responsibilities

Capital projects delivering access enhancements and linkages

Project 1.1: Thetford to SCC; SEBC; Green infrastructure project Stour Valley Green SUSTRANS; officer/delivery panel: Corridor; landowners; developers (near urban extension Liaise with landowners in relation Project 1.2: Fornham St sites); Moving Thetford to land ownerships and access Martin and Bury St Forward; NE; FC negotiations, and commission a Edmunds Train Station feasibility study (including link; preparation of relevant consultancy briefs, site specific Project 1.3: Riverside surveys and investigations, route path to the Linnet options and capital cost estimates Valley; – direct and indirect – and identification of specific ongoing Project 4.1: Stour revenue activity); Brook Valley Green Corridor Undertake local community consultation to determine viability Project 5.1: Little Ouse and desirability/refine route; Green Corridor Liaise with local SUSTRANS branch in relation to involvement and funding at Feasibility stage; also consider setting a CIL tariff for urban stretches of the route and which may pass through proposed development areas; Let contract with construction and maintenance contractors to implement scheme (or appoint consultants to administer the works); Liaise with County Council in updating Definitive PROW map, and SEBC Parks department in relation to future management; Organise targeted visitor surveys for future monitoring.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy176 September 2009 Final Report NEXT STEPS – RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ST EDMUNDSBURY BOROUGH TO TAKE DELIVERY FORWARD 9.16. The following steps/alternatives are recommended in order to take green infrastructure delivery within the borough:

x Appointment of a dedicated Green Infrastructure Delivery Officer, subject to available resources, or

x Convene a green infrastructure advisory and delivery group, consisting of officers from St Edmundsbury Borough Council, representatives from Natural England, Environment Agency, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the Brecks Partnership, Stour Valley/Dedham Vale and Suffolk County Council. 9.17. Possible responsibilities for a nominated officer or project group in relation to green infrastructure delivery, are as follows:

x Development of a more detailed GI delivery plan with nominated or named organisation representatives responsible for bringing specific projects forward;

x Liaison with key members of the Local Strategic Partnership (in terms of environment and recreation), to ensure that green infrastructure contributes to the objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Local Development Framework;

x Evaluate development proposals as they relate to green infrastructure against green infrastructure action zones and component projects in the GI Strategy;

x As a consultee, comment on relevant planning applications through the pre application and application processes, using the checklist and key messages set out in the supporting Green Infrastructure Information Pack;

x Ensure that developers and others bringing forward green infrastructure not only take account of the key messages in relation to the action zones and component projects, but that they also identify sustainable, resourced mechanisms for long term governance to deliver design intentions and desired environmental outcomes;

x Make appropriate links with future funding partners identified within the prioritisation exercise, in relation to co ordination of funding bids;

x Liaison with appropriate community representatives in the formation of Friends Groups, where this is identified as an appropriate long term governance mechanism;

x Develop appropriate consultancy briefs for masterplanning and detailed design services in relation to relevant projects within the shortlist, making appropriate reference to key messages contained within the Green Infrastructure Strategy and Information Pack;

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy177 September 2009 Final Report x Create an audit trail of appropriate monitoring mechanisms in relation to green infrastructure delivery, making use of existing tools such as site inspections to adoption, and visitor surveys. The purpose should be to monitor performance of the green infrastructure proposals in relation to the environmental functions, to inform and refine future iterations of the spatial plan for St Edmundsbury borough.

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy178 September 2009 Final Report APPENDIX 1: Detailed Policy Context

APPENDIX 1 – GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL THEMES

Open space, recreation and access links 1 The Public Health White Paper Choosing Health1 recognises that despite overall health improving there are still differences in health between those at the top and bottom ends of the social scale and in some cases these are increasing. In order to close the gap it recognises that improvements in health must be greatest for the most excluded groups and communities in society. 2 The Public Health White Paper Our health, our care, our say2 sets out a new direction for the whole health and social care system, shifting the way in which services are delivered to ensure that they are more personalised and localised and that they fit into people's lives. It seeks to ensure that health care goes beyond just treating people but is also focused on keeping people healthy and independent. 3 Game Plan3 is an overall strategy for guiding the Government’s decisions on sports policy. It includes recognition of the importance of sport, both in its own right and as a tool to achieve core public goals (crime reduction, health, education and social inclusion). 4 The Regional Health Strategy4 identifies the need for a high quality natural environment as a core element of its vision for health in the East of England. The strategy promotes the critical importance of green infrastructure in terms of both access to nature and recreation, and also the wider quality of life agenda and the significant contribution of the natural environment to mental health and well-being. 5 The Regional Social Strategy5 supports the provision and enhancement of green infrastructure with links between nature and social well-being. The strategy identifies new growth as a significant opportunity to create new habitats and improve the environment through innovative schemes, helping to improve our physical and mental well-being, as well as reducing stress levels. 6 Towards a Sustainable Transport System6 sets out the Government response to the Eddington and Stern reports and how these are taken into account in formulating the transport strategy up to 2014. It establishes the five key targets of competitiveness and productivity, climate change, safety and health, quality of life, and social equity. 7 Suffolk Local Transport Plan (LTP). Key objectives relevant to the borough include conserving the viability of the market towns and smaller rural communities through appropriate access links. Also to improve opportunities for public

1 Department of Health (2004) Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier 2 Department of Health (2006) Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services 3 Strategy Unit Cabinet Office (2002) Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives 4 EERA (2005) Healthy Futures: A regional health strategy for the East of England 5 EERA (2004) East of England Regional Social Strategy 6 Department for Transport (2008) Towards a Sustainable Transport System transport, walking and cycling within Bury St Edmunds, as well as improving access to further education for young people, healthcare for older people and access to recreational provision for youth groups. Other highlighted issues include the potential for provision of a new rail station at Moreton Hall and a commitment to the development of School Travel Plans, in addition to the need of good design of transport infrastructure to contribute to local distinctiveness and quality of life7. 8 The Rights of Way Improvement Plan8 for Suffolk, which forms a component part of the LTP, aims to improve access to and from Open Access land, recreation sites and other public open space with improved routes between urban areas and the countryside. The plan identifies the importance of developing green space strategies alongside plans for rights of way. 9 The Thetford Forest Access and Tourism Strategy9 seeks to realise the potential of the Forest with regard to appropriate access and tourism in the context of major growth, and to underpin the Brecks Regional Park concept10. The Strategy aims to: identify the scope for working in partnership with stakeholders; to understand the interaction between the requirements of the SPA and public access provision; to review existing activities; and to identify future opportunities and pressures within the Forest, and steps through which opportunities can be delivered.

Biodiversity 10 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, amended 1985) protects wildlife, habitats and species within UK law, consolidating and amending existing national legislation to implement the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979 (the Bern Convention). The legislation is reinforced and complimented by Wildlife and Countryside (Service of Notices) Act 1985 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)11. 11 The Conservation Regulations12 transpose the requirements of European Directives such as the Habitats Directive and Birds Directives13 into UK law, enabling the designation of protected sites and species at a European level. The UK government is also a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands (the Ramsar Convention) enabling the designation of wetland sites of international conservation importance. Sites designated under the Birds Directive (Special Protection Areas - SPAs), the Habitats Directive (Special Areas of Conservation - SACs) and Ramsar sites are collectively referred to as Natura 2000 sites. 12 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) (2006) requires that all public bodies have regard to biodiversity conservation when carrying

7 Suffolk County Council Suffolk County Council Local Transport Plan 2006-2011. Accessed from http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CD2B4C34-11A5-4F28-8330-8DD1D0B1E208/0/20062011FullLTP.pdf 8 Suffolk County Council (2006) In Step with Suffolk Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2006 - 2016 9 Forestry Commission (England. Thetford Forest Access and Tourism Strategy 10 Europarc Consulting, 2006. Recognition for the Brecks – Securing a Sustainable Future 11 Source: JNCC. Accessed from http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1377 12 HMSO (1994). Statutory Instrument No. 2716: The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations, as amended 13 Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and 79/409/EEC (1979) on the conservation of wild birds out their functions (Section 40). The Act seeks to help embed consideration of biodiversity into the decision making of all relevant sectors. 13 PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and accompanying DEFRA Circular 01/200514 seek to ensure all planning policies and decisions aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, with the intention that harm to these resources shall be prevented. 14 Suffolk’s Biodiversity Action Plan15 identifies local species and habitat priorities and the contribution they can make to the delivery of national targets. The BAP identifies seven key habitats for action relevant to the delivery of green infrastructure within the county; these are acid grassland, ancient/species rich hedgerows, cereal field margins, eutrophic standing waters, fens, lowland heathland, and wood pasture and parkland (see Appendix 2 for BAP targets and opportunities). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) underwent significant revisions in 2007, which are as yet not reflected in the Suffolk Biodiversity Action Plan. However, the seven habitats listed above are all priority habitats in the revised UKBAP. Rivers (encompassing all natural and near-natural running waters in the UK) is listed as a priority habitat within the UKBAP; whilst this habitat is not included in the Suffolk BAP, it is of relevance to the delivery of green infrastructure within and around St Edmundsbury. 15 The East of England Plan contains a key policy relevant to biodiversity conservation: Policy ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage ensures that internationally and nationally designated sites are given the strongest level of protection. It promotes consideration for the potential effects of development on the conservation of habitats and aims to ensure that the region’s wider biodiversity, earth heritage and natural resources are protected and enriched through the conservation, restoration and re-establishment of key resources. 16 The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the East of England Plan concludes that the Plan is not likely to have any adverse effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites however it recognises the potential for future growth and recreational provisions to have an adverse effect on important wildlife sites such as Breckland SPA/SAC.

Place and character 17 The European Landscape Convention relates to natural, urban and suburban areas, whether on land, water or sea. It concerns not just remarkable landscapes but also ordinary everyday landscapes and blighted areas, and seeks to embed the consideration of landscape from the earliest stages of decision making. The European Landscape Convention introduced the concept of "landscape quality objectives" into the protection, management and planning of geographical areas. 18 Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Guidance16 recognises the importance of green infrastructure in contributing to the objectives of the European Landscape Convention and the place-making agenda. The objective is to ensure that spatial

14 CLG (2005). Government circular: Biodiversity and geological conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system 15 http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/Environment/Biodiversity/BiodiversityActionPlans.htm 16 Natural England/LUC (2009) Green Infrastructure Guidance plans and component proposals are firmly embedded in a sound understanding of place and character. 19 The Regional Woodland Strategy17 identifies the plantations within the Brecks and Thetford Forest as being of major regional significance. It also lists a variety of social, economic and environmental benefits that trees and woodland can deliver with Policy QL1 requiring local authorities to support a strategic approach to access provision with woodland as an integral part of green space.

20 The draft Regional Landscape Framework18 for the East of England provides the landscape character context for the strategy. It outlines the key characteristics of the local landscape and identifies central issues and opportunities relating to the wider environment. 21 Recognition for the Brecks: Securing a Sustainable Future19 assesses how the Brecks might be given appropriate recognition in public policy, how its special qualities can be conserved and enhanced, how its green infrastructure functions can be developed, how economic opportunities can be supported, and how a partnership model can be implemented. The study puts forward the case for the designation of the Brecks as a ‘Regional Park’ in order that the full potential of the area can be realised. It also recommends that a single partnership be established for the Park, which would operate on both the regional strategic level and the local delivery level. 22 The Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Management Plan 2009-2014 (Draft)20, which is currently open to consultation, establishes a vision for the area in 2025, and sets out the objectives, policies and actions for how that vision will be achieved. The overarching aim of the plan is that by 2025, the Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley is recognised as a distinctive working landscape, understood and appreciated by those that choose to live in, work and visit the area. The Management Plan consists of five themes, each of which has its own vision statement: landscape, biodiversity and farming; settlements and people; enjoying the area; the river and its tributaries; and traffic and transport.

Cultural heritage 23 Planning Policy Statement 1: Creating Sustainable Communities (ODPM, 2005) PPS1 sets out the Government’s objectives in regards to sustainable communities. Its objectives include protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities. 24 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) This PPG sets out government policies for the identification and protection of Conservation Areas, historic buildings and other elements of the historic environment. The guidance notes the ‘stewardship’ role local authorities have to play

17 East of England Regional Assembly (2003) Woodland for Life: The Regional Woodland Strategy for the East of England 18 http://www.landscape.org.uk/rlf.htm 19 Europarc Consulting, 2006. Op Cit 20 Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Project, 2009. Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Management Plan 2009-2014 in maintaining the historic landscape. The document goes onto identify the link between the historic environment and biodiversity. Key objectives include:

x All aspects of the historic environment should be protected wherever possible; x The value of individual historic sites should be evaluated; x A balance must be struck between the need for growth and the conservation of historic assets; x The community as a whole should be included in discussions concerning the historic landscape.

25 Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning, (1990) The document states the policies which relate to archaeological remains and how these should be recorded and preserved. The guidance note makes the link between green infrastructure and archaeology, making reference to the ability of open spaces to protect important remains that occur within development sites. Key objectives include:

x Archaeological remains should be protected wherever possible; x A balance must be struck between the need for growth and the conservation of archaeological remains. Quality of life 26 PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, ODPM (2005) and Planning and Climate Change Supplement, December 2007 Para 16 sets the following housing related objectives for Local Planning Authorities when plan making: Development plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive communities, including suitable mixes of housing. Plan policies should:

x Ensure that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities is considered and taken into account; x Seek to reduce social inequalities; x Address 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; x Take into account the needs of all the community, including particular requirements relating to age, sex, ethnic background, religion, disability or income; x Deliver safe, healthy and attractive places to live; x Support the promotion of health and well being by making provision for physical activity.

27 A key objective for Local Planning Authorities when plan making is to “ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion”. PPS 1 also requires policies to promote inclusive, safe and crime free communities. 28 PPS 3: Housing requires that good practice in sustainable and environmentally friendly design is applied in all new development. A key objective for Local Planning Authorities when plan making is to ensure the creation of “places, streets and spaces which meet the needs of people, are visually attractive, safe, accessible, functional, inclusive, have their own distinctive identity and maintain and improve local character”. 29 PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out the Government’s objectives of thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, with consideration to be given to improving the sustainability and quality of local neighbourhoods and communities. 30 The East of England Regional Health Strategy identifies the need for a high quality natural environment as a core element of its vision for health in the East of England. The high level outcome identified in relation to this goal is to ‘effect a step- change in the management of the Region’s distinctive natural environmental assets’. The strategy promotes the critical importance of green infrastructure in terms of both access to nature and recreation, and also the wider quality of life agenda and the significant contribution of the natural environment to mental health and well- being.

Sustainable resource management 31 The UK Programme on Climate Change21 is designed to guide the UK to reaching emissions targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. The Government has therefore put forward a Climate Change Bill which would put into statute the UK’s targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, through domestic and international action, to 26-32% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to at least 60% by 2050. 32 The Climate Change Supplement to PPS 1 (2007) sets out how regional and local planning can best support achievement of the zero-carbon targets alongside meeting community needs for economic and housing development. In para 24, it states that planning authorities should take into account “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 how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change”. 33 PPS 22: Renewable Energy includes objectives to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources and stresses the importance for consideration of the environment when determining planning permission. 34 Living with Climate Change in the East of England22 defines a number of sub- regional areas, each with their own key climate change considerations. St Edmundsbury is located within the East of England Northern Heartland area where the ability for green infrastructure to address urban heat island effects, create carbon sinks and alleviate flood risk was identified. 35 Water Resources for the Future23 aims to improve the environment, while allowing enough water for human uses. The strategy looks 25 years ahead, considering the many changes that may occur over this time. It shows that water is a ‘scarce resource’ in the region, and further improvements to the water environment

21 Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) Climate Change The UK Programme 22 LUC, CAG and SQW on behalf of EERA and SDRT (2002) Living with climate change in the East of England 23 Environment Agency (2001) Water resources for the future: a strategy for Anglian region are necessary in many areas. It also identifies the potential for climate change to disrupt water supply through shifting patterns of rainfall. 36 Within the East of England Plan, policy ENG2 identifies the renewable energy targets for the region. These are for 10% of the energy produced in the Region to be from renewable sources by 2010, with 17% from renewable sources by 2020. This identifies the potential of biomass through cropping and woodland management, to contribute to these targets. A report produced24 for the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) highlights that the Forestry Commission has estimated that approximately 216,000 tonnes of Forest Resource could be extracted per annum from private and Forestry Commission holdings by 2016 37 Making Space for Water is a national programme25 concerning flood and coastal erosion management. It recognises the importance of considering flooding and coastal erosion when making decisions relating to social and environmental aspects of sustainable development (such as green infrastructure). It advises that recreational resources and new habitats should be provided when ‘making space’ for flooding, through multifunctional wetlands and enhanced river corridors. 38 A 50 Year Vision for Wetlands looks at the future of freshwater wetlands and the range of ecological and social services they can provide. It necessitates that future wetlands should not only be valued for the role they play in dealing with flooding and habitat provision but equally valued for improving and sustaining our quality of life. A key aim of the vision is to ‘Create and restore wetlands wherever they can support wildlife, reduce run-off and pollution, and provide wildlife-rich green spaces for people to enjoy.’ The vision recognises the Waveney/Little Ouse TEN project, as a key wetland restoration site. 39 Woodland for Life is the regional woodland strategy for the East of England. It identifies the potential of the regions woodland as an energy resource. It estimates that if a 14% renewable energy target by 2010 was adopted, the region would have to produce 700 GWhr/yr from biomass which would require 92,000 hectares of woodland, either existing or specially planted short rotation coppice. It identifies agricultural diversification as a potential opportunity for increased woodland planting, particularly short-rotation coppice. 40 Placing Renewables in the East of England identifies significant constraints to the development of renewable energy in the region; these include nature conservation sites and landscape designations. The strategy recognises the potential impact renewable energy can have on the region’s landscape, particularly in arable landscapes where energy crops may be introduced. It identifies the Breckland and Thetford Forest landscapes as less sensitive to larger windfarm developments. 41 Suffolk’s Local Transport Plan aims to develop sustainable modes of transport, particularly connecting with employment opportunities in Cambridge. It identifies Bury St Edmunds as an important sub-regional centre and as such will receive transport improvements targeted at public and sustainable modes of transport, enhancing accessibility within, to and from the town. The overall aim of the strategy

24 Ove Arup and Partners/East of England Regional Assembly Placing Renewables in the East of England, Final Report, February 2008 25 http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environ/Fcd/policy/strategy.htm is to deliver sustainable travel patterns that support Suffolk's ambitions to meet social and economic growth, enable regeneration and to fulfil its gateway role, whilst protecting its unique environment and quality of life. APPENDIX 2: BAP targets and key statutory protected nature conservation sites within St Edmundsbury Borough

Suffolk Biodiversity Action Plan targets relevant to St Edmundsbury Priority habitat Targets and opportunities

Acid Grassland x Restoration and management of all significant stands of acid grassland with the aim of achieving favourable status by 2010;

x Seek to promote the establishment of acid grassland through agri-environment schemes or wherever feasible as part of new developments such as industrial or housing estates.

Ancient/ species rich x Ensure that existing field boundaries are hedged, by encouraging planting along currently un-hedged boundaries, hedgerows retaining hedgerow trees and planting up gaps;

x Encourage uptake of agri-environment schemes, which provide for grass field margins alongside ancient and /or species-rich hedgerows. Also well as favorable hedge management;

x Ensure that the conservation status and associated biodiversity species of all hedges affected by development proposals is assessed.

Cereal field margins x Recognise value of soil type, particularly with regard to maintaining populations of declining arable plants through annual cultivation techniques;

x Encourage examination of crop management techniques favouring biodiversity (new generation seed treatments / varietal resistance);

x Ensure farmers, land managers and their agronomic advisors recognise the importance of Habitat Action Plans (including provision of annual training courses to raise awareness);

x Support and promote update of agri-environment schemes to encourage appropriate management for cereal field margins.

Eutrophic standing x Ensure protection & continuation of favourable condition of eutrophic standing waters classified in Suffolk as waters Tier 1 (as classified by EA) by 2005;

x Restore 50% of Tier 2 (as classified by EA) sites damaged by human activity to favourable condition by 2020; Priority habitat Targets and opportunities

x Ensure no further deterioration in water quality & wildlife of Tier 3 resource (i.e. no net loss);

x Set up a pilot community pond initiative involving a network of volunteer wardens.

Fens x Through survey of existing fen resource, come up with a definition and more accurate picture of extent and variation in Suffolk’s fenland resource;

x Ensure by 2010 the long-term sustainable management (including water resources) of all fens over 5ha, which are currently in favourable condition or will be brought into favourable condition following restoration;

x Promote the rehabilitation of degraded or declining fens, and encourage the creation of new fens providing the environmental conditions to allow the development of target fen communities or species to exist;

x Maintain and enhance populations of key BAP species associated with Suffolk fens.

Lowland heathland x Breckland heath is a unique type of heathland located within the borough, comprising an unusual suite of species and plant communities. Targets for heathland include:

x Secure without damage or loss, all existing areas of heath and implement restoration management where it is needed;

x Maintain and improve the wildlife value of existing heathland through appropriate and sustainable grazing management systems where this is feasible;

x Encourage the establishment of heathland in the Sandlings and in Breckland (Norfolk and Suffolk) from arable and forestry use where possible. The Lifescapes heathland potential model should be used to target links between fragmented heaths for re establishment to create sustainable heathland units.

Lowland mixed x Maintain the (2007) current extent and distribution of mixed deciduous woodland; deciduous woodland x Restoration of 7ha of mixed deciduous woodland on PAWS (Planted Ancient Woodland Sites), 17ha by 2015 and 27ha by 2020;

x Achievement of favourable or favourable recovering condition in relation to 95% of the SSSI mixed deciduous Priority habitat Targets and opportunities

woodlands by 2010;

x Linking existing woodlands through expansion or joining to other habitats wherever possible, and where this will not be detrimental to the biodiversity value of these.

Wood pasture and x Expansion of wood pasture and parkland, in appropriate areas to reverse fragmentation and reduce the parkland generation gap between veteran trees and identify/ create three new sites in Suffolk by 2010.

Key statutory protected nature conservation sites within the borough Site name Reason for designation Accessibility NE Condition assessment (SSSIs) and key threats and vulnerabilities

Natura 2000 sites

Breckland SPA Stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus Open Stone–curlew are largely reliant on arable land for nesting and are thus vulnerable to disturbance and nest Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus destruction from agricultural operations.

Woodlark Lullula arborea Stone-curlew, nightjar and woodlark are vulnerable to predation from corvids and foxes and to disturbance caused by human activity, including dog-walking.

Breckland heathlands and acid grasslands supporting stone- curlew, nightjar and woodlark are fragile in terms of the high background levels of air pollution in the area, particularly high nitrogen loads causing undesirable habitat changes.

Breckland SAC Inland dunes with grey hair-grass Open Grazing by sheep/cattle is essential to the maintenance of Corynephorus canescens occurring here habitats. Problems include nutrient deposition from the at its only inland station. atmosphere and adjacent arable land, invasion by self-sown trees/shrubs, and uncontrolled and inappropriate Natural eutrophic lakes (the Breckland Site name Reason for designation Accessibility NE Condition assessment (SSSIs) and key threats and vulnerabilities

Meres). recreational activities.

European dry heaths. Local ground water abstraction has a deleterious impact on the natural eutrophic lakes, the Breckland Meres. Semi-natural dry grasslands on calcareous substrates.

Waveney & Little Ouse Purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea Uncertain Drying of peat caused by over abstraction of water in the Valley Fens SAC meadows on calcareous, peaty or surrounding landscape. clayey-silt-laden soils Cessation of traditional reed/sedge cutting. Calcareous fens with great fen sedge Cladium mariscus Nutrient enrichment leading in some instances to scrub invasion. Desmoulin`s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana

SSSIs (sites listed in order of size, from largest to smallest)

Breckland Forest The largest commercial forest in Open access Favourable condition. lowland England, the site is dominated throughout much of the by conifer plantation with clear felled site. areas providing nesting habitat for important populations of woodlark and nightjar. The site supports several protected plant species, in addition to a rich invertebrate fauna and small populations of red squirrel and goshawk. The site is also of geological importance with various examples of interest from the Middle Pleistocene period. Breckland Farmland Arable agricultural land providing Restricted. Favourable condition. important nesting habitat for stone curlew. Site name Reason for designation Accessibility NE Condition assessment (SSSIs) and key threats and vulnerabilities

Thetford Heath A large area of Breckland heath No public access to the Part favourable, part unfavourable recovering. important for its physio-geographic army training area and interest and nationally rare plants restricted access to the associated with the peri-glacial NNR. ‘patterned ground’ character. The site also supports notably rare heathland birds.

Fakenham Wood, Euston Ancient broadleaved woodland. Rides through Favourable & Sapiston Great Grove Widened woodland rides support a woodland provide diverse flora and provide important access. habitat for butterflies including white admiral. Lackford Lakes Lackford Lakes consists of a series of Mostly open access. Mostly favourable, part unfavourable recovering. lakes formed by sand and gravel Partly within a Country extraction in the valley of the River Park/Nature Reserve. Lark. The lakes are set within a mosaic of sandy acid grassland, marshy grassland, scrub, wet and dry woodlands, ditches, bare ground and steep sandy banks. The lakes and surrounding habitat support a diverse and abundant community of breeding and overwintering birds, and a high number of dragonfly species.

Knettishall Heath Area of dwarf heath and acid grassland Road access, parking Two fifths are unfavourable no change with the remaining with nesting nightjar. and waymarked trails. area as favourable or unfavourable recovering.

Inappropriate cutting and grazing of this SSSI account for its failure to meet favourable condition.

Bradfield Woods A relatively large ancient woodland Open. The site is Mostly unfavourable recovering, part unfavourable. site. The largest area of actively crossed by at least two Site name Reason for designation Accessibility NE Condition assessment (SSSIs) and key threats and vulnerabilities

worked coppice-with-standards footpaths. Deer grazing/browsing is the main reason of areas of this woodland in Suffolk. site have been recorded as being in unfavourable condition.

Trundley & Wadgell's Trundley and Wadgell’s Woods Uncertain. May be in Unfavourable no-change. Woods, Great Thurlow contain a fairly large area of ancient, private ownership. semi-natural woodland. Deer grazing/browsing and inappropriate woodland management are key reasons this site has been recorded as being in unfavourable condition.

Barnham Heath Barnham Heath is an example of Uncertain. Likely to be Mostly favourable, part unfavourable recovering. Breckland Heath. It possesses a range in private ownership. of the more acidic types of grass-heath which grade into damp, neutral grassland towards the valleys of the Little Chase and Black Bourn rivers.

Barnhamcross Common Calcareous and acidic Breckland and Open access. Unfavourable recovering. grassland heath supporting a number of nationally rare and locally notable Pressure from recreational uses of this site are a key plant species. A large part of this site threat to semi-natural habitats. is also part of Breckland SPA. This site includes Barnham Cross Common LNR. Stanton Woods This series of ancient coppice-with- Partly on footpath Mostly unfavourable recovering, part unfavourable no standards woods spans the transition network, partly in change. from Hornbeam and Oak-Ash-Hazel- private ownership. Maple woodland on boulder clay to Oak/Hazel woodland on the drier, acid soil of the Breckland margin.

Cavendish Woods A series of ancient woods containing Partly on footpath Mostly unfavourable recovering but around 30% is entirely semi-natural stands which are network, partly in unfavourable declining. actively managed as coppice-with- Site name Reason for designation Accessibility NE Condition assessment (SSSIs) and key threats and vulnerabilities

standards. A diverse ground flora private ownership. Key reasons for unfavourable areas include deer containing several ancient woodland grazing/browsing and game management (pheasant plants including Oxlip Primula elatior rearing). Both factors are attributed with limited which has a very localised distribution woodland regeneration and simplifying the layering of in Suffolk. woodland vegetation (e.g. browsing of ground flora and the woodland shrub layer).

Weston Fen This site contains a very valuable Two public footpaths Mostly favourable/unfavourable recovering. Roughly 1/10 example of a species-rich, spring-fed cross the site. unfavourable no change. valley fen, with areas of fen grassland and relict heath. These are fringed by a Several reasons account for unfavourable areas including; wide variety of grassland scrub and scrub encroachment on to fen habitat, proliferation of woodland communities. sycamore in wet woodland areas and encroachment of certain rushes and ragwort at the expense of more botanically diverse fen habitat.

Little Heath, Barnham A mixture of acid and calcareous No public access to Mostly unfavourable recovering, part favourable. grassland with areas of both most of the site. coniferous and deciduous invasive woodland. The sward is kept short by rabbit grazing with locally rare plant species and locally scarce lichen species present. Stone curlews nest in short grazed areas of the site. Over & Lawn Woods An ancient woodland with well Two public footpaths Favourable. developed plant and animal cross near, however, communities. the site appears to be in private ownership.

Horringer Court Caves This site contains a series of inter- Uncertain. Unfavourable / declining. connected chalk mines totalling over 500 metres in length. The caves are important for various species of bat Site name Reason for designation Accessibility NE Condition assessment (SSSIs) and key threats and vulnerabilities

which hibernate in the tunnels from September to April each winter. The bat population has been the object of detailed research into several aspects of bat ecology.

Glen Chalk Caves (Bury The site consists of a series of tunnels Uncertain. Unfavourable / recovering. St Edmunds) excavated horizontally in chalk, and totaling about 200m in length. Five Intruders have broken into caves; no evidence of injured species of bats regularly use the bats; no evidence of damage at kiln site despite tunnels and the lime-kiln for unauthorised entry. hibernation between September and April. The bat population is the subject of continuing detailed scientific studies. Shaker’s Lane (Bury St Notified because of its exceptional Public access. Destroyed / part destroyed. Edmunds) entomological interest; the hedges support a wide range of shrub species Fire damaged the site in July 2006. of interest. APPENDIX 3: Summary description of the place and character of St Edmundsbury Borough

Summary description of the place and character of St Edmundsbury Borough Landscape Unit Brief description of place and character Pointers for green infrastructure National level South Suffolk and North Broadly flat and chalky boulder clay plateau dissected in x The need to conserve the pastoral character of Essex Clayland National places by an undulating river valley topography. The the landscape (especially within valleys where Character Area (NCA) landscape is predominantly arable, with a wooded, maintenance and river valley pasture and grazing historic appearance created by remnant field boundary marsh extension should be considered); hedgerows. x Loss of traditional water-meadows within river valleys and the need to manage existing meadows through grazing; x Need for management techniques such as coppicing; x The need to restore and enhance species rich/ ancient hedgerows, particularly along ancient field boundaries; x The need to conserve ancient sunken lanes and enhance botanically and ecologically-rich historic grass verges. South Norfolk and High Defining characteristics include large areas of chalky x The need to re-create areas of historic wood Suffolk Claylands NCA boulder clay plateau, and areas of undulating topography pasture, particularly in association with areas of surrounding the small river valleys such as the River remnant parkland landscape; Waveney. These valleys have a landscape of often x The need to link/re-connect woodlands to wooded, intimate character, which contrasts with that of create wildlife corridors; the large scale open arable landscape distinctive of the x The need to create and manage small to plateau. medium-sized woods on the plateau edges and in areas adjacent to existing woods; x The need to protect and maintain key landscape features such as ponds, moats, greens and remnant heathland commons; x The need to maintain and enhance riparian pasture with improved pedestrian access to the rivers within shallow valleys. Landscape Unit Brief description of place and character Pointers for green infrastructure Breckland NCA A gently undulating landscape with shallow river valleys x Loss of streamside vegetation, wet grassland and often wooded in character. The landscape is floodplain meadows along river corridors such predominantly arable with distinctive heathland and large as the Little Ouse river; scale fields which are clearly defined by pine lines and x Loss of traditional water meadows and ponds in neat thorn hedges. river valleys where past mineral extraction has taken place; x The need for integrating forest management with the wilder characteristics of Breckland; x Diminished areas of heathland (in the Brecks Plantations and surrounding heathland areas) and the need to link up remnant areas of heathland; x Decommissioning and alternative use of WWII and Cold War installations. Regional level Wooded Plateau Based upon the South Suffolk and North Essex Claylands x The need to extend and enhance ancient Farmlands landscape type National Character Area and cover a significant woodland copses associated with villages and proportion of the East of England region including parklands; Bedfordshire, North Hertfordshire and much of x The need to enhance the medieval network of northeast Essex and west Suffolk. The character type roads and lanes with increased hedgerow features a gently undulating landscape with frequent planting and grassy banks/verges; broad plateaux and narrow ridges incised by river valleys. x The need to maintain and enhance the pattern Areas of mature woodland are common, particularly in of irregular enclosure with increased hedgerow Hertfordshire where copses of ancient woodland are and tree planting along ancient field boundaries. frequent around villages and parkland. The landscape has a strong medieval character with ancient commons, irregular field patterns and few straight roads or lanes. Wooded Estate Sandlands Occupy much of the north west of the borough. This x The need to conserve and extend lowland landscape type landscape type includes the Brecklands and features large heathland habitats (BAP priority habitat); areas of semi natural habitats and heathland with a gently x The need to connect areas of ancient woodland undulating lowland topography. The large arable fields, through extended shelterbelt planting and distinctive in this part of the country, are often defined hedgerows. Landscape Unit Brief description of place and character Pointers for green infrastructure by shelterbelt planting which connects with areas of ancient woodland and large blocks of secondary plantation woodland Wooded Plateau Claylands A broadly flat or gently rolling plateau dissected by small x Enhancement of ponds and water features landscape type river valleys. It is characterised by ancient semi-natural around areas of waterlogged soils, opportunity woodland along with poor drainage in parts where ponds to create wet woodland and wet grassland are a common feature. Villages are often associated with habitats; medieval greens and commons. x Restoration of former greens and commons associated with local villages; x The need to enhance hedgerow planting with hedgerow trees such as oak, ash and field maple. Plateau Estate Farmlands Occur around the northern limits of Bury St Edmunds x The need to enhance access to the 18th, 19th and landscape type and feature areas of elevated, generally flat, farmland. 20th Century parkland, particularly areas of Areas of historic parkland exert a strong influence on grassland/pasture; the character of this landscape type. x The need to conserve and enhance wet woodland and meadow grassland along the course of rivers with new tree planting and appropriate management of riparian zones; x The need to conserve and enhance the network of sunken lanes with increased hedgerow planting and appropriate management of hedgebanks and verges. Estate Farmlands Lie adjacent to the Plateau Estate Farmlands in the east of x The need to conserve the network of hedged landscape type the borough. It consists of a low-lying farmland with sunken lanes; predominantly arable land use and an organic pattern of x The need to conserve and enhance areas of wet fields open in character. There are occasional groups of woodland along river and stream courses which trees and plantation blocks as well as areas of wet occur in parts of the landscape type, with new woodland along river and stream courses. tree planting and appropriate management of riparian zones. Local level Undulating Ancient This landscape type occurs in an area of clay upland x The need to conserve and enhance the network Farmlands landscape type bordering the Stour and Glem rivers. It is an undulating Landscape Unit Brief description of place and character Pointers for green infrastructure landscape characterised by irregular field patterns and of mature hedgerows which define areas of associated mature hedgerows including oak, ash and field ancient enclosure; maple, with regular blocks of ancient woodlands around x The need to conserve historic greens and the poorly drained clay hills. restore former greens associated with smaller villages through appropriate management and suitable planting; x The need for increased tree planting to mitigate long distance views onto large scale arable farmland, particularly areas of visually prominent crop production such as oil seed. Undulating Estate This forms a broad swathe running through lower parts x The need to restore remnant hedgerows and Farmlands landscape type of the borough around southern parts of Bury St ancient field patterns, particularly around Edmunds. The undulating landscape is made distinctive by southern parts where intensive farming is the presence of several estates, particularly in northern present; parts where parkland and complex arrangements of x The need for enhanced access to landscape plantations is visible as at Dalham, Ickworth and parks such as Ickworth; Nowton. Tree cover is extensive in northern parts and x The need to conserve views across wooded combines with the parkland to form attractive views, arable landscapes south of Bury St Edmunds. particularly from the southern settlement edge of Bury St Edmunds. Plateau Estate Farmlands A broadly flat plateau landscape of large scale arable x The need to restore heathland and common landscape type farmland forming a transitional zone between the claylands ground east of Bury St Edmunds (Blackthorpe of central Suffolk and the Breckland sands of the north- Heath, Conyers Green, Pakenham Heath, west. Large scale rectilinear enclosure and regular Troston Common, Ixworth Heath, Thurston woodland plantations characterise this landscape. Heath etc); x The need to buffer and mitigate the A14 and A12 trunk roads with landscape enhancements; x Management of 18th, 19th and 20th Century Landscape Parks. Estate Sandlands This occupies a large area of north-west Suffolk and is x The need to restore and enhance heathland and landscape type made up of the dry slopes and central plateau of the acid grassland that is distinctive of the Brecks; Brecks. The area includes extensive areas of heathland x The need for improved access to the River Lark Landscape Unit Brief description of place and character Pointers for green infrastructure and acid grassland as well as large continuous blocks of and Little Ouse river valleys. commercial forestry such as Thetford Forest or the King’s Forest. Ancient Plateau Claylands This is a flat or gently rolling arable landscape incised by x The need to conserve and enhance the network landscape type small river valleys and overlain with ancient enclosures. of rural lanes, pathways and medieval greens; A rural character is apparent from the network of x The need to extend and enhance the ancient winding lanes, paths and associated verges, banks and enclosure field pattern throughout the hedgerows. Medieval greens characterise local villages. landscape; x The need for improved access to the network of small river valleys. Rolling Valley Farmlands A river valley landscape with prominent river terraces x The need for improved connectivity of valley and Furze landscape type and small areas of gorse heathland. It features a series of side vegetation with clayland and farmland co-axial field systems with straight boundaries and mixed landscapes away from the valley sides, hedgerows. Woodlands are fragmented on the valley particularly through hedgerow restoration; sides. x The need to enhance remnant heaths, which are dominated by poor dry grassland and gorse (or furze); x The need for improved access and maintenance of the Little Ouse river valley.

APPENDIX 4: Key Historic Landscape Sites and Features in St Edmundsbury Borough

Key Historic Landscape Sites and Features in St Edmundsbury Borough Cultural Asset Summary Accessibility Registered Parks and Gardens* ICKWORTH HOUSE Gardens and pleasure grounds dating from 1796 In the guardianship of the National Trust. Park and onwards, created to adorn the new mansion at Ickworth, gardens open year round (paid entry). set in a landscape park of early 18th Century origin with alterations by Lancelot Brown and containing an early 18th Century walled garden. Grade 11*, 724ha approx. EUSTON PARK A 17th Century pleasure ground laid out by Lord In private ownership. Open to the public February- Arlington/ John Evelyn, with an 18th Century walled September (paid entry). garden, set in a landscaped park (of medieval origins) with work by William Kent and Lancelot Brown. Grade 11*, 583ha approx. CULFORD PARK Terraced gardens, pleasure grounds and walled kitchen In private ownership. No public access. gardens dating from the early 19th Century onwards, with late 19th C alterations, set in an early 19th C park. Grade 11, 222ha approx. ABBEY GARDENS AND A public park opened at the end of the 19th Century, Public access (free admission), open all week, closed PRECINCTS originally laid out by Nathaniel Hodson as a botanic at night-time. garden on the site of the medieval St Edmund's Abbey, beside a series of Town Walks dating from the early 18th C. Grade 11, 9.7ha approx. Scheduled Monuments ROMAN SITES The borough and its wider setting contain many No public access except where they form part of a examples of Roman use including three roman routes, right of way (i.e. Peddars Way). along the course of the A11, Peddars Way (a national trail) and the Icknield Way along with numerous Romanic settlements. The River Lark features several SAMs along its course including the site of a Roman Villa east of Icklingham. THE ABBEY OF BURY Bury St Edmunds grew around the site of the Abbey, Public access (free admission), open all week, closed ST. EDMUNDS AND built in 1020 to house the remains of King Edmund. at night-time. ASSOCIATED Cultural Asset Summary Accessibility MILL/FISH PONDS RAF BARNHAM Located to the south of Thetford, used during the 1950s Now forms part of the Gorse Industrial Estate, as an atomic bomb store on Thetford Heath. Private land. Wider Cultural Heritage ELVEDEN PARK Forms the landscape setting to Elveden Hall, the former Not open to the public, although the estate English seat of the Sikh ruler Maharajah Duleep Singh and churchyard (and burial place of the Maharajah) on his family. Focus for Sikh pilgrimages and the ‘Sikh Trail’. the A11 is open. SIKH TRAIL Site of Sikh pilgrimage, due to the past land ownerships Ancient House Museum is open to the public of Maharajah Duleep Singh/Prince Frederick e.g. at (Thetford). Ancient House and Elveden. SHADWELL Forms the setting to Teulon and Blore’s elaborate 1860s In private ownership. No public access. (Adjacent PARK ‘Perpendicular style’ remodelling of an early 18th century district) house. Park incorporates a range of estate buildings/features including a grotto and a distinctive clay lump bothy. 18th Century parkland with 19th Century ornamental gardens by house. Listed GII, 200ha approx.

THE KING’S Commercial plantation laid out from the 1920s on the Part of Thetford Forest Park and Forestry FOREST sites of former heathland, unproductive landed estates Commission Open Access Land. and unstable sand dunes.

PINE Network of scots pine tree lines/windbreak hedgerows No public access except where they form part of a LINES (planted as part of agricultural enclosure from the 18th right of way. Clearly visible within the landscape and Century). Emblematic symbol of the Brecks. from the roads. CLARE CASTLE Incorporating the remains of the medieval Clare Castle Open access. COUNTRY PARK and of the 19th Century rail station NEWMARKET HEATHS Heathland used for exercising horse. Long views to the Open access. cities of Ely and Cambridge. * Descriptions from the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest APPENDIX 5: Summary of Stakeholder Workshop 1

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a workshop held on 18th May 2009 at St Edmundsbury Borough Council Offices, in connection with the Green Infrastructure Strategy. The purpose of the workshop was: x Set the scene for green infrastructure in St Edmundsbury Borough. x To validate the existing evidence base for the study. x To discuss the green infrastructure vision, key issues and opportunities, and delivery. x Invite feedback from attendees. The event took the form of a presentation, a question and answer session and a participatory workshop session. Attendees were grouped in colour coded groups (Red, Orange, Green and Blue). This report presents the findings from the two workshop sessions.

The first session was a carousel exercise to validate the evidence base under four themes: x Access, recreation and links. x Biodiversity. x Place and character. x Cultural heritage. The second session consisted of breakout groups – a ‘brainstorming’ session discussing vision, issues and opportunities and the delivery of green infrastructure within St Edmundsbury Borough. For this session, groups focussed either on Bury St Edmunds or Haverhill.

Exercise 1: Carousel Map 1: Access, Recreation and links (note: main points recorded on map – for further detail of locations of sites and routes)

CHANGES TO THE EVIDENCE BASE MAP General x Recommendation that for clarity that on the ‘Access and Recreation’ theme that the maps is presented with sub sections at a larger scale for Bury St. Eds and Haverhill as detail gets lost at borough scale. x In displaying access links – need to show distinction between national, regional and local routes (footpaths and cycle routes) and ensure hierarchy is clear on the map (GIS presentation). x Rights of way need to be broken down into different types e.g. footpaths and bridleways and green lanes.

Additional sites and routes x Ensure that map include relevant data for Essex where it adjoins SEBC (and relevant Essex district). Contact Richard Parmee, Project officer River Colne Countryside Project for further information. x Map must show Lackford Lakes- SSSI, SWT site next to West Stow and important gateway to the Brecks. x Ensure 5 allotment sites in Bury are shown, plus private allotments in Fornham. x Note the importance of LNRs in Haverhill for access and recreation (disused rail line). x Add Bury to Clare walk (uses existing rights of way). x SUSTRANS – map needs to clearly show regional routes 13, 30 and 51. x Should highways be shown? – opportunity for verges and green space management and tree planting along main corridors. x Bradfield Woods to east of borough– LNR with access (also key opportunity site). x Need for judgement on whether the map should include single use sporting sites such as golf courses/fishing lakes (note these are not multifunctional GI). x Note a number of important paths around edges of Bury were added to the map (western edge and northern edge) these are well used paths but not on the definitive ROW map. x Add Cavenham Heath NNR x Add Rampart Fields x Map should highlight and name the Lark Valley river valley path from Bury to Mildenhall x Livermere is a non registered private park (shooting estate) but has good access. x Rougham estate to east of borough is private but provides good access. x Does there need to be better liaison with horse owners to understand existing routes and issues and needs (e.g. BHS)? x To the south identified FC sites at Stanstead Wood and Linneage Wood have restricted access (FC lease) – they are not CROW. x Add - CROW Land, village commons, doorstep/millennium greens and also HLS access land and IHT exemption land (NE to source data sets)

OPPORTUNITIES

Key opportunities x A clear need for accessible natural green space to the north of Haverhill to meet deficiency. x Should highways be shown? – opportunity for verges and green space management and tree planting along main corridors. x Ickworth is a key GI resource for Bury St. Eds and the south of the borough generally but access for walkers and cyclists is very poor – need to enhance footpath links (see issue re. land ownership). x Disused rail routes across the borough and river corridors are important strategic opportunities – both ecological corridors and potential green space. x Need to get representative of disability access on board (may be a local access group?) that publish information on accessible countryside facilities. x Cycle route: Bury St. Eds to King’s Forest to Thetford has been looked at in the past and is a key opportunity (but archaeological issues to be resolved) - this would link to identified GI corridors in the Norwich GI strategy. x Bradfield Woods – opportunity to enhance facilities at this key site.

ISSUES x The A14 is both a barrier to north – south access in the borough as well as a main east – west corridor (opportunity to enhance through management of highway edges). x Note SUSTRANS recent engagement with the NT to provide a route between Bury and Ickworth - the Rotunda - (clear need) but note issues – no public access into NT ownership plus St John’s College Oxford (key landowner along part of the route) – ideal route along Linnet corridor. For more information on SUSTRANS projects contact Anthony Wright, Area Manager. x Need for enhancement of existing routes (not nesc more routes) e.g. Lark Valley Path – needs treatment of surfaces and enhancements to allow disabled access. MAP 2: BIODIVERSITY CHANGES TO THE EVIDENCE BASE MAP

Additional sites and features x Private nature reserves (SWT). x Mineral sites (check MLP)? Restoration may be a key opportunity for biodiversity enhancement (ref: Cavenham). x Black poplars – mapping undertaken by Stour Valley Project and may be available. x FC woodland clusters in private ownership. x 2No chalk bat caves in Bury town, which are also designated SSSI – important hibernation sites. x Need to map local level sites in Essex (e.g. CWS data). x Importance of chalk grassland at Kedington, and mosaic of ancient woodlands and hedgerows to the north of Haverhill. x Haverhill has a good range of biodiversity rich green spaces within the urban area. x Community woodlands (Greenlight Trust) – need to take account of their future value/’offer’. x Other non designated sites may have potential for habitats e.g. village churchyards (lichens etc). x Need to consider buffer zones for Breckland SPA in relation to any development proposed in proximity to these. x Protected verges? County council owned land beyond Highways boundary. x Check availability of GIS information on Veteran Tree Register (held by SBRC). x Contact Alison Collins at NE re: wetlands within the study area. x Consider BAP habitats (particularly butterflies and moths) within King’s Forest.

OPPORTUNITIES

Key opportunities x Rail corridors a key opportunity for new wildlife corridors. x Extend wetland corridors and associated enhancement projects which have developed in response to TEN Project and the desire to reverse habitat fragmentation (e.g. at Redgrave and Lopham Fen - SWT- and Ouse Headwaters Project – an important example of successful community involvement. x Opportunity to restore water levels and associated habitats in the Lark Valley on the approach to Bury – valuable wetland sites already exist in the town centre in the network of water meadows around the Abbey (No Man’s, Ram and Water Meadows). x FC are undertaking a review of existing holdings in the King’s Forest (have undertaken with Breckland Council) – opportunities to link sites to the GI network.

ISSUES x Consider recreational zoning carefully in relation to biodiversity e.g. habitat carrying capacity. x A14 important wildlife corridor but also barrier. Are there opportunities for connecting habitats? x Consideration of traffic and species movement and need for buffering (link to HLS schemes?). x Loss of hedgerows to agricultural intensification (past) and also Dutch Elm disease (past) – change to landscape fabric. x Need to consider buffer zones for Breckland SPA in relation to any development proposed in proximity to these. x There may be relevant information in relation to biodiversity within the Infrastructure and Environmental Capacity Study. The GI strategy must also consider implications of SFRA/Water Cycle study. x Bradfield Woods is a key visitor attraction, well used and at capacity during the summer months – need for expanded woodland network and alternative forms of semi natural green space? (Bure woodlands scheme may be a good model – Peter Holborn). Lackford Lakes also strike a good balance between recreational provision and nature conservation. MAP 3: PLACE AND CHARACTER CHANGES TO THE EVIDENCE BASE MAP

Additional sites and features x Orchards do not appear (possibly biodiversity plan) x Finer detail of landscape character is not represented on the plan. This is particularly important in giving a sense of place and conserving/enhancing what’s there. x Should link in to the Water Cycle Strategy x Strong feeling that information on the condition and management of landscapes is required (SCC are currently developing this – the contact is Phil Watson who works with Peter Holborn) x Need to link the landscape information with Agricultural Land Classifications particularly for the purposes of identifying GI sites. x Information regarding farming stewardship schemes and other farming subsidies are crucial in the characterisation of the landscape and may be helpful if shown alongside LCA. x Very strong link between the character of the villages and heritage. x There is no data on the landscape character within the towns relating to open spaces and streetscapes. This could be used to influence the new GI / Open spaces within towns

OPPORTUNITIES

Key opportunities x Environmental Stewardship is a key opportunity in developing and improving GI particularly in the rural areas, however this needs to be better targeted (current targeting of high level schemes in the Brecks and this doesn’t correspond to the most damaged or degraded landscape areas). x There is a green wedge to the north of Haverhill that separates the town from the villages and this should be considered a key opportunity for GI in light of proposed new development north of the town. x Develop sense of place within the landscape. Some particular features are Cricket Bat Willows, Boundary Pollards, Hornbeam, Black Poplar, hedgerows. Also woodland clusters.

ISSUES x River valley villages to the west of Haverhill (Stoke by Clare, Clare and Cavendish) have a distinctive character which should be retained. x Land is heavy and consequently very wet near to Haverhill – this does not encourage recreational activities (perhaps this could be a biodiversity opportunity?). x Loss of grassland / pasture as a result of changing agricultural practice in the borough. Some additional pasture has been provided by grazing for horses. There are a few studs in the borough – overspill from Newmarket x The river valleys are a particularly sensitive landscape in danger of losing their distinctiveness. x Close to Bury St Edmunds (BSE) a number of character areas converge along what appears to be arbitrary lines? More detailed and specific landscape characterisation in these areas may need to be undertaken, particularly where large developments are proposed. x ‘Boring ploughed land’ – occurrence of large scale arable is often driven by economics and it was felt that environmental schemes (money) directed in these areas could encourage change. x ‘In bloom’ towns? MAP 4: CULTURAL HERITAGE CHANGES TO THE EVIDENCE BASE MAP

Additional sites and features x Orchards are missing. x Roman routes (contact Edward Martin for Suffolk County Council) x Key industrial infrastructure e.g. disused railways, water mills x Ecclesiastical buildings i.e. churches, village halls and ‘estate villages’ which are not listed buildings. x Any County Garden Trust sites? Could also add location of ‘yellow book’ open gardens? x Historic farm buildings which are not listed buildings, but contribute to the historic rural character of the borough (contact Gen Broad from Suffolk County Council).

OPPORTUNITIES

Key opportunities x Enhance the key difference between the northern and southern borough landscape:

The South: An ‘ancient’ landscape of pre-18th Century field enclosures bound by species rich hedges, blocks of ancient woodland, sunken lanes and a historic road pattern,

The North: more modern landscape of 18th Century (and later) field enclosures, plantation woodland and heathland. x Disused railway – key opportunity for developing greenways for recreation (access/links) and biodiversity e.g. Bury St Edmunds – Thetford line; Haverhill to Cambridge line. x Conserve/enhance the strong estate parkland south of Bury St Edmunds, including its concentration of Halls, manors, and historic parkland (e.g. Nowton Park and Hardwick Heath – used as a Prisoner of War Camp during WWII). x Conserve/enhance the historic field boundaries and ancient woodland throughout the Borough e.g. Bradfield Woods. x Conserve/enhance the medieval deer parks around Bury St Edmunds. x Understanding of the long-established industries in the borough, such as sugar beet. x Understanding of the strong military influence in the borough, especially the Brecks e.g. airbases, airfields (refer to map for locations), pill boxes are distinctive features in the landscape. x Livermere Park is an important green space in the borough (north of Bury St Edmunds) – although it is privately owned, there are well-used PRoW passing through. x Conserve/enhance the historic value of the Stour Valley in southern part of borough – refer to the ‘Managing a Masterpiece’ is a three year HLF funded programme to understand, conserve and celebrate the landscape of the Stour Valley (programme will focus on clusters of heritage hotspots around Clare, Sudbury, Bures, Stoke by Nayland and Dedham). x Clare Castle Country Park is an important green space in the southern part of the borough – part of the Stour Valley. x Conserve/enhance Clare Priory, historic house and gardens on the banks of the River Stour – artistic associations, painted by Gainsbury?

ISSUES x Strong influence of horse studs/racing in eastern parts of the borough – changing the landscape character.

EXERCISE 2: BREAKOUT GROUPS

BREAK OUT WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS HAVERHILL (ORANGE GROUP) Vision x GI will service the growth and build a strong sense of identity for Haverhill. x Unified management from streetscapes and green space, to ensure a strong sense of place and attractive, pedestrian/cycle friendly streets. x Improve the character of the Stour Brook, as a key focus for the town x Good, safe access to green space and all scales/size. x SuDS-driven new developments that focus on green space, not roads/cars. x Providing diversity/interest in new development i.e. good mixture of housing types with wide streets lined by large canopy trees, SuDS and houses focussed on well- managed/maintained green space.

Issues x Contained by ring roads – causing barriers to access and poor quality settlement edges. x Lacking a sense of place and identity. x Lack of quantity and quality of green space within newer suburbs. x Dis-jointed / poorly connected to the existing GI network. x A ‘black hole’ in biodiversity terms. x Lack of diversity in newer suburbs.

Opportunities x Disused railway – key opportunity for developing greenways for recreation (access/links) and biodiversity e.g. Bury St Edmunds – Thetford line; Haverhill to Cambridge line. x Conserve/enhance disused railway lines (Haverhill-Cambridge line) – key opportunity for developing greenways for recreation (access/links) and biodiversity. x Enhance the Stour Brook corridor – a key GI asset (ped/cycle links). x Ensure road schemes are well integrated into the existing townscape/landscape i.e. linear greenways alongside roads to improve access for recreation and biodiversity through new planting/habitat provision. x Unified management of green spaces (new and existing) within the town to ensure a cohesive townscape identify e.g. a unified streetscape strategy for the town centre, industrial areas and the suburbs – opportunity for street trees to provide attractive streets and provide shading/cooling effect. x Address green space deficiencies within the town e.g. application of ANGSt. x Creation/restoration of orchards, allotments and community gardens. x Broaden the existing green space network i.e. opportunity for accessing Stour Brook valley through existing churchyards, school grounds. x Conserve and integrate hedgerows as a key landscape feature in new developments e.g. in West Haverhill.

Delivery x Collaboration between Havebury Housing Partnership, SEBC, the local community, to improve and deliver on-going maintenance to amenity green space and streetscapes (including verges and street trees) within existing suburbs; particularly in south Haverhill. x Partnership agreements between local authorities and not-for-profit organisations (e.g. Greenlight Trust, Wildlife Trust) to increase opportunities for accessing lottery and regeneration funding to improve existing green space and streetscapes. x Planning agreements to ensure funding for the provision and management of access, links and green space (‘green corridors’) alongside new road infrastructure i.e. to ensure new ring roads are well-integrated into the townscape/landscape through planting and enhance the existing PRoW. HAVERHILL (RED GROUP) Vision x Need a separate vision for BSE, the villages and Haverhill. x Many villages have not changed significantly in the past 500 years and provide important foci for the borough. Their distinct character should be retained. x GI should be concentrated in strategic gaps between villages and / or towns and this should include improvements in biodiversity and access (emphasis on multifunctionality). x Footpaths are important in linking villages, towns and other sites. There needs to be a hierarchy of footpaths for all different types of users. People should be encouraged to use paths – for example if they walk to the town they need to know that they can get back (presumably by public transport). x Reduce car dependency. x Provision of well-connected green space, close to where people live, particularly in Haverhill (which is a long way from the coast and the Brecks).

Issues and opportunities x District-scale GI deficiency in Haverhill. x Haverhill has no national cycle route or link to other national cycle routes – are there opportunities to provide this? x Unsociable use of off road vehicles – particularly motorbikes. There are no facilities for their organised use. x Accessible natural green space is poor in villages. x Safe and sustainable access to existing GI can be an issue in towns and villages. x Community greens in villages was thought to be an opportunity. x Lack of available land for play space. x GI is required in the Stour valley to the north east of Haverhill – to revitalise the river character. x Opportunity to revitalise under- used allotments (apparently there is a waiting list) and possibly to create new ones where there is a deficiency – particularly given that new houses often have small gardens. x The use of redundant or unused gardens by the community was also highlighted as a potential community garden project.

Specific Opportunities for GI in Haverhill Looked at Haverhill and tried to identify where new GI sites could be located (refer to workshop drawings for Red Group), as follows:

1. Old showground site.

2. To the east associated with the flood park.

3. To the south of the southern bypass in the east - this is in Essex and would need to be developed along with other boroughs (this could be an opportunity).

4. To the west North West of Wilsey.

There is the potential for new GI to the North of Haverhill separating the town from the villages to the north. No specifics were highlighted however this could link to the need for a larger GI site close to this area.

Delivery Issues with current delivery – lack of integrated green space planning: x Compulsory provision of open space in new housing developments is often isolated to the suburb, with no strategic planning / links to large (day out type) open space x It was felt that the real crunch to providing GI would be land availability given the location of Haverhill close to Cambridge and the local landowners.

Opportunities for GI delivery: x Existing community groups could help provide GI if mechanisms and are there to support and enable them. x Additionally, new community groups may emerge. BURY ST. EDMUNDS (GREEN GROUP) Note: see map for locations of key opportunities.

Vision x Allow to evolve – balance this with desire for preservation/conservation. x ‘A place that is accessible to all’ (walking, cycling, sustainable transport). x New development to provide a network of green spaces and link into existing. x A ‘place that people care about’. x A productive/functional landscape (emphasis on multifunctionality). x Self sustaining (reduce carbon footprint)

Issues and opportunities x Historic view – of Bury St. Eds and to the Abbey/Cathedral and other historic features (see map for locations). x Weighing and balancing of different values e.g. floodplain land has good biodiversity/landscape value but in terms of sustainable development has good access to the town compared to other ‘edge’ sites with a flat more open landscape. Need to be pragmatic and realistic.

Climate change x Climate change – opportunity for GI to promote connectivity of habitats allowing species to move. May also bring in new species of flora and fauna. And enhance diversity? x In agriculture there may be a reduction in arable (due to aridity and need for irrigation) and return to livestock e.g. sheep farming. x Fuel – there is a fuel deficit in the rural area – better management of woodlands for fuel could enhance biodiversity. x Include renewables in the design of new development x Water management – SuDs, functional floodplains, reedbeds etc General issues and opps x There is a GI deficiency to the north of the A14 in relation to Bury St. Eds (Howard Estate). Note that the estate includes some large green spaces but these are poorly managed and lack functions. x New green space to the north of the town should link into the main river valley green spaces. x There is a borough-wide demand for allotments. x No access from Howard Estate into Bury St. Eds. x Howard Estate also includes key cluster of schools – need to improve links into the town centre (pedestrian bridge at Northgate) – could this be tied into, or a condition of, future development/expansion to the north? x Key issue and opportunity for GI is to prevent coalescence of settlements on the edge of bury St. Eds e.g. Fornham/ Westley- use GI to maintain identity and setting and biodiversity. x Key opportunity for bridleway next to Lark and link to country park to the south of the town. x To west – path through water meadows – safe route to Westley and cycle path into Ickworth (from Cullen Road).

Management x Lack of investment in parks (except Abbey Gardens) in the past – so a lot of catch up work required. x Need better management of RoW (see ROWIP). General x See infrastructure and environmental capacity appraisal for more information/evidence base.

Delivery x Important to get developers and landowners signed up early on in the process. x Consider opportunities for community involvement. x Key groups to engage in delivery are the Greenlight Trust and the Woodlands Way Trust (who are both involved in managing sites). x Other partners to get on board in delivery are: SWT, EA especially in Haverhill area (balancing ponds), Woodland Trust, CC, Town Councils. Bury St Edmunds (Blue Group) Vision x Special historic associations e.g. with St Edmund, perpetuated in place-name etc. x Reference strong sense of history – medieval centre of power and considerable wealth, evident in the diversity and quality of buildings which survive in Bury to this day. x Sense of connection from historic town centre to countryside is important (e.g. along Lark and Linnet valleys), and visual relationships e.g. from Angel Hill; functional connections with landscape were historically important e.g. agriculture (former cattle market within Bury town centre). x Importance of contrasting landscapes which form the setting of Bury. x Lark could be an important river corridor – key spaces along the valley floor within the town e.g. Abbey Gardens. x Sugar beet factory – an icon/landmark within the landscape (again relationship to landscape functions). x Landscape assets are of high quality and new development must be sympathetic to this. x ‘More of the same’ – use existing high quality GI features as template/model; focus activity to north of A14. x Proactive not reactive approach to accommodating sustainable growth, with GI first and foremost (although micro or local scale GI can be equally important, e.g. within town). x Developers should be signed up to the vision early on – joined up working with key partners. x Vision must also be clearly deliverable and linked to RSS and local policies. x Contribute to quality of life in urban areas, by offsetting urban heat island effect, and contributing to rural economy (biomass), green space as catalyst for regeneration; green travel to contribute to health agenda.

Issues and opportunities x North east Bury is deficient (Howard Estate/Morton Hall), with A14 a key barrier. South Bury is comparatively well provided for. x Need for allotments. x Linnet Valley is generally quite well connected but town centre Tesco superstore a key barrier to connections along Lark Valley. x Key opportunity for better pedestrian links from the station to the town centre (consider potential of industrial area to south of railway line). x Surface water catchment must be considered in urban areas – through SuDS and permeable paving as well as green roofs. x Pocket parks and greens important but must consider their ability to provide meaningful GI functions, but also to cater for a varied age range, e.g. play must deliver opportunities for all an not just ‘incidental’ LAP type play areas (often symptomatic of ‘SLOAP’ or Spaces Left Over After Planning) – connect ideas/typologies within PPG17 to the aspirations of PPS12 – plan for green space at strategic level. x Is there potential for/value in a GI SPD? x Issue with potential park site to north of town – there is little mature landscape structure/GI here which could form a basis. Would effectively involve creating a whole new landscape - a long term project. x Potential for cycle link from Bury to Thetford? x Consider bridging A14 to address key access barrier?

Delivery x Issue of available revenue funding for ongoing management – developers are increasingly vesting ‘ownership’ of sites with private trusts/management companies, which may create social segregation. ‘Us and them’.

x Under such arrangements (private management companies) are spaces being managed as intended and as originally designed (ref: Martlesham Heath)?

x Setting of developer tariffs? CIL model.

x Engage existing communities.

x GI Action Plan should consider case studies.

x To ensure buy in and assist ultimate delivery, GI Strategy should link clearly to visions and aspirations of other key partners (Forestry Commission, Environment Agency etc).

x Note that public bodies are still one of the most effective mechanisms for ongoing governance. Nowton Country Park (council owned and run) is a very successful model.

x Need buy in from everyone – even small scale ‘infill’ type housing development by local developers who may not see direct benefits of GI to them.

x Friends Groups for co-ordinated approach to bids and access to funding, but issue of creating sense of community/ownership and integration.

x GI delivery is a living rather than static process – review and monitoring of its effectiveness is key.

NEXT STEPS The findings from the workshop will be used to develop the need and demand analysis and green infrastructure hierarchy that will form a key part of the Green Infrastructure Strategy for St Edmundsbury Borough.

There will be opportunity to comment on the outline green infrastructure hierarchy at the next workshop, which is to be held on 24th June, from 10am-12pm, St Edmundsbury Borough Council Offices.

APPENDIX 6: Summary of Stakeholder Workshop 2 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the second stakeholder workshop held on 24th June 2009 at St Edmundsbury Borough Council Offices, in connection with the Green Infrastructure Strategy. The purpose of the workshop was to: x provide an update of the work undertaken to date by the consultants; x feedback on how information from the first workshop is being used to develop the strategy; x discuss and refine the vision for GI in St Edmundsbury; x discuss and refine the draft GI network (zones, greenways and mini-visions); x consider options for project prioritisation and possible approaches to delivery; x invite further feedback from participants. The event took the form of a presentation, a question and answer session and a participatory workshop. Participants were grouped in colour coded groups: the green group focussed on the north (Zone A, B, C and D), the blue group focussed on the south (Zone C, E, F and G), and the red group provided a borough-wide overview. This report presents the findings from the participatory workshop session, which focussed on the following areas for discussion: x Borough-wide GI vision; x GI zones, greenways and ‘mini-visions’; x Detailed opportunities for Bury St Edmunds / Haverhill; x Green Infrastructure projects; x Green Infrastructure delivery. GREEN GROUP: THE NORTH

BOROUGH-WIDE GI VISION Comment Action Y/N

Need more on growing communities and associated planning for Y the future.

After recognises, insert the word ‘understands’. Y

Recognise the international/national as well as regional Y significance of habitats and species within the Brecks.

Vision should make the economic case for green infrastructure Y e.g. green infrastructure as DRIVER for supporting economic activity and regeneration.

Instead of green travel, refer to sustainable or responsible travel. Y

Make more pragmatic links to delivery in final 2 paragraphs. Y, although only short reference. Vision is primarily about aspirations

Existing landscape/environmental and GI features as template for Y new development.

Recognise Country Park at Haverhill as key gateway to Stour N Valley. Site specifics are too detailed for a vision, although pick up elsewhere in report

Recognise peoples’ working relationships to the land, e.g. Y productive woodlands (economic case for GI also).

GI ZONES, GREENWAYS AND ‘MINI-VISIONS’ Comment Action Y/N

General comments

Consider other recreational foci, such as Nowton Country Y Park.

Need to consider wider functions of greenways, beyond access. Y

Make link to King’s Forest (multi objective forestry). Check Comment Action Y/N

Links to Forest Heath (in GI network planning). Y – check

St Edmunds Way is not recognised as an ‘official route’ by Norfolk CC.

Re route Thetford Greenway (north) through King’s Forest, Check subject to Appropriate Assessment – may be more deliverable.

Issue of access in relation to HLS schemes –limited life of 5-10 Y years.

Link to Green Flag aspirations in GI Design Principles. Y – signpost

Look at EcoTowns GI Guidance. Y

GI plan could form future evidence base for a future SPD. For St EDSBC to decide/consider

Add reduced carbon footprint for new developments to list of This is a cross functions. cutting theme which underpins most of the functions

Zone A – Black Bourn and Little Ouse Headwaters

Possibility to defragment and link woodlands through Higher Y Level Stewardship (HLS) and the English Woodlands Grant Scheme (EWGS).

Zone B - Brecks

The vision should reflect the need to conserve AND enhance, Y especially in relation to pine shelterbelts.

Need to consider existing ‘honeypot’ sites and investment in Y them – sustainable management.

Zone C – River Valleys

Reptonian landscape at Culford Park – reflect in the mini vision. Y

Zone D - Bury

The vision should refer to the cooling effect of urban street Y trees – make links to urban landscape/landscape character.

Need for good sustainable links in light of reduced car parking. Y DETAILED OPPORTUNITIES FOR BURY ST EDMUNDS Comment Action Y/N

Opportunity for greenway along the Lark at A134 (to connect Y town to Nowton Country Park, therefore this greenway would have a recreational focus) – realised through arable reversion of farmland.

Bridges over A14. Check where new bridge could be located

Possibility for compensatory river restoration/habitat creation Y south of Tesco site (Tesco is unlikely to be an opportunity).

Sustainable management of shelterbelts. Agree

Greenway link from Thurston Station to potential employment Check development to east of Bury.

Better/more strategic grouping play and pitch facilities to Agree simplify management.

In terms of the proposed new community parkland, north Check western Bury may tie in better with the Brecks landscape character – a character ‘hook’ to hang proposals on/link to. The adjacent Golf Course may have conservation/landscape interest which could be enhanced by this.

Look at Abbey Gardens – a management plan is being prepared Is this available? for the site.

Gateways – need to be bi directional, e.g. that Bury is also one Y of the gateways to the Brecks.

Consider an ‘icon’ for the Brecks, like along A13 (Commissions Check possibilities East), although many are aspirations and not necessarily deliverable (Land Bridges, Cambridgeshire Willow Bridge etc).

Potential for enhanced links to/from station. Y – check possibilities GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Comment Action Y/N

Make links to NI197 (Biodiversity) in respect of management. Y

Need for an integrated transport plan. Local transport study GI plan can help may be a means for delivering and promoting GI. inform future work

Link GI plan to management of existing green space. A wider consideration – beyond the scope of the GI Strategy

A key GI consideration is promoting the network to attract Y longer term and wider interest to ensure delivery.

Zoning issues should address conflicts (access v nature, Y temporal etc, recognising dynamic/changing landscapes).

Consider the scale of tariff set for developers. The concept Agree, although must be sold to them (also economic benefits to them of this is outwith the investing in GI). scope of this study

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY Comment Action Y/N

Make links to existing resources (Brecks Partnership). Y

English Woodlands Grant Scheme – links to urban areas. Make reference if/where appropriate

FC may be able to contribute to delivery of diverted Thetford – Stour Valley Greenway (King’s Forest).

Embed in policy and make links to regional GI policy and other Y related envt policies e.g. not just ENV1.

Monitoring of GI delivery could be achieved through links to the Y PPG17 process for urban GI, in relation to Local Area Agreement Indicators and Targets, also increased footfall at sites/locations (visitor/user surveys etc).

Need ‘buy in’ from future users. Y

Delivery and governance must be sustainable, considering whole Y life costs, timescale and project prioritisation.

Intelligence in relation to management structures – links to Y existing mechanisms and the planning process. Comment Action Y/N

Status of GI Strategy – must be embedded in policy through Y ‘hooks’ within the Strategy.

Ensure the Strategy and Delivery Plan make links to other Y agendas and interests (e.g. economic benefits to developers of investing in GI). BLUE GROUP: THE SOUTH

BOROUGH-WIDE GI VISION Comment Action Y/N

Vision should reinforce Bury St Edmunds’s outstanding / high Y quality built character (town centre is a conservation area, with intact medieval street pattern).

Vision should identify a new community green space in Y – in Haverhill Haverhill as a key opportunity to meet current and (potential) vision future deficiencies.

Vision should reinforce the multi-functionality of the greenways Y i.e. they should provide biodiversity enhancement in conjunction for improvements of access/links e.g. along River Lark/Linnet.

Vision should emphasise the importance of having a long-term Y but we consider management plan to ensure new streetscape planting will not the emphasis of the vision should cause damage to properties /houses. be about enhancing values rather than avoiding damage

GI ZONES, GREENWAYS AND ‘MINI-VISIONS’ Comment Action Y/N

Zone E: Haverhill

Vision should highlight the mature network of woodland and Y veteran trees to the north and east of the town. Any new community parkland should conserve and enhance this wooded framework.

SEBC should ‘team up’ with Braintree DC to deliver the new Y – this will be for community green space or greenways. SEBC to take on

Zone C: Stour Valley and Stour Brook

Vision for this zone should focus on enhancing biodiversity, Y access and safeguarding the corridors against flooding and extraction.

Zone F: Historic Parkland and Woodland Comment Action Y/N

Vision should identify the improvement of visitor facilities at Y Bradfield Woods as a key opportunity.

Vision should emphasise new woodland ‘creation’ to enhance Y recreational opportunities associated with Bradfield Woods NNR.

Opportunity for links via the Rougham Estate, between Bury St Y Edmunds and villages to the east of Bradfield Woods.

Zone G: Ancient Farmland

Vision for this zone should focus on celebrating what’s there Y already and enhancing biodiversity, landscape character and access between villages.

Bus interchange point between Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill Y is proposed at Stradishall – this should link into the Thetford – Stour Valley Greenway.

Thetford – Stour Valley Greenway

Access along this greenway should be a priority down to ? – check as this is Ickworth Park. Beyond this point, access along this greenway a strategic is not ‘realistic’ (i.e. links between Ickworth Park to the Stour objective Valley, via the River Glem).

Radial routes from villages and key green spaces are preferable ? LUC to review to the long linear link between Ickworth Park and the Stour Valley.

DETAILED OPPORTUNITIES FOR HAVERHILL Comment Action Y/N

Add ‘East Town Park’ to the map (key green space). Y

Opportunity for north/south links through the town. Y

Green links between Haverhill and villages to the south are Y, but circular preferable to ambiguous ‘circular routes’ e.g. to meet route will link commuting needs. these

Meldham Washlands site is inappropriate for a community ?, LUC suggest parkland – it’s primary function should be to manage flood that this site could still have a low key waters along Stour Brook (what about low key recreation recreation/open values and biodiversity enhancements??). space function

Additional woodland planting along southern bypass road is not Y necessary – the south facing embankments of the road would Comment Action Y/N

be suitable for establishing species-rich grassland and restoration of historic field boundaries.

Site previously used as the exhibition grounds (north of the ? LUC will check town, north of Haverhill Road) would be a good site for a new on site community green space to meet deficiencies (should be linked by a Level 2 circular green corridor from the town).

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS & DELIVERY Comment Action Y/N

Contributions by developers – a key challenge in new Y developments will be to ensure that wider streetscapes do not result in high density developments with small private gardens; especially if smaller ‘piecemeal’ developments are occurring (developments with higher densities with larger, well managed green spaces and streetscape could be positive as well??).

CIL – especially in promoting a new community parkland i.e. Y off-site contributions, not directly linked to a development.

HLS – mostly biodiversity benefits and landscape character Y enhancements RED GROUP: BOROUGH-WIDE OVERVIEW

BOROUGH-WIDE GI VISION Comment Action Y/N

Many useful points made: Y – all useful - don’t highlight words points - add ‘quality of life’ – as key phase - attract inward investment – link to economy - not just env. focussed (economic growth = key driver) - adaptation forclimate change - the vision should act as a pitch for why GI is important – it is fundamental - not ‘regeneration’ in this area use better word such as ’reinvigorate’? - make links to existing strategies e.g. wetlands ‘make space for water (possibly not part of vision but as part of overall strategy) - a punchy short vision and a description that expands on it - refer to blue infrastructure - river corridors – WFD (but not in vision) - vision is ‘The Pitch’ for GI Consider if ‘well used network of paths’ is giving the right message there are areas of deficiency and there are many opportunities to enhance the network and make better use of the network. - area visions - look at language use plain English.

Specific comments on the GI network mapping: Y – all points - need to clearly show existing sites and existing PROW useful network (differentiated into national, regional, local routes) - ideally show areas of PROW deficiency - show all major GI sites clearly and name these - Greenways are NOT always based on access. There may be green corridors based on habitats e.g. ancient woodland (Bradfield Woods cluster) or heath – THINK about how to show these. Note Green Corridor considered to be better term than Greenway - Include a green corridor (access) to link into Ixworth, Stanton (both nodes for growth) also note linking across river catchments) - Consider if there are other Key Service Centres that need to be linked into the GI network - Check that we have considered all disused railways

(note that some detailed location specific information marked up on the maps) GI ZONES, GREENWAYS AND ‘MINI-VISIONS’ Comment Action Y/N

Is zones the right word should they be more pro-active e.g. GI GI Action Action Zones or GI Action Areas. Zones

The vision needs to capture ‘what we would like to see’ – mention Y key places and routes and ensure language aspirational (change language context of para. 2 of each zone vision).

Generally the number of zones works well and agreed that it Y would be inappropriate to take these back to landscape character areas. Participants like the forward nature of the zones.

Look at boundaries east of B St. Eds – this is open/flat and arable– Y, area extent extend F and A and reduce area B. changed

Black Bourn Valley – look at opportunity for key links along the Y valley.

Map should show key service centres and areas of growth and Y ensure that these are linked into the GI network.

DETAILED OPPORTUNITIES FOR BURY ST EDMUNDS Comment Action Y/N (many of the comments below apply generally beyond BstEds)

Map must highlight the rivers and key valley habitats. Y

Make sure greenways link habitats as well as access links. Y

Note that rivers also provide recreational opps e.g. Y canoeing/fishing.

The railway station in Bury is a key gateway for enhancement and Y requires a more detailed masterplan.

Graphics and mapping should seek to visually show priorities Y (graphic (current drawing emphasises gateways which are not main presentation) projects).

The approaches should maintain sightlines/views to the Abbey and Y other distinctive building.

Show the good access/cycle link between the station and the Y council offices. Comment Action Y/N (many of the comments below apply generally beyond BstEds)

Can GI help determine the direction of growth of the town – opp Y part of for green wedges. vision

Reconsider gateways and approaches – (not roundabouts). Y

Key river floodplain site – opps for GI (JF). Y

Revised map should be forwarded to Alison (NE in Bury St. Eds) Agree for local validation.

DETAILED OPPORTUNITIES FOR HAVERHILL Comment Action Y/N

Relate to the concept statement and masterplan (that exists) for SEBC to NW Haverhill. forward documents

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PLAN AND DELIVERY Comment Action Y/N

Need to highlight a few big projects and opportunities to Y implement in smaller ‘chunks’. Opp to clump together, for example as 5 key projects to be implemented on a phased basis.

Need to determine what is absolutely critical to GI and priority. Y Need to use judgement in prioritising.

The Delivery Plan can be more pragmatic with year e.g. 1, 2 – 5, 5 Y – 10 and 10+.

The Project Plan should provide a ‘shopping list’ for developers – Y what they can implement and contribute to.

Look at opportunities for agri environment targeting – can the GI Y partially strategy input to better target statements to achieve multifunctional landscape we want.

Look at opportunities to use the right language to ‘sell’ to Y need to councillors. discuss further with SG

Plan should also include opps to improve existing open space Refer to OS (functions, access links and quality). study NEXT STEPS The findings from the workshop will be used to: x refine the vision for GI in St Edmundsbury x refine the draft GI network (zones, green corridors and mini-visions) x refine the detailed GI network for Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill x inform the detailed project list (for each ‘action zone’ and ‘green corridor’) and opportunities for delivery x inform the approach to project prioritisation This was the final stakeholder workshop. However, there will be opportunity for steering group members to comment on the draft report (including the green infrastructure network, list of projects and project prioritisation) at the next steering group meeting. APPENDIX 7: Stakeholder workshop attendees List of Stakeholders

Babergh District Council, Senior Planning Policy Officer Braintree District Council, Planning Officer Breckland District Council, Head of Planning Brecks Countryside Project, Project Manager Bury St Edmunds Town Council, Town Clerk Country Landowners' Assoc Dedham Vale AONB & Stour Valley Project, Operations Manager East Cambridgeshire District Council, Head of Planning East of England Development Agency, Rural Manager East of England Regional Assembly English Heritage, East of England Region Environment Agency Forest Heath District Council, Assistant Forward Planning Officer Forestry Commission, Green Infrastructure Adviser Greenlight Trust, Community Wildspace Leader Groundwork East of England, Regional Director Haverhill Town Council, Town Clerk Highways Agency, Network Manager Lark Valley Association Mid Suffolk District Council, Head of Planning National Farmers' Union, Environment and Land use Advisor National Trust, Land Use Planning Adviser Natural England, Green Infrastructure and Landscape Specialist Natural England, Area Conservation Officer RSPB South Cambridgeshire District Council Spring Lane Wildlife Group Sports England (East Region) St Edmundsbury Borough Council Councillors, Terry Clements, Lynsey Alexander St Edmundsbury Borough Council Officers Stanton Wildlife Group Suffolk Acre, Rural Services Officer Suffolk Association of Local Councils Suffolk Biological Records Centre Suffolk County Council, Minerals and Waste Suffolk County Council, Ecologist Suffolk Count Council, Rights of Way Officer Suffolk Biodiversity Partnership, Biodiversity Officer Suffolk Development Agency Suffolk FWAG, Team Leader Suffolk Police, Architectural Liaison Office Suffolk Preservation Society, Director Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Senior Conservation Officer SUSTRANS, The Brecks partnership, Brecks Partnership Manager Uttlesford District Council, Head of Planning Woodland Trust, Region Policy Officer

Note Bold indicates stakeholders who attended one of both of the stakeholder workshops APPENDIX 8: Glossary of terms GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Definition

AOD Above Ordnance Datum (sea level).

Ancient woodland Woods that are believed to have been continuous woodland cover since at least 1600 AD.

ANGSt Accessible Natural Green Space Standards – a four level spatial typology used by Natural England.

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan. Countywide plans identifying priority habitats and targets for enhancement/habitat creation.

Blue infrastructure This term is sometimes used to describe riverine and coastal environments with a green infrastructure network.

Characteristic A distinctive element of the landscape that contributes to landscape character for instance a particular hedgerow pattern or sense of tranquillity.

Climate change adaptation The ability of a place to adapt to both extreme weather events and long term changes to climate patterns.

Coppice A traditional form of woodland management where trees are cut regularly on a cycle to promote growth from their bases.

Corvid A bird of the crow family (Corvidae).

Ecological Network Identification of key wildlife corridors and opportunities for connectivity/strategic links in implementing/delivering BAP targets, and to assist in reversing habitat fragmentation.

European Landscape This seeks to protect landscapes in law, with Convention (ELC) consideration given to landscape from the earliest stages in the planning process. The UK became a signatory to the Convention in February 2006 (ratified in November 2006).

Functional Floodplain Floodplain that can fulfil a wide range of Green Infrastructure objectives, including passive/informal recreation, green space and parkland, in addition to flood storage and flood risk management.

Genius loci The essential character of a location or the ‘spirit of the place’, a term defined by the 18th Century English poet Alexander Pope. Term Definition

GI Commonly used acronym for Green Infrastructure.

Green corridor A green link with multiple functions. In addition to movement corridors, these can also be for habitat connectivity and landscape mitigation.

Green Flag Award The national standard or ‘benchmark’ for parks and green spaces within England and Wales.

Green Space strategies These evaluate publicly accessible open space provision within these typologies at the local authority scale, noting issues in relation to condition, quality and access, often to inform a strategy and action plan that sets out future management and regeneration policies.

HLC Historic Landscape Characterisation. Identification of landscape change and evolution through analysis of field boundary patterns.

Landscape character The distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular landscape and how these are perceived. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement.

Landscape character areas Single unique areas that are the discrete geographical area of a particular landscape type.

Landscape character types Distinct types of landscape that are relatively homogenous in character. They are generic in nature in that they may occur in different areas in different parts of the country, but share broadly similar combinations of geology, topography, drainage patterns, vegetation, historic land use and settlement pattern.

LNR Local Nature Reserves.

Local Area Agreement These set out the priorities for a local area agreed (LAA) between central government and a local area (the local authority and Local Strategic Partnership).

Local Strategic Multi-agency, non-statutory partnerships, which match Partnership (LSP) local authority boundaries. They bring together different components of the public, private, community and voluntary sectors, allowing different initiatives and services to support one another with the aim of more effective joint working. Term Definition

LSOAs Local Super Output Areas – a geographic unit for the collection and publication of small area statistical data, at the local authority scale. The Indices of Deprivation use such units.

Multifunctionality The ability to provide multiple or ‘cross cutting’ functions.

Natura 2000 sites Sites of pan European nature conservation importance, e.g. Special Protection Areas (SPA – birds) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC- habitats)

NNR National Nature Reserves.

Peri urban The transition between rural and urban landscapes, or the interface between landscape and townscape. Sometimes also referred to as the urban-rural fringe, and by Nan Fairbrother (in New Lives, New Landscapes) as the ‘green urban’ environment.

Place-making Recognition of the specific qualities and local distinctiveness of a place, and ensuring that plans, policies and proposals respond accordingly.

RAMSAR Sites Wetlands of international importance.

SAMs/SMRs Scheduled (Ancient) Monuments or sites/features on the Sites and Monuments Record

SSSIs Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Designated under the Wildlife and Conservation Act 1981, as amended, for their outstanding interest in respect of flora, fauna, geology and or limnology.

Sustainable Drainage Formerly called Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Systems or SuDS An approach to managing rainfall and run off in developments, with a view to replicating natural drainage. SuDS also aim to control pollution, re charge ground water, control flooding, and often provide landscape and environmental enhancement.

Vernacular architecture Architecture which is indigenous to a specific place and adapted to both the environment and to the user’s need. (The term ‘vernacular’ is derived from the Latin vernaculus, meaning ‘native’). APPENDIX 9: Existing GI initiatives in St Edmundsbury

St Edmundsbury Green Infrastructure Strategy 12 Breckland 17 Existing green infrastructure 4 initiatives 7 8 1 Key St Edmundsbury Borough boundary 16 9 Surrounding local authority 6 boundaries 5 6 Existing green infrastructure initiatives Forest Heath 6 1: Little Ouse Headwaters 2: Lark Valley association

East Cambridgeshire 3: Stour Valley project 2 4: Active Woods 11 5: Tomorrow's Heathland 6 6: Community owned wildspace 7: Redgrave and Lopham Fen restoration 15 10 8: The Upper Waveney Valley Partnership 6 Mid Suffolk 13 9: Doorstep Greens 10: Woodland Ways 11: Connect2 - The Wicken Fen Greenway 12: Walking for Health East Cambridgeshire 13: Friends of Nowton Park 14: Friends of East Town Park 15: Grove Park Community Garden 16: The Icknield Way 17: The Peddars Way

South Cambridgeshire

Babergh 3 / 0482Km

Braintree

Date: 02/09/2009 Revision