Page 1

Green Infrastructure Strategy Whitehill Bordon Eco-town July 2011


Green Infrastructure Strategy Contents 1 Introduction  Whitehill Bordon Eco-town  Eco-town Masterplan  The Green Infrastructure Approach  Relationship to other studies  Structure of the document 2. Strategy Context  Local context  Greenspace Audit  Existing Assets

2

Green Infrastructure Strategy

3. Policy Background  Introduction  Policy Review  Legislation and National Policy  National Guidance  Regional Policy  Local Development Framework 4. Stakeholder Engagement  Introduction  Background  European Site - Visitor Surveys  Consultation Approach  Stakeholder Workshop1  Summary of Comments  Stakeholder Workshop 2

5. Strategy Development  Introduction  Eco-town Vision  Green Town Vision  Green Infrastructure Vision for East Hampshire  An Integrated Strategy  Key Structuring Elements  Greenspace Typology  Greenspace Provision  Objectives  Access and Movement  Catchment analysis  Green Loop and Green Grid  Biodiversity  Ecological Enhancements  Water Resources and Flood Management  Landscape Character, Cultural Heritage and Sense of Place  Activity, Recreation and Health  Country Park Facilities  Local Involvement  Sustainable Design  Management  The Strategy

6. Outline design strategy  BOSC and adjacent woodland  Hogmoor Inclosure/the Croft  Bordon Inclosure/Trenchard Park  Alexandra Park  Jubilee Park  Allotments  Whitehill Town Council Recreation Ground  Wey Valley  Deadwater Valley LNR  Walldown Enclosure  Standford Grange Farm  Eveley Wood  Existing Urban Greenspace  High Street/A325/Spine Road  Proposed Urban Environment  Town Park Option  Whitehill Club and Round Hill

7. Design Elements  Introduction  Materials and Colour  Park Furniture  Fencing and Boundary Treatments  Decking  Interpretation, Signage and Branding  Gateways  Public Art  Built Form  Visitor Facilities  Play


8. Management and maintenance  A commitment to quality  Best practice  Future Management Options  Case Studies  Milton Keynes Park Trust (MKPT)  Handsworth Park Management  Land Trust (LT)  Future Management

9. Outline implementation strategy  Introduction  Investment and Funding Climate  Funding Approach  Funding Model  Action Plan and Project Priority  Project Phasing and Timescales  Monitoring  Partnership - Next Steps

10. Appendices Appendix A  What is Green Infrastructure? Appendix B  Wildlife of Whitehill Biodiversity Action Plan Annex Appendix C  Stakeholder Engagement Appendix D  Planning Policy Context

3

Green Infrastructure Strategy


4

Green Infrastructure Strategy


1 introduction

5

Green Infrastructure Strategy


1. Introduction The Whitehill Bordon Eco-town This document, produced by Halcrow Group Limited, on behalf of East Hampshire District Council, sets out the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Green Infrastructure Strategy.

Whitehill Bordon is located within East Hampshire District and the County of Hampshire, between Farnham and Petersfield, to the south west of London.

The South East Green Infrastructure Framework states that:-

The Eco-town area is set in attractive countryside, comprising beautiful open heathland and woodland. The area has a wealth of designated ecological sites. It is also located at the boundary of the newly designated South Downs National Park.

“Green Infrastructure has a vital role to play in enhancing the places we live, work and enjoy in our spare time, as well as providing an important network of wildlife habitats. It also helps to deliver against an agenda increasingly focused on sustainability and climate change.�

The Vision for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Masterplan places this outstanding natural environment and landscape surrounding the town at the centre of the masterplan.

A 33

A 30 Aldershot Basingstoke

A 331 Ash

A 287

M3

A 31 Farnham

A 339

A3

A 325

Alton A 31

A 287

Whitehill/Bordon Hindhead

A 286 Liss Petersfield

A3 A 272

6

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Whitehill Bordon Location

Midhurst


The Eco-town Masterplan The production of the draft Whitehill Bordon Masterplan (June 2010) and Appropriate Assessment (November 2009) has created the need to produce a Green Infrastructure Strategy to examine the current level of both the biodiversity and green infrastructure provision within the Eco-town Policy Zone.

The Eco-town masterplan (adjacent) sets out a vision for the Eco-town development with the following elements: A new mixed use town centre  Up to three new primary schools and early years centres, and a new children’s centre  Re-building of Mill Chase Community Technology College on a new site  Skills training and further education facilities  Sites for new commercial leisure facilities  Around 4000 new homes within identified new residential neighbourhoods and the town centre  A public sports hub with leisure centre and pitches  Local healthcare and emergency services

 Around 70,000 sqm Ecobusiness park floorspace and opportunities across the masterplan for the creation of approximately 5500 jobs  Around 127 hectares of new available public greenspaces which provide Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs) to mitigate against human impacts on nearby European protected habitats  A central public transport hub and modern public transport systems including a safeguarded rail corridor  Retrofitting of existing homes and businesses to improve energy and water efficiency  A biomass powered combined heat and power plant (CHP).

Eco-town Masterplan (source Aecom 2009)

7

Green Infrastructure Strategy


The Green Infrastructure Approach The Landscape Institute, in its Green Infrastructure (GI) Position Statement (2009), ‘recognises that the natural environment has a critical role to play in sustaining life, and the quality of that life, through the provision of a range of different functions’, particularly when it is ‘planned and managed as an integrated whole; a managed network of greenspaces, habitats and places providing benefits which exceed the sum of the individual parts. It is this concept of connectivity and multi-functionality which makes the GI approach such an important part of landscape planning and management’ with ‘the potential to deliver a wide range of social, environmental and economic benefits’.

8

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Multifunctionality Diagram (Source - South East Green Infrastructure Framework - 2009)


Relationship to other studies ‘Understanding multifunctionality is central to the GI approach to land use planning. Where land performs a range of functions it affords a far greater range of social, environmental and economic benefits than might otherwise be delivered’ (Landscape Institute 2009).

The Green Infrastructure Strategy is being produced in parallel with a number of other studies for the Eco-town:  Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA);  Energy Feasibility Study;  Water Cycle Study; and  One Planet Living Strategy. The input of the HRA is particularly important as it recommends the approach to SANG provision. The East Hampshire District Council Green Infrastructure Study 2011, the Sport and Recreation Study and the Open Space Strategy (2011) are also closely related to this study. National Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) requires local authorities to undertake robust assessments of existing and future needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities. The definition of green infrastructure in the South East Plan is broadly consistent with the typology

in PPG17. Assessments under this Guidance will therefore provide a valuable information source for planning green infrastructure. The distinction between planning for open space (Open Space or Greenspace Strategies, based on PPG17 type audits) and planning for green infrastructure can appear subtle, as all greenspaces can form part of green infrastructure networks, although the scope of open space strategies and green infrastructure strategies are quite different. Greenspace strategies work within the typology of recreational, amenity and public open spaces identified by PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002). They evaluate publicly accessible open space provision within these typologies at the local authority scale, noting issues in relation to condition, quality and

access, often to inform a strategy and action plan that sets out future management and regeneration policies. They form a complementary strategy to other strategies such as Local Rights of Way Improvement Plans. This guidance draws a distinction between planning for green infrastructure and open/greenspace strategies in the following terms:  Green infrastructure goes beyond the site specific, considering also the ‘big picture’ – landscape context, hinterland and setting, as well as strategic links beyond the strategy; area (such as rights of way)  Green infrastructure considers private as well as public assets;  Green infrastructure provides a multifunctional, connected network where benefits are derived from ecosystem services;

 Whilst PPG17 compliant studies consider typologies beyond sports and amenity greenspace, spaces are considered primarily from access, quality and management perspectives, rather than consideration of wider environmental benefits and services. These greenspaces are, however, important constituents of a green infrastructure network. This Strategy, therefore, integrates objectives related to open space provision with broader ecological objectives to provide a comprehensive approach to green infrastructure. Whist the study recognises the importance of private assets (and in particular garden space), the focus of the study is on accessible and publically owned sites through which improvements can be delivered and managed.

9

Green Infrastructure Strategy


The Structure of the Document The approach to the development of the strategy is based around the following key outputs:  Green Infrastructure Strategy;  Wildlife of Whitehill Annex (see Appendix B); and  Outline Design Strategy for key green assets. The strategy includes the following elements:  A strategic vision linked to the masterplan;  An audit of existing and proposed greenspaces;  Design of the built environment;  Functionality and design of existing and potential new greenspaces;  Develop the ‘Green Loop’ concept;  Funding and longterm management arrangements;  Stakeholder engagement.

10

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The structure of the report incorporates these elements in the following sections as set out below:1. Introduction 2. Strategy Context 3. Policy Background 4. Stakeholder Engagement 5. Strategy Development 6. Outline design strategy 7. Design Elements 8. Management 9. Outline implementation strategy 10. Appendices


2 the strategy context

11

Green Infrastructure Strategy


2. Strategy Context Local context Whitehill Bordon is encircled by areas designated for their ecological value. The adjacent map shows Whitehill Bordon within the context of adjacent European designated sites (eg SPAs/SACs) and also the relationship to the South Downs National Park.

Key Alice Holt Forest

East Hampshire Hangers SAC

Kingsley Common

To the north of Whitehill Bordon are Broxhead and Kingsley Commons and to the south is Woolmer Forest, all parts of the Wealden Heaths that host important rare bird species, with European protection as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the EU Birds Directive.

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI Oxney Farm SINC

Bordon Camp

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Lindford

River Wey Slab SINC

The Warren Hogmoor Inclosure SINC

Eveley Wood Deadwater Valley LNR

Blackmoor Golf Course Walldown Earthwork

Blackmoor

Selbourne Common

12

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Broxhead Heaths II SPA) Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA) SINC

Broxhead Warren

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill SINC

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Whitehill Bordon Ecological and Landscape Context

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

Passfield Common


Woolmer Forest and Shortheath Common to the northwest also support heathlands with European protection as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the EU Habitats Directive. The associated species found in these heaths unusually includes all six native species of reptile and also rare amphibians including natterjack toad and the protected great crested newt in Woolmer Forest.

Key Alice Holt Forest

East Hampshire Hangers SAC

Kingsley Common

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Broxhead Heaths II SPA) Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA) SINC

Broxhead Warren Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI Oxney Farm SINC

Bordon Camp

Lindford

River Wey Slab SINC

Between Whitehill Bordon and these European sites the majority of natural greenspace to the north, west and south of the town are also designated at a county level as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). These SINCs support heathland and woodland, including ancient woodland, and associated birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, invertebrates and plants.

The Warren Hogmoor Inclosure SINC

Eveley Wood Deadwater Valley LNR

Blackmoor Golf Course Walldown Earthwork

Blackmoor

Selbourne Common

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill SINC

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

Passfield Common

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Whitehill Bordon Ecological and Landscape Context

13

Green Infrastructure Strategy


The adjacent map shows the Priority Habitats and Biodiversity Opportunity Areas within the wider area. Further details can be obtained form the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC).

Key Alice Holt Forest

East Hampshire Hangers SAC

Kingsley Common

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Broxhead Heaths II SPA) Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA) SINC

Broxhead Warren Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI Oxney Farm SINC

Bordon Camp

Lindford

River Wey Slab SINC

The Warren Hogmoor Inclosure SINC

Eveley Wood Deadwater Valley LNR

Blackmoor Golf Course Walldown Earthwork

Blackmoor

Selbourne Common

14

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill SINC

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Whitehill Bordon Ecological and Landscape Context (HBIC)

Passfield Common


Greenspace Audit An audit of all existing and proposed greenspaces in the masterplan area was undertaken, including a review of the following: Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre data;  Work being undertaken by stakeholders in the surrounding area;  Whitehill Bordon masterplan consultation and baseline data;  East Hampshire District Council, Hampshire County Council and MoD data;  Ordnance Survey Mapping;  Aerial photography;  Environment Agency water courses and flood risk information.

The primary purpose of this baseline collection stage was to identify what green infrastructure assets the area contains and to spatially map the sites in digital format. Green infrastructure typologies were based upon those developed as part of the East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011), to ensure a level of consistency between the two strategies as follows: Natural Greenspace;  Informal Urban Amenity Space;  Children’s Play Space;  Allotments;  Parks Sports and Recreation Grounds;  Cemetery;  Playing Fields (limited access).

Whitehill Bordon Strategy Area: Aerial Photograph

15

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Kingsley Common

Existing Assets

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

Broxhead Farm

Poultry House

HEADLEY CP

Cricket Ground

ROAD

Poultry Houses

SINC

St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Broxhead House

Louisburg Barracks

Broxhead Trading Estate

SINC

FARNHAM

Oxney Farm

Highland Farm

Sports Ground

LINDFORD

ROAD

Wolfe House

BOSC

Lindford Bridge

Lindford Farm Community Centre

Playing Field

Playing Field

BO

TION

LL

STA

EY

Bordon Trading Estate

ROAD

Saint Lucia Park

E AV NU

Bordon Inclosure

E

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

OAKHANGER ROAD

Midlands Farm Orchard House

Sewage Works

Quebec Barracks

Pavilion

ROAD LIPHOOK

Community Centre

Playing Field

Subway

CAMP ROAD

Oak Farmhouse

Hatch House Farm

Former Sewage Works

Recycling Centre

Welfare Centre

Playing Field

Trenchard Park

Kildare Close BU DD S

Trenchard Park

NE

River Wey

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

Playing Field

HOGMOOR ROAD

School

r

MILL

Alexandra Park

CHASE

AD R RO

ROAD

LL

YB

RO

FOREST

O

Library

Hall

K

Post Office

Standford House

Standford Mill REET

Hogmoor Inclosure

FOREST ROAD

HIG

H ST

SINC

Whitehill Chase

Eveley Wood

Hospital

NDE WA

Y

Standford Grange

AY EW ND CO

Standford

Deadwater Valley

OOR

LNR

ROX B

UR

ROAD

STAN DFOR

Fire Station

CO

GH

Standford Grange Farm

E

ROAD

E OS CL

Mattswood Farm

PETE RSFIE

LD

Blackmoor Golf Course

D

L ROA WHITEHIL

Forest Lodge Hollywater Farm

FO RE ST

RO

AD

Walldown Earthwork

Hollywater

School

WN

LLDO WA

FIRGROV E ROA D

WN

Blackmoor Nurseries

LLDO WA

LIPHOOK ROAD

AD

RO

Morrington House

AD

RO

Whitehill Park Modden Farm

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

LIPHOOK ROAD

SINC

Hollywater Green

Green Infrastructure Strategy

T

RO

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill

ROAD

AD

IF DR

LD

School

PETE RSFIE

Apple Packing Station

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Whitehill Club

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Blackmoor

Existing Greenspace Assets Heather Park

Gardeners Cottage

HOLLY

H ST HIG

HO

Reynolds house

Cemy

WATE

REET

School

CHALET HILL

Superstore

The Old Corn Mill

PARK

The Warren

School Playing Field

Recreation Ground

CHALET HILL

LANE STANDFORD

Jubilee Park Hall

Caravan Site

ROAD

Pavilion

D LA NE

SINC

Lindford Headley Mill Headley Mill Farm

Dead Wate

Alexandra Park

Slab

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Schools LA

Eveley Corner

16

Waterfield House

Clover House

Football Ground

HOGM

Proposed and existing green infrastructure assets have been digitally mapped with individual polygons for each space/site. For each site a range of site information has been collected such as green infrastructure typology, location, site area, ownership details/management, car parking, environmental designation (e.g. SSSI), and ecological surveys. The audit has helped to identify those sites of higher ecological value to be conserved and integrated into the green infrastructure network, those of lower quality or value which require enhancement, as well as identifying opportunities for new provision or redevelopment of existing provision.

Broxhead Warren

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater Pond

Cranmer Pond

WHITEHILL CP

Passfield Common


3 policy context

17

Green Infrastructure Strategy


3. Policy Background Introduction Guidance on general and specific aspects of planning policy is provided by the Secretary of State to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) through Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and their more recent, more concise, replacements, Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These are used by LPAs to guide the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and must be taken into account in determining planning applications. More occasionally Circulars are used to advise on legislation and procedure or Statements are made by Ministers in Parliament.

18

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Policy Review The coalition government however intends to replace this system of PPGs and PPS with a simpler, consolidated single document to be known as the National Planning Framework (NPF). This will cover all forms of development and set out national economic, environmental and social planning priorities. According to ministers, the intention is that, through the NPF, power can be handed back to local communities, deliver government’s objectives where it is relevant, proportionate and effective to do so, for it to be accessible and user-friendly and to enable robust decisions to be made. A draft national planning framework will be published for public consultation later in 2011.

The Localism Bill also contains proposals to amend the planning system in other ways. The most notable of these will be the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies which, amongst other things, imposed housebuilding targets on areas. The Infrastructure Planning Commission will also be disbanded and the powers to determine nationally significant infrastructure projects will be returned to Government ministers. Amendments are proposed to the Community Infrastructure Levy, with the potential for monies to be spent on future maintenance of infrastructure and for communities to have a direct say in how it is spent.

Planning policy supports the implementation of green infrastructure into local policies, reflecting the wide range of benefits it can bring to communities and the environment. This section focuses on the national context as well as where it is covered in relation to local policies. Whilst the regional planning policy context is in the course of revocation it was, nevertheless, developed taking into account the national context, Natural England’s guidance and recognised best practice. On this basis references to the Regional Policy context serves as a useful indication on how to draw these sources together and apply it to the local context. This section briefly summarises the documents reviewed for the Green Infrastructure Strategy. More detailed information is presented in the appendices.

The relevant documents examined were as follows:


Legislation & National Policy  The Climate Change Act 2008  Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010  PPS1: Delivering sustainable development (2005)  PPS: Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 (2007)  PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005)

 PPS12: Local Spatial Planning (2008)  PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport, and Recreation (2002)  Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment (March 2010)  PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (2010)

National Guidance  Nature Nearby: Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance (Natural England, 2010)  The Essential Role of Green Infrastructure: EcoTowns Green Infrastructure Worksheet (TCPA, DCLG and Natural England, 2008)  Policy Position Statement: Housing Growth and Green Infrastructure (Natural England, June 2008)  Strategic Direction 20082013(Natural England, 2008)  Green Infrastructure Guidance (Natural England, March 2009)  No Charge? Valuing the Natural Environment (Natural England, 2009)

19

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Regional Policy & Guidance  The South East Plan – The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England (Government Office for the South East, May 2009) (Revocation intended through provisions of Localism Bill)  South East Green Infrastructure Framework – from Policy into Practice (Land Use Consultants on behalf of a partnership of regional organisations, June 2009  South East Biodiversity Strategy 2009

20

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Local Development Framework  East Hampshire Green Infrastructure Study 2011  East Hampshire Open Space Strategy 2011  East Hampshire Draft Sports and Recreation Strategy 2010  East Hampshire Core Strategy Preferred Policies 2009


4 stakeholder engagement

21

Green Infrastructure Strategy


4. Stakeholder Engagement Introduction

Background

Successful engagement with local stakeholders is fundamental to achieving a high quality green infrastructure network that people are satisfied with, feel safe using, enhances the area’s wildlife and meets future growth requirements.

The consultation approach ensured that consultation was timely and could genuinely inform the development of the strategy, to support an inclusive approach to green infrastructure planning. It also built upon the previous consultation work carried out as part of the masterplan development.

The incorporation of stakeholder views is a key element of the Green Infrastructure Strategy.

22

Green Infrastructure Strategy

European Site Visitor Surveys The key issues from the previous masterplan consultation were as follows: Support/strongly support One Green town;  Strongly support northsouth corridors for wildlife and ecological improvements;  Strongly support a circular recreational route;  Respect historic features;  Link between South Downs National Park, international sites and role of SANGs;  SUDs should be incorporated into new development;  Good access to greenspace required;  Well maintained spaces for everyone to use;  Keep as many existing green areas as possible;  A range of uses (sports fields, children’s areas, picnic sites, parks, swimming pools);  Walking, cycling, horse riding, dog walking.

In 2009 UE Associates (consultants appointed by EHDC to carry out the HRA) carried out a visitor survey of European sites and other spaces around Whitehill Bordon to determine the types of visitors coming to them, how frequently and why they visit, the routes taken once there, and the distance travelled to reach the sites. The key findings were as follows: The findings confirm that the survey sites offer a popular recreational resource with a local (as opposed to tourist) catchment area of around 8 – 10km.  Annual visits to the surveyed sites are estimated at approximately 3.4 million, with the majority of people (58.4%) visiting for the primary purpose of dogwalking;  The majority of questionnaire respondents are regular visitors;

 Of those visiting on a daily basis, 88.4% stated their primary reason for visiting was to walk the dog;  The majority of people interviewed use the sites all year round;  Of the groups interviewed, 70.2% travelled by motorised transport to reach their access point, while 25.2% travelled by foot and 4.6% travelled by non-motorised transport (horse or bicycle);  The average dog-walker will travel around 2.7km while onsite;  Three quarters of people accessing the sites travelled ‘mostly on the tracks’ during their activities;  78.9% of people allowed their dog off the lead for the majority of their walk;  Almost three-quarters of groups (71.9% of the sample) use alternative sites for the same primary purpose;  The most common attraction of sites in the


Consultation Approach Whitehill Bordon area was the ‘natural beauty’ of the site, followed by ‘remoteness (lack of people)’ , ‘birds / wildlife’ and ‘openness’;  Keeping ‘dogs on their leads’ was stated by a quarter of respondents (25.0%) as a key factor that would make the site less attractive, followed by ‘increased busyness’ (18.6%), the introduction of or increased ‘parking charges’ (18.5%), ‘more housing’ (14.6%) and ‘poor access / reduced car parking’ (9.2%).

The Green Infrastructure Strategy stakeholder engagement process comprised the following elements: An introductory email introducing the project and inviting stakeholders to an initial stakeholder group meeting in mid February;  An initial stakeholder group meeting to identify the key green infrastructure issues and to establish a clear strategic vision and design objectives;  A second stakeholder group meeting in April 2011;  Production of a consultation statement summarising comments made and how the strategy has responded.

The Green Infrastructure Strategy stakeholder engagement process also relates to parallel consultation work on the HRA, Water Cycle Study and Energy Feasibility Study. In particular, the Green Infrastructure Strategy consultation has been closely linked to the HRA work which included specific stakeholder input to the design of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs).

Stakeholder Workshop 1

23

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Stakeholder Workshop1 The aim of the initial workshop was to set out a clear vision for green infrastructure for Whitehill Bordon. This initial workshop on the 17th February was a key part of developing this vision and an opportunity to hear key stakeholder views and aspirations, and to share initial thoughts on the area. Stakeholders were invited by email to the workshop.

24

Green Infrastructure Strategy

(Forest Community Centre, Whitehill Bordon - 17th February 2011)

The workshop was split into 2 sessions. The first session aimed to confirm the objectives for the Green Infrastructure Strategy and the revisions to the Wildlife of Whitehill (WoW) Document. It set out local community needs and priorities, and identified the key issues for stakeholders. The second session sought views on the existing masterplan proposals, allowed discussion on the role and function of sites, and identified locations where green infrastructure provision can be improved and linkages made. The workshop aimed to provide a firm foundation for strategy development and for setting out revised actions for BAP priority areas.

Summary diagram from stakeholder workshop 1


Summary of Stakeholder Comments A Vision for Green Infrastructure led masterplanning.  The Green Infrastructure Strategy should inform the masterplanning process and determine the capacity for new housing;  Providing green infrastructure for the existing housing areas can provide a quick win, and is a way to get the existing population to ‘buy-in’ to the strategy.

Integrated Green Infrastructure  The existing town (and Lindford) needs to be fully integrated into the Green Infrastructure Strategy;  There is an opportunity to improve the existing town ahead of the new development;  The Green Infrastructure Strategy should not just consider green infrastructure in a ring around the edge of town, but provide more green infrastructure in the urban areas and centre of town, incorporating street trees, heritage assets and home zone opportunities. Character and Image  Want to avoid an ‘any town’ development and create neighbourhood identity in existing areas;  The design of greenspaces should reflect particular themes to add interest and define routes (eg ecology, heritage).

Stakeholder Workshop 1

Use and Activity  The proposed green infrastructure network was considered to cater mainly for local people;  ‘Honey-pot’ locations (eg Standford Grange Farm) should be created to attract people and to reduce pressure on more sensitive sites;  In terms of function, the proposed greenspace network does not all have to be multi-functional. Unifunctional space is just as valid (eg where wildlife conservation is the priority);  Need to address the shortage of accessible playing fields, play areas and allotments;  Aim to retain existing facilities (eg barracks playing fields) which could be brought into public use;  Horse riding is considered a popular activity and the proposed green linkages need to provide for horse riding as well as cyclists/ pedestrians.

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs)  The highest priority is to ensure the protection of European Sites that surround the Eco-town by providing Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs);  Mixed views as to whether SINCs should be SANGs;  SANGs should be located on new areas of green infrastructure if possible;  SANGs should be provided for the new and existing population to take pressure off more sensitive sites;  SANGs should be centrally located, and not just located around the edge of the town;  All parts of SANG to provide unrestricted access to meet Natural England criteria.

Access, Green Loop and Links  Access was a very important issue for the stakeholder group and the green infrastructure network should provide links and corridors for both people and wildlife;  There is a need to address severance caused by the A325 and by proposed Spine Road (alternative route to A325);  General support for the green loop concept but should provide green links back into town (eg a green grid). User Conflicts  There was a general recognition of the tension between ecological protection and access for people, and the need for balancing these objectives.

25

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Stakeholder Workshop 2 (Phoenix Theatre, Whitehill Bordon - 14 The second stakeholder meeting in April reported back on the emerging work and most importantly allowed stakeholder input to the design process. The aim of the workshop was to incorporate stakeholder comments into the emerging Green Infrastructure Strategy, at a key stage before the draft strategy documents were finalised and to allow comment on the draft proposals. In particular, the workshop focused upon emerging designs for specific sites with a view to gaining stakeholder comment on these draft design proposals in terms of the primary purpose, future layout and function of the sites.

26

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The strategy has responded positively to the comments made through the stakeholder engagement process. Comments made at stakeholder workshop 2 are presented in section 6 alongside more detailed background information relating to specific sites. Section 5 also describes how the strategy development has been influenced by comments made during the two stakeholder meetings.

th

April 2011)


5 strategy development

27

Green Infrastructure Strategy


5. Strategy Development Introduction

Eco-town Vision

This section sets out the key aims and objectives which structure the Green Infrastructure Strategy.

The Green Infrastructure Strategy presents a vision for the delivery of high quality greenspace for people and wildlife. The objectives of the Green Infrastructure Strategy are aspirational, pursuing the highest standards of urban design and sustainability, and are also deliverable and capable of implementation.

The Strategy has been developed within the context of the Draft Eco-town Masterplan, the East Hampshire Green Infrastructure Study (2011) and Open Space Strategy (2011). The strategy builds upon the baseline policy review and greenspace audit, stakeholder consultation and the ecotown masterplan process. This section presents the results of baseline research, alongside the results of stakeholder engagement and presents how the strategy has responded to key issues and comments.

28

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Green Town Vision ‘The overarching objective for Whitehill Bordon must be to deliver ‘One Green Town’ – a place where the quality of life, opportunity and environment are raised for both existing and new residents to the town. The challenges of adapting to climate change and the need for one planet living apply equally to those living in older homes as well as new homes. Whitehill Bordon has the opportunity to show what is possible in both contexts and be an exemplar for existing towns and areas experiencing growth across the country’. (Green Town Vision - Whitehill Bordon Eco-town 2008) ‘In the next 20 years we want to see Whitehill Bordon develop as a thriving, sustainable community with a distinct character that will give the town a unique identity within Hampshire and the south-east region’.

The Green Town Vision (2008) sets the following objectives: We want to develop and improve the built environment in the town so that it complements the superb landscape that surrounds us.  We will create an attractive built environment where people want to live, work, shop and play as well as a balanced mix of housing, community facilities, leisure and employment opportunities.  We will use innovative, modern, environmentallyfriendly design, incorporating Eco-homes and modern methods of construction.  We will provide housing with a focus on providing affordable quality homes for local people and a range of housing for new residents that will attract them to live and work in the town.  The development will be planned on a human scale

to a higher density. It will be easy to walk about.  We will ensure that our town develops in a way that encourages us to live and work in ways that do not damage the natural resources upon which our society and economy depend.  We plan to provide modern premises for up to 7,000 new jobs in a mixed economy.  Every house will be within 10 minutes walk of a bus stop.  Every new house will be built to Sustainable Homes code 6 standards and existing houses retrofitted up to Passiv Haus standards, if possible.  We will develop a town where the new buildings are built to zero carbon status.  We pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of the community by 2050.  We will develop a town where individuals are important and development


Green Infrastructure Vision for East Hampshire is designed with people and nature in mind.  We will develop a town centre that is pedestrian-friendly and is interconnected with residential and commercial areas.  We will create quality civic and public open space. We will set aside over 200ha of land for new public open space.  We guarantee to protect the SPA’s and all important greenspace. 40% of the town will be greenspace.  We will encourage investment by businesses and industries that share our vision of a sustainable, environmentally-friendly community.  We will promote the best quality public transport to provide communication links both within our town and to other destinations in order to encourage alternatives to the car.  New public transport will be cheap, convenient,

frequent, stylish, comfortable, fast and reliable. In addition the 2008 Eco-town bid identified four areas in which Whitehill Bordon would seek to excel:  Biodiversity;  Water neutrality;  Carbon neutrality;  Transportation.

The themes and objectives set out in the East Hampshire District Council Green Infrastructure Study (2011) also provide the context for strategy development. The vision for the East Hampshire Green Infrastructure Study 2011 is characterised by:  Appreciation of the important roles played by the diverse greenspaces and wider countryside features in providing a distinctive sense of place and high quality natural environment of rolling downs, ancient woodland, river networks and farmland; and attractive built environments with a range of parks, allotments, street trees and space to play;  The opportunity to create more greenspaces for open air recreation and landscape enhancement as part of ongoing sustainable development in the district’s settlements supported by developer contributions;

 Expansion of the network of allotments and access to allotments;  Protection of the centrepieces of the green infrastructure network at a settlement and district-wide scale such as the network of ancient woodland and park sites like the Heath in Petersfield;  Restoration of habitats including heathland, water meadows and chalk downland where land use opportunities are appropriate for such initiatives using Environmental Stewardship;  Protection of a strong network of footpaths, cycle routes and horse riding opportunities which interconnect throughout settlements and integrate with the various long distance footpaths that cross the district;  Partnership working with adjacent districts to facilitate cross boundary working with shared values and joint

initiatives for enhancing the wider green infrastructure network;  Maximisation the multifunctional uses that are possible within different features of the green infrastructure network such as green corridors, woodlands and larger green infrastructure assets such as the Queen Elizabeth Country Park and Forestry Commission sites;  Recognition of the districts distinctive rivers and open water, promoting natural corridor features and enhancing the wider river corridors; and  Adaption to the effects of climate change with robust green infrastructure networks that help retain water following heavy rain showers and storm events and mitigate the effects of increased temperatures in the market towns and villages through enhanced street tree provision.

29

Green Infrastructure Strategy


‘Theme A: Access and Recreation A1: To enhance and promote East Hampshire’s Public Rights of Way (PROW) network (including circular routes), providing more accessible links within and between urban and rural areas to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and increase use by all sectors of society. A2: To address deficiencies in greenspace provision and accessibility through creation of new recreation sites, enhancing outdoor play sites, sports facilities and community walks, and improving safety to encourage use by the under-24s and over-65s. Theme B: Biodiversity B1: To conserve and enhance existing biodiversity throughout East Hampshire; restoring habitats according to Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) and Biodiversity Action Plan priorities, and improving connectivity of habitats at all scales and levels of designation. B2: To contribute to the avoidance and mitigation of the impacts of growth on European sites in and around East Hampshire through enhanced access management and creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs) in accessible locations.

30

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Theme C: Landscape, Heritage and Sense of Place C1: To protect the unique quality, diversity and distinctiveness of East Hampshire’s countryside and geology. C2: To maintain and where necessary improve the cultural heritage, identity and character of settlements, including places of work. Theme D: Water Resources, Water Quality and Flood Management D1: To promote natural river corridor management to provide multifunctional benefits for ecosystem services (aesthetics, recreation, biodiversity, connectivity, adaptation to climate change). D2: To increase rainwater storage capacity, alleviate diffuse pollution into rivers from urban and agricultural runoff, improve permeability in settlements across East Hampshire to reduce flood risk, and address water abstraction issues.

Theme E: Land Management and Local Markets

Theme G: Local Involvement and Awareness

E1: To promote and support East Hampshire’s potential for selfsufficiency in local produce including food grown on farms and community allotments as well as biofuel (woodchip), timber and venison from the district’s woodland.

G1: To improve understanding of the importance of green infrastructure in terms of providing socio-economic and environmental benefits by means of education and better communication of information for all.

E2: To promote, increase and raise awareness of commercial GI activities including businesses related to outdoor recreation and tourism, encouraging take-up of Stewardship schemes and enhanced land management. Theme F: Health and Well-being F1: To create and enhance greenspace in East Hampshire in order to improve quality of life as well as access to fresh air for a sense of spiritual well-being, particularly within settlements.

G2: To encourage the involvement of people in maintaining their local greenspace through a sense of responsibility, ownership and pride, in addition to promoting volunteer. Theme H: Woodland Management and Climate Change Adaptation H2: To adapt to the effects of climate change in East Hampshire through enhanced shading from trees and improved permeability in urban areas, as well as facilitating landscape connectivity for species migration.’

F2: To minimise future pressure on the health service by addressing the district’s problems of an ageing population and more specifically the high obesity rate for under-16s through promoting active lifestyles.

Source: East Hampshire Green Infrastructure Study 2011

There is clearly a close link between this strategy and the East Hampshire District Council Green Infrastructure Study. The East Hampshire District Council Green Infrastructure Study focussed on the core settlements where growth is occurring through the delivery of the Core Strategy. The East Hampshire District Council Green Infrastructure Study did not include Whitehill Bordon, acknowledging that the Eco-town Green Infrastructure Strategy would provide a more detailed approach needed to help guide green infrastructure delivery within the draft masterplan. The Eco-town Green Infrastructure Strategy has adopted the district-wide study’s objectives to ensure it is consistent with other areas identified for growth within East Hampshire.


An Integrated Strategy

Key Structuring Elements

The green infrastructure of Whitehill Bordon will be a fundamental part of the future Eco-town development which will lead the way forward in terms of sustainable living. The area’s greenspace will form an essential community asset for leisure and recreation of all kinds. It will take advantage of the attractive woodland landscape and the large number of ecological sites in the area.

The underlining theme of the strategy is the provision of green infrastructure with multifunctional uses. This section sets out the key structuring elements for the Green Infrastructure Strategy. In particular, the work presented in the Eco-town masterplan (2010) established three key elements: Green loop:– a circular network of footpaths and cycleways linking the parks, sports facilities and the town centre;

These basic objectives received general support during both the masterplan process and also through the green

Green Loop

Wildlife Corridors

A key aim expressed by stakeholders was that the Green Infrastructure Strategy should inform the masterplanning process and determine the capacity for new housing. Green infrastructure was considered an essential component of the masterplan, which can integrate the existing residential areas into the proposed Eco-town areas.

The key functions of Green Infrastructure in the South East as set out in the South East Green Infrastructure Framework (2009) are as follows:  Conservation and enhancement of biodiversity;  Creating a sense of place;  Increasing recreational opportunities;  Improved water resource and flood management;  Sustainable design;  Combat climate change;  Sustainable transport, education and crime reduction; and  Production of food, fibre and fuel.

 Wildlife corridors – a mosaic of restored heathland, wetland and woodland habitats in corridors to the east and west of the town;  Blue corridors – new and restored watercourses, pools, swales and wetlands providing wildlife habitats and flood control.

Eco-town Key Structuring Elements (source Aecom 2009)

infrastructure stakeholder meetings. This section sets out how these structuring elements have been refined through stakeholder engagement, such as the need to provide a green grid alongside a green loop, to provide a framework for a network of green routes through the existing urban area. This will create a green infrastructure network which runs from the heart of the built up area into the surrounding countryside.

Blue Corridors

31

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Kingsley Common

Greenspace Typology

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

Poultry House

ROAD

Poultry Houses

Oxney Farm SINC

Broxhead Trading Estate

SINC St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Broxhead House

Louisburg Barracks

Highland Farm

Sports Ground

LINDFORD

ROAD

Wolfe House

BOSC

Lindford Bridge

Lindford Farm Community Centre

Playing Field BO

Playing Field TION

LL

STA

EY

ROAD

Bordon Inclosure

Saint Lucia Park

E AV

Bordon Trading Estate

NU E

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

OAKHANGER ROAD

Midlands Farm Orchard House

Sewage Works

Quebec Barracks

Pavilion

Community Centre

Playing Field

Subway

CAMP ROAD

Oak Farmhouse

Hatch House Farm

Former Sewage Works

Recycling Centre

ROAD LIPHOOK

This strategy has followed the approach to greenspace classification, provision and catchment set out in the East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011) to ensure consistency.

Welfare Centre

Playing Field

Trenchard Park

Kildare Close BU DD S

Trenchard Park

NE

River Wey

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

Playing Field

HOGMOOR ROAD

School

r

MILL

Alexandra Park

CHASE

AD R RO

ROAD

LL

YB

RO

FOREST

O

Library

Hall

K

Post Office

Standford House

Standford Mill REET

Hogmoor Inclosure

FOREST ROAD

HIG

H ST

SINC

Whitehill Chase

Eveley Wood

NDE WA

HOGM

Y

Standford Grange

AY EW ND CO

Standford

Deadwater Valley

OOR

LNR

ROX B

UR

ROAD

STAN DFOR

Fire Station

CO

GH

Standford Grange Farm

E

ROAD

E OS CL

Mattswood Farm

PETE RSFIE

LD

Blackmoor Golf Course

D

L ROA WHITEHIL

Forest Lodge Hollywater Farm

Eveley Corner

FO RE ST

RO

AD

Walldown Earthwork

Hollywater

School

WN

LLDO WA

FIRGROV E ROA D

WN

Blackmoor Nurseries

LLDO WA

LIPHOOK ROAD

AD

RO

Morrington House

AD

RO

Whitehill Park Modden Farm

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

LIPHOOK ROAD

SINC

Hollywater Green

Green Infrastructure Strategy

T

RO

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill

ROAD

AD

IF DR

LD

School

PETE RSFIE

Apple Packing Station

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Whitehill Club

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Blackmoor

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater Pond

Cranmer Pond

Proposed areas of accessible greenspace (plus school grounds) Heather Park

Gardeners Cottage

HOLLY

H ST HIG

HO

Reynolds house

Cemy

WATE

REET

School

CHALET HILL

Superstore

The Old Corn Mill

PARK

The Warren

School Playing Field

Recreation Ground

CHALET HILL

LANE STANDFORD

Jubilee Park Hall

Caravan Site

ROAD

Pavilion

D LA NE

SINC

Lindford Headley Mill Headley Mill Farm

Dead Wate

Slab

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Schools LA

Hospital

32

Waterfield House

Clover House

Football Ground

Alexandra Park

The greenspace audit set out the primary function and purpose for each existing space. The adjacent plan includes the greenspaces which form the additional proposed green infrastructure network.

Broxhead Farm

Cricket Ground

FARNHAM

A starting point for the development of the strategy is to classify the function of both the existing and proposed greenspaces.

Broxhead Warren

WHITEHILL CP

Passfield Common

With the withdrawal of the HEADLEY MOD from theCPbarracks areas, there is potential for a number of existing greenspaces to be brought into unrestricted public use as follows: Hogmoor Inclosure  The Croft  Bordon and Oakhanger Sports Club (BOSC)  Bordon Inclosure  Playing fields and amenity greenspace within the barracks areas.


Kingsley Common

Broxhead Warren

Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

HEADLEY CP

ROAD

SINC

St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Broxhead House

Louisburg Barracks

Broxhead Trading Estate

SINC

FARNHAM

Oxney Farm

Highland Farm

Sports Ground

LINDFORD

ROAD

Wolfe House

BOSC

Lindford Bridge

Lindford Farm Community Centre

Playing Field

Playing Field TION

LL

STA

EY

Bordon Trading Estate

ROAD

Saint Lucia Park

E AV NU

Bordon Inclosure

E

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

OAKHANGER ROAD

Midlands Farm Orchard House

Sewage Works

Quebec Barracks

Pavilion

ROAD LIPHOOK

Community Centre

Playing Field

Subway

CAMP ROAD

Oak Farmhouse

Hatch House Farm

Former Sewage Works

Recycling Centre

Waterfield House

Clover House

Trenchard Park

Football Ground

Playing Field

Kildare Close BU DD S

Trenchard Park

NE

River Wey

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

Playing Field

HOGMOOR ROAD

School

r

MILL

Alexandra Park

CHASE

AD R RO

ROAD

LL

YB

RO

FOREST

O

Library

Hall

Gardeners Cottage

HOLLY

H ST HIG

HO

Reynolds house

Cemy

WATE

REET

School

CHALET HILL

Superstore

The Old Corn Mill

K

PARK

The Warren

School Playing Field

Recreation Ground

CHALET HILL

LANE STANDFORD

Jubilee Park Hall

Caravan Site

ROAD

Pavilion

Post Office

Standford House

Standford Mill REET

Hogmoor Inclosure

FOREST ROAD

HIG

H ST

SINC

Whitehill Chase

Eveley Wood

Hospital

NDE WA

Y

Standford Grange

AY EW ND CO

Standford

Deadwater Valley

OOR

LNR

ROX B

UR

ROAD

STAN DFOR

Fire Station

CO

D LA NE

SINC

Lindford Headley Mill Headley Mill Farm

Dead Wate

Alexandra Park

Slab

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Schools LA

HOGM

GH

Standford Grange Farm

E

ROAD

E OS CL

Mattswood Farm

PETE RSFIE

LD

Blackmoor Golf Course

D

L ROA

WHITEHIL

Forest Lodge Hollywater Farm

Eveley Corner

FO RE ST

RO

AD

Walldown Earthwork

Hollywater

School

WN

LLDO WA

FIRGROV E ROA D

WN

Blackmoor Nurseries

LLDO WA

LIPHOOK ROAD

AD

RO

Morrington House

AD

RO

Whitehill Park Modden Farm

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

LIPHOOK ROAD

SINC

Passfield Common

Hollywater Green

AD

IF DR

T

RO

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill

ROAD

School

LD

Apple Packing Station

PETE RSFIE

The formulation of the Green Infrastructure Strategy has been closely linked to the HRA, which has evolved through an iterative process. Indeed, the HRA process has included specific stakeholder workshops to discuss the design and layout of SANGs.

Poultry House

Poultry Houses

Welfare Centre

In order to contribute to the SANG requirement Hogmoor Inclosure, Bordon Inclosure and Standford Grange Farm have been proposed in the masterplan as SANGs to provide key additional areas of green infrastructure on the east of the town.

Broxhead Farm

Cricket Ground

BO

There is also a requirement to provide Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs). The purpose of the proposed SANGs is to provide natural greenspace of sufficient quality to mitigate the impact of the Eco-town development on the adjacent European sites (SPAs and SACs).

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Whitehill Club

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Blackmoor

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater Pond

Cranmer Pond

Proposed Areas of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (source: Aecom Masterplan 2009) Heather Park

WHITEHILL CP

33

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Greenspace Provision The adjacent tables represent alternative appraisals of open space requirements reflecting different typologies as set out in the East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011) and the Eco-town Masterplan (2010). Existing green infrastructure provision has been analysed against quantity standards set out in the East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011). The adjacent table highlights the deficiencies that currently exist in the town, particularly in terms of allotments, play areas and playing fields. These figures reflect the fact that significant areas of greenspace in the town have restricted access, such as the MOD playing pitches, and therefore, are not included in the figures. The retention of existing green infrastructure assets, such as the playing pitches, was considered a key issue by stakeholders. In

34

Green Infrastructure Strategy

particular, the potential loss of greenspace around Bordon Primary School and the playing fields was considered a missed opportunity. The calculations set out in the adjacent masterplan provision table (Aecom) show how the masterplan compares to the required East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011) standards. SANG requirements are set out in the HRA. The quantity of required open space provision is based upon a proposed population of 21,937 as set out in the masterplan. The figures reflect the proposed population of the town as a whole, reflecting the desire to create an integrated Eco-town.

Table of Whitehill Bordon existing open space provision (source: East Hampshire District Council Open Space Study - 2011)

This also reflects a desire to address any deficiencies through the proposed Ecotown development. Indeed, a key comment from stakeholders was that the Green Infrastructure Strategy should not just consider new Table of Whitehill Bordon proposed open space provision (source: Eco-town Masterplan - Aecom 2010)


provision in a ring around the edge of town, but provide more greenspaces in the urban areas and the centre of the town, incorporating street trees, heritage assets and home zone opportunities. The Green Infrastructure Strategy has followed the levels of provision set out

in the masterplan and are summarised below. Further work will be required in the next stage of masterplanning to reconcile any inconsistencies between the Open Space Strategy and the proposed level of provision in the masterplan, which will be dependent on the level of proposed growth.

Allotments

Standard 0.2 ha/000 population Requirement – 4.39 ha Provision – 4.39 ha

Informal Amenity Greenspace

Standard 1.0 ha/000 population Requirement – 21.94 ha Provision – 22.16 ha

Natural Greenspace Parks, Sport and Recreation Grounds Equipped Play Space - Toddler, Junior and Youth Play

Objectives

Access and Movement

The following strategy objectives have been developed and refined through the stakeholder engagement and link closely to the overarching East Hampshire District Council Green Infrastructure Study (2011) themes.

Access was a very important issue for the stakeholder group. One key outcome from stakeholder consultation was the need to provide greenspaces which were easily accessible, serving the needs of local existing and proposed residents. Indeed, the catchment of greenspaces, including SANG provision,

was considered local so as to promote walking and cycling and to deter visitors from using the car to visit the European sites. The aim of the movement strategy is to promote sustainable patterns of movement - walking, cycling and public transport as the principle means of access.

Standard 1.0 ha/000 population Requirement – 21.94 ha Provision – 153.92 ha Standard 1.0 ha/000 population (0.5 ha/000 population - sports) Requirement – 21.94 ha Provision – 21.95 ha Standard 0.25 ha/000 population Requirement – 5.48 ha Provision – 5.49 ha (nb requires play provision within residential areas and refurbishment of existing facilities as recommended in masterplan).

Summary table of Whitehill Bordon open space provision proposed in Green Infrastructure Strategy

35

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Catchment analysis

Existing allotment catchment

Proposed allotment catchment

Existing amenity greenspace catchment

Proposed amenity greenspace catchment

Accessibility to greenspace is a key consideration in the analysis of green infrastructure provision in the area.

The adjacent diagrams present the results of greenspace catchment analysis for different green infrastructure typologies.

Catchment analysis is an important tool in assessing how greenspace provision is linked to walking and cycling access. In parallel with assessments against quantitative provision standards, catchment analysis helps to identify deficiencies in greenspace provision and accessibility and identify where additional provision is required through the creation of new recreation sites and facilities.

The creation of a walkable community is a key objective so it is important to identify provision required to provide greenspaces within easy walking distance and to identify any deficiencies. Stakeholders considered that the green infrastructure network should cater mainly for local people.

In summary, the catchment analysis identifies where deficiencies currently exist and how the Green Infrastructure Strategy seeks to address this. In particular, the diagrams highlight the importance of providing dual use school playing fields, which serve an educational and community function.

In terms of SANG provision, there was a general stakeholder consensus that SANGs should be for both the new and existing population to take pressure off more sensitive sites. They should be centrally located, and not just located around the edge of the town. The SANGs must be attractive enough for the residents to get out and walk to, instead of driving further afield, possibly to the European sites.

36

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The relationship of greenspace to proposed masterplan land uses and sustainable movement corridors is particularly important in terms of where particular activities would be best located. Appropriate catchments for different green infrastructure typologies have been derived from the East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011). These catchments are broadly consistent with other Eco-town developments and sustainable urban extension development areas in terms of green infrastructure. Barriers to movement, such as the A325, and potential barriers to movement such as the spine road and the potential rail corridor also need to be considered as they may also have an impact on accessibility to greenspace. In terms of movement, accessibility by public transport will also be a key consideration.


Existing natural greenspace catchment

Existing play area catchment

Proposed natural greenspace catchment

Proposed play area catchment

Existing parks and recreation grounds catchment Community safety was a key issue for stakeholders. Research carried out as part of the Birmingham Parks Strategy (2006) identified community safety as one of the primary reasons for deterring potential users from visiting greenspaces. There is, therefore, a need to address community safety issues by ensuring greenspaces feels safe and secure, by promoting natural surveillance and activity.

Proposed parks and recreation grounds (plus school grounds) catchment Catchment – Access Standards (m) Allotments  480m Informal Amenity Greenspace  400m Natural Greenspace  700m Parks, Sport and Recreation Grounds  650m Equipped Play Space  480m – Toddler and Junior  650m - Youth Play

37

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Green Loop and Green Grid The Eco-town masterplan (2010) promotes the Green Loop concept to create a major new walking and cycling route around the town, connecting the natural greenspaces of Hogmoor Inclosure, Deadwater Valley, Bordon Inclosure and Standford Grange Farm with schools, sports facilities and homes.

The strategy seeks to provide a network of routes for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders so the greenspace network can be well linked to surrounding areas. This is achieved by linking the proposed green links within the town to the existing local Public Rights of Way (PROW) network and other existing routes. These provide a gateway to the wider countryside and create a link between the urban area and the countryside.

A key component of the Green Infrastructure Strategy has been to integrate the ‘Green Loop’ concept and ensure new and existing greenspaces are linked for people and wildlife. This will encourage healthier lifestyles by providing recreational walks and walking routes to key destinations.

The strategy enhances and promotes the local PROW network and links into strategic cycle routes beyond the Ecotown policy zone such as the proposed Shipwrights’ Way (the proposed national cycle route 22). However, the creation of stronger footpath, cycle and bridleway links between Whitehill Bordon and the adjacent European sites was not supported by key stakeholders, so links out towards these areas are not promoted.

The strategy extends this to include the concept of the Green Grid to link existing greenspaces to the new town.

38

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Existing public rights of way and cycle paths (source EHDC GIS/Aecom)


The adjacent plans show the existing PROW network and how the green links are integrated into this network of footpaths, cycleways and bridleways. The proposed location of cycle routes through the town link key areas of activity such as schools, community facilities and the town centre, in addition to existing and proposed areas of green infrastructure. Due to the presence of byelaws which prohibit cycling in the Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve, it is not proposed to promote cycling along the entire length of the green loop. The plan also shows indicative alignments for the Shipwright’s Way strategic cycle route. As yet no specific route has been identified. The Shipwright’s Way Steering Group is working with key stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate route is taken through the town.

One potential option is to provide a route through Standford Grange Farm which would further integrate this facility into the town. This alternative route through Standford Grange Farm was also proposed by the stakeholder group, thereby avoiding Deadwater Valley LNR. This route could be an extension of an existing route running through Bordon Inclosure to Lindford. The green loop can be primarily accommodated through the existing green infrastructure network. In order to provide green links of sufficient quality it is also important to improve parts of the existing street layout in order to create a more pedestrian and cycle friendly environment. The following streets would benefit from various degrees of such enhancement and/or traffic calming: New Road; Proposed green links and cycle routes

39

Green Infrastructure Strategy


 Chalet Hill/Mill Chase Road;  Conde Way;  Pinehill Road/Apollo Drive;  Forest Road;  Woodside Park/Devon Road;  Budds Lane; and  Petersfield Road. It will also be necessary to provide parts of the cycle network on the existing road network, and it may be desirable to provide traffic calming or reduced speed limits in these areas. Conde Way would benefit from this approach (see section 6) to provide a more attractive cycle route through the existing residential area. The green link along Liphook Road/Round Hill is a key part of the green loop which would require the cycle link either being located on the highway (Liphook Road) or through MOD defence training estate land.

40

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Key

Stakeholders also reported that horse riding is a popular activity and suggested that the proposed green linkages need to provide for horse riding as well as cyclists and pedestrians. The relationship of green infrastructure to the proposed vehicular and public transport network is also important. The role of the proposed spine road as a through road is intended to reduce traffic from the A325. Once the spine road is in place, the A325 is to cater for local traffic only and to provide a public transport corridor and cycle path. In terms of car parking in the area, many of the visitors to the European sites travel by car. As most of the greenspace network is proposed to have a local catchment it is not proposed to provide a significant amount of greenspace related car parking in the Eco-town.

Existing road network and proposed spine road


Where potential facilities have a wider catchment, such as Standford Grange Farm (see proposals set out in the next section), appropriate car parking provision may be required, which may assist taking pressure off the European sites.

Key

To comply with Natural England guidance on SANGs, larger SANGs require appropriate levels of car parking. Car parking is proposed for the Hogmoor Inclosure to serve as a dual purpose with proposed allotments. Similarly, the use of existing parking areas to the north of Bordon Inclosure should be explored. The existing and proposed bus services presented in the Ecotown masterplan (shown on the adjacent plan) present a further opportunity to integrate Standford Grange Farm.

Existing and proposed public transport services (source Eco-town masterplan Aecom 2010)

41

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Kingsley Common

Kingsley Common

Biodiversity

Broxhead Warren

ROAD

HEADLEY CP

SINC

BO

LL

TION

EY

STA

ROAD

Wolfe House

ROAD

Saint Lucia Park

E AV NU

LINDFORD

Bordon Inclosure

E

BO

TION

EY

Pavilion

STA

ROAD

NU

Saint Lucia Park

Midlands Farm

Bordon Sewage Inclosure Works

E

Pavilion

Welfare Centre

NE

Welfare Centre

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Subway

Trenchard Park

CAMP ROAD

Schools

River Wey

Trenchard Park

Playing Field

River Wey

MILL

ROAD FOREST ROAD

HOLLY

YB

RO

Playing Field The Old Corn Mill

Library

Eveley Wood

Standford Mill

Y

PETE RSFIE

LD

E OS CL

NDE WA

Y

OOR

UR

ROAD

GH E

ROAD

E OS CL

RO

AD

PETE RSFIE

LD

FO AD RO FO RE ST

WN

LLDO WA

AD

RO

School

Morrington House

WN

AD

IF DR

T

RO

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI Cranmer Pond (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

LIPHOOK ROAD

ROAD PETE RSFIE LD

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Whitehill Club

Woolmer Forest SINC SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

LIPHOOK ROAD

Modden Farm

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

LIPHOOK ROAD

Round Hill

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater Green

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater Pond

Cranmer Pond

WHITEHILL CP

WHITEHILL CP

Passfield Common

Hollywater Green

Whitehill Park

Hollywater Pond

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Blackmoor

Heather Park

AD

RO

Round Hill

Modden Farm

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Whitehill Club

Ecological Designations (Source: EHDC GIS) Heather Park

LLDO WA

ROAD

School

RO

AD

RO

LD

Apple Packing Station

T

PETE RSFIE

Blackmoor

AD

IF DR

Hollywater Farm

Hollywater WN

Morrington House

AD

RO

Whitehill Park LLDO WA

SINC

Hollywater

Forest Lodge LLDO WA

Walldown Earthwork

LIPHOOK ROAD

Standford Grange Farm D

L ROA WHITEHIL

School

FIRGROV E ROA D

School

Hollywater Farm

Mattswood Farm

Walldown Earthwork

FIRGROV E ROA D

Blackmoor Nurseries

Standford

D

L ROA WHITEHIL

Deadwater Valley

WN

Blackmoor Nurseries

Mattswood Farm

Forest LNR Lodge

ROX B

Eveley Corner

Apple Packing Station

Standford Grange Farm Standford Grange

E

ROAD

GH

HOGM

Blackmoor Golf Course

Eveley Wood

UR

ROAD

CO

AY EW ND CO

STAN DFOR

OOR

LNR

Fire Station

Standford House

Standford

Deadwater Valley

ROX B

Blackmoor Golf Course

Standford Grange

AY EW ND CO

STAN DFOR

Fire Station

FOREST ROAD

NDE WA

Hospital

Standford House

D LA

CO

Whitehill Chase

Gardeners Cottage

Post Office

REET

HOGM

HIG

H ST

SINC

Gardeners Cottage

Standford Mill

K

Hospital

Hogmoor Inclosure

Headley Mill Farm

Reynolds house

Cemy

O

FOREST

FOREST ROAD

Superstore Hall Whitehill Chase

Reynolds house

Cemy

School

ROAD

REET H ST HIG REET

School LL

The Old Corn Mill

ROAD

Pavilion

Recreation Ground

K

CHALET HILL

Post Office HO

REET HIG

H ST

SINC

CHASE

PARK

Hogmoor Inclosure

RO

Hall

Library

Caravan Site

The Warren

YB

O

HIG

H ST

CHALET HILL

Hall

LL

LANE STANDFORD

Superstore

HO

School Playing Field

HOLLY

HOGMOOR ROAD

MILL

School Jubilee Park

PARK

Caravan Site

The Warren

School

Alexandra Park

CHALET HILL

Headley Mill LANE STANDFORD

CHALET HILL

r

SINC

Lindford

ROAD

Recreation Ground

Dead Wate

Slab

Alexandra Park

CHASE

Pavilion

Jubilee Park Hall

Headley Mill Farm

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

School

Playing Field

Alexandra Park

WATE

HOGMOOR ROAD

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

AD

Alexandra Park

Trenchard Park

NE

R RO

Schools LA

WATE R

BU DD S

r

SINC

Dead Wate

Slab

Lindford

Waterfield House

Clover House

Headley Mill

Football Ground Kildare Close

Waterfield House

MidlandsClover Farm House Orchard House

Sewage Works

Community Centre

LA

Orchard House

Hatch House Farm

ROAD LIPHOOK

Kildare Close

Trenchard Park

Quebec Barracks

Football Ground

Playing BU Playing Field Field D

DS

Subway

CAMP ROAD

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

Former Sewage Works

Community Centre

Playing Field Recycling Centre

OAKHANGER ROAD

Hatch House Farm

ROAD LIPHOOK

E AV

Quebec Barracks

OAKHANGER ROAD

Oak Farmhouse

Highland Farm

Lindford Bridge

Playing

FieldCamp Bordon

Selborne End

LL

Bordon

Oak Trading Estate Farmhouse

ROAD

Lindford Farm

Former Sewage Works

Community Centre

Recycling Centre

HEADLEY CP

Broxhead Lindford Trading Bridge Estate

D LA NE

Playing Field

ROAD

Lindford Farm Sports Ground

Playing Field

BOSC

Bordon Trading Estate

St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Louisburg Barracks Community Broxhead House Centre

LINDFORD

SINC

FARNHAM

Wolfe House

SINC

Poultry House

PoultryHighland Farm Houses Sports Ground

Oxney Farm

Cricket Ground

St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Broxhead House

Louisburg Barracks

BOSC

SINC

FARNHAM

Oxney Farm

Broxhead Farm Broxhead Trading Estate

NE

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

Eveley Corner

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Poultry House

Poultry Houses

Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Playing Field

42

Broxhead Farm

Cricket Ground

Whitehill Bordon has a wealth of ecological sites both within and adjacent to the town and the Green Infrastructure Strategy seeks to respect the ecological value of the area.

The need to provide SANGs to take pressure off the international sites is therefore considered crucial to the Ecotown development.

Key

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Playing Field

In terms of stakeholder comments, the highest priority was considered to be the protection of the European Sites that surround the Ecotown, and there was general support for the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs) as well as buffers to dissuade people from going onto the European sites.

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

RE ST

The conservation and enhancement of ecology and biodiversity is a primary objective for the Eco-town which sets out to deliver a net gain in biodiversity.

Broxhead Warren

Passfield Common

Fundamental to appropriate design of the green infrastructure in these greenspaces is an understanding of which biodiversity features are present and the quality of those features. With this knowledge, the existing nature conservation value of greenspaces can be protected while the area can provide SANGs functions to protect the European sites beyond the Eco-town.


Breeding bird surveys. Breeding bird surveys were undertaken in Bordon Inclosure, Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood, and Hogmoor Inclosure in 20101. The results of these surveys indicate that of these areas both Bordon Inclosure and Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood support breeding Red List species2.

The Slab and Warren adjacent to Whitehill Bordon supports breeding birds of higher conservation importance than the other areas surveyed, including breeding species listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive.

Ancient woodland. Whitehill Bordon is set in a wooded landscape within the historic royal hunting forests of Woolmer and Alice Holt. 19th and 20th century plantation is a prominent feature of the area, however ancient woodland is also still present.

Eveley Wood, immediately east of the existing town of Whitehill Bordon, is a seminatural ancient woodland that, at its last survey in 2005 , was found to support 22 ancient woodland indicator plant species within its 14.5ha.

Other pockets of ancient woodland, both semi-natural and replanted, are scattered about the surrounding countryside. The nearest extensive concentration is at Alice Holt forest to the north.

Red list species are of the highest level of conservation concern in the UK and all red listed species are also UKBAP species. Hogmoor Inclosure supports breeding birds of lower conservation concern, although these include UKBAP species.

1 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Bordon Breeding Bird Survey. Report to East Hampshire District Council 2 Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R.D., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A., & Gregory, R.D. 2009. Birds of Conservation Concern 3. British Birds 102: 296–341

Existing Breeding Bird Survey Sites (Source: Jonathan Cox Associates 2010)

Existing ancient woodland (Source: MAGIC)

43

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Amphibian and Reptile Survey (Source: GVA Grimley 2008)

Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey: (Source: GVA Grimley 2008) Key

Key

Area F

Pond 8 Area G

Amphibians. Surveys of ponds within Hogmoor Inclosure and Bordon Inclosure in 20083 indicate that ponds in these areas support breeding populations of widespread species; common toad, common frog, smooth newt and palmate newt. 3 GVA Grimley (2008) Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity: Amphibian Survey. Report.

44

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Good populations of palmate newt were found and the ponds of most importance to breeding amphibians were Pond 2, which supports a probable important breeding site for common toad, and Pond 8 that has an exceptional population of palmate newts.

Reptiles. Reptile surveys of Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosures in 20084 found that slow worm, grass snake, common lizard and adder are present.

Halcrow Group Limited

1 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6DG tel +44 (0)117 910 2580 fax +44 (0)117 910 2581 www.halcrow.com

Halcrow Group Limited

1 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6DG tel +44 (0)117 910 2580 fax +44 (0)117 910 2581 www.halcrow.com

Three areas meet the criteria to qualify as Key Reptile Sites, namely; Area A, which has almost exceptional numbers of slow worm, as well as grass snake and common lizard present, Area B that supports slow worm, grass

4 GVA Grimley (2008) Whitehill/Bordon Whitehill Bordon Ecotown Survey. Report.

Whitehill Bordon Ecotown Opportunity: Reptile Green Infrastructure Strategy

Green Infrastructure Strategy Amphibians and Reptiles

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Green Infrastructure Strategy Invertebrates

snake and common lizard, and Area E that supports adder, slow worm, grass snake and common lizard.


Ecological Enhancements Invertebrates. Invertebrate surveys carried out in 20085 indicate the level of importance of the terrestrial invertebrate assemblages found in the natural greenspace and barracks of the town. These suggest that Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft have very high invertebrate interest that is of regional significance. Bordon Inclosure has high invertebrate interest and is assessed to be of district significance. Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood, and the woodlands between Oakhanger Road and BOSC, have moderate invertebrate interest and are of local significance. The areas within the existing barracks were found to be of little or no value to invertebrates. 5 GVA Grimley (2008) Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity: Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey. Report.

The eco-town development presents an opportunity to enhance existing biodiversity through habitat creation and strategic habitat management. Habitat enhancement follows the objectives and priorities of the Wildlife of Whitehill Local Biodiversity Action Plan and the Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The Green Infrastructure Strategy takes on these existing goals, working with the existing ecological character of the greenspaces in the town and the surrounding landscape. Ecological enhancement is, therefore, a fundamental objective of the Green Infrastructure Strategy. This objective is clearly shown in the Outline Design Strategy in Section 6. In addition, to protecting existing ecological assets, the Strategy promotes the creation of new heathland and woodland habitats.

Habitat connectivity and improved habitat quality, are the principal components of the ecological strategy. Where ever possible, new wildlife sites will be created, recognising the biodiversity potential and context of greenspaces, and promoting the biodiversity resource of Whitehill Bordon. The concept of providing wildlife corridors is supported by creating a linked greenspace network which will allow wildlife to move through. However, at the stakeholder workshops the concept of defining wildlife corridors was questioned. The issue of encouraging certain types of animal movement was also raised, such as the need to stop cats entering the European sites from new residential areas. In these sites it was considered important to have buffer zones between the new development and the existing SINCs/SSSIs/SPAs/ SACs.

In accordance, with wider ecotown objectives, ecological enhancement should also be provided in conjunction with the design of the built environment (such as the provision of bat/bird boxes and the installation of green walls/roofs). In this respect a more holistic approach to ecological enhancement can be promoted.

45

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Kingsley Common

Broxhead Warren

ROAD

SINC

St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Broxhead House

Louisburg Barracks

Highland Farm

Sports Ground

LINDFORD

ROAD

Wolfe House

BOSC

Lindford Bridge

Lindford Farm Community Centre

Playing Field

Playing Field STA

TION

ROAD

Saint Lucia Park

E AV

Bordon Trading Estate

Bordon Inclosure

NU E

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

OAKHANGER ROAD

Community Centre Subway

CAMP ROAD

Playing Field

Where biodiversity is the clear objective, stakeholder’s expressed the view that there was a need for segregation.

Midlands Farm Orchard House

Sewage Works

Quebec Barracks

Pavilion

ROAD LIPHOOK

Oak Farmhouse

Hatch House Farm

Former Sewage Works

Recycling Centre

Waterfield House

Clover House

Trenchard Park

Football Ground

Playing Field

Kildare Close BU DD S

Trenchard Park

River Wey

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

Playing Field

HOGMOOR ROAD

School

r

MILL

Alexandra Park

CHASE

AD R RO

ROAD

LL YB RO

FOREST

O

Library

Hall

K

Post Office

Standford House

Standford Mill REET

Hogmoor Inclosure

FOREST ROAD

HIG

H ST

SINC

Whitehill Chase

Eveley Wood

Hospital

Fire Station

NDE WA

HOGM

Y

Standford Grange

AY EW ND

CO

Standford

Deadwater Valley

OOR

LNR

ROX B

UR

ROAD

STAN DFOR

CO

GH

Standford Grange Farm

E

ROAD

E OS CL

Mattswood Farm

PETE RSFIE

LD

Blackmoor Golf Course

D

L ROA WHITEHIL

Forest Lodge Hollywater Farm

Eveley Corner

RE ST

RO AD

Walldown Earthwork

Hollywater

FO

School

WN

WA

FIRGROV E ROA D

WN

Blackmoor Nurseries

WA

LIPHOOK ROAD

LLDO

AD

RO

Morrington House

LLDO

AD

RO

Whitehill Park Modden Farm

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

LIPHOOK ROAD

SINC

Hollywater Green

T

RO

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill

ROAD

AD

IF DR

PETE RSFIE LD

School

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Whitehill Club

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Blackmoor

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater Pond

Cranmer Pond

Proposed green links and areas of ecological sensitivity Heather Park

Gardeners Cottage

HOLLY

H ST HIG

HO

Reynolds house

Cemy

WATE

REET

School

CHALET HILL

Superstore

The Old Corn Mill

PARK

The Warren

School Playing Field

Recreation Ground

CHALET HILL

LANE STANDFORD

Jubilee Park Hall

Caravan Site

ROAD

Pavilion

D LA NE

SINC

Lindford Headley Mill Headley Mill Farm

Dead Wate

Alexandra Park

Slab

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Schools LA

NE

Apple Packing Station

Green Infrastructure Strategy

HEA Broxhead Trading Estate

SINC

FARNHAM

Oxney Farm

Welfare Centre

In areas where it is considered appropriate to reduce public access (eg in areas of ecological sensitivity) it was not proposed to provide a physical barrier (such as fencing) but rather use planting (eg belts of trees/willow) and use the footpath layout to suggest appropriate routes.

Poultry House

Poultry Houses

This was particularly important in narrow corridors where there is a conflict between the SINCs and the proposed SANGs.

46

Broxhead Farm

Cricket Ground

EY

In the stakeholder workshops there was a general recognition of the tension between ecological protection and access for people, and the need for balancing these objectives.

Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

LL

To resolve conflicts of interest it is important to explore these issues through the stakeholder engagement process and by planning for a balance of functions which reduce conflicts.

The adjacent diagram superimposes access proposals with areas of ecological sensitivity to highlight potential areas of concern. Management was considered important where there may be conflict between grazing (required fenced areas) and the impact of restricting access.

BO

There are often conflicts between provision for formal leisure and biodiversity due to the level of access provided and the impact caused by disturbance. In this respect there is a clear need to balance recreational and biodiversity objectives.

Broxhead Common LNR/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

WHITEHILL CP

Passfield Common


Wider Ecological Links The adjacent figure shows the proposed Wildlife of Whitehill Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Areas. The existing Priority Areas within Strategy Area are as follows: Urban Environment  Hogmoor Inclosure  The Slab  Bordon Inclosure  Hollywater  Oxney Farm and Meadows

A number of additional Priority Areas have also been identified to address issues raised during stakeholder consultations and to align the document with the Green Infrastructure Strategy: Northern Buffer to Commons;  Lindford Wey Valley;  Standford Grange; and  Buffer to Woolmer Forest. Further details of the suggested additions to the Biodiversity Action Plan are provided in an Annex to this Strategy in Appendix B.

47

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Water Resources, Water Quality and Flood Management A key aim for the Eco-town masterplan is to merge the green corridors and greenspace network with the surface water drainage infrastructure. These greenspaces are multifunctional and can be used for pedestrian and wildlife movement, as well as being merged with conveyance routes and storage areas comprising the surface water drainage system. The link between the Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Detailed Water Cycle Study (produced by Peter Brett Associates) is, therefore, a close one. The adjacent plan illustrates the two major blue corridors through the town, the Oxney Drain which runs through the Bordon Camp and the River Wey/Deadwater Valley. Stakeholders reported Prince Philips Barracks as a location where there are known drainage issues associated with the culverted section of

48

Green Infrastructure Strategy

the Oxney Drain. The Oxney Drain is partially channelised/ culverted through the Prince Philips Barracks area and there is an opportunity to improve and naturalise the treatment of this watercourse in this area. This is something that has also been identified as a potential area of improvement by the Detailed Water Cycle Study, and as part of any future development proposals a restoration strategy would be proposed for the Oxney Drain.

Key Oakhanger Stream

Oxney Drain

River Wey

‘At this stage of the development the surface water drainage strategy is in its early outline phase and requires ground investigation studies, site wide topographical survey and more details on the development plot layouts before the sizing and arrangement of drainage features (e.g. attenuation facilities, swales, infiltration trenches/ basins, piped drainage systems) can be determined’ (Detailed Water Cycle Strategy PBA 2011).

Deadwater Stream

Environment Agency Flood Risk Zones (source: EHDC GIS)


Oxney Drain The adjacent figures highlight alternative options for integrating the deculverted Oxney Drain into the proposed development. The Option 1 alignment follows the proposed spine road corridor. The Option 2 alignment is more centrally located to provide an internal focus to the residential development. ‘The Oxney Drain has potential for dual function as a green corridor, providing transport linkages, pedestrian movements, public amenity and a key wildlife connection to Oxney Moss (north of the site). Channel restoration measures for this watercourse would involve deculverting, removal of the concrete sections of watercourse, bank reprofiling, reinstatement of the natural bed gradient and meanders (where possible).  The focus of the restoration proposals should be on removing existing channel constrictions, introducing variability within the watercourse (encouraging

spine road alignment

variation in morphology can help in the development of ecological niches) and where possible (i.e. where there isn’t an increase in flood risk) create a functional and successful riparian habitat. The form and function of such a scheme cannot be considered in detail until the baseline fluvial flood risk is understood and how this might change as a result of the masterplan.  Any proposals for river restoration would also have to be modelled to assess flood risk impacts’ (Draft Water Cycle Study, Peter Brett Associates, 2011).

residential area alignment

The Draft Water Cycle Study also states that any proposed ‘channel restoration’, and possible realignment, of the Oxney Drain would have to be discussed and agreed with the Environment Agency, to establish design requirements/ constraints and environmental considerations.

Oxney Drain Option 1

Oxney Drain Option 2

49

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Landscape Character, Cultural Heritage and Sense of Place An important message from key stakeholders was the desire to avoid an ‘any town’ development and create neighbourhood identity in existing areas. There is a need to both protect and create a sense of place. In the context of Whitehill Bordon this means respecting the local context and woodland landscape character of the area, and integrating new uses, activities and facilities. In this way, green infrastructure has an important role to play in providing an attractive setting for new and adjoining development.

50

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The Green Infrastructure Strategy seeks to maintain  the prevailing woodland character of the areas as a strong landscape setting to the existing urban area;  the woodland and heathland character of the Hogmoor Inclosure;  the wet woodland character of the Bordon Inclosure and Deadwater Valley, and;  the rural character of Standford Grange Farm. These discrete areas of landscape character provide a context within which the proposed Eco-town built character areas will be further developed and formulated.

Heritage Assets (Source: EHDC GIS and Woolmer Forest Heritage Society)


In terms of green infrastructure, the design of greenspaces should reflect particular themes to add interest and define routes (eg ecology, heritage). Stakeholders have identified the valued heritage assets within the strategy area which should be respected and strengthened, such as the historic drove road.

The adjacent plan and schedule highlight Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas, as well as features of local importance identified by the Woolmer Forest Heritage Society.

Monument Number

Suffix

Name

HA578

00

RIVER WEY AQUEDUCT, HEADLEY PARK

34138

03

ROUND BARROW CEMETERY 780M SOUTH WEST OF AMHERST HOUSE, BORDON CAMP

34138

02

ROUND BARROW CEMETERY 780M SOUTH WEST OF AMHERST HOUSE, BORDON CAMP

34138

01

ROUND BARROW CEMETERY 780M SOUTH WEST OF AMHERST HOUSE, BORDON CAMP

34138

04

ROUND BARROW CEMETERY 780M SOUTH WEST OF AMHERST HOUSE, BORDON CAMP

12156

01

TWO BOWL BARROWS 270M SOUTH OF OAKHANGER ROAD

12152

01

BELL BARROW 50M SOUTH OF GUNSITE

12227

01

BOWL BARROW 100M SOUTH-EAST OF HOGMOOR LODGE

12154

01

BOWL BARROW 50M SOUTH OF HOGMOOR LODGE

Scheduled Ancient Monuments (Source MAGIC)

In particular, sites such as the Walldown Enclosure form an important part of the green infrastructure network. These sites also act as important local landmarks which can be further defined through signage and interpretation.

There are significant educational opportunities to interpreting these sites, in parallel with interpretation on biodiversity, to provide richness to the visitor experience.

A strong local identity and image can also be achieved by developing a unique brand for the areas greenspaces. The promotion of local destinations and facilities should be considered comprehensively and related to the eco-town branding. Public art can also play a key role in creating a sense of place through defining gateways and creating local landmarks. Signage and interpretation material needs to be well designed and sensitively located to avoid visual clutter.

51

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Activity, Recreation and Health Greenspace has a valuable role to play as a stage for a range of activities and as a venue for sport and recreation. Improving health is a key objective of central and local government. The benefits of a healthy population are many, and obviously have a direct impact on the NHS and on participation in the local economy. Greenspaces have an important role to play in this respect by providing a venue for healthy activity, events and organised sports. Green spaces are used for a range of physical activities including walking and cycling. These activities can assist healthier lifestyles and reduce levels of illness. High quality urban environments also contribute to the mental well being of residents.

52

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The Green Infrastructure Strategy seeks to promote a range of formal and informal leisure activities such as walking, cycling, horse riding, enjoying nature, relaxing, dog walking, informal play and environmental education. The issue of use and activity provoked a range of comments at the stakeholder workshops. Whilst it was generally acknowledged that green infrastructure areas should generally be designed as multi-functional spaces (as recommended in the South East Green Infrastructure Framework), it was also recognised that not all spaces have to be multi-functional. Uni-functional space can be just as valid, for example, where wildlife conservation is the priority.


The role of SANGs is to meet the requirements of the HRA in terms of mitigating development proposals and the potential impact on the adjacent SPAs/SACs. The primary purpose for the proposed SANGs, therefore, needs to reflect this role and the need to meet the access and recreational objectives of Natural England SANG guidance, as well as nature conservation and biodiversity objectives. As previously referenced, the East Hampshire District Council Open Space Strategy (2011) sets out requirements and deficiencies for public open space and playing pitch provision. Consultation with key stakeholders has been a key element to providing an insight to local demand. By understanding the needs of users a series of spaces providing different uses/ activities can be established.

Stakeholder consultations highlighted the existing shortage of accessible playing fields in the town and the importance of retaining existing facilities (eg barracks playing fields) which could be brought into public use. The view that there is a lack of play facilities in the town was also expressed. In terms of allotments, it was stated that there is a current lack of provision which needs to be addressed. Stakeholders stated that there is currently a waiting list for allotments in the area. This is partially being addressed by the creation of new allotments on Savile Crescent. Proposed allotments should be located within, or in close proximity, to housing areas . In terms of sports provision stakeholders expressed the view that centrally located multi-hub sites provided the most appropriate approach to formal sports provision.

Similarly, the approach to education provision would be best located in the context of a multi-hub site.

informal, imaginative natural play, where children can actively follow their own ideas and interests in their own way.

The Eco-town masterplan currently shows two options for secondary school provision on the eastern and western side of the town. If the proposed school is located on the eastern option there is an opportunity to create a central town park which retains existing sports pitches in a central position in the new development.

The strategy has considered the relationship of greenspaces to existing local community facilities to link to a series of new educational and leisure provision which could provide interest at key destination points throughout the area. In particular, the relationship to the proposed Eco-station (the Old Fire Station) is important as this facility has the potential as a base for education.

Bordon and Oakhanger Sports Club (BOSC) and the Whitehill Club would provide important additional provision although they are both located away from the main residential development area. Parks are an important resource for children’s play, not just due to the provision of formal play areas, but also to the opportunities which park landscapes and nature conservation areas provide for

Whilst most of the Whitehill Bordon green infrastructure will cater for informal recreation and more formal sports provision for a local catchment, there is potential for a facility at Standford Grange Farm to attract people from a wider area and to reduce pressure on more sensitive sites. The aim of this site should be to provide public access, recreation and educational facilities.

The masterplan proposes 127ha of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), which includes Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood. Both sites are also considered to be part of the ‘Green Loop’, which seeks to connect all the towns’ major green assets for people and wildlife. Stakeholder views on the role of Standford Grange Farm were mixed. For some the Standford Grange Farm area seen as an integral part of the Green Infrastructure Strategy providing access to additional greenspace for existing residents on the eastern side of Whitehill Bordon. For others, the area was considered to be too remote and inaccessible from the adjacent population to be a SANG. Further details on Standford Grange Farm are provided in the next section.

53

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Involvement

Sustainable design

Stakeholder and community involvement has been a fundamental part of the masterplan development. The Green Infrastructure Strategy has been underpinned by stakeholder input and it is important that community involvement continues through masterplan review process, detailed design and implementation stages.

It is important to take a comprehensive approach to sustainable design. Sustainability should be integrated at all levels of masterplanning encompassing the provision, distribution and synergy of land uses and their inter-relationships; site plan layouts and orientation, energy and water reduction; sustainable transport; flood risk and sustainable drainage; and the impact of climate change. The protection and enhancement of the natural environment is a key aspect of sustainable design. Site layout should seek to maximise natural daylight via an integrated approach to building orientation and massing to optimise passive solar gain.

54

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The effect of microclimate is important. Tree shading can help to minimise overheating in a highly insulated build. Directing wind flows around a building can also help to encourage effective natural ventilation without creating extreme wind flows surrounding the building. Street orientation should be integrated with the form and materials of the public realm with shading, vegetation and structure in the immediate environs of buildings and houses to create a cool environment in summer, and a sheltered micro-climate in winter.

Green Roofs In terms of promoting sustainable building design, a key area is to address energy efficiency and conservation to minimise demand through insulation, glazing standards, air tightness and thermal bridging. The Green Town Vision aspires to construct new housing to Sustainable Homes code 6 standards and to retro-fit existing houses to Passiv Haus standards, if possible.

In addition to their aesthetic role, green roofs can also provide a number of benefits, summarised as follows: Biodiversity and habitat creation;  Reduce heat loss and energy consumption in winter conditions;  Reduce cooling;  Reduce stormwater run off;  Filter dust, carbon dioxide and other air pollutants out of the air;  Noise entering the building can be reduced;  Increase amenity space;  Provide increased space for food production;  Improve the property’s value;  Increase the life of waterproofing by acting as a protective layer against frost, ultra-violet light and other climatic stresses (reference LivingRoofs.org).


In terms of biodiversity the Environment Agency Green Roof Toolkit states the following benefits  Green roofs provide a habitat for wildlife, especially if you include nest boxes, logs and water features, and plant native species.  Research in London and Basel has shown that welldesigned extensive green roofs can provide an important refuge for rare invertebrates associated with brownfield sites and other dry, well-drained, low-nutrient habitats.  They can be an important habitat for rare bird species.

Green roofs fall into 3 main types:  Extensive;  Semi-intensive; and  Intensive. All types of green roofs can be designed for biodiversity:  Intensive and semi-intensive roofs are similar to gardens and parks and are valuable for biodiversity. This option can be maximised with vegetation and features to encourage biodiversity;  Extensive green roofs are low-nutrient, well-drained habitats that offer an opportunity to replicate ecological characteristics of brownfield sites and other such habitats;  On certain sites there may be particular ecological issues that need to be addressed through a specific design of the green roofs, for example Skylark (Alauda Arvensis).

‘When one creates green roofs, one doesn’t need to fear the so-called paving of the landscape: the houses themselves become part of the landscape.’ Freidensreich Hundertwasser (1928-2000) - Austrian artist, architect and philosopher. In Whitehill Bordon there is potential to construct green roofs on both residential, commercial and community buildings which together could be a defining feature of the eco-town which fully integrates new development into the surrounding landscape.

Specific potential opportunities include providing green roofs to commercial buildings on Viking Park to provide potential habitat for invertebrates adjacent to Hogmoor Inclosure, the design of the station building (if constructed below ground level), and low density housing adjacent to BOSC/Bordon Trading Estate. Community buildings, such as schools, also offer potential for green roof construction which could also be related to environmental education opportunities. In particular, if the eastern option for the proposed secondary school hub was chosen there would be an opportunity to integrate new buildings into the sloping topography of the area.

55

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Garden Space Private gardens have an important role to play in supporting biodiversity if designed and managed appropriately. Garden space can act as stepping stones, providing shelter for wildlife in transit, and can be a valuable source of food and shelter for birds and animals. For example, Goode (1997) highlights the value of roof gardens in supporting small refuges for wildlife in Holland and Germany. Recent Government Policy set out in the recent White Paper on the natural environment The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (2011) sets out the government’s approach to the protection of the natural environment within the context of promoting the green economy.

56

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The White Paper states that gardens cover up to a quarter of the land surface in our towns and cities and support a wide range of plants, animals and ecosystem processes. One study identified 2,673 different species in a medium-sized garden. It also argues that gardeners can do more for nature by adopting environmentally friendly practices and by co-ordinating gardening efforts to create a ‘network of interlinking habitats across neighbourhoods, biodiversity can be greatly enhanced in towns and cities’. In particular, the cumulative role of garden space if linked together to allow movement between garden space allowing certain animals to forage, such as hedgehogs (www.hedgehogstreet.org).

The White Paper also sets out support for the Big Wildlife Garden established by Natural England to promote wildlifefriendly gardens. Stakeholders suggested the need for a mechanism to encourage house buyers to manage garden space to support nature conservation objectives. Allotments can also provide a refuge for both people and wildlife. According to Natural England many of the plants and animals that struggle to survive on intensively managed farmland find a refuge on allotment sites. This strategy promotes the enhancement of the conservation value of allotments alongside their food production role.

Management

The Strategy

The long term sustainability of green infrastructure proposals is a key issue which can be addressed through the specification of long lasting, durable and robust materials, thus taking account of lifetime costs and not just simply construction costs.

The outputs and findings of the preceding tasks have been used to establish the adjacent Green Infrastructure Strategy masterplan illustrating the proposed green infrastructure network. The approach to green infrastructure seeks to integrate existing assets in a linked network of greenspaces providing, where appropriate, a range of multi-functional greenspaces.

The aim of the Green Infrastructure Strategy is to encourage a high quality of maintenance and management which is consistent across all ownerships and management systems. Section 8 provides further information on possible management approaches.


Broxhead Common SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Shortheath Common SAC/SSSI

Broxhead Farm

Poultry House

Cricket Ground

Proposed Green Infrastructure Strategy

FARNHA M ROAD

Poultry Houses

Oxney Farm SINC

St Lucia Lodge

Wolfe Lodge

Broxhead House

Louisburg Barracks

Broxhead Trading Estate

SINC

Highland Farm

Sports Ground

D

D ROA LINDFOR

Wolfe House

BOSC

Lindford Bridge

Lindford Farm Community Centre

Playing Field

Playing Field

BO E LL

IO STAT

Y

Bordon Trading Estate

N RO

AD

U EN AV

Saint Lucia Park

Bordon Inclosure

E

Recycling Centre

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

Sewage Works

Quebec Barracks

Pavilion

OAKHANGER ROAD

Midlands Farm Orchard House

Subway

CAMP ROA

D

ROAD

Community Centre

Playing Field

Welfare Centre

Waterfield House

LIPHOOK

Oak Farmhouse

Hatch House Farm

Former Sewage Works

Clover House

Trenchard Park

Football Ground

Playing Field

Kildare Close BU DD S

Trenchard Park

River Wey

Essex Close

Lamerton Close

Playing Field

HOGMOOR ROAD

School

ter

CH MILL

Alexandra Park

AD

ASE RO

Pavilion

ROAD

AD

LL

Cemy

Gardeners Cottage

YB

RO

K

FORE

PARK

ST RO

O

Library

Hall

Reynolds house

HOLL

HIG H ST

HO

Superstore

YW ATER

REET

School

CHALET HILL

Caravan Site

The Old Corn Mill

LANE

CHALET HILL

The Warren

Playing Field

Recreation Ground

Hall

School STANDFORD

Jubilee Park

Post Offi ce

Standford House

Standford Mill ET

Hogmoor Inclosure

ROAD

Whitehill Chase

FOREST

HIG H

STRE

SINC

Eveley Wood

Hospital

HOGM

NDE WAY

OOR

RO

CO

Standford Grange

Deadwater Valley LNR

XB

HE G UR

ROAD

Standford Grange Farm

ROAD

SE CLO

Mattswood Farm

PETE RSF IELD

Blackmoor Golf Course

Standford STAN DFO RD

Fire Station

CO

AY EW ND

LAN E

SINC

Lindford Headley Mill Headley Mill Farm

Dead Wa

Alexandra Park

Slab

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Schools LA NE

L ROAD

HIL WHITE

Forest Lodge Hollywater Farm

Eveley Corner

RE ST

RO A

D

Walldown Earthwork

Hollywater

FO

School

LLD

WA

FIRGR OVE RO AD

AD RO WN

O LLD

Blackmoor Nurseries

WA

LIPHO

Morrington House

D OA NR OW

Whitehill Park

OK RO

AD

Modden Farm LIPHO

Woolmer Forest SSSI/SPA

OK RO

SINC

AD

Hollywater Green

AD

IF DR

T

RO

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Round Hill

ROAD

School

PETE RSF IELD

Apple Packing Station

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Riverside Farm

57

Green Infrastructure Strategy

HOLLYWATER ROAD

Whitehill Club

Passfield Common


The Green Infrastructure Strategy has been refined to reflect the views of key stakeholders. The key differences to the Eco-town masterplan are summarised as follows: In terms of the Hogmoor Inclosure, as a general principle, formal leisure facilities have been located to the east of the former railway line/proposed cycle route, with the area west of the railway line managed as natural greenspace.  Proposed allotments in the Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosures have been relocated to provide an allotment facility outside of the Hogmoor Inclosure and adjacent to the proposed residential area;  Habitat creation within the Croft area to provide stronger green network and link to Hogmoor Inclosure and to mitigate for some of the loss of habitat due to new development;

58

Green Infrastructure Strategy

 Suggestion that the protected railway corridor and proposed station facilities be located north of Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft;  Realignment of the Oxney Drain as a residential landscape feature;  Creation of a new central town park retaining existing playing fields;  Reduced area of housing in the BOSC/Bordon Trading estate area to provide a buffer to adjacent SINC and Shortheath Common SAC/ SSSI;  Lower density housing suggested to retain woodland adjacent to BOSC/Bordon Trading estate area.


6 outline design strategy 59

Green Infrastructure Strategy


6. Outline design strategy Introduction

BOSC and adjacent woodland

The outline design strategy sets out strategic level design guidance which applies the strategy principles set out in the previous section, and presents outline proposals for key green infrastructure sites in Whitehill Bordon. In particular, the proposals reference stakeholder comments.

The Site Primary Purpose:

Playing fields/natural green space/woodland

Ownership:

MOD

Landscape Character:

Sports pitches set within woodland landscape

Ecological Designations/Value:

Woodlands and mature trees of up to local value

Community Facilities/Value:

Limited access - potential community role

Outline design proposals are discussed for the following areas: Hogmoor Inclosure/the Croft/BOSC  Bordon Inclosure/Trenchard Park/Alexandra Park/Jubilee Park/Wey Valley  Deadwater Valley/Whitehill Town Council Recreation Ground/Walldown Enclosures  Eveley Wood/Standford Grange Farm  Forest Centre  High Street/A325/spine road  Conde Way

60

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Photographs of BOSC


BOSC and adjacent woodland Stakeholder Comments  Large demand for pitches;  The diversification of the club is key to future use, as a centre for community sport and leisure;  Needs to maintain a wider community base open to all  Current lack of all weather pitches;  Area acts as a buffer to adjacent SINC and European protected sites;  Need to deter people from accessing Shortheath

Common;  Retain as open space and for recreation;  The area also takes pressure off Hogmoor;  The proximity of proposed executive housing to the protected railway corridor was questioned  A general reduction in the amount of development within the BOSC site would also help reduce this potential.

Proposals  Key sports facility with public access;  Reduce area of low density housing to create larger natural greenspace buffer to Shortheath Common;  Suggest removal of housing area within green link to Hogmoor Inclosure;  Suggest lower density residential development to retain more of the existing woodland

natural greenspace buffer between proposed residential areas and protected railway corridor protected railway corridor natural greenspace buffer between proposed residential areas and adjacent SINC proposed allotments proposed play area

low density housing proposed play area

Photographs of woodland adjacent to BOSC and Bordon Trading Estate

Outline proposals for BOSC and surrounding area

61

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft The Sites Primary Purpose:

Recreation (previously MOD Training area)

Ownership:

MOD Defence Training Estates

Landscape Character:

Natural greenspace/woodland

Ecological Designations/Value:

SINC, important amphibian assemblages, key reptile sites, regional invertebrate interest

Community Facilities/Value:

Limited access - potential community role and SANG role

62

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Photographs of Hogmoor Inclosure and Forey Pond

Stakeholder Comments  Current problems include habitat damage caused by tanks/4x4s/motor bikes, fly tipping and stolen cars;  Increased visitor pressure from the new development will need to be managed and controlled;  Wildlife corridor needs to relate to existing/developing habitats;  Need to consider how to improve connections at either end;  East-west routes are needed following existing desire lines;  Primary purpose – mixed views between conservation and recreation objectives;  Encourage access and uses in Hogmoor so that existing designated sites are protected;  Access – different levels of access should be considered to reflect ecological sensitivities;  Planting was considered a more sensitive approach to defining areas/access;

 The path layout should reflect the need to conserve ecologically sensitive areas;  The central area of existing heath should be increased;  Retain trees around Forey pond and the conifers on the west side;  A new pond should be created in the northern half of the Inclosure where water stands now;  Consider moving proposed commercial development up to the edge of Hogmoor as this will reduce potential disturbance to wildlife;  The allotments should be moved into the development area so that the narrow corridor can be made as wide as possible;  The proposed location of the railway station and corridor near to Hogmoor was considered to have a negative impact and should be moved northwards.


Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft Ecology Hogmoor inclosure vegetation was mapped in 20106. The site is predominantly conifer plantation on undulating sandy soils, with remnant heathland present particularly along the edges of the network of many broad sandy tracks and narrower sandy pathways through the woodland. The locations of remnant dwarf shrub heath and the sandy paths that are of particular importance for the regionally significant invertebrate assemblage here and in The Croft have been mapped by local naturalists7. Selfsown deciduous woodland is developing in the northeast of Hogmoor Inclosure. Other habitats of smaller extent but relatively high importance are ponds, valley mire, wet woodland and drainage ditches. Sand sedge, which is rare in north Hampshire, is present in the west of the Inclosure. 6 HBIC (2010) Hogmoor Inclosure Vegetation Survey. Site Report 7 Whitehill Town Partnership Environment Conservation Group (no date) Mapped locations of important sandy paths; Miles S (2011) Mapped locations of dwarf shrub heath vegetation, Hogmoor Inclosure and The Croft.

Mapped locations of important sandy paths (Whitehill Town Partnership Environment Conservation Group) and locations of dwarf shrub heath vegetation (Miles, S 2011)

Hogmoor Inclosure Vegetation Survey (HBIC 2010)

63

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft Proposals Outline proposals for Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft are presented on the adjacent plans. In order to comply with the HRA recommendations, the primary function of Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft is recreation in order to meet the SANG objectives. However, it is recognised that nature conservation is a key objective in order to protect the SINC qualities and enhance the existing ecological value. The layout of proposed paths rationalises the current informal arrangement of tracks and pedestrian desire lines. The aim is to protect ecologically sensitive areas through planting, access point location and footpath routing. As a general principle, formal leisure facilities have been located to the east of the former railway line/proposed cycle route, with the area west of the railway line managed as natural greenspace.

64

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The draft masterplan includes a protected railway corridor along the former railway line. The construction of railway infrastructure in this area would have a negative impact on Hogmoor Inclosure from a Green Infrastructure perspective, and so consideration for relocating the proposed station facilities to the north of the Croft should be considered. The primary ecological enhancement for Hogmoor Inclosure is the creation of habitat on a concreted area that currently separates Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft. The habitat creation will create a continuous broad wildlife corridor through the west side of Whitehill Bordon. Land uses such as car parks, allotments and play areas have been sited outside Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft to retain the maximum area of natural habitat. Hogmoor Inclosure (North) Outline Proposals


Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft The outline design for Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft seeks to maintain the existing nature conservation of regional significance (invertebrates) by directing footpaths along the existing sandy paths and tracks. The existing sandy vehicle tracks are likely to be colonised by vegetation over time. However pedestrian disturbance in association with vegetation management can help to retain the important habitats and species here. The cycle route is located through woodland and scrub areas (lower value habitat) and avoids higher value heathland habitat, where the existing routes would otherwise have had to be widened to accommodate cycling. Remnant heathlands are one of the site’s most valuable habitat features. It is proposed that heathlands are expanded by removal of dense conifer plantation to create a more Hogmoor Inclosure (South) Outline Proposals

open mosaic of woodland and heathland, mainly through the centre of the site. Trees will be retained in areas with important shade loving species, around Forey Pond, and also around the edges of the site so that visitor access is managed and surrounding housing is screened to reduce disturbance. Forey Pond is an ephemeral pool where the nature conservation interest lies in the fact that the pool dries out from time to time. It is, therefore, important that the drainage strategy for the development does not link into the pond and that the existing water regime maintained. Additional planting between the cycle route and the pond will screen and restrict access to protect this important feature. Access will be encouraged at other ponds used for surface water attenuation further north instead.

65

Green Infrastructure Strategy


66

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Illustrative View of Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft (Looking North)


Illustrative View of Hogmoor Inclosure and the Croft (Looking South)

67

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Bordon Inclosure/Trenchard Park The Site Primary Purpose:

Natural greenspace

Ownership:

MOD

Landscape Character:

Wet woodland

Ecological Designations/Value:

Important amphibian, assemblage, invertebrate interest

Community Facilities/Value

MOD owned land which provides restricted access - potential for further recreational use.

Ecology Bordon Inclosure is a shaded valley of the River Wey that is wooded with mixed plantation. The vegetation here was surveyed in 20108 and appears to mainly derive from 19th and 20th century landscape planting. Veteran trees are also present and along the river corridor is ancient alder woodland with swamp habitats, particularly in the south of the enclosure. The whole valley is thickly vegetated with a dense understorey. The River Wey has high levels of naturalness with tree lined banks, mature islands, side bars and large woody debris habitats.

8 HBIC (2010) Bordon Inclosure Vegetation Survey. Site Report

68

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Bordon Inclosure and Trenchard Park Photographs

Bordon Inclosure Vegetation Survey (HBIC 2010)


Bordon Inclosure/Trenchard Park Stakeholder Comments  A low key approach was suggested for this area.  The wooded area is a good contrast to the open farmland of Standford Grange Farm and more mixed habitat at Hogmoor.  Potential for increased recreational use  The area currently has a dense tree canopy which would benefit from being opened up  Proposed cycle route to follow existing western track to avoid boggy areas  Use of board walks to provide access without damaging ecological interest  There is a need to develop circular routes accepting that this may not be completely achievable with the narrow central section.  Concern over the proposed location of the allotments in the masterplan which would result in the removal of mature beech trees

Proposals  Outline proposals are presented on the adjacent plan  The proposals for Bordon Inclosure make use of existing routes and retain the river and wet woodland in the valley bottom as natural as possible. In particular the cycle route has been located away from wetland areas to protect this type of habitat. Land uses such as allotments and equipped play areas have been sited outside Bordon Inclosure to retain the maximum area of natural habitat  New bridge links.

Bordon Inclosure and Trenchard Park Outline Proposals

69

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Alexandra Park The Site Ownership:

Whitehill Town Council

Primary Purpose:

Natural greenspace

Landscape Character:

Wet woodland/heathland

Ecological Designations/Value:

Local Nature Reserve reptiles present (slow worm) exceptional amphibians

Community Facilities/Value

Local Nature Reserve

70

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Alexandra Park Photographs

Stakeholder Comments  Expansion of heathland areas supported

Proposals  Outline proposals are presented on the adjacent plan  Pedestrian links  Small areas of heathland in Alexandra Park will be expanded by removal of coniferous trees around the edge to create a more open mosaic of woodland and heathland. Trees will be retained around the

edges of the Park so that surrounding housing is screened and to reduce disturbance.

Alexandra Park and Jubilee Park Aerial Photograph


Jubilee Park

Alexandra Park and Jubilee Park Outline Proposals

The Site Primary Purpose

Park and Recreation Ground

Landscape Character

Park and Recreation Ground

Ecological Designations/Value

A 10 metre wide strip along the River Deadwater is an integral part of the Deadwater Valley LNR and SINC and is managed by the Deadwater Valley Trust, separately from the park management of the rest of Jubilee Park.

Community Facilities/Value

Potential for enhanced community use (eg skate park/ teenage facility/events/play)

Jubilee Park Photographs

Proposals  Outline proposals are presented on the adjacent plan  Refurbish skateboard facility  Cycle path  Wildflower planting  Opportunities to improve the buffer zone to the Deadwater Stream adjacent to the park and to introduce an enhanced riparian margin of habitat  New bridge links.

71

Green Infrastructure Strategy


72

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Illustrative View of Bordon Inclosure and the Wey Valley (Looking North)


Illustrative View of Bordon Inclosure and the Wey Valley (Looking South)

73

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Allotments

Whitehill Town Council Recreation Ground

The Site Ownership:

Whitehill Town Council

The Site Ownership:

Whitehill Town Council

Primary Purpose

Recreation/Growing Food

Primary Purpose:

Park and Recreation Ground

Landscape Character

Allotments set in woodland landscape

Landscape Character:

Playing fields

Ecological Designations:

None

Ecological Designations:

None

Community Facilities/Value

Valued allotment facility with waiting list

Community Facilities/Value:

Well used and valued sports pitches and changing facilities

74

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Proposals  North-south cycle route adjacent to Whitehill Town Council Recreation Ground

Photographs of Allotments and Whitehill Town Council Recreation Ground


Wey Valley

Wey Valley Outline Proposals

The Site Ownership:

Mixed

Primary Purpose:

Education / Playing Fields

Landscape Character:

Playing fields/Amenity/ Woodland

Ecological Designations:

No designations

Community Facilities/Value:

Education use - potential for more community use

Stakeholder Comments  Links through the Wey Valley are important including the provision of circular walking routes to support SANG provision. Proposals  Extend access and path network linking to the Recreation Ground  Ecological enhancement measures to be discussed with landowners  Potential for natural play along river corridor.

75

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve The Site Primary Purpose:

Local Nature Reserve

Landscape Character

Wet woodland, river corridor, meadow

Ecological Designations/Value

Local Nature Reserve, SINC

Community Facilities/Value

Educational resource, recreational asset, car parking, interpretation, conservation/ volunteering

76

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Photographs of Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve

Ecology Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve (LNR) includes the valley of the Deadwater stream, Alexandra Park and Walldown Enclosures Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). The valley is predominantly a deciduous woodland with pines in the west. Conifers dominate Alexandra Park and Walldown Enclosure. Along the Deadwater stream escaped bamboo is dominant in the understorey. The Deadwater Stream has natural banks and bed with bank-side trees and underwater roots. Other habitats present are dry heathland remnants, ponds and a marshy pasture in the south which is designated an ancient meadow.

Stakeholder Comments  Considered a valuable asset;  Managed as a local nature reserve;  Should form a shared heart to be used by both Whitehill Bordon and Lindford;  Need to look at corridor beyond the strategy area for connections;  Buffer zones and access to the corridor will depend on amount of space available;  Balance of wildlife and access;  Develop as an educational resource linked to community centre and farm/country park;  Water Framework Directive will need to be considered – more species diversity, allowing natural processes, making space for water;  River banks and adjacent spaces will be important in managing wildlife and access;  Areas for wet woodland, reed beds and other habitat diversity;


Deadwater Valley and Walldown Enclosure  Avoid over use by controlling access and diverting people to less ecologically sensitive parts of the corridor.  Informal recreation is main use, mainly dog walkers (daily use)  Link through to Eveley Wood important  Need to define cycle route beyond Nature Reserve as there is currently a bylaw for no cycling.

Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve (North) Outline Proposals

Proposals  Outline proposals are presented on the adjacent plan;  The Deadwater Valley will mainly be retained in the Green Infrastructure Strategy as it is to avoid any negative impacts on existing habitats and wildlife;  Proposals within the LNR will be in accordance with the existing Management Plan;  Cycle routes will be restricted to Conde Way to avoid narrowing the green corridor through the river valley or widening/ resurfacing existing routes;  More detailed management proposals are set out in the Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve Management Plan which is currently in the process of being updated;  Proposed link through to Eveley Wood and construction of boardwalk.

77

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Walldown Enclosure The Site Primary Purpose

Heritage Scheduled Ancient Monument

Landscape Character

Sloping topography, woodland

Ecological Designations/Value

Local Nature Reserve, SINC

Community Facilities/Value

Heritage value Scheduled Ancient Monument Education/interpretation

78

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Stakeholder Comments  Potential for interpretation and education.  Management and protection of resource.

Photographs of Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve/Walldown Enclosure


Deadwater Valley and Walldown Enclosure Proposals  Outline proposals are presented on the adjacent plan

Deadwater Valley Local Nature Reserve (South) Outline Proposals, including Walldown Enclosure

79

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Standford Grange Farm The Site Ownership:

Hampshire County Council

Primary Purpose:

Agriculture

Landscape Character:

Sloping topography, pasture, arable farming, meadow

Ecological Designations/Value

Refer to adjacent mapping

Community Facilities/Value:

Potential SANG

80

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Photographs of Standford Grange Farm

Background Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood are owned by Hampshire County Council and are expected to form part of the assembly of the land required for the Eco-town. The current tenant of the farm holding has an agricultural tenancy with Hampshire County Council. Regular briefings have been held with the tenant regarding the expected requirement for part or all of the Standford Grange Farm land to be included within the Eco-town proposals.

The farm operates as a beef farming unit, which includes a pedigree herd of Charolais cows. The operational area of the farm is 46ha. 2.8ha of Standford Grange Farm has been leased to Standford Grange House on a 99 year lease. The lease runs until April 2095. Currently neither Standford Grange Farm or Eveley Wood (SINC) provide public access.


Standford Grange Farm Stakeholder Comments  Potential as a showcase for the Eco-town;  Potential for an Eco-farm, community farm and/or country park with visitor centre and a range of uses (eg visitor centre/hub, education, food, community gardens, community orchards and allotments, wildlife, playing fields, bike hire/pony trekking centre);  Potential SANG with improved public access;  Eco-farm idea generally supported, although there was uncertainty about a use which has a wider catchment, such as a country park or community farm;  The farm could be used as a base for cattle used to graze other sites;  The farm hub could include visitor centre and accommodation;  An alternative visitor centre location was proposed by the existing cemetery car park in the north, to avoid

introducing heavy use on Whitehill Road in the south;  The link to paths to the south should be removed so as not to encourage cyclists into the wider countryside;  The link across the stream to Eveley Wood and Deadwater Valley important, is something stakeholders have wanted for a while, and could be a quick win;  Need to understand the user profile of people who access the areas to the south and see if they can be attracted to Standford Grange Farm;  Important potential link/ synergy with school hub on eastern side;  Link in with the sustainable transport proposed (eg Shipwright’s Way/bus routes).

Ecology Standford Grange Farm is an agricultural area where the habitats were mapped in 2010 using Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology9. The landscape comprises improved agriculturally grassland and arable fields with hedgerows and linear plantations between. In addition there is a marshy field in the south and was surveyed in more detail in 200510. The marshy field supports a high diversity of plants along the stream through the centre.

9 HBIC (2010) Standford Grange Farm Habitat Survey. Site Report. ������������������������������������� HBIC (2005) Eveley Wood Vegetation Survey. Site Report; HBIC (2010) Standford Grange Farm Field Vegetation Survey. Site Report

Standford Grange Farm Habitat Survey (HBIC 2010).

81

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Eveley Wood The Site Ownership

Hampshire County Council

Primary Purpose

Natural Greenspace

Landscape Character

Woodland

Ecological Designations/Value

Ancient woodland/SINC

Community Facilities/Value

Potential heritage value/ potential SANG (in part)

82

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Stakeholder Comments  Ancient woodland protected  In need of additional management  Woodland needs positive management  Balance required between access and conservation  There is an existing overgrown track through the centre which could be used for access

Eveley Wood Photographs

Ecology Eveley Wood ancient woodland was surveyed in more detail in 201011. Eveley Wood includes wet and dry woodland with ancient woodland indicator plants, and also some broadleaved and mixed plantation. ������������������������������������� HBIC (2005) Eveley Wood Vegetation Survey. Site Report; HBIC (2010) Standford Grange Farm Field Vegetation Survey. Site Report


Proposals Potential options for Standford Grange Farm include:  Rotational use as a SANG, allowing farm operations on existing arrangements. This would require more active management for recreational use and access to both Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood.  Relocation of farm operations and delivery of recreational site with no hard infrastructure facilities.  Relocation of farm operations and delivery of recreational site with

Eveley Wood Vegetation Survey (HBIC 2005)

hard infrastructure, such as a visitor centre and supporting facilities.  Change in farming practice to improve recreational access, such as replacement of livestock or creation of an orchard.  Relocation of farm operations and development of community farm model recreational/ educational function.  Change in farming practice and provision of training/ study centre for land use and management.

83

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood These options are reflected in the adjacent proposals. Option 1 illustrates outline proposals for an eco-farm. There was general stakeholder support for an eco-farm with a visitor centre and associated education, catering and play facilities. This concept would build upon wider eco-town objectives to promote allotment food production and link to local commercial producers. Possible related activities could include an orchard/organic farming display area. Standford Grange Farm will be farmed using low intensity management which will benefit farmland species such as birds and invertebrates. The eco-farm may also be able to provide benefits to the wider area by providing a hub for conservation herds of cattle that are required on an ad hoc basis to manage designated heathlands in the surrounding district.

84

Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood Outline Proposals - Option 1 Eco-farm

Green Infrastructure Strategy

At this stage the area required to support farming on the site has yet to be determined and is subject to a feasibility study being led by Hampshire County Council. This study will be fundamental to assessing the future role of the farm as it will determine how much land is potentially available for SANG use. In Option 2 the area has been designed to extend the woodland character to provide a woodland experience adjacent to, but not in, the ancient woodland. In this option less land would be devoted to farming, so the area would need to be managed more along the lines of a country park facility. In this option there would be a greater potential for SANG use, as the proposal would be less constrained by farming requirements allowing greater accessibility.


Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood This option would also include a visitor centre facility to support the use of the site as a country park. The visitor centre in both options presents a range of educational opportunities to link to the adjacent existing and proposed schools north of the site, and to interpretation facilities proposed for the Ecostation (the Old Fire Station). Two potential locations are shown, reflecting the merits of consolidating built facilities in the existing farm complex, but also recognising there are transport and movement issues along Whitehill Road which may constrain development.

Access through the woodland will be managed to prevent damage to sensitive woodland soils and paths will be restricted to a single northsouth path and an east west orientated path. A potential link through to the Deadwater Valley should be pursued to further integrate the area. Similarly, the potential routing of the Shipright’s Way through the area will link the farm area into the wider strategic cycle network.

In both options, active woodland management will be implemented within Eveley Wood to maximise the habitat potential of this ancient woodland.

Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood Outline Proposals - Option 2 Country Park

85

Green Infrastructure Strategy


86

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Illustrative View of Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood (Looking North)


Illustrative View of Standford Grange Farm and Eveley Wood (Looking South)

87

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Country Park Facilities The potential for Standford Grange Farm to provide country park and/or farm related facilities should be considered in the context of existing provision in the region.

The adjacent table and map highlight some of the existing country park facilities in the area. 5 19

6 22

4 23

14 2

1

9 3

8

12

11 17

16 15 18

13

88

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Existing Country Park Facilities

21

7 10

20


There is a clear link between the Green Infrastructure Strategy, tourism and the objectives of the Whitehill Bordon Economic Development and Employment Strategy. CountryParks CountryParkName

Location

ͳǤŽ‹…‡ ‘Ž–

‘ˆŠ‹–‡Š‹ŽŽ‘”†‘

ʹǤ‘š ‹ŽŽ ͵Ǥ—…Šƒ ͶǤƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ͷǤŠƒ”˜‹Ž ͸Ǥ‹–‘ƒ•–—”‡• ͹Ǥ‹–…ŠŽ‹‰‘‘ ͺǤ ƒ”Ž‡›‘—– ͻǤ ‘”‡•–ƒ›

‘ˆ‘”‹‰ ”ƒ™Ž‡› ‹…Šƒ’•–‡ƒ† ™›ˆ‘”†ǡ‡”• ‘ˆ‡ƒ†‹‰ ‘ˆ—”‰‡•• ‹ŽŽ ‘ˆ‹…Š‡•–‡” ƒ•– ”‹•–‡ƒ†–‘

”‘‘„”‹†‰‡ ‘ˆŠ‹…Š‡•–‡” ƒ•–Ž‡‹‰Š ƒ•–Ž‡‹‰Š ‘ˆ ƒ™Ž‡›ǡ‘‘Ž‡–

ͳͲǤ ‘‘†™‘‘† ͳͳǤ –…Š‡ƒŽŽ‡› ͳʹǤƒ‡•‹†‡ ͳ͵Ǥ‡’‡ ͳͶǤ‹‰Š–™ƒ–‡”

ͳͷǤƒ‘” ƒ”

ͳ͸Ǥ—‡‡Ž‹œƒ„‡–Š

ͳ͹Ǥ‘›ƒŽ‹…–‘”‹ƒ ͳͺǤ‹–…Šˆ‹‡Ž† ƒ˜‡ ͳͻǤ‡Ž•‘”‡‘‘ ʹͲǤ–ƒ‡” ʹͳǤ–ƒ—–‘ ʹʹǤ‡ŽŽ‹‰–‘ ʹ͵Ǥƒ–‡Ž‡›‘‘ 

‡–™‡‡ƒ‰•Š‘–Ƭ ‹‰Š–™ƒ–‡” —”•Ž‡†‘

‡–™‡‡‡–‡”•ˆ‹‡Ž†Ƭ ‘”†‡ƒ ‡–™‡‡‡–Ž‡›Ƭ ƒ„Ž‡ ƒ‘ˆ‘Ž‡– ‘ˆ‡™„—”› ”‹‰Š–‘ ‘ˆ ƒ˜ƒ– ‘ˆ ƒ”–Ž‡›‹–‡› ƒ–‡Ž‡›

Existing Country Park Facilities

Distancefrom Bordon ͷ‹Ž‡• ʹͷ‹Ž‡• ͵Ͳ‹Ž‡• ͳͺ‹Ž‡• ʹͷ‹Ž‡• ʹ͵‹Ž‡• ͵ͷ‹Ž‡• ʹ͵‹Ž‡• ͵͹‹Ž‡•

ͳ͸‹Ž‡• ʹͷ‹Ž‡• ʹͷ‹Ž‡• Ͷͷ‹Ž‡• ȋ˜‹ƒ‘––‘Ȍ ͳ͹‹Ž‡• ʹͷ‹Ž‡• ͳ͵‹Ž‡•

ʹ͹‹Ž‡• ʹ͹‹Ž‡• ͵Ͳ‹Ž‡• ͵ͺ‹Ž‡• ͳͺ‹Ž‡• ͳ͸‹Ž‡• ͳͷ‹Ž‡•

Size&Description WoodlandparkmanagedbyForestryCommissionwithvisitorfacilities(carparks,acafe,playgrounds,cyclehireand waymarkedtrailsforwalkingandcycling,cyclingprovisionincludesinclusiveequipmenttoaccommodatecyclingby disabledpeople,GoApe). ͶͻͲŠƒ‘ˆ…ŠƒŽ†‘™Žƒ†ǡ„‘šƒ†›‡™™‘‘†Žƒ† ͳ͹ͲŠƒ™‘‘†Žƒ†ǡŠ‡ƒ–Šƒ†‡ƒ†‘™ ͶͲŠƒ‘ˆƒ…‹‡–„‘‰Žƒ†ƒ†Ž‘™Žƒ†Š‡ƒ–Š ͹ͷŠƒˆ‘”‡”‰”ƒ˜‡Ž’‹–•ƒ†’ƒ•–—”‡Žƒ†Ǥƒˆ±ǡˆ‹•Š‹‰ƒ†’Žƒ›ƒ”‡ƒ ͵͵ͷƒ…”‡•‘ˆŽƒ‡•ǡ”‹˜‡”•ƒ†‡ƒ†‘™•Ǥƒˆ±ǡ™ƒ–‡”•’‘”–•ǡ‰‘Žˆǡ”‘™‹‰„‘ƒ–• ͹͸Šƒ‘ˆ‰”ƒ••Žƒ†ƒ†™‘‘†Žƒ† ‘™Žƒ†ƒ†™‘‘†Žƒ† ͳͲ‹Ž‡•‡…–‹‘‘ˆ†‹•—•‡†”ƒ‹Ž™ƒ›…‘˜‡”–‡†–‘”‡…”‡ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ”‘—–‡

In this respect, more detailed work is required in order to assess tourism and visitor demand and to refine the proposals.

‘‘†Žƒ†ƒ†‰”ƒ••Žƒ† ͳͺʹŠƒ‘ˆ™ƒ–‡”‡ƒ†‘™•ǡ™‘‘†Žƒ†ƒ†‡ƒ†‘™•Ǥ‹•‹–‘”‡–”‡ǡ…ƒˆ±ǡ ‘Ǧ’‡ ʹͶŠƒ‘ˆŽƒ‡•ǡ™‡–‡ƒ†‘™ƒ†™‘‘†Žƒ†Ǥ‹‹ƒ–—”‡–”ƒ‹–”ƒ… ‡ƒ…Šǡ…Ž‹ˆˆ•ǡ™‹Ž†ˆŽ‘™‡”‡ƒ†‘™•ƒ†Ǧƒ›”‡ƒ‹• ͷͻŠƒ‘ˆŠ‡ƒ–ŠŽƒ†ǡ’‘†•ǡ™‘‘†Žƒ†ǡ•Š”—„•ƒ†Ž‘™Žƒ†„‘‰

ͶͲͲƒ…”‡•‘ˆ™‘‘†Žƒ†ǡ”‹˜‡”•‹†‡ƒ†‘’‡•’ƒ…‡™‹–Šˆƒ”ǤͷŠ‡ƒ”–Š•ǡ–‡ƒ”‘‘ǡ‡š–‡•‹˜‡Š‘”•‡”‹†‹‰ ”‘—–‡•ƒ†–Š”‡‡…Š‹Ž†”‡ǯ•’Žƒ›ƒ”‡ƒ• ͳǡͶͲͲƒ…”‡•‘ˆ™‘‘†Žƒ†ƒ††‘™Žƒ†Ǥ …Ž—†‡•—–•‡” ‹ŽŽ

ʹͲͲƒ…”‡•ǡ™‹–Š‹Ž‹–ƒ”›Š‘•’‹–ƒŽ…Šƒ’‡Žǡ‹‹ƒ–—”‡”ƒ‹Ž™ƒ›ǡ–‡ƒ”‘‘• •–—ƒ”‹‡ƒ–—”‡”‡•‡”˜‡ ͳͲͲŠƒŠ‡ƒ–ŠŽƒ†ǡ™‡–„‘‰ƒ†™‘‘†Žƒ† —‰‡Žƒ†•…ƒ’‡†’ƒ”™‹–Š”—”ƒŽ—•‡—ǡ…Š—”…Šǡ…‘—‹–›ˆƒ” ͳǡͲͲͲƒ…”‡•‘ˆŽƒ†•…ƒ’‡†’ƒ”Žƒ†ƒ†ˆƒ”ǤƒŽŽ‡†‰ƒ”†‡ǡ‰Žƒ••Š‘—•‡•ǡƒœ‡ǡ…ƒˆ±ǡˆƒ”•Š‘’ •–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†„›—‡Ƭ—…Š‡••‘ˆ‡ŽŽ‹‰–‘Ǥ͵ͷͲƒ…”‡•‘ˆ’ƒ”Žƒ†ǡ™‘‘†•ƒ†Žƒ‡•ǤŽƒ›ƒ”‡ƒ•ǡƒ–—”‡–”ƒ‹Ž•ƒ† ƒ‹ƒŽˆƒ” ͳͻ͵Šƒ‘ˆŠ‡ƒ–ŠŽƒ†ǡ™‘‘†Žƒ†ǡ‰”ƒ••Žƒ†ƒ†’‘†•

89

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Existing Urban Amenity Greenspace The Site(s) Primary Purpose:

Informal Amenity Greenspace

Landscape Character

Amenity greenspace, play areas

Ecological Designations/Value

Roadside SINCs on Conde Way and Walldown Rd/ Hollywater Road Potential for biodiversity enhancement

Community Facilities/Value

Amenity value, important local community/play facilities

90

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Photographs of existing play provision and Hollywater Park

Stakeholder Comments  Enhancement of existing urban environment considered integral to strategy;  A general need to ‘retrofit’ existing spaces where deficiencies exist and enhancement is required;  In general terms would prefer to enhance existing amenity greenspaces with more wildflower planting rather than additional tree planting;  Note that quick wins/ planting are already taking place in the area;  Generally supportive of ideas around improving footpaths, providing play and changing management regimes to encourage species diversity;  Access and connectivity was considered the main function;  Change maintenance to improve habitat;  Maintain existing ecologically important verges.

Proposals  Outline proposals for a range of greenspaces are presented over the next few pages.


Existing Urban Amenity Greenspace

Existing urban amenity greenspace

Plan of proposed ‘Stepping Stone’ projects (Source: William Wain)

91

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Conde Way

92

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Outline proposals for Conde Way (west) option A


Photograph of Conde Way

 Option A Proposals for Conde Way seek to provide off road cycle provision to promote the role of the road as a green link. This option was not supported by stakeholders due to the potential impact on the roadside SINC.

 If this option is pursued ecological mitigation would be required to offset any potential impact on the roadside SINC, potentially through further wildflower planting along Conde Way.

93

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Conde Way

94

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Outline proposals for Conde Way (west) Option B


Maintain verges

New tree planting

Verge managed for species rich grassland

Block paving

cycleway/footpath

Outline proposals for Conde Way (west) Option B

Enhanced crossing point

Enhanced bus stop facilities

 An alternative option B has been proposed which seeks to conserve the existing roadside SINC alongside the provision of cycle lanes within the carriageway.  Further design work will need to be carried out through the proposed Walking and Cycling Strategy to determine the feasibility of cycling options in this area.

cycle lane

95

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Conde Way

96

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Alternative outline options for Conde Way (east)


Fire Station area photographs

Outline proposals for Conde Way (east)

97

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Forest Road

98

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Forest Road area photographs

Outline proposals for Forest Road area


New tree planting

New species rich hedgerow

Verge managed 3m wide for species rich cycleway/ grassland footpath

Outline proposals for Forest Road area

New lighting

Existing shrub cut back

Recreation ground

 The adjacent proposals for the Forest Road area highlight the importance of biodiversity enhancements to existing greenspaces to act as ‘green stepping stones’ and the importance of providing community facilities for play and recreation.

Wildflower grassland

99

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Forest Centre Stakeholder Comments Central Area/Existing town centre  Existing paths in the town are well used and need to be integrated with paths in the proposed town.  Safe routes to schools need to be considered  Young people gather at the community centre, Tesco car park and the trading estate in the evening as a place to go  Tension between ‘new’ centre and the existing town centre  Forest Centre - develop as a community core  A Village green – place for community events/festivals  Businesses need to be involved (Co-op etc) Proposals  Outline proposals seek to enhance the public realm to provide a focal point to this community area.

100

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Forest Centre photographs

Outline proposals for Forest Centre


High Street/A325 Existing trees thinned to allow creation of informal avenue. New tree planting to form avenue where required

Existing lighting

Existing road

Existing vegetation retained

Shrub areas cut back and managed as wildflower grassland Aerial photograph of A325

Outline proposals for A325

Manage existing shrub areas to maintain visibility Existing cycleway/ footpath

Existing path

101

Green Infrastructure Strategy


High Street/A325/Spine Road Stakeholder Comments High Street/A325/Spine Road  Alternative views were expressed on the spine road. The spine road should be sufficiently wide to allow for tree planting and to include tree crossing points etc to avoid severance.  Shared space could be introduced at the town centre section of the High Street/A325.  It was also suggested that the High Street could be buried in cut and cover.  Potential for green bridges on the A325 was suggested.

102

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Aerial photograph of A325

Outline proposals for A325


Existing gardens, path and road

Existing cycleway relocated New hedge and trees

car park

Proposals  Outline proposals for the A325 seek to enhance the role of this route as a green corridor providing a pedestrian/cycle route, bus lane and access for local traffic alongside landscape and biodiversity enhancements.

A325

Existing planting

reinforced to form screen Verge width reduced

3m cycleway/ footpath

Car parking moved back

Outline proposals for A325

103

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Proposed Urban Environment Stakeholder Comments  The deculverting of Oxney Drain was supported through Prince Philips Barracks.  Relocating the stream/SUDs through the urban area rather than adjacent to the spine road was considered to be a good idea provided that it was a generous green corridor with space for planting and paths.

 Youth play should be centrally located, not positioned away from residential areas  Important that proposed housing fronts on to greenspace and has a positive relationship.  The location of railway station should be moved further north and related to the town centre with good links for pedestrians and cyclists.

 Consider the use of green bridges or burying the railway to maintain connections and reduce severance. Burying the railway would allow development over it.  The town centre could be rotated so that it is parallel to the High Street and therefore link more closely to existing town centre uses, Tesco’s and the developing ‘leisure’ centre further south.

proposed railway station to be located away from Hogmoor Inclosure

education hub

SUDs corridor youth play green link

104

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Existing MOD Playing Fields

Proposed Urban Environment - Education Hub Option

market square


Town Park Option Stakeholder Comments Town Park Option  General support for a town park as a focal point (if the school option is not pursued)  Part of the town park area could contribute to the SANG provision  Town park needs to relate to the town centre, route from the station and adjacent uses.

Proposals  The adjacent plans present two options for the proposed urban environment, reflecting the two education options within the current draft masterplan.  The education hub option presents the draft masterplan option for a central education hub.

 Alternatively, if the education hub is to be located adjacent to Mill Chase and Hollywater School, there is an opportunity to create a central town park with playing fields at the heart of the new town.

town park option

SUDs corridor youth play

green link

Proposed Urban Environment - Town Park Option

market square

Existing MOD Barracks

105

Green Infrastructure Strategy


High Street/A325 Car parking

Enhanced junction/pedestrian crossings

Chalet Hill

Potential green link Potential pedestrian/ cycleway

New trees

A325

106

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Aerial photograph of A325

Outline proposals for A325

Existing trees retained


 Proposals for the A325 at the junction with Chalet Hill seek to provide a new civic space with tree planting.

A325

Chalet Hill

Footpath width increased to 4m

5.5m wide road

New town square

New trees

Outline proposals for A325

Car parking

107

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Ground

Lindford Bridge

Wolfe House

BOSC

Lindford Farm Community Centre

Playing Field

Playing Field

BO

AD

N RO

EY LL

IO STAT

Saint Lucia Park

EN AV

Bordon Trading Estate

Bordon Inclosure

UE

Former Sewage Works

Recycling Centre

Bordon Camp

Selborne End

Round Hill

Community Centre Subway

CAMP ROA

D

Playing Field

ROAD

Whitehill Club

Sewage Works

Quebec Barracks

Pavilion

OAKHANGER ROAD

LIPHOOK

Oak Farmhouse

Welfare Centre

Trenchard Park

Football Ground

MOD training facility

Landscape Character

Natural greenspace/woodland

Schools

Proposals  Round Hill - examine River Wey potential for green loop/ cycle/footpath provision within MOD defence training estate land, alongside further dialogue on management and access;  Whitehill Club - playing field enhancement and construction of new pavilion.

Essex Close

Playing Field

Alexandra Park

ter

School

Alexandra Park

SINC

Jubilee Park

ET

STRE

AD

YB RO O

ST RO FORE

ET

C

K

Library

Post Offi ce

ROAD

STRE

Whitehill Chase

FOREST

HIGH

ROAD

School

LL

Hall

School Playing Field

Recreation Ground

HO

Superstore

SINC

Pavilion

CHALET HILL

CHALET HILL

Caravan Site

Hogmoor Inclosure

AD

E RO CHAS MILL

PARK

Community Facilities/Value Potential for returnThetoWarren sports use

Informal recreation/dog walking HIGH

Community Facilities/Value

Head Mi

YW ATER

Lamerton Close

Hall

Ecological Designations/Value None

The Watermeadows Small Industries Watermeadow Farm

Trenchard Park

LA

NE

Ecological Designations/Value SINC

BU DD S

HOLL

Slab

Playing Field

Dead Wa

Landscape Character Former playing fields currently used for grazing

The Site Primary Purpose

HOGMOOR ROAD

The Site Primary Purpose Sports facility (currently disused)

Kildare Close

Eveley Wood

Hospital

Fire Station

CO

HOGM

NDE WAY

ROAD OOR

RO

CO

AY EW ND

Deadwater Valley LNR

XB HE G UR

St Gra

ELD RO

AD

SE CLO

Mattswood Farm

PETE RSFI

Blackmoor Golf Course

AD

HILL RO WHITE

Forest Lodge Hollywater Farm

Eveley Corner

RE ST

RO A

D

Walldown Earthwork

Hollywater

FO

School

LLD

WA

FIRGR OVE RO AD

LLD

Blackmoor Nurseries

LIPHO OK

WA

D OA NR OW

Morrington House

D OA NR OW

Whitehill Park

ROAD

Modden Farm LIPHO OK

SINC

ROAD

Hollywater Green

108

Green Infrastructure Strategy

AD

IF DR

T

RO

Round Hill

ELD ROAD

School

PETE RSFI

Apple Packing Station

Woolmer Forest SPA/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

HOLLYWATER RO

Whitehill Club

Woolmer Forest SAC/SSSI (part of Wealden Heaths II SPA)

Blackmoor

Photographs of Whitehill Club and Round Hill Heather Park

Cranmer Pond

Whitehill Club and Round Hill

WHITEHILL CP

Hollywater Clump

Riverside Farm

Hollywater P


7 design elements

109

Green Infrastructure Strategy


7. Design Elements Introduction The following pages provide initial design approaches for footpath and paving materials, park furniture, fencing and public art. These examples are not intended as a prescriptive guide but rather to indicate the type of approach to be applied to particular character areas. Materials and Colour To unify the various character areas across Whitehill Bordon, a consistent palette of materials is proposed. In general terms the proposed materials seek to retain the informal character of the area. Stakeholders expressed the view that the design of the green loop should vary according to its context in both width and material. The adjacent photographs show examples of footpath materials which are appropriate to Whitehill Bordon such as Breedon gravel or hoggin.

110

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Photographs of suggested materials palette


Park Furniture The quality of park furniture contributes to the character of a place and is an important element in creating quality public spaces. There is an opportunity to involve local artists and craftsman in the design of park furniture, which would add creativity and local distinctiveness. The design of seating, fencing, bollards, cycle racks and other items of furniture should be of a simple robust timber design co-ordinated between different character areas.

Photographs of park furniture examples

111

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Fencing and Boundary Treatments The treatment of boundary areas also needs to be sensitively handled in order to conserve the existing informal character of the natural greenspaces and the agricultural character of Standford Grange Farm. The existing use of timber fencing and hedgerows is to be maintained and extended throughout the area. Where required in Standford Grange Farm, stock-proof fencing will be used. The adjacent photographs show a combination of existing treatments and proposed fencing styles.

112

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Suggested use of timber for natural greenspace and Standford Grange Farm


Decking The use of timber decking will be an important element both in order to create greenspaces which are sensitive to context, but also to control access so areas of ecological interest which can be observed without causing high levels of disturbance. In particular, boardwalks are to be introduced to protect existing wetland areas to allow for the opportunity for educational activities.

Timber decking and boardwalk examples

113

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Interpretation, Signage and Branding The overall branding of the Eco-town will be an important element in terms of providing signage and interpretation. Signage and interpretation will encompass route marking, wayfinding and interpretation of the history, culture and biodiversity of the area. A more detailed strategy identifying signage and interpretation requirements should be produced. This strategy should identify locations and type of signage/ interpretation necessary, content of interpretation, materials, and the colour scheme. It should also identify sources of interpretation information and imagery as well as any requirement for specialist authors of historical or botanical information.

114

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Signage and interpretation examples


Gateways It is envisaged that new gateway areas, incorporating signage and interpretation boards, will be introduced at key footpath entry points and car parking areas. Public art can also be introduced into these gateway areas in order to provide a unique identity and welcoming entry point to the greenspace network. The branding design could be developed through a competition aimed at local schools and colleges with the added advantage of raising the profile of the eco-town with young people with its associated positive press. The branding would be applied to the website, newsletter, posters, flags and the associated publicity material.

Photographs of example gateway features

115

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Public Art Individual pieces of public art can not only be visually stimulating features of interest, but can also act as landmarks to help provide reference points and emphasise the hierarchy of a place. Public art will perform a critical role creating identity, focus, a link with the history of the site and area as well as adding to the cultural experience. The form of the public art can be varied, and the opportunities for public art can be included into signage, seating, fencing and sculpture. Particular emphasis can be placed on the interaction between public art, lighting and water as well as public art set within the key nodal spaces and entrances/gateways.

116

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Public art examples


There is potential for the introduction of new sculptures as features/focal points throughout the green infrastructure network. These would be planned for and integrated into the overall detailed landscape design of the area and seen as part of the structure of the landscape. Such features would both influence and be influenced by this detailed landscape layout.

Public art examples

117

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Built form The relationship to adjacent built form character areas and land uses will be important to define. The adjacent images illustrate approaches to sustainable buildings in terms of green roofs, green walls, the use of photo-voltaics, or a combination of both (eg Bedzed). In addition, the provision of bird/bat boxes and other ecological enhancements should be an integral part of the design of the built environment.

118

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Examples of sustainable building approaches


Visitor Facilities The creation of a new visitor centre at Standford Grange Farm presents an opportunity for the provision of cafĂŠ, toilet and education facilities. The adjacent photographs present a range of visitor centre examples from around the UK to illustrate the possibilities that exist. This building would provide a good opportunity to showcase the promotion of sustainable buildings techniques if funds allow.

Visitor Centre examples

119

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Play Facilities In terms of equipped play, there is a large range of play equipment available. The design of play areas, especially natural play, should respond to the landscape context in terms of material and style.

120

Green Infrastructure Strategy


8 management and maintenance

121

Green Infrastructure Strategy


8. Management A commitment to quality

Best practice

Good management and maintenance is an essential part of creating a ‘cared for’ environment. Consideration should be given at an early stage to the future management and maintenance arrangements of greenspaces, in particular, how the area will function over time and what the maintenance implications are likely to be.

The Value of Public Space by CABE Space suggests that high quality parks add significant economic, social and environmental value to a local area. However perceived issues in terms of management, governance and maintenance of urban parks, partly due to fragmentation of responsibility, lack of co-ordinated activities and partnership working across England, have made it difficult for urban greenspaces to maximise their potential.

In order to meet the aims and objectives of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-Town in sustaining and creating a green infrastructure network of the highest quality it is essential that future management and maintenance is adequately considered through the masterplanning process.

Delivery Structure

Advantages / Disadvantages

Partnerships (Formal or Informal)

In most cases the Parks Department (or Leisure Department) heads the partnership and is assisted in delivering services and managing education, programming, investment and volunteering responsibilities. Frequent partners include environmental organisations, educational establishments, local businesses, local charitable trusts, sports clubs and national funding providers. Each partner seeks to dedicate resources towards the agreed objectives. Advantages: Such partnerships are quick and easy to form; cost much less than any other forms to establish and operate; extensive partner engagement; generally capitalise on existing networks and offer good potential to ‘kick-start’ the delivery process Disadvantages: Sometimes partnerships lack focus and commitment from partners to deliver in the long-term; these partnerships lack independence, implying slow decision process and lack of risk-taking ability; limited ability to attract funds from outside the partner remit; a ‘cocktail-approach’ – potential for conflict amongst competing departments (within the council) and wider organisational priorities Local authorities are well placed to carry the responsibility of managing urban green space; however the fact that there is no statutory duty to provide or maintain open space has left little incentive for local authorities to maximise the use of powers available. E.g. Birmingham City Council takes a lead role in managing and maintaining the City’s parks and green space (see case study for Handsworth Park Management)

Local Government

On-going community engagement will need to continue to inform the development of the Green Infrastructure Strategy and its future implementation.

Disadvantages: In the modern local government context most park departments are subsumed within the leisure departments, which usually give precedence to indoor sporting and recreation facilities over public parks; budgetary constraints cause inappropriate maintenance, even negligence in some instances, of public parks and green spaces; track record of fund raising

122

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Advantages: Avoids another layer of delivery and associated complications; local authorities with affluent inter-departmental working can further quicken the decision-making process; lessons learnt from operational roles can be shared more readily with the decision makers and vice versa, compared to any other form of delivery; fund raising capability; organisational stability

Independent Trust

An organisation independent of local authorities, agencies and other partners, whilst being ‘sponsored’ by and working in partnership with them. Sponsorship could entail anything from transfer of income-generating assets to fixed annual support from government agencies for an agreed period of time. The widely acceptable model is an independent charitable trust and an associated not-for-profit limited company as its operating arm. As an independent legal entity the trust has powers to make decisions. A trust model will include independent trustees and management board, with wider tie-ins with partner agencies. E.g. Milton Keynes Park Trust (see case study) Advantages:

In this context, it is vital to set out clear implementation structures from the outset to achieve the desired aspirations for green infrastructure. This section seeks to highlight some key considerations which should be taken on board while preparing the detailed delivery structure for Whitehill Bordon.


Local Government

Advantages: Avoids another layer of delivery and associated complications; local authorities with affluent inter-departmental working can further quicken the decision-making process; lessons learnt from operational roles can be shared more readily with the decision makers and vice versa, compared to any other form of delivery; fund raising capability; organisational stability Disadvantages: In the modern local government context most park departments are subsumed within the leisure departments, which usually give precedence to indoor sporting and recreation facilities over public parks; budgetary constraints cause inappropriate maintenance, even negligence in some instances, of public parks and green spaces; track record of fund raising

Independent Trust

An organisation independent of local authorities, agencies and other partners, whilst being ‘sponsored’ by and working in partnership with them. Sponsorship could entail anything from transfer of income-generating assets to fixed annual support from government agencies for an agreed period of time. The widely acceptable model is an independent charitable trust and an associated not-for-profit limited company as its operating arm. As an independent legal entity the trust has powers to make decisions. A trust model will include independent trustees and management board, with wider tie-ins with partner agencies. E.g. Milton Keynes Park Trust (see case study) Advantages: Focussed; independent legal entity; efficient decision-making; entrepreneurial culture; community engagement; marketing and fund raising capabilities; tax benefits for charitable trust Disadvantages: Takes time to establish such a structure and get it to an effective functional state; independence demands selfsustainability, which in turn raises the level of risks involved, in terms of survival and economic viability in the long term

Out-sourcing from the Private Sector

The extent of private contractors’ involvement varies considerably. Their involvement is usually in the form of contractual assignments covering urban design, construction and operational (maintenance) aspects. In some instances, the private sector’s involvement can also take form of sponsorships. These may include provision of business expertise, office space, help with printing news letters, equipment and monetary support. E.g. In Paris, green space development and management works are undertaken by private contractors under the public bidding system. Advantages: Innovative practices; specialist skills; effective management; cost savings for the local authority in the short term Disadvantages: Tiered delivery resulting in inflexibility in terms of meeting seasonal peak and troughs; slow policy related decision making; long term value for money questionable; public sector resources tied in to monitor the delivery; lack of community involvement; low customer satisfaction levels; public-private sector relationship

Future Management Options Both within, and outside, local government, a wide range of stakeholders have an interest in urban greenspace management, or are directly involved in its delivery, causing a level of fragmentation of responsibilities and powers. This requires a focussed implementation structure with the capabilities to engage wider stakeholders and drive forward the delivery of the green infrastructure management and maintenance agendas. The adjacent table identifies various systems of governance adopted for long-term management of urban greenspaces in England. More importantly, the table highlights core advantages and disadvantage related to each of the identified delivery structures.

The delivery structure adopted to manage and maintain publically accessible green infrastructure depends on various factors, not least the scale of the facilities, attitudes of local government, relationship between the local public and private sector organisations, corporate policies and market availability. Essentially, partnerships are a convenient way to initiate the management process. However, lack of independence and commitment from stakeholders to deliver in the long-run suggest that such structures are not always suitable as long-term solutions. Considering the level of local decision-making authority, delivery through local government is a widely acceptable practice. However, lack of focus and tight budgets can lead to inappropriate maintenance of greenspaces. This said, in instances where customer satisfaction and

123

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Case Studies flexibility in delivery are the prime objective, the public sector is still favoured over private contractors. Where focussed management and delivery are the core priorities, an independent trust is often the preferred option. However, independence increases the risks and demands self sustainability. Such configurations usually take time to establish but do become effective delivery vehicles. In summary, each governance structure caters to a particular set of needs. In the transitional phase of a development, it is acceptable to adopt a partnership approach. However, to ensure longer term sustainable management a more permanent and stable delivery vehicle should be sought.

124

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Considering the planning powers within a local authority’s remit, council led delivery structures provide the most sustainable form for delivering maintenance of public open spaces. However, their tight budgets and track record to attract external funds often imply that open spaces are inappropriately managed and in some instances, neglected as well. In light of this, partnerships and independent charitable trusts are the two most widely adopted governance systems for urban greenspace management.

Milton Keynes Park Trust (MKPT) To build a better operational understanding of future greenspace management options, we have prepared case studies of successful examples, including:  Milton Keynes Parks Trust an independent charitable trust;  Handsworth Park Management a local authority led delivery mechanism; and  The Land Trust - a national organisation adopting a local partnership approach. The case studies provide some key findings for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development.

The Parks Trust is the independent charity that cares for many of the parks and greenspaces in Milton Keynes. This totals approximately 4,500 acres of river valleys, woodlands, lakesides, parks and landscaped areas alongside the main roads which equates to about 20 percent of the new city area. The Parks Trust was established in 1992 to own and manage, in perpetuity, the strategic open space in Milton Keynes. Along with a 999-year lease on the parks, the Trust was endowed with a property portfolio and other assets by the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, that were calculated to be of sufficient value to generate the income required to maintain the open space. The Trust is not funded through council tax or business rates.

The Land. The Trust has three different types of land under its control:  Parkland, floodplain, ancient woodland, scheduled monuments;  Transport corridors/ parkways; and  Income-earning assets. On the first category, the Borough Council was donated the freehold interest by the Development Corporation (via the Commission for New Towns, CNT) as of 1 April 1992, subject to a 999-year lease in favour of MKPT. The land is mostly of a nature which could not be built upon. It is mainly within the floodplains of the river catchments – the Ouse, the Ouzel, and the Loughton Brook. The second category is owned by the Borough Council as Highway Authority; it has precedence in the transport corridors for any use for transport purposes.


It is fully responsible for the upkeep of the pavement and associated installations, and for the verges, roundabouts and central reservations immediately associated with the highway. Subject to these considerations, the land within the corridors is leased to MKPT on a 999-year lease, and the requirements of the Trust come immediately behind those of the highway authority. The third category includes properties with relatively low value and high yield which were not attractive to institutional investors, at disposal by the MKDC/CNT. At the time of transfer these were valued at around £18M. They comprise: 4 neighbourhood shopping centres 7 village or individual local shops 2 industrial developments 2 office development 11public houses

The commercial property assets are owned freehold by the Trust. The Trust is free to trade these as it thinks fit, providing of course, it complies with all relevant legislation. Of particular note here is Section 36 of the Charities Act which requires charities to obtain professional (eg Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) advice on any property transaction and not to dispose of any property at less than market value.

Structure of the Trust Milton Keynes Parks Trust is a registered Charity and a Company Limited by Guarantee. The primary objective of the Trust is to: “provide, maintain and equip parks, gardens, landscaped areas woodlands, open spaces, playing fields, playgrounds and recreational amenity space within Milton Keynes and the environs thereof …. for the benefit of the inhabitants and visitors to the area”. There are two secondary objectives which have to do with public education and provision for recreation.

The Trust is governed by a Board of Trustees. The Articles allow for 20 Trustees and there are currently 15. The Trustees may be appointed as follows: 1 by the Royal Agricultural Society of England 1 by the Royal Forestry Society of England and Wales and Northern Ireland 1 by the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Naturalist Trust 1 by Buckinghamshire CC 3 by Milton Keynes BC 1 by Milton Keynes Chamber of Commerce 1 by Milton Keynes District Sports Council 1 by 12 Parish Councils together 2 by the Friends of Milton Keynes Parks Trust

determine how the Trust is to operate, providing it fulfils its charitable purpose. The Board employs a Chief Executive, who is also the Company Secretary, and delegates responsibility for the day to day running of the Company to him.

Trustees are appointed by each of these organisations “until it ceases to exist”. The Board of Trustees meets every quarter. There are also three subcommittees which meet quarterly. The Board is free to

125

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Management of the Trust The executive team, led by the Chief Executive, has to perform a number of functions and is structured in a way to best deliver these:  To enable the Board to carry out its responsibilities and, in particular, to provide it with information so that it can properly safeguard the Charity’s assets and set the strategic direction  To manage the Charity’s assets and in particular the income generating commercial assets  To manage, protect and make available to the public the green estate  To manage the Trust’s reputation and position so as to enable it to achieve its objectives  To negotiate the acquisition of additional parkland and green estate and ensure it is designed, built and handed over properly with the appropriate endowment

126

Green Infrastructure Strategy

 To encourage the public to value and respect the greenspace in order to reduce misuse and abuse and maintenance costs  To enable the public to play an active part in the stewardship of the greenspace. MKPT has chosen to keep its executive team small – it currently numbers 21 full time equivalents. The physical landscape management work is undertaken by a range of around 50 independent contractors. The structure of the staff team has evolved and now comprises four sections:  Community – liaison with the community, organising events and activities to ‘animate’ the parks, management of recreation and leisure uses including licences, environmental education, volunteer management

 Operations – the physical management of the green estate; inspections and safety checks of the parks, play areas and equipment and facilities; dealing with adverse possession  Communications – promoting and positioning the parks and the Trust; dealing with adverse publicity  Finance and admin – day to day management of finances, administration, preparation of annual accounts and management accounts; liaison with the Trust’s commercial property managers. In addition the Trust employs numerous professional advisors. The commercial property is managed by a firm of chartered surveyors who report directly to the Chief Executive.

Management of the estate The management of the Trust’s green estate costs around £2.4m per annum (2009/10). The term contracts are for a 3 year period and usually include an option for a further three years. They are let for specific areas, e.g., the north and north east parks; the H8 grid road corridor. Each term contract covers routine maintenance operations such as:  Grass cutting  Weed control  Shrub pruning  Tree maintenance  Routine litter collection  Hedge cutting Non–routine work is either let as specific one off contracts (typically for thinning an area of parkland or resurfacing leisure routes) or is undertaken by contractors working to a schedule of rates tendered at the start of the year. Thus flexibility is maintained and costs kept very tightly under control.

As a result of careful contract management the cost of management of the Trust’s land has, in real terms, diminished since the Trust was established. In recent years though costs are beginning to rise significantly due mainly to increase in labour costs, more stringent health and safety requirements and the cost to contractors of insurance cover. The work of contractors is complemented by volunteers (around 200) who are recruited and co-ordinated by a full time member of staff. In the main volunteers are not much involved in maintenance operations but are a very important part of the process, particularly in terms of reporting damage and defects.


Finances The Trust is self financing – its assets generate the income needed to maintain the green estate. A summary of income and expenditure in 2009/10 shows:

The Trust has devised a financial strategy and a method of managing its finances that is probably unique, and difficult to explain in a paper such as this. The main points are that we have:

Income Commercial property (net of cost of management) Other investment income (net of cost of management) Operational income Total

£’000s 3,148

Expenditure Landscape management Community team (education, events, volunteers etc) Communications Staff costs Overheads (including legal and professional fees, vehicles, depreciation) Total

£’000s 2,391

575 708 4,431

75 93 1,268 869 4,696

 A long term forecast of annual expenditure and a long term forecast of the income generating potential of the Trust’s commercial assets. From this the trust has been able to determine the size of asset base (and the performance it needs it to achieve) to maintain the land in perpetuity  A strategy for managing its investment portfolio including the balance between different asset classes  Sinking funds – one for commercial property and the other for green estate infrastructure into which funds are transferred each year following an agreed formula.

The applicability of the Milton Keynes Parks Trust model to other locations It is perhaps too early to say whether the Trust can provide a template for the long term management of public open space elsewhere. The Trustees are acutely aware they are still building an organisation that will be able to do the job in perpetuity. However it is fair to say it has made a good start and has a lot to commend it, including:  The Trust has managed, and continues to manage, its green estate to a high standard  The Trust continues to be independent and self financing  Its asset base has been well managed and as a result has grown at a faster rate than the increase in costs of managing the land  It has created and adequately funded sinking funds for major capital replacements

127

Green Infrastructure Strategy


 It is well respected professionally and by local people  It has recruited and retained a high calibre board of Trustees and staff  It has contained its costs. A number of factors have been important in contributing to its early success and these need to be born in mind when considering applying the model elsewhere:  Property in MK has been a very good investment and although there have been periods where the Trust’s property has not performed well, over the twelve years the Trust’s property portfolio has generated sufficient funds to pay for the maintenance of the green estate, to provide for the sinking funds and to increase the asset base.  The high performance of the property portfolio has also enabled the Trust to cope with a number of unforeseen cost

128

Green Infrastructure Strategy

implications. For example the cost of landfill has significantly affected annual litter collection costs; the VAT problem previously alluded to; the increase in cost of insurance, particularly public liability and, for contractors, employers liability; a number of storms and floods, although damage has been limited due to the relatively young age of most of the Trust’s trees  The Trust took the conscious decision not to employ its own direct labour force and has skillfully managed to contain and even reduce it costs while maintaining high standards. It is unlikely this would have been possible with a Direct Labour Organisation (DLO)  The Trust appointed some very high calibre staff and attracted some very astute Trustees. It could have been very different if certain key individuals had not been involved

 The Trust has been very focused on building a robust and sustainable organisation and has not allowed anything to distract it from its cause. It has operated in a somewhat politically charged environment but has been single-minded and extremely determined  The Trust acquired the strategic open space in Milton Keynes which presents its own management challenges that are different (not bigger or smaller) to those presented by small scale parcels of land pepperpotted in amongst housing estates Whether the MKPT model would succeed elsewhere is difficult to say and more in depth analysis would be needed. However when one looks across the country at the sorry state of much of the public open space and the immense challenges

and problems facing local authorities in particular, it must be a model that is worth considering. Source: www.mkparks.co.uk/ parks-trust/


Handsworth Park Management Management Structure The Handsworth Park regeneration project was implemented by Birmingham City Council and completed in 2006. The design team involved a mix of internal and external consultants. The contract implementation team was co-ordinated by the Council’s Head of Landscape Development. The procurement and supervision of the main capital restoration works contracts was also undertaken by Birmingham City Council. The City Council will continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the park following the completion of the construction contract. In order to maintain the improved quality of the park a new staffing structure was proposed in line with City Council devolution of local services. The proposed local staffing structure for parks maintenance is headed by the District Parks Manager, with the core responsibility of ensuring

high quality maintenance of all parks within the Perry Barr District. The District Park Manager is based in Handsworth Park and so has a direct relationship with the park and local community. He will be supported by an Assistant Park Manager and a team of gardeners, park rangers and horticultural apprentices, dedicated to deliver high quality maintenance of the park site. In order to provide flexibility and adhere to best value principles, additional staff are employed during peak season. The City Council is committed to supporting a consultative steering group or ‘friends’ group of the park so that the local community can have an influence in the management of the park. The overall aim of the group is to provide a forum for the continuing involvement of local groups and bodies in the detailed management and development of the park and its facilities. A management

plan has been produced which will form the basis for involving the local community in park maintenance and development. The Steering Group aims to reflect a change towards partnership working with organisations such as Groundwork Birmingham, The Police, Primary Care Trusts, the Probation Services and the Prison Service. Income Generation Being the land owner, Birmingham City Council has taken the lead responsibility to deliver long-term maintenance of the site. The involvement of the local community, notably the Handsworth Park Association, has been a key driver in securing funding for the project. Indeed, the Handsworth Park Association has been involved in all aspects of the design and formulation of the management plan through regular steering group meetings. To date capital funds have been secured through Capital Receipts, Section

106 agreements, Single Regeneration Budget, Heritage Lottery Fund and ERDF. Revenue funding for community education, community development, sports development and horticultural apprenticeships has been sought through Heritage Lottery Fund, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Single Regeneration Budget and European Regional Development Fund. Additional funding sources have also been sought for night time security and longer term funding for education and sports development. These public sector funds have been complemented with income generated on-site through the cricket club, letting of the pavilion and the boat house, boat-hire and cafeteria. Essentially, future maintenance will be fully funded through the City Council’s annual budget.

Applicability of the Handsworth Park Management model to other locations Considering the fact that local authorities do not have a statutory duty to provide or maintain open spaces, implies long term high quality maintenance of open greenspaces can be fairly low on local political agendas, despite being highly valued by local residents. In addition, aspiration and attitudes of local council officers and policy makers acts as a key mechanism to drive forward the greenspace management and maintenance agendas in a particular local authority. Source: Handsworth Park Management Plan (internal source)

129

Green Infrastructure Strategy


The Land Trust A joint venture initially between English Partnerships, Groundwork, the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency, the Land Trust seeks to provide an environmentally informed community led, long term sustainable management and regeneration solution for greenspace or previously developed brownfield land. These solutions are primarily delivered through local partnerships. To ensure strategic procurement of projects the Land Trust have agreed to champion a set of core principles:  Sustainability: of design, implementation and longterm maintenance  Engagement: involve all sections of communities  Subsidiarity: local delivery where possible  Ecology: local ecology to guide the approach to reclamation  Quality: high quality design  Innovation: commitment to innovate and test new

130

Green Infrastructure Strategy

approaches  Value: best value approach to procurement  Standards: financial accountability  Commitment: emphasis on delivery and meeting timescales Management Structure Typically, the Trust will establish the most appropriate way of achieving maximum local benefits from the restoration and long term maintenance of selected sites. This will be done by identifying and working with local partners who, along with the Trust, will engage the principles of community involvement and ecological understanding to establish the appropriate solutions for localised delivery as well as exploration of income generation. Importantly, the Land Trust will own the land with strategies for maintenance and management tailored to local circumstances. Deriving experience from recent examples in Yorkshire

and North East, the Trust’s intentions in managing these sites is to ensure that funds are in place for local community groups, including residents, voluntary groups and private sector to take an active management role of the greenspace. The Trust’s preferred option is to take freehold ownership of the site. However, where the land is already in public sector ownership e.g. local authorities, the Trust gives due consideration to long term leases. Income Generation The Land Trust is not a grant giving body and holds no funds. However, the Land Trust have been set up with government support to ensure effective site and fund management. The Trust itself will seek to manage a particular site by drawing upon an endowment fund set up with partners who seek to work with the Land Trust. In addition, the Trust adheres to a principle

of putting in place such funds prior to taking ownership of a particular site. The Trust will also seek to raise funds through potential revenue sources such as sponsorships, technical licences and on site recreational facilities. Applicability of the Land Trust’s model to other locations As one of the key eligibility criteria, the proposed developments must adhere to the Trust’s core principles as well as demonstrate a strategic fit with the regional and subregional priorities. In addition, projects supported must add value to local communities. While appraising projects, the Trust will also give due consideration to the strengths of the proposed maintenance and management strategy, technical reclamation requirements and legal and insurance issues. On a more strategic note, the Land Trust will only consider sites where the Trust’s involvement will be

essential to secure the longterm sustainable management of the site as a public open space. This said, individual partnerships set up by the Trust are driven by local dynamics. Hence it is advisable to achieve the early involvement of the Trust to set out an appropriate delivery option as well as exploring opportunities where the trust can add value. Source: www.landtrust.org.uk


Future Management Management Considerations for Whitehill Bordon Although partnerships are a good starting point, such structures do not always offer long term sustainable solutions. Development trusts and local authority led delivery mechanisms, on the other hand, have generally proved to be successful in managing and achieving the aspirations of local greenspace and are worth considering as appropriate delivery solutions for the long term.

Roles and responsibilities Existing management roles and responsibilities generally reflect land ownership in the area. The management of existing green infrastructure areas is the responsibility of the following: East Hampshire District Council;  Whitehill Bordon Town Council;  Hampshire County Council (estates/education/ranger service/public rights of way);  Deadwater Valley Trust;  Lindford Parish Council;  Ministry of Defence;  Developers; and  Existing landowners.

Management Partnership – Potential Roles As part of their role of leading the eco-town development, East Hampshire District Council are in a strong position to take forward a council-led partnership. Such an approach can establish the required momentum and stakeholder consensus to kick start the implementation process. Partners may include local community volunteers, private sector champions and public sector bodies such as: Hampshire County Council;  Whitehill Town Council;  Environment Agency;  Natural England;  Deadwater Valley Trust;  Local sports clubs such as BOSC and Blackmoor Golf Course; and  Potential funding partners.

Early involvement of partner agencies will facilitate the creation of stronger links with the wider strategic priorities of the stakeholders from the outset. The involvement of local community groups and individuals have already added value to the strategy development through a significant amount of local knowledge and enthusiasm providing a dialogue to understand the changing needs of the area and support community led initiatives to attract funds. In addition, such an arrangement can ensure partner engagement towards delivery and maintenance of the green infrastructure. Building on best practice, in the longer term, partners may move away from the initial partnership approach and establish a more formal delivery vehicle, such as a trust, to formalise longer term partner commitments towards the management of the green infrastructure.

Aims and Objectives Maintenance is a major attribute in terms of the appearance of the public realm. Key maintenance objectives are:  To ensure that legal obligations are fulfilled;  To ensure that key features are maintained to a high standard to ensure that the public areas are pleasant and safe;  To maintain quality standards set by the Green Infrastructure Strategy and HRA/ Natural England SANG objectives;  To ensure value for money and that there is a cost effective maintenance regime in place.

131

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Management Plans The production of management plans will be an important step to further developing the outline designs at a more detailed level in co-operation with the local community. The role of management plans would be to set out future management arrangements and community input, as well as setting out maintenance schedules for specific sites. A management plan for the Deadwater Valley Trust exists, and is currently in the process of being reviewed and updated. In addition to the Deadwater Valley Nature Reserve it is suggested management plans are produced for the following sites/areas: Bordon Inclosure/Trenchard Park;  Hogmoor Inclosure/the Croft;  BOSC; and  Standford Grange Farm.

132

Green Infrastructure Strategy


9 outline implementation strategy 133

Green Infrastructure Strategy


9. Implementation Introduction

Investment and Funding Climate

Our approach to delivering greenspace and biodiversity projects at Whitehill Bordon is set out in the Outline Implementation Strategy in this section.

With the UK only recently emerging from the downturn, and forecasts suggesting that economic recovery is likely to be slow, UK investment activity levels are low at the present time, and are likely to remain so.

The Strategy sets out the current funding climate, describes the funding available and provides a diagram showing our suggested funding model. It builds upon the baseline review, site audit and stakeholder workshops. This section is set out as follows: 1. Investment and Funding Climate 2. Funding Approach  shortlisting sources  targeting sources  sources to consider 3. Funding Model

134

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The government’s focus on addressing the budget deficit and national debt, along with the private sector’s cautious approach to spending as bank lending remains tight, mean that investment and funding opportunities are currently limited compared to the levels seen in previous years. This is not to say that investment and funding opportunities are not available to deliver Whitehill Bordon’s green infrastructure, merely that there will be increased pressure on proposals to be financially viable and to provide clear commercial and / or public benefit whilst providing good value for money.

The opportunities identified in Whitehill Bordon may be broadly divided into two categories: those with the potential to generate revenue and those with limited or no potential. In terms of potential to attract investment, they can be divided into those likely to be delivered by:a) the public / third sector; b) the private sector; and c) public / private / third sector partnerships. Given the general economic and investment climate referred to above, it follows that revenue-generating opportunities are more likely to attract investment, to be taken forward and to remain viable into the medium and long terms. Revenue generation by itself is not sufficient to guarantee financial viability. However, it is important that the revenue generated for any project is greater than the incurred costs to ensure a positive cash-flow.

Whatever the attributes of the proposal, the fact remains that public realm improvements will find it harder than previously to attract significant interest from the various economic development funding sources. As a result of this, it may be that individual proposals need to cast their net more widely and tap into a large number of small funding streams, rather than relying on the large sources to provide. For this reason, thought will need to be given at the outset to how the proposal should be presented to the various funding bodies, as each will be looking at it from a different standpoint. Over the past twelve months, the government has put greater emphasis on empowering local authorities and communities to make decisions that affect their areas. It is also encouraging the private sector to become more active in areas such as economic development and regeneration. The launch of the £1.4 billion Regional

Growth Fund and the Localism Bill in autumn / winter 2010 have provided strong indications for these trends. With central and regional government spending being reduced, the private sector and public bodies, potentially with third sector organisations as partners, will need to play a greater role.


Funding Approach The identification of suitable funding sources underpins the outline implementation strategy. In the paragraphs below, a number of potential sources have been identified as a basis for a developing an approach to funding bids. Future funding will need to be linked to delivery and phasing as set out in the Action Plan.

The process for funding the provision and management of SANGs needs to be considered separately from other elements of green infrastructure and is set out in more detail in the HRA.

The funding approach should be linked to the wider Funding Strategy for the eco-town, the projects communications plan and the Economic Development and Employment Strategy.

It is also recognised that SANG management has to be funded from a specific ring fenced pot of money. This money will need to be generated through a secure mechanism agreed in advance of development with Natural England. The approach currently used, is a commuted sum accompanying the planning application. SANGs have to be secured for in perpetuity.

Funding for the provision of SANGs will need to come from the developer.

Shortlisting Sources Green infrastructure and open space improvements fulfil a range of social, economic and environmental criteria. In order to tap into the sources available, it will be important to understand how parks and greenspaces relate to other facets of the urban form, to communities and to quality of life in Whitehill Bordon. Greenspace enhancement is not just about improving the physical fabric of greenspace; it is about regenerating the social, cultural and economic value of the area. It is, therefore, important to think laterally, linking environmental improvements to wider public sector initiatives such as neighbourhood renewal, crime reduction, sport and leisure, tourism and, importantly, the image of the area. The Implementation Strategy needs to consider these wider objectives in order to maximise the range of funding opportunities available.

Targeting Sources Funding regimes change over time and flexibility is essential. There are many funding streams which could be applied to specific elements of the project, but each will come with its own conditions and criteria. It is also vital to recognise that different funding organisations require applications from different people: for example, some will want applications from constituted community groups, while others will prefer local authorities to act as the leading organisation. Clearly, an applicant which comprises a partnership of community organisations, local authorities and other stakeholders will tick the largest number of boxes. Benefits to those who live in the area must be emphasised in any application forms submitted. It is important to note that the funding process is relatively dynamic and that

themes / priorities / amounts of money available can change frequently. It is, therefore, vital to ensure all is double checked before applying for funding. Some of the things funders look at when assessing application forms include:  The financial viability of the organisation  The need for the project  The amount spent on administration and fund raising as compared to charitable activities  The ability to raise sufficient funding to meet the appeal target  Whether the aims of the organisation meet the trustees’ aspirations  Whether the organisation has the right priorities  Where possible, the ability of the organisation to achieve the goals  Evidence of partnership working.

135

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Funding Model National best practice research highlights the importance of quality urban greenspace in delivering urban regeneration, as well as the contribution this makes towards the economic, social and environmental quality of urban areas. In light of this, it will be important to emphasise that the proposals for Whitehill Bordon will create a high quality green infrastructure network which will contribute towards wider urban regeneration and sustainable development aspirations. We would suggest that the funding approach be aligned to objectives such as economic regeneration, crime reduction and promotion of tourism and culture.

136

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Sources to Consider We envisage that Whitehill Bordon’s Green Infrastructure Strategy will be funded through a variety of sources. To get large-scale projects off the ground will require sources of funding which are both reliable and substantial. Section 106 monies are an obvious starting point, along with revenues from the forthcoming New Homes Bonus. Both of these can provide large sums of money which can be ringfenced through a legal process and for which no bid need be put together. In addition to these, the Green Investment Bank can provide funding for commercially viable clean energy projects, while funding from Hampshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan could provide a reliable source for green infrastructure which has a sustainable transport element to it, for example creation of new cycleways or bridleways.

The Feed-in Tariff is a revenuebased grant which is paid by DECC to the energy supplier for the production of green energy. This is a key driver for enhancing the commercial viability of clean energy projects. In addition to these large sources of funding, there a number of small funding pots available which some or all of the proposals could tap into. A selection of these are listed below:  Arts Council Grants  Natural England Grants  Community Spaces Programme  Parks for People Initiative  Community Investment Fund  Local sponsorships As set out previously, each of these will have its own scoring criteria and its own preferred applicant group. Numerous cases will need to be made, and this could prove time

consuming. Careful planning at the start of a project, to ensure the proposal hits as many buttons as possible, will save time later in the process. As well as the sources of funding above, proposals can make use of existing public land holdings, and some proposals may, in addition, be eligible for receipts from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. Many current European funding programmes are drawing to a close, with most monies for the next financial year already allocated. New European programmes will, however, appear over the lifetime of the Green Infrastructure Strategy, so it will be important to keep abreast of any emerging funding pots (the same is also true of local and national sources of funding).

The model (adjacent) shows how funding could be brought in to deliver a project which eventually produces a profit itself. This profit can then be used to provide funding for further green infrastructure. The adjacent model sets out how a piece of profitmaking green infrastructure could be provided in a new residential development using revenue connected to that site, as well as more general external sources.


Whitehill Bordon Green Infrastructure Strategy

1) At the start of the project, a community interest group is set up in order to make the proposal attractive to the chosen funding body (in this case the Green Investment Bank). As set out above, different funding pots require different types of applicant.

Community Interest Group (Not for profit organisation)

Initial S106 investment

Business Case for 5MW Clean Energy Plant

Green Investment Bank

Main stream private finance

Local Transport Plan Funding

Annual Revenue/Profit Stream

Reinvested/invested into wider Green Infrastracture

Possible funding model for Whitehill Bordon

Circa ÂŁ250k profit p.a. post cost of finance

Other applications for funding & sponsorships

2) A business case is made which emphasises the benefits and long-term viability of the proposal. The same case is used to attract investment from a range of sources, so it will need to make a convincing argument on several fronts. In this case, funding is attracted from S106, the Green Investment Bank and through private sector investment.

3) The proposal, in this case a clean energy plant, generates a profit in line with that proposed in the business case which is then available for investment in further green infrastructure. This profit may be topped up by payments from the Government’s Feed-in Tariff. 4) Into the funding pot created by the clean energy plant also goes revenue from the Local Transport Plan, which by this stage will be available owing to the number of dwellings completed in the development. This is supplemented by any other applications for funding that the partners wish to make. The sum total of all this investment is then available for other proposals.

137

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Action Plan and Project Priority The following Action Plan comprises a series of projects and development proposals required during the next stages of the project in order to deliver the Whitehill Bordon Green Infrastructure Strategy. The action plan is linked to the draft masterplan document phasing. The various elements of the strategy have been prioritised on the basis of a ‘must, should and could” hierarchy of advice for implementation.

138

Green Infrastructure Strategy

This prioritisation has taken account of the economic, environmental and social value each project could bring along with ease of delivery of proposals. Based on the need to provide a programme for delivery, identified below is considered to be the project priorities in order to achieve the objectives of the strategy (subject to the funding bid process and potential funding secured). The prioritisation also acknowledges that the provision of SANG infrastructure will need to come forward in advance of any housing occupation.

‘Must’: These are considered critical in creating the cohesion and identity required to form the basis for implementing the strategy.  Hogmoor Inclosure SANG infrastructure;  Bordon Inclosure SANG infrastructure;  Standford Grange Farm SANG infrastructure;  Green loop cycle/footway works;  Proposed urban environment proposals (eg play (toddler, junior and teenage facilities) and sports facilities);  Ecological enhancement works to deliver biodiversity objectives.

‘Should’: These elements are important for the overall environmental enhancement of the scheme, as outlined in the strategy document. However, these elements remain critical in creating the holistic approach demonstrated in the strategy.  Town park option;  Enhancements to existing urban greenspaces;  Signage, Interpretation and Branding;  Co-ordination landscape and street furniture;  Green grid street enhancement, cycle/ footway works.

‘Could’: These are elements of the strategy which although would complete the scheme, are considered to be more desirable than fundamental to the implementation of the strategy.  Green bridges;  Public Art;  Gateway features;  Retrofitting Home zone layouts to existing streets;  Co-ordinated bus shelters.


Project Phasing and Timescales The strategy and action plan that is set out will evolve over a number of years. The timing of the implementation of the Green Infrastructure Strategy is clearly dependent on the progress of planning applications and the delivery of development on the ground. In this respect the phasing of the Green Infrastructure Strategy implementation should relate closely to the masterplan phasing, project prioritisation, the potential available funding and the complexity of delivery of the projects identified. The following section outlines the possible phasing of potential projects.

Phase 1 (up until MOD withdrawal approx 2015) Short Term Deliverables These projects could be delivered within a relatively short timescale and include a number of quick wins, while providing the critical cohesion required for the overall masterplan. It is important to achieve quick wins in order to bolster public support and encourage private investment. These projects may be those that could be funded outside the major bidding process in order to involve the local community and stakeholders at as early a stage as possible. They may also be projects that would not necessitate long consultation or complex community participation. The projects may include planting works, art and interpretation, and vegetation clearance for example, which could easily involve local

schools or community groups (eg Deadwater Valley Trust). In terms of stakeholder comments, the implementation of green infrastructure projects for the existing housing areas was considered a positive way to get buy-in from the existing population and could provide series of quick wins. There is an opportunity to improve the existing town ahead of the new development by strengthening green infrastructure provision through the ecological enhancement of existing greenspaces (continuing the existing work currently being implemented through the Stepping Stones project). In addition, the following projects which may be funded through the LTP, could be delivered within a fairly short timescale: Footpath/cycleway improvements;  Bus shelters.

There is also an opportunity for the early release of Eveley Wood as a ‘quick win’ to support the development of the ‘green loop’ and increase SANG provision. The early phases of development as set out in the masterplan could also provide the following green infrastructure projects:  Eco-station (the Old Fire Station) play area and greenspace;  Green infrastructure associated with Quebec Barracks and Viking Park employment, leisure & housing;  Central public transport hub – public realm and tree planting/SUDs;  Sections of the green loop;  Possible retrofitting of existing buildings and garden areas designed for wildlife;  Standford Grange Farm – provision of SANG areas as required;  Increased public access and

enhanced management of Eveley Wood;  Pedestrian link from Deadwater Valley Nature Reserve to Eveley Wood;  Gateways;  Cycle/footway Works;  Signage & Interpretation;  Public artwork;  Skateboarding and youth/ ballcourt facilities;  Advanced landscape planting (to be identified).

139

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Phasing Phase 2 (2015 – 2019) Medium term deliverables Phase 2 in the Draft Masterplan is linked to the proposed MOD withdrawal in 2015 when the majority of MOD land is released. The longer timescale will allow the planning and delivery of projects which are generally more complex, requiring more resources to obtain consents, design and construct and more detailed planning. These elements are fundamental to the overall success of the Green Infrastructure Strategy as it includes the majority of the green infrastructure associated with the proposed new development.

140

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Projects are as follows: Creation of new greenspaces at Hogmoor Inclosure and Bordon Inclosure (SANG provision);  Continuing programme of enhancement and provision of facilities at Standford Grange Farm (eg visitor centre);  Continuing programme of Green Loop delivery at Hogmoor Inclosure, Bordon Inclosure and Standford Grange Farm;  New through road will be created (tree planting and associated SUDs);  A325 will be restricted to public transport close to the new town centre (allowing the provision of cycle ways/wildflower planting/ pedestrian crossing points/ shared space areas);  First phase of the town centre will be developed including a range of new shops, leisure and commercial office space (high quality public realm/ square);

 New residential neighbourhoods around town centre and Louisburg (public open space/play areas/verges/street tree planting/gardens);  Provision of the secondary school on a new site (open space enhancement and high quality public realm);  Provision of the sports hub pitches;  Provision of the first new primary school (open space enhancement and high quality public realm);  Focused employment activity including an Eco Business Park and the reuse of MoD buildings for new businesses in the Technical Training Area (street tree planting/SUDs);  Public artwork;  Landscape and street furniture;  Ecological works;  Landmark buildings and structures; and  Gateway features.

Phase 3 (2020-2026)  1,400 additional new homes in the central area of Whitehill Bordon and low density, high value residential development at BOSC;  Further development in the core town centre area;  Employment development will continue at Louisburg Barracks Eco Business Park;  The second primary school and pre-school facility plus the expansion of the secondary school; and  Additional health and community facilities will be provided.

Phase 4: 2025 onwards  Further residential development is anticipated in the southern part of the Technical Training Area and at BOSC;  Additional residential development will also occur in areas adjacent to the town centre and the southern part of this area will be developed for bespoke employment uses; and  A further primary school will be provided.


Monitoring

Partnership - Next Steps

Appendix B is the Wildlife of Whitehill Local Biodiversity Action Plan Annex which sets out additional ecological survey requirements. It is intended that these recommendations will form the basis for monitoring future management planning and will assist in identifying adequate resources are devoted to assessing the future delivery of the strategy.

The Green Infrastructure Strategy will not only provide a strategic framework for delivering the eco-town’s green infrastructure requirements but it will also be a key tool to delivering wider objectives to deliver sustainable communities. The strategy will enable new green infrastructure to be designed to realise the social, economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. The implementation of the strategy relies on a partnership approach to achieve these objectives because ownership and responsibilities are split between both public and private sectors.

The successful implementation of the Whitehill Bordon Green Infrastructure Strategy proposals will require a partnership approach between East Hampshire District Council, Hampshire County Council, Natural England, the Environment Agency, developers, utilities, landowners and the local community. It is also important that all of the relevant departments of the District and County Councils are committed to achieving the detailed objectives, as well as private investors. Including:  Highways  Maintenance  Development Control  Planning Policy  Regeneration

141

Green Infrastructure Strategy


142

Green Infrastructure Strategy


10 appendix a

143

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Appendix A - What is Green Infrastructure? ‘Our lives are surrounded and enriched by green assets. Some of these, like public parks, are planned and designed. Others, such as river corridors, may be more natural. Sometimes our green assets are unintended consequences of other kinds of planning – road verges and railway embankments provide a network of connected greenspaces. Up until recently, these assets have generally been thought of in terms of single functions, for example parks were conceived as areas for play and recreation, wildlife reserves were places dedicated to the preservation of particular species and canal towpaths or cycle routes were planned for leisure or transport use’.

The networks of greenspaces, rivers and lakes that intersperse and connect our villages and towns are at the heart of our green infrastructure (GI). These elements perform a vast range of functions and deliver many benefits. Developing GI, a process which involves planning, design, implementation and management, presents an opportunity to achieve many social, environmental and economic objectives. Its multifunctional nature, with benefits enhanced through connectivity, means that GI represents an approach to the use of our limited land resource which cannot now be ignored. Landscape Institute Green Infrastructure Position Statement (2009)

144

Green Infrastructure Strategy

There have been a number of definitions of Green Infrastructure from a number of sources and most of them are very similar and have a common pattern to their definitions, in relation to multi functionality and networks. The Green Planning Guide defines GI as: “. . . the physical environment within and between our cities, towns and villages. It is a network of multifunctional open spaces, including formal parks, gardens, woodlands, green corridors, waterways, street trees, and open countryside. It comprises all environmental resources and thus a green infrastructure approach also contributes towards sustainable resource management”.

The South East Green Infrastructure Framework’s definition of green infrastructure is as follows: “Green Infrastructure is the network of greenspaces and natural elements that intersperse and connect our cities, towns and villages. It is the open spaces, waterways, gardens, woodlands, green corridors, wildlife habitats, street trees and open countryside. Green Infrastructure has a vital role to play in enhancing the places we live, work and enjoy in our spare time, as well as providing an important network of wildlife habitats. It also helps to deliver against an agenda increasingly focused on sustainability and climate change.”

‘For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of subregional networks of multifunctional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wide quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.’


GI Terminology According to the Landscape Institute (2009):‘GI includes the network of greenspaces and other natural elements such as rivers and lakes that are interspersed between and connect villages, towns and cities. Individually these elements are GI assets and the roles that these assets play are GI functions. When appropriately planned, designed and managed, these assets and functions have the potential to deliver a wide range of social, environmental and economic benefits. GI Assets include the natural elements which provide social, environmental or economic benefit. They can be specific sites or broader environmental features within and between rural and urban areas’.

The following areas can form part of networks of green infrastructure:  Parks and gardens including urban parks, country parks and formal gardens;  Natural and semi-natural urban greenspaces including woodlands, urban forestry, scrub, grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons and meadows), wetlands, open and running water, wastelands and derelict open land and rock areas (e.g. cliffs, quarries and pits);  Green corridors - including river and canal banks, cycleways, and rights of way;  Outdoor sports facilities (with natural or artificial surfaces, either publicly or privately owned) - including tennis courts, bowling greens, sports pitches, golf courses, athletics

tracks, school and other institutional playing fields, and other outdoor sports areas;  Amenity greenspace (most commonly, but not exclusively, in housing areas) – including informal recreation spaces, greenspaces in and around housing, domestic gardens and village greens;  Provision for children and teenagers - including play areas, skateboard parks, outdoor basketball hoops, and other more informal areas (e.g. ‘hanging out’ areas, teenage shelters);  Allotments, community gardens, and city (urban) farms;  Cemeteries and churchyards;  Accessible countryside in urban fringe areas;  River and canal corridors;  Green roofs and walls.

145

Green Infrastructure Strategy


een Infrastructure Terminology

he network of green spaces and other natural elements rs and lakes that are interspersed between and connect ns and cities.

these elements are GI assets and the roles that these are GI functions. When appropriately planned, designed d, these assets and functions have the potential to de range of social, environmental and economic benefits.

nclude the natural elements which provide social, al or economic benefit. They can be specific sites or ronmental features within and between rural and urban andscape Institute suggests outlining the different types y classifying them according to the spatial scale at which ypically be found. See Table 2-1.

The Landscape Institute

GI Approach – GI approaches to land-use planning promote the widest range of functions which can be performed by the same asset, unlocking the greatest number of benefits. Such an approach enables us to demand more from the land in a sustainable way; by helping to identify when it can provide multiple benefits and to manage the many, often conflicting, pressures for housing, industry, transport, energy, agriculture, nature conservation, recreation and aesthetics. It also highlights where it is important to retain single or limited land use functions

Local, neighbourhood and village scale Town, city and district scale City-region, regional and national scale

y between different GI assets will help maximise the suggests outlining the different t they generate. This connectivity can be visual or types of connections GI asset do bymake classifying wever generally physical the most ough notional and conceptual connections do have a them according to the spatial feguarding strategic networks from development and uture enhancement scaleopportunities. at which each would

Street trees, verges and hedges

Business settings

Green roofs and walls

City/district parks

Rivers and floodplains

typically found with (seethe adjacent tivity can enhance public be engagement natural , improve opportunities table). for biodiversity migration and ouraging sustainable forms of travel.

Pocket parks

Urban canals

Shoreline

Private gardens

Urban commons

Strategic and long distance trails

Urban plazas

Forest parks

Forests, woodlands & community forests

s are roles that‘Connectivity assets can play ifbetween planned, designed and different a way that is sensitive to, and includes provision for, GI assets will help maximise ures and systems. Each asset can perform different concept knownthe as multifunctionality. benefits that they generate.

Town & village greens & commons

Country parks

Reservoirs

Local rights of way

Continuous waterfront

Road and railway networks

Pedestrian & cycle routes

Municipal plazas

Designated green belt and Strategic Gaps

...This isconnectivity enhance ng Multifunctionality central to the can GI approach to anning. Wherepublic land performs a range of functions engagement with the it r greater range of social, environmental and economic natural environment, improve n might otherwise be delivered. opportunities for biodiversity Services – underpinning the multiple functions that GI migration and assist in m is the concept of ecosystem services. encouraging sustainable forms wellbeing depends on the range of services provided by of travel. and their constituent parts: water, soils, nutrients and

Cemeteries, burial grounds & churchyards

Lakes

Agricultural land

Institutional open spaces

Major recreational spaces

National Parks

Ponds and streams

Rivers and floodplains

National, regional or local landscape designations(AONB’s, NSAs and AGLVs), Canals

Small woodlands

Brownfield land

Common lands

Play areas

Community woodlands

Open countryside

Local nature reserves

(Former) mineral extraction sites

Town, city and district scale

hese services include:

School grounds

Agricultural land

necessary for all other ecosystem services, e.g. soil GI Functions are roles that and photosynthesis

Sports pitches

Landfill

assets can play if planned, designed and managed in a n: air quality, climate control, erosion control way that is sensitive to, and non-material benefits for people, including aesthetic includes provision for, natural and recreational experiences features and systems. Each asset can perform different Green Infrastructure Mapping Study functions, a concept known as multi-functionality.

: food, fibre, fuel

146

Green Infrastructure Strategy

City-region, regional and national scale Regional parks

Swales and ditches Allotments Vacant and derelict ground Table 2-1: Typical GI Assets and their Associated Scales.

2

Table: Typical GI Assets and their Associated Scales Landscape Institute Green Infrastructure Position Statement (2009)


Understanding multifunctionality is central to the GI approach to land use planning. Where land performs a range of functions it affords a far greater range of social, environmental and economic benefits than might otherwise be delivered. GI approaches promote the widest range of functions which can be performed by the same asset, unlocking the greatest number of benefits. Such an approach enables us to demand more from the land in a sustainable way; by helping to identify when it can provide multiple benefits and to manage the many, often conflicting, pressures for housing, industry, transport, energy, agriculture, nature conservation, recreation and aesthetics. It also highlights where it is important to retain single or limited land use functions’.

GI Benefits

The Value of Public Space, CABE

A large amount of information has recently been produced on why we should be adopting the GI approach into the planning, design and management of landscapes.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environments (CABE) document, The Value of Public Space, states that a high quality public environment can have a significant impact on the economic life of urban centres big or small and is therefore an essential part of any successful regeneration strategy. As towns increasingly compete with one another to attract investment, the presence of attractive parks, squares, gardens and other public spaces becomes a vital business and marketing tool: companies are attracted to locations that offer welldesigned, well-managed public places and these in turn attract customers, employees and services. In town centres, a pleasant and well-maintained environment increases the number of people visiting retail areas, otherwise known as “footfall”.

According to the Landscape Institute, the multifunctional nature of GI assets, underpinned by ecosystem services, means that they can deliver a diverse range of benefits including the following: Climate change adaptation  Climate change mitigation  Water management  Dealing with waste  Food production  Biodiversity enhancement, corridors and linkages  Recreation and health  Economic values  Local distinctiveness  Education  Stronger communities.

An attractive public landscape also offers very clear benefits to the local economy in terms of stimulating increased house prices, since house-buyers are willing to pay to be near greenspace. The report states that one of the benefits stated in the report of improved public space is the positive impact on property prices.

trading by up to 40% and generate significant private sector investment. Other benefits of an improved public realm stated in the report include the positive impact on physical and mental health, positive impact for children and young people to experience the natural environment and play freely outdoors.

Many cities are now seeing that the redevelopment of high quality public spaces aids regeneration of an area, with commercial property prices increasing in those locations. There is evidence too that a well-planned, well managed public space has a positive impact on the price of nearby domestic properties.

A good-quality outdoor environment can also assist in reducing crime and the fear of crime. Public spaces, when properly designed, can bring communities together, provide meeting places and fostering social ties of a kind that have been disappearing in many urban areas.

A good quality public environment can improve trading by attracting more people into an area. It has been shown, for example that well-planned improvements to public spaces within town centres can boost commercial

These spaces shape the cultural identity of an area and are part of its unique character and provide a sense of place for local communities which in turn promotes social inclusion and generates community cohesion.

147

Green Infrastructure Strategy


148

Green Infrastructure Strategy


10 appendix b

149

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Appendix B - Wildlife of Whitehill Biodiversity Action Plan Annex Appendix B Whitehill Bordon Green Infrastructure Strategy Wildlife of Whitehill Biodiversity Action Plan Annex

150

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Changing Context 1.3 Aims of the WOW BAP Annex 2 2.1

Existing Priority Areas Introduction

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

Urban Environment Threat 1 Lack of Information Threat 3 Fragmentation Threat 6 Disturbance

2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3

Hogmoor Inclosure Threat 1 Disturbance Threat 3 Lack of Information Threat 5 Fragmentation

2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4

The Slab Threat 2 Disturbance Threat 3 Lack of Information Bordon Inclosure Threat 1 Lack of Management Threat 2 Lack of Information Threat 4 Disturbance Threat 5 Fragmentation

2.6 Hollywater 2.6.1 Threat 1 Lack of Information 2.6.2 Sensitivity Level 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3

Oxney Farm and Meadows Threat 4 Disturbance Threat 5 Lack of Information Threat 6 Lack of Management

3 3.1

New Priority Areas Introduction

3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6

Northern Periphery Location Description Threat 1 Lack of Information. Threat 2 Fragmentation. Threat 3 Disturbance Threat 4 Lack of Management.

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6

Lindford Wey Valley Location Description Threat 1 Lack of Information. Threat 2 Fragmentation. Threat 3 Disturbance Threat 4 Lack of Management


3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6

Standford Grange Farm Location Description Threat 1 Lack of Information. Threat 2 Fragmentation Threat 3 Disturbance Threat 4 Development

3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5

Southern Periphery Location Description Threat 1 Lack of Information. Threat 2 Fragmentation Threat 3 Disturbance

4

Suggested Further Survey Summary

References

151

Green Infrastructure Strategy


1

Introduction

1.1

Background

The Wildlife of Whitehill Biodiversity Action Plan (WOW BAP) was first launched by the Whitehill Town Partnership Environment Conservation Group in 2008 to raise awareness of the importance and value of the Wildlife of the Parish of Whitehill and its surroundings. The Parish is set within a landscape that supports sites of exceptional nature conservation value that have been designated European levels of protection for their habitats and species. The Parish is also within the Wealden Heaths Biodiversity Opportunity Area. Biodiversity Opportunity Areas have been defined at a landscape scale as areas where the loss of biodiversity and species-rich habitats can be halted by improving habitat connectivity and wildlife networks. Within this landscape and Biodiversity Opportunity Area context, the WOW BAP is intended to be an aid to ensure that the existing biodiversity resources of the Parish are protected and enhanced, with targets in place for the potential of the area to be met. The aim of the WOW BAP is to benefit the existing and future residents with a view to inform development of the proposed eco-town and increase in population size. Six Priority Areas were defined for documentation of threats, objectives to address these, actions for partners to take and outcomes to aim for. These Priority Areas cover the majority of land within the Parish of Whitehill north of Woolmer Forest that is not already protected by statutory designations. Parts of Hollywater and Oxney Farm and Meadows Priority Area extend beyond the parish boundary.

152

Green Infrastructure Strategy

1.2

Changing Context

The WOW BAP is a live document that is updated each year to reflect progress in achieving objectives and to incorporate new threats and objectives as these arise. The development of a Green Infrastructure Strategy for the ecotown represents a significant opportunity for the WOW BAP objectives and outcomes to be met and expanded. However it also means that to fulfil the remit of the WOW BAP, the document needs to be broadened with new Priority Areas and new objectives where necessary in order to align the document with the Green Infrastructure Strategy. Currently the WOW BAP does not cover the whole of the proposed eco-town footprint and adjacent areas, and there is concern that a direction for policy is required where such areas are not already protected by statutory legislation. This is particularly important because much of the undeveloped land within and adjacent to the eco-town will need to support a much higher pressure of use by residents and be used as alternative natural greenspace to mitigate visitor pressure on nearby European nature conservation sites (Special Areas for Conservation and Special Protection Areas). Therefore information on the type of features present, and the sensitivity of such features to visitors, are key issues to be addressed within existing and new Priority Areas.


Southern Periphery

Standford Grange Farm

Lindford Wey Valley

Northern Periphery

Hollywater

Bordon

New Priority Area

Oxney Farm and Meadows

Threats Lack of Information Pond Management Fragmentation Development Garden Grabbing Disturbance Pollution Lack of Management Pond/Stream Water Level Loss of breeding ground

The Slab

This annex provides additions for the WOW BAP to address issues raised during stakeholder consultations and meetings relating to the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the eco-town. These additions build on the existing document structure and augment this with new Priority Areas and new objectives where necessary in order to align the document with the Green Infrastructure Strategy for Whitehill Bordon Eco-town (Table 1).

Existing Priority Area

Hogmoor

Aims of the WOW BAP Annex Urban

1.3

Table 1. Existing (red) and proposed (yellow) threats to be addressed within the WOW BAP for existing and new Priority Areas.

153

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Invasive species

Bats

 

          

Invertebrates

Dormouse

            

Reptiles

Breeding birds

       

Amphibians

Vegetation

Green Infrastructure Strategy studies have highlighted the importance of full information being available for sites in order to inform the types of use that they can support without detriment to biodiversity (Table 2). For this reason it is suggested that further surveys are undertaken for all Priority Areas (to remedy the “lack of information” threat) and that the threat of “disturbance” is also added to all Priority Areas. Details of suggested further surveys are collated and summarised in Section 4 of this Annex.

Priority Area Urban Hogmoor Inclosure The Slab Bordon Inclosure Hollywater Oxney Farm and Meadows Northern Periphery Lindford Wey Valley Standford Grange Farm Southern Periphery

Habitat

Four new Priority Areas have been allocated to cover land that is outside the Parish of Whitehill Bordon but within the boundaries of the Eco-town and that does not currently have any local policies for nature conservation (Figure 1). These are:  Northern Periphery;  Lindford Wey Valley;  Standford Grange Farm; and  Southern Periphery.

   

   

  

 

Table 2. Existing Recent Survey Data and Surveys Suggested by Halcrow to fill information gaps. (Green = existing, Bright Green = partial coverage, Tick =suggested)

154

Green Infrastructure Strategy


“Fragmentation” by roads, railways and development is also a key concern for many Priority Areas and the Green Infrastructure Strategy also seeks to increase connectivity of habitats through the town in order to increase their quality and robustness. In addition, under the Green Infrastructure Strategy, it is acknowledged that management of access is as important as management of habitats. For new Priority Areas, all four are currently threatened by “lack of information”, “fragmentation” and “disturbance”. Standford Grange Farm may also be threatened by “development”. The Northern Periphery and Lindford Wey Valley are also threatened by “lack of management”. To inform the objectives and actions to combat the threat of “disturbance”, all the established and new Priority Areas have been ranked in terms of the sensitivity of nature conservation value and physical conditions (high, moderate or low sensitivity). The levels of sensitivity have been reflected in new Objectives and Actions that have been added to existing threats listed in the WoW BAP.

Of the existing Priority Areas, new threats of “fragmentation” have been suggested for Hogmoor Inclosure and Bordon Inclosure. The Green Infrastructure Strategy has highlighted the need to maintain and improve connectivity of greenspaces, not just connectivity of habitats within greenspaces. With the location of parts of Oxney Farm and Meadows adjacent to potential areas of construction it is suggested that the threats of “lack of information” and “lack of management” are included. A programme of suggested surveys tied in with the proposed phasing of the eco-town development has been suggested for each Priority Area, to redress the former of these threats and inform the latter. The above suggestions and the following text for each Priority Area is subject to agreement with the Whitehill Town Partnership Environment Conservation Group and partnership organisations. The WoW is intended to be a live resource that will be amended and updated as required by the Whitehill Town Partnership Environment Conservation Group.

155

Green Infrastructure Strategy


2

Existing Priority Areas

2.1 Introduction The following sections are the proposed additions to the existing WoW BAP. Threats follow the numbering of the existing WoW document. Where no changes are suggested, the threat is not included in the following sections. Sections are only included where there is new text suggested. 2.2

2.2.2 Threat 3 Fragmentation 2.2.2.1 Additional Action text Wildlife connectivity should be enhanced by incorporation of ‘Blue Infrastructure’ within the Green Infrastructure Strategy. There should be an assumption of de-culverting watercourses, soft engineering of watercourses and integrated biodiversity and water attenuation features.

Urban Environment

2.2.1 Threat 1 Lack of Information Recent surveys partially covering this area are:  Extended Phase 1 habitat survey (ECOSA, 2010); and  Bat inspection survey (ECOSA, 2011). Also, urban habitats were scoped during planning of terrestrial invertebrate surveys (GVA Grimley, 2008d). 2.2.1.1 Additional Action text Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 1 of the eco-town development 2011-2015. As a priority these should include:  Vegetation survey of existing greenspace (June-August);  Amphibian survey of Hollybrook Pond (March-June);  Invertebrate survey of Hollybrook Pond (May-September);  Breeding birds in potentially important locations (MarchAugust); and  Bat activity in potentially important locations (May-September).

156

Green Infrastructure Strategy

2.2.3 Threat 6 Disturbance 2.2.3.1 Sensitivity Level The urban environment has relatively low sensitivity, although this area does include two roadside SINCs:  No 10 is located on Conde Way at National Grid Reference SU80503440. It has the designation of 6A, is owned by Hampshire County Council and is managed by local volunteers. The SINC supports a population of small-flowered catchfly Silene gallica.  No 19 is located along Walldown Road and Hollywater Road at National Grid Reference SU80503440. It has a designation of 6A, is owned by Hampshire County Council and is wardened by local volunteers. The SINC has a mowing management scheme and supports a population of greenflowered helleborine Epipactus phyllanthes.


2.3

Hogmoor Inclosure

2.3.1 Threat 1 Disturbance 2.3.1.1 Sensitivity Level Hogmoor Inclosure is a moderately sensitive site designated as a SINC. The site supports significant areas of UKBAP Habitat. This includes 4% remnant lowland heathland habitat (H2 Calluna vulgaris-Ulex minor heath), 2% lowland dry acid grassland (U1 Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris-Rumex acetosella grassland) and ponds. The inclosure also supports 2% valley mire (M25 Molinia caerulea-Potentilla erecta mire) and recent semi-natural woodland (W10 Quercus robur-Pteridium aquilinum-Rubus fruticosus woodland). Sand sedge Carex arenaria, which is rare in North Hampshire, is present on the western edge of the inclosure. The site also supports large populations of slow worm Anguis fragilis and common toad Bufo bufo. BAP/Notable Species records provided from recent surveys by HBIC and Jonathan Cox Associates, and that are additional to those in the WOW BAP are:  Silver-washed fritillary Argynnis paphia, Hampshire BAP Species;  Sand sedge Carex arenaria, North Hampshire Rare (VC 12);  Song thrush Turdus philomelos, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Dunnock Prunella modularis, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List; and  Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List.

2.3.1.2 Additional Action Text Access should be controlled to minimise damage by high pressure of leisure use to sensitive habitats such as wetlands. Tree removal and heathland restoration should be designed to maintain tranquillity while encouraging controlled use of the site for activities such as dog-walking. 2.3.2 Threat 3 Lack of Information Recent surveys undertaken in this Priority Area are:  Breeding Birds (Jonathan Cox Associates, 2010);  Vegetation (HBIC, 2010b);  Amphibians (GVA Grimley, 2008a);  Dormouse (GVA Grimley, 2008b);  Reptiles (GVA Grimley, 2008c); and  Terrestrial Invertebrates (GVA Grimley, 2008d). 2.3.2.1 Additional Action text Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 2 of the eco-town development 2015-2019. As a priority these should include:  Bat activity (May-September);  Repeat survey of all the above within 10 years of previous survey.

157

Green Infrastructure Strategy


2.3.3 Threat 5 Fragmentation Fragmentation of populations of fauna and flora occurs as development spreads around and between them. Connectivity of habitats is necessary for the movement and reproduction of species to prevent isolation and local species extinction. This Priority Area is a key north-south wildlife corridor link through the western part of Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. 2.3.3.1 Objective Retention and enhanced quality of wildlife connectivity through the Priority Area. 2.3.3.2 Actions Maintain and enhance the quality of the heathland and woodland habitats through the site. Ensure any management actions initiated do not inhibit movement of fauna or flora through the existing greenspace. Promote enhanced wildlife connectivity across existing roads to the north, west and east of the inclosure by installation of reptile and amphibian tunnels. 2.3.3.3 Outcomes Greenspaces throughout the urban area are connected by the creation of ecological networks and the potential for species retention and dispersal is increased.

158

Green Infrastructure Strategy

2.4

The Slab

2.4.1 Threat 2 Disturbance 2.4.1.1 Sensitivity Level The slab is a highly sensitive site designated as a SINC and supporting breeding populations of two Annex 1 bird species, ground nesting Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus and Woodlark Lullula arborea. The site supports a diversity of habitats including areas of dry and wet lowland heath and mire, mixed deciduous woodland, a stream and associated wet woodland and dry acid grassland. Bare areas and seasonally flooded sand that may be of importance to invertebrates are present due to military training activity. BAP/Notable Species records provided by Jonathan Cox Associates that are additional to those in the WOW BAP are:  Song thrush Turdus philomelos, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Starling Sturnus vulgaris, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Linnet Carduelis cannabina, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Yellow hammer Emberiza citrinella, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List; and  Dunnock Prunella modularis, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List


2.4.2 Threat 3 Lack of Information Recent surveys undertaken in this Priority Area are:  Breeding Birds (Jonathan Cox Associates, 2010). 2.4.2.1 Additional Action Text Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 2 of the eco-town development 2015-2019. As a priority these should include:  Amphibians (March-June);  Reptiles (April-May or September);  Invertebrates (May-September); and  Vegetation (June-August).

2.5

Bordon Inclosure

2.5.1 Threat 1 Lack of Management 2.5.1.1 Additional Outcome text Maintenance and enhancement of existing quality of biodiversity features. 2.5.2 Threat 2 Lack of Information Recent surveys undertaken in this Priority Area are:  Breeding Birds (Jonathan Cox Associates, 2010);  Vegetation (HBIC, 2010a);  Amphibians (GVA Grimley, 2008a);  Dormouse (GVA Grimley, 2008b);  Reptiles (GVA Grimley, 2008c); and  Terrestrial Invertebrates (GVA Grimley, 2008d).

2.5.2.1 Additional Action Text Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 2 of the eco-town development 2015-2019. As a priority these should include:  Invasive plant and animal species mapping (May-October);  Bat activity (May-September);  Bryophytes (year-round excluding very cold or very dry weather); and  Repeat of all the above within 10 years of the previous survey. 2.5.3 Threat 4 Disturbance 2.5.3.1 Sensitivity Level Bordon Inclosure is a moderately sensitive site, of which 10% is a narrow but fairly continuous strip of UK BAP ancient semi-natural alder wet woodland along the valley bottom on the banks of the River Wey. Most of the rest of the site is plantation woodland. The adjacent sewage works site has a large population of palmate newts Lissotriton helveticus. BAP/Notable Species records provided by HBIC and Jonathan Cox Associates, and additional to those in the WOW BAP are:  Song thrush Turdus philomelos, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Dunnock Prunella modularis, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List; and  Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List. 2.5.4 Threat 5 Fragmentation Fragmentation of populations of fauna and flora occurs as development spreads around and between them. Connectivity of habitats is necessary for the movement and reproduction of

159

Green Infrastructure Strategy


species to prevent isolation and local species extinction. This Priority Area is a key north-south wildlife corridor link through the eastern part of Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. 2.5.4.1 Objective Maintenance and enhancement of wildlife connectivity through the Priority Area. 2.5.4.2 Actions Maintain and enhance the quality of the wetland and woodland habitats through the site. Ensure any management actions initiated do not inhibit movement of fauna or flora through the existing greenspace. Promote enhanced wildlife connectivity across existing roads to the north of the inclosure by installation of reptile and amphibian tunnels. 2.5.4.3 Outcomes Greenspaces throughout the town are connected by the creation of ecological networks and the potential for species retention and dispersal is increased. 2.6

Hollywater

2.6.1 Threat 1 Lack of Information Recent surveys that partially include this Priority Area are:  Vegetation survey of Eveley Wood (HBIC, 2005);  Vegetation of Standford Grange Farm Field (HBIC, 2010d);  Breeding Birds (Jonathan Cox Associates, 2010);  Dormouse (GVA Grimley, 2008b); and  Terrestrial Invertebrates (GVA Grimley, 2008d).

160

Green Infrastructure Strategy

2.6.1.1 Additional Action Text Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 1 of the eco-town development 2011-2015. As a priority these should include:  Complete vegetation survey (June-August);  Complete breeding bird survey (March-August); and  Reptiles (April-May or September). 2.6.2 Sensitivity Level Hollywater is a moderately sensitive site owing to its ancient woodland SINC Eveley Wood and the wetland grassland of Standford Grange Farm Field. The field is marshy around the central ditch and two grassland indicators are present here (Devil’s bit scabious Succisa pratensis and carnation sedge Carex panicea). BAP/Notable Species records provided by Jonathan Cox Associates, and additional to those in the WOW BAP are:  Song thrush Turdus philomelos, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Lesser spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos minor, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List.


2.7

Oxney Farm and Meadows

2.7.1 Threat 4 Disturbance 2.7.1.1 Sensitivity Level Oxney Farm and Meadows supports woodland, farmland and an extensive marshy area at Oxney Moss and Oxney Pool. The level of information available for this Priority Area is limited; however as large areas are designated as a SINC the site is considered to be of moderate sensitivity. 2.7.2 Threat 5 Lack of Information More information is needed to determine the biodiversity value of the area, especially in non-SINC parts. There have been no recent surveys within this Priority Area. 2.7.2.1 Objective Increase knowledge of habitats and species present and unrecorded groups.

2.7.2.4 Outcomes A level of information sufficient to inform maintenance of the existing biodiversity value of the site. 2.7.3 Threat 6 Lack of Management Sensitive woodland and wetland habitats that are not currently managed are at risk of becoming overgrown by scrub and invasive plant species. 2.7.3.1 Objective Manage the woodland and wetland habitats to maintain or restore their favourable condition. 2.7.3.2 Actions Remove invasive non-native species such as cherry laurel and manage scrub development. 2.7.3.3 Outcome Elimination of invasive non-native species and maintenance and enhancement of the quality of existing biodiversity features.

2.7.2.2 Actions Carry out surveys to determine the full biodiversity of the area and to monitor the effects of any management actions initiated. 2.7.2.3 Additional Action Text Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 1 of the eco-town development 2011-2015. As a priority these should include:  Vegetation (June-August);  Amphibians (March-June);  Reptiles (April-May or September);  Invertebrates (May-September); and  Breeding birds (March-August).

161

Green Infrastructure Strategy


3

New Priority Areas

3.1 Introduction The following sections contain the suggested text for the proposed new Priority Areas. For consistency, text for threats that are already documented in the existing WoW BAP is copied. The suggested Lindford Wey Valley Priority Area and its associated threats, objectives, actions and outcomes could be added to the existing Bordon Inclosure Priority Area. Likewise, Standford Grange Farm Priority Area could be added to the Hollywater Priority Area. 3.2

Northern Periphery

3.2.1 Location Centred on National Grid Reference SU801368 and SU780363. This Priority Area is split into two compartments, covering land between the B3002 Lindford Road and Broxhead Common in the east (including land between Oxney Farm and Meadows Priority Area and the A325) and land between B3002 Oakhanger Road and Shortheath Common (including BOSC) in the west. 3.2.2 Description Railway Industrial estate BOSC sports pitches Coniferous woodland Deciduous woodland Arable farmland 3.2.3 Threat 1 Lack of Information. More information is needed to determine the biodiversity value of the area, especially in non-SINC parts. There have been no recent surveys within this Priority Area.

162

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Figure showing proposed BAP Priority Areas


3.2.3.1 Objective Increase knowledge of habitats and species present and unrecorded groups. 3.2.3.2 Actions Carry out surveys to determine the full biodiversity of the area and to monitor the effects of any management actions initiated. Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 3 of the eco-town development 2019-2024. As a priority these should include:  Vegetation (June-August);  Breeding birds (March-August);  Amphibians (March-June);  Reptiles (April-May or September); and  Invertebrates (May-September). 3.2.3.3 Outcomes A level of information sufficient to inform maintenance of the existing biodiversity value of the site. 3.2.4 Threat 2 Fragmentation. Fragmentation of populations of fauna and flora occurs as development spreads around and between them. Connectivity of habitats is necessary for the movement and reproduction of species to prevent isolation and local species extinction. This Priority Area connects wildlife within Whitehill Bordon Eco-town with the wider countryside to the north. 3.2.4.1 Objective Maintenance and enhancement of wildlife connectivity through the Priority Area.

3.2.4.2 Actions Maintain and enhance key wildlife corridor links between the eco-town and commons to the north and northwest. Ensure any management actions initiated do not inhibit movement of fauna or flora through the existing greenspace. 3.2.4.3 Outcomes Greenspaces throughout the town are connected by the creation of ecological networks and the potential for species retention and dispersal is increased. 3.2.5 Threat 3 Disturbance Greenspaces close to housing are vulnerable to disturbance from continuous use by local residents. Increased population and possible designation for use as alternative greenspace will lead to increased pressure on existing biodiversity. Dogs and cats can also have a detrimental impact on the local wildlife, as can the dumping of general litter and garden rubbish particularly when it contains non-native species. 3.2.5.1 Sensitivity Level As a new Priority Area the features of importance and levels of sensitivity are yet to be defined; however two SINCs and ancient semi-natural woodland are present. Sandy paths are also present. Therefore the sensitivity level is at least moderate. 3.2.5.2 Objective Ensure policies are in place to manage access to reduce disturbance on the sensitive greenspaces. 3.2.5.3 Actions The dumping of garden and other rubbish is illegal and should be

163

Green Infrastructure Strategy


addressed by encouraging individuals, local community groups and local businesses to take action to conserve natural resources and take responsibility for biodiversity. Existing networks of paths need to be retained and managed to encourage users to stay on the marked routes. This will control access and reduce general disturbance levels across the wider area. 3.2.5.4 Outcomes Disturbance of greenspaces is minimised and biodiversity is maintained. 3.2.6 Threat 4 Lack of Management. Sensitive habitats that are not currently managed are at risk of becoming overgrown by scrub and invasive plant species. 3.2.6.1 Objective Manage the woodland and wetland habitats to maintain or restore a favourable condition. 3.2.6.2 Actions Remove invasive non-native species such as cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus and manage scrub development. 3.2.6.3 Outcome Elimination of invasive non-native species and maintenance and enhancement of existing quality of biodiversity features.

164

Green Infrastructure Strategy

3.3

Lindford Wey Valley

3.3.1 Location Centred on National Grid Reference SU808357. Linford Wey Valley comprises the valley of the River Wey upstream from the confluence with the Dead Water Stream. It extends between the footbridge linking Washford Lane and the road bridge at Headley Mill. 3.3.2 Description River corridor Deciduous woodland Historical watermeadow site 3.3.3 Threat 1 Lack of Information. More information is needed to determine the biodiversity value of the area. There have been no recent surveys within this Priority Area. 3.3.3.1 Objective Increase knowledge of habitats and species present and unrecorded groups including birds, mammals, invertebrates and plants. 3.3.3.2 Actions Carry out surveys to determine the full biodiversity of the area and to monitor the effects of any management actions initiated. Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 3 of the eco-town development 2019-2024. As a priority these should include:  Vegetation (June-August);  Amphibians (March-June);  Reptiles (April-May or September);


 Invertebrates (May-September); and  Invasive species mapping (May-October). 3.3.3.3 Outcomes A level of information sufficient to inform maintenance of the existing biodiversity value of the site. 3.3.4 Threat 2 Fragmentation. Fragmentation of populations of fauna and flora occurs as development spreads around and between them. Connectivity of habitats is necessary for the movement and reproduction of species to prevent isolation and local species extinction. This Priority Area is a key link in the river corridor connecting wildlife within Whitehill Bordon Eco-town with the wider countryside in and around the upstream river valley.

3.3.5 Threat 3 Disturbance Greenspaces close to housing are vulnerable to the detrimental impact of cats and dogs on the local wildlife, as well as the dumping of general litter and garden rubbish particularly when it contains non-native species. 3.3.5.1 Sensitivity Level As a new Priority Area the features of importance and levels of sensitivity are yet to be defined. No SINCs or particularly sensitive features are known to be present, therefore the sensitivity level is considered to be low. 3.3.5.2 Objective Ensure policies are in place to minimise disturbance.

3.3.4.1 Objective Maintenance and enhancement of wildlife connectivity through the Priority Area.

3.3.5.3 Actions The dumping of garden and other rubbish is illegal and should be addressed by encouraging individuals, local community groups and local businesses to take action to conserve natural resources and take responsibility for biodiversity.

3.3.4.2 Actions Maintain and enhance the river corridor. Ensure any management actions initiated within and adjacent to the Priority Area do not inhibit movement of fauna or flora through the existing greenspace.

3.3.5.4 Outcomes Disturbance of the river corridor greenspace is minimised and the biodiversity value is maintained.

3.3.4.3 Outcomes Greenspaces throughout the town are connected by the maintenance of ecological networks and the potential for species retention and dispersal is increased.

3.3.6 Threat 4 Lack of Management Some areas are becoming overgrown, which will degrade the habitat for the priority species. There has been no management of the site and invasive non-native species are present at exclude native species.

165

Green Infrastructure Strategy


3.3.6.1 Objective Manage the river valley so to restore favourable habitats. 3.3.6.2 Actions Scrub should be managed to allow wet woodland ground flora to flourish. Remove invasive alien species such as Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and orange balsam Impatiens capensis, wild mink Mustela vison and signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus. 3.3.6.3 Outcomes Control of invasive non-native species such as Himalayan balsam and orange balsam, wild mink and signal crayfish. The site is in a favourable condition and biodiversity is encouraged. Native species such as white-clawed crayfish re-colonise areas occupied by invaders. 3.4

Standford Grange Farm

3.4.1 Location Centred on National Grid Reference SU811349. Standford Grange Farm is a working farm owned by Hampshire County Council and tenanted to a local farmer. It lies between Mill Chase Road in the north and Whitehill Road in the south, on land east of Hollywater Priority Area and Eveley Wood. 3.4.2 Description Arable and improved grassland, and amenity grassland recreation pitches in the north Hedgerows Belts of trees

166

Green Infrastructure Strategy

3.4.3 Threat 1 Lack of Information. More information is needed to determine the biodiversity value of the area. Recent surveys undertaken in this Priority Area are:  Breeding Birds (Jonathan Cox Associates, 2010);  Phase 1 Habitats (HBIC, 2010c);  Dormouse (GVA Grimley, 2008b); and  Terrestrial Invertebrates (GVA Grimley, 2008d). 3.4.3.1 Objective Increase knowledge of species present and un-recorded groups. 3.4.3.2 Actions Carry out surveys to determine the full biodiversity of the area and to monitor the effects of any management actions initiated. Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 1 of the eco-town development 2011-2015. As a priority these should include:  Reptiles (April-May or September); and  Bat activity (May-September). 3.4.3.3 Outcomes A level of information sufficient to inform maintenance of the existing biodiversity value of the site. 3.4.4 Threat 2 Fragmentation Fragmentation of populations of fauna and flora occurs as development spreads around and between them. Connectivity of habitats is necessary for the movement and reproduction of species to prevent isolation and local species extinction. This Priority Area is a key north-south green link along the eastern side of Whitehill Bordon Eco-town.


3.4.4.1 Objective Maintenance and enhancement of wildlife connectivity through the Priority Area. 3.4.4.2 Actions Maintain and enhance key wildlife corridor links to the north and south. Ensure any management actions initiated do not inhibit movement of fauna or flora through the existing greenspace. 3.4.4.3 Outcomes Greenspaces throughout the town are connected by the creation of ecological networks and the potential for species retention and dispersal is increased. 3.4.5 Threat 3 Disturbance Increased population and possible designation for use as alternative greenspace will lead to increased pressure on existing biodiversity. Leisure activities and the presence of dogs and cats can have a detrimental impact on the local wildlife. 3.4.5.1 Sensitivity Level As a new Priority Area the features of importance and levels of sensitivity are yet to be defined. No SINCs or particularly sensitive features are known to be present, therefore the sensitivity level is considered to be low. BAP/Notable Species records provided by HBIC and Jonathan Cox Associates, and additional to those in the WOW BAP are:  Corn spurrey Spergula arvensis, IUCN (2001) vulnerable.  Song thrush Turdus philomelos, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List;  Lesser spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos minor, UK BAP

Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Red List; and  Dunnock Prunella modularis, UK BAP Species, Birds of Conservation Concern Amber List. 3.4.5.2 Objective Ensure policies are in place to minimise disturbance. 3.4.5.3 Actions Disturbance by dogs should be controlled by appropriate fencing of footpaths near woodland features. New public routes through this Priority Area should be clearly marked to avoid disturbance over the wider area. Any visitor centre or other community facilities should avoid excessive lighting. The rural, agricultural character of the site should be maintained and access controlled accordingly. 3.4.5.4 Outcomes Disturbance of greenspaces is minimised and biodiversity is maintained. 3.4.6 Threat 4 Development Increased population and possible designation for use as alternative greenspace may lead to construction of leisure infrastructure at this greenfield site. At present it is farmland, providing grazing for cattle and growing arable crops. Loss of habitats will lead to a loss of associated species. 3.4.6.1 Objective Ensure that any new development in the site is designed to create a net benefit for wildlife and the environment.

167

Green Infrastructure Strategy


3.4.6.2 Actions Any new developments should incorporate the principles of sustainability by utilising existing buildings and infrastructure (or their sites) rather than building on greenfield land. The rural characteristics of the area should be maintained. The design of any development should be environmentally friendly utilising solar energy where possible and incorporating suitable spaces for wildlife such as nesting sites for house martins Delichon urbicum and swifts Apus apus. It is essential to raise awareness of biodiversity and public education awareness of wildlife should be a primary function of the use of this area. 3.4.6.3 Outcomes A sustainable habitat suitable for both wildlife and informal recreation. 3.5

Southern Periphery

3.5.1 Location Centred on National Grid Reference SU793338. This Priority Area is located on land south of Firgrove Road and Liphook Road to the boundary with Woolmer Forest SAC and Wealden Heath SPA designation. 3.5.2 Description Coniferous woodland 3.5.3 Threat 1 Lack of Information. More information is needed to determine the biodiversity value of the area. There have been no recent surveys in this Priority Area.

168

Green Infrastructure Strategy

3.5.3.1 Objective Increase knowledge of habitats and species present and unrecorded groups. 3.5.3.2 Actions Carry out surveys to determine the full biodiversity of the area and to monitor the effects of any management actions initiated. Further surveys should be timed to inform Phase 3 of the eco-town development 2019-2024. As a priority these should include:  Vegetation (June-August);  Breeding birds (March-August);  Amphibians (March-June);  Reptiles (April-May or September); and  Invertebrates (May-September). 3.5.3.3 Outcomes A level of information sufficient to inform maintenance of the existing biodiversity value of the site. 3.5.4 Threat 2 Fragmentation Fragmentation of populations of fauna and flora occurs as development spreads around and between them. Connectivity of habitats is necessary for the movement and reproduction of species to prevent isolation and local species extinction. This Priority Area connects wildlife within Whitehill Bordon Eco-town with the wider countryside to the south. 3.5.4.1 Objective Maintenance and enhancement of wildlife connectivity through the Priority Area.


3.5.4.2 Actions Maintain and enhance key wildlife corridor links between the ecotown and Woolmer Forest and heaths to the south. Ensure any management actions initiated do not inhibit movement of fauna or flora through the existing greenspace. 3.5.4.3 Outcomes Greenspaces throughout the town are connected by the creation of ecological networks and the potential for species retention and dispersal is increased. 3.5.5 Threat 3 Disturbance Greenspaces close to housing are vulnerable to disturbance from continuous use by local residents. Increased population will lead to increased pressure on existing biodiversity. Dogs and cats can also have a detrimental impact on the local wildlife, as can the dumping of general litter and garden rubbish particularly when it contains non-native species.

addressed by encouraging individuals, local community groups and local businesses to take action to conserve natural resources and take responsibility for biodiversity. Existing networks of paths need to be retained and managed to encourage users to stay on the marked routes. This will control access and reduce general disturbance levels across the wider area. 3.5.5.4 Outcomes Disturbance of greenspaces is minimised and biodiversity is maintained.

3.5.5.1 Sensitivity Level As a new Priority Area the features of importance and levels of sensitivity are yet to be defined; however the whole area is designated as SINC and is continuous with sites of European designation. Sandy paths are also present. Therefore the sensitivity level is at least moderate. 3.5.5.2 Objective Ensure policies are in place to manage access to reduce disturbance of the sensitive greenspaces. 3.5.5.3 Actions The dumping of garden and other rubbish is illegal and should be

169

Green Infrastructure Strategy


4

Suggested Further Survey Summary

This section collates the further survey suggestions for all existing and proposed Priority Areas. The ‘phase’ relates to the timing of the proposed development in the area and therefore the timing of requirements for further surveys. Ecological surveys should be undertaken at optimal times of year that are defined by best practice guidance. These are the times of year when the results of surveys will be most reliable. This is because many species are only active or present at certain times of year, or their behaviour means that they are easier to detect at certain times. For example amphibian surveys are undertaken at the time of year when these species move into ponds for breeding, reptile surveys are undertaken at times when reptiles are active and not hibernating, yet when temperatures are low enough for them to make use of artificial refuges where they are recorded and vegetation surveys are undertaken in summer when herbaceous species are present above ground. It should be noted that many animal surveys need to be undertaken over several visits to the site that are spread out over the optimal survey period. Table 3 indicates which surveys are suggested to improve levels of knowledge in each Priority Area, the parts of the Priority Area to be included in the survey, phase of development they are to inform and the timing in the year that the surveys should take place.

170

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Amphibians (March - June)

Urban 2011 - 2015

Vegetation Bryophytes (any Breeding birds (June - August) time of year (March to exclusing very August) cold or very dry Potentially Existing important greenspace locations

Hogmoor Inclosure 2015 - 2019 The Slab 2015 - 2019

Whole area Whole area

Whole area

All ponds All ponds

Bordon Inclosure 2015 - 2019

Whole area

Whole area

All ponds

Hollywater 2011 - 2015

Un-surveyed area

Un-surveyed area

Oxney Farm and Meadows 2011 - 2015

Whole area

Whole area

All ponds

Northern Periphery 2019 - 2024

Whole area

Whole area

All ponds

Lindford Wey Valley 2019 - 2024

Whole area

Priority Area and Phase

Whole area

Hollybrook Pond

All ponds

Standford Grange Farm 2011 - 2015 Southern Periphery 2019 - 2024

Whole area

Table 3. Further Surveys Suggested by Halcrow

Whole area

Suggested Surveys Reptiles (April - Dormouse May or September)

All ponds

Whole area Whole area Potentially important locations Potentially important locations Potentially important locations Potentially important locations Potentially important locations Potentially important locations Potentially important locations

Whole area

Whole area

Invertebrates (May September)

Bats (May to September)

Invasive species (May October)

Potentially important Hollybrook Pond locations Potentially important Whole area locations Whole area Potentially important Whole area locations

River and terrestrial areas

Potentially important locations Potentially important locations Potentially important locations

River and terrestrial areas

Potentially important locations

Whole area

171

Green Infrastructure Strategy


References ECOSA (2010) Extended phase 1 ecological survey Bordon Fire Station, Camp Road, Whitehill, Bordon, Hampshire. Report. ECOSA (2011) Bat Inspection. Bordon Fire Station, Camp Road, Whitehill, Bordon, Hampshire. Letter report. GVA Grimley (2008a) Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity: Amphibian Survey. Report. GVA Grimley (2008b) Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity: Dormouse Survey. Report. GVA Grimley (2008c) Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity: Reptile Survey. Report. GVA Grimley (2008d) Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity: Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey. Report. HBIC (2005) Eveley Wood Vegetation Survey. Site Report. HBIC (2010a) Bordon Inclosure Vegetation Survey. Site Report HBIC (2010b) Hogmoor Inclosure Vegetation Survey. Site Report HBIC (2010c) Standford Grange Farm Habitat Survey. Site Report HBIC (2010d) Standford Grange Farm Field Vegetation Survey. Site Report Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Bordon Breeding Bird Survey. Report to East Hampshire District Council

172

Green Infrastructure Strategy


10 appendix c

173

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Appendix C - Stakeholder Engagement Comments Stakeholder Workshop1

ƒ Future use and diversification of club is key ƒ Executive housing could influence the activities, membership and style of the club – it could become more exclusive ƒ The club needs to maintain a wider community base open to all ƒ Tennis in demand, and cricket team playing for 2nd year ƒ There is a lack of all weather pitches ƒ Play area shown in masterplan welcomed as an idea, but it needs to be moved closer to the club (overlooking, combining facilities, etc) ƒ Consider location of land shown in the masterplan; there are areas of brownfield land to the north which could be more appropriate to develop rather than over the existing green space ƒ Expand community/sports facilities ƒ Area acts as a buffer

Stakeholder Workshop1 Group 1- Schedule of Stakeholder Comments

Group 1

ƒ Ruth Hanniffy Environment Agency ƒ Cllr Ian Skelton-Smith, Parish Council Chairman Lindford Parish Council ƒ Helen Mitchell Community development ƒ Peter Taylor Club Secretary, BOSC ƒ Andrew Linfoot Halcrow

Session 1 Issue

Comments

Boxhill Common

ƒ Common not within study area in terms of policy but buffer zones need to be considered, including BOSC

BOSC

ƒ Remoteness of club is a marketing point and valued by customers ƒ Self sustaining in terms of funding. Only recently have applied for some grants for improvement works ƒ The proposed housing will block wildlife routes ƒ Big demand for more pitches (Wey Valley also). Need to accommodate 2-4 teams + training areas

174

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Recreation Clubs

ƒ Existing recreation clubs should be maintained and included in the new proposals

Play

ƒ Shocking lack of facilities.

Lindford

ƒ I larger play area with smaller areas ƒ OS map missing new residential area ƒ The Chase - River bank and water meadow,


mown grass and new tree planting ƒ Allotment – only 1 in new development (typo in sec 108 agreement?) ƒ The river corridor should form a shared heart to the GI and not be a boundary to Lindford (both sides should benefit) River corridor

Hogmoor Inclosure

Central Area

ƒ Valuable ƒ Need to look at corridor beyond the study area for connections ƒ Buffer zones and access to the corridor will depend on amount of space available ƒ ‘String of pearls’ – a series of ‘events’ along the corridor? ƒ Water voles present. Otters not seen. ƒ balance of wildlife and access ƒ Still used and managed by Defence Estates ƒ 4x4 days and Motor bike clubs, as well as tanks, causing damage to habitat – needs to be controlled to limit further damage ƒ Flying tipping and stolen cars are a problem ƒ Generally viewed as not a nice place. ƒ Paths well used; some more than others e.g. Washford Lane ƒ Existing paths in the town are well used and need to be integrated with paths in the proposed town ƒ Safe routes to schools need to be considered ƒ Young people gather at the community centre in the evening as a place to go

ƒ Also meet at Tesco car park and the trading estate ƒ Tension between ‘new’ centre shown on the masterplan and the existing town centre – change focus to a community centre with a public square/green (demolish shops?) ƒ Is it necessary to move the centre of town – the Forest Centre is popular and an important meeting place that should be kept ƒ Forest Centre - develop as a community core ƒ A Village green – a place for community events and festivals? ƒ Not a tradition of events Deadwater Valley

ƒ Accessible and well used ƒ Close to housing ƒ Informal recreation is main use

Use

ƒ Recognise the tension between protection and access for people ƒ need for balance

Character

ƒ Want to avoid an ‘any town’ development

Boundaries

ƒ Boundaries of the new town and GI should be flexible ƒ links ƒ buffer zones

175

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Conflicts

ƒ Wildlife v access concerns should be worked out in detail during the design process

MOD land

ƒ Can the MOD land be improved before the development goes ahead – could the MOD manage it differently?

Allotments

ƒ lack of provision

ƒ Education ƒ Food ƒ Community gardens ƒ Community orchards and allotments ƒ Wildlife ƒ Playing fields ƒ Ancient woodland protected and use a s wildlife ‘base’ Loops

ƒ Themes to add interest and define routes – ecology, heritage

Walldown

ƒ Interpretation and education ƒ Management and protect of resource

Existing town centre

ƒ Community centre which really thrives ƒ Businesses need to be involved (Co-op etc)

Existing residential areas

ƒ “retro-green” – there is a need to redesign existing green spaces to improve their landscape quality and biodioversity value ƒ Change maintenance to improve habitat ƒ Access and connectivity as main function

DWV

ƒ Develop as an educational resource linked to community centre and farm/country park ƒ Water Framework Directive will need to be considered – more species diversity, allowing natural processes, making space for water ƒ River banks and adjacent spaces will be

Session 2 Hogmoor Inclosure

ƒ Main function has habitat with access for informal recreation ƒ Recognise that there will be increasing pressure with the new development and that this needs to be managed and controlled ƒ Wildlife corridor needs to relate to existing/developing habitats and areas which would have greater access, rather than just a strip down the middle ƒ Need to consider how to improve connections at either end, especially at the south with the railway bridge

BOSC

ƒ Retain as open space and recreation ƒ Centre for community sport and leisure ƒ Takes pressure off Hogmoor

Standford Grange Farm

A community farm/country park with a range of uses. A showcase for the eco-town:-

176

Green Infrastructure Strategy


important in managing wildlife and access ƒ Areas for wet woodland, reed beds and other habitat diversity ƒ Avoid over use by controlling access and diverting people to less ecologically sensitive parts of the corridor New development

ƒ Looks to be lacking in larger areas of green space

SANGS

ƒ Hogmoor and DWV – should these be SANGS?

Session 1 Issue

Comments

The Slab

ƒ controlled by Longmoor Rangers ƒ motorbikes a key issue

Deadwater Valley

ƒ mainly dog walkers (daily use), steady use

Broxhead

ƒ most visitors come from Lindford (drive or walk)

Car parks

ƒ most sensitive area can cause trouble ƒ journeys ƒ daily use or weekend use

Surveys

ƒ check New Forest, Dorset heath visitor surveys – show similar results – prevalence of heath fires/litter/vandalism/grazing management

Management

ƒ Fencing for grazing – restrict access

Hogmoor

ƒ owned by garrison/controlled by Longmoor ƒ very important locally ƒ retain belt of trees/extend heathland/fell trees ƒ is an opportunity and an area of conflict

Stakeholder Workshop1 Group 2 - Schedule of Stakeholder Comments

Group 2

Cllr Bill Wain Deadwater Valley Trust Cllr Chris Wain Chair of Biodiversity Policy Action Group Pauline Holmes Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Susanne Frost Hampshire County Council Andy Parfitt Hampshire County Council Jamie Cummins Deadwater Valley Trust Nigel Albon Halcrow

177

Green Infrastructure Strategy


ƒ area for wildlife and SANG/people corridor ƒ some sort of segregation required St Philips Barracks

ƒ drainage issue - culvert under barracks ƒ potential for deculverting/SUDs

Playing fields

ƒ retain barracks playing fields – existing playing fields of value/why relocate? ƒ PPG17 definition of brownfield in relation to MOD playing fields

Wildlife corridors

Gardens

Standford Grange Farm

178

ƒ more detail required ƒ Need to understand different type of movement (eg for different species) ƒ Wildlife corridors different to green loop (for people) ƒ Eco-town policy is wrong to include private gardens unless there is a covenant to retain gardens for wildlife and to ensure future maintenance ƒ unlikely to have houses ƒ potential SANG ƒ potential for ecofarm/working farm ƒ potential for visitor centre/hub ƒ improve public access ƒ wildlife trust possibly to take on ƒ Nick Jones – tenant farmer at Standford Grange Farm ƒ Land owned Hampshire CC – pedigree herd

Green Infrastructure Strategy

– is there enough land left to run a viable farm? ƒ Eveley Wood – in desperate need of management Alice Holt

ƒ ancient woodland ƒ managed for recreation ƒ overrun with rhododendron

Allotments

ƒ need to be within housing – not separate

Wildlife corridors

ƒ designed and not part of a green loop

SANGs Catchment

ƒ GI mainly for local people or a honey pot to take visitors (eg Standford Grange Farm) ƒ accessibility - walking/cycling access and linkages

Lindford

ƒ Include Lindford within overall strategy of GI

Session 2 SANGs

ƒ SINCs should not become SANGS ƒ SANGS should be on new land ƒ The concrete areas with barracks should become SANGs. Note that there are large expanses of concrete outside the study area to the north that could be used ƒ SANGS should be for the new population


ƒ Central location, not all the way around the edge ƒ ‘lower quality’ SINCs might be better as SANGS if space is limited (eg Oxley SINC) Horseriding

Green Loop and Links

Conflicts

ƒ a key issue at Broxhead – not meant to happen ƒ Is green loop for horseriding as well as cyclists/pedestrians? ƒ Crossing points across main roads/A325 ƒ Green loop needs to be open, planting set back ƒ Green loop should be located north of Louisburg barracks forming a buffer, west of protected rail corridor through Hogmoor ƒ investigate opening up Hogmoor tunnel as pedestrian route ƒ link with trackway on north edge of Woolmer Forest SINC ƒ retention of historic drove road (footpath 9) ƒ green links back into town, not just green loop ƒ The green loop should vary according to its context, heritage of that section of the route etc. It should not be a hard surface of fixed width all the way round ƒ Wildlife corridor v access ƒ Needs some segregation ƒ Green loop and green corridors should be separate

Deadwater

ƒ ground surface is not suitable for cyclist/wheelchairs ƒ 3m tarmac route is not desirable ƒ 20m wide open loop to give sense of openness ƒ Footpath width to vary in different locations

Hogmoor

ƒ Hogmoor Inclosure is not appropriate as a SANG, potential for heathland ƒ East west routes are needed across Hogmoor Inclosure following existing desire lines

Maps

ƒ 2 x Hogmoor ponds and Bordon – need to update plan – check with PBA ƒ Wildlife trust – MOD grazing project- check map

Stakeholder Workshop1 Group 3 - Schedule of Stakeholder Comments Group 3

Amanda Dunn EHDC Stephen d'Este Hoare EHDC David Carman Hampshire County Council Martin Healey EHDC

179

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Judy Halpin Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Dr Sarah Toogood Halcrow

Links

ƒ Links between protected area ƒ Links withn the GI areas (excluding protected areas)

SINCs

ƒ SINCs shown as GI but need to protect biodiversity here too

Use

ƒ Why is Deadwater Valley not more heavily used?

Short comings/ concerns on existing masterplan.

ƒ There don’t appear to be many green links through the existing town. (ST note. If the routes are proposed then the greenness needs to be emphasised). There may be more scope for wildlife connectivity through the town not just access connectivity ƒ The green spaces are all around the edge so there will need to be honey pot locations/attractions to coax people out to use them (people prefer to get in cars and drive elsewhere). A key aim of the honey pots should be education. The SANGS need to provide what people want i.e. not too much woodland which many people find intimidating ƒ Creation or identify ‘honey-pot’ sites to manage access/recreation/education and to reduce pressure on sensitive sites ƒ The existing town does not appear to be very integrated with the GI. There is a lot of opportunity here to improve the existing town ahead of the new development.

Session 1 Issue

Comments

Priorities.

ƒ The highest priority is to ensure the protection of European Sites that surround the Eco-town. Therefore the planning needs to: a. make sure that the SANGS are attractive enough for the residents to get out and walk to instead of driving further afield possibly to the European sites. b. provide buffers to dissuade people from going onto the European sites (belts of trees that majority of people don’t like to walk through). c. the GI should be linking wildlife in the protected sites, not linking access into the protected sites.

GI led masterplanning

ƒ The possibilities of the green infrastructure must be set out before the numbers of houses are determined. GI to inform housing rather than provide housing numbers and GI fits in

180

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Surveys are needed to find out why the local people don’t use the Deadwater Valley more – if people don’t use it now why will they when the eco-town is built? ƒ Some existing green spaces or potential green spaces embedded within the town look like they will be lost, when in fact it would be very beneficial to keep these, probably even at the expense of some of the peripheral greenspace Conflicts.

ƒ Wildlife Corridor v access, especially in very narrow corridors. SINCs v SANGS

Opportunities and Issues.

ƒ Whats in it for the existing town? ƒ Green space (mainly woodland) outside the study area should be considered as GI even if it is not accessible ƒ What kind of open space do local people want ƒ Don’t just look at a GI ring – more GI in urban areas and centre of town ƒ People migrate to areas which are more open – therefore need to open up woodland areas ƒ GI doesn’t all have to be multi-functional. Uni-functional space is just as valid ƒ Lack of use of existing undeveloped areas as GI (eg Bordon Infant School area) ƒ Residential character areas misleading ƒ Contingency if Hogmoor is not released? ƒ A325 major physical barrier - not really

addressed ƒ Re-model (maybe relocated?) Woolmer Trading Estate? ƒ Not enough integration ƒ Not enough for existing town ƒ Street trees ƒ Heritage assets ƒ Home zone opportunities ƒ Neighbourhood identity in existing areas ƒ Green ‘grid’ please ƒ ‘cut and cover’ for main road BAP

ƒ Must cover all eco-town areas ƒ But - wait until future more certain ƒ BAP should adapt as masterplan develops ƒ Must be work in progress document

Session 2 Vision

ƒ A quick win and way to get a proper buy-in of the existing population is to get a good GI through the existing housing. Green neighbourhoods and a competitive spirit could be fostered. Home zones, heritage zones/assets and more street trees could be incorporated

Access/ Links

ƒ A green grid would be preferred so that routes in and out to the circular path are easily accessible

181

Green Infrastructure Strategy


ƒ To get people to visit Stanford Farm area a bike hire/pony trekking centre could be a real destination although people may drive across town to this site. The GI needs to link in with the sustainable transport proposed ƒ The main road seems to be a barrier between the old and new. The diversion to the west for through traffic is preferred, so that the existing town is not separated from the new centre. It was considered that this would make an important whole-sale change to the feel of the town and would help reset the balance if not all the SANGS on the west side come to fruition. It was felt that the existing main road corridor could be a green lung through the heart of the town and have a cycle route and tram. Another suggestion to remove the through traffic was to install a tunnel Masterplan

182

ƒ The masterplan places high density housing furthest from green space. This was considered the wrong way round and the conventional layout wasn’t thought to be innovative enough for an eco-town. The loss of green space around Bordon Primary School and the playing fields was considered a missed opportunity. Some moving around of the masterplan would be better to keep this space and move areas like Woolmer Trading Estate away from the centre

Green Infrastructure Strategy

ƒ The residential character areas have misleading names and the greenness isn’t clear when looking at the masterplan Image

LBAP

Wildlife Corridors

ƒ The entrances to the town should not be theme park style but neat wooden posts with representative planting would be appropriate ƒ The LBAP should cover the whole eco-town but revising it now could be misleading since the masterplan is not finalised. Also, the BAP should be a live document and should adapt and remain as a working document ƒ The key aim of wildlife corridors is connectivity of populations that can’t move quickly and easily (principally reptiles and some invertebrates but also some mammals like dormouse). The wildlife corridors are not expected to be full of wildlife but should be preventing wildlife from becoming isolated ƒ Protection of designated sites will be most successful if knowledge of habitats people like and don’t like is used to create buffers


Stakeholder Workshop 2

area) or hedging to define areas was considered a more sensitive approach ƒ The path layout should reflect the need to conserve certain areas ƒ Southampton Common was suggested as a case study for a SSSI managed in close proximity to housing. Also Danebury Hill Fort managed by Hampshire County Council may have some useful lessons in access management

Stakeholder Workshop 2 Group 1- Schedule of Stakeholder Comments

Group 1

Ruth Hanniffy Environment Agency Debbie Cousins Environment Agency Pauline Holmes Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Mike O’Mahony Head of Sports and Leisure Services Steve Jenkinson UE Associates Nigel Albon Halcrow

Railway location and corridor

Session 1 Hogmoor Inclosure

ƒ Hogmoor has SINC status and will become under increasing pressure with new housing proposed adjacent to it ƒ There were mixed views on the primary purpose of Hogmoor. Views expressed were that nature conservation should be the primary purpose to reflect the SINC status. Alternatively, recreation should be the primary purpose to reflect the potential SANG designation ƒ In order to address ecological sensitivities it was suggested that different levels of access should be considered (eg full access over whole area, partial access or no access) ƒ The need for fencing was discussed but the use of planting (eg willow around pond

Allotments Cycle Route

ƒ The proposed location of the railway station and corridor was considered a key issue. The proposed location near to Hogmoor was considered to have a negative impact on Hogmoor and the Croft and would cause severance between the new community and the space ƒ The prevailing view was that the station should be moved northwards away from Hogmoor Inclosure to a location either north of Budds Lane or on the Bordon Trading Estate (the former railway station site) ƒ The location of allotments was questioned in the Hogmoor area ƒ Proposed cycle link needs to link key activities/schools/etc ƒ Link to strategic cycle route

183

Green Infrastructure Strategy


BOSC and adjacent woodland area Proposed Urban Environment

Sports provision

184

ƒ This area was seen as an important buffer area to adjacent biodiversity sites. The proximity of proposed executive housing to the protected railway corridor was also questioned ƒ The deculverting of Oxney Stream was supported as was the relocation away from the spine road ƒ Youth play should be centrally located, not positioned away from residential areas ƒ Important that proposed housing fronts on to green space and has a positive relationship ƒ The general location of the spine road taking through traffic away from the existing High Street was seen to be a positive change. The design of the spine road to include tree planting/crossing points etc to avoid severance ƒ Centrally located multi-hub sites provide the most appropriate approach to formal sports provision. Similarly, the approach to education provision may be best located in the context of a multi-hub site ƒ If the proposed school is located on the eastern option there is an opportunity to create a central pitch and town park hub in a central position in the new development ƒ BOSC and Whitehill Club to provide important additional provision though their locations were away from the main

Green Infrastructure Strategy

development area Town Park

ƒ Support for a town park as a focal point (if the school option is not pursued) – part of which could contribute to the SANG provision

Session 2 Bordon Inclosure

ƒ Potential for increase recreation ƒ Currently has a dense tree canopy which would benefit from being opened up ƒ Proposed cycle route to avoid boggy areas – suggest relocate to higher ground ƒ Use of board walks to provide access without damaging ecological interest

Alexandra Park Wey Valley

ƒ Expansion of heathland areas supported

Deadwater Valley

ƒ Managed as local nature reserve ƒ Link through to Eveley Wood important

Existing urban environment

ƒ Enhancement of existing urban environment considered integral to strategy

Eveley Wood

ƒ Woodland needs positive management

ƒ Links through Wey Valley important – provision of circular walking routes to support SANG provision


ƒ Balance required between access and conservation ƒ There is an existing overgrown track through the centre which could be used for access Standford Grange Farm

ƒ Standford Grange Farm area seen as an integral part of the GI strategy providing access to existing residents on the eastern side of Whitehill Bordon ƒ Important potential link/synergy with school hub on eastern side ƒ Links to Eveley Wood and Deadwater Valley ƒ Eco-farm idea supported – farm could be used as a base for cattle used to graze other sites. This would potentially allow other parts of the farm to be opened up for recreational access ƒ Farm hub could include visitor centre and accommodation

Stakeholder Workshop 2 Group 2 - Schedule of Stakeholder Comments

Group 2

Cllr Bill Wain Cllr Chris Wain Stephen Miles Mary Herbert Sarah Toogood

Session 1 Hogmoor.

ƒ General consensus that the whole SINC (including the part in Viking Park) should become SANGS in order to safeguard against future development ƒ Stephen Miles has made recommendations about paths on the plan. The cycle route should stick to the railway line and not go up the path through the heath in the Croft (it should be the far eastern route) ƒ No new paths should be created – the maps currently show paths in new places ƒ Routes, including the cycleway should have no surface if possible (sandy) ƒ There are far too many access points on the plan, they should be reduced as it is not manageable and they should not be located near commercial premises, to avoid attracting smokers on a break due to fire risk ƒ Bramble and gorse should be used to deter access to the whole site while still not ‘restricting’ access ƒ The heath expansion in the centre should be increased so that the big blocks are joined together – however trees should not be removed from around Hogmoor pond because there are uncommon shade loving plant species found here ƒ The conifers on the west side should be

185

Green Infrastructure Strategy


retained so that Hogmoor Road residents retain their current view and also stops the whole area feeling urban ƒ There should not be a path down the west side because there is a path on the opposite side and the verge is a useful habitat. Sallow trees here should be kept – good for inverts and lots of bats fly along here ƒ A new pond should be created in the northern half of the inclosure where water stands now, to create a water feature for residents and detract attention from Hogmoor pond which should not be made any more accessible BOSC

ƒ Group generally happy with approach. ƒ Some development is located directly in the wildlife corridor and should be removed

A325

ƒ Not many comments made – Bill Wain suggested two green bridges ƒ Note there is an existing underpass ƒ Would like the southern connection of the spine road to come off the A325 near the pub, ie slightly further north where levels are better and the southern end of Viking Park is preserved

Existing Urban Environment

ƒ Would prefer more wildflower planting rather than just lines of trees ƒ Note that quick wins/planting are already taking place in some of the locations shown

186

Green Infrastructure Strategy

on the plans. There are lots of notes on the plans ƒ Conde Way – not happy with widening paths to make cycleways – the SINC needs protecting ƒ Very happy with the green area next to the community centre – the ECG have wanted this area to be used for a long time but have been unable to get permission ƒ Note that the events area is actually split over two levels at the moment Bordon Inclosure

ƒ Do not like the location of the allotments. This would mean removal of mature beech tree and beech stumps that are good invert habitat. Discussion about using Quebec Barracks especially if that is developed early in the phasing ƒ A quick win is possible by using the existing route in the north from the Pub to Lindford (already surfaced and wide) as a cycle route ƒ The route south through the Inclosure should be the western one (existing track) not alongside the river – there is no path here and it would go through swamp ƒ There are issues with where a cycle path would go from Jubilee Park (see below)

Deadwater Valley

ƒ There is currently a bylaw for no cycling. Therefore the group have proposed a new route for the cycle loop through Lindford and Standford Grange Farm, although


there were concerns about the route from the south as conditions in Hollywater are boggy and includes important plants and habitats ƒ Happy with a footpath loop continuing through the LNR Standford Grange Farm

ƒ Generally happy with a visitor centre but would like it to be at the existing car park in the north by the cemetery, to avoid introducing heavy use on Whitehill Road in the south – don’t want this road upgrading and curbs etc being added. Access for cars should all be from the north ƒ The link to paths to the south should be removed – don’t want to encourage cyclists into the wider countryside ƒ The link across the stream from the LNR is something they have wanted for a while – could be a quick win. The small square of land between the Deadwater and Hollywater Road is owned by the Town Council and managed by the LNR although it is not part of the LNR. The Environment Agency need to bridge to be sufficiently high although that is achievable. The stumbling block in the past was the lack of access through Eveley Wood

Stakeholder Workshop 2 Group 3 - Schedule of Stakeholder Comments Group 3

Peter Taylor Club Secretary, BOSC Susanne Frost Hampshire County Council David Carman Hampshire County Council Judy Halpin Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Bruce Collinson EHDC Project manager Andrew Linfoot Halcrow

Session 1 Hogmoor

ƒ Encourage access and uses in Hogmoor as an attractive place to go to so that existing designated sites are protected ƒ A combined function of wildlife and recreation/access would be preferred. ƒ Need to consider what would be appropriate habitats and species which can cope with higher levels of access. This may mean more ‘robust’ species and habitats ƒ Management and maintenance will need to reflect this and be flexible so that successful species and habitats can be encouraged and those that are less successful allowed to diminish ƒ Need to recognise that disturbed wildlife can move from here to other sites ƒ The allotments should be moved into the

187

Green Infrastructure Strategy


development area so that the narrow corridor can be made as wide as possible ƒ Consider moving proposed commercial development up to the edge of Hogmoor as this will reduce potential disturbance to wildlife Proposed urban environment

High Street

188

ƒ Putting the SUDS through the urban area rather than adjacent to the spine road was considered to be good idea provided that it was a generous green corridor with space for planting and paths ƒ Would like to see the location of railway station related to the town centre with good links for pedestrians and cyclists ƒ A transport interchange close to the town centre with green links to the surrounding development would be ideal ƒ The station could be moved further north or moved into the development area closer to the town centre (especially if light rail) ƒ Consider the use of green bridges or burying the railway to maintain connections and reduce severance. Burying the railway would allow development over it ƒ The town centre could be rotated so that it is parallel to the High Street and therefore link more closely to existing town centre uses, Tesco’s and the developing ‘leisure’ centre further south ƒ Concern that the longer and more complex

Green Infrastructure Strategy

and Spine Road ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

route of the spine road will discourage vehicles from using it and that they would continue to use the High Street as the more direct route through the town Weight limits or other features may be required to force vehicles to use the spine road Shared space could be introduced at the town centre section of the High Street The High Street could be buried in cut and cover The spine road should be sufficiently wide to allow for tree planting

Town Park option

ƒ Like the idea; it needs to relate to the town centre, route from the station and adjacent uses

BOSC

ƒ Need to deter people accessing Shortheath Common by making sure there were walks etc to the east and south which were more attractive ƒ A reduction in the amount of development at the BOSC site would also help reduce this potential

Session 2 Bordon Enclosure

ƒ Low key ƒ Need to develop circular routes accepting


that this may not be completely achievable with the narrow central section ƒ Not convince by location of allotments. ƒ The wooded area is a good contrast to the open farmland of Stanford Grange and more mixed habitat at Hogmoor Standford Grange Farm

ƒ Considered to be too remote and inaccessible from adjacent population to be a SANG ƒ It would appear to be able to satisfy the draft SANG requirements, although there may be some conflict with grazing animals and dogs ƒ Uncertain about a use which has a wider catchment, such as a country park or community farm. Would having a regional remit affect its designation as a SANG? ƒ Need to understand the user profile of people who access the areas to the south and see if they can be attracted to Standford Grange Farm ƒ Could the farm be used as a livestock hub which are used to graze surrounding areas as part of the habitat management?

Existing Urban Area

ƒ Generally like the ideas around improving footpaths, providing play and changing management regimes to encourage species diversity ƒ The proposals for Conde Way should go further and be less constrained

ƒ Forest Centre proposals liked although they have been struggling to provide enough events. Christmas market very successful Other issues

ƒ Location of the new allotments marked on plan ƒ Need to consider mature gardens ƒ Appropriate plant species needed but also allowing for some variation and decoration ƒ Bylaws will need to be reviewed ƒ Interpretation needs to well designed and avoid visual clutter.

189

Green Infrastructure Strategy


190

Green Infrastructure Strategy


10 appendix d

191

Green Infrastructure Strategy


Appendix D - Policy Background Legislation & National Planning Policy The Climate Change Act (2008) The Act requires the Government to report on climate change adaption at minimum 5 yearly intervals, noting the risks brought by climate change and mitigation measures to put in place to address them. The Act also confers the requirement on public bodies and statutory undertakers to undertake climate change risk assessments and to plan to address those risks. Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations (2010) In 1992 the European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (The EC Habitats Directive). This is the means by which the Community meets its obligations as a signatory of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The main aim of the Directive has been to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance. In applying these measures Member States are required to take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics. It required the designation of protected sites of European importance to be known as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). The Habitats Directive introduced for the first time the precautionary principle for protected areas; that is, that projects can only be permitted having ascertained no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

192

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In such cases compensation measures will be necessary to ensure the overall integrity of network of sites. In the UK the Directive was initially transposed into national laws by means of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). These are known as ‘the Habitats Regulations’. Most SACs on land or freshwater areas are underpinned by notification as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). In the case of SACs that are not notified as SSSI, positive management is promoted by wider countryside measures, while protection relies on the provisions of the Habitats Regulations. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 has since consolidated all the various amendments made to the 1994 Regulations in respect of England and Wales. The Regulations now require competent authorities to consider or review planning permission, applied for or granted, affecting a European site, and, subject to certain exceptions, restrict or revoke permission where the integrity of the site would be adversely affected. Equivalent consideration and review provisions are made with respects to highways and roads, electricity, pipe-lines, transport and works, and environmental controls (including discharge consents under water pollution legislation). Special provisions are also made as respects general development orders, special development orders, simplified planning zones and enterprise zones. Competent authorities must also undertake screening to establish whether there is likely to be a significant effect on the European site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects. If so, the authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications


of the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives and shall give effect to the land use plan only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site, unless there are no alternative solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest apply, which is rarely the case. The key issues in relation to GI are how some of these sites can be integrated into the GI network as they are all classed as GI assets. It is essential to note and consider the sensitivities of their features of interest and to reflect these in any GI Strategy. There are however, opportunities where some sites can be enhanced by relieving the current pressure on such sites by creating opportunities elsewhere. This could involve the creation of new sites; enhancement of existing sites (e.g. Country Parks) or retrofitting natural greenspace into other types of existing open space (e.g. amenity greenspaces). Opportunities exist to buffer or expand sensitive sites and habitats to protect and enhance their features and this should also be a key aim of the GI Strategy. PPS1 Delivering sustainable development (2005) PPS1 recognises the condition of our surroundings has a direct impact on the quality of life and the conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment brings social and economic benefit for local communities. Accordingly planning should seek to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects of declining environmental quality through positive policies on issues such as design, conservation and the provision of public space. In addition PPS1 requires development to include an appropriate mix of uses, including the incorporation of greenspace.

The Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 (2007) This Supplement suggests spatial strategies and development should help to deliver GI and biodiversity, amongst other things, as part of a strategy to address climate change and mitigation. The supplement recognises that open spaces and GI can contribute to ‘urban cooling, sustainable drainage systems and conserving and enhancing biodiversity’. PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) The PPS suggests local authorities should aim to maintain natural habitat networks by avoiding or repairing the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats through policies in plans. Such networks should be protected from development, and, where possible, strengthened by or integrated within it. PPS12 Local Spatial Planning (2008) PPS12 defines GI as: “A network of multi functional greenspace, both new and established greenspaces, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities”. The PPS requires local planning authorities to identify within their Core Strategies the amount of GI to be provided , who will provide it and when.

193

Green Infrastructure Strategy


PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport, and Recreation (2002) PPG17 requires local authorities to produce co-ordinated open space strategies which encourage a range of GI functions and benefits to be realised. Consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment (March 2010) This draft PPS brings together related policies on the natural environment and on open and greenspaces in rural and urban areas to ensure that the planning system delivers healthy sustainable communities which adapt to and are resilient to climate change and gives the appropriate level of protection to the natural environment. It includes policies on landscape protection currently in PPS7, on undeveloped coastline from PPG20 and information on the legal protection given to certain species and habitats through recent case law. It also references the European Landscape Convention, which the UK signed in February 2006 and includes, for the first time, planning policy on GI. Whilst the existing planning policy approach on the different components of the natural environment and on open and greenspaces remain valid, and taken together deliver many of the components of GI, the new policy recognises that there are subtle differences between planning for open space and planning for GI. Key considerations for GI are the functions or ecosystem services it provides. It should therefore be considered at a broader scale than is necessarily the case for individual areas of open space. Natural England, for example, suggests that it should consider the “landscape context, hinterland and setting, as well as strategic links

194

Green Infrastructure Strategy

of sub-regional scale and beyond”. It should also take into account the contribution that private assets (e.g. back gardens) as well as public assets (e.g. parks) make to GI. Policy NE2.1 requires the relevant regional authority to address regional, sub-regional and cross-boundary issues in relation to biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape protection and GI in its regional strategy. Policy NE4.1 requires LPAs to build on the work undertaken at the regional level, and to set out a strategic approach in their LDF for the creation, protection and management of GI networks. The draft PPS does not require local planning authorities to produce and publish GI ‘strategies’, and the expectation is that much of the information already collected for the PPG17 open space strategies can be used at regional, sub-regional and local level to develop the evidence base for GI delivery. Encouraging LPAs to take a more strategic and ‘big picture’ approach to GI should give them a better understanding of their existing GI network and its functions. This in turn should contribute to better decisions being made about its protection and management and, where a need is identified, the allocation in plans of additional land which could contribute to the network. No final PPS has been issued and the changes set out in the draft are likely to form part of the NPF to be published later in 2011.


PPS25 Development and Flood Risk (2010) One of the key objectives of this PPS is to reduce flood risk by making the most of the benefits of GI for flood storage, water conveyance and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs).

authorities to determine the most appropriate policy response in the light of a sound understanding of the standard, the needs of the local community and the value of accessible natural greenspace to it, the existing greenspace resource and funding constraints.

National Guidance Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards – Promoting the Natural Green structure of Towns and Cities: English Nature The concept of standards for accessible natural Greenspace began in the mid 1990s, leading to the publication of Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns & Cities by English Nature in 1995. A 1996 leaflet entitled A Space for Nature outlined the standards. Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) provided a set of benchmarks for ensuring access to places near to where people live. These standards recommended that people living in towns and cities should have:  An accessible natural greenspace of at least 2 hectares in size, no more than 300 metres (5 minutes’ walk) from home  At least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home  One accessible100 hectare site within five kilometres of home  One accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home  One hectare of statutory Local Nature Reserves per thousand population

The essential role of green infrastructure: eco-towns green infrastructure worksheet (TCPA, CLG and Natural England, 2008) The worksheet outlines how to design, incorporate and operate GI that is fully “fit for purpose”. The main parts of the worksheet primarily considered the practical aspects of GI provision and standards. The Annexes provide greater detail on the individual components of GI and on the potential for GI to significantly underpin the sustainability of eco-towns. The key recommendations of the worksheet of relevance to this study suggest GI should be:  Provided as a varied, widely distributed, strategically planned and interconnecting network;  Factored into land values and decisions on housing densities and urban structure;  Accessible to local people and provide non-car transport routes;  Designed to reflect and enhance an area’s locally distinctive character, including local landscapes and habitats;  Supported by a GI strategy;  Multi-functional, seeking the integration and interaction of different functions on the same site and across a GI network as a whole;  Implemented through co-ordinated planning, delivery and management that cuts across local authority departments and boundaries and across different sectors;

The model is to guide local authorities in identifying the current level of provision of accessible natural greenspace and to assist with the production of local standards and targets. The document recognised that achieving the standards this will be more difficult in some urban contexts than in others and encouraged local

195

Green Infrastructure Strategy


 Able to achieve physical and functional connectivity between sites at all levels and right across town;  Implemented primarily through focused GI strategies and the spatial planning system and formally adopted within the development plan; and  Permanent with financial support for continued maintenance and adaption. Policy Position Statement: Housing Growth and Green Infrastructure GI (Natural England, June 2008) In this statement, Natural England state that the provision of multifunctional GI should be an integral part of all new development as it can considerably enhance the quality of the development and deliver a wide range of benefits for people and the natural environment. They suggest that the provision of GI should be an integral part of the creation of sustainable communities throughout England. and call for networks of multi-functional GI to be identified in regional and local plans and designed into all major development and regeneration schemes from the outset. In addition it states that substantial funding could be provided for the creation and long term maintenance of extensive GI through the Community Infrastructure Levy. Funding options may also include business opportunities relevant to the GI network, such as through increased recreational access (increasing use of visitor accommodation/farm shops), as well as opportunities through implementation of wider land use plans (forestry, water, transport or shoreline management plans).

196

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Strategic Direction 2008-2013 Natural England’s Strategic Direction document describes the natural environment outcomes they want to achieve over the five years between 2008 and 2013. Part of outcome 3 “Sustainable use of the natural environment” is that “Land is used for social and economic development in a way that recognises, protects and enhances the value of the natural environment”, and “that there is provision for high quality green infrastructure in all new urban development and … opportunities [are sought] to expand and improve green infrastructure in existing urban area, particularly through regeneration projects”. Green Infrastructure Guidance (Natural England, March 2009) This guidance provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of GI and directs the reader to other relevant information such as Natural England’s definition of GI, its policy statement and track record in driving delivery. The guidance is aimed to facilitate a coordinated and consistent approach to GI strategies and promote the contribution of GI to ‘place-making’, as well as demonstrating that the more traditional ‘grey infrastructure’ solutions may not be able to offer multiple benefits of GI. The Guidance is divided into three sections which address:  The definition of GI and Natural England’s role. It also clarifies the distinction between planning for open space and GI, which is useful for this study. That is that: o “Green infrastructure goes beyond the site-specific, considering .. the ‘big picture’ – landscape context, hinterland and setting, as well as strategic links to the sub regional scale and beyond


o GI considers private as well as public assets o It provides a multifunctional, connected network, delivering ecosystem services o Whilst PPG17 compliant studies consider typologies beyond sport and amenity greenspaces, spaces are considered primarily from the access, quality and management perspectives, rather than consideration of the wider environmental benefits and services. These greenspaces are, however, important constituents of a green infrastructure network”  It considers the function and benefits of GI and the links to related concepts such as place making. ‘Place making’ means recognising the character and distinctiveness of different places and that the quality and management or area, including street and parks are directly related to civic pride, community and identity. GI can play a key role in this process as a holistic understanding of the landscape and environmental settings and sensitivities as they relate to GI is critical to the understanding of character and place. Accordingly GI plans and policies are essential to sustainable planning policies  It addresses the role of GI strategies and how to embed them in plan-making and the development management process. The document notes that many opportunities to deliver GI will not lie with the LPA but with other partners or sections within the Council. It is therefore essential that GI is incorporated within a range of documents including the Sustainable Community Strategies, Local Transport Plans and Local Area Agreements to name a few. It recommends GI planning should occur at the evidence gathering stage of LDF to ensure GI is properly planned in advance of development or delivered alongside so it can be planned as an integral part of the community

Very helpfully the Guidance outlines a model process for integrating GI in plan-making which identifies what actions are required the various stages of the Development Plan process, together with the key outputs from each stage. ‘No Charge? Valuing the Natural Environment’ (Natural England, 2009) This report sets out the contribution that nature makes to our economy (such as clean water, carbon storage) to ensure that its value is recognised. It summarises that a healthy natural environment is indispensable to current and future economic prosperity stating that conserving the natural environment is the most efficient and effective way to deliver a huge range of benefits to society. The report finds the evidence is overwhelming. A healthy natural environment provides cost-effective solutions to many of the challenges we face; from flooding and coastal defence through to delivering fresh water and adapting to climate change. The economic evidence suggests that the benefits of ecological solutions outweigh the cost, many times over in some cases. People who live within 500m of accessible greenspace are 24 per cent more likely to meet recommended levels of physical activity. Reducing the sedentary population by just 1 per cent would reduce morbidity and mortality rates valued at £1.44 billion for the UK. Investing in a healthy natural environment is essential to deliver the many benefits highlighted in the report. The report found that investing in a healthy natural environment is critical if we are to deliver these benefits on a scale that makes a significant contribution to future prosperity. The challenges of climate change and food, water and energy security cannot be

197

Green Infrastructure Strategy


overcome with technology alone. New ecological solutions are required to deliver multiple services and benefits cost-effectively. ‘Nature Nearby: Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance’ (Natural England, March 2010) This recent guidance is a key tool for those working on the planning and management of parks and greenspaces and their ‘natural’ development. It promotes a set of standards for high quality accessible natural Greenspace according to:  Quantity and Accessibility – the Access to Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt)  Visitor Service Standards –for the most visited National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and for Country Parks and Local Nature Reserves  Quality – the Green Flag Award Natural England wish to see the standards adopted in both open space and GI strategies to ensure everyone can benefit from regular contact and experience of the natural environment close to where they live. Regional Planning Policy & Guidance The South East Plan – The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England (Government Office for the South East May 2009) The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East of England (known as the South East Plan) was intended to set out the longterm spatial planning framework for the region over a 20-year period to 2026. The Plan was to be a key tool helping achieving more sustainable development, protecting the environment and

198

Green Infrastructure Strategy

combatting climate change and its policies carried weight in decisions made on planning applications and appeals for development. It provided a spatial context within which LDFs and Local Transport Plans (LTPs) could be prepared, as well as other regional and subregional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on landuse activities. These include the regional economic and housing strategies as well as strategies and programmes that address air quality, biodiversity, climate change, education, energy, community safety, environment, health and sustainable development. Many of the Plan policies had links to GI provision, for example CC6 Sustainable communities and the character of the environment, CC2 Climate change and C5 Managing the urban rural fringe. The most relevant policy is Policy CC8: Green Infrastructure. It required local authorities and others to work together to plan, provide and manage connected and substantial networks of existing and new accessible multi-functional greenspace The spaces needed to deliver the widest range of linked environmental and social benefits, including conserving and enhancing biodiversity as well as landscape, recreation, water management, social and cultural benefits to underpin individual and community health and wellbeing. The Plan identified the following areas as forming part of the GI Network:  Parks and Gardens - including urban parks, country parks and formal gardens;  Natural and Semi-natural Urban Greenspaces - including woodlands, urban forestry, scrub;  Grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons and meadows) wetlands, open and running water;


 Wastelands and Derelict Open Land and Rock Areas (e.g. cliffs, quarries and pits);  Green Corridors - including river and canal banks, cycleways, and rights of way;  Outdoor Sports Facilities (with natural or artificial surfaces, either publicly or privately owned) - including tennis courts, bowling greens, sports pitches, golf courses, athletics tracks;  School and other institutional playing fields, and other outdoor sports areas;  Amenity Greenspace (most commonly, but not exclusively, in housing areas) – including informal recreation spaces, greenspaces in and around housing, domestic gardens and village greens;  Provision for Children and Teenagers - including play areas, skateboard parks, outdoor basketball hoops, and other more informal areas (e.g. ‘hanging out’ areas, teenage shelters);  Allotments, Community Gardens, and City (urban) Farms;  Cemeteries and Churchyards;  Accessible Countryside in Urban Fringe Areas;  River and Canal Corridors; and  Green Roofs and Walls. South East Green Infrastructure Framework – from Policy into Practice (Land Use Consultants on behalf of a partnership of regional organisations, June 2009) This framework was produced to help implement the South East Plan GI policy. It is a practical guide addressing both the concept and deliverability of GI in greater detail than other publications. Most importantly, it encouraged LPAs to include GI in LDFs and processes from the earliest stages, delivering it through partnership working. Within the appendices it provided a methodology for

mapping infrastructure data to inform GI planning, a variety of national standards used to inform a deficiency and needs analysis, and possible funding streams for the provision and management of GI. The document recognised that GI should provide a range of functions, including landscaping, flood control, recreation, cool spots in a warming climate, food production, safer routes and biodiversity. Together they give rise to a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits, including improved public health, opportunities for sustainable transport, and provision of attractive and distinctive places to live work and play. The document:  Provided a definition of GI in the South East  Explained the concepts of multi-functionality and placeshaping and describes the physical functions that GI can have and their contribution to achieving RSS policies  Described the key principles which are a pre-requisite for effective delivery of GI through the local spatial planning system and the GI considerations at each stage of the planmaking process The framework suggests the region needs to include excellent multifunctional greenspace new developments and existing communities as well as connecting the urban area to its wider rural hinterland. It noted the PPG17 requirement for LPAs local authorities to undertake robust assessments of existing and future needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities and that the definition of GI in the South East Plan was broadly consistent with the typology in PPG17.

199

Green Infrastructure Strategy


South East Biodiversity Strategy, 2009 The South East Biodiversity Strategy (SEBS) provides a coherent vision and framework for action. It seeks to both inspire those individuals, groups and bodies with the power and resources to make a difference to our biodiversity assets, and to provide guidance on where the best opportunities exist for action that will make a significant difference. It aims to:  Be a clear, coherent and inspiring vision for the South East;  Provide a framework for the delivery of biodiversity targets that guide and support all those who have an impact on biodiversity in the region;  Embed a landscape-scale approach to restoring whole ecosystems in the working practices and policies of all partners;  Create the space needed for wildlife to respond to climate change;  Enable all organisations in the South East to support and improve biodiversity across the region; and  Be a core element within the strategies and delivery plans of organisations across the South East region. The Regional Biodiversity Opportunity Areas Map identifies the areas which are priorities for the restoration and creation of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats in the South East of England. These Biodiversity Opportunity Areas are to complement the work of regional and local organisations working to restore and create areas rich in biodiversity. Delivering Biodiversity Action Plan targets and actions through this agreed area-based approach will result in a landscape-scale approach to conservation, making wildlife more robust to changing climate and socio-economic pressures.

200

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The Biodiversity Opportunity Areas each cover a variety of habitats allowing an ecosystem approach to conservation to be embedded across the region. By working with larger, more dynamic ecosystems, it is intended to create a wider range of habitat niches, which will in turn increase the ability of the landscape to support species. In a nutshell, this will allow GI to increase biodiversity. East Hampshire LDF Core Strategy Preferred Policies East Hampshire District Council published its Core Strategy preferred policies in 2009.This included preferred policies on GI and the eco-town proposal. Policy CP23 states that the Council intends to prepare a GI Strategy as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), with priority being given to safeguarding existing spaces, identifying new spaces, especially links between existing GI and promoting wider understanding of the function and uses of GI. The South Hampshire GI Strategy will be taken into account. Policy WH1 states that Whitehill-Bordon will be allocated as a Strategic Development Area and a boundary defined within which eco-town policies would apply. The aim is for a community which responds to the challenge of climate change, meets the need for more homes, jobs and facilities and acts as an exemplar of sustainable living. Development proposals will be assessed national PPS and PPG, the development plan, including RSS, Core Strategy policies, the masterplan set out in SPD and the EU Habitats Directive and will, amongst other things, need to deliver necessary infrastructure.


Policy WH2 outlines the preferred approach to biodiversity in Whitehill-Bordon and Policy WH3 covers the preferred policy approach for GI. Policy WH3 states that 40% of the development area will be allocated for greenspace and at least half of this will be publicly available to form a network of well-managed, highquality open spaces linked to the countryside. The identification process will be informed by the Habitats Regulations Assessment and agreed by Natural England. Other policy points include:  A range of greenspace types including formal parks, sports grounds, semi-natural spaces, rights of way and which enhance the spatial qualities of the area, improves biodiversity, meets the needs of the community and improves countryside access;  Provision of community allotments for local food production;  Wildlife Corridors, where access is more restricted and some which have a primary biodiversity function  A Green Loop with primary recreation function, focusing recreation away from Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and providing Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG);  Hogmoor Enclosure, Bordon Enclosure, Eveley Wood and farmland at Standford Grange will form part of the GI network as country parks and natural areas for public enjoyment.

201

Green Infrastructure Strategy


www.whitehillbordon.com Produced on behalf of East Hampshire District Council Penns Place Petersfield Hampshire GU31 4EX 01730 234 329

202

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Green Infrastructure Strategy  

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Green Infrastructure Strategy

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you