DOCSLIB.ORG

Green Infrastructure Strategy Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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
Recommended publications
  • Your Local Wildlife News Arger Fen the Seasons Have Brought Unparalleled Richness to Arger Fen

    Your Local Wildlife News Arger Fen the Seasons Have Brought Unparalleled Richness to Arger Fen

    Stowmarket Group January 2020 Your local wildlife news Arger Fen The seasons have brought unparalleled richness to Arger Fen. Will Cranstoun says now is the time to look out for snipe, barn owl and the first signs of spring. Arger Fen continues to surprise and delight scrub that will be valuable habitat for Will Cranstoun West Suffolk Sites Manager visitors through the seasons. Whilst the breeding migrant birds, cover for reptiles and 01284 728541 spring boasts carpets of bluebells, the a source of nectar and fruit for whole host of summer has seen fantastic swathes of wildlife. woodland flora burst into bloom; ranging With welcome rains through autumn BRADFIELD WOODS from pink campion, greater stitchwort, filling up many of the ponds and replenishing 01449 737996 foxgloves, vetches and orchids. As result cracked soils, we have witnessed one of the there have been good numbers of pollinators best seasons for fungi across the entire buzzing about the rides and wider open reserve. Arguably the most numerous and Giles areas of the reserve. The eastern ex-arable easily recognisable being parasol, sulphur Cawston land in various stages of early succession tuft and fly agaric. As the seasons progress Woodlands are indicative of the varying soil types and into winter look out for snipe and barn owl Warden conditions. The area known as Kingsland is flying over the Pecks Piece with roe deer now showcase to a great deal of emerging hiding along hedgerows. Joanne Atkins Wild Learning Bradfield Woods Officer Whether the sun is shining, or the rain pouring, Jo Atkins explains why there is never a better time to go into the woods.
  • Black Bourn Valley Nature Reserve

    Black Bourn Valley Nature Reserve

    A vision for Black Bourn Valley nature reserve With its fl ower-strewn meadows Suffolk Wildlife Trust’s and grassland sweeping down to vision is for a wilder, a river lined with beautiful crack we er landscape willows, Black Bourn Valley capable of sustaining nature reserve is a rare and even more wildlife. precious piece of old Suff olk. Steve Aylward, David Kjaer Aylward, Steve Living Landscapes Living Gardens Living Seas Letting nature take the lead... ... and rejuvenating the river When the opportunity arose to buy 70 acres Our approach to the grassland will be to As the name of the reserve suggests, the With not enough water to sustain both of land next to Grove Farm in 2015, the allow a more heathy grass structure to river is at the heart of what Suffolk the Black Bourn’s old and current courses, potential was clear. By linking the existing develop, reflecting the furzy countryside Wildlife Trust wants to do at Black Bourn our surveys suggest a more sensitive farmland with the river it would be of Norton Heath that is now only evident Valley. We know the meadows along the approach would be to reconnect the possible to create a magnificent landscape in road names. Hides length of the Black Bourn would have river’s old route using flood water from for wildlife that sweeps down the valley flooded every winter. The snipe and large the newer channel. By holding back Over time we hope the molehills that As well as being good for wildlife our vision for sides with the Black Bourn at its heart.
  • Forest Heath District Council

    Forest Heath District Council

    Forest Heath District Council Single Issue Review Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy Document Habitats Regulations Assessment, (HRA), Screening Stage July 2012 Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the process to date 1.2 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment 1.3 Outline of Habitats Regulations Assessment process 1.4 Introduction to the HRA screening process 2. European sites potentially affected by the Single Issue Review 3. Baseline conditions affecting European sites 4. Is it necessary to proceed to the next HRA stage? Which aspects of the document require further assessment? 4.1 Screening of the Single Issue Review 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the process to date: In order to ensure that the Single Issue Review is compliant with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Forest Heath District Council has embarked upon an assessment of the ‘Reviews’ implications for European wildlife sites, i.e. a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the plan. This report sets out the first stage of the HRA process for the Single Issue Review, the Screening Stage. To establish if the ‘Review’ is likely to have a significant adverse effect on any European sites it is necessary to consider evidence contained in the original HRA of the Forest Heath Core Strategy DPD that was produced in March 2009. For a number of policies within the Core Strategy, including the original Policy CS7, it was considered either that significant effects would be likely, or that a precautionary approach would need to be taken as it could not be determined that those particular plan policies would not be likely to have a significant effect upon any European Site.
  • __History of Kew Depot and It's Routes

    __History of Kew Depot and It's Routes

    HISTORY OF KEW DEPOT AND ITS ROUTES Page 1 HISTORY of KEW DEPOT and the ROUTES OPERATED by KEW Compiled and written by Hugh Waldron MCILT CA 1500 The word tram and tramway are derived from Scottish words indicating the type of truck and the tracks used in coal mines. 1807 The first Horse tram service in the world commences operation between Swansea and Mumbles in Wales. 12th September 1854 At 12.20 pm first train departs Flinders Street Station for Sandridge (Port Melbourne) First Steam operated railway line in Australia. The line is eventually converted to tram operation during December 1987 between the current Southbank Depot and Port Melbourne. The first rail lines in Australia operated in Newcastle Collieries operated by horses in 1829. Then a five-mile line on the Tasman Peninsula opened in 1836 and powered by convicts pushing the rail vehicle. The next line to open was on 18/5/1854 in South Australia (Goolwa) and operated by horses. 1864 Leonard John Flannagan was born in Richmond. After graduating he became an Architect and was responsible for being the Architect building Malvern Depot 1910, Kew Depot 1915 and Hawthorn Depot 1916. He died 2nd November 1945. September 1873 First cable tramway in the world opens in Clay Street, San Francisco, USA. 1877 Steam tramways commence. Victoria only had two steam tramways both opened 1890 between Sorrento Pier to Sorrento Back Beach closed on 20th March 1921 (This line also operated horse trams when passenger demand was not high.) and Bendigo to Eaglehawk converted to electric trams in 1903.
  • Star Transit Transit Development Plan: Fiscal Years 2010

    Star Transit Transit Development Plan: Fiscal Years 2010

    SSTTAARR TTRRAANNSSIITT TTRRAANNSSIITT DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT PPLLAANN:: FFIISSCCAALL YYEEAARRSS 22001100 –– 22001155 Prepared for: Prepared by: Under contract to: November 2009 Contents 1.0 STAR TRANSIT SYSTEM OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 History ........................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Governance ................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................... 1‐3 1.4 Transit Services Provided and Areas Served ................................................................. 1‐4 1.5 Fare Structure ................................................................................................................ 1‐9 1.6 Fleet ............................................................................................................................. 1‐10 1.7 Existing Facilities .......................................................................................................... 1‐10 1.8 Transit Security Program ............................................................................................. 1‐11 1.9 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................... 1‐11 2.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS ...........................................................................
  • Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011

    Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011

    Barrier system (from TOA) Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key additional elements of BRT network ...................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to land use ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Station access ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Brand identity ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Organization of report .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 High-level roadway screening ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Corridor development and initial
  • Suffolk Wildlife Trust Limited

    Suffolk Wildlife Trust Limited

    Registered number: 00695346 Charity number: 262777 SUFFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST LIMITED TRUSTEES' REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 SUFFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST LIMITED CONTENTS Page Reference and administrative details of the Trust, its Trustees and advisers 1 Trustees' report 2 - 14 Independent auditors' report on the financial statements 15 - 17 Consolidated statement of financial activities 18 Consolidated balance sheet 19 Trust balance sheet 20 Consolidated statement of cash flows 21 Notes to the financial statements 22 - 45 SUFFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST LIMITED REFERENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS OF THE TRUST, ITS TRUSTEES AND ADVISERS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 Trustees Nigel Farthing, Chairman Peter Holborn (resigned 26 October 2019) Stephanie Jones John Cousins (resigned 26 October 2019) Pip Goodwin Simon Roberts James Alexander, Treasurer Rachel Eburne (resigned 5 September 2019) David Alborough Anna Saltmarsh Philip Newton Susan Hooton (appointed 26 October 2019) Company registered number 00695346 Charity registered number 262777 Registered office Brooke House The Green Ashbocking Ipswich Suffolk IP6 9JY Chief executive officer Julian Roughton (resigned 29 May 2020) Independent auditors Larking Gowen LLP Chartered Accountants 1 Claydon Business Park Great Blakenham Ipswich IP6 0NL Bankers Barclays Bank PLC Princes Street Ipswich IP1 1PB Solicitors Birketts Providence House 141-145 Princes Street Ipswich IP1 1QJ Page 1 SUFFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST LIMITED TRUSTEES' REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 The Trustees present their annual report together with the audited financial statements of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust Limited for the year 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. The Annual report serves the purposes of both a Trustees' report and a directors' report under company law.
  • Summary of the Current Revitalization of Brownfields Sites Where EPA

    Summary of the Current Revitalization of Brownfields Sites Where EPA

    Report Date: 7 Feb 08 Summary of the Current Revitalization of Brownfields Sites where EPA Funded Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs) Have Been Completed­ EPA Region III Compiled by Jerry Curtin (3HW51) Land Revitalization Team; Brownfields and Land Revitalization Branch 1 Items of Interest 1. The cover page shows the Stainless site in Perkasie, PA before a Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) was performed (upper photo) and the site after a TBA and appropriate revitalization (lower photo). The site is discussed in Table A of this report, item 8. Over an 80­year period, the site was used as an old site mill, a truck body manufacturing company and a stainless steel production facility. It is now the First Savings Bank Administrative Building. The cover photo is from the following website: http://www.gjdonovan.com/current.htm 2 Table of Contents Page A. Preface and Abbreviations 5 B. Background 9 C. Sites included in this report and their Table location 11 D. Results of the Evaluation 15 Table 1 Overall Revitalization Results 17 Table 2 Category of Revitalization for each site 18 E. Some of the Success Stories (Completely Redeveloped Sites) 19 F. Status of Sites 21 Table A: Completed TBAs and their status 23 Table B: Completed State Led SSAs and their status 39 Table C: Completed State SSAs overseen by the States 53 Table D: GAO specified TBAs­1998­99 101 G. Acknowledgements 105 H. Photos of Some of the Success Stories 107 I. Maps: Locations of Sites in Each State 123 Enclosures/Attachments/Appendices In a Separate Document 3 4 A.
  • DVRPC FFY 2019 Annual Obligation Report Highway & Bridge

    DVRPC FFY 2019 Annual Obligation Report Highway & Bridge

    List of fy2019 federally obligated projects DVRPC REGIONAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM Date: 12/12/19 7:55AM FFY 2019 DVRPC TIP Page 1 of 12 Rpt # TIP302 FHWA Obligation Report Obligations 10/1/18 to 9/30/19 MPMS PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR PHASE DISTRICT COUNTY STATE ROUTE OBLIGATION* PROG. TOTAL FED FUNDS REMAINING FFY 2019 FFY 2019 TO 2022 110407 ADA Ramp STY (Districtwide) ADA Ramp Study PENNDOT Study 6 Bucks $300,000 $1,100,000 $800,000 Districtwide 87088 Chalfont Boro SRS(F) Chalfont Borough Safe Routes to School PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $(19,788) $0 $0 Pedestrian Facilities Chalfont Borough, Bucks County. 104302 Rt 13 Stscape Croydon Ph2(F) Route 13 Streetscape Croydon Section Phase 2 PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $90,000 $90,000 $0 Bristol Township, Bucks County Pedestrian Improvements 108002 Moland Park Trail (C) Moland Park Trail PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $500,000 $500,000 $0 Warwick Township Multi-use trail This project involves the creation of a pedestrian/bicycle trail under Route 263 to allow visitors access to recreational and cultural amenities near Moland Park. 102830 Neshaminy Greenway Trail (C) Neshaminy Greenway Trail (NGT) PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $2,000,000 $2,225,026 $225,026 New Britain Township, Bucks County Construction of the NGT 13549 US1: Old Linc - PA413 US Route 1: Old Lincoln - PA 413 PENNDOT Final Design 6 Bucks 1 $477,750 $15,925,000 $15,447,250 Bensalem and Middletown Townships, Bucks County Bridge Deck Rehabilitations 106989 SR 0001 @ SR 0032 Interchange (F) SR 0001 at SR 0032 Interchange PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks 1 $250,000 $250,000 $0 Bucks County, Falls Twp.
  • Operations and Financial Analysis

    Operations and Financial Analysis

    OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS APRIL 22, 2015 PREPARED BY: LOUIS BERGER WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS A) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B) OPERATIONS ANALYSIS C) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS D) APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Louis Berger was tasked by the Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) to evaluate the Charm City Circulator (CCC) bus operation and analyze financial performance, and develop route operations alternatives that maximize ridership while minimizing costs. Objective The objective is to develop and evaluate alternatives to eliminate the annual deficits while providing maximum service to riders within existing financial resources. Description of Current System Existing Condition The CCC consists of four routes, Purple, Orange, Green and Banner providing “Fast. Friendly. Free.” service throughout downtown Baltimore 362 days per year, with hours of service varying by day type and by season. Key characteristics of each route: Purple Route- runs north - south from Federal Hill to Historic Mount Vernon. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses to operate. Heaviest ridership of all the routes. Orange Route- runs east – west from Historic Fell’s Point and Harbor Point in the east beyond University of Maryland, Baltimore in the west. Ten (10) minute headways require five (5) buses to operate. Ridership is second best in the system. Green Route- roughly U shaped route serves Johns Hopkins University Hospital East Baltimore Campus (JHUH) connecting south to Harbor Point and Harbor East, then northwest to park and ride lots, looping down near City Center then back around. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses. Longest route, least productive in terms of riders. Banner Route- angles southeast of the city past Federal Hill to Fort McHenry.
  • Site Improvement Plan Breckland

    Site Improvement Plan Breckland

    Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS) Planning for the Future Site Improvement Plan Breckland Site Improvement Plans (SIPs) have been developed for each Natura 2000 site in England as part of the Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). Natura 2000 sites is the combined term for sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Areas (SPA). This work has been financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community. The plan provides a high level overview of the issues (both current and predicted) affecting the condition of the Natura 2000 features on the site(s) and outlines the priority measures required to improve the condition of the features. It does not cover issues where remedial actions are already in place or ongoing management activities which are required for maintenance. The SIP consists of three parts: a Summary table, which sets out the priority Issues and Measures; a detailed Actions table, which sets out who needs to do what, when and how much it is estimated to cost; and a set of tables containing contextual information and links. Once this current programme ends, it is anticipated that Natural England and others, working with landowners and managers, will all play a role in delivering the priority measures to improve the condition of the features on these sites. The SIPs are based on Natural England's current evidence and knowledge. The SIPs are not legal documents, they are live documents that will be updated to reflect changes in our evidence/knowledge and as actions get underway.
  • Forest Heath District Council April 2016

    Forest Heath District Council April 2016

    Forest Heath District Council Evidence paper for Single Issue Review (SIR) of Core Strategy Policy CS7 and Site Allocations Local Plan Accessible Natural Greenspace Study April 2016 1 Accessible Natural Greenspace Study 1. Introduction 2. Context and Growth Agenda 3. Planning Policy Context 4. Evidence on Recreation Pressure and mitigation options 5. Developing a Recreation Mitigation Strategy for Forest Heath District 6. Proposed recreation Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy 7. Appendix 1 2 1. Introduction 1.1. This study has been prepared to support Forest Heath District Councils Single Issue Review of Core Strategy Policy CS7 and separate Site Allocations Local Plan. The purpose of the study is to provide evidence on appropriate accessible open space that will support the planned growth in the district. The study is required because there is concern that increased development in the district has the potential to contribute to recreational pressure on Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) and Breckland Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The SPA and SAC are shown on figure 1 1.2. Natural England, in their response to the Regulation 18 Consultation for the 2015 issues and options documents, remarked in relation to the potential for recreational disturbance: we recommend that, effort is placed into ensuring that each area has an appropriate level of green infrastructure, including sufficient amenity grasslands, improvements in access for walkers and cyclists and facilities for dog walkers. In our view there are areas, such as in Lakenheath for example, that are lacking local green infrastructure. The provision of an appropriate level of green infrastructure within local communities is likely to alleviate pressure on designated sites, as well as supporting the health and wellbeing of residents.