Green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity
Question GI 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity, as set out in GI 1 'Green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity' above? If not, please suggest how it could be amended?
85 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Agricultural Land – definition, value and protection | Respondents emphasise protecting agricultural land, especially Best and Most Versatile soils, due to food security and irreplaceability; call for clearer definitions and stronger safeguards. |
| Hedgerows – protection, creation and flexibility | Support for hedgerow planting but need flexibility; concerns about loss of existing hedgerows, species habitats, and maintenance. |
| Tree planting and tree canopy cover | Support for tree planting but concerns around 16% canopy target viability, evidence base, and design impacts; recommendation for native species. |
| Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) | Support for strong Biodiversity Net Gain but divided views on exceeding 10%; emphasis on local delivery, monitoring and flexibility for constrained sites. |
| Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) | Broad support for Local Nature Recovery Strategy alignment; concerns about rigidity; calls for integration across policies and recognition of extra opportunity areas. |
| Peat and saltmarsh protection | Strong support for protecting peat and saltmarsh for carbon storage; one objection citing national policy inconsistency. |
| Green Belt and local character | Green spaces seen as vital for community wellbeing, climate resilience and identity; calls for stronger protection. |
| Climate change and nature based solutions | Support for nature-based measures including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs), wetlands, river restoration, and mini-forests for resilience. |
| Wildlife, birds and Dee Estuary | Detailed concerns over bird disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and need for precautionary protections. |
| Public Rights of Way | Requests explicit inclusion of rural public rights of way in green infrastructure definitions. |
| Viability and deliverability | Developers call for flexibility due to viability, land take, and operational constraints; highlight conflicts with infrastructure needs. |
| General support | Non-specific statements of agreement with GI1 aims and protections. |
Question GI 2
Should new development contribute to woodland in Cheshire West and Chester? 5. Is a 2:1 ratio enough for a tree replacement policy?
49 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for development contributing to woodland / tree planting | The majority of respondents agree that new development should contribute to woodland creation, habitat restoration, or improved tree cover. Many emphasise long-term management, native species, landscape character and local environmental goals. |
| Higher tree replacement ratio needed | Respondents consider a 2:1 ratio inadequate. Many propose 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 or even 10:1 to reflect carbon sequestration, canopy loss, and high value of mature trees. |
| 2:1 replacement tree ratio is adequate | These respondents view a 2:1 ratio as realistic and proportionate. Higher ratios could compromise viability or undermine development deliverability. |
| Protect mature/ancient trees | Mature or ancient trees cannot be replaced by saplings. Respondents argue for avoiding removal entirely due to irreplaceable ecological and landscape value. |
| Hedgerow protection / habitat loss | Hedgerows hold high biodiversity value and cannot simply be replaced. Some oppose mandatory hedgerow boundaries due to design/security reasons. |
| On-site / local replacement | Tree replacement should occur on or near the site. Respondents oppose off-site credits that remove benefits from affected communities. |
| Viability & flexibility | Rigid policies could undermine site viability, particularly for industrial schemes. Respondents ask for flexibility, proportionality, and off-site options. |
| Wider habitat priorities | Woodland should not overshadow other priority habitats such as peatlands, estuarine habitat, and rivers. These may offer greater biodiversity gains. |
| Mixed/uncertain | Respondents either provide no clear view or express uncertainty about the ratio. |
Question GI 3
Should new Local Plan policy go above the 10% mandatory biodiversity net gain set nationally?
62 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for exceeding 10% biodiversity net-gain (BNG) | Respondents argue that the Local Plan should exceed the statutory 10% due to ecological decline, opportunities for leadership, climate resilience, and to ensure genuine nature recovery; many propose 15–20% or higher. |
| Support for maintaining 10% biodiversity net-gain (BNG) only | Respondents emphasise that national guidance discourages higher percentages without strong justification. They cite risks to viability, housing delivery, brownfield redevelopment, and economic feasibility. |
| Conditional support (evidence / viability required) | These respondents do not oppose higher biodiversity net-gain (BNG) in principle but note that any uplift must be evidence-led, justified with local need, opportunity and viability. |
| Concerns about viability and deliverability | Higher biodiversity net-gain (BNG) could restrict developable land, increase offsite mitigation costs, reduce affordable housing, limit brownfield regeneration, and threaten Plan soundness. |
| Ecological need for higher biodiversity net-gain (BNG) | Respondents cite Cheshire West’s ecological vulnerability—declining habitats, species loss, need for connected wildlife corridors, flood mitigation, and climate resilience. |
| Casebycase approach preferred | Oppose a blanket target over 10% biodiversity net-gain (BNG) but accept that individual sites may exceed this based on sitespecific opportunities and constraints. |
| Uncertain/neutral responses | Some respondents express uncertainty, neutrality, or comments not directly addressing the question. |
Question GI 4
What could the new Local Plan do to support the Mersey Forest?
23 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Developer contributions and funding mechanisms | Need for developer funding for tree planting, woodland management, long-term maintenance, and targeted delivery aligned with Mersey Forest and Local Nature Recovery Strategy. |
| Protection of existing habitats | Strong concern for retention and enhancement of existing woodlands, hedgerows, wildlife corridors, and other natural assets; irreplaceability of established habitats. |
| Support for Mersey Forest Strategy | Desire for explicit embedding of Mersey Forest Plan, alignment with Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and strategic landscape-scale nature recovery. |
| Tree planting priorities and canopy targets | Support for canopy cover targets, prioritising low-canopy wards, structured replacement planting, and urban greening. |
| Nature recovery and biodiversity | Need to support wider habitats beyond woodland, including peatlands, estuaries, river systems, and strategic wildlife corridors. |
| Community involvement | Importance of community forestry, school planting, and local council participation in identifying land for planting. |
| General Support / No Comment | General support, positive examples, or no specific comments provided. |
Question GI 5
Should functionally linked land be covered in new Local Plan policy?
22 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Ecological connectivity | Respondents stress that functionally linked land maintains essential wildlife corridors and ecological movement between habitats. Without protection, development fragments habitats and reduces resilience. |
| General support | Strong general support expressed, often concise but consistently affirmative toward including functionally linked land in policy. |
| Biodiversity protection | Comments emphasise need to protect biodiversity before loss occurs; functionally linked land seen as vital to species and ecological resilience. |
| Habitats Regulations Assessments / Designations | References to Habitats Regulations Assessment screening and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)/Ramsar designations; Potential growth areas NEP01–NEP06 highlighted as functionally linked and requiring protection. |
| Cross-boundary coordination | One respondent notes that impacts cross local authority boundaries; coordinated protection needed. |
| References to submissions | Two respondents mentions the importance of referencing wider evidence bases such as neighbourhood plans and Local Nature Recovery Strategy mapping. |
| Uncertain | Some respondents unsure or without a clear view. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.