Matter 4 / City Council

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?

Please see the Inspector’s initial questions 51 and 120 (in document EX2b), the Council’s response in document LCC01a and the proposed modification in document LCC02a (page 157) to introduce a new development management policy on Green Belt to be consistent with the NPPF. The new policy will be consulted on as part of any proposed main modifications. Whether or not exceptional circumstances exist for the proposed Green Belt alteration to facilitate the expansion at Liverpool John Lennon Airport is considered separately under Matter 5 below as part of the consideration of Policy EC7.

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? The City Council does not wish to add to its case set out in CD LCC01a in response to The Inspector’s initial question 51 – set out at Appendix 1 to this Hearing Statement. 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? The City Council consider that there has been a consistent plan led approach to the Green Belt across the LCR. The DtC Statement clearly demonstrates that the City Council have co-operated extensively with all neighbouring authorities including Knowsley and Halton in respect of the Green Belt boundary across the City Region. Paragraphs 3.11 to 3.12 of the DtC Statement state the following: ‘3.11. Several Liverpool City Region authorities have reviewed and amended, or are currently reviewing, their Green Belt boundaries in order to address their housing (and in some cases employment) requirements. Even where authorities have not had to do this, it is likely that the supply of land suitable for housing that is not within the Green Belt will be limited and may not be sufficient to meet housing requirements (collectively) across the LCR in the next iteration of Local Plans. For this reason, the LCR authorities recognise the need to continue their commitment to co-operate on this key issue in line with Policies in the National Planning Framework (NPPF). 3.12. Where strategic Green Belt release is necessary now or in the future, the LCR authorities are committed to considering the review and amendment of Green Belt boundaries in a consistent manner in accordance with NPPF and with regard to the impact on the wider Green Belt as a whole.’ In addition Appendix 2D and 2F of the DtC Statement which set out a schedule of DPO and PPM meetings in 2014 and 2017 demonstrate that the Green Belt was a matter for detailed discussion. Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

The DtC Statement (CD 5) at Appendix 5 includes the LCR Statement of Common Ground (April 2018). At paragraph 4.11 on page 14 the Green Belt is covered including the following statement: ‘The LCR authorities agree to continue involving each other closely when considering the case for localised changes to the Green Belt. If they decide in future that it is necessary to conduct a joint strategic review of the Merseyside Green Belt, the reasons and agreed approach will be set out in a future SoCG’ This has been carried forward into the Final Version (July 2019) (CD 40). Notwithstanding the above it should be noted that with respect to the Green Belt which borders Knowsley no exceptional circumstances were considered to exist to amend the boundary in Liverpool. In respect of the Green Belt that borders Halton, the City Council and Halton have aligned their policies to reflect both each other and the Liverpool John Lennon Airport Masterplan. It is noted that Halton are presently are also at the stage of emerging plan preparation and should its approach to the green belt change in any way which affects green belt provision within LCC then that will be addressed on any review of the plan. . 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? With the exception of the airport, no exceptional circumstances exist to justify amending the Green Belt boundary and there is no additional land in the City that is considered to serve the purpose of the Green Belt. The City Council however wish to highlight that amendments are required to correct errors at the following locations, as set out in a CPRE Lancashire representation (0024/04/SLP298): 1. Land East of Old Lodge Close (L12) – Drafting error, please see Map at Appendix 2 of this Hearing Statement 2. Land west of Parkview Drive (L27) - Drafting error. See Map in Appendix 3 of this Hearing Statement 3. Land east of Ribble Road (L25)– Drafting error - open space adjacent to Loopline should be Green Belt. See Map in Appendix 4 of this Hearing Statement

Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

CPRE also considered that an amendment was needed at ‘Land south of Holt Lane and east of Caldway Drive (L27)’. The City Council have checked this thoroughly using GIS and consider that the boundary in the Local Plan does not differ to that in the UDP. The City Council’s view is that it may appear to be slightly different due to a more up to date base map being used in the Local Plan and may also be due to Policy Map graphics, which may have led to a misapprehension on the part of CPRE – but there is no warrant to alter the GB. 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)? The City Council wish to propose the following modification to address this matter and a representation from Natural (075/009/SLP386). NB. Modifications shown in red and black strikethrough are MM’s requested by the Inspector. Modifications in blue and blue strikethrough are proposed by the City Council. Please also note that the modifications to The Explanation include those proposed in Q5.6 Policy GI 1 Green Infrastructure Resources The recreational function, visual amenity, historic and structural quality and value of the City’s green infrastructure resource, set out below, will be protected and enhanced in accordance with the policies and criteria in this section of the Plan: a. The Green Belt, and the Mersey Estuary SSSI/SPA/Ramsar Site; b. Mersey Estuary SSSI/SPA/Ramsar Site and Liverpool Bay SPA; c. Sites of International Nature Importance outside the City boundary – Sefton Coast SAC, and Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar Site d. The Green Wedge; e. The City's network of Parks and Gardens; f. Biodiversity assets, including Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and Local Nature Reserves (LNR) g. Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites (RIGS); h. Locally important open spaces including amenity spaces and allotments; i. Water spaces, including the Leeds Liverpool canal, Mersey Estuary, park lakes and water courses. j. Playing fields and pitches; and k. Green Corridors, Recreational routes and the Public Rights of Way network

Explanation 12.3 Green infrastructure, which comprises both green and blue spaces is a key asset for the City which can continue to contribute significantly to the delivery of sustainable growth and continuing economic, social and physical regeneration. An attractive green infrastructure network makes a vital contribution to quality of life, providing a number of benefits and functions, such as outdoor recreation, mitigating the effects of climate change, improving physical and mental health, providing habitats for wildlife, providing opportunities for walking and cycling and creating an attractive environment to support the regeneration of the City and improving the Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

quality of the environment for local communities. It is therefore important to protect and enhance green infrastructure to maximise these key benefits. This policy sets out the types of Green Infrastructure to be protected and enhanced by the Local Plan, informed by the Open Space Study. Subsequent policies set out how this will be achieved, with the exception of the Green Belt to which national policy will apply. 12.4 Green infrastructure within the City can be used to avoid negative impacts on internationally protected habitat sites. Green Infrastructure within the City can be used to mitigate impacts on internationally protected habitat sites. Enhancements to existing open spaces, together with appropriate access and habitat management, may help to attract recreational users away from sensitive internationally protected habitat sites including those in neighbouring authorities such as the Sefton Coast SAC and the Sefton section of the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA. Impact on these sites will also be managed through the City Council working in partnership with neighbouring authorities on appropriate Management Plans 12.5 Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the City Council has a responsibility to maintain the Public Rights of Way network. These are defined as footpaths, bridleways, byways open to all traffic and roads using public paths, with the term usually applied to surfaced paths that are normally used by motor vehicles. In addition the City’s Open Space Assessment report (2017) identified spaces whose primary function was a green corridor (see Picture 49). Green corridors include sites that offer opportunities for walking, cycling or horse riding, whether for leisure purposes or travel. Such sites also provide opportunities for wildlife migration and may include river and canal banks, road and rail corridors, cycling routes, pedestrian paths, rights of way and permissive paths. Also Natural England has a legal duty to secure a new long distance National Trail around the coast of England for recreational purposes, and the City Council will work with Natural England to achieve this. 12.6 12.6 The green infrastructure network in the City contributes to the identified "Green Web" in the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board Final Report (2016), which also identifies a network of green corridors which covers large areas of the City. These corridors link existing sites with a series of improvements and investments which will result in the establishment of the "green web" with the aim is to of providing access to green and open spaces within, and across the City, in a safe, accessible and connective manner. It is therefore important to protect the key components of this "web". This work has been amalgamated and rationalised into the LCR Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). The principles set out in the Green and Open Spaces Review around active travel and green networks remain but a number of priority routes have now been defined within the LCWIP together with a number of desire lines. These are explained in more detail at Policy GI9.

Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 4: Green Belt, green infrastructure and open spaces 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? Green Wedges

Please also see Inspector Initial Questions 121 and 122 in document EX2b on Green Wedges and Council’s response at pages 114-117 of document LCC01a and the proposed Policies Map amendments in Document LCC02a (pages 161 & 162).

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? Green Wedge policy has a very long history within the City. Whilst a Strategic Review of Green Wedges was not undertaken as part of the local plan evidence base, the City Council consider that the Green Wedge designation remains justified, effective and consistent with national policy, and that it was appropriate to carry over the designation into the Local Plan for the following reasons: 1. NPPF 2012 defines Green infrastructure as ‘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’. As set out in the Local Plan, paragraph 12.7, the Green Wedges fulfil this function, in that they comprise a network of multi-functional spaces; 2. NPPF also states at paragraph 171 that Plans should ‘take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure;’ – the City Council consider that the Green Wedge designation is consistent with this requirement as they comprise inter-connected open spaces of strategic importance, that provide a network for habitats, and are an important green infrastructure resource; 3. Aside from the proposed Policies Map changes the open spaces that make up the Green Wedges remain intact, and thus continue to provide extensive inter- connected networks of open spaces that provide ‘green lungs’ in the City, providing visual and physical links, and a countryside environment in a densely built up City. They help to define the neighbourhoods within which they are located and the spaces within the Green Wedges provide a range of functions, including for recreation, biodiversity, climate change and amenity. Together these spaces form a significant element of the City’s overall structure. It is therefore important to protect this unique asset from unjustified development. 4. There is very strong public support for the continued protection of the City’s Green Wedges. Given the tight urban environment of the City this is not altogether surprising. However even redevelopment of previously developed Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

land in such areas has proven to be highly controversial. There is considered to be no public support for a review of green wedges that might lead to their diminution

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? Yes this designation can be added to the Policies Map alongside a number of LCR Active Travel Routes as explained below (see Appendix 6) The Green Corridors shown on Picture 49 were identified as a separate typology in the City’s Open Space Assessment Report (OSAR) (April 2017), as explained in LCC01a (see Appendices 5 and 7). Only sites whose primary function was considered to be a ‘green corridor’ were identified. They comprise structural parts of the townscape which are an integral part of the City’s character. The City’s Open Space Assessment report (CD16) explained that ‘the green corridors typology includes sites that offer opportunities for walking, cycling or horse riding, whether for leisure purposes or travel. Such sites also provide opportunities for wildlife migration. This may include river and canal banks, road and rail corridors, cycling routes, pedestrian paths, rights of way and permissive paths’. The majority of the corridors overlap with open space designations and thus are protected by Policy GI 3, although a number of road corridors are not open spaces. Paragraph 12.6 of the Local Plan incorrectly references the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board Final Report (2016) as the source of these corridors, and thus a modification is proposed to correct this error and to include an explanation of green corridors (see below). In addition the City Council propose to show these corridors as a separate layer on the Policies Map (see Appendix 6) The corridors referenced in Part 2 of Policy GI 9 refer to corridors shown in diagrammatic form in the Mayoral Open and Green Spaces Review (2016) as well as those in Picture 49. The Explanatory text incorrectly only referenced Picture 49 on page 226. At the time it was not considered effective to show the corridors from the Mayoral Review on the Policies Map as the routes were not precise. Since the submission of the Local Plan, this work has continued, and has been amalgamated and rationalised into the LCR Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) (see Appendix 9). The principles set out in the Green and Open Spaces Review around active travel and green networks remain but a number of priority routes have now been defined within the LCWIP together with a number of desire lines. The City Council propose to include the Priority Routes only on the Policies Map (see Appendix 6) and to make it clear that Policy GI9 will also apply to these routes (see Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

proposed modifications to the policy and explanation below). It is currently proposed that the routes will be delivered through SIF funding and matched funding including S106:  Phase 1 routes are focussed on linking housing and employment locations, includes routes through green spaces and focuses on habitat improvements to those green spaces along the route. The routes in Liverpool are: o Liverpool City Centre – upgraded cycleway (6.8km upgraded cycleway) o Liverpool Loop Line (6km upgraded cycleway)

The Phase 1 routes form part of the Liverpool City Region Green Sustainable Travel Corridors which is funded by the European Structural & Investment Fund for Sustainable Urban Development and to be matched funded by TCF funding and associated projects funded by the Forestry Commission and Section 106 allocations. It will include cycling and walking route upgrades in addition to biodiversity and green infrastructure enhancements.

 Phase 2a includes the East Lancashire Road (Haydock to Liverpool)

 Phase 3 includes the following routes: o Liverpool City Centre to o Bootle to Liverpool City Centre In addition the Public Realm Strategy being developed by the City Council will reflect these routes and provide more detail on their implementation and delivery; and a network of local routes will continue to be developed outside of the Local Plan process. Please also see Question 8.7 under Matter 8, Issue 2. Proposed Modifications

Red underlined and black strike-through – Modifications set out in LCC02a Blue underlined or blue strike-through – modifications proposed by LCC in response to Q4.6 and Q4.4

1. Proposed Modifications to Explanation of Policy GI 1

12.4 Green infrastructure within the City can be used to avoid negative impacts on internationally protected habitat sites. Green Infrastructure within the City can be used to mitigate impacts on internationally protected habitat sites. Enhancements to existing open spaces, together with appropriate access and habitat management, may help to attract recreational users away from sensitive internationally protected habitat sites including those in neighbouring authorities such as the Sefton Coast SAC and the Sefton section of the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA. Impact on these sites will also be managed through the City Council working in partnership with neighbouring authorities on appropriate Management Plans Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

12.5 Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the City Council has a responsibility to maintain the Public Rights of Way network. These are defined as footpaths, bridleways, byways open to all traffic and roads using public paths, with the term usually applied to surfaced paths that are normally used by motor vehicles. In addition the City’s Open Space Assessment report (2017) identified spaces whose primary function was a green corridor (see Picture 49). Green corridors include sites that offer opportunities for walking, cycling or horse riding, whether for leisure purposes or travel. Such sites also provide opportunities for wildlife migration and may include river and canal banks, road and rail corridors, cycling routes, pedestrian paths, rights of way and permissive paths. Also Natural England has a legal duty to secure a new long distance National Trail around the coast of England for recreational purposes, and the City Council will work with Natural England to achieve this. 12.6 12.6 The green infrastructure network in the City contributes to the identified "Green Web" in the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board Final Report (2016), which also identifies a network of green corridors which covers large areas of the City. These corridors link existing sites with a series of improvements and investments which will result in the establishment of the "green web" with the aim is to of providing access to green and open spaces within, and across the City, in a safe, accessible and connective manner. It is therefore important to protect the key components of this "web". This work has been amalgamated and rationalised into the LCR Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). The principles set out in the Green and Open Spaces Review around active travel and green networks remain but a number of priority routes have now been defined within the LCWIP together with a number of desire lines. These are explained in more detail at Policy GI9.

2. Proposed Modification to Policy GI 9 ‘Green Infrastructure Enhancement’

1. To mitigate the impact of climate change in the City all major development proposals should be designed to incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure measures including the following, where appropriate: of an appropriate type, standard, size and which reflects the needs of the area. This may include:

a. Integrating or enhancing existing biodiversity features; b. Improving the recreational function of open spaces, particularly where it would assist in minimising recreational pressures on nationally and internationally designated sites both within and beyond the City boundary. c. Providing or enhancing green infrastructure at key gateways to, and along, key corridors in the City, where appropriate opportunities arise within the development site; d. Enhancing existing open spaces within the site and maintaining access to accessible public open space Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

e. Development The inclusion of small scale green infrastructure projects which meet identified needs of the area. This could include food growing or small community gardens or public art projects. f. Contributing Inclusion of to effective water management through the use of permeable surfaces and/or Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, and where possible and appropriate to do, the opening of culverted watercourses. g. Improving or creating access to the Public Rights of Way network or other green routes, green corridors such as the Liverpool Loop Line or the Leeds Liverpool Canal, or LCR Active Travel Routes to encourage active and sustainable travel and recreation.

2. Development proposals which are located in close proximity to green corridor routes or the LCR Active Travel Routes should contribute to the their delivery of the City-wide "Green Web".

3. All development proposals, where possible, should contribute to ensuring a net gain in biodiversity in the City including, where relevant, contributing to the recovery of priority species and habitats.

4. Where fairly and reasonably related to the development proposal on-site provision has been demonstrated not to be possible, or the council is satisfied that on-site provision is not beneficial or appropriate, financial contributions through an appropriate legal agreement will be sought towards the creation of new off-site green infrastructure provision, or to enhance and improve existing provision off-site where it is clearly demonstrated that on-site provision is not possible, beneficial or appropriate.

3. Proposed Modifications to Explanation of Policy GI9

12.46 NPPF requires plans to take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change. This policy requires development proposals, wherever possible, to contribute to enhancing green infrastructure in the City, through the incorporation of green infrastructure measures into the design of the proposal. High quality design which includes green infrastructure can help mitigate the impacts of climate change, create or define local character and deliver significant benefits for local communities, ensuring that areas are sustainable, healthy, attractive, welcoming, safe and manageable. This may include simple upgrading, enhancing existing open spaces on site, or high quality landscaping along key routes and at key gateways into the City where appropriate opportunities arise within the development site, or a more comprehensive approach which may include re-focusing the role of all or part of an open space in order to better meet local needs.

12.47 The policy encourages opportunities for habitat enhancement within development proposals and proposals where possible should contribute to delivering a net gain in biodiversity in the City. Opportunities range, for example, from larger scale habitat creation within larger sites (such as wetland habitat linked to surface water management (SuDS) or flood risk storage areas) to smaller measures (such Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

as ‘bat boxes’ and tree and bulb planting) which can be integrated with wider green infrastructure provision.

12.48 Other measures that could be designed into development schemes include small community projects such as space for food growing and enhancing green links and recreational routes. The City’s green infrastructure resource can be utilised to link spaces and places with each other. A network of green routes can encourage active travel – on foot or by bike, to places of employment, local shops, or schools for example, or simply for enjoyment; having positive health and economic benefits. Improvements that could be made include signage and maintenance of routes to ensure accessibility for all. Green infrastructure corridors can also provide important connections for wildlife, allowing animals and birds to move between areas in the City.

12.49 The Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board Report proposes the development of green corridors to link open spaces in the City to create a "Green Web". The proposals within this have been amalgamated and rationalised into the LCR Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. The principles set out in the Green and Open Spaces Review around active travel and green networks remain and a number of priority routes have been defined together with a number of desire lines. The priority corridors which are shown on the Policies Map focus on improving walking and cycling routes in the City including green infrastructure enhancements and comprise the following:

o Liverpool City Centre – Speke upgraded cycleway (6.8km upgraded cycleway) o Liverpool Loop Line (6km upgraded cycleway) o East Lancashire Road (Haydock to Liverpool) o Liverpool City Centre to Childwall o Bootle to Liverpool City Centre

This work will continue to be developed at a City level to identify and create more local routes. Development proposals which are located in close proximity to the green corridors (see Green Corridors Figure below Policy GI 1) should contribute to their establishment and/ or enhancement.

12.50 Where it is clearly demonstrated that it is not possible to provide new or enhanced green infrastructure within the development site the City Council will seek a contribution to off-site provision. This links in with the approach for new open space within residential development in Policy H14.

Green Web Please also see Inspector Initial Questions 119, 122, 148 and 149 and the Council’s response in LCC01a and the proposed main modifications. 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 Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

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? It is considered that the Local Plan does provide a sound and effective response to the ‘Green Web’ concept. In document LCC01a the City Council set out what the Green Web is (see Appendices 5 and 7). In summary, it encompasses all elements of the City’s open space network as identified in Policy GI1. Subsequent policies within the Chapter go on to deal with the different components of the ‘green web’ and address the detailed approach to the protection of different typologies of open spaces assets, which form part of the ‘green web’. Policy GI 9 seeks enhancement of the elements of the ‘green web’ including green corridors which will connect open spaces in the City. The Green and Open Spaces Review states ‘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.’(Page 82) The City Council’s response to Question 4.6 clarifies what Policy GI 9 is referencing and how the Green and Open Spaces Review has evolved.

With regards to S106 monies, Appendix 8 of this Hearing Statement sets out a list of open space projects which have S106 monies allocated against them. Some of these projects are ongoing and some have been delivered. The projects are predominately funded with contributions that the City Council has secured for open space. A smaller proportion of the projects are funded via contributions secured for street trees. Although the ‘green web’ is not directly referenced, as all open spaces form part of the ‘green web’ then these projects will contribute to its enhancement. The open space contributions have been calculated in line with the current approach – ‘Where onsite open space cannot be provided for 50 sqm per dwelling onsite, a charge of £1,000 per dwelling or £2,000 per dwelling in the city centre will be required’. The street trees contributions have been calculated in line with the current approach – ‘1 tree per 5 dwellings or 1 tree per 1,000 sqm of non-residential floor space’. The LPVA testing of the generic housing typologies and the majority of housing allocations includes the cost of onsite open space provision together with the capitalised cost of future maintenance (in accordance with Policies H14 and GI 9). In addition, the LPVA includes separate testing to model the impact of s106 contributions of £1,000 per dwelling (£2,000 per dwelling in the city centre). The LPVA makes the assumption that this contribution is for the provision of offsite play space, however the contribution could be utilised for other infrastructure requirements including the ‘green web’.

In addition many of the typologies tested in the LPVA still produce a surplus once all policy requirements are taken into consideration. These surpluses would be available Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

to fund further S106 contributions such as contributions to the ‘green web’. The references to the respective surpluses are noted below:  Zone 3 (para 6.42) - £393 to £5,592 per dwelling  Zone 4 (para 6.51) - £6,849 to £19,708 per dwelling  Apartments (para 6.60) - £495 per dwelling

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? The Local Plan does not currently include guidance with regards to the meaning of ‘close proximity’. The City Council consider that ‘close proximity’ is a matter of planning judgment and properly could refer to developments within a 5 minute walking catchment of the development site to ensure that improvements to green corridors directly benefit occupiers of the site. This definition could be added to the explanation for Policy GI 9 as a modification if the Inspector considers it necessary in order to make the policy sound.

Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 4: Green Belt, Green Infrastructure and Open Spaces Issue 3: Are the Plan’s policies in relation to Open Spaces justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

Please also see Inspector Initial Questions 123-126 in document EX2b and the Council’s proposed re-write of Policy GI3 as a potential main modification at pages 162-170 of document LCC02a.

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? Yes, Document CD16 – Open Space Assessment Report and Standards (April 2017) does fulfil this function. Paragraph 2 of the Report states: ‘The Assessment Report provides detail with regard to what provision exists in the City, its condition, distribution and overall quality. It also considers the demand for provision based on population distribution, planned growth and consultation findings. The Standards section gives direction on the future provision of accessible, high quality, sustainable provision for open spaces across Liverpool.’ It considers the quality and value of each of the following typologies:  Parks and gardens .  Natural and semi-natural . greenspaces  Amenity greenspace .  Provision for children and . young people  Allotments  Green corridors  Cemeteries, disused churchyards and other burial grounds  Civic spaces

Q4.10 A number of representations point to built educational establishments (Carnatic Halls, Hope Park Campus etc) where the open space designation washes over the site. Is this a justified and effective approach where sites have no recreational, open space or food growing function? The open space designation washes over such sites where the open space element covers more than 50% of the site. It is considered that this approach is justified and Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

effective as open spaces in the City are considered to provide more than a recreational or food growing function. Paragraph 12.12 of the Local Plan explains that open spaces also contribute to creating a greener and more attractive City, and thus support the City’s regeneration. Open spaces, including those in private ownership also have a visual amenity role which is recognised in Policy GI 3 and paragraph 12.19 of the Local Plan. Including such sites as open spaces enables a consideration of the open space functions of the sites should development proposals come forward, and thus is an effective approach. Q4.11 Since plan submission, are there any factual amendments needed to the open space designation on the Policies Map? Yes a number of factual amendments are needed to the Policies Map as set out below. 1. The following sites have planning permission for residential development with the first three completed: a. Former Ernst Cookson School – see Map in Appendix 10 b. Former Holly Lodge Site – See Map in Appendix 11 c. Former Lower Lee School Site – See Map in Appendix 12 d. Melwood – LFC Training Ground – see Map in Appendix 13

2. Aintree Racecourse – a very small part of the Racecourse site lies within the Liverpool boundary and has incorrectly been designated as open space. It should be primarily residential which aligns with the designation in Sefton. See Map in Appendix 14.

Q4.12 Is the submitted plan sound in identifying Meadows as open space under Policies GI1 and GI3? Yes, the Local Plan is sound in designating Sefton Park Meadows as open space. The site was assessed within the Open Space Assessment Report and Standards (April 2017) and it does not have planning permission for development.

Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 4: Green Belt, Green Infrastructure and Open Spaces Issue 4: Is the Plan’s policy framework for biodiversity and geodiversity justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

Please note that Habitats Regulation Assessment is considered in detail under Matter 1 as a point of legal compliance. It is also considered specifically under Matter 5 in relation to Liverpool John Lennon Airport (Policy EC7).

Q4.13 Are any further modifications necessary to either Policies STP3 or GI5 and/or supporting text in light of latest Habitat Regulations Assessment and the Natural England correspondence of 2 March 2020 [Document CD39]? Subject to the MM to Policy STP3 set out in the combined schedule of MMs (CD LCC02a), it is considered unlikely that further modifications will be needed to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations. Please also see response to questions 1.17and 1.18.

In addition the City Council consider that no modifications are needed to Policy GI 5 in light of the latest HRA and Natural England correspondence. But please note modifications are proposed in response to Q4.15 below.

Q4.14 Policy GI4 supports increased access along the coast and recreational use of waterspaces in the City including dock spaces. Does the policy require modification in light of the Habitats Regulation Assessment of the plan and the fact that the Liverpool Bay SPA boundary now comes into the plan area? In the HRA Policy GI 4 was screened in and was therefore subject to Appropriate Assessment, due to the fact the policy promotes the recreational use of water spaces. The HRA references a 2015 study, commissioned by the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) to determine the use of habitats within the Liverpool City Region by qualifying features of Natura 2000 sites that are located outside of the designated site (functionally linked supporting habitat); although the report identifies this to be associated more with the interest features of the Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site, Liverpool Bay SPA and potentially Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site, rather than the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. The overall conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment determined that: ‘’ ….the Liverpool Local Plan does provide a protective policy framework that is sufficient to ensure that no adverse effects on the integrity will affect any European site in isolation or in combination as a result development provided by the Liverpool Local Plan. It did, however, identify that this conclusion was dependent on the emerging Liverpool Region European Site Recreation Mitigation and Avoidance Strategy being implemented during 2020. (P101) Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

The City Council do not consider that a modification to the policy is required as a direct result of the HRA. In addition as the Local Plan should be read as a whole the proposed MM to Policy STP3 will ensure that the Local Plan is effective in terms of recreational pressure and mitigation. (See draft schedule of Main Modifications) However Natural England have made a representation to this policy (075/011/SLP388), and ask that clear wording be provided which ‘indicates protection afforded to internationally and nationally designated sites and protected species and habitats; and recognition that an increase in recreational pressure may require appropriate mitigation and management linking to the outcomes of the VMS work’. Appropriate wording that highlights this mitigation within the explanatory text is requested. The City Council therefore wish to propose the modifications set out below to address this representation. In addition for clarification purposes the City Council wish to reference ‘blue’ infrastructure in point 2 (d).

Policy GI 4 – Water Spaces 1. The City Council will support proposals which increase access along the coast and which increase opportunities to allow for greater access to, interaction with, and recreational use of water spaces in the City, whilst ensuring the spaces and their settings are protected and enhanced.

2. Proposals for new development adjacent to a water space should demonstrate that account has been taken of its setting and should ensure that: a. The design, detailing, materials, scale and massing of the development complements its location; b. The site layout takes account of the relationship between the siting of buildings, parking and landscaping areas and the water space, to maximise the benefits of a waterside setting; c. Public access to waterway corridors is maintained or enhanced where possible; d. Opportunities are taken to create or enhance green and blue infrastructure provision which contributes to enhancing visual amenity, biodiversity, and increased use of water spaces and their environs; e. Any historical or industrial archaeological features relating to the water space are retained and restored; f. Opportunities are taken to provide active frontages and provide uses linked to the use of the waterspace where possible; g. The waterway corridor and its related infrastructure is conserved and enhanced. and h. There are no negative consequences for, and where possible the development should enhance, the nature conservation value and water quality of the water space and surrounding environment.

3. For proposals involving dock spaces, in addition to the criteria set out above, development: Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

a. will not be permitted to infill dock water spaces or reduce the depth of dock water spaces to an extent that would limit the range of water vessels that could utilise these dock water spaces; b. should avoid dominating the water spaces and maintain their importance as open water spaces that provide spacing between dockland buildings; c. should demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on residential amenity or existing businesses; d. should make appropriate provision for the future management and maintenance of public realm, movement routes, dock water spaces and adjacent quaysides; and e. should ensure protection of navigational routes; and f. Should ensure the protection of internationally and nationally designated habitat sites, protected species and habitats and functionally linked and supporting habitat for SPA birds.

4. Proposals in the City Centre should also meet the requirements of Policy CC 11.

Explanation

12.22 Water spaces make an important contribution to the City’s green infrastructure resource. The , the Leeds Liverpool Canal and the docks along the Waterfront are the most significant water spaces in the City, and reflect the City’s maritime heritage, having played an important role in its growth and development as a key port. There are also a number of park lakes and smaller rivers and brooks throughout the City. This policy supports proposals which would increase access along the coast and increase recreational use of the City's waterspaces. It also sets out a number of requirements that development proposals adjacent to waterspaces should meet.

12.23 Liverpool has the largest and most complete system of historic docks anywhere in the world. Part 3 of the policy seeks to ensure that development proposals will not have a negative impact on the dock spaces. It is important that proposals involving the spaces do not undermine their fundamental openness, the contribution they make to the character, distinctiveness and Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and do not have an adverse impact on residents and the operation of existing businesses. In addition European and nationally important habitat sites must be protected in line with Policy STP3, and/or undertake appropriate mitigation reflecting the LCR Recreational Management Strategy.

Q4.15 Is part 2 of the submitted policy GI5 (and as amended in the proposed main modification in Document LCC02a) soundly based in its approach to the different tiers of designated sites of biodiversity and/or geodiversity Yes the policy is soundly based. The City Council do wish however to propose a modification to Part 2 to remove a reference to the Mersey Estuary Ramsar site Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

which is dealt with by Part 1 of the policy and to correct an error in the MM Schedule (see below) to Part 2, 3rd bullet point. With the exception of this correction the policy is considered to be sound in respect of its approach to different tiers of designated sites. The City Council would however like to propose a modification to Schedule 12.1 to ensure all important nature sites both within Liverpool City, but also across the wider Liverpool City Region are included as set out in the Natural England Representation (075/013/SLP390) (see Appendix 15) Policy GI 5 Protection of Biodiversity and Geodiversity

(NB modifications proposed by the City Council are shown in blue or blue strikethrough) 1. Development which may result in a likely significant effect on an internationally important site must be accompanied by sufficient evidence to enable the Council to make a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Adverse effects should be avoided and/or mitigated to ensure that the integrity of internationally important sites is protected. Development which may adversely affect the integrity of internationally important sites will only be permitted where there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and suitable compensatory provision is secured. This also applies to sites and habitats outside the designated boundaries that support species listed as being important in the designations of the internationally important sites. 2. Development which may cause direct or indirect significant harm to other designated sites of nature or geological conservation importance, Priority Habitats, legally protected species and / or Priority Species will only be permitted on:  National sites (Mersey Estuary Ramsar site/Mersey Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)): where there are no alternatives and where the reasons for and the benefits of development clearly outweigh the impact on the nature conservation value of features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and its broader contribution to the national network;  Local Sites (Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites (RIGS): where the reasons for and the benefits of development clearly outweigh the impact on the nature conservation value of the site and its broader contribution to the Liverpool City Region (LCR )Ecological Network  Sites including Priority Habitats/ Irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodlands and aged or veteran trees) where there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. having regard to unless the need for and the benefits of, the development on balance clearly outweigh the impact on the nature conservation value of the habitat and its broader contribution to the LCR Ecological Network

3. Where it has been demonstrated that significant harm cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation, replacement or other compensatory provision may be Matter 4 / Liverpool City Council

required. to accord with the hierarchy of sites. The location of appropriate mitigation, replacement or other compensatory measures will be targeted, using a sequential approach as follows:  On site;  Immediate locality and / or within the Core Biodiversity Area;  LCR Nature Improvement Area within the City; and lastly  LCR Nature Improvement Area outside the City.

4. Where significant harm resulting from development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated, then planning permission will be refused

5. Development proposals which affect sites of nature conservation importance, pPriority hHabitats, legally protected species or pPriority sSpecies must be supported by an Ecological Appraisal and include details of avoidance, mitigation and /or compensation where appropriate.

6. The policy applies where development proposals in Liverpool may directly or indirectly affect sites with known conservation value in a neighbouring authority area.

7. This policy will apply to other sites recognised during the Plan period as being of nature conservation importance, including land provided as compensation.

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? The Liverpool City Region Nature Improvement Area will be shown in the Policies Map. Appendix 16 of this Hearing Statement sets out a map with the areas to be included shown on it.