Summary of key findings
We appointed Land Use Consultants (LUC) to carry out a Green Infrastructure Study to update our understanding of green infrastructure in the city and set out how planning policy could help provide more green infrastructure.
The study requirements were:
The report was completed in March 2024.
The analysis of existing green infrastructure separated data into 4 themes:
Tree canopy covers 10% of land within Brighton and Hove. It is most extensive within open spaces. The number of street trees is generally lower closer to the seafront.
Soil and vegetation act as carbon stores. The largest stores of carbon and vegetation are in the north of city, associated with Stanmer Park and Waterhall.
More green infrastructure in some areas could support improvements to air quality, road and rail noise exposure, and increasing surface temperatures resulting from climate change.
Various sites are designated for their nature conservation value, including some priority habitats such as semi-improved grassland, deciduous woodland and chalk grassland. Priority habitats cover 24% of the land within Brighton and Hove, although only a quarter of these are located within the built-up area.
Although there are Local Nature Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites within the built-up area, most nature-rich spaces are within the South Downs National Park. Physical barriers such as the A27 fragment wildlife corridors.
West Hove, Central Hove, areas within South Portslade, sections of Preston Park and Hollingdean were found to be the most deficient in nature-rich spaces.
Accessible green open space covers around 17% of Brighton and Hove. The analysis found the northern and central areas of the city are best served by accessible greenspace. Portslade, Central Hove, West Hove and Hangleton have less access, however some of these areas are close to the beach, which can also be used for recreation.
The South Downs National Park is used for recreation, however the physical barrier of the A27 can make it difficult to access on foot or by bike.
Some areas identified as having a combination of high population density yet least accessible to greenspace included:
Some areas of the city have higher levels of health inequalities, generally associated with deprivation. Some areas identified as having a combination of high levels of deprivation and least accessible greenspace included:
The study concluded that green infrastructure enhancements in areas of high population density and high deprivation would provide a range of benefits.
Some areas of the city have a very high proportion (80 to 100%) of man-made surfaces, particularly around the city centre.
Tree coverage in the city is influenced by the historic street layout, proximity to the seafront and difficulties in growing trees by the coast. Tree canopy coverage is most sparse in areas of higher population density.
The study mapped tree distribution and measured how beneficial trees would be to certain communities including deprived communities as well as those impacted more by environmental hazards. Based on this, the following areas would benefit from more tree planting:
Green infrastructure need examines existing environmental and social issues within the city that more green infrastructure could help alleviate, for example high surface water flood risk or poor air quality.
Green infrastructure deficiency means an absence of green infrastructure.
Analysis of baseline data helped calculate overall green infrastructure need and deficiency.
This analysis identified four possible outcome areas:
The analysis recommended that areas within Outcome A should be a high priority for more green infrastructure, with any future measures designed to address the specific issues and needs in each area.
Areas with a high deficiency and high need include:
Areas of high deficiency and medium need included:
The Urban Greening Factor (UGF) is a tool created by Natural England to help improve delivery of good quality green infrastructure through development. It sets a target score for development to achieve, with the score related to different types and amounts of green infrastructure provided.
The study analysed eight different types of development with planning permission, and calculated whether the UGF score would have been achieved. Where the target score was not achieved, the study made recommendations for the types of green infrastructure measure that could have been implemented to help improve the score.
Of the eight developments analysed, only two would have achieved the UGF score. Limited amounts of green infrastructure was provided within the other six developments.
The study suggested that measures such as green roofs and green walls are those most likely to be implemented to achieve the UGF score in developments located in the more densely developed areas of the city, due to space limitations.
The study put forward recommendations which we will consider as we progress the City Plan Review: