CPRE , City Region and Greater comments

Matter 4 –Green Belt, green infrastructure and open spaces

Issue 1: Is the approach to Green Belt in the Plan justified and consistent with national policy? Are there exceptional circumstances to alter the Green Belt boundary in Liverpool as part of this Local Plan?

No, the approach to Green Belt in the Plan is not justified and is not consistent with national policy.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt to keep land permanently open, and the five purposes should be specified in the local plan policy. It is considered that the local plan as written, wrongly promotes development in the Green Belt. The Local Plan will indeed benefit from a development management policy on Green Belt to be consistent with the NPPF, 2012.

The Local Plan policy should make clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate, by definition harmful. Although exceptions, and very special circumstances may apply, the general principle of Green Belt is of a no build zone that should be fully communicated to discourage applications. The policy ought to reiterate the NPPF, 2012 policy wording.

In March 2018 CPRE highlighted the exceptional circumstances required to release Green Belt land for development had not been justified. If exceptional circumstances were evidenced, then CPRE would have expected that a strategic review of the Green Belt would should be conducted by suitably qualified planners, in accordance with policy within the NPPF and planning practice guidance.

With regards to proposals for further expansion at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, exceptional circumstances are yet to be proven and the ramifications of the Heathrow Ruling must be fully considered [2019]EWHC 1070 (Admin).

Q4.1 In LCC01a (in response to initial question Q51 in EX2b) the Council explains why a Green Belt Review has not been undertaken in Liverpool. Is the Council’s approach justified?

1

For local plan purposes the Council set out a demonstrable five year housing land supply, plus buffer on previously developed land. CPRE is pleased that the Council is seeking a high proportion of new housing on brownfield land. However, the Council reasoning is challenged, because to release Green Belt there must be a strategic review to ensure the land being released is done on the basis of sustainable development and assessing sites in an objective manner to understand land most suitable for development. Otherwise, speculative development, which is based on land owning and developer interests come forward on sites not intended for development.

Trust in the planning system is eroded when planners say they have enough land not to need Green Belt release for the local plan, yet cannot demonstrate an adequate supply in situations of appeals leading to controversial consents. To illustrate the point, in recent times there have been a number of applications for housing development on non-allocated sites, including land in the Green Belt and Green Wedge. The Planning Inspectorate decided in favour of the appeals, because it accepted the arguments promoted by developers that the Council did not have an adequate supply. CPRE recommends there should be more accountability and transparency to better understand the housing land situation.

CPRE supports H1 recognising the local plan should enable enough housing to be delivered; and that Liverpool has a key contribution to make, and as set out in our response to Matter 3, the housing requirement must be justified and we advocate using the latest Office of National Statistic based data to inform the housing requirement. Even though the local plan is being tested against the NPPF, 2012, the inspector needs to be alert to the consequence of failing the Housing Delivery Test leading to further loss of land in the countryside.

People tell us they would much prefer their local greenspaces to be improved https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/we-want-richer-green-spaces/. For sustainable development, the use of wasted land resources in more centrally located areas, which have a much lower greenhouse gas impact, in advance of building on greenfields is advantageous. The Government revised the NPPF in July 2018 to dedicate Section 11, on ‘making effective use of land’, and previously NPPF, 2012 Paragraphs 17 and 111, set out that local plans should,

“encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.”

2

Q4.2 Where the Green Belt in Liverpool borders Knowsley and Halton has there been a consistent plan-led approach to the Green Belt to ensure a contiguous and coherent cross-boundary designation?

Knowsley adopted its Local Plan Core Strategy in January 2016. Local communities defended against ‘needless’ Green Belt loss, however some Green Belt was released to form ‘sustainable urban extensions’ to amply accommodate the planned growth over the local plan period. In February 2017 the Government then announced support for proposals to develop Halsnead Garden Village. The plan for the village includes over 1,500 homes, the biggest residential developments on on agricultural land in the Green Belt at the junction of the . Clearly, Green Belt was not protected by the adoption of the local plan. There is also a large application for the Omega 8 site, which squeezes the Green Belt to the east end at the Boundary on the M62 whilst Halsnead erodes land at the west end in Knowsley.

In addition to these Green Belt incursions, there has been numerous large scale warehouse and distribution developments consented in the Green Belt along the motorway corridors. In our view this rampant speculative development has caused significant and substantial cumulative harm to the Green Belt. The planning policy designation intends to keep land permanently open and serves five important purposes and it is nationally significant. Despite local MPs raising the matter with the Secretary of State, call in powers have not used, for example with Florida Farm in St Helens on the grounds it was a local matter. The Parkside road access development applications recently minded to approve by both St Helens and Warrington Councils have been called in by the Secretary of State.

Q4.3 The Council’s justification in LCC01a for not reviewing the Green Belt is in the context that there is no need to do so in order to release land for development (excepting the airport). Paragraph 85 of NPPF2012 lists the other circumstances to take into account when defining Green Belt boundaries. Is the Council assured that the Green Belt boundaries in the submitted plan are justified and that no alterations are needed to: (i) include additional land that serves the purposes of Green Belt; and/or (ii) any ‘tidying-up’ to ensure boundaries follow physical features?

CPRE accepts that there may be some minor boundary revisions required as a result of digital polygon errors, but where land in Green Belt designation is being released for future development, this necessitates a full strategic review. Exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt have not been justified. 3

CPRE believes the Policies Map should not be altered to remove Green Belt at the following locations a) Land east and south of Old Lodge Close b) Land south of Holt Lane and east of Caldway Drive c) Land west of Parkview Drive, and d) Land east of Ribble Road.

For the avoidance of doubt, the boundary to the Green Belt should be delineated on the Policies Map by means of a solid green line, to complement the currently proposed delineation by means of vertical green line hatching.

Q4.4 Should criterion (a) of Policy GI1 be separated to provide distinction between Green Belt (which has very specific national planning policy status) and SPAs/Ramsar sites (which have particular separate legal protection)?

Yes, CPRE agrees that criterion (a) of Policy GI1 should be separate to provide distinction between Green Belt (which has very specific national planning policy status), and the different purpose of the SPAs/Ramsar sites, which are protected under environmental designations, which afford separate legal protection.

GI1 should protect all the different types of Green infrastructure, which is defined in NPPF, 2012 as being a network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Wedges, Green Corridors and the Green Web are local names for the different elements of Green Infrastructure.

Issue 2: Is the Plan’s policy framework for, and designation of, Green Wedges, Green Corridors and the Green Web (Policies GI2 and GI9) justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

In Liverpool local people have a strong association with the purpose of planning policy designation for the different elements of Green Infrastructure: Green Wedges, Green Corridors and the Green Web (Policies GI2 and GI9) and this cultural distinctiveness ought to be celebrated and supported. Local people tell us they want the designation to be retained. The Localism Act 2011 was intended to give local communities a voice. Local opinion matters. NPPF 2012 paragraph 10 states:

4

“Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.”

NPPF, 2012 paragraph 17 first bullet states planning should:

“be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area.”

Therefore Policies GI2 and GI9 are justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

Green Wedges

Q4.5 Subject to the proposed Policies Map changes would the proposed extent of the Green Wedges designation be soundly based? Is it justified to roll forward Green Wedge boundaries from the Unitary Development Plan without undertaking a strategic review of their role and function against latest government policy and up-to date character evidence?

The Green Wedge is an important planning policy to manage the spatial growth of the City of Liverpool and providing green infrastructure, and although it is not referred to in the NPPF 2012, it is locally celebrated and valued.

CPRE believes that either the Green Wedge should become Green Belt, or it should be taken forward as a locally significant planning policy designation. The Green Wedge covers an area of 482.9 hectares in the southern part of the City of Liverpool having been identified in 1988 and 1999. Since that time it has prohibited inappropriate development and maintaining the area, split roughly two thirds for Calderstones / Woolton, and one third for the Otterspool / Riverside Green Wedge. They constitute a unique and finite, irreplaceable asset.

However, the wording of the Green Wedge policy should be clearer in order for robust planning decisions and to avoid the gnawing away of this precious land designation. It has been the subject of considerable legal judgement.

CPRE is of the view that the Green Wedge planning policy was not correctly applied recently as approval was granted for proposals at Allerton Priory, the former Garden Festival Site, and land to 5 west Woolton Manor, East of Hillfoot Road, Woolton, despite significant local opposition. CPRE was opposed to these housing proposals due to the harm to Green Wedge policy purpose, which similar to Green Belt in removing the presumption in favour of development, and in keeping places distinct and maintaining openness. In the case of appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/W/19/3233393 Woolton Manor the inspector judged the proposals not to harm Green Wedge purpose. But, the inspector as with previous decisions upheld the purpose of Green Wedge policy.

“Saved UDP policy OE3 ‘Green Wedges’ states that the City Council will protect and improve the open character, recreational and ecological quality of Green Wedges by i. not granting planning permission for new development that would affect the predominantly open character of the Green Wedges or reduce the physical separation between existing built areas, and ii. requiring that, where new development is permitted such development has regard to the openness of the Green Wedge and the purposes of including land within it, should be in accordance with criteria in policy HD18 and, in particular, uses materials and built forms sympathetic to the character of the area, retains existing vegetation and special site features where appropriate, and provides and maintains a high standard of landscaping. Part iii. of policy OE3 is not relevant in this case.”

Please refer to [2020] EWCA Civ 861 judgment that supported the City Council’s approach to the ‘Green Wedge’ policy in a recent case. This shows the difficulty in interpretation of the Green Wedge Policy. CPRE urges for clarity, as previously suggested.

Green Corridor

Q4.6 Those features identified in Policy GI1 that have a specific spatial dimension and which the plan seeks to protect and enhance should be identified on the Policies Map. This should include ‘green corridors’, particularly given Part 2 of Policy GI9 seeks developer contributions in close proximity to “green corridors” (see also Qs 4.7 & 4.8 below) Picture 49 on page 226 of the Plan shows ‘green corridors’ but the scale is challenging. Can this designation be added to the Policies Map?

The NPPF 2012, Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment sets out the approach to ecological networks in Paragraph 170 d). Paragraph 171 calls for a strategic approach.

6

There are a dozen references to Green Corridors in the revised draft Local Plan, and therefore CPRE recommends that there ought to be a policy with explanatory text. Green Corridors are important for the movement of wildlife and people with natural capital and recreation value. There is mounting evidence of the benefits to our health and well-being of using greened routes for active travel. Corridors need to be better connected as they are not extensive, and they are rather fragmented. Greater Manchester has prioritised its constituent local planning area’s green networks to protect natural capital in the future, and we think this example ought to be followed by other local authorities.

There is synergy between Green Corridors and Green Webs. A corridor is a single stretch of habitat, whereas the Green Web is a network of connected corridors. It is preferable to have a connected network to promote biodiversity.

Green Web

Q4.7 The Mayoral Green and Open Spaces Review Final Report [Document CD21] recommends a key role for the Local Plan in supporting and delivering the concept of a ‘green web’ across the city, including a recommendation that development in proximity to the corridors financially contributes towards its implementation (page 87). Does the submitted plan provide a sound response to the ‘green web’ concept in Policies GI1 and GI9? Has the Council sought any developer contributions to the ‘green web’ to date and how is this calculated? Are the financial implications of the ‘green web’ reflected in the Plan viability appraisal work?

The natural environment underpins our economic prosperity, health and wellbeing. The aim of the Natural Environment White Paper was to set out a clear framework for protecting and enhancing the things that nature gives us for free, which are too often taken for granted.

CPRE recommends the Liverpool Local Plan has a policy to promote, protect and enhance the concept of a Green Web in practical actions for developers as development is designed and for when planning applications are assessed linked to the Community Infrastructure Levy. There may be difficulty if viability means there is no CIL levy in some areas. The Local Plan needs to ensure balance in the future. The Liverpool area needs positive planning for its ecosystem services.

7

We understand the ‘Green Web’, to be a ‘network of linking green corridors’ was one of the 4 key recommendations of the review. “The aim of the network is to provide access to green and open space within, and across the city, in a safe, accessible and connective manner.”

Natural has a key role in the support and implementation of the Government’s advisory 10% minimum Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Elsewhere there are pilot projects that are relying on habitat banking and carbon trading models to support BNG and net zero carbon delivery.

Q4.8 Is there any guidance/explanation as to what “close proximity” means for the purposes of Policy GI9, part 2, and contributions for the green web?

Understanding the measure of proximity of development is a matter for Natural England. The Local Plan policy regarding Green Infrastructure must support a healthier and enhanced environment in the future. There are many reports evidencing the dramatic decline of wildlife. Relevant Acts, Statutory Instruments and other legislation such as The Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended) must be adhered with. Tranquillity is a key aspect of creating habitats that sustain a variety of wildlife, and this includes measures to prevent night lighting spillages as light pollution can prevent certain species from surviving.

Issue 3: Are the Plan’s policies in relation to Open Spaces justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

Q4.9 Having regard to Paragraph 73 of NPPF2012 is there an up-to-date open space study / assessment that confirms the proposed extent of the open space designation on the Policies Map? Does Document CD16 – Open Spaces Review Report 2017 - fulfil this function?

CPRE agrees that an up to date evidence base for open space must inform the local plan policy. Areas that are deficient ought to have policy requiring more open space provision in the future to overcome such imbalance.

Q4.11 Since plan submission, are there any factual amendments needed to the open space designation on the Policies Map?

CPRE echoes the comments of Save Sefton Park Meadows Campaign Group.

8

Q4.12 Is the submitted plan sound in identifying Sefton Park Meadows as open space under Policies GI1 and GI3?

CPRE echoes the comments of Save Sefton Park Meadows Campaign Group.

Q4.16 Should the Liverpool City Region Nature Improvement Area be shown on the Policies Map, noting that picture 50 on page 236 of the submitted plan is at an indecipherable scale for anyone whose proposed development would be affected by Policy GI6?

CPRE Lancashire would support the Nature Improvement Area being shown on the Policies Map.

9