25 Green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity - summary of responses

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.