Negotiating value and priorities: evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development

Abstract

The potential of green infrastructure (GI) development has been recognised in a number of countries. In the UK, planning policy has identified GI and brought it into the legislative framework. It is assumed that it has a value for landscape enhancement for multifunctional aims: for increasing the adaptive capacity of the environment for climate change and long-term sustainability whilst protecting its ecological and social values. This paper uses an evaluative tool developed from a plan of action proposed in the early stages of GI thinking by applying it to a contemporary case study in England. This assessment reveals a mismatch between policy aims and the potential on the ground for creating GI. The study reveals ‘institutional schizophrenia’, a fragmented approach to the delivery of GI that affects stakeholder collaboration and confidence. The findings suggest a possible decrease in the level of GI creation because of restrictions placed upon local authorities and important repercussions for GI development and potential ecosystem services.

Keywords:

• Green infrastructure
• multifunctionality
• green space
• landscape planning
• stakeholders

Notes

1.  Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Communities, and Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Local Strategic Planning.

2.  The ‘Big Society’ is presently not mandated in the UK, but this idea of the coalition Conservative-Liberal Democrat government has however influenced the development of policy and practice in 2010–11 to a large extent and there are suggestions that this process will continue.

3.  See also work carried out by the North-West Green Infrastructure Think-Tank, Cambridgeshire Horizons and LDA Design (2009/10), Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Conservation Fund.

4.  Stakeholder involvement had been identified in the GI literature as a key issue in the identification of GI projects and their successful delivery.

5.  The GIS model was based on available land use data, ecological assessment publicly available and access information. The model ascribed value to areas of multiple function (i.e. ecological, access, social or economic) and areas where opportunities existed for future GI development. Specific elements were allocated values based on existing legal frameworks and management regimes, e.g. landscape designations.

6.  This guide remained open to public access until 2010.

7.  Gaining consent and support from each landowner placed a number of time constraints on the project, which delayed consultation, design and implementation of the project.

8.  Natural England and other advocates opposed to the overall or partial development of Ely Country Park made personal representations to ECDC staff over the course of the project. Statutory responses were also filed when planning applications for works on the Ely Country Park site were made. All planning conditions associated with the development works between 2009–2011 were met and discharged.

9.  This arrangement allows local planning authorities to achieve agreements where public gains are made in exchange for allowing developments to go ahead. The use of S106 agreements is being gradually phased out and will be replaced by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) assessments.