mbro appendices - Middlesbroughdemocracy.middlesbrough.gov.uk/aksmiddlesbrough/i… · Web...

APPENDICES CONTENTS

APPENDIX 1: DOCUMENT REVIEW..........................................................................3INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3NATIONAL DOCUMENTS......................................................................................................................3REGIONAL DOCUMENTS....................................................................................................................11HIGH LEVEL BOROUGH COUNCIL DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................13SERVICE-SPECIFIC BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANS AND STRATEGIES.............................................................19BOROUGH COUNCIL BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................................................23

APPENDIX 2: THE AUDIT PROCESS.......................................................................26THE SCOPE OF THE MIDDLESBROUGH AUDIT.......................................................................................26THE AUDIT FORMS..........................................................................................................................26THE SCORING SYSTEM.....................................................................................................................26

APPENDIX 3: UPDATING THE AUDIT RESULTS.......................................................33INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................33ON-SITE AUDITS.............................................................................................................................33SCORING SITES...............................................................................................................................34ENTERING NEW AUDIT DATA............................................................................................................35

APPENDIX 4: AUDIT RESULTS – MASTER SPREADSHEET AND MAP.........................37INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................37QUALITY AND VALUE SPREADSHEET SCORES.......................................................................................37QUALITY AND VALUE SCORES MAPPING..............................................................................................37

APPENDIX 5: QUALITY STANDARDS.....................................................................43INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................43ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE...................................................................................................43ALLOTMENTS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS............................................................................................45PLANTING AND BIODIVERSITY............................................................................................................45AMENITY GREENSPACES...................................................................................................................45GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................................................46CIVIC SPACES.................................................................................................................................47GREEN CORRIDORS.........................................................................................................................48LOCAL EQUIPPED PLAY AREAS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN...........................................................................49NEIGHBOURHOOD EQUIPPED PLAY AREAS (UP TO ABOUT 12 YEARS).......................................................50SPORTS PITCHES (GRASS AND ARTIFICIAL TURF)...................................................................................52OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES: ATHLETICS TRACKS...............................................................................54BOWLING GREENS..........................................................................................................................55TENNIS COURTS AND MULTI-COURTS..................................................................................................55URBAN PARKS................................................................................................................................56TEENAGE AREAS.............................................................................................................................58COMMUNITY CENTRES AND HALLS.....................................................................................................59INDOOR SPORTS HALLS AND SWIMMING POOLS...................................................................................60REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................61

APPENDIX 6: QUANTITY STANDARDS...................................................................63INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................63PARKS AND GARDENS......................................................................................................................63AMENITY GREENSPACES...................................................................................................................66NATURAL GREENSPACES..................................................................................................................68EQUIPPED PLAY AREAS.....................................................................................................................71YOUTH ACTIVITY AREAS...................................................................................................................73ALLOTMENTS..................................................................................................................................75SPORTS PITCHES.............................................................................................................................76GOLF COURSES..............................................................................................................................79OTHER OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES.................................................................................................80SPORTS HALLS AND RELATED FACILITIES............................................................................................82

Kit Campbell Associated, Edinburgh: Middlesbrough Council Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment

SWIMMING POOLS...........................................................................................................................84DEVELOPMENT AND DEMAND FOR OPEN SPACE OR SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES.............................85POLICY IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................85FURTHER GUIDANCE FOR REVIEWING OPPORTUNITY SITES.....................................................................86

APPENDIX 7: DISTANCE THRESHOLDS.................................................................87INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................87MIDDLESBROUGH’S GEOGRAPHY........................................................................................................87OPEN SPACE PROVISION IN MIDDLESBROUGH......................................................................................89THE NATURE OF DISTANCE THRESHOLDS............................................................................................91GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE.................................................................................................................93NATIONAL AGENCY GUIDANCE..........................................................................................................93LOCAL AUTHORITY RESEARCH...........................................................................................................98OTHER PPG17 ASSESSMENTS........................................................................................................100PROPOSED DISTANCE THRESHOLDS FOR MIDDLESBROUGH...................................................................100REFERENCES................................................................................................................................102

APPENDIX 8: ACCESSIBILITY DEFICIENCIES BY COMMUNITY AREA.......................103

APPENDIX 9: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MODEL...................................................104INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................104THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MODEL..............................................................................................104MODEL OUTPUT............................................................................................................................106CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENHANCING EXISTING OFF-SITE PROVISION...........................................................106CONTRIBUTIONS TO NEW OFF-SITE PROVISION..................................................................................106ON-SITE PROVISION......................................................................................................................106CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOWN-WIDE PROVISION ONLY...............................................................................106CONTEXT ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................107

APPENDIX 11: PROPOSED PARKS HIERARCHY...................................................108INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................108TOWN PARKS...............................................................................................................................108NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS...............................................................................................................108

APPENDIX 12 : OPEN SPACE NETWORK - SITE SPECIFIC AREA ACTION PLANS......110

APPENDIX 13 : SITES WITH A NATURE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION.................119

APPENDIX 14 : LOCAL QUANTITATIVE SURVEY...................................................120

APPENDIX 15 : MIDDLESBROUGH’S GREEN SPACES AND PUBLIC PLACES STRATEGIC PLAN...............................................................................................................126

Analysis of Questionnaires......................................................................................................126


Appendix 1: Document Review

Introduction This Appendix briefly sets out the results of the document review we conducted for the PPG17 Assessment for Middlesbrough and summarises a number of existing strategy or other documents which are relevant to the Assessment, starting with national, working down to regional and then Borough-wide strategies and plans.

National Documents

Planning policies relating to open space, sport and recreation have come a very long way over the past few years and are now seen as part of the government’s wide-ranging “liveability” agenda. In the first part of this paper, we summarise the main steps in the process together with key aspects of the new PPG17.

Town and Country Parks, the Best and …

Published 27 October 1999 as the twentieth report of Session 1998-99 of the Environment, Transport, and Regions Committee of the House of Commons (HC 477-I, ISBN 0-10-556459-1).

This hard-hitting report, necessarily based on largely anecdotal evidence, was critically important in highlighting the decline of Britain’s parks. For example: "We are shocked at the weight of evidence, far beyond our expectations, about the extent of the problems parks have faced in the last 30 years. It is clear that if nothing is done many of them will become albatrosses around the necks of local authorities. Un-used, derelict havens for crime and vandalism, it would be better to close them and re-use the land than to leave them to decay further."

The Committee's identification of the lack of current factual information about parks (which it described as a “statistical vacuum”) led directly to the Public Parks Assessment (see below). As with most Select Committee Reports, the Memoranda submitted to the Committee and its Minutes of Evidence contain a wealth of useful information.

Towards an Urban Renaissance 2000

Report of the Urban Taskforce. Published June 1999 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and distributed by E&FN Spon, ISBN 1-851121-


65-X.

This important report led to the creation of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and the growing recognition of the need for greater urban design input to planning in order to promote “place-making”. The Government's proposals for greater use of master-planning in the Planning Green Paper (see below) also stems from this report. Its weakness was that it took the view that design can solve almost any problem and largely ignored social issues.

Our Towns and Cities: the Future

Published by the Stationery Office on behalf of the DETR in November 2000.

The Urban White Paper can be summed up as aiming to make towns and cities places where people with choices will choose to live. It therefore builds on Towards an Urban Renaissance - although Lord Rogers, who chaired the Urban Taskforce, has been critical of the lack of real progress. It calls for denser, more compact towns and cities and more development on brownfield land, although there is a growing view that some towns and cities need to expand into the green belt. John Prescott is alleged to have made the ambiguous statement that "the green belt is one of Labour's finest achievements, and we intend to build on it".

Rethinking Open Space

Kit Campbell Associates (March 2001) for Scottish Executive Planning Services, published by Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Rethinking described the approach of most planning authorities to open space as “fundamentally flawed” and achieved wide circulation throughout the UK after being described in Planning as “excellent research and recommendations”. It was the first report to identify the cross-cutting importance of open space to the emerging urban agenda, together with how the planning system should give much greater priority to the enhancement of existing open spaces than requiring developers to provide new ones. It set out a typology of open spaces which the Government’s Urban Green Spaces Task Force, PPG17 and PAN 65 have since adopted in very slightly modified form, based on the concept of "primary purpose". It also proposed a new approach to provision standards which the Government has since adopted in PPG17 and the Scottish Executive in PAN 65. In addition, it contains a methodology for preparing open space strategies and suggested three basic approaches to open space planning: supply-led, demand-led and standards-based.

Public Park Assessment

Urban Parks Forum (2001) and published by the Heritage Lottery Fund (www.hlf.org.uk)


This important report sought to fill the "statistical vacuum" identified in Town and Country Parks (see above). It has attracted considerable media interest with its evaluation of the condition of parks and whether they are improving or failing. Key points from the report include:

The UK's 27,000 parks cover around 143,000 ha and receive around 1.5 billion visits a year by all sectors of the community. They currently cost local authorities the equivalent of around 42p per visit. The aggregate cut in parks revenue expenditure over the past 20 years is around £1.3 billion.

Parks are polarising, with good parks getting better and poor parks getting worse; the rate of decline is highest in deprived areas.

Around 13% of local authorities consider their parks to be in poor condition and the condition of around 40% of parks and open spaces is declining.

Many parks have lost features such as cafes, toilets, bowling greens and tennis courts.

There is a clear correlation between good condition and the existence of parks strategies

While the report is generally regarded as clear evidence of serious decline, its value is somewhat over-stated. Many of the questions asked were extremely vague while key terms such as "poor condition" were not defined. It is also the case that the original need for some traditional elements of parks has disappeared: for example, the development of radio reduced the need for bandstands dramatically. Just because expenditure is lower now than some years ago does not necessarily imply that resources are inadequate, although looking at almost any park supports the findings of the research. What is certain is that CCT, in particular, has resulted in the de-skilling of park staff: "on-site gardeners" have become travelling maintenance contractors. In turn, this has led to the simplification of parks and other open spaces to make them more suitable for machine maintenance. Increasingly there is a view that parks and open spaces are designed for maintenance machines rather than people and it is time to reverse this.


Public Spaces: The Role of PPG17 in the Urban Renaissance

Third report of session 2001-02 of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee of the House of Commons (HC238-I, published 20 February 2002, ISBN 0 215 00190 7).

This report relates to the Select Committee Inquiry (autumn 2001) into the draft revision of PPG17 (published by the Government in March 2001). It identifies the central importance of green space quality to the urban renaissance and makes a number of recommendations which have since been reflected in PPG17. The Committee’s special advisers were David Lambert (of the Garden History Society) and Kit Campbell. Again, the Memoranda submitted to the Committee and its minutes of evidence provide a wealth of information. They can be downloaded from the same website as the main report.

Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change

Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (published by DTLR on 12 December 2001) and Planning Obligations: Delivering a Fundamental Change (published by DTLR on 19 December 2001, updated 13 May 2002)

These Green Papers, applicable only to England, proposed a shift from Local Plans to Local Development Frameworks (without proposals maps), to be reviewed every three years and the replacement of planning obligations with a tariff system. While generally welcomed initially, the lack of detail led to the unravelling of several of the proposals for reform. Amongst respondents to the Green Paper, for example, 88% disagreed with the proposal to replace Local Plans with Local Development Frameworks and 90% with the proposal to strengthen regional planning and abolish country structure plans. The Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee also savaged parts of the Government's proposals. Perhaps as a result of the response, the three Green Papers have come to be regarded as “Lord Falconer” (the then Minister for Planning) rather than “Government” documents. However, the Government’s inability to avoid spin has downplayed the results of the consultation and blandly concluded that respondents were "supportive of the need for reform and the broad aims behind the Government's proposals".

Green Spaces, Better Places

Published by the DTLR in May 2002 as the final report of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force with six accompanying Working Group reports and a major research report by the University of Sheffield which informed the work of the UGSTF, entitled Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces.


The Urban White Paper called for a "vision for the future of our parks, play areas and green spaces". The job of the UGSTF, chaired by a Minister, was to develop that vision. The UGSTF's final report identifies the importance of green spaces to urban life and outlines current concerns about parks and other green spaces, together with proposals for overcoming them. It argues for a strategic policy framework and additional resources for planning, design and management and that green spaces are fundamental to liveable, sustainable towns and cities. The key recommendations included:

Additional capital funding of £100M per year for the restoration and improvement of existing green spaces (this completely arbitrary figure was initially rejected by the Government but it has since made significant extra capital funding for greenspaces available through various agencies)

The widespread use of Section 106 contributions to provide additional resources for green spaces (since facilitated by PPG17)

A national green spaces agency (although this was also supported by the TLR Select Committee, the Government has decided not to create a new agency. At the Urban Summit in autumn 2002 it announced the expansion of the role of CABE to include open space issues through the creation of CABE SPACE – a suggestion made by Kit Campbell at Working Group 4).

A Best Value indicator to monitor training provision in local authority green spaces management and maintenance

Greater private sector and community involvement in partnerships for improving green spaces

Adoption of a clear green spaces typology based on Rethinking Open Space

The preparation of green space strategies by local authorities and possibly the creation of open space trusts to improve and manage green spaces (At the launch of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce, the then Minister announced that the Government would be supporting the appointment of "strategic enablers" to help local authorities prepare greenspace strategies. CABE Space will be co-ordinating this work, through which authorities will be able to access help from "enablers" for between 5 and 25 days.)

The related Sheffield University research examined how parks and open spaces are used and by whom, what users want from them, what they currently provide and their wider benefits to urban environments.

The Report of UGSTF Working Group 4, Improving Planning, Design, Management and Maintenance, identifies twenty important planning-related issues and sets out why they are important, desirable outcomes and policies, processes or mechanisms which will deliver them.


Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning

Published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July 2002.

This document sets out how the Government intends to take forward what remains of its Planning Green Paper proposals. In essence it intends to abolish structure plans and introduce Local Development Frameworks (but with proposals maps and a statement of community involvement) and Business Planning Zones, and to retain the Section 106 system of planning obligations while making the whole process more transparent. It will be publishing proposals for this later in 2003. The government also expects planning authorities to give stakeholders the opportunity to address planning committees while simultaneously setting tougher targets for the time limits for determining applications.

PPG17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 24 July 2002.

This new guidance represents a considerable policy shift from the original 1991 version and is a huge step forward which relates strongly to the whole of the Government’s “liveability” and urban renaissance agendas. The key changes include:

Putting open space at the heart of the document (in the 1991 version, Sport and Recreation, open space was fairly peripheral, while many took the view that open space had been shoe-horned into the March 2001 draft revision, almost on an opportunistic basis).

Promotion of a clear typology of open spaces, derived from Rethinking Open Space (see above); arguably the lack of a suitable typology has bedevilled open space planning to date. The definition in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 - is pretty useless ("land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground") while the widespread adoption of the NPFA Standard effectively means that many planning authorities use a hopelessly inadequate typology of children’s and adults’ “playing space”. Many planning authorities have simply used the NPFA Standard without understanding it, or knowing that it dates back to the nineteen twenties.

A clear statement that planning authorities should undertake local assessments and audits, with both qualitative and quantitative components, to set local standards and not continue to rely on national standards. Should is the strongest language used in PPGs; must is never used as it would require legislation. Where an authority has not undertaken an assessment, developers wishing to redevelop an existing open space must (a) undertake an independent assessment to demonstrate that it is


surplus to requirements and (b) have consulted the local community and obtained its support for the development proposals. The reason for this – which has unfairly been criticised as a “cop-out” - is that it would not be acceptable for an authority to refuse planning permission simply on the grounds that it had not undertaken a local assessment. It is not clear whether independent means independent of the local authority or independent of the developer; it can be interpreted both ways. The best approach is to have the assessment done in a way which is independent of both the local authority and developer, but reporting to a steering group involving the local authority, the developer and representatives of the local community for the area in which the proposed development site is set. This provides transparency and should help to avoid accusations of cosy deals behind closed doors.

A welcome emphasis on accessibility (interestingly, including charges, which is not a planning matter) and quality and an end to reliance on purely quantitative standards such as the NPFA standard

Clear recognition of the importance of enhancing existing open spaces and facilities and clear guidance that planning obligations can be used to remedy both qualitative and quantitative deficiencies in provision

Recognition of the importance of linking the “planning system” to the “management system”, with local assessments providing the starting point for open space strategies

A clear policy statement that before an open space can be redeveloped for some other purpose, it must be “surplus to requirements” in terms of the full open space typology and not just its existing use

Making clear that planning authorities can require commercial and industrial developers to provide or contribute to open space or sport and recreation facilities; this opens up the possibility, for example, of requiring office and retail developers to contribute to parks which might be used by their workers or shoppers. The problem with this is finding a defensible way of calculating the required contributions.

Planning authorities are expected to seek to enhance the rights of way network – hitherto this has usually been seen as primarily a highways matter

A greater role for local communities

Living Places

ODPM and other Government Departments, October 2002

Living Places should be seen in the context of the Government's stated desire to enhance the "liveability" of urban areas and promote an urban renaissance. It includes an interesting definition of public spaces: "everywhere between the places we live and work", and includes "internal public places such as libraries and town halls".


The main theoretical underpinning for Living Places is that “liveability” (an American concept shipped across the Atlantic) depends on a sustainable high quality public realm which is clean and green and in which individuals feel safe. It has two main thrusts:

Reducing some forms of anti-social behaviour and improving the public sector's response to the most obvious consequences of it: for example, litter, graffiti, fly-tipping, joy-riding, abandoned cars, dog fouling and chewing gum – a big issue for everyone who has noticed that most pavements are so covered in discarded gum that they seem to have measles.

Promoting better "joined up thinking", and more importantly joined up action, amongst the various public agencies responsible for the design and maintenance of the public realm.

Living Places therefore builds on themes first set out in the Urban White Paper, Our Towns and Cities: The Future - Delivering an Urban Renaissance and developed (albeit to an agenda limited to greenspace) through the work of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce, Green Spaces, Better Places. When taken together with other policy statements, such PPG17, Open Space, Sport and Recreation, and Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning, it is clear that there has been a revolution in Government thinking, with a determination to promote enhanced community involvement in issues affecting local environments and to push quality of life issues up the agenda. This is an inevitable consequence of the Government's objective of promoting higher urban densities and (hopefully) more sustainable towns and cities. Higher densities mean that the public realm will be under greater pressure, face increased wear and tear and be likely to deteriorate faster and further than in the past if it is not looked after better. In many ways, the greatest need is simply to push public spaces up the political agenda at a time when local authorities - the main "players" in this area - face many competing priorities and growing pressure from Government to perform better across a wide range of less amorphous services.

Equally inevitably, however, the Government cannot resist claiming that it has already "achieved the Urban White Paper's commitments to raise the profile and improve the quality of urban parks, play areas and green spaces". It has been very effective in terms of raising the profile, certainly, but at present the claim to have improved parks, play areas and green spaces is little more than "spin". The quality of streets also continues to deteriorate. However, Government on its own can achieve little in this area, as Living Places acknowledges; but it can and to its credit has set the agenda for others and increased the resources they will need. Although Living Places is pretty repetitive and could be edited down to a much punchier document, this is a huge advance on previous administrations and


enormously welcome. The Government is encouraging or instructing some Lottery distributors to channel resources towards the public realm. The New Opportunities Fund has of course been instructed to promote its Greenspaces and Sustainable Communities programme, and it is good to see the continuation, extension and re-launch of the Heritage Lottery Fund's Public Parks Initiative (January 2003). Interestingly, it defines parks as encompassing public squares and seaside promenades and appears to be slowly softening and widening its definition of what constitutes an historic park. However, it still will not fund enhancements to parks which are used mainly for organised sport.

Living Places acknowledges that there have been too many attempts at "short-term fixes", often little more than cosmetic, in the past, and the real need is for long term main stream resourcing. However, it fails to recognise that the Government-created framework of endless initiatives and the "bid culture" is partly to blame for this.

Interestingly, Living Places identifies a new right for individuals - "everyone has a right to good parks and green spaces close to his or her home or place of work". It expands this to say that these parks and green spaces should meet the needs of everyone, but "especially children and young people, older people, those with disabilities, minorities and people in disadvantaged areas". This could create some problems for local authorities and possibly funding agencies, for example if they refuse funding for facilities in an area where there are none or where those which exist are of appalling quality and as a result fail to meet local needs.

Living Places has a companion document, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities (DEFRA and other Government Departments, October 2002), which sets out a number of options for legislative reform. It is a disappointment and amounts to little more than tinkering, giving the impression that the Government has identified an important issue but doesn't have too many ideas on what to do about it.

Regional Documents

Regional Planning Guidance for the North-east

RPG1 sets out the spatial strategy for the north east of England and contains little of immediate relevance to this PPG17 assessment. The few policies which are relevant require Development plans and other strategies:

To protect land which serves a strategic function, even if not formally designated as open space (ENV10)

To ensure that the strategic role of linked and linear open space is maintained, enhanced and where possible extended

To identify valuable areas of open land, which are not formally open space, for more active management through urban fringe initiatives


To recognise the valuable potential of the urban fringe, Green Belt and countryside close to the larger settlements

To recognise the vital role that urban areas play in the provision of sport and recreation facilities and identify existing facilities; include policies for their protection, enhancement and, where necessary, refurbishment; ensure a good level and quality of provision in association with new developments; identify opportunities for developing and improving derelict and underused urban land for open space provision; and recognise the importance of dual use indoor and outdoor sport and recreational facilities

To seek to maximise the potential of the region’s natural resources for appropriate water-based recreation

To identify existing recreational routes and opportunities for additional cross-authority routes, particularly along river corridors, and include policies to promote local recreational routes

To locate and design development to promote walking and cycling, particularly for journeys to school

To introduce measures to improve the safety, security and attractiveness of walking and cycling

Regional Spatial Strategy (Draft Submission Stage)

………………………………………….

Turning Ambition into Reality (NE regional Plan for Sport and Physical Activity) 2004-2008

This strategy, which is designed to deliver the Government’s Game Plan Strategy in the North-east, has a vision of “making the North East an active and successful sporting region” and aims:

To increase participation by at least 1% each year to 2020

To widen access, especially amongst girls and women, people from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities

To improve health and well-being To create stronger and safer communities To improve education To improve levels of performance To benefit the economy

Given that research undertaken by the Henley Centre for Sport England found that “sport is broke and needs fixing”, the average age of people in the north-east is rising and levels of participation have been falling for many years in spite of the significant investment in facilities and programmes, it could be argued that this is an over-ambitious agenda.

The Tees Forest Plan, November 2000


This non-statutory Plan outlines a partnership approach for achieving and implementing a vision for the Forest. The core partners involved in the Plan are the Teeside Authorities, the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Agency and Darlington Council.

The Indicative Strategy outlines favoured locations for woodland-based recreational activities. For Middlesbrough, the Plan also focuses attention on providing a “bridge” between town and country and supporting the regeneration of neighbouring urban areas.

The sections of the Plan most relevant to Middlesbrough are those relating to improving the four green wedges in Middlesbrough in “Zone 8” and proposals for the key area of “Zone 7”, which covers Middlesbrough and South Tees (one of 13 zones in the Plan). Zone 7 lies adjacent to Middlesbrough’s southern residential areas and comprises mixed farmland, intersected by the River Levin and Middlesbrough’s Beck Valleys. The valuable landscapes of historic parklands at Poole Hospital and Newham Hall lie within this zone and the Plan encourages their careful conservation. It also proposes an overall strategy of woodland extension, focusing on linking woodlands and the creation of community woodlands in proximity to new developments.

More generally, the plan proposes a network of car-free off-road routes, or “Greenways”, emanating from gateway sites, to allow access to the facilities, spaces and countryside around the towns. Within Middlesbrough, Lingfield Farm at Coulby Newham is the primary gateway site and the plan also suggests the securing of improved public access through the formation of an east-west greenway route through Middlesbrough.

Tees Valley Biodiversity Action Plan, 1999

This Plan aims to prevent the loss of habitat, encourage sustainable management techniques and provide more opportunity and space for wildlife. It identifies three species and 15 habitats as particularly relevant to Middlesbrough. A detailed Action Plan will result from this work which will flow into the Green Spaces Strategy.

High Level Borough Council Documents

The Borough Council has developed an impressive number of strategies in the past few years which, taken together, set clear aspirations for the future of the town. The three key documents are the Community Strategy, the Council’s Corporate Plan and the Local Plan, but there are many others. We summarise them briefly below.


Middlesbrough Community Strategy: Summary 2002

The Community Strategy promotes a vision of Middlesbrough as a place where residents are healthy, confident and responsible citizens who contribute to the development of the town and its neighbourhoods. It sets five broad priorities: making Middlesbrough safer, creating jobs and skilful people, investing in neighbourhoods, improving urban living – defined as creating a town of fine buildings, transport systems, good services, cultural facilities and open spaces in which everyone takes pride - and improving health and care.

Creative Frontiers: A Cultural Action Plan

The objectives of this Plan are to drive economic regeneration, improve access to provision, enrich people’s lives through cultural opportunities and develop cultural infrastructure in order to encourage sustainability. The Mayor’s Agenda of “Raising Hope” underpins key values and commitments.

The vision statement promotes the idea of “a vibrant town centre” complemented by innovative use of public spaces, first class parks and greenspaces. There is also an aspiration that public spaces should be multi-functional offering leisure, cultural and both formal and informal social functions and a commitment to achieving a new public square, a “Cultural Quarter” as well as recognising the cultural opportunities at Middlehaven, Albert Park and Stewart Park.

The Corporate Performance Plan

This Plan sits below the Community Strategy and focuses on six key themes, many of which relate to aspects of Greenspace. The theme of “Transforming the Local Environment” seeks to improve street cleanliness, increase recycling, improve access to Environmental Services, adapt to future changes in climate and promote an urban renaissance of green spaces.

The Plan gives a commitment to the development of a Green Space Strategy for Middlesbrough;

“Parks, play areas and green spaces enrich people’s lives. Transforming our green spaces and play areas to ensure they serve the needs of our communities better is a major opportunity to develop a step change in improving our town and the lives of our residents”.


Middlesbrough Local Plan (August 1999)

In advance of the Local Development Framework, the Local Plan sets out planning policies for Middlesbrough. The Local Plan’s Environment and Recreation section, Chapter One, paragraphs 1.33 – 1.49 sets out the background to the Local Plan policies and proposals for Greenspace. The fact that this is Chapter 1 of the plan could hardly be a clearer indication of the importance given to the local environment by the Borough Council.

Paragraphs 1.45 and 1.46 highlight that greenspace is “virtually irreplaceable” and set the framework for protecting greenspaces from development, where they have significant value or potential as open space to meet existing or future needs.

The Plan designates “protected greenspaces” as Primary Open Spaces, Secondary Open Spaces and areas of special protection and designation.

Primary Open Space covers land uses such as parks, public, private and school playing fields and other urban space capable of active use.

Secondary Open Space covers open space not used for active leisure, but which could be, or has visual or ecological value, or potential value in completing or extending the open space network or wildlife corridors. This category includes land uses such as institutional grounds, cemeteries, unused open space, and miscellaneous open space. Special protections and designations include Green Wedges, Local Nature Reserves and Special Landscape Areas.

Green Wedges

Policy E2 seeks to retain and protect identified Green Wedges for their role as part of the greenspace network and as open space.

Development Adjoining Green Wedges

Policy E3 protects the quality of development in areas adjoining Green Wedges, ensuring that development is designed to complement the character and environment of the Green Wedge.

Greenlink Network (Open Space Corridors With Footpaths / Cyclepaths)

Policy E4 protects and supports the radial network of “greenlinks” (main green corridors containing public paths). It also proposes major extensions to the system of public paths around Marton West Beck/Old Nunthorpe and Coulby Newham Country Park.

Teesdale Way and Public Rights of Way


Policies E5 and E6 seek to ensure the improvement, maintenance and protection of the Teesdale Way, “greenlinks” and other Rights of Way.

Primary Open Space, (Existing) - Protection from Development

Policy E7 safeguards primary open space from development, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Where a development is in principle acceptable, the policy sets criteria to protect the character of the area around it.

Urban Parks Space Hierarchy and Standards

Policy E9 sets out minimum targets for the provision of urban parks and their accessibility from residential areas:

Pocket Park (defined as “open space for young children’s play”): at least 0.1 ha (0.25 acres), within 100 m of houses suitable for families with children without crossing a main road or similar barrier; minimum overall quantity 0.2 ha (0.5 acre)/1000 people

Local Park (defined as open space and play facilities for children of all ages and general amenity): at least 0.7 ha (1.75 acres) within 400 m of the houses served by it, without crossing a main road or similar barrier; minimum overall quantity 0.4 ha (1.0 acre) per 1,000 people.

Area Park (defined as varied play for all ages, games/courts, substantial amenity space): approximately 10 ha (25 acres) within approximately 1 mile (1600 m) of the houses served by the space; minimum overall quantity 0.2 ha (0.5 acre) per 1,000 people

The Council will normally require any new residential development which will create a shortage against these standards to provide pocket and local parks “to this standard”, which is an aggregate of 0.6 ha/1000. However, the policy also indicates that the Council will base developers’ contributions on 0.8 ha/1000, which includes area parks.

Secondary Open Space: Protection from Development

Policy E10 aims to ensure that development on secondary open spaces will only be granted where it would not result in the loss of an area of significant value. Where the principle of development is accepted, the policy seeks to retain the character of the open space.

Outdoor Sport Provision: Standard

Policy E12 sets a minimum standard for the provision of outdoor sport provision of 1.6 ha (4 acres) per 1,000 people, of which 0.91 ha (2.25 acres) should be sports pitches. New residential development is required to provide for outdoor sport to this standard unless


adequate provision exists already. Without a distance threshold the Council must face difficulties in establishing definitively whether this criterion is met.

Ancillary Development on Sports Grounds and Playing Fields

Policy E14 supports the principle of developing ancillary sports facilities where the space available for sports use is not reduced and there is no demonstrable harm to local amenity.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Policy E15 protects SSSI from development.

Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCs)

Policy E16 seeks to protect LNRs and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, although the wording used is less clear than that used for policy E15.

Protection of the Nature Conservation Value of Open Space Generally

Policy E17 seeks to protect the nature conservation value of open space.

Local Nature Space

Policy E19 sets a target for the provision of at least 0.5 ha of “local nature space” within 1km of very home in Middlesbrough and 10-15 minutes walk of every school.

Recreational Uses in the Countryside and in Green Wedges

Policy E28 supports outdoor participatory recreational uses in the countryside, in Green Wedges and in open areas managed as community forest, provided they satisfy a number of detailed criteria.

Built Form and Urban Design

Policy E30 requires that new development should create a series of linked and varied spaces between buildings

Middlesbrough’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy, September 2000

The Council approved a Local Agenda 21 Strategy following public consultations that generated over 1,000 responses. The aims of the strategy include making more efficient and effective use of resources; limiting pollution; creating more sustainable transport and access to facilities; and enhancing open spaces, nature spaces and leisure opportunities. The Strategy seeks to promote the holistic planning of places, spaces and facilities and emphases the importance of providing and enhancing parks. It makes particular reference to the enhancement of Albert Park and the protection and


enhancement of wildlife habitats.

Water Features

The Beck Valleys, flowing northwest towards the River Tees are often associated with major green spaces and are significant, semi-natural, landscape features that are important to their individual localities and collectively to the area as a whole. Other significant water features include Hemlington Lake, Albert Park Lake, Poole Hospital Lake and Stewart Park Lake.

Woodland and Tree Cover

The Plan highlights that Middlesbrough has roughly one eighth of the national average level of tree cover. The first OS Map of Middlesbrough (1956) shows few woodlands. Current maps show a general absence of tree cover in urban areas and a lack of mature hedgerows in rural areas. These factors further highlight the significance of the urban parks and the formal estate parklands to the south. Historically much of the elevated drier ground in the south was characterised by formal parkland estate features such as Ormesby Hall, Acklam Hall, Stewart Park and Newham Hall. These areas continue to make a significant contribution to Middlesbrough, not least because of the levels of tree cover.

Ecological Value

The plan identifies sites of ecological value as major assets in the development of landscape proposals, although it also notes that “North Middlesbrough contains few sites of ecological significance”. It also notes that the ecological value of many sites is adversely affected by the wrong type of management regime, including grass mowing and hedge cutting. In terms of river ecology, the tidal reaches of the Becks are identified as having pollution problems, affecting their local ecology.

Land Use Breakdown

Around 50 % of the total land area is in public ownership. This brings with it two important implications:

There should be scope to enhance a significant part of the town

Much of this enhancement will depend on public funding unless the Council is willing to dispose of land.

Nearly 20% of the town’s area is in three main open space land uses:

6% consists of school grounds and playing fields, the majority being “green deserts” - large expanses of grassland with little or no planting

7% consists of recreation facilities – “important components of the Open Space Network, frequently


forming reservoirs of green spaces. They have a substantial potential in the development of the Landscape Strategy”.

6% consists of road and rail networks and associated land - “They form a barrier to north south movement and divide residential areas from the major centres of industrial activity.”

Major roads also dominate the landscape – especially the A174/A19 and A66 which dominate the surrounding areas. “Roads and railways contain substantial areas of associated open space which possess potential for the creation of open corridors in built up areas”.

Vacant and Unused Land

Unused land is concentrated mainly in the northern part of the town in the former manufacturing areas. The amount and proportion of unused land increased greatly during the second half of the 1980s following the closure and clearance of old manufacturing sites.

Housing

Many of the housing areas in the district are unattractive and in need of environmental improvement. An environmental quality appraisal of housing estates in east Middlesbrough identified three main contributory factors to poor landscape quality: estate layouts; the quality of buildings and surrounding spaces and the attitude of residents.

In the pre-1970s housing estates, open spaces are poor and sometimes non-existent. Some of the worst areas are Brambles Farm, Thorntree, Berwick Hill, Pallister Park, Easterside, Parkend, Overfields, Netherfields, Priestfields and the early phases of development in Hemlington.

Landmarks and Views

The A19, Tees Bridge, Newport Bridge and the Transporter Bridge are major landmarks. Views of the northern parts of the town are restricted because of the low lying nature of the topography. Northern and southern approaches to the town provide dramatic long distance views over Middlesbrough.

Views of Middlesbrough from the east are limited due to the low lying features and the topography. The Green Wedge around Spencerbeck provides some segregation between Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough. Views from the west are limited because of the low-lying topography.

Middlesbrough Landscape Plan, 1987

The Plan outlines key landscape characteristics across the town. The north area is relatively flat and urban with few green spaces, consisting of Victorian Grid Iron street layouts with parks, recreation grounds and roadways the


only open space. The central part of the district is urbanised, dominated by inter war/post war housing with large wedges of green space oriented north-south along the Becks, including wooded landscapes and some remnants of the agricultural landscape. The southern part of the area is still agricultural but with extensive housing estates.

Service-Specific Borough Council Plans and Strategies

Play Strategy 1991 (reviewed 1999)

The Council’s Play Strategy reflects the hierarchy of provision set out in the Local Plan and identifies the town centre and West Middlesbrough as being devoid of play facilities. It includes a list of play areas to be upgraded and highlights “play voids” to focus attention on the uneven distribution of play areas.

A scrutiny panel review of the Strategy in 1999 recommended the preparation of a revised strategy with two broad aims:

Improving the quality of play areas Improving access to play areas by providing new

facilities where none exist

Space for Nature in Middlesbrough, 1993

The Council’s Nature Conservation Strategy lists local “nature space” sites and other major spaces that contribute to the wildlife network and where improvement for wildlife should take place. These major spaces include Acklam Hall, Acklam Base, Beechwood Allotments and the Municipal Golf course.

It also highlights the need to prioritise the improvement of certain sites to reduce the deficiency of good wildlife sites in Middlesbrough and proposes interpretative panels and leaflets at various sites, including Albert Park, Stewart Park, Hemlington Lake, Ormesby Beck, Middlebeck and Spencerbeck.


The Middlesbrough Forest: A Strategy for Urban Forestry 1994

The Middlesbrough Urban Forest Initiative is one of the Council’s green programmes that came about following the adoption of the Landscape Plan in 1987. Underpinning the strategy is the aspiration that the Middlesbrough Forest should be at the core of the Cleveland Community Forest.

The Strategy identified the key issue that Middlesbrough has only 1% of its land area as woodland and this is around one tenth of the national average. It emphasises the importance of a new urban woodlands officer post and the need:

To prioritise additional planting in the Becks Valleys in the east of Middlesbrough

To support increased planting to the eastern BecksTo concentrate on improving the town’s major traffic routes and town centre, parks, playing fields and other areas of public open space.

At the same time, it recognised that some of the more formal areas in the town, such as the parklands laid out in the 18th and 19th centuries, require careful management. These areas include Acklam Hall, Ormesby Hall, Newham Hall, Poole Hospital, Marton West Beck, Albert, Pallister and Stewart Parks and Linthorpe. All that remains of the once extensive Pennyman Woodlands, however, are a few clumps of over-mature oaks near the Southlands Centre in Ormesby Road.

Urban Park Provision in Middlesbrough

(Report to the Community Development, Leisure and Libraries and Standards Sub Committee, 1996)

This report sought approval for the application of a “Landscape Classification” and urban parks policy to govern parks in Middlesbrough. The resulting classification then appeared later in the Middlesbrough Local Plan (see above)

Only four of Middlesbrough’s 39 Area Parks meet the Local Plan target standard: Albert Park, Hemlington Recreation Ground, Pallister Park and Stewart Park. Of the total of 33 local parks, six sites did not meet the minimum size requirements for a Local Park.

Four sites identified as being of strategic value as primary open space did not meet the requirements of an urban park because of the size, location or facilities offered: Teesaurus Park, Victoria Gardens, Carter Park and Acklam Gardens. Of these sites, Teesaurus Park is of the greatest potential value as it is within the proposed long distance Teesdale Way footpath.

Middlesbrough Milestone Statement: Public Rights Of Way Strategy October 2000.


The Milestone Statement sets targets to achieve a network of public rights of way before 2004, including that all rights of way are sign posted, well maintained and accessible to all. The walking/cycling strategy facilitates a strategic approach and forms part of the local transport plan. It indicates that Middlesbrough Council will continue to work in partnership with Middlesbrough Environment City, Sustrans and the Tees Forest to further the aims of the Tees Valley Cycling Strategy.

Spaces to Play – Playing Pitch Strategy 2002

The Sport Playing Pitch Strategy considers the quantity, quality and accessibility of provision for football, cricket, rugby and hockey in Middlesbrough, using the methodology outlined in the “Playing Pitch Strategy”, published in 1991 by the Sports Council, the NPFA, and the Central Council for Physical Recreation.

Key findings include:

There are very few junior and mini pitches compared to senior pitches

There are very few changing rooms, showers, toilets or other facilities

There are no female facilitiesIn general, the quality of sports pitches and ancillary facilities is poor

The carrying capacity of many pitches is low. Most pitches can accommodate only a few games per week without detriment to the quality of the playing surface

Changing rooms, showers, toilets and other ancillary facilities (where they exist) are poor quality

There is an imbalance in the spread of pitches across Middlesbrough, with the western area being best provided for. Central area has no pitches

At present, many sites do not have secured community use although this should be encouraged.

Many pitches are also important community open spaces.

The study proposed a local quantity standard of 1.06 ha of pitches per 1,000 people, around 15% higher than the 0.91 ha per 1000 standard in the Local Plan. It also emphasised the need to enhance the quality of provision on most sites.

Active Middlesbrough: Strategy for Sport and Physical Activity 2003-2008

The strategy provides a framework for planning and prioritising the development of sport and leisure services in Middlesbrough. The Government’s Game Plan provides much of the context for this strategy, with the overall mission being to increase involvement and opportunities for physical activity. The key aims of the strategy are to get more people more active, as well as giving support to elite performers.


The strategy recommends promoting cycle paths and walkways to connect activity venues, as well as a network for activity in its own right. It also refers to the importance of the Open Spaces Strategy and the need to implement the recommendations of the Playing Pitch Strategy.

Green Spaces and Public Places, 2004A public consultation document on Middlesbrough’s green spaces and public places

This document follows up a report entitled “Middlesbrough People, Places and Spaces” by Jan Ghel and Gillespies, in association with Middlesbrough Council and the Town Centre Company. This summarised the need for a thorough review of public spaces, as well as the development of a hierarchy of public space to enable investment to be targeted better and outlined maintenance guidelines and design principles.

Green Spaces and Public Places sets out a proposed broad objective:

“To provide an exciting range of safe, well used, high quality green spaces and public places that actively improve the quality of life, urban living and neighbourhoods for all the people of Middlesbrough”.

The consultation document generated slightly over 60 public responses which we have analysed for the Council. We set out the results in Appendix.

Borough Council Background Information

Several Initiatives and Master Plans to improve the north and western edges of Middlesbrough have been completed recently. Overall, Tees Valley Regeneration – a consortium of English Partnerships, One North-East and five Tees Valley local authorities including Middlesbrough is working to improve the economic and regeneration prospects of the area.

Audit of Crime and Disorder in Middlesbrough, 1998

The Community Strategy highlights concerns over crime and disorder as one of the local residents’ key concerns. This report gives a snapshot of crime and disorder in the 1990s, detailing an analysis of reported crime by ward, anti-social behaviour and youth crime. The Audit notes that St Hilda’s ward, which includes the town centre, has the highest reported crime rate. There are also significant levels of crime in North Ormesby, Southfield, Gresham, Grove Hill and Linthorpe.

“Voice Over” Citizens Panel, November 2002

The Voice Over survey was undertaken to gauge public opinion on issues including the perceived performance of Leisure Services. The key findings included:


Parks were the most used leisure facilities by residents. 25% of the panel made use of a park at least once a week and 28% at least once a month; conversely, only 6% of respondents claimed never to use a park. For comparison purposes, 24% visited a leisure centre at least once a week and 14% once a month.

82% of respondents were satisfied or fairly satisfied with the parks managed by Middlesbrough Council. 19% had used Stewart Park, 18% Albert Park and 17% the Rainbow Leisure Centre.

The main reason for not visiting or using particular leisure facilities was that the respondents weren’t interested; they were perceived to be too far away or respondents lacked time or energy.

20% of those who had not used Thorntree Park and 17% of those who had not used Ormesby Park didn’t know they existed

Poor levels of car parking provision (Albert Park) were among the main reasons for not using Albert Park and Stewart Park

Respondents’ lowest levels of satisfaction were with sports development (45%) and open spaces (46%)

Middlesbrough Council Urban Capacity Study 2005

The Schedule outlines potential site-based opportunities for redevelopment. Typologies of sites covered include the redevelopment of car parks, employment allocations, housing allocations, previously developed vacant or derelict land/buildings and vacant land not previously used. The Schedule includes individual site maps, full site details and feasibility assessments.

The Stockton / Middlesbrough Initiative 2004 / 2005

This initiative involves both towns working together towards developing the area into a functioning “city zone” over 30 years, striving to satisfy demand in the sub-region for “city” scale facilities. The Initiative focuses investment and resources on two major projects that should act as a catalysts for the regeneration of the Region. The two “catalyst” sites are Middlehaven in Middlesbrough and the North Bank in Stockton. Key proposals include the Green Blue Heart for Middlesbrough – a park land setting for new development.

Older Housing Visioning Study 2004/2005

Six neighbourhoods to the north, east and west of Albert Park contain most of the older housing and are characterised by:

Very high levels of deprivationHigh crime levelsLow demand for housing

When completed, the study is likely to recommend a


variety of possible solutions to the long term future of these areas. The final output will be a neighbourhood based, phased development framework overlain with an area-wide urban design vision.

Scrutiny Panel Review of Allotments, 2005

The Review panel recommended that a 5 year allotment strategy be developed and work started on this in March 2005. The review found that there is a considerable surplus of sites and a low uptake of plots in many areas, while in other areas, demand for plots is high. The strategy aims to resolve such issues and to develop good practice guidelines for model allotment sites and community gardening areas.

Draft Riverside Park Master Plan (Entec), 2004

This Master Plan outlines the key problems with Riverside Park – it is very dislocated, not fulfilling its potential and is hampered by industrial uses which are slow to remove from the area. There is a need to reinstate infrastructure that will reconnect the river with local communities. It separates the area into different segments which it describes as “the Gateway, the Face, the Edge and the Tip” – and proposes an implementation package that seeks to address and solve the key problems of the area. It recognises and builds on other opportunities offered by major projects and initiatives within the area such as Middlehaven and the Stockton/Middlesbrough Initiative.


Appendix 2: The Audit Process

The Scope of the Middlesbrough Audit

We audited over 200 individual sites in Middlesbrough as follows:

6 allotments 5 Bowling greens 3 civic spaces 96 multi-functional greenspaces (including

natural spaces) 49 outdoor sport sites 41 equipped play/teenage areas The Becks

The Audit Forms Any single audit form for all these different types of provision would have to be very long and cumbersome for use on site. Accordingly we have used a suite of forms for the Middlesbrough audit which reflects the above typology:

Allotments Bowling greens Equipped play areas Multi-functional greenspaces (covering amenity

greenspaces, parks and gardens, churchyards and cemeteries, natural greenspaces and the becks)

Pitches and courts (covering sports pitches and tennis and multi-courts)

Teenage facilities

Examples of the full Audit Forms are given in the Appendix below.

The Scoring System We have used a simple scoring system for completing the audit forms:

4: Excellent: the site meets the quality standard, or something close to it, in its present form and therefore does not need any enhancement in the short term

3: Good: the site meets the quality standard in most respects and limited investment or change to management and maintenance practices will bring it up to an “excellent” score

2: Poor: the site fails to meet significant aspects of the quality standard and needs significant investment or major changes to management and maintenance practice

1: Very poor: the site fails to meet most aspects of


the quality standard and essentially requires reconstruction

0: Not present, but required: a key element of the quality standard is missing but required

x: Not present and not required: something required by the quality standard is not present but irrelevant in the context of the specific site

Deliberately, this scoring system does not include an “average” or middle value. In practice, because grounds maintenance staff tend to cover a wide area, the quality of maintenance across an area is generally fairly consistent. Over time, this results in most spaces being of a more or less “average” quality. However, as the purpose of the audit is to differentiate between high and low quality and value, there is no point in an approach which is likely to result in most sites being classed as average. If everything is average it is not possible to draw any sensible policy conclusions. The purpose of using standard forms is to try to convert what of necessity has to be a set of subjective judgements into a reasonably objective overall assessment. While the result is a set of detailed scores, these scores obviously represent the subjective opinion of the on-site surveyor at the time of the audit. There can be many factors that can influence this judgement. For example, they may be more likely to score a site well first thing in the morning of a warm, sunny day in summer than at the end of a cold, wet day in late afternoon in winter. Moreover, even on the same day and under the same weather conditions, a different surveyor might score some aspects of a site differently, as might the same surveyor at a different time of year. However, this does not diminish the value of the audit process as it generates comparative data on different sites. Each audit form is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This makes it possible to calculate various summary scores and to link the audit forms to a master summary spreadsheet. Rather than try to analyse the scores for each and every feature or characteristic of several hundred sites - which would be hopelessly cumbersome - we have set the forms to calculate summary scores automatically for each group of features or characteristics. This summary score is the average score for all of the components or characteristics in the group. The multi-functional audit form, for example, splits into the following groups:

Quality: General characteristics; external accessibility; internal accessibility; safety and security; planting and bio-diversity; facilities; management and maintenance and negative features which detract from the space.

Value: Contribution to local amenity; contribution to recreation, health and well-being; biodiversity and nature conservation; cultural and community value and the strategic value of the site.

We have also designed the spreadsheets to calculate a


number of summary quality and value scores as percentages, derived from the scores for individual audit characteristics. These summary scores can obviously result in an “average” score of 50%, but made up of a number of sub-scores which in themselves do not represent average values.

One potential disadvantage of using standard audit forms for a range of sites is that not all of the features or characteristics will be relevant on all of the sites. For example, “safety features adjacent to areas of water” are irrelevant on sites where there is no water. As a result the surveyor will have scored this characteristic with an “x”. The spreadsheet then automatically reduces the maximum possible score for the site to take account of this. If it did not do this, the audit scores would give a false picture of the relative quality or value of different sites. To give a simplified example, imagine a particular form evaluated just three features of a site, giving a maximum score for most sites of 15 (3 x 5). If two of the characteristics happened to be irrelevant for a particular site, its maximum score would be only 5 while other sites would be scored out of 10 or 15.

Reference Information

It is impossible to identify everything that is relevant in relation to a particular greenspace or facility by visiting it. For example, nature conservation designations are not obvious from visiting a site. Likewise, it can be difficult to see how many pitches there may be present at a time of year which is outside the relevant season. Accordingly it is necessary to add some reference information to some audit forms after completion of the on-site work.

Summarising the Audit Results

To simplify the analysis and presentation of the audit results, we have linked each site-specific audit form to an overall master spreadsheet. This obviously avoids the need to study 200 separate forms and makes it possible to compute “average of averages” scores and compare these cores for individual sites with these averages. This summary spreadsheet is attached below. For clarity, we have “hidden” the columns containing individual scores in order to highlight the summary or average scores for each group of characteristics or features. In due course we will provide the Council with all; of the audit information in electronic format so it can review individual scores if and when it needs to do so.

The master spreadsheet provides a quick and reasonable objective way of determining priorities for future investment. For example it is possibly easily and quickly:

To rank sites across Middlesbrough in terms of value or quality either in general or in relation to specific features or characteristics

To identify priorities for investment or changes to management and maintenance practices


To identify the need for S106 contributions to fund the enhancement of existing provision within the vicinity of a proposed development

To enter the audit results into a GIS for mapping purposes

Interrogating the site-specific audit form will provide the Council with a very quick overview of the features or characteristics most likely to need improvement. It is possible to do this using the master spreadsheet by “unhiding” the columns with scores, or identifying and printing off the appropriate site-specific audit form.

If required it is also possible to feed the data in the summary spreadsheet into other programs, such as Microsoft Access or a statistical program, for further analysis.

We include an example of the Multifunctional Greenspaces Audit Form below.


Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Greenspace Audit FormMulti-functional Greenspaces: Quality and Value Audit(Amenity greenspaces; natural and semi-natural greenspaces; parks and gardens; churchyards and cemeteries)

Scoring: 5 = excellent; 4 = good; 3 = average; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor; 0 = not present but should beLeave blank if particular feature is irrelevant in the space

Greenspace Reference 0

Council area

Main access (street name)

Quality Audit

Score (enter 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) or leave blank

Summary scores

General characteristicsWelcoming, uplifting and apparently safe, with a distinct identity Adequate internal signage appropriate to nature of the space Reasonable privacy for the occupants of adjacent properties

External AccessibilityClear entrances, signed on neighbouring streets Accessible from neighbouring streets/parking by wheelchair Secure cycle ramps at entrances Adequate parking (at least adjacent to main entrance) Distance from main entrance to nearest bus stop (m)

Internal AccessibilityInternal paths link up with external streets/other greenspaces on desire lines Well-drained, surfaced internal paths suitable for wheelchairs General accessibility for people with disabilities (eg no steps)

Safety and SecurityInformal surveillance from neighbouring properties Adequate safety measures adjacent to areas of water (eg signs, lifebelts) Lighting for paths Condition of boundary fencing/walls

Planting and bio-diversityMix of tree types Usefulness of grassed areas (eg for kickabouts, Frisbee, sitting, jogging) Range of plants or shrubs Horticultural interest Range of habitat types

Natural and Semi-natural Greenspaces OnlyNaturalistic landscape Suitable interpretation (eg noticeboards, leaflets) Areas of dense planting, difficult for people to penetrate Well developed ground layers at woodland

Facilities


Adequate litter bins Adequate "pooper" bins Public toilets (M, F, disabled) Equipped play facilities (details on separate sheet) Sports facilities (details on separate sheet) Youth activity facilities (details on separate sheet) Public art Bandstands Ornamental fountains Drinking fountains Café Well distributed street furniture appropriate to the use of the site

Management and MaintenanceFreedom from litter Freedom from vandalism and graffiti Freedom from dog fouling Condition of grassed areas Condition of horticultural areas Condition of trees and wooded areas Condition of paths Condition of litter bins Condition of furniture Condition of other facilities (eg toilets) Condition of lighting

Negative features which detract from the spaceUnsightly overhead wires Unpleasant smells Vandalism, gradditi or abusive use Severe overshadowing from nearby buildings Excessive noise (eg passing traffic, nearby factory) Excessive exposure to wind

Overall quality rating #DIV/0!

Value Audit

Contribution to Local AmenityViews into the site Views out from the site Contribution to appearance of the neighbourhood Relationship to adjacent or linked spaces Value as a noise buffer Value as a visual screen or buffer Relationship to adjacent buildings

Contribution to Recreation and Well-beingValue of informal recreation opportunities provided by the site Value of formal recreation opportunities offered by the site Attractiveness to people of all ages Value in terms of potential health benefits Value as a green corridor for people

Wildlife and habitat valueRange of habitats on the site (including water) Opportunities for public enjoyment of nature


Value as a green corridor for wildlife

Cultural and Community ValueHistoric or archaeological value Social importance of the site within its neighbourhood

Strategic Value of the SiteContribution to regeneration Contribution to enhancing a densely developed area Contribution to local air quality and amelioration of pollution or flooding Open-ness

Value of treesMix of tree types Well developed ground layers at woodland Condition of trees and wooded areas Contribution to local air quality and amelioration of pollution or flooding

Overall value rating #DIV/0!

Improvements Required (write in)123

Opportunities for extension or enhancement (write in)123


Appendix 3: Updating the Audit Results

Introduction Greenspaces do not remain the same for a long period of time and so it is also important to update the audit information from time to time. We recommend that the Council do this review on a more or less continuous basis with a target of repeating around 20% of the audit each year. This will give complete coverage roughly every five years.

We will provide the full set of audit results as Microsoft Excel workbooks on a compact disc. It is fairly simple to update the results from time to time and this appendix gives details of how to do it.

On-site Audits The audit forms are Excel worksheets which require scores to be entered into a vertical row of boxes against specific criteria. The worksheet contains formulae which calculate various summary scores automatically. The last part of the worksheet – relating to improvements and opportunities - is for text entries. All cells which require a numerical score are set up with the default value of “x” which should be replaced with the appropriate scores. This makes it unnecessary to enter “x” into any of the cells.

To re-audit a site:

Print off a copy of the blank audit form Enter scores and other information on site as

described below


Scoring sites The Scoring System

Use the following scoring system outlined in The Audit Process appendix above.

If there is more than one facility or feature on a site – e.g. two goalmouths on football pitches – enter the score for the worse/worst as one purpose of the audit is to identify the need for improvements.

Note that the Multi-functional Greenspaces form has a section for “negative features which detract from the space”. Score these features as follows:

4 Very bad: the feature significantly reduces the quality of value of the site to such an extent that many potential users may prefer not to use it

3 Quite bad: the feature significantly reduces the quality or value of the site, but not so badly as to be likely to result in a significantly lower level of use than would occur if the negative feature is removed.

Specific Quality Scores

Equipped Play Areas/Teenage Facilities

Score the nature of play safety surfacing as follows: 4 = impact absorbing wet pour surface; 3 = impact absorbing sheet or tile materials; 2 = wood chips or equivalent; 1 = sand or equivalent; 0 = other (usually tarmac or paving)

Score “main type of other surfacing” in play/teenage areas as follows: 4 = impact absorbing wet pour surface; 3 = impact absorbing sheet or tile materials; 2 = wood chips or equivalent; 1 = sand or equivalent; 0 = other (usually tarmac or paving)

Assess buffer areas around play areas or teenage facilities to the nearest dwelling window.

Pitches

Score pitch slopes as follows: 4 = no slope (apart from any slope required for water run-off on impervious surfaces); 3 = slight slope, but unlikely to affect the run of a ball or make players tired; 2 = gentle slope, unlikely to affect the run of the ball to a significant extent but may cause players running uphill to tire; 1 = significant slope, likely to affect the game; and 0 = severe slope making the pitch unacceptable for serious play.

Score pitch even-ness as follows: 4 = pitch is near enough a plane; 3 = pitch has some gentle hollows or ridges but not sufficient to make it difficult to field a cricket ball driven along the ground (note that the pitch does not have to be a cricket one; this is merely a scoring criterion); 2 = pitch has hollows and ridges which would cause occasional problems when fielding a


cricket ball driven along the ground; 1 = pitch has significant ridges and hollows which could affect a game of football; 0 = pitch is so uneven as not to be suitable for the sport for which it is marked.

Adequate/Inadequate

For “adequate” scoring, use 4 = more than adequate; 3 = adequate; 2 = slightly inadequate and 1 = seriously inadequate.

Value Scores

Value is even more subjective than quality. Accordingly we base our assessment of value mainly on the “functions of open space” set out in paragraph 3 of the Annex to PPG17 – strategic functions; urban quality; promoting health and well-being; flora and fauna; community resources; and visual amenity. Obviously these overlap to a considerable extent so we concentrate on amenity; contribution to recreation and well-being; wildlife and habitat value; cultural and community value; strategic value; and the value of trees. Generally speaking, 4 = high value; 3 = fairly high value; 2 = fairly low value; and 1 = low value.

Entering New Audit Data

Updating Existing Scores

Some cells on the worksheets contain formulae to calculate summary scores. These cells appear blank or as “#DIV0!” when the worksheet is opened but summary scores appear as soon as individual scores are added in the “score” boxes. The summary score cells are “protected” so it is not possible to enter scores into them.

Enter the updated scores as follows:

Open the relevant worksheet of the appropriate workbook for the re-audited space or facility

Enter the new scores into the relevant boxes Save the worksheet

Each of the site-specific forms is linked to the summary sheet in a workbook. This means that if the Council makes any changes to the site-specific forms these changes will transfer automatically to the summary sheet and re-calculate the average scores.

Check the Summary Sheet to ensure all of the cells contain the new information from the amended worksheet. The summary scores and average scores will also have changed automatically.

Adding New Spaces or Facilities

Adding new spaces or facilities to a workbook is more complicated. The process is:

1. Open the relevant workbook2. Right-click on the tab at the bottom of the blank


audit form worksheet, then on Move or Copy. In the dialogue box which appears, ignore To book: but in the Before sheet: box click on (move to end) then on Create a Copy and OK. This will create a new blank audit form at the end of the workbook. Excel will automatically give this a sheet number such as Sheet50. Make a note of this sheet name.

3. Open the new worksheet4. Enter the appropriate scores or other information5. Go to the Summary worksheet. Left-click on Tools-

Protection-Unprotect Sheet6. Scroll down to the last row containing audit results;

for the purposes of illustration, suppose this is row 60

7. Left-Click on the row number (60) and then on Copy8. Left click on Insert-Copied Cells. There will now be

two rows with the same information in each cell.9. Click on any cell in either of the two rows with

identical information and note the worksheet to which it relates. The cell content will be something like =Sheet49$C$50. In this example, note the Sheet49.

10. Left click on the row number for either of the two rows with identical information

11. Left-Click on Edit-Replace12. In the “Find what” box, enter the name of the sheet

from step 8 – in this example Sheet50. Take great care to enter the name correctly, with no extra spaces or letters.

13. In the “Replace with” box, enter the name of the worksheet for the new space or facility eg Sheet49. Take great care to enter the name correctly, with no extra spaces or letters.

14. Left-click on Replace all. This will result in the cells in this row changing to the figures or other data from the newly inserted worksheet (Sheet50). The summary scores and average scores will also change automatically. If a dialogue box with an error message appears, click on Cancel as many times as necessary to return to the Summary worksheet. The click on Edit-Undo and go back to Step 11. Be sure to enter the names of the relevant sheets correctly.

15. Left-click on Tools-Protection-Protect Sheet16. Left-click on File-Save

Some Dont’s

Don’t:

Change the audit criteria Use any scores other than those noted above Change any cell on an audit sheet which contains a

formula (all these cells are protected)

Deleting Audit Worksheets

The Council may need to delete an audit worksheet, for example because a space has been sold or developed for some other purpose. If so:

1. Go to the sheet to be deleted; check it is the correct one


2. Left-click on Edit-Delete Sheet-Delete. 3. Go to the Summary Worksheet 4. Left-click on Tools-Protection-Unprotect Worksheet5. Find and highlight the row in which all of the cells

now show as 6. Left-click on Edit-Delete7. Left-click on Tools-Protection-Protect Worksheet8. Left-click on File-Save

Appendix 4: Audit Results – Master Spreadsheet

Introduction The Master spreadsheet gives the results for the sites that have been audited in terms of a quality score and a value score. The quality and value results from the spreadsheet have also been mapped on GIS and this provides another method of assessing the information easily. The Quality and Value maps are set out in the Quality Chapter of the main report. A copy of the Master Spreadsheet results is attached below.

Quality and Value Spreadsheet Scores

The spreadsheet provides a straightforward method of assessing the overall quality and value of Middlesbrough’s greenspaces relatively quickly and also forms the basis of comparisons of the state of greenspaces in Middlesbrough over time, as discussed above.

Quality and Value Scores Mapping

The high / low classification we have used on the GIS Quality and Value maps provides a simple way of identifying an initial view on the most appropriate policy approach to any particular space or facility. The “cut off” point for sites that rate as “high” quality / value was set to include those sites with a score of more than 66%. This value can be set at any level, but in this case was at 66% following consultation with Council officers.


Multifunctional Green Spaces

All summary scores

Overall quality rating

Overall value rating

Average 61% 64%acemetry-acklamandteeside 68% 49%acemetry-Linthorpe 67% 63%achurchyardcemetry-Stainton 73% 93%achurchyardcemetry-stCuthberts x xachurchyardcemetry-stmaryschurch 67% 73%AcklamGardens-site12 39% 39%AcklamHall 54% 81%GreenLaneAcklamRFUandCricket 57% 42%AcklamSportsCentre 64% 85%Acklamsteelandironathletics 44% 21%AlbertPark-site9 87% 83%AyresomeGardens-site8 68% 65%BonnygrovePark-site31 70% 93%BrabourneGardens-site35 50% 68%CarterPark-site6 77% 55%CentralGardens-site4 75% 77%CharlburyRoad-site24 31% 27%clevelandconstabularysports 74% 65%ConnaughtRoadTriangle 54% 42%cooperativeemployerssportandsocialclub 22% 13%CypressRoad-site28 67% 49%Doorstepgreenlonglands 90% 61%Fairydell-site33 85% 92%Fordyce-site36 49% 53%GlebeRoadRecGround-site5 64% 56%GolfCourse 95% 90%GolfcourseLadgateLanemunicipal 90% 97%HemlingtonRecGround-site37 75% 93%HenryStreet-site15 72% 63%HomertonRoad-site23 38% 27%JackHatfieldSquare 64% 53%KingEdwardsSquare 75% 69%KingstonStreet-site40 x xLambtonRoad-site14 13% 2%LaycockGardens-site7 64% 67%LingfieldPark-site32 83% 89%LonglandsRoad-site19 42% 42%Mallowdale-site29 54% 64%MargaretStreet-site39 54% 39%MartonGrove-site16 64% 50%MazePark 55% 66%


MiddletownPark 46% 36%MillbrookAvenue-site20 49% 50%NewhamWay-site34 58% 69%OxfordRoadCricket 64% 56%PallisterPark-site 25 79% 67%ParkEnd-site26 48% 32%parkvaleroad 32% 36%Prospect(NALGO)Field-site17 44% 42%ProspectNalgoFieldTollesbyroadThackeryGro 46% 67%Multifunction Green Spaces (cont.) All summary scores

Overalquality rating


SaltwellsRoad-site15 44% 40%southofRiversideParkRoad 49% 63%StaintonView-site38 41% 39%StBarnabasRecGround-site10 64% 69%StewartPark-site27 88% 92%stmaryswalk 48% 57%StocktonStreetBridgeStreet 70% 46%StocktonStreetRecGround-Site2 52% 56%StocktonStreetSuffieldStreet 25% 24%TeessaurusPark-site1 41% 67%TheAvenue-site30 70% 77%ThorntreePark-site21 66% 68%Tollesbyroadeastside 34% 58%TowerGreen 59% 54%VictoriaGardens-site3 51% 37%Westbourne Park-site13 43% 42%WhinneyBanks-site6 47% 58%xBonnyGrovePlantation-snci15 70% 91%xCypressRoadBeck6 75% 77%xMiddlebeck8 32% 35%xSpencerbeck9 28% 53%xStaintonBeck3 70% 78%xWhinneyBanksPond-snci3 49% 50%AcklamWhin-snci4 63% 77%BirchHill-snci14 89% 91%BlueBellBeck1 65% 89%CoulbyNewhamPond-snci11 66% 76%JubileePlantation-snci16 x xLowGill-snci21 x xMaltbyBeck-snci8 81% 87%MartonWestBecknorth 66% 77%MartonWestBeckcentral 76% 100%MartonWestBecksouth 75% 97%NewhamBeck4-snci10 70% 93%NewhamWhin-snci12 57% 84%NunthorpeHallGrounds-snci20 75% 92%OakWood-snci13 61% 83%OrmesbyBeck7 51% 77%PlumTreeFarmPasture-snci7 x xPooleHospital-snci19 79% 86%SaffwoodBeck2 60% 81%StainsbyWood-snci5 76% 88%


StaintonValeFarmHedge-snci6 x xThorntonPlantationandPond-snci9 70% 53%TreeBridgePlantation-snci18 90% 92%WillowGarth-snci17 x x


Courts All summary scoresOvera

ll qualit

y score

Average 68%AcklamGrange 58%CoulbyNewham 76%HallgarthKingsManor 56%macmillancollege 65%middlesbroughcollege 53%Newlandsschool 40%Ormesby 64%StAnthonys 76%StDavids 68%stmaryscollege 70%TeesideTerColBrackenhoe 63%TeesideUniversity 54%DormanLong 81%HustlerTrust 56%MartonCricketClub 83%MartonNunthorperec 88%Mbroughcricketandrufc 61%AcklamSportsCentre 74%DepotRoad 29%HemlingtonRecCentre 76%LingfieldFarm 78%MartonHallDrive 78%MartonRoad 46%Millbrook 46%MillHill 75%Netherfields 60%OrmesbySportsComplex 80%PallisterPark 79%PrissickBase 62%Saltersgill 54%SouthlandsCentre 78%VicarageRd 100%WestbournePark 59%TollesbyRoad xAlbertPark-site9 91%AyresomeGardens-siteB7 91%BrookfieldKaderAvenue-siteB9 82%BroughtonAvenueEasterside-siteB5 75%HemlingtonRec 62%KingstonStreet-siteB3 xLaycockGardensHeywoodStreet-siteB10 60%Longlandsdoorstep 98%MillbrookAvenue-siteB6 70%ParkEnd 67%SandringhamRoad-siteB4 66%WestbournePark_siteB8 51%xTennisWorld 78%xOrmesbyRoad xxThorntreePark 47%


AllotmentsAll summary scores



Average 54% 49%Beechwood-site3 57% 56%BerwickHills-site4 35% 27%LetitiaStreet-site1 67% 60%Saltersgill-site2 57% 56%TownFarm-site6 40% 38%Whitehouse-site5 70% 58%

Civic SpacesAll summary scores



Average 71% 50%citycentrewest 66% 38%exchangesquare 76% 63%

Bowling Greens All summary scoresOverall

quality ratingValue

assessmentAverage 89% 89%AlbertPark 100% 100%HallDrive 100% 100%PallisterPark 100% 100%PrissickBase 88% 95%WestbournePark 54% 50%


Play AreasAll summary scoresOveral

l Qualit

y Rating

Value Assessmen

tAverage 69% 63%AlbertPark-site9 92% 84%AlbertPark-site19 92% 100%AyresomeGardens-site30 74% 76%BirchwoodRoad-site7 48% 24%BishoptonRoad-site26 58% 28%BlueBellBeck-site38 51% 32%BoltonCourt-site24 x xBonnygrovePark-site49 67% 72%BrabourneGardens-site11 39% 16%BrookfieldKader-site48 83% 68%BroughtonAvenueEastersideRoad-site52 86% 56%CharlburyRoad-site2 42% 20%CrossfellRoad-site21 60% 60%GlebeRoad-site34 74% 100%Gypsysite-site51 x xHemlingtonRec-site12 91% 100%HenryStreet-site15 x xHollowfield-site40 x xKingstonSteet-site33 x xLambtonRoad-site44 x xLaycockGardens-site31 58% 72%LeisureFarm-site42 81% 88%LingfieldAsh-site10 x xLingfieldPark-site17 93% 100%LonglandsDoorstepgreen 89% 96%Mallowdale-site9 42% 20%MargaretStreet-site16 x xMarlboroughgardens-site46 29% 0%MillbrookAvenue-site1 75% 68%NewhamWay-site41 x xPallisterPark-site25site4 89% 100%SaltwellsRoad-site47 71% 44%SandringhamRoad(ParkEnd)-site20 74% 76%StewartPark-site50 79% 32%StocktonStreet-site18 56% 80%The Avenue-site8 53% 56%ThorntreePark-site22 96% 96%WhisperdaleCourt-site3 62% 52%KiltonCourt-site25 x xSunnyside-site39 x xThePastures(36)-site14 x x


Appendix 5: Quality Standards

Introduction This appendix contains visions for quality standards for the various forms of greenspace and sport and recreation provision in Middlesbrough:

Accessible Natural Greenspaces Allotments Amenity Greenspaces Becks and Green Corridors Bowling Greens Cemeteries and Churchyards Equipped Play Areas – Local Equipped Play Areas – Neighbourhood Parks and Gardens Teenage Facilities Sports Pitches Multi-courts and Tennis Courts Sports Halls and Swimming Pools Each of the quality standards is derived from examples of best practice, such as the Green Flag Award criteria for parks, or published guidance, for example from English Nature or Sport England, and links directly to the KCA audit forms.

Accessible Natural Greenspace

Definition

Land, water and geological features which have been naturally colonised by plants and animals and can be visited by people. This definition includes:

Sites awaiting redevelopment that have been colonised by spontaneous assemblages of plants and animals

Land alongside waterways, transport and service corridors which, although perhaps once deliberately landscaped or planted are now mixtures of planted and spontaneous assemblages

Tracts of “encapsulated countryside” such as woodlands, scrub, heathlands, meadows and marshes which, through appropriate management, continue to support essentially wild plant and animal assemblages. Often these natural areas exist within the framework of formally designed public open space

Ponds, ditches, rivers, lakes and reservoirs The less intensively managed parts of parks, school

grounds, sports pitches, golf courses, churchyards and cemeteries


Incidental pocket-sized plots along residential and commercial roads, pathways, car parks and property boundaries, including walls and built structures which are often spontaneously colonised by plants and animals

Allotments, orchards and gardens

Minimum Size

2,000 sq m (0.2 ha)

General Characteristics

Open naturalistic appearance which blends into the surrounding countryside

Only limited internal areas of poor visibility Distinct identity Good use of views out of or across the site Good use of topography, space and planting

Accessibility

Entrances or access points linked to rights of way, bridlepaths, quiet lanes and cycling routes and water courses to create wildlife corridors and a network of greenspaces

Accessible from the adjacent road or car park area by walking or in a wheelchair where appropriate

Good network of internal paths, linking to rights of way, bridle paths, quiet lanes and cycling routes in the vicinity

Planting and Biodiversity

Good mix of native species and habitats, depending on site characteristics

Dense, bushy hedgerows Wildlife protection areas Clearings or gaps in tree crowns to allow light

penetration to woodland floor, where appropriate Well developed shrub, field and ground layers and

wide, species rich edge, where appropriate

Facilities and Features

Built heritage structures and natural features conserved

Interpretation of flora and fauna as appropriate Litter bins and seats at key points Signs requiring dogs to be kept under control and

fouling disposed of to “pooper” bins Adequate safety measures adjacent to areas of

water (will depend on size, depth and current, if any) “Way marked” routes, where appropriate

Management and Maintenance

Managed primarily for wildlife and nature conservation

Litter clearly under control with litter bins emptied


regularly Limited evidence of vandalism or graffiti, and rapid

and effective removal Very little or no evidence of dog fouling and “pooper

bins” available at various points, plus notices relating to the avoidance of dog fouling

No or very little evidence of flytipping and rapid, effective removal of tipped material

Wooded areas well managed All paths kept clear of debris; surfaces in good

condition and repaired as necessary

Allotments and Community Gardens

Definition

Both statutory and all other allotment sites.

Minimum Size

20 plots of at least 5 rods each


Screen planting to provide some privacy Clear separation between adjacent allotments Signage at site entrances giving details of ownership

and how to apply for an allotment; also emergency telephone numbers

Securely fenced with lockable gates

Accessibility

Linked to pedestrian and cycle path systems Adequate parking close to entrance to the site (but

not necessarily on-site) Site entrance not more than 400 m from nearest bus

stop and preferably not more than 250 m Adequate paths, suitable for people with disabilities


Good mix of species in planting around and within the site

Dense, bushy hedgerows (where present)

Facilities and features

Water point serving each group of allotments


Litter clearly under control Limited evidence of vandalism or graffiti, and rapid

and effective removal All paths kept clear of debris; surfaces in good

condition and repaired as necessary All facilities in clean, safe and usable condition


Amenity Greenspaces

Definition

Informal recreation spaces, greenspaces in and around housing, domestic gardens and village greens.

Minimum Size

1,000 sq m (0.1 hectare)


Part of a network of greenspaces providing traffic segregated routes through residential or other areas which link to major walking and cycling routes and bus stops

Located away from sources of potential danger to unaccompanied children such as roads and areas of water

Designed to create a sense of place and provide a setting for adjoining buildings, with “sun traps”

“Cared for” general appearance Views out of or across the space, ideally to local

landmarks Designed and constructed in such a way as to ensure

that the space cannot become waterlogged after heavy rain; this may require field drains or field drains plus soil amelioration

Accessibility

Traversed by hard surfaced paths, where appropriate, which are suitable for wheelchairs, wide enough for two wheelchairs to pass and broadly following desire lines (but avoiding straight lines wherever possible)

Planting and biodiversity

Good balance of mown grassed areas, in varying widths or sizes (large enough for informal recreation such as kickabouts or mini-soccer where appropriate) and mixed indigenous and ornamental species and ages of trees or shrubs, but with a predominantly open character

Range of habitat types eg woodland, ponds, grasslands, hedgerows

Buffer or shelter planting as necessary


May incorporate provision for children or teenagers but such facilities should not be central to or the main focus of the spaces

Adequate litter bins Signs indicating that dog fouling should be picked up

and disposed of responsibly May incorporate public art or heritage features (eg

statues) Seats, in both sunny and shaded areas Adequate safety measures adjacent to potentially


dangerous areas of water (eg rivers, canals) Path lighting where appropriate Passive surveillance from nearby properties, but in a

way which respects the privacy of occupants





Grassed areas to have a low preponderance of broad leaved weeds; they must be cut to an even length and if clippings are left in place after cutting they must be short so as not to have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the area

Horticultural areas and flower/shrub beds weed free and ideally mulched

Flowering plants dead headed and pruned as necessary

All paths kept clear of debris; surfaces in good condition and repaired as necessary

All facilities in clean, safe and usable condition Path or other lighting adequately maintained and

working

Civic Spaces Definition

Town centre squares, pedestrian streets and other hard surfaced areas designed primarily for pedestrians

Minimum Size

1,000 sq m (0.1 hectare)


Attractive space with a mix of hard and soft landscaping, in which pedestrians have priority over vehicles

High quality materials Surrounding buildings front on to the space and

contribute to its vitality High level of “busyness” through the day Evening vitality

Accessibility

Readily accessible by public transport form a wide area

Adequate car parking within 250 m All areas fully accessible by people with disabilities


Depends on the nature and location of the space but planting should consist of ornamental species and be designed to enhance the space, provide shade and provide a setting for important buildings



Effective street lighting (possibly including the floodlighting of key adjoining civic and other buildings)

Informative and easily understood directional and other signs

Pavement cafes and similar facilities to add vibrancy in good weather

Fountains and public art desirable


Commitment to/funding for management and maintenance

Litter control Control of vandalism/graffiti No evidence of dog fouling or chewing gum Trees, shrubs and grassed areas to be maintained to

recommended horticultural/British Standards All built and other facilities in clean, safe and usable

condition Street and other lighting adequately maintained and

working

Green Corridors Definition

Pedestrian and cycling routes though urban areas, including river and canal banks and cycleways, which are separated from motor traffic and link residential areas to town or village centres and community facilities such as schools, play areas, community centres and sports facilities.

Minimum Size

There is no minimum size, but corridors should generally be not less than 500 m (0.5 km) long


Clear signposted accesses to the network Welcoming and apparently safe with no signs of

possible danger such as litter, graffiti or damaged vegetation

Surfaced paths at least 2 m wide, suitable for wheelchairs

Adequate litter bin and “pooper” bin provision, with bins located at points where they can easily be accessed for emptying from the road system

Freedom from flooding so that paths are not susceptible to water damage or become icy in winter

Accessibility

Appropriate safety features adjacent to areas of water (eg life buoys, warning notices)

Appropriate safety measures adjacent to or at crossings of rail lines or busy roads

Good sightlines along the route so that users can see


potential danger well ahead


Good balance and variety of plants and shrubs, including flowering and non-flowering species

Range of tree species and ages Range of habitat types Paths free from overhanging branches within reach

of users Good range of habitats


Internal signposting to places of interest or destinations (eg shops, leisure facilities, schools)

Adequate street lighting


Control of litter Control of vandalism/graffiti Control of dog fouling Boundary fencing, gates, posts etc fit for purpose

and well maintained Surfaces fit for purpose (inclusive of markings) and

well maintained Management regime to suit particular

landscape/habitat type eg differential mowing may be suitable to promote wildlife interests; not less than 1 m close mown edges to paths

All paths kept clear of debris and overhanging branches which cyclists or other users might hit; surfaces in good condition and repaired as necessary

All built and other facilities in clean, safe and usable condition

Path or other lighting adequately maintained and working

No or very little evidence of flytipping and rapid, effective removal of tipped material

Local Equipped Play Areas for Young Children

Definition

Equipped play areas for young children intended for children from 2 or 3 to about 8 years, usually accompanied by an adult or older child. The area should have equipment which is sized for young children.

Minimum Size

400 sq m (0.04 hectare), excluding buffer zone or approximately 900 sq m (0.09 ha) including buffer zone (see below)


Located beside a well used pedestrian pathway Activity area of at least 400 sq m with a buffer zone,

possibly with appropriate planting, between the play


area and nearest dwelling boundary of at least 10 metres on all sides. There should be at least 20m between the activity zone and the nearest dwelling window.

Ample space for children to run around and play games such as “tag”

Passive surveillance from the windows of nearby buildings is desirable

Accessibility

Accessible to children or adults with disabilities Linked to the local footpath and cycleway network


Good mix of “child-friendly” (ie not sharp, spiky or poisonous) plant and tree species in the vicinity, but in positions which will not result in major leaf drop within the play area


At least five types of play equipment, designed to provide opportunities for balancing (eg beams, stepping logs, clatter bridges); rocking (eg see-saw or spring animals); climbing/agility (eg frames, nets, overhead bars); sliding (eg straight slides); and social play (eg sheltered areas or children’s seating)

Dog-proof fencing, at least 1 m high, fitted with at least two outward-opening, self-closing gates

Seats for parents or carers Litter bin(s) Signage to indicate that the area is intended for

children; dogs should be excluded; the name and telephone number of the District or Parish Council

Suitable safety surfacing beneath and around play equipment

Effective drainage of all surfaces


Litter clearly under control Very little or no evidence of vandalism or graffiti, and

rapid and effective removal No dangerous litter such as broken glass Safety surfacing in good condition Play equipment in safe and usable condition Dog-proof fencing safe and effective at excluding

dogs Seats for children or parents/carers in safe and

usable condition

Neighbourhood Equipped Play Areas (up to about 12 years)

Definition

Equipped play areas for older children intended for children from about 8 to 12 years. They may be alone or accompanied by an adult or older child. The play area should have both some play equipment and an area for ball games.


Minimum Size

1,000 sq m (0.1 hectare) excluding buffer zone or approximately 3,750 sq m (0.375 hectare) including buffer zone (see below)


Activity area of at least 1,000 sq m, with a range of equipment designed for children of different ages and incorporating separate areas for younger and older children

Surrounded by a buffer zone, possibly with appropriate planting, between the play area and nearest dwelling boundary of at least 30 metres on all sides.


Accessible to children or adults with disabilities Effective drainage of all surfaces

Accessibility

All parts of the site fully accessible to people with disabilities

Linked to local footpath and cycleway network Accessible by public transport – nearest bus stop

within 400 m of entrance/access points, but preferably 250 m


Good mix of “child-friendly” (ie not sharp, spiky or poisonous) plant and tree species in the vicinity, but in positions which will not result in major leaf drop within the play area


At least eight types of play equipment, designed to provide opportunities for balancing (eg beams, stepping logs, clatter bridges); rocking (eg see-saw or spring animals); climbing/agility (eg frames, nets, overhead bars); sliding (eg straight slides); and social play (eg sheltered areas or children’s seating). At least five of the eight pieces of equipment should encourage adventurous climbing, single point swinging (eg in a car tyre on a rope), balancing, rotating or gliding (eg an aerial runway).

Dog-proof fencing, at least 1 m high, fitted with at least two outward-opening, self-closing gates

Seats for parents or carers Adequate litter bin(s) Signage to indicate that the area is intended for

children; dogs should be excluded; the name and telephone number of the play area owner

Parking for bicycles




rapid and effective removal No dangerous litter such as broken glass Safety surfacing in good condition Play equipment in safe and usable condition Dog-proof fencing safe and effective at excluding

dogs Seats for children or parents/carers in safe and

usable condition

Sports Pitches (grass and artificial turf)

Definition

Pitches for football (all codes), cricket, hockey, rugby (all codes)

Minimum Size

2 pitches with changing accommodation and parking


External lighting in car parking areas External lighting on pavilions with PIR detectors Signs indicating that dogs must be kept on a lead

and any fouling picked up and disposed of responsibly

Rows of more than eight parking spaces to be separated by soft landscaping

Adequately separated from adjoining residential properties

Adequate measures in place to control light spill from floodlighting to adjoining properties and related land

Accessibility

Accessible by public transport: nearest bus stop within 400 m of entrance/access points, but preferably 250 m

Convenient car parking Good connections to paths and cycling routes in the

vicinity of the site Wide access routes with clear sight lines at site

entrance/egress Hard surfaced paths following desire lines from

parking to pavilions Paths and buildings fully accessible by wheelchair

where appropriate Path system appropriate to the circulation needs of

players within the site, with wide, hard surfaces in heavily trafficked areas (to avoid constant muddy areas) and from changing pavilions to artificial surfaces

Path system approximating to desire lines for those crossing the site, but avoiding straight lines wherever possible (note that this can have implications for pitch layout)



Strong structure planting around the perimeter of the site using native species (designed as buffer planting to reduce wind on pitches and noise or light spill as appropriate to the site and adjoining properties or roads and also to promote biodiversity)

Internal structure planting where appropriate Amenity or naturalistic landscaping in the vicinity of

buildings and car parking


Changing pavilions

Changing rooms (with the number of rooms appropriate to the number of pitches or other facilities on site) consisting of changing spaces, showers and drying area, plus separate changing for match officials where appropriate

Capable of simultaneous male and female team and/or officials’ use, where appropriate

First aid room (essential only for pitch sports and athletics)

Space for refreshments with kitchen No rooflights in flat roofs on single storey buildings Adequate secure maintenance equipment storage Lockable security shutters on all pavilion doors and

windows Passive surveillance from nearby properties

Pitches, practice areas and other facilities

Correct orientation (pitches generally between 35 degrees west and 20 degrees east of N-S; athletics tracks generally oriented so the finishing straight is not in line with the prevailing south-westerly wind)

Playing facilities meeting relevant governing body requirements in terms of length, width, even-ness of surface, boundary distances (cricket) and side clearances or safety margins

Artificial surfaces in good overall condition, free from tears and uneven areas

Floodlighting to relevant governing body requirements for the standard of play

No end to end slope on pitches greater than 1:40 (1:80 preferable); no side to side slope greater than 1:40 (1:60 preferable)

No pitch more than 200 m from nearest changing pavilion

Well drained pitch surfaces Winter sports grass pitches to have pipe drains plus

sand slits where necessary (note: sand slits to be renewed every 10 years)

Artificial surfaces to comply with relevant governing body requirements and BS 7044: Artificial Sports Surfaces

All artificial surfaces (and any safety surround areas) to be fully enclosed within lockable chain link fence at least 3.0 m high



Grass lengths appropriate to sport with full grass cover on grass pitches

Posts and goals safe and free from rust or sharp edges, with hooks for nets where appropriate

Line markings straight and easily seen Surface repairs carried out quickly and effectively Surround netting and entrance gates to artificially

surfaced areas in good condition Floodlights in full working order Information on site ownership and the facilities

available at the site entrance Contact details for emergencies at any pavilion

Outdoor Sports Facilities: Athletics Tracks

Definition

Facilities for track and field athletics training and competition.

Minimum size

400 m x 6 lanes


Track and field facilities which comply with appropriate governing body standards

Public tracks to have a synthetic surface in good condition; school tracks can be grass

Oriented so neither the finishing straight nor the direction of the javelin is in line with the prevailing (south-westerly) wind

Spectator accommodation appropriate to the nature and standard of events likely to be staged

Adequate changing and officials’ accommodation, plus first aid room

Accessibility

On-site car parking with sufficient spaces for athletes, officials and spectators

Good connections to paths and cycling routes in the vicinity of the site

Wide access routes with clear sight lines at site entrance/egress

Paths and buildings fully accessible by wheelchair where appropriate

Track and adjoining areas fenced to prevent unauthorised access and use


Shelter planting as appropriate



As required by the appropriate governing body standards


Grass length on central area of track appropriate to its use (may be for throwing events or pitch use)

All equipment, including safety equipment, fit for purpose

Track and field events markings easily seen Surface repairs carried out quickly and effectively Floodlights in full working order Information on site ownership and the facilities

available at the site entrance Contact details for emergencies at any pavilion

Bowling Greens Definition

Lawn bowls green meeting appropriate governing body standards

Minimum Size

6 rinks plus banks and ditches, a pathway at least 2 m wide all round the green and a pavilion. This requires a site of not less than approximately 41 x 47 m, i.e. approximately 1,900 sq m (0.19 hectare).


Green, banks and ditches to meet relevant governing body standards

No broad-leaved trees overhanging the greenAccessibility


Convenient car parking Linked to local footpath network Hard surfaced path all round the green Site and pavilion to be fully accessible to people with

disabilities


Shelter planting/screening to provide summer time shelter from wind, privacy for bowlers and support biodiversity


Greens to have at least six rinks (to allow play along and across the green to even out wear)

Changing pavilion with at least male and female changing rooms and social area


Grass sward kept short and clear of weeds


Tennis Courts and Multi-courts

Definition

Tennis courts and multi-use games areas, usually with a hard or synthetic surface, and used for tennis, 5-a-side football, netball, outdoor basketball and roller/in-line skating.

Minimum size

36.5 x 18.25 m (court only) plus surround


Reasonably sheltered from the wind A free-draining or impervious surface laid to

appropriate falls to shed water Surrounded by netting which prevents balls escaping

from the court(s) area Oriented within 30 degrees of north-south

Accessibility


Convenient car parking Linked to local footpath network Site and pavilion to be fully accessible to people with

disabilities


Amenity planting composed mainly of native species to improve appearance, provide shelter, reduce noise transfer and promote biodiversity


Posts and tennis nets in good condition, without large holes through which the ball can pass

Clearly marked courts with adequate safety surrounds

Basketball hoops and football goals, if present, securely fixed with no sharp edges

Floodlighting (if present) to meet governing body requirements



rapid and effective removal Very little or no evidence of dog fouling No dangerous litter such as broken glass Court(s) surface in good condition

Urban Parks Definition


Urban and country parks and formal gardens

Minimum Size

0.25 hectare


Well defined boundaries or perimeter, preferably enclosed with railings or walls

A welcoming appearance at the entrance and therefore well maintained, free from litter and graffiti, with good views over an attractive parkland landscape with clear points of interest to draw visitors in

Range of natural and man-made structures of heritage features such as ponds, statues, buildings and ornamental railings

Good use of topography so that slopes are gentle, views across and out of the park are attractive and visitors can get a sense of scale

Reasonable privacy for the residents of nearby dwellings; ideally, houses should not back on to the park, but be on the other side of the road

Accessibility

Clearly visible entrances, ideally signed on nearby roads and pedestrian or cycling routes

Park entrances linked to safe pedestrian and designated cycling routes (where they exist)

Secure bicycle storage at the main entrance to the park, at least, and ideally secondary entrances as well

Adequate parking adjacent to at least the main entrance (can be on-street) and ideally secondary entrances as well

Main entrance, and ideally secondary entrances, within 400 m, at most, of the nearest bus stop, but preferably 250 m

Internal path system which links up with adjoining roads and pedestrian or cycling routes; preferably at the junctions of streets, rather than in the middle of them, and provides a number of “short cuts” across or through the park

All paths hard surfaced, well drained and suitable for wheelchairs and baby buggies; maximum slope not more than 1:12 and then only for short distances; otherwise not more than 1:24

Path network linking points of interest within the park

No areas within the park accessible only by ascending or descending steps; where there are steps there should also be an easily found ramp


Diverse species of flowering and non-flowering trees, of various ages, including native species; also shrubs and plants providing a wide range of habitats


Hedgerows, where present, reasonably dense, thick and bushy so as to provide habitats

Some areas of dense planting, difficult for people to penetrate and in areas where they will not provide hiding places, but providing habitats for small animals and birds

Woodland areas to have clearings or gaps in crowns to allow light penetration to the woodland floor and development of undergrowth


Equipped play areas for young children (under 10), where present – see separate quality standard

Provision for teenagers, where present – see separate quality standards

Sports facilities, where present – see separate quality standards

Adequate litter bins – well designed, located adjacent to the path system, bird/squirrel/rat proof and cleared regularly

Examples of public art, linked to the path system Bandstands, if present, well maintained Ornamental fountains, if present, in good working

order and well maintained Café facilities in larger parks Good views through and across the park so that each

visitor is providing a form of informal surveillance of other users

Adequate safety measures adjacent to areas of water which might be dangerous (eg notices regarding depths, life buoys)

Adequate lighting for appropriate paths Informative interpretation signs or other material

relating to natural features (eg geology, land form); heritage features (eg statues, historic/listed buildings, bandstands); wildlife (eg details of the main birds and animals to be seen in the park); landscaping (eg information on trees and other planting and especially horticulture areas)

Adequate signage giving directions both within the park and to nearby streets or features of interest outside it





Grassed areas to have a low preponderance of broad leaved weeds; they must be cut to an even length and if clippings are left in place after cutting they must be short so as not to have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the area

Horticultural areas and flower/shrub beds weed free and ideally mulched

Flowering plants dead headed and pruned as necessary


Woodland areas maintained and thinned to provide easy access

All paths kept clear of debris; surfaces in good condition and repaired as necessary

All facilities (especially toilets) in clean, safe and usable condition


Teenage Areas Definition

Provision for teenagers intended for young people approximately 13-18 years old and designed to allow them to “hang out” and practise various sports or movement skills such as basketball, inline skating or skateboarding. Most teenage facilities include a mix of skateboard ramps, outdoor basketball hoops, shelters and other more informal areas. Ideally, they should be located close to a multi-court (see above).

Minimum Size

1,000 sq m (0.1 hectare) excluding buffer zone


Located close, but not immediately adjacent, to a well used pedestrian route but not less than 50 m from the nearest dwelling

Area of at least 1,000 sq m, with facilities for teenagers (see definition above)

Surrounded by a buffer zone, possibly with appropriate planting, between the play area and nearest dwelling boundary of at least 30 metres on all sides.


Accessible to children or adults with disabilities Effective drainage of all surfaces

Accessibility


Linked to local footpath and cycle path network Fully accessible to people with disabilities


Tough, but not prickly landscaping in the immediate vicinity of the area


Mix of facilities such as skateboard/BMX ramps, basketball goals, teenage shelters

Casual seating Low level lighting with both light and dark areas Adequate provision of litter bins



Graffiti regularly removed from more visible, high profile areas

All paths kept clear of debris; surfaces and structures in good condition and repaired as necessary


Community Centres and Halls

Definition

Multi-purpose, flexible accommodation intended for use by a local community for a mix of recreational and social activities

Minimum Size

One badminton court main hall (minimum 16.5 x 9 m) plus a second hall (minimum 12 x 12 m), a kitchen and meeting room.


External lighting equipped with movement/passive infra-red (PIR) detectors

Adequate security measures for doors and windows Welcoming entrance

Accessibility

Signposted from nearest main road(s) Parking for at least 10 cars or other vehicles,

including at least one bay reserved for disabled drivers, with tarmac surfaced car park

Accessible throughout to people with disabilities External signing with name of centre Climb-proof security fencing (if required – will vary

with location)


Good quality landscaping in the vicinity of the building, but no planting in which potential attackers could hide


At least one hall, ideally large enough for a badminton court (minimum 16.5 x 8.5 m); if there is such a court, the hall should have a semi-sprung floor and be at least 6 m high

Kitchen Adequate storage, access directly from main activity

areas Social area Adequate toilet provision Office and reception Payphone


Interior well maintained and clean, crisp decoration


Floor finishes in good (or at least acceptable) condition

Adequate notice boards

Indoor Sports Halls and Swimming Pools

Definition

Large scale indoor sports facilities operated by the public, commercial or voluntary sectors

Minimum Size

Sports halls: 4 badminton court hall plus changing Pools: 25 m x 4 lanes (8.5 m total width) plus

changing


External lighting, with movement or passive infra-red (PIR) detectors

Entrance clearly identifiable from the car park No landscaping in which potential attackers could

hide

Accessibility

Linked to the local footpath and cycle path network Accessible by public transport: nearest bus stop

within 250 m of entrance/access points Adequate parking for the range of facilities available,

with a tarmac surface in good repair and at least two designated disabled spaces close to the main entrance

Site and building fully accessible to people with disabilities

Cycle parking


Attractive landscaping to the site and building, incorporating native species where possible


Internal Support Areas Reception desk immediately inside main entrance

and clearly visible Disabled toilets Baby changing facility in male and female changing

areas or toilets First Aid facility General accessibility for people with disabilities – see

separate checklist Décor and finishes in good condition Clear route from reception to changing and activity

areas

Activity Areas

Meeting appropriate governing body or Sport


England standards Adequate storage, accessed from activity areas Mat storage, where required, physically separate and

vented to outside air Décor and finishes in good condition

Changing Areas

Separate male and female changing (although mixed sex villages desirable for pools)

Adequate locker provision Adequate shower and toilet provision Décor and finishes in good condition


Professionally managed

References CABE Space (undated), A Guide to Producing Park and Green Space Management Plans

CABE Space (undated), Green Flag Award Winners 2003-2004

Children’s Play Council (2002), More than Swings and Roundabouts: Planning for outdoor play

DTLR (2002), Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Open Spaces (report on research undertaken by the University of Sheffield for the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce)

English Nature (1995), Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities (Research Report 153)

English Nature (2002), Providing Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities

Kit Campbell and Geraint John (ed, 1995), Handbook of Sports and Recreation Building Design, Volumes 1, 2 and 3

National Playing Fields Association (2001), The Six Acre Standard

Sport England (various dates), Lottery Guidance Notes

Sport England (various dates), Planning Bulletins


Appendix 6: Quantity Standards

Introduction We have derived quantity standards for each of the main forms of provision. For each form of provision we set out:

Existing quantity standards Existing provision Key Issues from the Audit Proposed quantity standards The application of quantity standards

Parks and Gardens Summary

Existing Quantity Standard: 8 sq m per person Existing Provision: 16 sq m per person Proposed Quantity Standard: 13 sq m per

person

Note: the Local Plan standard also includes an accessibility component

Existing Quantity Standards

Local Plan policy includes a parks hierarchy of:

Pocket parks: a small area of at least 1,000 sq m of land designated for young children’s play

Local parks: an area of not less than 1.75 ha (0.7 ha) Area parks: an area of approximately 25 acres (10

ha) which may contain both play provision and formal sports facilities such as bowling greens or tennis courts

Existing Provision

The quantity element of the provision standard is more than comfortably exceeded. However, there is a need for clarity of definition as the Local Plan standard for pocket parks, at least, seems to be referring effectively to what we have classed as amenity greenspaces.

As the table above shows, the current amount of amenity greenspace is just under the Local Plan standard. Taken together, however, the total area of land used for parks and amenity greenspaces is just under three times the amount required by the application of the Local Plan standard. Accordingly


developers could reasonably argue that the overall level of provision in Middlesbrough exceeds the Local Plan requirement by such a huge margin that they should not be required either to provide or contribute to additional provision.

The main question that arises from this analysis, however, is whether the Council should allow development on some of the town’s present greenspace and, if so, how much it should be willing to release. This is an issue which relates more to amenity greenspace than to the spaces we have identified in the audit as parks, because the Council will obviously wish to retain its parks.

Key Issues from the Audit

The audit database contains details of 43 parks, many of them lacking in facilities and of poor quality, with four very obvious exceptions: the “Green Flag(ship)” parks (Albert, Stewart and Pallister) and Hemlington Recreation Ground and Lake. We found it difficult to determine whether some sites were parks or other forms of greenspace and so suggest the following definition of a park:

A high quality greenspace, with a specific local name and enclosed by walls, railings or hedges, containing a range of landscape features or built facilities, designed and maintained in such a way as to be seen as an attractive place to visit by people of all ages.

The parks hierarchy in the Local Plan does not seem to operate in practice, but it is a sensible approach. However, we suggest that as Middlesbrough is a compact town, it should be enough to have a two-tier hierarchy:

Town parks: major parks with a good range of facilities, intended to serve a town-wide catchment. It follows that the Council should seek to make these parks different and complementary. The three Green Flag parks and Hemlington should make up this level of the hierarchy.

Neighbourhood parks: smaller parks within walking distance of each of the main neighbourhoods in the town, with a lesser range of facilities, designed to complement those in other spaces in the same neighbourhood but generally with an emphasis on providing a high quality landscape and horticultural interest. It follows that the Council should actively seek to maximise pedestrian and cycling access to these spaces.

As a matter of policy, each of the parks should contain a major children’s play area and the town parks should also have teenage facilities


Town Parks

The specific role of the town parks should be:

Albert Park: the town’s premier heritage park with good quality tennis, bowling and play facilitiesPallister Park: the main sports and play park in the north-eastern part of the townStewart Park: important heritage park; informal recreation with an animal corner for children’s interestHemlington Recreation Ground (which the Council should rename Hemlington Park): the main sports and play park in the south-western part of the townCentral Gardens and Victoria Park: open space and leisure facility serving the working and student population within the relatively high density town centre.

We calculate the total area of the proposed town parks as some

Albert Park 284,305 sq mHemlington Park 258,185 sq mPallister Park 110,406 sq mStewart Park 451,317 sq mCentral Gardens / Victoria Park 33,709 sq mTotal 1,137,922 sq m

This equates to approximately 8 sq m per person.

Neighbourhood Parks

We list the neighbourhoods and their parks in Appendix 11. Their aggregate area is approximately 682,000 sq m which equates to approximately 5 sq m per person.

The parks provision map summarises this hierarchy and shows that most areas of the town will be within the basic distance threshold of a town park, neighbourhood park or Beck. Accordingly we recommend that the Council should focus its efforts primarily on ensuring that this network is of high quality and accessible.

Proposed Quantity Standard

We suggest that the Council should protect all those spaces we have identified as town and neighbourhood parks and, with the Beck Valleys, they should be the foundation for the parks and open spaces strategy. However, many of them require significant enhancement if they are to fulfil their role.

As new developments will increase the demand pressure on parks, it will be for developers to contribute to their enhancement as a matter of course. The appropriate provision standard is therefore:

Town parks 8 sq m per person


Neighbourhood parks 5 sq m per person Total 13 sq m per person

Application of the Quantity Standard

Local Plan Policy E9 states that new residential developments which would create a shortage of parks will normally be required to provide pocket parks and local parks but not area parks. Paragraph 1.79 allows that where it is not possible for a developer to provide the required size and standard of either a pocket or local park within a development site, they will be required to make a financial contribution to provide it elsewhere. This contribution will “equate to the value at the alternative location of the area of land which should have been provided to meet the standard, plus a negotiated allowance for landscaping and equipment” and, for general purpose housing, be based on the provision of at least 0.8 Ha per 1000 people - the aggregate park provision standard.

It is not clear what the developer may have to pay if the land to be used for a park is already owned by the Council, although presumably the contribution will then relate simply to the costs of laying out the park.

For the foreseeable future, we recommend that the Council’s priority should be to enhance its existing parks and especially those designated as neighbourhood parks. More specifically, it should seek contributions from all developments which will increase the use made of parks, such as residential and office developments, based on two components:

A contribution towards the general improvement of town parks, based on 8 sq m per personA contribution towards the enhancement of the nearest neighbourhood park, based on 5 sq m per person

Amenity Greenspaces

Summary

Existing provision standard: none Existing provision: 7.45 sq m per person Proposed Provision Standard: 6.5 sq m per

person

Existing Quantity Standard

The current Local Plan does not include a standard for amenity greenspace although it is possible to interpret the standard for “pocket parks”, of 2 sq m per person, as something similar. However, the Plan notes that pocket parks are “specifically designated for young children for play activities” and “… need to be designed … to prevent ball games being played by older children”. This effectively precludes them from being classed as amenity space.

Existing Provision


We classed just over 1M sq m of greenspace as amenity space in the audit, spread over 34 sites. In addition, if the Council accepts our recommendation to downgrade some current parks to amenity greenspaces the total amount of current provision will increase by some 360,000 sq m to a little over 1,368,000 sq m or some 9.7 sq m per person.


We found it difficult to decide whether some sites were amenity greenspaces or parks during the audit process. Some of the poorer quality spaces the Council sees as parks lacked facilities or a good landscape structure and so were effectively being used as fairly basic amenity greenspaces. At the same time, some of the better amenity greenspaces, particularly in south Middlesbrough appeared to be more like parks. If the Council accepts the parks hierarchy we suggest above some of the spaces we have currently classed as parks will become amenity greenspaces. The first key issue, therefore, is to define amenity greenspace.

We recommend that the Council define amenity greenspaces as:

A network of public accessible greenspaces that form an integral part of residential and other areas, with larger trees and other landscape features than would be possible in all but the largest domestic gardens. They will rarely be enclosed and will not be known by any specific name by the public but will serve the following purposes:

- Enhancing the amenity of adjoining buildings and the immediate area within which they are set

- Providing freely available opportunities for informal activities for people living, visiting or working in the vicinity of them such as dog walking, strolling, jogging and kickabouts

- Providing a series of spaces on pedestrian paths through built development

- Supporting biodiversity and wildlife- Enhancing local air quality and helping to

reduce the potential for minor flooding

While there is ample amenity greenspace in Middlesbrough as a whole, there is a geographical imbalance in the distribution of these spaces, with paucity in the central area and a reasonably high number of sites in the south. Communities in the south, while lacking access to facilities, therefore have a greater choice of amenity spaces than those in the other areas.



There is no clear rationale for determining the appropriate quantity of amenity greenspace in a residential or other area and indeed the need for it will vary from one area to another. For example, long established low density leafy suburbs in which houses have reasonably large gardens have much less need for a network of publicly accessible greenspaces than typical “developer suburbs” containing houses with fairly small gardens. In turn, these areas require less publicly accessible greenspace than inner suburban areas of high density housing.

Broadly speaking, Middlesbrough has more than enough amenity greenspace already; the Council’s clear priority must be to enhance existing run-down spaces rather than seek the provision of more. It is also the case that it could dispose of some of its existing poor quality and low value spaces in order to generate some of the funds required to enhance other spaces. Accordingly we recommend that the amenity greenspace quantity standard should be slightly lower than the present level of provision at around 9 sq m per person.


In Middlesbrough most new residential development will probably be one of four types: housing market renewal, typical developer suburbs designed for owner-occupation, infill and other small developments and the “densification” of those areas in which houses have large gardens. We suggest that the approach to these various types of development should be:

Housing market renewal areas: a requirement that masterplans should ensure as many dwellings as possible face onto a network of amenity greenspaces, linked by landscaped pedestrian and/or cycle paths which provide reasonably direct routes from dwellings to local community facilities and the wider network of paths and cycleways through the town. The maximum distance between each distinguishable amenity greenspace must be less than the distance threshold for amenity greenspaces and each space must be of at least the minimum size given in the quality standard. However, the spaces must be designed in a way which provides variety in terms of sizes, vegetation and other and landscape features.

Developer suburbs: if there are no existing amenity greenspaces within the distance threshold of each dwelling, the development must include an on-site network of greenspaces and paths similar to those required in housing market renewal areas except that the spaces can be set apart by no more than 1.5 times the distance threshold. In addition, the total amount of amenity greenspace must be not less than that required by the application of the


quantity standard to the development. If there are existing greenspaces within the distance threshold of the development, the developer must contribute to their enhancement on the basis of the quantity standard. In addition, all developments should contribute to the enhancement of neighbourhood and town parks

Infill and other small developments: no requirement for new on-site greenspaces but development must contribute to the enhancement of the nearest amenity greenspace and neighbourhood and town parks

Densification areas: no requirement for new greenspaces but development must contribute to the enhancement of the nearest amenity greenspace and neighbourhood park and town parks

Natural Greenspaces

Summary

Existing quantity standard: none, but see belowExisting provision: 18.9 sq m per personProposed quantity standard: 19 sq m per person


Local Plan Policy E19, Local Nature Space, sets a target for at least one “local nature space” not less than 0.5 ha in area within 1 km of every home and 12-15 minutes walk of every school. It also notes that the target will be a material consideration in relation to proposals for the development of open space or new housing and the Council may use conditions or planning obligations to help it achieve the target. Paragraph 1.1145, in amplification, notes that this could form part of open space required by Policy E9 (Public Open Space) or E12 (Outdoor Sport Provision). It also indicates that contributions to off-site provision will be based on the value of the development site, an approach which does not comply with DoE Circular 1/97, Planning Agreements.

Existing Provision

There can also be problems of definition in relation to natural greenspaces as they include many spaces other than those with a formal nature conservation designation. For the purposes of the PPG17 assessment, the key issue is the extent to which natural greenspaces are accessible to people. However, including the Becks, the amount of natural greenspace in Middlesbrough equates to just under 19 sq m per person. The inclusion of the Becks in the natural greenspace category is supported by the Local Plan, which identifies Marton West Beck, Blue Bell


Beck, Maltby Beck and Newham Beck as Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and Marton West Beck, Blue Bell Beck, Ormesby Beck and Spencer Beck as Local Nature Spaces.

Local people are especially keen to see an increase in the provision of natural greenspace in Middlesbrough. Our local consultations identified stronger support for an increase in this type of provision than any other type of open space, together with improved access to woodland copses, rural footpaths and country parks and commons.


Through the audit, we found that many spaces that have not been formally recognised make a significant contribution to wildlife and to people’s access to natural spaces, although some are better able to accommodate year-round public access than others. However, the most sensitive areas are generally protected by formal designations and much of the focus of Local Plan policies is to protect nature conservation sites and minimise damage or disturbance to wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors. The Council has not fully taken this policy intent through into how it manages natural sites, however, and there is a lot of evidence of the abuse of the Beck areas such as flytipping and the dumping of household white goods.

We did not include walking and cycling paths in the natural greenspace audit, although some are reasonably natural in character and meet some of the local need for access to natural greenspaces. We audited 34 separate natural sites, including the Becks Valleys. While the Council has recognised only specific sections of the Beck Valleys for their contribution to nature conservation, they support wildlife and biodiversity more or less along the whole of their length. Equally, if improved they will be valuable more or less north-south paths through the town, entirely separated from traffic.

This relates in part to their fairly even geographical distribution, at least in the centre and south of the town. The northern area, containing the town centre and area around it, have the least accessible natural greenspace. However, the site at Teesaurus Park and the access paths along the River Tees have great potential as natural greenspaces if the Council is able to promote their enhancement. In addition, the Wildspace! Project has successfully increased access to, and interest in, natural spaces and led to the Berwick Hills Allotments, Linthorpe Cemetery, Stainton Quarry and Whinney Banks being designated as Local Nature Reserves.

Middlesbrough residents also have reasonably goods access to countryside outside the town. For example, residents of the southern area are only a short distance


from the moors to the south of Eston, while those who live in the northern area are reasonably close to the Billingham Beck Country Park. The proposed country park at Coulby Newham will improve access to countryside areas even further.

As with other forms of provision, therefore, the key issue is quality rather than quantity. Some accessible sites are so poor that few people ever visit them - at least for a legitimate purpose. Given this, and the accessibility assessment earlier in this report, there is no real need for more natural greenspace. Instead, the emphasis should be on enhancing existing spaces, through selected capital projects - for example, improving paths through the Beck Valleys, or repairing bridges - and enhancing maintenance. Given the constraints on the Council’s maintenance budgets, this may involve managing some spaces in a less intensive and cheaper manner which will have the incidental benefit of creating more natural spaces. There may then be the opportunity to involve local communities more in their management; local communities are much less likely to be interested in helping to look after areas of short-mown grass than areas with real nature conservation value.


Accordingly we suggest that the quantity standard for natural greenspaces should be the same as the present level of provision, ie some 19 sq m per person.


For the foreseeable future, the Council should not ask developers to provide on-site natural greenspaces but seek contributions towards the enhancement of existing spaces.

Equipped play areas

Summary

Existing Quantity Standard: none; play is simply included as a component of the wider urban parks standard

Existing Provision: approximately 0.3 sq m per person

Proposed Quantity Standard: 0.5 sq m per person

Existing Quantity Standards

There is no specific quantity standard for play areas in the Local Plan. Instead, provision for play areas is one component within an overall quantity standard for parks. Policy E9 sets out the need for three forms of provision:

Informal play (unequipped) within small pocket parks, with a minimum size of 1,000 sq m. The Plan notes that this is equivalent to the NPFA Local Area for Play, (LAP), for which the NPFA Six Acre


Standard gives a minimum size of 100 sq m Equipped play within local parks with a minimum

size of 1.75 acres (just under 0.7 ha). The Plan notes that these local parks should include two play facilities as specified by the NPFA: a Local Equipped Area for Play (LAEP and a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP). The NPFA Six Acre Standard gives the area of these as a minimum of 400 sq m and 1,000 sq m respectively.

An unspecified variety of play for all ages within area parks

The Local Plan also contains no definitive policies on developer contributions specifically for the provision of play areas other than those relating to parks (see above).

Existing Provision

For the purposes of this analysis, we have focused on the area of land dedicated to play use rather than total area of park or other greenspace within which play areas may be set. This approach brings clarity to the analysis, although we do not advocate that play areas should necessarily be stand-alone. Using this approach, the amount of land currently allocated for play sites in Middlesbrough is around 0.3 sq m per person. However, the area of land actually used for equipped play areas is less than this because:

The Council had removed the play equipment from a number of sites included in the audit

Site areas taken from GIS maps generally includes some of the buffer area around the actual play space, thereby increasing the size of the site recorded as being for play area use

While a quality standard is obviously necessary to assess the amount of provision which might be needed, quantity is only one of the issues to consider. For example, there is little value in a very small play area with only a single piece of equipment, even although this is all that may be “justified” by a quantity standard.

The Council reviewed its play strategy in 1999, finding that issues of quality and accessibility were more important than quantity. Accordingly it included a list of play areas to be upgraded and highlighted “play voids” to focus attention on the uneven distribution of play areas and related accessibility issues. We strongly endorse this approach. There is no point in having lots of play areas if they are either inaccessible or of such low quality that very few children or their parents or carers will want to use them. Nonetheless, there is still a need for a quantity standard, not least in order to have a transparent policy basis for assessing developer contributions.


From the audit we established that:


Many designated play areas are effectively amenity greenspaces (at best) or “wasted spaces” (at worst) as the Council ahs removed the play equipment

There is a need significantly to boost the quality of most of the play areas that remain

The number of spaces with no play equipment, and/or in a poor state of maintenance, indicates that the Council is struggling to provide decent quality play areas on existing sites with its present resources

Play areas can be subject to vandalism and are then very expensive to maintain and difficult choices often have to be made over competing budget priorities

There is a good case to be made for fewer but better sites, in highly visible locations, rather than continuing to provide small, unsuccessful sites

Theoretical standards

Because play areas do not have a fixed capacity to accommodate use, it is not possible to adopt and supply and demand approach to determine an appropriate quantity standard. Accordingly we have developed a standard from first principles based on a conceptual model and the key requirements of the recommended quality standards and distance thresholds. The basis parameters are:

Minimum size: 400 m (taken from recommended quality standards)

Distance threshold: 400 m (taken from recommended distance thresholds)

Assumed housing density: 30 dwellings/hectare (taken from PPG3)

Average dwelling occupancy: 2.4 people (taken from 2001 census for Middlesbrough)

The conceptual model consists of a circular residential area with a radius of 400 m. It therefore has an area of approximately 50 ha. At 30 dwellings/ha, this area will contain roughly 1,500 dwellings and just over 3,600 people. Assuming that this area requires a minimum of one play area, this gives a minimum quantity standard of 400 sq m to 3,600 people, or 0.11 sq m per person.

We have also used the same model to derive a provision standard for older children, with a different distance threshold and minimum size:

Minimum size: 1,000 sq m (taken from the recommended quality standards)

Distance threshold: 550 m (taken from the recommended distance thresholds)

This gives a minimum quantity standard of 0.15 sq m per person.


These two calculations assume that the residents of the conceptual model residential area will require only one 400 sq m play area for young children and one 1,000 sq m area for older ones, giving a composite quantity standard of 0.26 sq m per person. However, older children should have a choice of play areas and there will be few areas where the model will apply on the ground. For example, it is undesirable for children to have to cross main roads to get to play areas. Accordingly we recommend doubling the above theoretical requirement to allow for these factors, giving a (rounded) quantity standard of 0.5 sq m per person.


When applying this quantity standard, we recommend that the Council should:

Aim to achieve only the minimum level of provision, but with the highest possible quality and play value

Give priority, in at least the short term, to using developer contributions and any capital investment it can afford to improving the quality, interest, attractiveness, safety and security of existing sites with potential and value

Encourage, if not require, residential developers to adopt a “home zone” approach in order to make it possible for children to play safely and informally in their immediate home environment

Youth Activity Areas

Overview

Existing Quantity Standard: none; play is simply included as a component of a wider urban parks standard

Existing Provision: approximately 0.19 sq m per person

Proposed Quantity Standard: 0.3 sq m per person

Existing Provision Standards

The Local Plan does not include any quantity standards for youth provision.

Existing Provision

Through the audit we identified a total of some 17 youth sites, consisting of three skate areas and 14 ballcourts, plus a number of teenage pods/shelters. These pods are valuable as they provide somewhere for young people to “hang out”. However, we did not include them in the audit database because they take up very little land, can often be provided on a largely opportunistic basis once it is known where young people want to congregate and the focus of provision standards should be on providing for activities. On this


basis, the total area of land currently allocated for youth facilities amounts to around 0.19 sq m per person, approximately the same as for tennis and bowls. This will increase slightly when the proposed skate area at Prissick is complete.

During the audit, we noted that most ballcourts are of reasonable quality and condition and were generally being well used, but the opposite was true for skateparks. This contrasts with other Council areas in which we have undertaken PPG17 assessments. It may be skaters regard the present facilities as less attractive for skateboarding or in-line skating than hard landscaped areas in the town centre or elsewhere. It will be interesting to see whether the Prissick skatepark is more successful following the local consultations undertaken by the Council over its design.

The most successful equipped play site in Middlesbrough is the area located at the east entrance to Albert Park. We could equally have classed it as a youth facility. It includes several teenage pods and a couple of large pieces of equipment that appeal to young people in the 8 – 14 age groups. It is well chosen for its lack of neighbours and has excellent landscape screening. The music played over the loudspeaker system undoubtedly contributes to its success as a youth area.

Key Issues

The following points are relevant to a quantity standard for youth provision:

Young people aged 19 and under make up almost a third of Middlesbrough’s population. Most rely on walking and cycling to get to leisure facilities.

Young people must have a choice of where to go to take part in leisure activities with their peers, not least because of territorial issues

The survey of local people identified a widely-held view that Middlesbrough lacks adequate provision for young people. Almost 60% of respondents wanted to see an increase in the provision of youth centres and over 57% identified a need for more teenage/youth facilities in general.

Further ballcourt provision appears particularly to be needed in Coulby Newham, the south east and in the north, where the only facilities have been removed.

Some courts appear to be in almost constant use, indicating a need for a higher level of provision than exists at present

Theoretical Standards

We have used the same basic conceptual model for youth provision as for equipped play, with the following


parameters:

Minimum size: 1,000 sq m (taken from recommended quality standards)

Distance threshold: 500 m (taken from recommended distance thresholds)

Housing density and occupancy: as above

The conceptual model residential area extends to some 78 ha and contains around 5,600 people, giving a theoretical provision standard of around 0.18 sq m per person. However, this assumes that the area requires only a single youth facility and ignores the findings of the local consultations and the need for both choice and the possible issue of territorialism. Accordingly we recommend at least a doubling of the theoretical minimum standard to around 0.4 sq m per person.


When applying this quantity standard, we recommend that the Council should:

Require developers to involve young people in the design of facilities intended for them

Continue to support brightly coloured facilities: the Council’s recent policy of painting the fencing around ballcourts has both cheered up several run-down sites and marked them out as intended primarily for young people

Allotments Summary

Existing quantity standard: none Existing provision: 2.3 sq m per person Proposed quantity standard: not required


There is no quantity standard in the Local Plan. At the time when the Council prepared the Local Plan, there were some 1,269 plots in the town.

Existing provision

Middlesbrough has six allotment sites:

Beechwood 390 plots Berwick Hills 50 plots Letitia Street 14 plots Saltersgill 294 plots Town Farm 272 plots Whitehouse 96 plots Total 1,116 plots

The Local Plan highlights a need for allotments in the southern part of the town and allocated a site at Hemlington Grange. However, as the Council has not found it necessary to progress this proposal the need for more plots is not proven.



Vacancy rates at some sites are high, for example 55% at Beechwood, and rising. In addition the Council has successfully converted around 200 former allotments at Berwick Hills into natural greenspace. This suggests that there is significant over-provision and an opportunity for the Council both to rationalise some sites and to promote allotment gardening as a contribution to its health and anti-poverty agendas.


As Middlesbrough appears to have more than enough allotments sites, there is no need for a quantity standard. Instead, the Council should review the demand for plots annually and monitor waiting lists, where they exist, and adjust supply accordingly.

Sports Pitches Summary

Existing quantity standards: 9.1 sq m per person (Local Plan) and 10.66 sq m per person (Pitches Strategy)Existing provision: 16.6 sq m (includes other tennis and other courts)Proposed quantity standard: 11 sq m per person (grass pitches) plus 0.3 sq m per person (artificial turf pitches)


The Local Plan standard of 1.6 ha per 1,000 people, of which 0.91 ha should be pitches, derives from the NPFA Six Acre Standard. The pitches component of the Six Acre Standard, however, is 1.2 ha, which the Council adjusted downwards to reflect a Sports Pitch Strategy prepared in 1994. A later pitches strategy, prepared in 2002, suggested a quantity standard some 15% or so higher, at 1.06 sq m per person.

The 2002 Strategy used a robust methodology and included a comprehensive review of both supply and demand.

Local Plan policy E12, Outdoor Sport Provision: Standard, states that new residential development will be required to provide for outdoor sport to the set standard, “unless adequate provision exists”. In the absence of a distance threshold, this policy implicitly applies on a town-wide basis and, as we have shows above, the amount of land in pitch use in the town comfortably exceeds the Local Plan target.. The policy also fails to address the important issue of quality.

Finally, the text explaining the policy notes that the Council will calculate developer contributions on the basis of the cost of acquiring the land which should have been provided on-site to meet the standard, at the alternative location. This is a very limited and potentially unwise approach which could leave the Council holding land it had bought for pitches but with


no funds to construct them. If it then did not construct the pitches within a five year period (or other period negotiated as part of the planning agreement) the developer could ask for a refund of the purchase cost, with interest.

Existing provision

We have identified that existing provision of pitches and courts amounts to the equivalent of around 16.6 sq m per per person, including those educational pitches with community use. However, this is aggregate site area of land used for pitches and courts, including artificial turf pitches, rather than the actual area of pitches. For pitch planning purposes, however, the number of pitches is a better approach than site area and this was the approach used fore the 2002 strategy.

The 2002 Pitch Strategy found that if some educational facilities are included, Middlesbrough had in excess of its then recommended provision of 9.1 sq m per person, but with a significant lack of pitches in North and Central Middlesbrough. It also identified the importance of balancing quantity and quality, emphasising that certain pitches were under-used and operating well below capacity as a result of management, maintenance and quality issues. It therefore proposed that the Council should tackle quality issues before considering further increases in quantity, although it did highlight a need for more junior and mini-soccer pitches and therefore suggested increasing the quantity standard to 10.6 sq m per person. We fully support this recommendation. If the demand for pitches increases the Council’s preferred approach should be to upgrade school or other educational pitches in order to bring them into community use rather than seek to allocate more land.

It is not essential that there be an equal distribution of pitches in every area of the town as half the players in any match are playing “away” and travelling is an inherent part of taking part in the pitch sports. Moreover, adult players usually join a particular team because of friendships with other players, or the standard of league in with the team plays, rather than because it is the closest team or club to their home. However, junior players are not as able to travel as adults and so require provision reasonably close to home, at least for training and practice. There is a lot to be said for a “central venue” approach to mini-soccer matches.


We audited a total of 32 sites with pitches or courts, or both, including the two artificial turf pitches (ATPs), and found that most were located in the western part of the town in an area stretching from Acklam Sports Centre to Prissick. This area includes all the town’s rugby pitches and most of its cricket pitches, including the


Middlesbrough Rugby Club pitches and the Teeside University facilities.

A number of sites drain poorly and this leads to cancellations in spells of wet weather. Accordingly there is a general need either to upgrade pitches, to increase their carrying capacity, or open up more school pitches for community use. The best approach will be to focus on the largest sites as this will deliver the greatest benefit to local pitch sports. The way in which the Saltersgill site has been able to accommodate games which should have taken place on other sites has been especially valuable in recent years and it will be desirable to have more sites of this nature.

Middlesbrough currently has two sand-based ATPs, at Acklam Sports Centre in the west and Southlands in the east but no “third generation” pitch designed for football. Sport England maintains that one ATP can cater for the demand that arises from a catchment of around 60,000 people within a 20-minute drive time. We are confident that the demand for ATPs will increase significantly in the next few Years now that UEFA has agreed that they can be used for most standards of play. While the Football Association has not yet ratified this for England, it will undoubtedly do so. Accordingly we recommend that the Council should seek to provide a third generation ATP in the northern or central part of the town. The best location will be on a school site or in partnership with Teeside University.

There is an opportunity to provide a number of mini-soccer pitches on land between Clairville Stadium and Albert Park. This has the advantage that the Stadium already has parking and contains a significant amount of changing accommodation. If this is not possible for some reason, the next best approach will be to develop a central venue for mini-soccer on a suitable school site, which should be as centrally located as possible. Grasping one or both of these opportunities should not require any significant capital investment.


The quantity standard for grass pitches in the 2002 Pitches Strategy was thoroughly researched and we see no reason to change it. Accordingly we recommend a quantity standard of 10.6 sq m per person, although suggest it will be sensible to round it up to 11 sq m per person.

Separately, it seems clear that Middlesbrough should have at least three ATPs. An ATP requires a site area of around 11,000 sq m, including parking and changing. This gives a quantity standard of some 0.3 sq m per person.


Ideally, Middlesbrough should have its pitches on a


limited number of sites as this will maximise economies of scale in development, management and maintenance costs. In particular, the Council should avoid creating more pitch sites. Accordingly, it should not require developers to make any on-site provision but instead require them to contribute to off-site provision on a town-wide basis, using the pattern of participation in pitch sports as the justification for this approach. This will allow the Council to aggregate contributions from different developments in order to make a worthwhile difference on priority sites.

Golf Courses Summary Existing quantity standard: none Existing provision: 7 sq m per person Proposed quantity standard: 7 sq m per person


The Local Plan notes that the Sport England Facilities Planning Model (FPM) indicated a need for between 2.5 and 5.4 golf courses in Middlesbrough. It is not clear whether this relates to 9-hole units (the standard unit used in the FPM) or 18-hole units. On the basis of the FPM, however, the Local Plan outlines a need for the development of a 9 hole golf course and proposes that it should be adjacent to the Ladgate Lane pay and play course, provided the Council can acquire the necessary land.

The Plan also notes that the Council had granted permission for the development of an 18-hole course at Stainsby Hill Farm in the south western area of the town. Overall, it concludes that “the existing and proposed provision is satisfactory”.

Existing provision

There are two existing golf courses in Middlesbrough – the 18 hole municipal golf course on Ladgate Lane, with clubhouse bar and restaurant - and the 18 hole private Middlesbrough Golf course on Brass Castle Lane. There is also a 12 hole “pitch and putt” course at Prissick Base which is open on a seasonal basis. Between them, these facilities amount to the equivalent of just under 7 sq m per person.

The are also two golf courses within easy reach of Middlesbrough – the Teeside Golf course which is lies less than 1 km west of Whinney Banks and the Eaglesciffe Golf course which is less than a 20 minute drive from central Middlesbrough.


During the audit, we noted a number of people using greenspaces for informal golf practice. Part of the reason for this may be that the practice range on the


municipal course is not easily accessible except by car, especially when players have to take a bag of clubs. However, we very much doubt that there is a case to be made for an additional practice range.

Since the preparation of the Local Plan, the anticipated national increase in golf demand has not materialised to anything like the extent anticipated at that time. Conversely the number of courses has increased. The inevitable result is that some of the new courses have also closed. The fact that the developers of the proposed Stainsby Hill Farm course have not implemented their planning consent is a clear indicator of a lack of unmet demand.


Accordingly the quantity standard should be the same as the present level of provision, i.e. around 7 sq m per person.


There is no need to require developers either to provide or contribute to the provision or upgrading of bowling greens or tennis courts.

Other Outdoor Sports Facilities

Summary

Existing quantity standard: 5-4-6.9 sq m per personExisting provision: 0.67 sq m per personProposed quantity standard: 0.7 sq m per person


The existing standard is the difference between the overall target for outdoor sports provision (16 sq m per person) and the amount of this target allocated for pitches (9.1 sq m in the Local Plan or 10./6 sq m ion the 2002 Pitches Strategy). According to the Local Plan, it includes pitches, greens, courts, athletics tracks and miscellaneous sites such as croquet lawns.

The same comments apply in relation to the way in which the Local Plan sets out how the Council apply its target standard as for sports pitches above.

Existing Provision

As we have included ballcourts in youth provision, outdoor sports provision includes the Clairville athletics and cycling stadium, bowling greens, tennis courts and golf courses.

Clairville Stadium

Clairville offers a 6-lane synthetic track surrounded by a banked tarmac cycle track plus spectator accommodation. The level of cycling use is very


limited although there are several active athletics clubs that train at the Stadium. The area of the Stadium is approximately 44,000 sq m which equates to around 0.33 sq m per person.

Bowling Greens

During the audit we identified five bowling greens. In aggregate their area equates to approximately 0.16 sq m per person.

Tennis Courts

The aggregate area of the tennis courts on the five sites we audited equates to around 1.8 sq m per person.

Summary

In aggregate, the quantity of provision of other sports facilities is therefore around:

Clairville Stadium 0.33 sq m per personBowling greens 0.16 sq m per personTennis courts 0.18 sq m per personTotal 0.67 sq m per person


Clairville Stadium

Clairville was at one time a key athletics and track cycling venue for Tees-side but it is now outdated. We prepared some outline proposals some time ago for removing the cycling track, improving the athletics track and related spectator accommodation and providing additional indoor facilities, including an indoor athletics training area. The opportunity to do this obviously still exists.

Bowling Greens

Each of the bowling greens in the audit appeared to be well used and most sites were in good condition. The exception was Westbourne Park. Overall, the distribution of sites is good across the town, although the southern area lacks a green. However, we have not identified any particular need for a green in this area.

Tennis Courts

The 5 main outdoor tennis sites are distributed reasonably evenly around the western area of the town, but there are no public courts in south, east or north Middlesbrough. However, the four indoor courts at Prissick are excellent facilities and accessible, at least by car, from the whole of the town. As the council has recently converted the former tennis courts at Hemlington Recreation Ground into a large ballcourt for 5 or 7-a-side games and basketball practice, presumably the level of demand for public courts was


very low. This could in part reflect the much better facilities at the nearby Nunthorpe and Marton Recreation Club.

The fact that there are disused tennis courts in Middlesbrough indicates a clear lack of demand and therefore there is not need for additional provision.


Given that the present level of bowls and tennis provision appears to be about right, there is no need for a quantity standard other than one which post-rationalises the present provision. As for athletics, the key issue is whether the Council is content to continue to operate a fairly run-down track which can be used for training and schools events, but is unlikely to attract a major meeting, or wishes to attract significant athletics events to the town.

Assuming the Council wishes to include athletics, therefore, we recommend a provision standard for other outdoor sports facilities of:

Athletics 0.33 sq m per personBowling greens 0.16 sq m per personTennis courts 0.18 sq m per personTotal, say 0.7 sq m per person


There is no need to require developers either to provide or contribute to the provision or upgrading of bowling greens or tennis courts. However, Clairville is a strategic facility for the town and therefore all developments should contribute to its enhancement.

Sports Halls and Related Facilities

Summary

Existing quantity standard: noneExisting provision: 33 badminton court equivalentsProposed quantity standard: 0.08 sq m (of dry sports building) per person


The Local Plan has no provision standards for sports halls, although paragraph 6.26 notes that a 1990 run of the Sports Council’s Facilities Planning Model suggested a need for an additional 2.9 four-court halls. As the calculation did not include the Southlands Centre, with the equivalent of 1.25 halls, the Plan identified a shortfall of 1.65 standard halls. It also notes the lack of “any active sports facilities for public use in Central Middlesbrough”.

The 19990 calculation assumed 50% access to school halls at peak times and Appendix 17 to the Plan listed only four halls in the town – at the Rainbow Leisure Centre, Southlands Leisure Centre, Acklam Sport Centre and Clairville Stadium (then known as Cleveland County Stadium).


Existing provision

Middlesbrough’s sports halls and related indoor facilities are distributed reasonably evenly across the town. The main centres are at Pallister Park, Berwick Hills Centre, Southlands, Ormesby Sports Centre, Marton and Nunthorpe Sports Centre, Hemlington Recreation Ground, the Rainbow Centre at Coulby Newham and Acklam Sports Centre.

The present provision contains the following courts or court equivalents:

CourtsAcklam Sports Centre 4Coulby Newham Youth Centre 1Clairville Stadium 1Holmwood School 2Kings Academy 4Marton and Nunthorpe Sports Centre 4Middlesbrough College 1Pallister Park 1Rainbow Leisure Centre 6Southlands Leisure Centre 1St David’s RC Technology College 4St Peter’s RC Comprehensive School 4Total 33


As with other forms of provision, the key issues revolve around quality, with the facilities on school sites being those most in need of upgrading to modern standards.


The Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator (available at www.sportengland.org) assesses the demand for sports halls in Middlesbrough as equivalent to approximately 39 badminton courts equivalents.

Accordingly there appears to be a shortfall of around 6 court equivalents against the Sport England estimate and the required provision standard is one court equivalent to roughly 3,500 people. Our public consultations also supported the need for more provision.

Badminton courts are not stand-alone facilities but have to be complemented by smaller halls, used for activities such as aerobics, and ancillary accommodation in the form of changing and social areas, circulation space, storage and plant areas. Assuming a ratio of one secondary hall, roughly 12 x 15 m, to four badminton courts, and that the ancillary areas in a dry sports centre typically amount to around 50% of the activity space, 39 sports hall and related accommodation will have a total floor area of around 11,300 sq m. This gives a provision standard of 0.08 sq m per person.



The Council should apply this quantity standard to all developments that will be likely to generate additional demand for indoor sport and aggregate contributions in order to make worthwhile provision. This can easily be justified by the use of the distance threshold for sports halls. Given the lack of provision the central part of the town, it may wish to reconsider our earlier proposals for extending the indoor provision at Clairville Stadium. An alternative approach will be to develop a joint use centre with a school or, ideally Tees-side University.

Swimming Pools Summary

Existing quantity standard: noneExisting provision: 910 sq m water area in three poolsProposed quantity standard: 0.05 sq m of pool building per person


The Local Plan identifies an unspecified level of unmet demand for swimming and notes that the Council was at that time proposing to build a leisure pool in the town centre.

Existing provision

Middlesbrough has the following pools and water areas:

Rainbow Leisure Centre 325 sq mBerwick Hills 425 sq mAcklam Sport Centre 160 sq mTotal 910 sq m


Both the Rainbow and Berwick Hills Pools are relatively recent and both are 25 long. The Acklam Pool, however, is only 20 m long and its depths make it unsuitable for a lot of public use. It is also in need of refurbishment.


The Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator (available at www.sportengland.org) assesses the demand for pools in Middlesbrough as equivalent to approximately 1,400 sq m of water area, roughly 500 m less than the present provision. Accordingly it suggests a need for at least one additional pool – a need also identified through our public consultations.

1,400 sq m water area equates to a little over 0.01 sq m of water area per person. As the floor area of swimming pool buildings is typically around 4.5-5


times the water area, this suggests a provision standard of 0.05 sq m of pool building per person.


The Council should apply this quantity standard to all developments that will be likely to generate additional demand for swimming and aggregate contributions in order to prove a single new pool on a suitable site. This can easily be justified by the use of the distance threshold for sports halls.

Development and Demand for Open Space or Sport and Recreation Facilities

Different forms of development generate different levels of demand for access to greenspaces or sport or recreation facilities. For example, sheltered housing does not generate a demand for sports pitches and one-bedroom dwellings do not normally increase the local demand for equipped play facilities. The table in the Quantity Chapter summarises the types of provision which will be required by the residents of different forms of residential development.

Policy Implementation

The Council should aspire to ensuring that all protected sites meet the quality standards.

Within this, our recommended approach is to focus on the following levels of action:

To protect the basic network of high quality high value sites

To enhancing those sites that are of real value but low quality

To Fill gaps in provision and accessibility deficiencies with priority being given to sites that meet BOTH a provision and accessibility deficiency

To reviewing opportunities for sites that are low quality and low value


Further Guidance for Reviewing Opportunity Sites

The Council should review these opportunity sites in light of wider planning policies, taking account of accessibility, quality and value of alternative provision in the area and the resources available to the Council. The diagram below summarises the approach that we recommend.

Is there a viable development use for the review site which is acceptable in terms of wider planning policy? No

Retain the site and enhance it

when resources

allow

Yes Is there, or could there be, adequate alternative

provision of the same type of greenspace within the distance threshold of the site with higher value, or

potential value, to the local community?No

Yes Is there a shortfall of any other forms of greenspace within the distance threshold of the site for which it

might be suitable?No

Consider disposal

Yes Is the site suitable for those form(s) of greenspace for

which there is an identified deficiency in the area?No

Yes Retain the site and convert it to the most appropriate alternative form of greenspace use when resources

allow

Although not shown in the diagram, the Council will also have to take account of any past planning agreements or conditions it has imposed on developers requiring them to make or fund specific provision.


Appendix 7: Distance Thresholds

Introduction This Appendix outlines the relevance of key factors in Middlesbrough’s geography in relation to formulating distance thresholds for the town. We outline the background to distance thresholds and recommend suitable distance thresholds for Middlesbrough, for various forms of community facility and open space provision.

For simplicity, we have concentrated on three thresholds: for walking, cycling and driving. These thresholds reflect two things: firstly the way in which most people travel to make use of the different forms of community infrastructure; and secondly the most and least sustainable modes of transport. The forms of community infrastructure for which we propose recommended thresholds are:

Allotments Amenity greenspaces Bowling greens Equipped children’s play areas Natural greenspaces Playing fields and sports pitches Parks and gardens Sports and recreation Teenage facilities Tennis and multi-courts Sport and recreation centres

Middlesbrough’s Geography

There are three key factors relating to Middlesbrough’s geography which have an important bearing on the formulation of distance thresholds for the town and determining which communities have “access deficiencies” to different forms of provision. The key factors are:

The extremely compact nature of the townThe relatively high degree of community severance and

The relatively high level of multiple deprivation and related low levels of car ownership.

A compact town

Middlesbrough is compact and generally flat, with all facilities being within a 5km radius of the central area. From north to south, it measures approximately 10km from Teesaurus Park to Hemlington and Nunthorpe. The


distance from Maze Park in the west to Thorntree Park in the east measures less than 9km “as the crow flies”. The town’s main green flag park, Albert Park is very much at its heart, located on major transport routes and paths. For these reasons, Middlesbrough as a town needs to be considered as a whole in terms of accessibility by car, by cycling and, to an extent, by walking.

Middlesbrough’s local population need never travel far to reach a facility or green space and, unlike more rural areas, travel by walking or cycling is as feasible as driving.

Community Severance

Many communities are severed from facilities or spaces by roads, rail and the Becks Valleys. In the northern and eastern parts of the area in particular, the railways form a barrier to north-south movement and divide residential areas from the major centres of industrial activity. Roads constitute major features in the landscape – especially the A174 / A178/ A19 / A66 which dominate the surrounding areas. In the southern area, the pedestrian and cyclist underpasses by the Parkway (A174) are a particularly unattractive reminder of the degree of severance between the southern communities and more central areas.

The River and the Becks Valleys are important features of Middlesbrough, giving the town a green and open character. The Beck Valleys flow northwest towards the River Tees, with the pathways and cycleways associated with them providing good links through the community neighbourhoods north and south. When travelling across the town in an east – westerly direction however, the Becks can present a barrier to movement, resulting in longer trips than would be necessary “as the crow flies”. The recent focus on improving path networks across Middlesbrough is beginning to solve these issues with more focus on a network of facilities and sites.

Population, Car Ownership, Social Equity and Sustainability

The 2001 Census recorded the population of Middlesbrough as 134,855 of which 48% were male and 52% were female. The town has a relatively high level of multiple deprivation and is ranked 10th worst affected out of 354 local authorities and districts in England. This measure takes into account specific dimensions of deprivation including income, employment, health and disability, education skills and training, barriers to housing and services, living environment and crime.

Over 28% of Middlesbrough’s population is under 19 years old, which is reinforces the importance of providing facilities for this age group, despite the fact that they may be one of the more difficult groups to reach through consultation.


Of particular interest in considering distance thresholds in Middlesbrough is the level of car ownership. While throughout England 29% of households do not own a car or a van, in Middlesbrough this figure is higher at 41%. Likewise, while 29% of households in England own two or more cars, the equivalent figure in Middlesbrough is much lower at 18% of households. For people in Middlesbrough, transport by means other than the car is important.

Given the compact nature of Middlesbrough, these lower levels of car ownership may be less of a problem than it would be to a dispersed rural population. Given both the flat and compact nature of the town and the lower levels of car ownership, the most appropriate and sustainable journey times and distance thresholds are those for walking and cycling.

Focusing on such modes of transport is also the most environmental sustainable and socially equitable.

Open Space Provision in Middlesbrough

The typology of open spaces map shows all of the spaces analysed in the audit, types of spaces analysed in the audit. One of the most striking things is the amount of open space in Middlesbrough. The largest areas open space stand out most clearly – in particular the north-south strips of the Becks Valleys, the largest parks – Albert, Whinney Banks, Hemlington, Pallister and Stewart Park and the two golf courses.

The typology map also shows the striking contribution that the Becks Valleys make to the amount of open space in Middlesbrough and in particular the opportunities for most communities in Middlesbrough, except the most northerly ones, to reach one or more of the Valleys. The strategic importance of the Becks Valleys as green routes linking communities north – south is clear.

The geographical spread of open spaces is also striking, with the map showing clearly a relative lack of provision around the older housing area, the central area and in the north area around St Kildas. The masterplan for the most northern area around St Kildas will address such issues as part of the overall package for the area.

The largest amount of open space lies in a band across the west of the town – from Acklam Base across the municipal golf course and two of the Becks into Saltersgill and Easterside playing pitches and Prissick Base and Stewart Park.

The map demonstrates the spread of education sites across Middlesbrough. In fact, of the 50% of land in public ownership in Middlesbrough, around 6% is used for school and educational purposes. Many of these sites accommodate large areas of ancillary land – often uninteresting expanses of grassland with little or no planting. More positively, these sites, particularly those with pitches, provide public use.


The maps illustrate the geographical spread of sports and recreation sites across the town. Clearly the amount of land taken up for sports pitches represents a large amount of the total land area – particularly around the western area between Acklam and Prissick Base. The map also draws attention to the imbalance in geographical spread, with the western area containing many pitches, the southern area a few, and the central area none.

The geographical spread of civic spaces, churchyards and cemeteries, education sites and allotment sites is shown clearly on the maps. With the exception of allotment sites, we have not analysed the accessibility of these sites for obvious reasons. They do however represent an important potential resource in filling any potential gaps in the open space network, particularly in terms of sports and recreation needs, nature conservation and amenity spaces.

However, in terms of considering the actual accessibility deficiencies affecting communities, particularly for walking, it is useful to analyse the town using the five planning areas of north, central, west, east and south. This geographical area analysis will underpin recommendations for the future.

The Northern Community Area

The urban northern area around St Hildas is low-lying and flat and consists of industrial, business and residential use and vacant land. Apart from Teesaurus Park, the communities within this area and the north of the central area have access to few facilities or open spaces.

This area is severed from the rest of the town and visually dominated by arterial transport infrastructure – high level busy roads (A66 and A178) and railway lines and bridges. It is the subject of a masterplan that seeks to transform its character, enabling new development while taking account of wider urban design relationships and civic space provision.

The Central Community Area

The central area, which lies directly to the north of Albert Park contains the town’s retail and business centre and the Older Housing areas of Gresham, Southfield and Westbourne. The densely developed character of this area is set by the Victorian Grid Iron street pattern, with little greenery and very little open space, and children playing in the streets.

These areas have access to the central facilities of Albert Park and some smaller parks and gardens, there is almost no provision for sports and recreation within these areas.

The Southern Community Area

The southern area lies to the south of the Parkway and


consists of Hemlington, Coulby Newham, Marton and Nunthorpe. This area has many good small amenity greenspaces, several areas for nature conservation and there is some potential for local communities to access the more rural countryside areas to the south of Middlesbrough. Apart from the earliest phases of Hemlington, much of this area is relatively green with good public landscaping and reasonable private gardens. In Coulby Newham in particular, there are good pedestrian paths and cycle routes enabling sustainable forms of transport and the appropriate linking of spaces.

Despite a few underpasses linked to pathways, the southern communities are, to a major extent, severed from the Middlesbrough’s communities to the north by the Parkway (A174). The busy roads of Stokesley Road and Dixons Bank run north-south and to a lesser extent, dissect the communities of Hemlington, Coulby Newham and Marton and Nunthorpe.

Within this area, the largest open spaces are Hemlington Lake and Recreation Grounds, the private Middlesbrough Golf Course, natural areas including parts of Blue Bell Beck, Newham Beck, Marton West Beck, Ormesby Beck and Cypress Road Beck.

The main recreational facilities are provided by the public Hemlington Recreation grounds and the private Marton and Nunthorpe Recreation centre. The southern area contains very few sports and recreational facilities.

The Western Community Area

The western area is of a mixed character, stretching from the housing estate of Whinney Banks, which is the subject of a major redevelopment project, through the traditional housing areas of Linthorpe and Acklam and into the estate of Easterside adjacent to the main railway line. In terms of open space and recreation provision, the western area of Middlesbrough has substantial amounts of land in these uses. Infact the largest amount of open space in one geographical location within Middlesbrough lies in a band stretching from Acklam Base in the west across the municipal golf course and two of the Becks into Saltersgill and Easterside playing pitches and onto Prissick Base and Stewart Park.

The western area also contains the highest level of provision of sports fields in Middlesbrough, particularly around Acklam and Easterside.

The Eastern Community Area

Many of the least attractive housing areas with the worst levels of multiple deprivation are located in east Middlesbrough. Within the 1970s housing estates, open space treatments are generally poor. The worst affected areas are Brambles Farm, Thorntree, Berwick Hills, Pallister Park, Easterside, Park End, and Netherfields.


The recently redeveloped Pallister Park opposite the Berwick Hills Shopping Centre is the main park serving the east side of Middlesbrough, although parks at Park End and Thorntree also play an important role. The eastern area has several playing fields and pitches and there are some nature conservation areas along the Becks Valleys – in particular along Ormesby Beck at Berwick Hills.

The Nature of Distance Thresholds

Distance thresholds are not hard facts, but a broad and flexible guide to the distance which people in general will be willing to travel in order to use or visit a facility or space. We make this point in paragraph 5.9 of our Companion Guide to PPG17. They are affected by many factors. For example:

Most older or very young people will be unwilling or unable to walk as far or as fast as teenagers and young adults; therefore distance thresholds vary with age

Most people will be willing to walk further to something on a warm, sunny day than on a very cold or very hot one; therefore distance thresholds ebb and flow with the weather

Most people will be willing to walk further to something if the route is level than if it is uphill; therefore distance thresholds vary with topography

Most people will be willing to walk further to something if the route than if it is heavily polluted with traffic fumes; therefore distance thresholds vary with traffic levels

Most women and older people on their own will be willing to walk further in daylight than at night; therefore distance thresholds vary by the time of day

Most people will be willing to travel further to something of high quality than low quality

Many people will be willing to travel further to something big or high quality than small or poor quality; therefore distance thresholds vary according to the nature of the space or facility visited

Not all people of the same, gender, age and state of health are willing or able to travel the same distance to something as a result of factors such as health, disability and access to a car or bicycle; therefore distance thresholds vary according to personal circumstances

Most people living in rural villages necessarily have to travel further than almost all urban dwellers to facilities such as supermarkets, cinemas or leisure centres, while most urban dwellers have to travel significantly further if they wish to visit the countryside; therefore distance thresholds vary according to where people live

There are two other key points:

The distance that people in any particular area travel to spaces or facilities is a function of the distribution of provision, coupled with the range of factors summarised above. In an area with little provision, empirically established distance thresholds will be much higher than in another area with a high level of


well distributed provision. There is a clear difference between people’s need to

travel and willingness to do so. In parts of the country, for example, people need to travel 50-60 miles to visit an NHS dentist but may not be willing to travel a few hundred metres to their local park if they perceive it as not worth visiting or the route as potentially dangerous. A football player may not be willing to travel more than a mile, say, to their local club, but the distance he or she will need to travel to take part in matches depends primarily on the geographical area covered by the league in which their team plays. The higher the player’s standard of skill, the wider this area will be.

This means that distance thresholds can only ever be seen as a very general guide. It would be an obvious nonsense to use either the maximum distance travelled by users or an average of all users. The maximum distance travelled by an individual user could easily be an aberration; for example, a survey of park users might pick up a visiting business person who had travelled hundreds of miles and was early for a meeting or waiting for a train home while everyone else had travelled only a short distance. Similarly, the average distance could also be affected by some users who had travelled a very long or very short distance.

For this reason, recreation planning normally uses the concept of the “effective catchment”, defined as the distance from which around 75% of users are drawn.

We now review a number of different sources of advice on distance thresholds.

Government Guidance

Regional Planning Guidance

Typical advice from Regional Planning Guidance is:

Target Maximum Food shop/primary school 300 m 600 m Other non-residential facilities 600 m 1,000 m Bus stop 200 m 400 m

This suggests a 300 m target/600 m maximum distance threshold will be suitable for most local facilities accessed on foot which residents, and especially children, can expect to have within their neighbourhood. As far as the PPG17 assessment is concerned, this category will include:

Children’s play areas Local greenspaces Local parks

The higher threshold, of 600 m target/1,000 m maximum, is suitable for facilities used mainly by adults, who can obviously walk further than young children, such as:

Allotments


Bowling greens Local pitches Tennis courts and similar facilities Youth facilities

PPG13: Transport – A Guide to Better Practice (DoE and DoT, 1995)

The Guide to Better Practice linked to PPG13 suggests a maximum distance from residential areas to shops, schools and workplaces of 1.6 km for walkers and 8 km for cyclists. It also indicates that motorised modes of travel are “rarely used for trips of around half a mile (0.8 km) or less”. These distances are significantly higher than those suggested in many other sources.

National Agency Guidance

The NPFA Six Acre Standard

According to a recent survey by the National Playing Fields Association, its Six Acre Standard for playing space, or a local variation of it, has been used by around 90% of local planning authorities across the UK.

The most recent version of the Standard (2001) recommends three types of children’s play provision:

Local Areas for Play (LAPs), located within 1 minute walk (or 60 m “as the crow flies”) of all dwellings. The NPFA defines a LAP as “a small area of open space specifically designed and laid out for young children to play close to where they live. Located within a walking time of 1 minute from home, the LAP provides essential play opportunities for toddlers and young children in locations that are overseen by parents, carers and the local community”.

Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs), located within 5 minutes walk (or 240 m “as the crow flies”) of all dwellings. The NFA defines a LEAP as “a piece of open space that is designated and equipped for children of early school age. Such areas need to be located within a walking time of 5 minutes from home”.

Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs), located within 15 minutes walk (or 600 m “as the crow flies”) of all dwellings. The NPFA defines a NEAP as “a site that is designated and equipped mainly for older children, but with opportunities for younger children too. Located within a walking time of 15 minutes from home, the NEAP is largest of the three types of play space and is able to address specific needs that cannot be met within a LAP or LEAP.

The Association based these distance thresholds on research by Holme and Massie (1970), who established that the majority of children travelled less than 400 m to play. It used this evidence to suggest a 400m maximum distance threshold for equipped play areas and initially this was regarded by many taken as a straight line distance – indeed, it still is by many councils. However,


since 1970 the NPFA has become increasingly aware of the importance of barriers such as main roads and so from 1992 has concentrated on walking time rather than distance. It also conducted walking trials with children to find the average distance they can walk in 1, 5 and 15 minutes. It has never published the full results of these trials, but the current version of the Standard gives a table converting walking times into actual and straight line distances as follows:

Time Actual Straight line Distance Equivalent

1 minute 100 m 60 m5 minutes 400 m 240 m15 minutes 1,000 m 600 m

Accordingly, the NPFA research found that “as the crow flies” distances tend to be around 60% of “on the ground” distances and walking speeds range from about 40-60 metres per minute.

The NPFA also recommends a straight line distance threshold of 1,000 m for sports pitches but does not give this recommendation the same prominence as its recommendations for play provision.

By Design: Better Places to Live (CABE, 2001)

By Design suggests that a comfortable walking distance from residential areas to local facilities should be not more than a 10 minute walk or 800 m – a walking speed of 80 m per minute.

Urban Design Compendium (English Heritage)

The Urban Design Compendium promotes the concept of “walkable neighbourhoods” in which people should be able to walk to a local post box or telephone box within 2-3 minutes (250 m); a newsagent’s within 5 minutes (400 m); and a primary school within 10 minutes (800 m). This also equates to a speed of 80 m per minute.

English Nature Research Report 153

English Nature (EN) Research Report 153, Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A review of appropriate size and distance criteria (1995) is an academic, but nonetheless interesting, literature review focusing on two key topics: whether accessible natural greenspaces need to be of a certain minimum size to be valuable for nature conservation, and the distance that people have been found to walk to different forms of provision. In relation to the latter, it summarises the findings from a range of empirical studies, including:

A comprehensive survey of park use in London – a survey which resulted in London authorities, and others in their wake, adopting a quarter mile distance threshold for local parksThe NPFA Six Acre Standard (see above)Research by the London Planning Advisory Committee


(LPAC)

The LPAC study and NPFA Standard (see above) are by far the most widely quoted sources on distance thresholds and their recommended thresholds are very widely used by planning authorities throughout the UK. The LPAC recommended open space hierarchy is very much London-based and largely inapplicable in smaller towns and cites, but in spite of this the then DoE quoted them as an example of an open space provision standard (together with the Six Acre Standard) in the 1991 version of PPG17. They suggest a hierarchy of park and greenspace provision as follows:

Regional parks of 400 ha with 3.2-3.8 km of home

Metropolitan parks of 60 ha with 3.2 km of home District parks of 20 ha within 1.2 km of home Local parks of 2 ha with in 1.2 km of home Small local parks and other open spaces of up to

2 ha 400 m from home

Some councils use a variation of the LPAC hierarchy. Liverpool City Council, for example, has adopted the following hierarchy:

City parks, greater than 50 ha within 3.2 km of home District parks of 5-50 ha within 1.2 km of home Neighbourhood parks of 1-5 ha within 400 m of

home Small local parks of less than 1 ha within 400 m of

home

While the NPFA has concluded that straight line distances are about 60% of on the ground ones, EN Research Report 153 noted that the LPAC identified a multiplier of 70%. Accordingly it recommended that 400 m on the ground equated to 280 m on an as the crow flies basis. As a result EN Research Report 153 recommended the use of a 280 m straight line distance threshold for “all local and district parks and local wildlife sites” to allow for the fact that pedestrians are not crows and therefore rarely go from point A to point B in a straight line.

The EN report also reviewed relevant information on the distances that parents allow their children to “range” (ie walk unaccompanied) from home for play and other purposes. This suggested that ranging distances have steadily shortened as parents have became more and more concerned for the safety of unaccompanied children. It notes that:

“… the standard distances employed in the NPFA recommendations for children’s play areas overestimate the distances over which young girls in particular are likely to range. They also suggest that the recommended 1000 m distance to a neighbourhood play


area designed for 8-14 years olds is well beyond the permitted range of 11 year old girls and beyond the permitted range of many boys of that age. Even the recommended distance of 400 m to a Locally Equipped Play Area is not within the permitted and accompanied ranges of some 8 year old girls.”

English Nature’s ANGSt

Based largely on Research Report 153, other research and a nod towards the LPAC recommendations, English Nature’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) recommends that:

No-one should live more than 300 m from their nearest area of natural greenspace (note: this 300 m threshold is simply the 280 m one from Research Report 153, rounded up to the nearest 100 m)

There should be at least one accessible 20 ha site with 2 km of home

There should be one accessible site of at least 100 ha within 5 km

There should be at least one accessible site of at least 500 ha within 10 km

Somewhat to the chagrin of English Nature (EN), ANGst has not been widely used by planning authorities on the reasonable grounds that it is unrealistic and unachievable in many urban areas. As a result, EN commissioned the Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology of the University of Manchester to produce Providing Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A Practical Guide to Assessing the Resource and Implementing Local Standards for Provision, which it published in 2003. This takes ANGSt as its starting point and suggests a methodology for progressing “towards an aspiration to meet its requirements as fully as possible”. Translated into plain English, this amounts to an acceptance that ANGSt is unlikely to be achieved in many areas but a pious hope that planning authorities will do their best. Certainly most councils have taken as little notice of the Toolkit as they did of ANGSt, although it actually proposes a fairly sensible if somewhat academic approach.

The Toolkit simply adopts the ANGSt straight-line distance thresholds (300 m, 2 km, 5 km and 10 km), but seeks also to define a number of different levels of accessibility, from “full” to “conditional”, “proximate” and “remote” with a final category of “no access”.

Sport England Survey of Sports Halls and Swimming Pools in England

In 1997 Sport England commissioned a major survey of the use of 155 sports and leisure centres throughout England as part of the process of determining appropriate parameters for its Facilities Planning Model. One of the issues the survey explored was the effective catchment of these facilities. The survey found that:


Around 80% of visits to both sports halls and swimming pools originated from within a catchment of five miles

The majority of visits involved journeys of 10 minutes or less (60% of visits to halls and 58% of visits to pools)

Around 80% of visits came from within a catchment of 20 minutes

The average journey time was about 12 minutes For those who walked, 74% of hall visits and 64% of

pool visits came from within 10 minutes The average walking time to halls and pools was

about 9 and 11 minutes respectively

Artificial Turf Pitch Research

We researched the use of 31 artificial turf pitches for the Scottish Sports Council in the early nineties, which published the results in 1993. We found that the average distance travelled to an artificial turf pitch by hockey players was eight miles or 13 kilometres, although the effective catchment was a drive time of up to 40 minutes. Footballers generally travelled a shorter distance so that the average distance travelled by all players (hockey and football) was a little over 5 miles or 8 kilometres. The shorter average distance travelled by footballers reflected the fact that all the artificial turf pitches in the survey could be and were used for football, but some were much better for hockey than others.

Inevitably, therefore, the results were influenced by the nature of provision in the areas in which we undertook the user interviews. There has also been more artificial turf pitch provision since 1993, with the result that the effective catchment of these pitches will have reduced slightly. However, the effective catchment of around a 25 minutes drive time is similar to the 20 minutes drive time used by Sport England for the Facilities Planning Model. As more and more artificial turf pitches are provided, however, the drive time threshold will obviously reduce steadily, assuming a fairly even distribution of provision. Accordingly we recommend a 20-minute drive time. This is also consistent with the drive time threshold for sports centres and swimming pools.

Sport England has published a number of Planning Bulletins relating to different aspects of planning for sport. Bulletin 14, Intensive Use Sports Facilities Revisited (2003) has this to say on the future of artificial turf pitches:

Half of the Euro 2008 and World Cup matches in 2010 will be played on synthetic turf and it is almost inevitable that club matches will eventually be played on such surfaces … Looking further into the future, the availability of better quality synthetic turf pitches which will be used for competitive


games at all levels, from park sides to international level, may encourage providers to concentrate more on synthetic turf and less on natural grass. The implications of this are immense: if local authorities can cater for the sporting needs of their communities by providing fewer grass pitches and more high quality synthetic pitches, the potentially redundant pitches can be converted into other formal sporting uses, or informal recreational use or used for built development to fund the remaining sports facilities”

Local Authority Research

Wakefield Greenspace Strategy

Wakefield MBC commissioned a major market research study in Spring 2003 as part of the preparation of its Greenspace Strategy. In all the survey generated 606 completed questionnaires. Key findings included:

The straight-line walk-in distance threshold for equipped play areas was found to be around 400 m

The straight-line distance thresholds for parks and gardens were found to be around 1,000 m (walk-in) and 6 km (drive-in)

The straight-line walk-in distance threshold for small amenity greenspaces was found to be around 120 m

The straight-line distance thresholds for sports pitches were found to be around 600 m (walk-in) and 5 km (drive-in)

We advised Wakefield MDC on the preparation of its strategy on behalf of CABE Space and were delighted when it received a CABE Space award in December 2004.

Liverpool Market Research

Liverpool City Council undertook a Parks User Survey as part of the preparation of its Parks Strategy which generated 4,900 interviews over the period from November 2001 to December 2003. Key findings from this survey were that:

45% of respondents – 98% of whom were 16 or older - travelled less than a mile (1.6 km) to a park and a further 45% between 1 and 5 miles (1.6 and 8 km)

42% of respondents had walked – almost all of them less than a mile (1600 m)- and 46% had travelled by car

The effective catchment of Liverpool’s parks was between two and three miles, leading to the conclusion that many respondents by-passed their nearest park in order to get to a better one

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

We have prepared several strategies for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council over the past decade. As part of the work we did on its sport and recreation strategy and Local Plan Review, we suggested that it


include questions designed to elicit which community facilities residents thought it important to have within 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes walk from home in a Borough-wide market research survey. The survey, which was undertaken by a specialist market research company, was based on home interviews with a representative sample of Borough residents. We then translated the results into distance thresholds for different forms of community sports provision by assessing the distance which 75-80% of respondents thought reasonable and concluded that suitable maximum walking time thresholds (or effective catchments) were:

Bowling greens 20 minutes Community halls 20 minutes Multi/Tennis courts 20 minutes Neighbourhood equipped play areas 10 minutes Parks and recreation grounds 20 minutes Sports halls 20 minutes Sports pitches 20 minutes

These results identify the time for which around 75-80% of respondents said they were willing to walk to these forms of provision from home, not the distance they normally walk. The former is a distance threshold; the latter is not and a function of the pattern of provision and local geography. Translating these times into distances on the basis of an average walking speed of 60 m/minute gives the following on the ground distances

Bowling greens 1,200 metres Community halls 1,200 metres Neighbourhood equipped play areas 600 metres Tennis and multi-courts 1,200 metres Parks and recreation grounds 1,200 metres Sports halls and swimming pools 1,200 metres Sports pitches 1,200 metres

In turn this gives straight line distances as follows, based on a 70% multiplier and rounded to the nearest 50 m:

Bowling greens 850 metres Community halls 850 metres Neighbourhood equipped play areas 350 metres Multi/Tennis courts 850 metres Parks and recreation grounds 850 metres Sports halls and swimming pools 850 metresSports pitches 850 metres

Horsham District Market Research

As part of a household survey we undertook for Horsham District Council in West Sussex in connection with the preparation of a swimming strategy, we found that three quarters of pool users would not travel for more than about 20 minutes to a pool either on foot or by car. This confirms the Sport England finding.


Other PPG17 Assessments

Liverpool

Liverpool’s Open Space and Sports Assessment (Atkins, 2003) recommends reducing the 4000m distance threshold in the City’s parks hierarchy (see above) to 280 m and retaining the other distance thresholds. It also recommends a 280 m straight line distance threshold for allotments on the basis of the parks hierarchy and that most are small open spaces of under 2 ha.

Halton Borough Council

Halton Borough Council currently has a PPG17 assessment in draft. It proposes thresholds of 10, 15 and 20 minutes walking time as follows:

10 minutes Children and young peopleCommunity greens

15 minutes Parks and gardensNatural greenspacesOutdoor sports facilities

20 minutes Allotments

The assessment converts these into straight line distance thresholds using a walking speed of 80 m per minute, giving distance thresholds 800 m, 1200 m and 1600 m.

Proposed Distance Thresholds for Middlesbrough

At present, provision standards exist both for the provision of open space for outdoor sports and for the provision of urban parks. These standards are covered by policies in the Middlesbrough Local Plan (adopted 1999) which is to be replaced by the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework in 2007. With the previous standards now out of date, it is recommended that the LDF reflect the standards acquired through the PPG17 Audit process.

We have taken all of the above guidance and experience on distance thresholds into account while assessing standards and forming appropriate distance thresholds for Middlesbrough, but by far the greatest weight is given to the local knowledge provided through the staff questionnaire survey, combined with knowledge of the town’s compact nature and geography.

Middlesbrough Distance Thresholds Questionnaire

We conducted the Distance Thresholds Questionnaire with the help of council officers and analysed the results in early 2005. Two questions are particularly relevant to local distance thresholds. The first related to the mode of transport people normally use to travel to each type of facility or open space; and the second to the length of time respondents are willing to spend travelling to particular forms of provision.


As travel time depends on the mode of travel, we have cross-tabulated modes of travel with length of travel time for each form of provision. We have calculated the maximum time for which around 75% of respondents indicated they were willing to travel to estimate the “effective catchment”.

The results of the staff questionnaire show that for most forms of provision, acceptable travel times are in the 7-20 minute range. Generally, people are willing to walk between 7 minutes to reach an amenity greenspace and up to nearly 20 minutes to reach a nature conservation site, with facilities such as parks and gardens achieving showing an acceptable walking journey time of around 11 minutes.

On the basis of the various recommendations and findings quoted above and the results of the staff questionnaire, we suggest the Council should adopt the straight line distance thresholds set out in the tables below. We have grouped similar facilities together in relation to walking and driving thresholds and rounded the thresholds to the nearest 50m. Some facilities, such as pitches, appear in both sets of thresholds.

Straight Line Walking Distance Thresholds

Form of Provision Walking thresholds

Allotments 700 mAmenity greenspaces (local) 350 mBowling greens 650 mEquipped play areas 500 mGrass pitches 600 mParks and recreation grounds 600 mSports and recreation centres 850 mNature Conservation sites 950 mTennis and multi-courts 600 mYouth facilities 500 m

Straight Line Cycling Distance Thresholds

Form of Provision Cycling thresholdsAllotments 2 kmAmenity greenspaces (local) 1 kmBowling greens 1.5 kmEquipped play areas 1.5 kmGrass cricket, football and rugby pitches 1.5 kmParks and recreation grounds 1.5 kmSports and recreation centres 2 kmTennis and multi-courts 1.5 kmYouth facilities 1 km

Straight Line Driving Distance Thresholds

Form of Provision DrivingthresholdsAllotments 4.5 kmBowling greens 5.2 kmEquipped play areas 4 kmGrass cricket, football and rugby pitches 5.5 km


Parks and recreation grounds 3.3 kmSports and recreation centres 3.5 kmTennis and multi-courts 5 kmYouth facilities 5 km

References Kit Campbell Associates (2002), Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17

Anthea Holme and Peter Massie (1970), Children’s Play: A Study of Needs and Opportunities

National Playing Fields Association (2001), The Six Acre Standard: Minimum Standards for Outdoor Playing Space

C Harrison, J Burgess, A Millward and G Dawe (1995), Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A review of appropriate size and distance criteria (English Nature Research Report 153)

Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology, University of Manchester (2002), Providing Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A Practical Guide to Assessing the Resource and Implementing Local Standards of Provision (published by English Nature)

Sport England (1999), Survey of Sports Halls and Swimming Pools in England

Kit Campbell Associates with System Three (1993), Synthetic Grass Pitches Use in Scotland (Scottish Sports Council Research Report 34)

Atkins (2003). Liverpool Open Space and Sports Assessment


Appendix 8: Accessibility Deficiencies by Community Area.

Introduction This table set out accessibility deficiencies by typology within each community area, as identified using the application of the distance thresholds.

AREA ACCESSIBILITY DEFICIENCY

SITES FOR INVESTIGATION IN MEETING DEFICIENCY

South: Youth Ballcourts

(especially Coulby Newham)

Play Allotment Bowling Green Public tennis

Brabourne Gardens

Bonnygrove Park Lingfield Park Land around

Coulby Newham School and the Rainbow Leisure Centre.

The Avenue at Nunthorpe

North and Central: Youth Ballcourts Play Football pitch Amenity

greenspace

Plan for young people in the Central Gardens and Town Square redevelopment

Stockton Street or equivalent site

Teesaurus Park Saltwells Road

West: Youth Play Park or garden in

Brookfield / Kader

Land around Saphwood Beck

Land around Blue Bell Beck

East: Youth (especially around Becksfield)

Park or garden (especially around Becksfield)

Land at Northfields or near Ormesby Sports Centre

Town-wide: ATP In partnership with University.


Appendix 9:Development Control Model

Introduction Authorities are under increasing pressure to determine applications quickly and applying quality, quantity and accessibility standards can obviously be a time- consuming task. We have created a Development Control Model for authorities to use which provides a more efficient and effective use of resources.

The Development Control Model

This Model is a computer based application with a simple user interface that provides a simple and consistent tool which links a proposed development to the existing population distribution and pattern of facilities using distance thresholds. It takes less than a minute to enter the details of a typical housing development for as many provision standards as may be required. The Model follows the Development Control Line of Thinking set out in our Companion Guide to PPG17. It:

1. Calculates the on-site population of the proposed development and the net increase in the local population as a result of it (this second calculation can, if required, discount the on-site population to allow for migration within the area)

2. Calculates whether the quantity of existing provision in the area before and after the proposed development meets the adopted quantity provision standards. The model uses the distance threshold element of the provision standard to determine the geographical extent of the population to be considered and the provision to be included in this assessment.

3. Indicates whether there is a surplus or deficiency of each form of provision before and after the proposed development.

4. Calculates the amount of on-site provision and commuted maintenance sum needed to meet the needs of the on-site population, if there is any deficiency after the development and compares this with the minimum size element of the provision standard.

5. Calculates the amount of off-site provision and related commuted establishment payment needed to meet the net increase in population arising from the development.


6. Identifies whether any of the existing provision within the appropriate distance threshold of the proposed development site requires enhancement and, if so, calculates the developer’s contributions to this enhancement, based on the net increase in local population.

We will need some information from the Council to set up the model. Specifically:

Grid references of dwellings in the town Area population figures The unit capital costs (in £/sq m) of recent open

space or sport and recreation provision The unit maintenance costs (in £/sq m) of current

open space and sport and recreation provision Confirmation of the number of years the Council

would set as the target for calculating commuted maintenance sums, together with how it wishes to calculate them.

Determining commuted sums will require three policy decisions by the Council:

Is it willing in principle to adopt new spaces or facilities provided by developers? If it is, it should be aware that it is taking on a “time bomb” for its revenue budget as commuted sums do not last forever. If it is not, it must face the fact that maintenance standards will vary from one site to another.

Some councils are refusing to adopt new provision, or requiring very high commuted sums in order to persuade developers to seek an alternative approach, such as setting up factoring arrangements for on-site provision linked to new residential provision. Obviously, this is not possible with on-site provision.

For how many years does the Council require commuted sums to last? Different Councils use different periods. It is necessary to strike a balance between ensuring adequate maintenance for as long as possible and not making the commuted sums so high that developers prefer to make other arrangements. Ten years is a sensible minimum while developers tend to regard periods of twenty years or more as a strong hint that they should make their own arrangements for management and maintenance. Accordingly 12-15 years is a sensible compromise.

Does the Council wish to use a simple “X years times £Y” approach or a net present value one? We recommend the NPV approach as fairer to both Council and developer, but it requires an estimate of future inflation.


Model Output The Model outputs a wide selection of information with various choices displayed but with one weighted outcome based a straight-forward on-site / off-site toggle switch set for each assessment by the Council. The Model output provides the following information:

Before the proposed development

Population with the distance threshold Total provision required within the appropriate

distance threshold Total provision available within the appropriate

distance threshold Whether there is a current surplus or deficit The level of any existing surplus or deficit in

provision

After the proposed development

Population with the distance threshold Total provision required within the appropriate

distance threshold Total provision available within the appropriate

distance threshold Whether there is a current surplus or deficit The level of any existing surplus or deficit in

provision

Contributions to Enhancing Existing Off-site Provision

The amount of off-site provision enhancements that the developer will be required to fund

The required developer’s contribution to the enhancement of existing facilities (£)

Contributions to New Off-Site Provision

The amount of off-site provision required (note: new provision will be required only if there will be a deficit after the proposed development).

The required developer’s contribution to new off-site provision (£)

On-Site Provision Amount of new on-site provision both justified and needed after the development (note: new provision will be required only if there will be a deficit after the proposed development).

On-site provision population times quantity provision standard

Whether the required amount of provision will be above the adopted minimum size and therefore acceptable on-site).

The amount of any commuted maintenance sum required for on-site provision

Contributions to town-wide provision only

Where the Model outputs that there is no local deficiency, the developer will be required to make a contribution to town-wide enhancement on the basis set by the Council.

In many case the Council will have to decide whether new or enhanced provision is preferable. The model therefore allows for a “policy preference” to be entered for each form of provision, which is then reflected in the summary results.


Context Assessment

The basic model calculation ignores all population and provision outside the relevant distance thresholds. This has the obvious drawback that any provision or concentration of population just outside the threshold may well affect the initial policy conclusion. We have therefore designed the Model so that it is possible to add any required distance to the basic distance threshold to see whether this makes any significant difference. This additional distance is not fixed but can vary for each different form of provision and can even provide an overview of applying the line of thinking to a complete local authority area. The context assessment provides the same output as the basic assessment.


Appendix 11: Proposed Parks Hierarchy

Introduction This appendix gives details of the proposed parks hierarchy.

Town Parks Albert Park Central Gardens / Victoria Park redevelopment Hemlington Recreation Ground (to be renamed

Hemlington Park) Pallister Park Stewart Park

Neighbourhood Parks The table below gives our suggested neighbourhoods and neighbourhood parks. In some areas, a town park will also function as a neighbourhood one.

Area Neighbourhood Neighbourhood parks

Central Town Centre Central Gardens/Victoria Park

Southfield Ayresome Gardens

Gresham Westbourne Park St Barnabus Recreation

Ground

Westbourne Albert Park Saltwells Road

Linthorpe and Park

Westbourne Park St Banabas Recreation

Ground

North St Hildas Redevelopment proposed but Stockton Street

Riverside Teesaurus Park

South Hemlington Hemlington Recreation Ground

Brabourne Gardens

Stainton and Thornton

Hemlington Recreation Ground

Newham Fairy Dell Lingfield Park Bonnygrove Park

Marton The Avenue Marton Community Centre

Nunthorpe The Avenue


East North Ormesby Henry Street Recreation Ground

Berwick Hills Pallister Park

Pallister Park Pallister Park

Thorntree Thorntree Park

Park End Sandringham Road

Beckfield Thorntree Park Sandringham Road

West Ayresome and Linthorpe

Carter Park Whinney Banks Westbourne Park Laycock Gardens

Kirby, Brookfield, Kader and Acklam

Nalgo Field Acklam Hall lawns The Avenue

Beechwood, Grove Hill and Easterside

Marton Grove Longlands Doorstep Green

Parks and Play areas to be re-classified as Amenity Greenspace.

Parks to downgrade

Lambton Road (also needs restoration work) Homerton Road Charlbury Road Newham Way (also needs restoration work) Fordyce Stainton View Margaret Street Kingston Street (if there is any AGS left after

redevelopment) Marlborough Gardens (also need restoration work)

Play areas to downgrade

Bolton Court Kilton Court Bishopton Road Sunnyside Hollowfield


Appendix 12 : Open Space Network - Site Specific Area Action Plans

Introduction This appendix outlines details of site-specific action to complete Middlesbrough’s proposed open space network hierarchy.

TOWN WIDE: ACTION PLAN

Prime sites and facilities Albert Park Central Gardens/Victoria Gardens Hemlington Recreation Ground Pallister Park River walkway and river parks Stewart Park

Additional Provision ATP (Possibly Saltersgill) Youth

CENTRAL AREA: ACTION PLAN

Action Site

Protect; enhance where necessary

Albert Park

Ayresome Gardens Central and Victoria Gardens Doorstep Green Longlands Glebe Road includes Play Westbourne Park

Enhance play and site Laycock Gardens

Review Lambton Road

Meet provision gaps: Children’s PlayImprove play facilities / informal junior pitch

Saltwells Road


Specific site enhancements Enhancements needed

Albert Park Improve drainage on path near depot.

Address anti-social behaviour, especially in the central area of bushes.

Keep play and youth areas clear of bottles and broken glass.

Ayresome Gardens Keep play area clear of glass. Provide formal footpath over

desire lines. Consider providing toilets.

Central Gardens / Victoria Park Under redevelopment – take account of the needs of young people in the design.

Laycock Gardens Keep site clean and tidy – particularly keep play area clear of glass.

Repaint vandalised bins. Provide disabled access into play

area.

Saltwells Road Clean and tidy the site. Provide seating areas / benches. Increase interest by providing

native planting.

Westbourne Park Keep site clean and tidy. Remove spray paint / vandalism

from pavilion and other areas. Improve disabled access across

site.


EAST AREA: ACTION PLAN

Action Site


Pallister Park

Henry Street Millbrook Avenue and Play Pallister Park Sandringham Road and Play Thorntree Park and Play Whitehouse Allotments

Enhance play and site Millbrook Avenue Sandringham Road

Enhance play Crossfell Road Whisperdale Court

Review Berwick Hills Allotments Charlbury Road Play and AGS Land close to Crossfell Road Play Longlands Road Margaret Street Netherfields Sports Pitches Ormesby Road / Penrith Road Town Farm Allotments

Meet provision gaps: Children’s playPlay / informal grass pitch Land at Corporation Walk

Meet provision gaps: YouthBallcourt required for Becksfield /Netherfields

Netherfields / Ormesby Sports

Specific site enhancements

Spencerbeck Improve planting and paths. Provide signage Maintain clean and tidy.

Ormesby BeckMiddlebeck

Henry Street Recreation GroundPallister ParkThorntree ParkSandringham Road

Keep sites clean and tidy – especially from glass on youth areas / ballcourt / play areas.

Increase native planting / shrubs.


NORTH AREA: ACTION PLAN

Action Site

Protect; enhance where necessary Redevelopment proposed but currently Stockton Street

Teesaurus Park

Enhance sites Stockton Street Rec Ground or alternative replacement site

Teesaurus Park Ironmasters Park (Riverside

walkway section)

Review Marlborough Gardens Land between River, railway

and travelers’ site Land around Stockton Street Land around Tower Green Ironmasters Park (entire site)

Meet provision gaps: Youth – especially ballcourts - and play Within area redevelopment

Meet provision gaps: Sports pitch Possibly at Ironmasters site or within area redevelopment

Specific site enhancements

Stockton Street Consider provision of alternative site as part of north area redevelopment.

Teesaurus Park Keep site clean and tidy. Provide improved interpretation boards. Remove vandalism.

Consider provision of food stop for lunch times within car park area. Provide benches / seating areas. Could provide small sports area / informal football pitch near car park.


WEST AREA: ACTION PLAN

Action Site


Brookfield / Kader Play Carter Park Golf Course Ladgate Lane

Municipal Letitia Street Allotments Linthorpe Cemetery Prissick Base Bowling St Mary’s Churchyard Stainsby Wood Stainton Beck Stainton Churchyard Stewart Park

Enhance site Acklam Sports Centre Broughton Avenue / Easterside

Road Marton Grove Maze Park (in partnership) St Marys Walk Nalgo Field St Barnabus Rec The Avenue Westbourne Park Whinny Banks Pond Acklam Hall

Review Acklam Gardens

Meet provision gaps: Youth(ballcourts) / play / park facilities

Land at Easterside / Saltersgill Nalgo Field Land around Saffwood Beck and

BBB Whinney Banks

Meet provision gaps: Allotment / sport

Whinney Banks south

Sites to enhance Enhancements needed

Carter Park Provide litter bin at north west entrance.

Whinney Banks Pond area Provide litter bins at entrances. Improve disabled access across

the site. Keep site clean and tidy – especially around north end.

Discourage flytipping at north end (to rear of houses).

Discourage children on motorbikes from using site as racetrack.


NALGO field Provide good footpath links to neighbouring site to west.

Increase native planting to edges of site.

Provide seating areas / benches. Provide facilities to address

shortage in the west area.

Acklam Hall and lawns Prepare site masterplan / design guidelines.

Marton Grove Provide seating areas / benches. Keep site clean and tidy.


SOUTH AREA: ACTION PLAN

Action Site


Bonnygrove Park

Fairy Dell Golf Course Middlesbrough Hemlington Rec. “Park” Leisure Farm Play Lingfield Park Nunthorpe Hall Grounds Thornton Plantation and Pond

Enhance play and site Brabourne Gardens The Avenue

Enhance site Fordyce Marton Community Centre Newham Way Newham Whin

Review Newham Way Play Bolton Court Kilton Court Bishopton Road Hollowfield

Meet provision gaps: Youth – especially ballcourts - and play Newham Way

Land around Coulby Newham School and the Rainbow Leisure Centre;

Fairy Dell

Meet provision gaps: Allotment Bonnygrove Park Lingfield Park Hemlington Grange

Sites to enhance Enhancements needed

Lingfield Park Provide more seating areas / benches.


Bonnygrove Park Improve disabled access across site.Replace some removed play equipment. Keep standing stone area clear of litter and glass.

The Avenue Provide more seating areas / benches. Renew / refresh signage. Improve drainage of low lying areas.

Stewart Park Provide more seating areas / benches. Provide another large litter bin adjacent to the recycling facility. Increase interest of children’s areas.

Brabourne Gardens Provide more seating areas / benches.Keep site clean and tidy (after effects of fires; glass and litter). Improve quality of informal football pitch – grass very worn, straighten goals posts

Strategic Network – Becks Enhancements

Enhancements needed

Spencerbeck Clean and tidy the Beck – remove rubbish and dumped material (household white goods); broken glass and remains of fires along footpaths and edges.

Increase facilities – seats and bins Increase planting – encourage wildlife value and

interest.

Middlebeck Clean and tidy the Beck and the surrounding area. Check water for chemicals being added from the

rear of the Southlands Centre Improve drainage to footpaths and replace cracked

slabs Increase interest – more trees and native planting Increase facilities – provide seating areas and bins


Ormesby Beck Clean and tidy the Beck – remove rubbish and litter.

Increase activity along the Beck to increase sense of safety.

Increase planting near Crossfell Road / pedestrian footbridge.

Marton West Beck

Clear away litter – especially in the north most area near schools and allotments

Address issues of children using motorbikes around Glendale Avenue area of the Beck

Consider environmental improvements around the Parkway – start with removing graffiti.

Increase planting for nature conservation / interest – particularly in the northern section

Improve footpath quality between Ladgate Land and the Parkway.

Replace signage at Fairy Dell and replace confusing and inconsistent signs along the Becks.

Maintain footpath through Timberland Trail – cut back overgrowth.

Keep public art (such as the monk figure) painted appropriately.

Newham Beck Remove litter – especially around the Parkway.

Blue Bell Beck Tidy and clean graffiti – especially from pedestrian bridges.

Target initial improvement to quality; dealing with litter and vandalism around the Parkway underpass.

Saphwood Beck Increase planting / interest to southern part of the Beck.


Appendix 13 :Sites with a Nature Conservation

Designation

Introduction Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) make a significant contribution to nature conservation in Middlesbrough. In addition, however, many other sites are also of value to nature conservation and this is reflected in the Audit results. Many sites have the space to accommodate an area or corner for nature conservation.

The Local Plan identified ten Local Nature Space sites as priorities for habitat creation and enhancement. Current designated “Local Nature Spaces” include Linthorpe Cemetery, Albert Park, Stewart Park, Hemlington Pond, Saphwood Beck, Blue Bell Beck, Whinney Banks, Marton West Beck, Ormesby Beck, Middlebeck, Spencerbeck and Stainton Quarry.

The following sites are designated as Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) within the Local Plan.

Marton West Beck Blue Bell Beck Whinney Banks Pond Acklam Whin Stainsby Wood Stainton Vale Farm Hedge Plum Tree Farm Pasture Maltby Beck Thornton Plantation and Pond Newham Beck Coulby Newham Pond Newham Whin Oak Wood Birch Hill Bonny Grove Plantation Jubilee Plantation Willow Garth Tree Bridge Plantation Road Poole Hospital Pond Nunthorpe Hall Grounds Teessaurus Park

Recently, Berwick Hills Allotments has been designated an LNR.


Appendix 14 :Local Quantitative Survey

Introduction This appendix analyses the responses to a survey of local people relating to open space, sport and recreation provision and in the Borough.

The Quality of Existing Provision:

For the Borough as a whole please tell us how good or poor you consider the following countryside facilities

Very good

Good Poor Very poor

Don't know

Missing

Country parks and commons 817.0%

2655.3%

1021.3

36.4%

Rural footpaths 12.1%

1838.3%

1736.2%

24.3%

919.1%

Bridleways and off-road cycleways 24.3%

1736.2%

1634.0%

12.1%

2223.4%

Nature conservation and wildlife areas

36.4%

2246.8%

1123.4%

919.1%

Woodland areas and copses 12.1%

2348.9%

1327.7%

36.4%

714.9%

Water sports areas (eg for sailing, canoeing)

24.3%

1225.5%

1327.7%

48.5%

1531.9%

Key Points: a majority of respondents rated the quality of country parks and commons, nature conservation areas and woodland areas and copses as generally good; opinion was


fairly evenly divided in relation to bridleways and off-road cycleways; and a small majority though that provision for watersports is poor.

Again, for the Borough as a whole please tell us how good or poor you consider the following indoor leisure facilities

Very good

Good Poor Very poor

Don't know

Missing

Commercial Fitness Centres ?612.8%

3063.8%

24.3%

919.1%

Public leisure centres 714.9%

3063.8%

510.6%

12.1%

48.5%

Community Centres/Village Halls 48.55

1940.4%

1531.9%

12.1%

817.0%

Youth Centres 12.1%

1327.7%

1327.7%

612.8%

1429.8%

Public swimming pools 36.4%

2553.2%

1123.4%

24.3%

612.8%

Key Points: apart from youth centres, a majority of respondents generally rated indoor leisure provision in the Borough as good.

For the part of the Borough where you live please tell us how good or poor you consider the following public spaces

Very good

Good Poor Very poor

Don't know

Missing

Local recreation grounds 510.6%

1634.0%

612.8%

510.6%

36.4%

Parks and public gardens 919.1%

2348.9%

36.4%

36.4%

Public green spaces in housing areas 24.3%

1838.3%

1123.4%

36.4%

24.3%

Grass sports pitches in public use 12.1%

1736.2%

612.8%

714.9%

36.4%

Public use changing pavilions 24.3%

714.9%

1428.8%

1225.5%

510.6%

Grass sports pitches on school sites 510.6%

1634.0%

36.4%

1123.4%

48.5%

Public tennis courts 24.3%

1940.4%

48.5%

714.9%

510.6%

Club tennis courts 36.4%

1123.4%

24.3%

2144.7%

510.6%

Bowling greens 36.4%

1634.0%

510.6%

1021.3%

510.6%

Allotments 1123.4%

612.8%

1940.4%

510.6%

Churchyards and cemeteries 48.5%

2144.7%

36.4%

510.6%

48.5%

Children’s play areas for under 8s 12.1%

1225.5%

714.9%

1634.0

36.4%

Children’s play areas 8 - 12 year olds 1327.7%

919.1%

1531.9%

36.4%

Teenage facilities (eg skateparks) 12.1%

510.6%

1123.4%

1940.4%

48.5%

Key Points: a majority of respondents rated most facilities as at least good, the exceptions being public use changing pavilions, club tennis courts, allotments, children’s play areas for under 8s and 8-12 year olds and teenage facilities. The highest rated facilities were the Borough’s parks and public gardens.


For the Borough as a whole please tell us what you think about the amount of provision of the following countryside facilities

A lot more is needed

Slightly more is needed

It is about right

There is more than

enough

Not applica

ble

Missing

Country parks and commons 1736.2%

1123.4%

1429.8%

24.3

12.1%

Rural footpaths 1429.8%

1327.7%

1225.5%

12.1%

48.5%

36.4%


1021.3%

1123.4%

12.1%

510.6%

36.4%

Nature conservation and wildlife areas

1634.0%

1736.2%

919.1%

24.3%

12.1%

24.3%

Woodland areas and copses 1736.2%

1327.7%

1317.7%

24.3%

12.1%

12.1%

Key Points: respondents identified a need for more of all of these forms of provision, but gave their strongest support to more nature conservation and wildlife areas.

Again, for the Borough as a whole please tell us what you think about the amount of provision of the following indoor leisure facilities

A lot more is needed


It is about right

There is more than

enough

Not applica

ble

Missing

Commercial Fitness Centres 36.4%

1123.4%

2246.8%

48.5%

48.5%

24.3%

Public leisure centres 714.9%

1327.7%

2553.2%

12.1%

12.1%

Community Centres/Village Halls 714.9%

1429.8%

1736.2%

510.6%

36.4%

12.1%

Youth Centres 1429.8%

1429.8%

714.9%

36.4%

612.8%

36.4%

Public swimming pools 510.6%

2757.4%

1021.3%

24.3%

24.3%

12.1%

Key Points: a significant proportion of respondents identified a need for more of al these forms of provision, but especially community centres, youth centres and public swimming pools.

For the part of the Borough where you live please tell us what you think about the amount of provision of the following public spaces

A lot more

needed


It is about right

Three is more than

enough

Not applica

ble

Missing

Local recreation grounds 1021.3%

1940.4%

1225.5%

24.3%

48.5%


1429.8%

2042.6%

24.3%

12.1%

Public green spaces in housing areas 1225.5%

1021.3%

1940.4%

24.3%

24.3%

24.3%


1327.7%

1736.2%

12.1%

510.6%

24.3%


919.1%

1021.3%

1327.7%

48.5%

Grass sports pitches on school sites 6 6 17 3 11 4


12.8% 12.8% 36.2% 6.4% 23.4% 8.5%Public tennis courts 4

8.5%13

27.7%19

40.4%7

14.9%4

8.5%Club tennis courts 5

10.6%6

12.8%12

25.5%20

42.6%4

8.5%Bowling greens 6

12.8%16

34.0%9

19.1%1

2.1%12

25.5%3

6.4%Allotments 6

12.8%7

14.9%12

25.5%2

4.3%15

31.9%5

10.6%Churchyards and cemeteries 2

4.3%7

14.9%29

61.7% 7

14.9%2

4.3%Children’s play areas for under 8s 11

23.4%16

34.0%8

17.0%10

21.3%2

4.3%Children’s play areas 8 - 12 year olds 12

25.5%14

29.8%8

17.0%11

23.4%2

4.3%Teenage facilities (eg skateparks) 20

42.6%7

14.9%7

14.9%1

2.1%10

21.3%2

4.3%

Key Points: respondents identified a need for more of most of these forms of provision, the exceptions being grass pitches on school sites, club tennis courts and allotments.

How do you normally travel to each of the following forms of provision?

Walk. Bicycle Car Other Missing Country Parks & Commons 20

42.6%36.4%

2042.6%

12.1%

36.4%

Rural Footpaths 2553.2%

12.1%

1429.8%

714.9%


1021.3%

714.9%

12.1%

1225.5%

Nature Conservation and wildlife areas 1531.9%

36.4%

2246.8%

24.3%

510.6%

Woodland Areas and Copses 1634.0%

36.4%

1940.4%

36.4%

612.8%

Water Sports Areas 48.5%

12.1%

2757.4%

36.4%

1225.5%

Commercial Fitness Centres 612/8%

24.3%

2144.7%

48.5%

1429.8%

Public Leisure centres 1225.5%

12.1%

2451.1%

36.4%

714.9%

Community Centres 1838.3%

1225.5%

36.4%

1429.8%

Youth Centres 1123.4%

1225.5%

48.5%

2042.6%

Public Swimming Pools 919.1%

36.4%

2553.2%

36.4%

714.9%

Local Recreation Grounds 3166.0%

12.1%

48.5%

12.1%

1021.3%


12.1%

1225.5%

12.1

48.5%

Public Green spaces in housing areas 2961.7%

36.4%

12.1%

1429.8%


12.1%

714.9%

1429.8%


12.1%

1021.3%

24.3%

1736.2”

Grass sports pitches on school sites 2144.7%

12.1%

817.0%

24.3%

1531.9%

Public tennis courts 1531.9%

1429.8%

36.4

1531.9%

Club tennis courts 1123.4%

12.1%

1327.7%

48.5%

1838.3%

Bowling greens 1736.2%

12.1%

11223.4%

48.5%

1429.8%

Allotments 1327.7%

12.1%

1021.3%

36.4%

2042.6%

Churchyards and cemeteries 2042.5%

12.1%

1327.6%

48.5%

919.1%

Children’s play areas for under 8s 2451.0%

714.9%

1634.0%

Children’s play areas 8-12 year olds 2246,8%

714.9%

12.1%

1736.2

Teenage facilities (eg skateparks) 1838.3%

12.1%

919.1%

36.4%

1634.0%


Key Points: walking is the main means of travel to rural footpaths, bridleways, community centres, local recreation grounds, parks and public gardens, greenspaces in housing areas, public and school pitches, public changing pavilions, public and club tennis courts, bowling greens, allotments, churchyards and cemeteries, children’s play areas and teenage facilities. Most respondents travel by car to nature conservation and wildlife areas, woodland areas and copses, waters sports areas, commercial fitness centres, public leisure centres, youth centres, public swimming pools and club tennis courts.

The questionnaire asked the time for which respondents are willing to spend travelling to particular forms of provision. In its own, responses to this question are largely meaningless because travel time is likely to depend on the mode of travel. Accordingly we do not give the results of this question, but have cross-tabulated mode of travel with time of travel for each form of provision. We have then calculated the maximum time for which around 75% of respondents indicated they were willing to travel. This is a standard approach to estimating “effective” catchment areas. The results are given in the table below.

Walk (minutes)

Bicycle (minutes)

Car (minutes)

Other (minutes)

Country Parks & Commons 25 20 30 20Rural Footpaths 25 20 30Bridleways and off-road cycleways 30 20 20Woodland Areas and Copses 25 40 20 60*Water Sports Areas 30 30 60Commercial Fitness Centres 20 10 20 20Public Leisure centres 20 15 20 20Community Centres 20 15 10Youth Centres 20 15 20Public Swimming Pools 20 10 20 40Parks and public gardens 20 30 15 25Public Green spaces in housing areas 10 15Grass sports pitches in public use 15 15Public use changing pavilions 20 10 15 10Grass sports pitches on school sites 20 10 15Public tennis courts 20 20 15Club tennis courts 30 10 20 15Bowling greens 20 10 15 15Allotments 30 10 15 30*Cemeteries 15 10 15 30Children’s play areas for under 8s 15 15 90*Children’s play areas 8-12 year olds 15 15 90*Teenage facilities (eg skateparks) 30 25 15 90*

* only one respondent so this finding is unlikely to be typical

Key Points: for most forms of provision, acceptable travel times are in the 10-20 minute range. The form of provision respondents are willing to spend the least time walking to is public greenspaces in housing areas (10 minutes) and the longest bridleways, water sports areas, club tennis courts, allotments and teenage facilities. We will be translating these findings into distance thresholds for different forms of provision.

Are you male or female?

Male 57.4% Missing 2042.6%

2553.2%

24.3%


Key Points: the gender of respondents is very close to the national average.

What is your age group?

16-25 24-34 35-54 55-64 Missing 714.9%

612.8%

2144.7%

1123.4%

24.3%

In which ward do you live in?

Ward N %Acklam 4 8.5%Ayresome 1 2.1%Backfield 2 4.3%Brookfield 1 2.1%Clairville 1 2.1%Coulby Newham 5 10.6%Gresham 2 4.3%Hemlington 1 2,1%Ladgate 2 4.3%Linthorpe 4 8.5%Marton 6 12.8%Marton West 1 2.1%Middlehaven 2 4.3%N. Ormesby & Brambles Farm 3 6.4%Nunthorpe 4 8.5%Pallister 1 1.2%Park 1 2.1%University 1 2.1%Missing 5 10.6%

Key Points: respondents live in all parts of the Borough

What is your ethnic origin?

Ethnic origin N %White British 40 85.1

%White Irish 2 4.3%Asian or Asian British - Bangladesh 1 2.1%Missing 4 8.5%

Key Points: respondents were overwhelmingly white.


Appendix 15 :Middlesbrough’s Green Spaces and

Public Places Strategic Plan

Analysis of Questionnaires

This paper analyses the responses to a survey of local people relating to open space, sport and recreation provision and in the Borough.

Questionnaire 1

Do you think the vision for Middlesbrough’s green spaces and public places is meaningful?

No. Response 1 No2 Yes4 Yes5 Yes6 Yes7 I personally think it’s a great vision for Middlesbrough 8 Hopefully they will carry out what they intend to do. 9 Yes. I just hope that measures are taken to tackle anti-social

behaviour in public places. 10 Yes, excellent 11 Yes - if the proposals outlined are genuine and not ‘council speak’12 Yes13 Yes I do. It’s clean and tidy and colourful 16 They seem sound 17 Yes18 If it functions beyond the language, then yes!19 Yes 20 Yes, I think we need all the green areas possible in towns. 21 Hopeful!22 Yes23 Yes24 Yes, but should we not include visitors to Middlesbrough as an

attraction? First impressions are very important25 Yes - maybe26 Yes27 Hopefully 28 OK as long as local consultation takes place. 29 Yes, especially if linked to other Council strategies, eg reducing

crime.30 Yes, consultation should be widespread

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Style Notes for KCA Reports 131

31 Yes 32 Yes - not soon enough 33 Yes. And is something which is much needed in the area 34 Yes. But does everything have to be exciting? We need more quiet

spaces. 35 Yes, and very welcome 36 Yes, covers all aspects 37 Yes38 Yes39 Yes40 Yes41 Yes43 Yes. However I would prefer “. ..range of safe, well maintained, high

“44 No45 Yes46 Yes47 Yes48 Yes49 If everything it stands for is fulfilled - Yes. 50 Yes 51 Yes - aims to meet environmental and social objectives which will

benefit the residents of Middlesbrough 52 Yes if budget cuts in the future don’t bite 53 No54 Yes 55 Yes56 Yes (within funding remit) 58 Yes59 Yes60 Yes, if people and community were involved. 61 Yes. The vision statement cleverly encapsulates the full range of

needs and community aspirations. 62 Yes, but as a conservationist I’m not too keen on “well-used” - this

equates with too much disturbance to birds and wildlife. 63 Yes

Comments: the majority of respondents clearly supported the vision

What do you think of the 10 fundamental principles for green spaces and public places?

No. Response 1 It could have been said in three paragraphs 2 Fine on paper 4 Great - offer the broadest use of the parks and greenspaces. 5 OK6 Pleased that it’s deemed important benefit for everyone that is

interested. 7 Well written - thinks about all the community 8 Don’t let any more beautiful buildings be demolished. 9 All I believe are important 10 Again too wordy 11 Very laudable and needed - again, if meant!


12 Very good 13 I think it’s great. People are working together and making it safe

and enjoyable for everyone. 16 As fundamental principles sound: implementation more difficult17 Good18 Conceptually sound; the safety one is especially prioritous19 Good20 I think they are a good idea 21 Sound22 Very good principles but would they be achieved23 Very good - but would they be achievable!24 I agree with them all. Should we seek sponsorship for roundabouts,

such as the dazzling Partrack and Trinity roundabouts in Stockton?25 Good, if carried out 26 Good, but what is PPG17?27 Safe 28 To item 8 should be added: Places to relax and enjoy the area and,

if practicable, refreshments. 29 Look very good in theory30 Good31 Good aims. You need to set goals before you can achieve them 32 I agree with a more pro-active role 33 It does put some kind of respect in my mind as it concerns the

Council and the actions they will be taking to improve our home. 34 A useful list of what “green space” means in practice 35 Good and clear. It would be nice if the word horticulture or

horticultural training. could be included somewhere! 36 Very comprehensive but a little ‘wordy’ in places. A précis could

make it more relevant for the average Middlesbrough residents. 37 The aim is good but how do you intend to prevent dog fouling and

litter 38 Excellent - something that should have been done years ago!39 Very good40 Sensible41 OK43 They are OK 44 Needs review 45 Sound very good but is there enough money to fulfil them?46 They are hopefully deliverable but the right to safety may be

difficult to achieve.47 Very sensible 48 Excellent save no mention is made of spaces previously within the

domain of local authority, eg FE College playing fields. 49 Well thought out, recognising fear of safety and crime.50 Good51 Wide-ranging, which recognises that green spaces and public places

offer many different benefits to many different people. Principle 8 should stress or high light the health benefits of green spaces.

52 Sounds good 53 Several OK, most pointless 54 Clear 55 Precise. Very structured and cover all the relevant areas. 56 Yes 58 Go for it 59 Excellent 60 Council jargon - rubbish61 Generally good but, of course, some spaces and places should have

restricted uses (No motorised and horse access) 62 In principle - very good 63 Acceptable but perhaps a statement of the 4 main principles with

the other points being a subdivision would remove the repetition.


Comments: again, the majority of respondents support the 10 principles, although there is a limited amount of cynicism

Do you agree with the key strategic objectives of safety, inclusion and quality?

No. Response 1 Weren’t these covered in the principles?2 Yes4 Yes 5 Yes6 Yes7 I do agree with the key strategic objectives 8 Local people to be included in decision making not kept in the dark

about events. 9 Yes10 Yes11 Yes. Once again time will tell!12 Yes13 Yes16 Yes, very important 17 Yes18 Yes, I do indeed 19 Yes 20 Yes.21 As long as can be implemented adequately 22 Yes23 Yes24 Yes, but sustainability and investment must be maintained to

ensure continues quality. 25 Yes 26 Yes27 Yes29 Yes, as long as practical issues addressed 30 Yes31 Yes 32 Entirely 33 Yes 34 Of course - who could disagree!35 Yes, although safety and inclusion are easy to agree on, a definition

of quality is perhaps more open to discussion but it is very difficult to fit everything into 3 catchy words.

36 Yes37 Yes38 Yes39 Yes40 Yes41 Safe as possible is a must 43 Yes44 Yes45 Yes46 They are sound principles but the inclusive side may be difficult to

facilitate.47 Yes 48 Yes 49 All strategic objectives are paramount to success


50 Yes51 Yes, particularly safety as green spaces and public places can

appear to be threatening or unsafe to some, so everyone must feel that they can use or benefit from that environment.

52 Yes53 Yes54 Yes 55 Very much so56 Yes58 Yes 59 Yes60 Just words (corporate) from 100 other LA strategies 61 Yes, but with the above limitations of use in some areas 62 Yes, providing “meet the needs of all etc” includes the wildlife, ie

birds, insects, flowers, etc. etc. 63 Yes, they are an acceptable summary of the aims

Comments: very strong support for the three objectives

Green Spaces and Public Places consultative network:What do you think about the consultative network proposal?

No. Response 1 Inaccurate, BBB Group disbanded some time ago2 Difficult to put into practice3 Yes. Local people who are interested enough to set involved should

be listened to. 4 Existing groups are great. You will always suffer “political apathy”

and not all users will be represented. 5 OK6 It’s excellent so many groups are involved 7 More community groups should be involved. 8 Good idea. Keep people informed all the time. 9 It’s important for residents to have their say. Excellent idea.10 It’s all a bit complicated - lots of jargon 11 Totally needed - if only to clear the dross from planners minds 12 Very good 13 I think it’s a great idea 15 Good16 Local participation very important 17 Good idea18 It’s OK but needs to fly very visibly so people can get involved. 19 OK20 I think people who use the parks should be consulted. 21 Lobby ’friendly’ Councillors/Ray Hallan/Gazette/Churchgoers, etc,

etc. 22 A good idea23 A very good idea 24 The vast majority will not get involved but will complain if things go

wrong. Encourage and nurture those groups who presently do show interest.

25 Don’t know


26 Useful 27 Agree 28 Keep it small by accessible 29 In theory good, but depends who sits on these panels 30 Should get the interest needed 31 Involving local people helps to build up pride in area. 32 Good idea - Hemlington too have volunteers for the lake 33 Good, as it gets the local people involved. 34 I hope this proves fruitful 35 Sometimes it is difficult for the public to initiate ideas but, good and

clearly put, I’m sure they would find it easy to choose between pictures of existing parks/green spaces as a way of helping to decide what to do for their area.

36 The network of small groups already involved should fulfil consultative process.

37 These are good but what about Hemlington Lake area?38 The nine groups should extend to the whole of Middlesbrough 39 Acklam 2020 should be included 40 A good idea 41 A good idea to get on board interested people 43 OK but strongly advise involvement of and with Community

Councils. 44 Could be useful 45 Seems to cover most areas, but why not include local schools 46 They need to be more widely available for people to join, be part of

and able to influence. 47 Seems alright but you have forgotten to include Acklam 2020 48 Fine, but why not engage the Community Councils50 Good51 Wide-ranging in terms of adults but large section of users - children

and youths - don’t appear to be included in consultation exercise, which is vital.

52 Yes, a good idea 53 Needs to be more thought out54 Ideal but may be hard to please everyone and work within a budget. 55 Very good, allowing involvement and consultation. 56 Okay, but need local residents on board. 58 Don’t waste scarce resources on admin/meetings 59 Good idea - they’ll be better used if people’s needs are met. 60 Probably same old tired faces on all MBC forums or panels61 Excellent - the Council needs to consult local interested groups and

use them.62 Very much in favour, providing the environment and nature is

represented. 63 Any such network needs positive and active support from Council

Officials

Comments: again, strong support for the Council’s proposals

Do you agree with the structure of the Middlesbrough Green Spaces Public Places forum?

No. Response 1 You’ve really lost me now2 Yes4 Yes. It will be supported by other consultation - community councils

etc. 5 OK


6 Yes7 Yes 8 Yes 11 Yes - if composed of a diverse and interested cross section of the

populace12 Yes13 Yes I do.15 In general, yes16 Yes. Needed for overall picture. 17 Yes18 Providing it is representative of everyone, Yes. 19 Yes20 Yes22 Yes23 Yes24 Yes I do. Friends and other groups should be listened to at a forum25 Yes26 Yes, if community reps are involved in local democracy, eg

Community Councils27 Yes 29 I don’t understand enough about it. 30 Should get the interest needed 31 Yes 32 Yes 33 Yes 34 No idea. Does it exist or is it a proposal?35 Yes. You can link in with the local biodiversity action plan - they

have an urban sub-group. 36 Yes37 Yes38 Yes, as long as it represented at all levels!39 Yes40 Yes41 Yes 43 Broadly, but try to limit size!44 If it succeeds in the objectives 45 Yes46 The Council will have to co-ordinate and facilitate these groups to

prevent individuals having too much say in some of the groups included. They must speak for themselves not the community.

47 Seems OK48 It is a bit nebulous49 Yes, if it includes all views. Not just selected individuals who would

always agree with Council view.50 Yes51 Yes, but youth groups should also be included. 52 Yes 54 Yes, as long as groups understand that the overall responsibility for

prioritising rests with the Council. 55 Yes, it will allow the general public to become involved and have a

say in new and existing areas. 56 Yes59 Yes60 If anyone on it has any other panel sitting activities on behalf of

MBC this should be highlighted. Prevent conflict of interest. 61 Yes - for sharing ideas, problems and good practice, but it mustn’t

be too centrally controlling. 62 Very much in favour, providing the environment and nature is

represented.63 Yes - it is essential that groups should not be working in isolation.


Comments: again, strong support for the Council’s proposals

Measuring Progress:Do you think the national performance measures are relevant to Middlesbrough?

No. Response 1 I think a lot of this document is irrelevant 2 No4 Yes. They should be kept as a comparative benchmark. 5 OK6 Yes7 I do. However more measuring process can be put in place relevant

to Middlesbrough.8 Yes9 Yes. It puts us on the map not just regionally but nationally 10 Too complicated for people to follow 11 Could prove a total flop - it is all a matter of interpretation and re-

action 12 Yes13 Yes15 No16 As guideline only. A plan specific to Middlesbrough needed. 17 To make comparisons - yes18 We have perhaps a little more to do than national averages. 19 Good statistics do not necessarily mean improvements. 20 Not as good as local measurements 21 Yes 22 Yes. It could give us an idea of what to aim for23 Yes. Why should Middlesbrough be excluded from national

standards. 24 No, spending in itself does not make good environments. Numbers

using parks or sports field probably governed by economic factors and not choices.

25 Don’t know 26 Absolutely. We need to compare the town with appropriate others

in the regions and elsewhere.27 Yes 28 No29 No. should link to “users”30 Yes31 Use both. Middlesbrough often gets a bad press when other towns

obviously have the same problems, so we do not proof of success. 32 No33 Yes/No. They are relevant but so “unpersonal”. Do they really show

how successful the parks/green areas are?34 Not particularly - unless one is an accountant!35 As all the information is available easily it doesn’t really matter -

they can be produced anyway. 36 No. They are too ‘number’ and specific. Not representative of local

culture. 37 Yes38 No


39 Yes40 Yes41 No43 Some, such as pitches per 1000 head, spending per head, play

areas per 1000 under 1244 Local representatives should decide 45 No46 It at least allows the town to be benchmarked maintaining what

might be helpful. 47 Yes. As a basis for comparison with the rest of the country 48 Of course 49 Perhaps, but do local people care about NP measures50 Yes51 They do not reflect level of use or satisfaction of users for these

areas. 52 Yes, if well publicised 53 Not really 54 Yes55 Yes, as it is very statistic/numbers orientated and gives MBC a

benchmark to measure against. 56 Yes 58 Yes59 Yes - gives us a benchmark 60 Stick to national ones 61 Yes. But we shouldn’t be slaves to them. Satisfying local needs is

more important. 62 To a small extent maybe63 No

Comments: a mixed bag of views, some in favour, some doubting the value of national indicators and preferring more local ones.

What do you think of our suggested local performance measurements?

No. Response 1 You’ll have an impact on local people when you get things done.

Completed projects is the measure. 2 A good idea4 Very good - useful local tools5 OK6 Good as long as there is responsive feedback7 Very well written 8 Good9 Brilliant. Again it’s important for people to have their say and for

the ‘steward’ (MBC) to monitor all the performance measures. 11 Fine - but who sets the standards. MBC past record dismal!12 Very good 13 I think it’s an excellent idea. Let’s hope it works out.15 Good. Could be improved 16 Yes17 To be used to our advantage 18 OK. I am particularly keen on the budget and improvement

timescales. 19 Good20 Quite a good idea21 Need to be far-reaching - not just using opinions of the usual

suspects 22 Good ideas. We would like to measure up to national standards. 23 Good ideas 24 Good, but what about distance from residence to play area/park etc.


There is no children’s playground in Kirby ward which is a disgrace. 25 Sounds good 26 Local people are surveyed to death. Could a parks survey be a

section inn a survey of use of other leisure and amenities provision?28 Keep it simple and avoid more red tape 29 Agree with some of them. Time driven ones may not be successful 30 Are also needed 31 The measurements are different and could also be useful. 32 Much better 33 Thorough and precise. 34 They seem to relate to the realities of being resident here. 35 I would assume that a park management plan would be completed

any way. It shouldn’t be something to be proud of particularly. Annual survey might be expensive for what you learn.

36 More relevant 37 These are necessary but in conjunction with national performance. 38 Excellent39 Alright40 Satisfactory41 Much better way 43 Very good!44 Agree 45 Sound better than using national measurements. 46 Some are too broad and do not mean anything to the general

public, eg “Links to strategic plans”47 Points 1, 5 and 6 are more meaningful 48 Entirely appropriate 49 Good - if it means local people who use the parks are listened to and

not pen pushers deciding their vision. 50 Good51 Agree that they are more ‘quality’ and ‘satisfaction’ orientated,

particularly annual survey of users and state of the environment measurements.

52 Good, but will you display the information at sites in question. 53 Need to be higher 54 As long as few plans that are realistic and work a long term plan

alongside a short term plan that could deteriorate to mere “remedial”

55 Good, it will give MBC a focus and target to aim for on a local level taking into account local issues and requirements.

56 Reasonable 59 Good idea - public money must be used carefully and invested

wisely. When surveying use of parks, check to see that provision is what people actually want.

60 Why make your own targets unless you can’t reach national targets 61 Maybe - but likely to be only of interest to Councillors and Council

officers!62 Certainly more relevant to Middlesbrough 63 Acceptable although caution should be used in application of time

limits

Comments: much stronger support for the proposed local indicators than the national ones.

What other performance measurements do you think could be used?

No. Response 2 How publicity helps in advertising events 4 Independent objective assessments? User levels if accessible. 5 How vandalism has been reduced.


7. Ethnicity country, age, gender, etc9 Is there any service you’d like to use that we don’t provide?11 The highest. Maybe in association with National trust. 13 So far I am satisfied with performance measurements but if I think

of anything in the future I will write to you. 15 More consultation 16 Use consultation with local residents. 17 Access for disabled 18 Somehow measure the emotive impact on people’s health 19 Comments box in museum 21 Town street surveys?22 Regular updates on performances to be published 23 Published regular updates on achievements. 24 See above and what about safety. How safe do citizens feel in

public places?25 Carry out surveys by asking people in local communities their

opinions of progress and quality. 26 Cost of repairs due to vandalism - separate data for tech green

spaces. 33 Amount of media attention. Surveying of users and local people.

Environmental impact. 34 A “thermometer” to measure the number of trees being planted in

our streets and other public places. 35 Number of skilled park staff. RHS gardens have 5 or 10 year

development plans. It might be worth thinking about. 36 Number of small neighbourhood spaces maintained (in contract to

the two large town parks ands town centre development) 37 Publish performance time tables to enable public to monitor 38 None - as long as the six listed are carried out. 40 Don’t know 41 None43 Perhaps a measure of response time to a specific idea generated in

a survey, for example. 44 Total public involvement 46 Based on Safety, how many incidents occur and on the survey age

ranges of users and then research into why some groups don’t use the facilities and why.

47 Don’t know. Letters of complaint to the Evening Gazette???48 The designation of green spaces and protection in the local plan

from development. 49 Make sure the old as well as the young are included in

consultations. 50 Children’s opinions 51 Annual improvement index- measured year on year as a percentage

change, positive or negative, based on set standards Staff input against investment - numbers of staff on site/levels of inspection/ number of staff at events etc. evaluated against user satisfaction.

53 Amount of litter in containers 55 Set targets on types of area, ie open space, play areas, etc. and

measure what is achieved over a given period. Measure public involvement/consultation and how to improve effectiveness of information to public.

56 More pro-active 58 Common sense/observation59 When surveying use of parks, check to see that provision is what

people actually want. 60 Not like this one. Too much jargon aimed at the minority of Greens

not majority of people. 61 Occasional ‘voice-over type’ local questionnaires to judge public

perception of the stewardship and management of local spaces in achieving objectives.


62 Comprehensive (and continuous) wildlife surveys 63 Response to genuine concerns raised by users

Comments: an interesting range of suggestions for the Council to consider!


Questionnaire 2

This is a list of some of the Green Spaces and Public Places in Middlesbrough. Please tick all of the ones you use.1 = more than once a month2 = less than once a month3 = never

No. Park

s

Wild

life

area

s

Play

are

as

Teen

are

as

Gree

nspa

ces

Tenn

is co

urts

Bowl

ing

gree

ns

Spor

ts

pitc

hes

Golf

cour

ses

Scho

ol

Play

ing

Field

s

Town

Sq

uare

s

Allo

tmen

ts

Chur

chya

rds/

cem

eter

ies

Righ

ts o

f Way

Cycle

or

wa

lking

1 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 34 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 15 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 28 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 19 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 110 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 311 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 112 1 1 1 1 1 113 1 1 114 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 115 1 1 1 1 1 116 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 317 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 318 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 219 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 120 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 121 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 122 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 123 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 124 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 125 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 126 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 227 1 1 1 1 128 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 329 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 130 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 131 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 232 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 133 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 234 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 135 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 136 2 2 1 1 337 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 238 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 239 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 140 2 2 3 1 1 241 1 2 3 2 2 242 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 143 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 144 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 145 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 246 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 147 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 148 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 349 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 350 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 152 1 1 2 3 11 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 153 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 254 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 155 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 356 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 2


57 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 358 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 2 359 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 360 1 3 2 2 161 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 262 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 163 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 1

Ave 1.3 1.5 2.3 2.8 1.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 1.1 2.9 2.1 1.7 1.6

Comments: the most often used facilities or spaces are town squares, parks, wildlife areas local greenspaces and rights of way; the least often those which appeal to a minority of committed individuals, such as bowling greens or tennis courts, or specific age groups such as teenage areas.

Q32. If you do not use any of the above list of Green Spaces and Public Places, please say why not.

No. Reason 1 I’m not a teenager, don’t play tennis, bowls, golf. 4 Don’t like churches, bowls or golf. Can’t keep my own garden tidy,

never mind an allotment. 7 Have no interest 9 Not really my interested area10 No need to 15 Old age - we are “recycled teenagers” 22 No allotments, not allowed on school playing fields. Teenage

hangouts unsafe23 No allotments. We are not teenagers! Not allowed on school fields. 24 Don’t have time for an allotment 28 Not accessible because of limited mobility 35 I don’t do sport 49 Too busy for sports or allotments . Too young to visit churchyards.55 Teenage areas not used as no teenagers in family. School playing

fields not open and other areas more available/suitable. 60 Dog dirt

Comments: a typical mixed bag of responses from which it is impossible to draw any clear conclusions!

Q3. What are the bad and good points of our Green Spaces and Public Places?

No. Bad Good 1 Amount of litter Areas for wildlife 2 Feeling of insecurity To be among nature 3 Litter, lack of security, no toilets,

vandalism Safe playgrounds

4 Misuse and abuse, feeling of vulnerability.

Safe environmentsactivity mix

5 Vandalism, hooliganism, truantsAlcoholics

Welcome open space.

6 Paths - public ones not always cared for and inaccessible.

Albert Park- hydroponics centre

7 What Middlesbrough needs 8 Amount of litter, bottles, trolleys,

etc. Wildlife it attracts and plans and trees.

9 Not always car friendly Usually lots going on and very ‘dog’ friendly, Good for running


10 Don’t suit all needs, which is to be expected

Well maintained

11 UntidinessPoor replacement of footpaths Scruffy, rundown

That we have them

13 Not much parking spaces for cars.

Clean enough to sit and relax

14 With the exception of the parks, public areas, eg cycle routes always seem to be over-run with litter

It is good to see preservation and restoration in progress, eg Albert Park.

15 After -care and monitoring afterwards

Improving, but slow

16 Litter, Dog fouling Trying to make them a credit. 17 Litter all round the area we live

in (Marton)The parks are pleasant

18 Antisocial people; litter Flowers, water, fresh air, trees 19 Damaged fences and litter Normally peaceful areas for

fresh air and exercise20 Vandalism, Litter, Gangs of

youths up to no good. Clean air, Space for children to play.

21 Lack of staffing Positive outlook 22 Need for more maintenance and

litter picking. Albert Park, Stewart Park, Victoria Park. Newham Grange leisure farm a good amenity, but expensive riverside walk.

23 Newham Grange Leisure Farm. Excellent but should be cheaper.

Generally grass areas well maintained but Coulby Newham Becks and shrubbery could be improved.

24 Litter, under-investment, chewing gum

Reinvestment - some areas, Restoration, Albert Park

25 Litter, Vandalism, dog fouling26 Litter Albert Park tennis courts and

other repairs/redevelopment. 27 Not enough of them among

private property 28 The information ignores that the

older generation is increasing. 29 Safety aspects.

Litter Attractive layoutThe fact that the facility exists.

30 Local one (Laycock) could have better maintenance

Most are easily reached from where I live.

31 Some vandalism and litter spoils their appearance.

Well spread out around area.

32 Spoilt by anti-social behaviour, dumping etc.

Beautiful landscapes well worth preserving

33 Litter, Unsafe at night They are relaxing and sometimes inspiration for my work.

34 Litter For morale, when cared for and well maintained.

35 Litter Lack of funding leading to dilapidated/worn appearance sometimes.

We have them!Piece of countryside in an urban setting.

36 Litter, the scourge which still blights the town and its image.

Horticultural and sports facilities are usually a credit to staff involved as is access and help for the disabled.

37 Litter, Dog fouling Fresh air, Scenery, Wildlife 38 Litter on occasions Well kept, environmentally


friendly39 Vandalism, Litter Exercise 40 Dog fouling, Vandalism Well kept paths etc 41 The danger of vandalism42 Around the bins

Dog waste bins full and waste on ground.

Nice views of Middlesbrough and wild flowers.

43 Litter, Care and maintenance of eg. paths and trees.Poor enforcement of rules, eg “No Cycling”

Potentially good variety.

44 Litter and overgrown area, Poor repair of paths

45 Not kept clean Easy Access 46 The improved areas are in

places that you would not sometimes wish to visit

We have a wide variety of choice.

47 Vandalism - saplings snapped off in bed at entrance to Albert Park

Nice cycle track through Albert Park

48 Third parties blocking rights of way, Deliberate neglect by developers of green field sites, eg Co-op. Church Lane

49 Dog muck, People dropping litter, Fear of crime

We should have more trees, grass, flowers.

50 Damaged buildings Ponds, 52 Litter Beauty, Wildlife 53 Not enough maintenance Very green54 Abuse by very small minority -

litter, vandalism of trees and seats.

Variety of provision, good walking links; Beck corridors take countryside right into town.

55 I know very little of where all areas are - poor information

Trying to address our requirements; Looking at how to improve, also improvements made to Albert Park are excellent.

56 Litter, Dog dirt Continue to be used as green area.

57 Vandalism Somewhere to go and to “chill out”

58 Dog fouling Seems to be less litter than on the streets.

59 Occasional graffiti/debris; Need to be more adventurous for children

Love the ice rink

60 It is Council directed and run Idea from the Government. Lip service by MBC. Not people-user led.

61 New renewal policy for trees. All areas need a friends group.

Wide variety of formal to informal.South Middlesbrough needs more sports

62 Litter, Vandalism 63 Litter, Vandalism

General neglectSize and availability

Comments: litter, vandalism and dog fouling top the list of bad points; the good points include a wide range of factors, but respondents seem particularly to have appreciated landscape features and the chance to be in the open air.


Q4/5. What is the name of your local park, green space or public place, whether good or bad, and what do you think of it?

No. Name Opinion 1 Bluebell Beck Good, but could be better 2 Albert Park - well kept. Wardens,

rangers need to be SEEN out and about.

A dog walkers paradise, & cyclists, but not so good for young children.

3 Albert Park, Trimdon Avenue playground at Kader

Albert: people disregard the rules about dogs on leads. Cyclist on the paths at high speed. The lake is now lovely. The café should be allowed to sell ice cream/lollies in the summer - cheap ones!!

4 Barnabas/Chipchase rec. ground. Poorly lit, has little practical use and less aesthetic quality. Loved by local dogs.

Barnabas/Chipchase rec. ground. Poorly lit, has little practical use and less aesthetic quality. Loved by local dogs.

5 Albert Park Recent work needs to settle down - too many dogs.

6 Albert Park Beautiful 7 Albert Park Very good 8 Stewart Park Good overall; Bad: youths

hanging around at night. 9 Albert Park, Ayresome Gardens Good 10 Millbrook playing field Not very well maintained. Poorly

lit11 Pallister Park It’s original character has been

destroyed by awful re-planning12 Albert Park Very good 13 Albert Park The local park is great especially

in the summer 14 Middlebeck (cycle route and play

parks)Extremely bad. Lots of litter, broken glass, graffiti and crime.

15 Pallister Park. - good A big improvement. Better care of bowling.

16 Albert Park and Ayresome Gardens

Albert Park good. Ayresome Gardens a disgrace

17 Stewart Park Good, but no provision for bad weather

18 Albert Park Nice, though not all recent improvements were well implemented.

19 Avenue of trees, Hall Drive, Acklam

Good but spoilt by litter and vandalism

20 Albert Park; Clairville Common Albert park is quite good but the drainage needs improving. More wardens for safety from youths, particularly in evenings.


21 Bluebell Beck; Albert Park; Stewart Park

Excellent renovation of Albert Park (hopefully of Stewart Park ?)

22 Fairy Dell Park. Yellow Park - improvement needed - proper surface.

Fairy Dell area bad. Park - good. Yellow Park - update - pond bad

23 Fairy Dell and lake area. - improvement needed. Fire Street pond. - bad

Needs improving, updating as above.

24 Albert Park - brilliant Westbourne Park - naff

Albert Park declined but is now leaping ahead. Public toilets intimidating!!

25 Coulby Newham (South) A wonderful housing development spoiled by letter etc.

26 Albert Park Lovely 28 Westbourne Park Bad 29 Malbadale Park/ Avenue Park Could be rejuvenated 30 Laycock Park - fair, but needs

improvement Laycock - fair but needs improvement

31 Albert Park. Walkways between Acklam and Natures World

At park, now very good. Walkways - fairly well maintained.

32 Hemlington Spoilt by anti-social behaviour, dumping etc. Beautiful landscapes well worth preserving

33 Albert Park A beautiful and relaxing haven. A place to breathe.

34 Albert Park Beautifully redeveloped. The cafe is brilliant.

35 Bluebell Beck Very good. The cut grass is a bit sterile looking and there can be litter.

36 St. Barnabas Rd/Chipchase Rd. Rec. Space

With a little more development/maintenance could be an oasis in a dense housing area.

37 Hemlington Lake area An excellent facility which needs more attention

38 Albert Park is the one I mainly use. Stewart Park is the nearest

Albert Park excellent. Stewart Park - shame about the deer!

39 Avenue (Acklam) Sandy Flatts Good 40 Nature reserve, Stainton Quiet place to enjoy walk and

see wildlife 41 The Quarry Nature Reserve,

Stainton A good place for nature and dog walking. I enjoy the ‘events’ organised by Ms Sue Antrobus.

42 Turnbery Way Fair43 Stewart Park OK for dog walkers. Rather

boring horticulturally. Litter! Drab around upper lakes. Good museum ands café.

44 Stewart Park. Public footpaths in Marton area

Pavements and paths in poor state of repair.

45 Stewart Park Large and open so never seems crowded

46 Stewart Park It is average but has very limited play areas for children with equipment.

47 Grounds of Acklam Hall, avenue Very good for walks


of trees, playing fields beyond. Marton West Beck

48 Kimby Field - worried that it will be inappropriately developed once Middlesbrough College closes

Kimby Field - worried that it will be inappropriately developed once Middlesbrough College closes

49 Albert Park It has improved. Much nicer to visit.

50 Stewart Park Good there are squirrels 52 Hemlington Lake. I use Stainton

Quarry as well. I love it, but needs more care

53 Albert Park Bad54 Bluebell Beck - Play park at

Kader Community Centre. Generally good - varied - suits a lot of users but sometimes conflicting interests of users leads to intolerance.

55 Stainton/Thornton Quarry nature Reserve and Thornton Plantation.

Good and is continually being improved.

56 Ayresome Gardens Good 57 Pallister Park (this is good) This is good because they hold

events (fairs) there 58 Linthorpe Cemetery; Ayresome

Gardens WonderfulA bit devoid of interest.

59 Stewart Park - needs an adventure playground.

Beautiful - education facilities are excellent

60 In front of library! Not user friendly 61 Stainton Quarry

Hemlington LakeStainton Wood

Hemlington Lake area needs a ‘friends group’ and more promotion

62 Stewart ParkHemlington Lake

Quite good - room for improvement.

63 Blue Bell Beck corridor Potentially a health giving green area but suffering from lack of professional management.

Comments: the improvements to Albert Park clearly have huge support but there are concerns for some other spaces.

Q6. What do you think is the most important thing that needs improving in your local park, green space or public space?

No. Improvement . 1 A linear cycle/footpath could link with other beck areas to give

circular leisure routes 2 Security, Rangers etc. Need to be seen. The public want to know

they are there to help. Toilets to be put into use.

3 Kader playground is a disgrace. Teenagers have ruined it with vandalism. Litter and food attracts vermin from beck.

4 Higher maintenance specification and adding of attractive seating area.

5 Better control of dog waste 6 The fountain. Pleased with bandstand and new paths and flowers

near these. 8 Litter control 9 Dog areas. Also definitely needs a dog drinking trough10 More lighting 11 All of it. Remove the ‘Disneyland’ effect and the point-scoring of


local councillors!13 We need more benches for the elderly to sit on. 14 Crime - we have suffered an increasing amount of danger and

disturbance from youths riding stolen motor scooters on the cycle way and the police seem both disinterested and/or powerless to do anything about it.

15 Market Place cleaning. Wardens needed market days and all areas. 16 More supervision in prosecution for dog fouling and litter louts. 17 The conservatory was pleasant all year round - possibly a larger one

would benefit all ages. 18 ‘Classic’ features such as trees, flowers, water, animals. 19 Repair fences and barriers and support 2020 group 20 More protection for wildlife and new young trees. Clay soil around

path edges needs changing. 21 Access for motorised bikes! The tear up the grass/wildflower areas

(ie Bluebell Beck)22 Fairy Dell area, pond near the Fire Station. Yellow Park - equipment

and new surface. 23 Fairy Dell - lake cleaning , shrubbery and grass cut back. Pond

near Fire station , Coulby Newham - cleaning. Yellow park - equipment for kids.

24 Encourage a mode railway such as at Saltburn to complete restoration, Establish children’s garden managed by schools.

25 Council services regarding the above need a radical improvement. 26 A suitable area for children to learn to ride bikes 28 General clean up and provision for activities29 Updating, making litter free and more child friendly30 Generally to have a new view on improvements, help to reduce

vandalism, better planned. 31 Could Middlesbrough College replace vandalised wooden fence with

modern metal fence between Church Lane and Hall Drive?32 Clearing up rubbish, revive graffiti 33 Litter management - but it really isn’t that much of an issue! It is a

lovely Park. 34 Just keep on top of cleaning and maintenance 35 I think it needs to be part of a coherent town-wide management

plan from which improvements will happen. 36 Very regular litter control 37 Lake needs improvement. Litter bins need emptying more often.

Shops should clear litter. 38 The old house at Albert Park needs something doing to it. Stewart

Park - we need to wait until it is finished. 39 Everything is alright 40 The link with Kelgate Green will make circle walk round Stainton41 The Parish Council is working to make a ‘round walk’ through the

quarry and extended on to its ‘to-be-developed Kelgate Green space. I think this will be a good thing.

42 Repairing of fences damaged by vandalism 43 Pick litter more often. Remove brambles, elder etc. from

“plantations” to encourage specimen trees. Plant flowers, shrubs, eg azaleas, rhododendrons.

44 Total renovation with play area for young children45 More things for children/teenagers to do. 46 A large play area like Albert Park has for children to play in. 47 Acklam pond attracts litter, as do two wooded areas. Need

information point on duck foot and machine to dispense for cash as local families like to feed bread etc. to the ducks.

48 Public access and uses. FE Colleges are the beneficiaries of a disgraceful land grab.

49 Park wardens - visible, with powers to remind people there are rules to be obeyed.

50 Slides, games


52 Litter collection, lake management (weeds, litter etc. Lighting, bins (dog and human) and wooded areas management

53 Better maintenance 54 Consideration of future as many trees are getting old and self-

seeding is mostly alder and ash. 55 Footbridge required to make it more accessible to Thornton

residents 56 Lighting. More fines against litter and dog fouling. 57 CCTC cameras (more)

Inspectors who walk around the park keeping a check on things. 58 Wardens 59 Clean up bits of vandalism/debris60 Needs more grass 61 To find ways of increasing public use of Hemlington Lakeside,

Stainton Quarry and Stainton Wood. 62 The perimeter of pond in north west corner of Stewart Park.

Water’s edge of Hemlington lake (litter) 63 Removal of the drinkers, drug-takers and motor cyclists.

Comments: these views mirror those relating to good and bad features of local parks and greenspaces above.

Q7. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about Green spaces and public places in Middlesbrough. Do you use Green spaces to improve your health for instance?

No. Comment 1 In larger areas, eg BBB, more could be done for people’s leisure

time and for existence of wildlife. 2 I use green spaces for walking, Timberland Trail, Tees River walk.

Hemlington Lake etc. but do not feel safe doing it alone. 3 I also use Stewart Park. When will the rabbits etc. Return. The

children loved them. Could Albert Park have a car park inside the park? Love the music playing at the skating rink!I am a childminder. I use all the above 2-3 times a week. The playground at Pallister Park is superb for little ones but the sand at Albert playground is a nightmare.

4 Only during daylight so summer evenings. Would like the addition of some measured running loops in Albert and Stewart Parks.

5 Visit them with grandchildren - facilities have been improved but need regular checking - more security needed.

6 Small area behind Longlade derelict - is this private?7 Yes. Use it for walking and cycling. 8 The Boulevard, nice walk into town, but fountains and lake need

tidying up and litter removed. 9 Improvements are well recognised - keep up the good work!10 Yes. I walk along the paths but cannot later in the year when the

nights draw in due to youths loitering in the dark.11 Poor lighting and access. Un-patrolled (bring back park-keepers).

Dangerous places at night. Spoiled by poor planning. 13 If I need some fresh air I would go for a 15 minute walk around the

park to clear my head. 14 I have often in the past used cycleways throughout Middlesbrough

but they are becoming too much of a hazard. Generally, however, local parks etc. slowly improving in quality.

15 Yes. We play outdoor bowls and greens need a full time attendant (qualified)

16 Ayresome Gardens. Police need to take action against youths holding drinking parties.


17 Not at the moment18 Well I like walking in nature, so yes. Beneficial to health.19 I enjoy walking but do worry about my safety20 I think we need all our green spaces. We should keep Victoria

Square and the gardens and lake in front of the law courts for the health and recreation of people in town.

21 As wonderful ‘non-urban’ spaces which can be restful and refreshing, as well as natural wildlife habitats.

22 Parks all very good. More seating in Coulby Newham. Cycle routes good - some parts of Timberland Trail need clearing. Walking improves my health.

23 Tend to go to the parks quite a lot. Cycle tracks need improving 24 Green spaces/public spaces are the way visitors see and remember

us. Let us impress them and take pride in our achievements. Erimus: we shall be, should be, now we are!!

25 We use the cycle routes and walkways to get exercise and maintain good health.

26 Could someone organise fitness walks/sports activities for women only/ over 55s/young people? I have no tennis partner so can’t play. A tennis club?

27 Stewart Park would be greatly enhanced by a children’s playground. Also an all weather path from the main gate to the car park if parallel to Ladgate lane.

29 Yes. Regular walker30 Yes, as a trained walk leader I walk a lot and lead organised walks in

the Middlesbrough area. 31 Stewart Park would be improved for walking of another pathway was

put in to link the car park and main path from Marton Road corner, thus encouraging people to do a circular walk. A playground in Stewart Park would be well used.

32 None of these must be redeveloped. More than enough has been lost already

33 The green spaces make you feel better about Middlesbrough. No longer do you feel contained and it’s inspirational at times.

34 Very important for mental health - especially self-respect. 35 I’m so pleased this consultation is happening. I think people would

like to see more flowers - it makes the town look more prosperous. 36 Captain Cook Museum and its area in Stewart Park should continue

to attract visitors to nature’s world. 39 Yes. For healthy exercise 41 I would walk more through green spaces but my husband is disabled

and needs a wheelchair. Expecting a nature reserve to have complete wheelchair access may be impractical. We tend to walk along promenades at Redcar and Saltburn.

43 Marton West Beck good by appears neglected. Pond silting up, trees falling. Good for wildlife and quite a variety of trees there.

I would be interested in joining either the Stewart Park consultative group or, less likely, the Heritage Groups.

44 Apart from Middlesbrough centre other areas are neglected to the detriment of the environment.

45 Often walk to/around the park to improve fitness. 46 They should be retained and safeguarded in the local plan and

enhanced and or protected as required so all ages can benefit from them

47 I use green spaces locally for walking. Green spaces are usually excellent, if sometimes too manicured; we could have meadow areas to attract insects, etc. ?

48 The very existence/preservation of green spaces is of itself an invaluable amenity.

49 Seeing flowers and green well cared for areas makes me feel good and glad to be alive so increases my sense of pleasure and this


must surely improve health. 50 More statues 52 We have some great green areas in Middlesbrough but litter

dumping and fly tipping spoil enjoyment. 54 I personally enjoy the “country” walks in town. I like to use the

Blue Bell Beck as a learning resource for pupils in Kader School - aged 4 - 1l - at various levels in their science curriculum and to help them understand how to care for their environment. Would like to see pupils more actively involved -m eg surveys, bird boxes, planting, gathering.

55 Look at target groups, ie 5 and under, 5-10, 1-16, general public and endeavour to meet their requirements. Sometimes elaborate schemes are not required and all that children require is a flat space to play on.

57 Yes. I use local fields (School and Stewart Park) to keep fit and to take my younger cousins to (Albert Park)

59 Yes. We need to think about developing new and exciting activities for children and teenagers, eg outdoor pursuits such as canoeing, climbing wall, abseiling, properly manned and organised.

60 Cycling - too much traffic in town centre. 61 Yes, for regular short walks and to enjoy nature and habitats away

from traffic and noise. The Riverside walk needs to be greener in Middlesbrough. Don’t forget the Tees Forest for creating new areas for public access. Groundwork are OK and have resources for existing spaces.

62 Is there any point in this exercise - over 700 people objected to destruction of green space beside Guisborough Road, Nunthorpe last year but the Council still allowed the building of 33 houses on it.

63 They are ideal places to observe wildlife and enjoy healthy exercise.

Comments: a wide range of comments for the Council to consider!

Q8. Personal details

No Age Sex Ethnicity 1 4 F 12 5 F 13 3 F 14 3 F 15 4 M 16 3 M 17 3 F 48 3 F 19 2 F 110 3 F 111 4 M 112 5 F 113 2 F 414 3 F 115 5 F 116 6 M17 5 F18 3 M 119 4 F 120 4 F 121 5 F 122 6 F 123 3 M 124 3 M 1


25 5 M 126 3 F 127 5 F 128 6 M 129 3 F 130 5 F 131 5 F 132 4 M 133 2 F 134 4 M 635 3 M 136 4 F 137 5 F 138 3 F 139 5 M 140 5 M 141 4 F 142 5 M 743 4 M 144 5 M 145 3 F 146 3 M 147 5 F 148 3 M 149 4 f 850 1 F 152 3 M 153 3 M 154 4 F 155 3 F 156 4 M 157 2 F 158 5 F 159 3 F 160 3 F 661 5 M 162 3 M 163 5 M

Note: 6 = European; 7=English; 8=Travelling/show people

Comments: only one respondent was under 16; 4 were aged 16-24; 23 were aged 25 to 49; 13 were aged 50 to 64; 18 were aged 65 to 74; and 6 were 75 or older. 25 were male and 37 female. 52=3 were white, 2 were black or black British, and 2 were European. One respondent classed himself as English and 1 herself as a traveller.

No. Postcode 1 TS5 8BU2 TS5 6QG3 TS5 8PQ4 TS5 6EX5 TS5 5HL6 TS1 3EN7 TS1 4QZ8 TS7 0AF9 TS1 4PS

10 TS3 9DY11 TS3 9DT12 TS1 3ED


13 TS1 3JU14 TS3 8RN15 TS3 6JW16 TS5 6BL17 TS7 8NF18 TS5 6BJ19 TS5 7EH20 TS4 2HX21 TS5 4RE22 TS8 0RX23 TS8 02F24 TS5 5LA25 TS8 0XB26 TS9 6AR27 TS5 7EB28 TS5 5EG29 TS7 0JT30 TS1 4RP31 TS5 7EB32 TS8 9PZ33 TS4 2DQ4 TS4 2HS

35 TS5 8DF36 TS5 6EH37 TS8 9BP38 TS3 0OP39 TS5 7EU40 TS8 9BZ41 TS8 9BY42 TS8 9XT43 TS7 8AA44 TS7 8BP45 TS7 8NF46 TS7 8NW47 5 7EU48 TS5 5PL49 TS3 6LR50 TS14 7AP51 TS7 8AR52 TS8 9SE55 TS8 9BX56 TS1 5NQ57 TS3 8QP58 TS5 6SH59 TS7 8RH60 TS1 4DG61 TS8 9AR62 TS7 0JN63 TS5 8JJ

Comments: respondents seem to have come from most areas of the town.


mbro appendices - Middlesbroughdemocracy.middlesbrough.gov.uk/aksmiddlesbrough/i… · Web...

Documents

Transcript of mbro appendices - Middlesbroughdemocracy.middlesbrough.gov.uk/aksmiddlesbrough/i… · Web...