Open Space Assessment and Strategy 2014

Ope n Space Assessment and Strategy

2014 - 2019

Document updated August 2017

Appendix A

CONTENTS

1.0 Background 1

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Why produce an Open Space Strategy?

1.3 Executive summary 10 2.0 Context

2.1 Local Context

2.2 Strategic Context

3.0 Key Issues and Objectives 12

3.1 Vision

3.2 Objectives

4.0 Methodology of open space assessment 13

5.0 Assessment Findings 16

5.1 Full assessment and recommendations of open space study by settlement /neighbourhood area

SETTLEMENT NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA Adlington - Southeast Parishes Buckshaw Village - Astley, Euxton and Buckshaw Chorley Town - Chorley Town East/West Clayton Brook/Green - Clayton and Whittle Clayton-le-Woods - Clayton and Whittle Coppull - Southern Parishes Eccleston - Western Parishes Euxton - Astley, Euxton and Buckshaw Whittle-le-Woods - Clayton and Whittle Withnell/Brinscall - Eastern Parishes Other Villages

5.2 Assessment and Recommendations of Open Space by typology:  Parks and Gardens  Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace  Amenity Greenspace  Provision for children and young people  Allotments  Cemeteries/Churchyards  Civic Space  Green Corridors

5.3 Quality and Value Matrix by site.

6.0 Future Provision 52

6.1 Delivery of the deficiencies and key recommendations  Management and Development  Funding Sources.  How provision is to be made to address deficiencies

7.0 Strategy Review 57

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Maps showing typologies within settlements 58

Appendix B: Total open space provision by ward 68

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

This strategy sets out how Chorley Council plans to protect, manage, enhance and secure its open spaces over the next five years and beyond. It focuses on sites that need to be improved or sustained to mitigate against negative trends and recommends how any identified deficiencies should be addressed.

It provides a rationale to help secure external funding for the improvement and additional provision of open space and facilities, particularly via developer contributions.

1.2 Why produce an Open Space Strategy?

The Open Space Strategy focuses on the findings of the Open Space Audit Report prepared by consultants Knight, Kavanagh and Page (KKP) which was published in May 2012 (Central Lancashire Open Space Study). This study was important in the contribution /development of the Core Strategy and Local Development Framework process and helped to inform:

 Site allocation processes  Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on open spaces

The Strategy will:

 Analyse and update the findings of the open space study 2012.  Recommend how future open space should be secured.  Identify any deficiencies or surpluses in provision and options for dealing with this now and in the future.  Consider how the Council, in partnership with the local community and partner agencies, can ensure total inclusion and improve existing provision for health and wellbeing.  Prioritise future spending on open spaces through action plans.  Provide information to inform the Council to make decisions on the distribution of developer contributions, prioritising projects and sites according to a range of core criteria.  Ensure that any targets identified through the strategy are delivered in a clear, collaborative and inclusive manner.  Ensure the Borough of Chorley demonstrates equality of accessibility across both the rural and urban areas.  Consider how sustainability and Climate Change can be addressed.

An assessment of the quantity, quality and accessibility of open space provision was carried out in 2012 by consultants and re visited by Chorley Council in 2014 and 2017. This was carried out in accordance with the companion guide to Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) ‘Assessing Needs and Opportunities’ using the same methodologies for consistency. The study covers the open space typologies identified in the table below.

As part of the Central Lancashire Development Plan consultants are currently in the process of being appointed to review and reassess all sites across Chorley, Preston and South Ribble to write an updated strategy 2020 – 2025 linking into the forthcoming local plan review and evidence base.

PPG17 Typology Primary Purpose Opportunities for informal activities close to home or Amenity greenspace work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas. Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events. Does not include Parks and gardens Country Parks due to their more natural characteristics. They are included in natural and semi- natural greenspaces. Wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental Natural and semi-natural education and awareness. Includes urban woodland greenspaces and Country Parks. Opportunities for those people who wish to do so to Allotments grow their own produce as part of the long term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion. Walking, cycling or horse riding, whether for leisure Green corridors purposes or travel and opportunities for wildlife migration. Quiet contemplation and burial of the dead, often Cemeteries/churchyards linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity Providing a setting for civic buildings, public Civic spaces demonstrations and community events.

NB: The assessment and improvement strategy for typology ‘Provision for children and young people’ (areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children and young people such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard areas and teenage shelters) can be found in the Play Area Strategy.

This document analyses the assessment of quantity, quality and value and accessibility of the above typologies on a settlement basis with cross references to neighbourhood areas and sets out the planning policy approach to securing future provision and how to make improvements to health and wellbeing of residents within Chorley Borough. The study focuses on the settlement hierarchy within the Core Strategy. It assesses open space provision within the following locations:

 Key Service Centre – Chorley Town.  Urban Local Service Centre’s – Adlington, Clayton Brook/Green, Clayton-le-Woods, Coppull, Euxton and Whittle-le-Woods.  Rural Local Service Centre’s – Brinscall/Withnell and Eccleston.

In accordance with national guidance a size threshold of 0.2 hectares was applied to amenity greenspaces and natural/semi-natural greenspaces as it is considered that sites below this size have less recreational value to residents. Only sites identified as being of significance below this threshold were included. The Study recommends that all sites below the threshold and not included in the Study continue to be protected as they provide valuable visual amenity but they will not be included in the quantity and accessibility standards.

Public footpath networks were also not assessed in the original study but have been highlighted going forward.

1.3 Executive Summary

General Summary

 In total there are 235 sites identified in Chorley as open space provision. This is an equivalent of over 850 hectares across the area.  Most typologies are set as having an accessibility standard of 10 minute walk time. The typologies of allotments, parks and gardens and natural and semi-natural greenspace also have a drive time catchment applied.  The majority of typologies are perceived as having a good level of availability, with the exception of allotments. In particular.  Nearly two thirds of all open spaces score high for quality. More natural and semi-natural sites score low for quality compared to any other typology. This is due to sites of this type being outside of the typical open space classifications (i.e. woodland buffer zones). General maintenance of open spaces is considered to be of a good standard.  The majority of all open spaces are assessed as being of high value. Reflecting the importance of provision; nearly all allotments, cemeteries, parks and provision for children and young people score high for value. All civic spaces are rated as high value. In addition, more amenity greenspace and natural and semi-natural sites are viewed as high for value.  A number of parish councils identify demand for new or improved open spaces.

Summary Table New provision Standard Quality Value needed to Typology Number Size ha/1000 High/Low High/Low meet population standard by 2026

Parks and Gardens 16 200.442 1.91 13/3 16/0 17.760

Natural/Semi-natural 36 492.547 4.64 32/4 36 /0 41.860 Greenspace

Amenity Greenspace 129 84.051 0.73 112/17 128/1 4.125

Allotments 16 8.609 0.07 16/0 16/0 0.685

Cemeteries/Churchyards 19 44.491 - 18/1 19/0 -

Green Corridors 16 30.577 - 15/1 15/1 -

Civic Space 3 0.978 - 3/0 3/0 -

TOTALS 235 861.695 209/28 233/2 64.430

Identified deficiencies

 New allotment provision should be sought at a minimum size of 1.6 hectares in the areas identified with deficiencies – Adlington, Croston, Euxton and Whittle-le-Woods.  Seek to address lack of amenity greenspace provision identified in Eccleston.  Explore potential to formalise sites of a different typology in Whittle-le-Woods to address lack of parks provision. For example, Carr Brook Linear Park (green corridor) or Meadow Lane (amenity greenspace) could be improved to meet the identified deficiency.

Summary of the recommendations and key actions of open space study by settlement

Key: √ means there is a deficit of open space X means there is adequate or surplus open space

ADLINGTON / (SOUTHEAST PARISHES)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace √ √ Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Adlington.

 Deliver the proposed extension to Adlington cemetery.

 Deliver the allocated allotment site at Harrison Road

BUCKSHAW VILLAGE / (ASTLEY, EUXTON AND BUCKSHAW)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace x x Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Buckshaw Village.

CHORLEY TOWN / (CHORLEY TOWN WEST AND CHORLEY TOWN EAST)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace x x Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments x √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Chorley Town.

CLAYTON LE WOODS / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace x x Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace x x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Clayton-le-Woods.

CLAYTON BROOK/GREEN / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace x x Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Clayton Brook/Green.

COPPULL / (SOUTHERN PARISHES)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace √ x Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Coppull.

ECCLESTON

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace √ √ Parks and gardens √ x Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Eccleston.

EUXTON

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace √ √ Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace x x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Euxton.  Deliver the new site for allotments at Sylvester’s Farm.

WHITTLE-LE-WOODS (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)

Summary

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Whittle-le-Woods.

WITHNELL AND BRINSCALL (EASTERN PARISHES)

Summary

Deficit in Typology Deficit in quantity? accessibility? Amenity greenspace √ √ Parks and gardens √ x Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ x Allotments x x Green corridors N/A N/A Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A Civic spaces N/A N/A

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in Withnell/Brinscall.

OTHER VILLAGES

The table below identifies whether there are any deficiencies in quantity in the other defined rural villages in the Borough.

Deficit in quantity? Village Amenity Parks and Natural and Allotments greenspace gardens semi-natural Abbey Village √ √ √ x Bretherton x √ √ √ Brindle √ √ x √ Brindle - Gregson √ √ √ √ Lane Charnock Richard √ √ √ √ Croston x √ √ √ Higher Wheelton √ √ √ √ Hoghton √ √ √ √ Hoghton Gib Lane √ √ √ √ Mawdesley √ √ √ √ Wheelton √ √ √ x

The table below identifies whether there are any deficiencies in accessibility in the other defined rural villages in the Borough.

All of settlement within accessibility standard? Village Amenity Parks and Natural and Allotments greenspace gardens semi-natural Abbey Village √ √ x √ Bretherton √ √ x √ Brindle x √ x √ Brindle - Gregson √ √ x x Lane Charnock Richard x √ √ √ Croston √ √ x √ Higher Wheelton x √ √ √ Hoghton x √ x √ Hoghton Gib Lane √ √ x √ Mawdesley √ √ x x Wheelton √ √ x √

Key Actions

 Protect all existing open spaces in other Villages.  Deliver the new site for allotments at Land East of Station Road, Croston.

2.0 CONTEXT

2.1 Local Context

Chorley is a predominantly rural area, with approximately two thirds of the Borough being open space and countryside. This defines the Borough’s character and the protection of open space from future encroachment is important for all residents of Chorley. Chorley has a population of 109,100 (2012 estimate) who have access to 229 sites classed as open space, covering over 850 hectares. Open spaces can vary from a doorstep green, to a town park, allotments, nature reserve or large playing field. Much of the open space is owned and maintained by Chorley Council but residents also have permitted use of a range of privately owned spaces, such as school playing fields and private sports grounds.

Chorley is identified as a growth area in Lancashire with an estimated 6,000 dwellings to be built by 2026 with a population expected to rise to between 114,200-118,000. New open spaces will be created as part of this development.

In general, maintenance of greenspace in Chorley is regarded as being good or excellent quality by residents. Examples of high quality sites are Yarrow Valley Country Park (322 hectares), Astley Park (40 hectares) and Coronation Recreation Ground (1.78 hectares). Parks and open spaces also contribute to our sense of civic pride and provide areas for communities to meet, play and hold a wide range of events. The quality of our parks and open spaces is reflected by the award of Green Flag accreditation for five of our sites; Astley Park, Withnell Local Nature Reserve, Yarrow Valley Country Park and Coronation Recreation Ground and Tatton Recreation Ground.

Parks and open spaces are increasingly recognised as a vital component of successful towns, cities and villages. Research shows that parks and open spaces are some of the most widely used facilities provided by local authorities. Urban and semi-rural environments in Chorley offer a diverse range of open space opportunities, along with the close proximity to beautiful countryside, the Leeds Liverpool Canal and 317 miles of public rights of way. These opportunities can help contribute to the health and wellbeing of residents, provide visual and aesthetic quality, opportunities for formal and informal recreation, contact with wild-space, multiple environmental benefits and a safe refuge for wildlife and natural habitats.

Chorley was granted membership of the UK Healthy Cities Network in 2013. It is well documented that there are strong links between health, well-being and open space. Natural open space and green space demonstrate economic, social, environmental and health benefits within society.

Studies have shown open space provision helps cool the environment and lowers the impact of climate change this is a result from shade from trees and evapo-transpiration from areas of grassland. The need to protect and increase the amount of open space globally has been heightened through climate change as we increasingly have to deal with hotter summers and wetter winters. Open spaces and green infrastructure have an impact on mitigating against surface and storm water runoff and are a vital component of flood mitigation.

2.2 Strategic context

The following key documents are relevant to the Chorley context.

National

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)  NI 199 – national indicator for play  Play Strategy for England (2008)

Regional

 Central Lancashire Core Strategy  Strategic Framework for play in Lancashire – LCC, 2010  Central Lancashire PPG17 Open Space Study - May 2012

Local

 Chorley Council Corporate and Strategic Priorities  A Sustainable Community Strategy for Chorley (2007 – 2025)  Chorley Health Profile 2012  Chorley Community Safety Partnership  Neighbourhood Plans

Chorley Council’s Vision

 The Corporate Strategy vision is “An ambitions Council that achieves more by listening to the whole community and exceeding their needs.”

Key Themes

 To have clean, safe and healthy communities.  High quality play areas, parks and open spaces.  A wide range of quality recreational activities.  To involve residents in improving their local area and equality of access for all.  Easy access to high quality public services.  All residents are able to take an active part in their community.  Residents who take pride in where they live and their achievements.

Measures and targets

 % of people satisfied with parks and open spaces. Target 75%.  % of people satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live. Target 85%.

3.0 KEY ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Vision

To create and manage a diverse network of quality, sustainable and accessible open spaces to serve the needs and aspirations of the residents of Chorley.

3.2 Objectives

 To consult with the public, local groups and organisations to implement the Open Space Action Plans and priorities for all 8 Neighbourhood Areas/Settlements.

 To protect and allocate open spaces where possible in the Local Plan.

 To increase user satisfaction in our parks and open spaces over the next 5 years, as measured by a biannual residents open space survey.

 To invest annually to improve open spaces through developer contributions, grants and capital works.

 To retain 4 Green Flag parks and open spaces over the next 5 years.

 To increase the amount of allotment sites across the Borough focusing on the areas with identified deficiencies by 1.6 hectares before the end of 2019.

 Focus on identified deficiencies - particularly around quality, quantity and accessibility – and improve identified open spaces as per action plans.

 To increase community involvement in open space management by supporting at least one new group or individual per year over the next 5 years

4.0 METHODOLOGY OF OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT

In total 235 open spaces have been identified, plotted on GIS and assessed to evaluate quality and value. Each open space is classified based in its primary open space purpose, so that each type of open space is only counted once.

Quality and value are fundamentally different and can be unrelated. For example, a high quality space may be in an inaccessible location and, thus, be of little value; while a rundown (poor quality) space may be the only one in an area and thus be immensely valuable. As a result quality and value are treated separately in terms of scoring.

This will also allow application of a high and low quality/value matrix to further help determine prioritisation of investment and to identify sites that may be surplus to a particular open space typology.

Quantity Standards

The Open Space Study recommends quantity standards for the provision of different types of open space per 1,000 population. These standards have been calculated taking into account the current provision, current population, any identified deficiencies and the estimated population in 2026 (the end date of the Core Strategy and Local Plan).

Recommended Standard (ha/1000 Typology population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 Parks and gardens 1.91 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 Allotments 0.07 Green corridors - Cemeteries/churchyards - Civic spaces -

No quantity standards are set for green corridors, churchyards/cemeteries or civic spaces. The Open Space Study states that it is not appropriate to set provision standards for green corridors in terms of quantity because of their linear nature and the demand for cemeteries/churchyards is determined by demand for burial space. Civic spaces are normally provided on an opportunistic and urban design led basis therefore no quantity standard is set.

Quality Assessment

Data collated from site visits is based upon those derived from the Green Flag Award scheme (a national standard for parks and green spaces in England and Wales, operated Tidy Britain). This is utilised to calculate a quality score for each site visited.

The quality criteria used for the open space assessments carried out are summarised in the following table.

Quality criteria for open space site visit (score)  Physical access, e.g. public transport links, directional signposts,  Personal security, e.g. site is overlooked, natural surveillance  Access, e.g. appropriate minimum entrance widths  Parking, e.g. availability, specific, disabled parking  Information signage, e.g. presence of up to date site information, notice boards  Equipment and facilities, e.g. assessment of both adequacy and maintenance of provision such as seats, benches, bins, toilets  Location value, e.g. proximity of housing, other greenspace  Site problems, e.g. presence of vandalism, graffiti  Healthy, safe and secure, e.g. fencing, gates, staff on site  Maintenance and cleanliness, e.g. condition of general landscape & features  Groups that the site meets the needs of, e.g. elderly, young people  Site potential

Value Assessment

Using data calculated from the site visits and desk based research a value score for each site is identified. Value is defined in PPG17 in relation to the following three issues:

 Context of the site i.e. its accessibility, scarcity value and historic value.  Level and type of use.  The wider benefits it generates for people, biodiversity and the wider environment.

The value criteria set is derived from PPG17. It is summarised below:

Value criteria for open space site visits (score)  Level of use (observations only), e.g. evidence of different user types (e.g. dog walkers, joggers, children) throughout day, located near school and/or community facility  Context of site in relation to other open spaces  Structural and landscape benefits, e.g. well located, high quality defining the identity and character of the area  Ecological benefits, e.g. supports/promotes biodiversity & wildlife habitats  Educational benefits, e.g. provides learning opportunities on nature/historic landscapes, people & features  Social inclusion and health benefits, e.g. promotes civic pride, community ownership and a sense of belonging; helping to promote well-being  Cultural and heritage benefits, e.g. historic elements/links (e.g. listed building, statues) and high profile symbols of local area  Amenity benefits and a sense of place, e.g. attractive places that are safe and well maintained; helping to create specific neighbourhoods and landmarks  Economic benefits, e.g. enhances property values, promotes economic activity and attracts people from near and far Value - non site visit criteria (score)  Designated site such as LNR or SSSI  Educational programme in place  Historic site  Listed building or historical monument on site  Registered 'friends of group' to the site

Quality and Value Scores

A threshold was applied to the results to identify whether the site is of high or low quality/value. Green indicates high quality/value (above 40% and 20% respectively), red indicates low quality/value (below 40% and 20% respectively).

The Open Space Study recommends what action to take based on the quality and value ratings of a site as follows:

High quality/High value Site should be protected.

High quality/Low value Preferred policy approach should be to enhance its value. If this is not possible the next best policy approach is to consider whether it might be of high value if converted to a different type of open space. If this is also impossible, only then is it acceptable to consider a change of use.

Low quality/High value Preferred policy approach should be to protect site and enhance its quality. If there is a surplus of sites within that typology, and the site is not needed to remedy a deficiency in another typology, disposal of the site with the lowest value should be considered.

Low quality/Low value If there is an identified shortfall, the policy approach should be to enhance its quality, provided it is also possible to enhance its value. If there is a surplus of sites within that typology, changing the site to another typology should be considered. If there is no shortfall in other typologies, the open space may be surplus to requirements and a change of use should be considered.

Accessibility Assessment

The Open Space Study sets accessibility standards for the different typologies of open space in order to identify areas that are not currently served by existing facilities. They are based on distances residents would be willing to travel to access different types of open spaces. The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology. It must be noted that accessibility must be looked at on a site by site basis, for example if access to a site means crossing busy roads, railways or waterbodies it may be more appropriate to provide sites on both sides of these transport links to avoid unnecessary threats to site users.

Typology Accessibility Standard Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m) Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time Green corridors No standard set. Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. Civic spaces No standard set.

No accessibility standards are set for green corridors, churchyards/cemeteries or civic spaces. This is because it is difficult to assess green corridors against catchment areas due to their linear nature and usage. Provision of cemeteries/churchyards should be determined by demand for burial space therefore it is not appropriate to set an accessibility standard. The companion guide to PPG17 states that there is no realistic requirement to set catchments for civic spaces as the provision will not be appropriate in every environment and cannot be easily influenced through planning policy.

5.0 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

5.1 Full assessment and recommendations of open space study by settlement /neighbourhood area

ADLINGTON / (SOUTHEAST PARISHES)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Adlington and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 3.967 2.245 -1.722 Parks and gardens 1.91 10.381 0.112 -10.269 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 25.218 0.625 -24.593 Allotments 0.07 0.380 0 -0.380 Green corridors - - 0.885 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 3.106 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a deficit in provision of all typologies in Adlington.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Adlington is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1298 Rear of Chester Place/ Croston Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.275

1510 Waterford Close Playground Amenity greenspace 0.088 3

1831 Adjacent Fairview Community Centre Amenity greenspace 0.722 3

1967 Jubilee Fields, Station Road Amenity greenspace 0.660 3

1968 Rear of Chapel Street/ Park Road Amenity greenspace 0.146

2013 Adjacent Fairview Drive Amenity greenspace 0.157

2014 Adjacent Meadow View Amenity greenspace 0.187

1702 St Joseph’s Church, Bolton Road Cemeteries/churchyards 0.279

1716 St Paul's Church, Railway Road Cemeteries/churchyards 1.209

1717 Adlington Cemetery, Chapel Street Cemeteries/churchyards 1.618

2012 Rear of Fairview Drive Green Corridor 0.885 Natural/semi-natural 1852 Rear of Outterside Street 0.625 greenspace 1744 War Memorial Garden, Railway Road Parks and Gardens 0.073 3 3

2018 Leonard Fairclough Memorial Garden, Chapel Street Parks and Gardens 0.039

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Adlington.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) A small area to the east of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time An area to the north of the settlement and an area to (1000m) the south west of the settlement are not within 10 minutes’ walk of a park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) The northern half of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive time of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that most residents within Adlington are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and parks and gardens. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to natural/semi-natural greenspaces and allotments as there are currently none within the settlement.

BUCKSHAW VILLAGE / (ASTLEY, EUXTON AND BUCKSHAW)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Buckshaw Village and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 1.897 3.012 +1.115 Parks and gardens 1.91 4.964 0 -4.964 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 12.059 0 -12.059 Allotments 0.07 0.182 0 -0.182 Green corridors - - 1.921 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a surplus of provision of amenity greenspace and a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Buckshaw Village.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Buckshaw Village is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1963 Guernsey Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.663 3 3

1971 Rear of Community Centre, Unity Place Amenity greenspace 1.038 3

2007 Maltby Square Amenity greenspace 0.579

2009 Shannon Close Amenity greenspace 0.732

1965 Between Perthshire Grove/Grenadier Walk Green corridors 0.426

1966 Between Guernsey Avenue/ Buckinghamshire Place Green corridors 0.209

1972 Liverpool Walk Green corridors 0.729

2008 Between Unity Place/Maltby Square Green corridors 0.557

Consultants to check what new open spaces have been created since study was completed and include new provision in strategy 2020 - 2015.

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Buckshaw Village.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time None of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a (1000m) park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) Only areas to the north and west of the settlement are within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Buckshaw Village are within the accessibility standard for amenity greenspace. Deficiencies are identified in relation to walking time to parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural green spaces and allotments.

CHORLEY TOWN / (CHORLEY TOWN WEST AND CHORLEY TOWN EAST)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Chorley and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 24.911 41.746 +16.835 Parks and gardens 1.91 65.177 39.388 -25.789 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 158.335 22.289 -136.046 Allotments 0.07 2.389 3.633 +1.244 Green corridors - - 3.947 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 23.768 - Civic spaces - - 0.978 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace and a small surplus of provision of allotments but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Chorley.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Chorley is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1326.2 Rangletts Allotments Allotments 0.490

1640 Allotments off Crosse Hall Lane Allotments 1.023

1642 Allotments off Dunscar Drive Allotments 1.074

1643 Hallwood Road/ Moor Road Allotments Allotments 0.277

1645 Sandringham Road Allotments Allotments 0.727

1646 Allotments rear of Worthy Street Allotments 0.042

1314 Coronation Recreation Ground, Devonshire Road Amenity greenspace 1.617

1315 Between 6 and 8 Dorking Road, Great Knowley Amenity greenspace 0.341

1316 Opposite 155 Draperfield, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.085

1326 Rangletts Recreation Ground, Brindle Street Amenity greenspace 1.631

1330 Tatton Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 1.498

1436 Adjacent 94 Deerfold Amenity greenspace 0.345

1437 Adjacent Buckshaw Primary School, Chancery Road Amenity greenspace 0.661

1439 Adjacent Derian House, Chancery Road Amenity greenspace 2.593

1459 Adjacent Cottage Fields Amenity greenspace 0.737

1520 Adjacent 26 and 36 Redwood Drive Amenity greenspace 0.208

1521 Adjacent 77 Redwood Drive Amenity greenspace 0.720

1528 Rear of Amber Drive Amenity greenspace 0.202

1532 Opposite 26-29 The Bowers Amenity greenspace 0.031

1540 Between Chancery Road/ Hallgate Amenity greenspace 0.295

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1542 Between Heather Close and Eaves Lane Amenity greenspace 0.286

1543 Adjacent 57 Cowling Brow/ Rear of Ridge Road Amenity greenspace 0.845

1545 Fell View Park, Cowling Brow Amenity greenspace 3.408

1546 Mayflower Gardens, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.252

1547 Rear of Fir Tree Close, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 1.496 Between Lower Burgh Way/ Draperfield, Eaves 1549 Amenity greenspace 0.636 Green 1550 Adjacent Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.681

1554 Adjacent Weldbank House, Weldbank Lane Amenity greenspace 0.314

1556 Clematis Close Play Area, Off Euxton Lane Amenity greenspace 0.095

1558 Playground rear of 36 Foxcote Amenity greenspace 0.421

1678 Adjacent 53 Broadfields Amenity greenspace 0.269 Adjacent Chancery Road/ Wymundsley/ The 1687 Amenity greenspace 7.379 Farthings 1688 Adjacent Chancery Road Amenity greenspace 1.180

1718 Adjacent Millennium Way/ Preston Temple Amenity greenspace 0.221

1719 Adjacent Millennium Way/ M61 Junction Amenity greenspace 0.387

1760 Gillibrand, Off Burgh Wood Way Amenity greenspace 1.350

1769 Gillibrand, Keepers Wood Way/ Lakeland Gardens Amenity greenspace 3.103 Gillibrand, Yarrow Valley Way Play Area, Adjacent 1770 Amenity greenspace 0.435 Woodchat Drive 1771 Gillibrand, Adjacent Walletts Wood Court Amenity greenspace 0.568

1903 Opposite 208-234 Preston Road Amenity greenspace 0.410

1921 Adjacent Northgate Amenity greenspace 0.100

1928 Adjacent 10 Oakwood View Amenity greenspace 0.237

1940 Rear of 19-21 Sutton Grove, Great Knowley Amenity greenspace 0.213

1941 Adjacent 26 Primrose Street Amenity greenspace 0.085

1957 Buttermere Avenue Play Area Amenity greenspace 2.318 Adjacent Minstrel Pub, Lower Burgh Way, Eaves 1958 Amenity greenspace 1.046 Green 1959 Rear of 27-30 The Cedars, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.486

1960 Adjacent 60 The Cedars, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.672

1974 Spurrier Square Amenity greenspace 0.286

2011 Harpers Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 1.400

2016 Rosewood Close Amenity greenspace 0.203

1720 Chorley Cemetery, Southport Road Cemeteries/churchyards 9.732

1735 Preston Temple, Temple Way Cemeteries/churchyards 10.642

1746 St Gregory's RC Church, Weldbank Lane Cemeteries/churchyards 3.394

1435.3 Astley Park War Memorial Civic spaces 0.048

1993 Flat Iron Car Park Civic spaces 0.871

1995 Magistrates Court Square Civic spaces 0.059

1686 Between Chancery Road/ Westway Green corridors 2.253

1723 Opposite Railway Road Green corridors 1.217

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1724 Former Railway Line, Harpers Lane Green corridors 0.477 Adjacent Chorley North Industrial Park and Natural/semi-natural 1336 3.414 Laburnum Road greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1683 Between Broadfields/ Euxton Lane 0.217 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1725 Between St Gregory's Place/ Burgh Meadows 0.820 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1762 Gillibrand, Nightingale Way 0.182 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1764 Gillibrand, Adjacent Little Wood Close 0.142 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1827 Plock Wood, Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green 11.479 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1828 Copper Works Wood, Stansted Road 2.822 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1829 Adjacent Yarrow Valley Way 3.213 greenspace 1435 Astley Park Parks and gardens 39.388

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Chorley.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time The southern and northern parts of the settlement are (1000m) not within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) Central and eastern parts of the settlement are not within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) The northern part of the settlement and a small area to the south-east are not within 10 minutes’ walk of an 10 minute drive time allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Chorley are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to walking time to parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural greenspaces and allotments.

CLAYTON BROOK/GREEN / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Clayton Brook/Green and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 7.574 13.073 +5.499 Parks and gardens 1.91 19.816 0 -19.816 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 48.140 5.299 -42.841 Allotments 0.07 0.726 0.374 -0.352 Green corridors - - 7.524 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.922 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Clayton Brook/Green.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Clayton Brook/Green is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 2010 Manor Road Allotments Allotments 0.374

1339 Playing Field, Great Greens Lane Amenity greenspace 2.727

1346 Between Oakcroft/ Manor Road Amenity greenspace 0.388

1348 Off Clayton Green Road Amenity greenspace 2.048

1504 Off Wilderswood Amenity greenspace 0.264

1506 Off Radburn Brow Amenity greenspace 0.206

1507 Adjacent Near Meadow, Sandy Lane Amenity greenspace 0.447

1512 Meadow Lane, Off Preston Road Amenity greenspace 0.696

1515 Adjacent Gardenia Close Amenity greenspace 0.364

1631 Land off Meadow Lane Amenity greenspace 1.325

1705 Between Wood End Road/ Bearswood Croft Amenity greenspace 0.412

1706 Adjacent 19 Holly Close Amenity greenspace 0.441

1709 Adjacent 37 Sheep Hill Lane Amenity greenspace 0.218

1710 Off Back Lane Amenity greenspace 0.428

1711 Off Wood End Road, adjacent to reservoir Amenity greenspace 0.192

1778 Adjacent 44 Long Acre Amenity greenspace 0.211

1785 Adjacent 9 Brow Hey Amenity greenspace 0.026

1786 Between Carr Meadow/ Carr Barn Brow Amenity greenspace 0.996

1788 Adjacent 87 Daisy Meadow Amenity greenspace 0.224

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1793 Rear of 86-89 Greenwood Amenity greenspace 0.063

1798 Between Forsythia Drive/Homestead Amenity greenspace 0.293

1872 Adjacent Clayton Green Road Amenity greenspace 0.433

1873 Adjacent 454 Preston Road Amenity greenspace 0.434

1951 Opposite 4-6 Burghley Close Amenity greenspace 0.237

2023 Clayton Brook Village Centre Amenity greenspace 0.17

1703 Clayton Brook Community Church, Great Greens Lane Cemeteries/churchyards 0.414

1731 St Bede's Church, Preston Road Cemeteries/churchyards 0.508 Carr Brook Linear Park, Adjacent Birch Field/Clover 1368 Green corridors 4.785 Field 1505 Carr Brook Linear Park, Westwood Road Green corridors 1.252

1509 Carr Brook Linear Park, Clayton Brook Road Green corridors 1.487 Natural/semi-natural 1704 Rear of Wilderswood Close 1.839 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1855 Rear of 41-44 Woodfield 0.222 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 2028 Wilderswood Pond 0.01 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1857 Opposite 34-37 Brow Hey 0.225 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1858 Opposite 16-44 Carr Meadow 0.300 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1861 Rear of School Field 0.223 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1875 Rear of 16-28 Bearswood Croft 0.431 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1876 Adjacent Blackthorn Croft 0.346 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1952 Between Osborne Drive/ Chorley Old Road 1.437 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1953 Between Wood End Road/ Rown Croft 0.276 greenspace

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Clayton Brook/Green.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time None of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a (1000m) park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) Some of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Clayton Brook/Green are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to parks and gardens and walking time to allotments.

CLAYTON-LE-WOODS / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Clayton-le-Woods and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 2.882 4.210 +1.328 Parks and gardens 1.91 7.541 0 -7.541 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 18.319 104.759 +86.440 Allotments 0.07 0.276 0 -0.276 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. The amount of natural/semi-natural greenspace identified for the settlement includes Cuerden Valley Park which is why there is a large surplus although only a small amount of the park falls within the settlement boundary. There is a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Clayton-le-Woods.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Clayton-le-Woods is set out in the table below.

KKP Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha) ref rating rating 2029 Kem Mill Lane Allotments Allotments 0.65

1349 Clayton Hall, Spring Meadow Amenity greenspace 0.503

1350 Cunnery Park, Cunnery Meadow Amenity greenspace 0.602

1352 Between 107and 108 Mendip Road Amenity greenspace 0.061

1354 Between 113 and 152 Mendip Road Amenity greenspace 0.080

1356 Between 164 and 172 Mendip Road Amenity greenspace 0.032

1461 Off Higher Meadow Amenity greenspace 1.938

1954 Off Cypress Close Amenity greenspace 0.984 Natural/semi-natural 1712 Off Spring Meadow 0.382 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1714 Between Higher Meadow/ Cunnery Meadow 0.279 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1810 Cuerden Valley Park 103.770 greenspace

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Clayton-le-Woods.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time Only a small part to the east of the settlement is within (1000m) 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Clayton-le-Woods are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to parks and gardens and walking time to allotments.

COPPULL / (SOUTHERN PARISHES)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Coppull and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 4.999 3.101 -1.898 Parks and gardens 1.91 13.079 0.193 -12.886 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 31.775 11.118 -20.657 Allotments 0.07 0.479 0.470 -0.009 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a deficit in provision of all typologies in Coppull.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Coppull is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 2019 Tansley Avenue Allotments Allotments 0.470

1360 Brookside play area Amenity greenspace 0.247

1363 Longfield Avenue play area Amenity greenspace 0.341

1369 Hurst Brook play area Amenity greenspace 0.362

1370 Burwell Avenue play area Amenity greenspace 0.613

1373 Byron Crescent play area Amenity greenspace 0.504

1473 Between Chapel Lane/ Poplar Drive Amenity greenspace 0.181

1884 Clancutt Lane Amenity greenspace 0.497

1955 Between Spendmore Lane/ Station Road Amenity greenspace 0.249

1979 Tanyard Garden Amenity greenspace 0.107 St Oswalds Church Tansley Avenue. Natural/semi-natural 1372 0.282 ‘Off Tanyard Close’ greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1468 End of Blainscough Road 1.983 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1728 Reservoir, Mill Lane 1.109 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1975 Hic Bibi LNR 7.744 greenspace 1978 Coppull Memorial Garden Parks and gardens 0.069

2020 Berry Garden, Chapel Lane Parks and gardens 0.124

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Coppull.

Accessibility Typology Deficiencies? Standard Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time All of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a (1000m) park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) A small part to the east of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Coppull are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace, parks and gardens and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. A small deficiency is identified in relation to walking time to allotments.

ECCLESTON / (WESTERN PARISHES)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Eccleston and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 3.078 0.577 -2.501 Parks and gardens 1.91 8.054 6.905 -1.149 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 19.567 0 -19.567 Allotments 0.07 0.295 0 -0.295 Green corridors - - 4.419 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 1.470 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above there is a deficit in provision of all typologies in Eccleston.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Eccleston is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1388 Rear of 42 The Hawthorns Amenity greenspace 0.140

1499 Adjacent 275 The Green Amenity greenspace 0.039

1533 Middlewood Close Play Area Amenity greenspace 0.110

1670 Opposite 19 Bannister Lane Amenity greenspace 0.208

2015 Cortland Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.080

1668 Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Towngate Cemeteries/churchyards 1.470

1669 Rear of Larkfield Green corridors 4.419

1386 Millennium Green, Red House Lane Parks and gardens 1.363

1803 Jubilee & Bradley Lane Fields Parks and gardens 5.542

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Eccleston.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 15 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 15 minutes’ drive of a park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents in Eccleston are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and parks and gardens. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to natural/semi-natural greenspaces and walking time to allotments.

EUXTON

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Euxton and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 5.791 2.837 -2.954 Parks and gardens 1.91 15.152 3.295 -11.857 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 36.809 330.670 +293.861 Allotments 0.07 0.555 0 -0.555 Green corridors - - 0.526 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of natural/semi-natural greenspace. The amount of natural/semi-natural greenspace identified for the settlement includes Yarrow Valley Country Park although only a small amount of the park falls within the settlement boundary. It also has a catchment well beyond Euxton. There is a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Euxton.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Euxton is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating NEW Silvester’s Farm / Pear Tree Lane Allotments TBC

1394 Rear of 60 Hawkshead Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.149

1494 Balshaw Villa, Balshaw House Amenity greenspace 0.421

1495 The Cherries Play Area Amenity greenspace 0.294

1815 Adjacent 92 Mile Stone Meadow Amenity greenspace 1.294

1817 Adjacent 16 Gleneagles Drive Amenity greenspace 0.385

1818 Opposite 58-66 Wentworth Drive Amenity greenspace 0.294

1892 Adjacent Meadowcroft Green corridors 0.526 Natural/semi-natural 1696 Rear of Firbank 2.170 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1697 Adjacent Euxton Hall Gardens 0.469 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1730 Chapel Brook West Valley Park 3.265 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1804 Adjacent 80 Princess Way 1.612 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1807 Yarrow Valley Country Park 322.730 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1897 Rear of 21-41 Empress Way 0.424 greenspace 1613 Euxton Hall Park, Euxton Parks and Gardens 3.295

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Euxton.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) A small area to the west of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time The northern half of the settlement is not within 12 (1000m) minutes’ walk of a park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Euxton are within the accessibility standards for natural/semi-natural greenspaces. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to access to amenity greenspace with more significant deficiencies in relation to access to parks and gardens and walking time to allotments.

WHITTLE-LE-WOODS / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Whittle-le-Woods and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 3.278 4.745 +1.467 Parks and gardens 1.91 8.578 0 -8.578 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 20.838 0 -20.838 Allotments 0.07 0.314 0.856 +0.542 Green corridors - - 1.355 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.491 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Whittle-le-Woods.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Whittle-le-Woods is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1648 Allotments rear of Bay Horse Hotel, Preston Road Allotments 0.206

1422 Opposite 43-73 Hillside Crescent Amenity greenspace 0.998

1428 Orchard Drive Play Area Amenity greenspace 1.749

1432 End of Foxglove Drive Amenity greenspace 0.544

1535 Rear of Delph Way/ Cross Keys Drive Amenity greenspace 0.219

1537 Dunham Drive Amenity greenspace 0.051

1659 Between Preston Road and Church Hill Amenity greenspace 0.277

1660 Adjacent Heather Hill Cottage, Hill Top Lane Amenity greenspace 0.422

1734 Between Preston Road and Watkin Road Amenity greenspace 0.485

1733 St John The Evangelist Church, Preston Road Cemeteries/churchyards 0.491

1423 Whittle Canal Basin, Mill Lane/ Chorley Old Road Green corridors 1.355

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Whittle-le-Woods.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace. Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time None of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a (1000m) park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) The southern half of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) Small areas to the north and south of the settlement are not within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Whittle-le-Woods are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to walking distance to allotments with more significant deficiencies in relation to access to parks and gardens and natural/semi-natural greenspaces.

WITHNELL AND BRINSCALL / (EASTERN PARISHES)

Quantity Assessment

The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Withnell/Brinscall and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).

Recommended Recommended Projected Standard Current Typology Provision up to Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) 2026 (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 1.739 0.403 -1.336 Parks and gardens 1.91 4.549 0 -4.549 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 11.052 4.595 -6.457 Allotments 0.07 0.167 0.511 +0.344 Green corridors - - 10.000 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.785 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

As can be seen from the table above, there is a surplus of provision of allotments but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Withnell/Brinscall.

Quality and Value Assessment

The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Withnell/Brinscall is set out in the table below.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1637 Rear of 70-90 School Lane Allotments 0.060

1639 Rear of Pleasant View Allotments 0.451

1902 End of Pleasant View Amenity greenspace 0.403

1741 St Paul's Church, Bury Lane Cemeteries/churchyards 0.785

1692 Withnell Local Nature Reserve, off Bury Lane Green corridor 4.423

1693 Railway Park, rear of Railway Road Green corridor 5.577 Natural/semi-natural 1627 Railway Park, Off Withnell Fold Old Road 1.931 greenspace Natural/semi-natural 1694 Lodge Bank 2.664 greenspace

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Withnell/Brinscall.

Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies? Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of Withnell is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace but none of Brinscall is. Parks and gardens 15 minute drive time Both settlements are within 15 minutes’ drive of a park or garden. Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) Both settlements are within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace. Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) Both settlements are within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. 10 minute drive time Both settlements are within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment. Green corridors No standard set. N/A Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A Civic spaces No standard set. N/A

The table above shows that all residents within Withnell and Brinscall are within the accessibility standards for parks and gardens, natural/semi-natural greenspaces and allotments. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to access to amenity greenspace in Brinscall.

OTHER VILLAGES

Quantity Assessment

The Open Space Study does not provide an analysis of quantity in rural settlements not defined as Rural Local Service Centres as they are not identified as areas of growth in the Core Strategy.

Although significant housing development will not take place in these settlements, there is likely to be some small scale housing development which will be expected to contribute towards open space provision. In order to give an indication of whether there are any deficiencies in these settlements the current amount of open space has been calculated and then compared to the amount that would be required to meet the identified deficit.

Abbey Village

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.172 0.087 -0.085 Parks and gardens 1.91 0.450 0 -0.450 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.095 0 -1.095 Allotments 0.07 0.017 0.720 +0.703 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Bretherton

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.493 0.245 -0.248 Parks and gardens 1.91 1.291 0 -1.291 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 3.137 0 -3.137 Allotments 0.07 0.047 0 -0.047 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.454 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Brindle

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.455 0 -0.455 Parks and gardens 1.91 1.190 0 -1.190 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 2.891 3.066 +0.175 Allotments 0.07 0.044 0 -0.044 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.388 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Charnock Richard

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.864 0 -0.864 Parks and gardens 1.91 2.261 0.263 -1.998 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 5.494 0 -5.494 Allotments 0.07 0.829 0 -0.829 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 12.036 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Croston

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 1.791 3.151 +1.360 Parks and gardens 1.91 4.687 0.08 -4.607 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 11.387 0 -11.387 Allotments 0.07 0.172 0 -0.172 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Gib Lane

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.223 0.192 -0.031 Parks and gardens 1.91 0.583 0 -0.583 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.415 0 -1.415 Allotments 0.07 0.021 0 -0.021 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Gregson Lane

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.297 0 -0.297 Parks and gardens 1.91 0.777 0 -0.777 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.888 0 -1.888 Allotments 0.07 0.028 0 -0.028 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Higher Wheelton

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.182 0 -0.182 Parks and gardens 1.91 0.476 0 -0.476 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.155 0 -1.155 Allotments 0.07 0.017 0 -0.017 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Hoghton

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.430 0 -0.430 Parks and gardens 1.91 1.125 0 -1.125 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 2.733 0 -2.733 Allotments 0.07 0.041 0 -0.041 Green corridors - - 0.361 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Mawdesley

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.682 0.082 -0.600 Parks and gardens 1.91 1.784 1.511 -0.273 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 4.334 0 -4.334 Allotments 0.07 0.065 0 -0.065 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Wheelton

Recommended Provision Projected Standard Current Typology Needed to Meet Surplus/ Deficit (ha/1000 Provision (ha) standard (ha) by 2026 (ha) population) Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.596 0.209 -0.387 Parks and gardens 1.91 1.560 0 -1.560 Natural and semi-natural 4.64 3.791 0 -3.791 Allotments 0.07 0.057 1.070 +1.013 Green corridors - - 0 - Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.451 - Civic spaces - - 0 -

Quality and Value Assessment

The table below identifies the quality and value ratings of all open spaces falling within the rural settlements identified above.

KKP Size Quality Value Site name Settlement PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating 1636 Rear of 41-73 Bolton Road Abbey Village Allotments 0.480

1650 Rear of Park View Terrace Abbey Village Allotments 0.240

1283 Adjacent Abbey Mill, Bolton Road Abbey Village Amenity greenspace 0.087 The Apiary, Adjacent Bretherton 1739 Bretherton Amenity greenspace 0.245 Parish Institute, South Road Church of St John the Evangelist, 1736 Bretherton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.176 South Road The Methodist Chapel, South 1737 Bretherton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.278 Road 2026 Bank Hall Bretherton Amenity greenspace 4.96 St James Parish Church, Water 1700 Brindle Cemeteries/churchyards 0.388 Street Natural/semi-natural 1701 Denham Hill Quarry, Holt Lane Brindle 3.066 greenspace

KKP Size Quality Value Site name Settlement PPG17 Typology ref (ha) rating rating Charnock Richard Crematorium, 1768 Charnock Richard Cemeteries/churchyards 11.418 Preston Road 1844 Christ Church, Church Lane Charnock Richard Cemeteries/churchyards 0.618 2017 Orchard Garden Charnock Richard Parks and Gardens 0.263 1483 Jubilee Way Play Area Croston Amenity greenspace 0.118 Between 3 and 33 Riverside 1485 Croston Amenity greenspace 0.049 Crescent 1487 Croston Walls, Castle Walk Croston Amenity greenspace 0.635 Between 20 and 26 Riverside 1609 Croston Amenity greenspace 0.139 Crescent Village Green, Adj Out Lane and 2027 Croston Parks and gardens 0.08 Town Road 2016 Croft Field Croston Amenity Greenspace 2.12 1490 Opposite the Paddock Gib Lane Amenity greenspace 0.192 Church of the Holy Trinity, Chorley 1742 Hoghton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.361 Old Road

1412 Tarnbeck Drive Play Area Mawdesley Amenity greenspace 0.082

1610 Millennium Green, Hurst Green Mawdesley Parks and gardens 1.511

Rear of Maybank and Oakdene, Outside defined 1649 Allotments 0.325 Withnell Fold settlement Walmsley’s Farm, Town Lane, Outside defined 1402 Amenity greenspace 0.806 Heskin settlement Adjacent 9 Kittiwake Road, Outside defined 1478 Amenity greenspace 0.277 Heapey settlement Adjacent 3 Flag Lane, Heath Outside defined 1481 Amenity greenspace 0.504 Charnock settlement Rivington Parish Church, Horrobin Outside defined 1743 Cemeteries/churchyards 0.259 Lane, Rivington settlement Adjacent Leeds/Liverpool Canal, Outside defined Natural/semi-natural 1691 5.607 Off March Lane, Withnell Fold settlement greenspace Wymott Park Play Area, Ulnes Outside defined 1416 Parks and gardens 0.865 Walton settlement Outside defined 1625 Millennium Green, Withnell Fold Parks and gardens 0.810 settlement Outside defined 1689 Bothy Garden, Withnell Fold Parks and gardens 0.074 settlement Outside defined 1690 Memorial Garden, Withnell Fold Parks and gardens 0.313 settlement Outside defined 1750 Lever Park, Rivington Parks and gardens 146.633 settlement 1992 Copthurst Lane Allotments Wheelton Allotments 1.070 1420 Meadow St Play Area Wheelton Amenity greenspace 0.209 1806 St Chads RC Church, Town Lane Wheelton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.451

Accessibility Assessment

The table below identifies the accessibility standards of each typology.

Typology Accessibility Standard Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) Parks and gardens 15 minute drive time Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m) Allotments 10 minute drive time Green corridors No standard set. Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. Civic spaces No standard set.

The table below identifies whether there are any deficiencies in accessibility in the other defined rural villages in the Borough.

5.2 Assessment and Recommendations of Open Space by Typology

Parks and Gardens

There are 16 Parks and Gardens in Chorley covering 200.442 hectares. It must be pointed out that residents consider Yarrow Valley Country Park to be in this typology because it provides a similar function and facilities but it is classed as Natural and Semi natural greenspace.

Quality 13 sites scored high for quality including Astley Park, this site has a green flag award and friends group. Four sites scored low for quality, these are Bothy Garden, and Memorial Garden in Withnell Fold, Wymott Park in Ulnes Walton and Orchard Garden in Charnock Richard.

Value All sites are considered to be high value and should be protected. They have high social inclusion, health benefits, ecological value and sense of place. This is often a result of their role in providing a range of events which appeal to a variety of users and their level of condition.

Accessibility All sites are accessible for the catchment standard of 15 minutes’ drive time but gaps in the 12 minute walk time are noted to the South of Chorley and in the Whittle-le-Woods/Clayton-le- Woods area. The Council should consider addressing these gaps, however South Chorley is well served by sites such as Yarrow Valley Country Park and Whittle-le-Woods and Clayton-le- Woods have good access to Cuerden Valley Park and have sufficient provision of amenity greenspace sites which could be formalised in order to meet gaps.

Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace

There are 36 Natural and Semi Natural Green spaces in Chorley covering 488.028 hectares. Many are also designated as Biological Heritage Sites for their value to nature conservation and biodiversity.

Yarrow Valley Covers over 322 hectares and Cuerden Valley Country Park covers over 103 hectares. Chorley has two Local Nature Reserves (LNR’s), Hic Bibi in Coppull and Withnell Nature Reserve, with Blainscough Nature Reserve proposed to be designated to address the deficit of LNR provision across Central Lancashire. Chorley Council Ranger Service (team of 3 staff) manages Council sites following ecological management plans and carrying out practical conservation work. They also facilitate local conservation groups and volunteer groups who help in the high task of maintaining such a large geographical area of land.

Withnell Local Nature Reserve, Yarrow Valley Country Park and Cuerden Valley Country Park have a Green Flag Award.

Quality 4 sites score low quality and 32 high quality. Some sites tend to score low for personal security given their isolated location and not being overlooked. Many sites purposefully have little on- going management in order to provide specific habitats. It must be noted that the highest quality site in Central Lancashire was Yarrow Valley Country Park - a reflection of facilities, features and ranger team.

Value All sites are high value. They are valuable as wildlife habitat and buffer zones for motorways and between urban areas.

Accessibility All sites are covered by a 10 minutes’ drive time catchment. There are gaps identified in the 10 minutes’ walk time catchment. An area to the east of Chorley Town and the Rural Local Service Centre of Eccleston are identified as not being covered by walk time catchment. Eccleston has sufficient access to the surrounding countryside and continued access should be ensured. The area to the east of Chorley is restricted by the M61. However, similar to Eccleston, the area is also served by general countryside

Amenity Greenspace

There are 129 amenity greenspaces in Chorley covering 81.562 hectares. Most of these sites are found in housing estates and function as informal recreation spaces or open spaces along highways that provide a visual amenity. Sizes vary and more amenity greenspaces tend to be present in urban areas as rural areas are served by countryside. They have a multi-purpose function, offering opportunities for a variety of leisure and recreational activities and improving the visual aesthetics of residential areas.

Most sites are maintained by Chorley Council, providing a fortnightly visit to sites.

Quality 111 sites score high for quality and 18 low for quality. Sites score high for the range of facilities available as well as the high standard of appearance and maintenance. The lowest scoring amenity greenspaces sites are: Adj Brow Hey, Clayton Brook and Bannister Lane, Eccleston. This was due to lack of natural surveillance and safe entrances. Sites have restricted access due to lack of maintenance and footpaths, litter was also an issue. They have potential to be of high value to the community.

Harpers Lane Recreation Ground is classed as amenity greenspace and scores high for quality with an overall good standard of maintenance. This site could be taken forward for Green Flag but it may be beneficial to establish an associated ‘friends of group’ to assist with the award process.

Value The majority of amenity greenspaces are rated as being high value. Sites score low because they have no ancillary features or use, mainly in areas acting as buffer zones. E

Accessibility Areas of greater population density have good access to provision within a 10 minute walk time. There are minor gaps identified in the settlements of Eccleston and Brinscall.

Allotments

There are 16 allotment sites in Chorley covering 7.959 hectares. 7 of these sites are owned and managed by Chorley Council, the rest are private sites. Crosse Hall and Windsor allotments are significant contributors of plots and half plots. Sites at Moor Road are not all strictly used for allotment gardening but as garden space for adjacent terrace housing.

The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) suggests a national standard of 20 allotments per 1,000 households (i.e. 20 allotments per 2,000 people based on 2 people per house) or 1 allotment per 200 people. This equates to 0.250 hectares per 1,000 population based on an average plot-size of 250 metres squared.

Based on the current population of 109,100 (2012 mid-term estimates), Chorley does not meet the NSALG standard. Chorley has been allocated its own standard of 0.07 ha per 1000 population. Using the suggested Chorley standard, the minimum amount of allotment provision for Chorley is 7.994 hectares. The existing provision means we are 0.035 hectares short. The proposed allotments in Euxton will take this deficit to a surplus per 1000 population.

Chorley Council also has an allotment waiting list of 225 with an estimated 3 year waiting time to be allocated a plot.

Chorley Council recognised this shortfall in provision and have been working hard to find new sites. Manor Road was created in 2012 providing an extra 19 plots, St Oswalds Church in Coppull in 2014 providing 30 plots and Rangletts in 2015 providing 30 plots. Other sites have been identified and are being investigated.

Chorley has an Allotment Society and Chorley Council operates an Allotment Advisory Group to help keep sites secure and well maintained, strengthen communication and prioritise areas of action. Allotments in Chorley are well used by community groups. Community Food Growing also plays an important part in social inclusion, health benefits, amenity value and sense of place.

Quality All allotment sites score high for quality.

Value All allotment sites score high for value.

Accessibility The 10 minute walk and drive time standard has been applied. All sites are covered by drive time but a number of gaps are noted against the walk time standard. The areas of Euxton, Croston and Adlington are identified as being deficient from the catchment mapping. A total of 1.2 hectares is recommended, an equivalent of 0.4 hectares for each gap. New allotment sites have been allocated in the Local Plan in these settlements to address the deficiency.

Cemeteries and Churchyards

There are 19 cemeteries and churchyards in Chorley covering 44.491 hectares. Clayton Brook Community Church was identified but does not have any form of burial space.

Provision of burial space is not a statutory requirement of Councils. However Chorley Council manage and maintain active cemetery provision at Adlington Cemetery and Chorley Cemetery is noted as having an onsite maintenance team. Adlington Cemetery is visited at a similar rate to other types of open space. On average this is every two weeks.

In terms of burial capacity, the two sites managed by Chorley Council are both identified as having remaining interment space for the next 50 years. This follows recent expansion works to both sites. Additional land for further expansion is also identified at Chorley and Adlington Cemeteries for potential future use. The Council recognises that further burial capacity could be provided if the ratio of cremations continues to increase.

Quality The majority of cemeteries in Chorley are rated as being high quality. Only 3 sites score below the threshold; St Joseph’s Church Chorley, The Methodist Chapel Chorley and Rivington Parish Church. This was due to lack of ancillary features such as seating and litter bins and low personal security.

In general, the safety of memorial statues and loose headstones is highlighted through officer consultation as a major concern. Chorley Council specifically identifies this as a common problem throughout the Borough. Chorley Cemetery also suffers from drainage issues due to being built on clay sub soil, a new pond has created a wildlife habitat and serves to resolve some of the issues.

Chorley Cemetery is identified as having the potential to achieve Green Flag Status given its quality score of 65%.

Value All sites were assessed to be of high value reflecting the role they provide. Sites such as Chorley Cemetery add value and importance to communities through catering for multi religion burials. i.e. Muslim burials.

Accessibility There is no accessibility standard set. Instead provision should be based on burial demand.

Civic Space There are 3 Civic Spaces in Chorley covering 0.978 hectares. Civic Spaces in Chorley include the Flat Iron Car Park, War Memorial (Cenotaph) in Astley Park and the Magistrates Court Square. There are also other sites that function as a secondary role in civic space provision, for example Adlington War Memorial is used as civic space but is classed as amenity greenspace.

Quality All civic spaces are high quality. They have good general maintenance and are well served by public transport. The highest scoring site across Central Lancashire, with 84%, is the Flat Iron Car Park. It scores highly due to its high level of use and location in the heart of the Town. The site is also noted as having heritage provision through a memorial statue and being used to host a weekly market.

Value All sites are assessed as high value reflecting that provision has cultural/heritage value whilst also providing a sense of place to the local community. Civic Spaces are attractive shopping and event spaces.

Accessibility There is no accessibility standard set.

Green Corridors There are 16 Green Corridors in Chorley covering 30.577 hectares. However, there is significantly more provision to be found in Central Lancashire through the Public Rights of Way Network (PROW). Lancashire has a total network of 3,716 miles of PROW, including 240 miles of Bridleways.

Quality Most sites score high for quality. The highest scoring sites with a score of 54% are Former Railway Line Harpers Lane and Between Perthshire Grove/Grenadier Walk Buckshaw Village. Both sites receive a high score for their general appearance and maintenance as well as the level of personal security and disabled access.

The lowest scoring site is the Rear of Larkfield, Eccleston, with a score of 29%. Its low quality score is a reflection of the poor level of drainage observed at the time of the site visit. The site was also observed as having a low level of personal security and provision of paths that could be improved..

Value The majority of green corridors are assessed to be of high value. Withnell Nature Reserve Park receives the highest value score of 36%; a reflection of the sites designation as a local nature reserve (LNR). The site’s value is further demonstrated by it being awarded Green Flag status.

One site scores low for value at the Rear of Larkfield Eccleston. The importance of green corridors is highlighted in linking open space, sport and recreation facilities together. The sites themselves provide recreational opportunities for activities such as walking and jogging and wildlife havens.

Accessibility There is no accessibility standard set due to their linear nature. The footpath network contributes to accessibility.

5.3 Quality and value matrix

Assessing the quality and value of open spaces is used to identify those sites which should be given the highest level of protection by the planning system, those which require enhancement in some way and those which may be redundant in terms of their present purpose.

Allotments Quality High Low  1326.2 - Rangletts Allotments, Chorley  1636 - Rear of 41-73 Bolton Road, Abbey Village  1637 - Rear of 70-90 School Lane, Brinscall  1639 - Rear of Pleasant View, Withnell  1640 - Allotments off Crosse Hall Lane, Chorley  1642 - Allotments off Dunscar Drive, Chorley  1643 - Hallwood Road/ Moor Road Allotments, Chorley  1645 - Sandringham Road Allotments, Chorley

High  1646 - Allotments rear of Worthy Street, Chorley  1648 - Allotments rear of Bay Horse, Value Preston Road, Whittle-le-Woods  1649 - Rear of Maybank and Oakdene, Withnell Fold  1650 - Rear of Park View Terrace, Abbey Village  1992 - Cophurst Lane Allotments, Wheelton  2010 - Manor Road Allotments, Clayton Brook/Green  2019 - Tansley Avenue Allotments, Coppull  2029 – Kem Mill Lane Allotments, Whittle-le-Woods

Low

Amenity greenspace Quality High Low  1283 - Adjacent Abbey Mill, Bolton  1363 - Longfield Avenue play area, Coppull Road, Abbey Village  1388 - Rear of 42 The Hawthorns, Eccleston  1298 - Rear of Chester Place/ Croston Avenue, Adlington  1412 - Tarnbeck Drive Play Area,  1314 - Coronation Recreation Ground, Mawdesley Devonshire Road, Chorley  1420 - Meadow St Play Area, Wheelton  1326 - Rangletts Recreation Ground,  1428 - Orchard Drive Play Area, Whittle-le- Brindle Street, Chorley Woods  1330 - Tatton Recreation Ground,  1507 - Adjacent Near Meadow, Sandy Lane, Chorley Clayton Brook/Green  1339 - Playing Field, Great Greens Lane, Clayton Brook/Green  1547 - Rear of Fir Tree Close, Eaves Green,  1346 - Between Oakcroft/ Manor Road, Chorley Clayton Brook/Green  1549 - Between Lower Burgh Way/  1348 - Off Clayton Green Road, Draperfield, Eaves Green, Chorley Clayton Brook/Green  1660 - Adjacent Heather Hill Cottage, Hill  1350 - Cunnery Park, Cunnery Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods Top Lane, Whittle-le-Woods  1360 - Brookside play area, Coppul  1670 - Opposite 19 Bannister Lane, Eccleston  1369 - Hurst Brook play area, Coppull  1902 - End of Pleasant View, Whittle-le-  1370 - Burwell Avenue play area, Woods Coppull  1940 - Rear of 19-21 Sutton Grove, Great  1373 - Byron Crescent play area, Knowley, Chorley Coppull  1402 - Walmsley's Farm Play Area,  1960 - Adjacent 60 The Cedars, Eaves Town Lane, Heskin Green, Chorley  1422 - Opposite 43-73 Hillside  2023 – Clayton Brook Village Centre Crescent, Whittle-le-Woods  1432 - End of Foxglove Drive, Whittle-  2025 - Croft Field, Croston le-Woods  2026 - Bank Hall, Bretherton  1437 - Adjacent Buckshaw Primary High School, Chancery Road, Astley Village,

Value Chorley  1478 - Adjacent 9 Kittiwake Road, Heapey  1494 - Balshaw Villa, Euxton  1520 - Adjacent 26 and 36 Redwood Drive, Chorley  1687 - Adjacent Chancery Road/ Wymundsley/ The Farthings, Astley Village, Chorley  1709 - Adjacent 37 Sheep Hill Lane, Clayton Brook/Green  1710 - Off Back Lane, Clayton Brook/Green  1718 - Adjacent Millennium Way/ Preston Temple, Chorley  1817 - Adjacent 16 Gleneagles Drive, Euxton  1818 - Opposite 58-66 Wentworth Drive, Euxton  1872 - Adjacent Clayton Green Road, Clayton Brook/Green  1873 - Adjacent 454 Preston Road, Clayton Brook/Green  1903 - Opposite 208-234 Preston Road, Chorley  1955 - Between Spendmore Lane/ Station Road, Coppull  1941 - Adjacent 26 Primrose Street, Chorley  1461 - Off Higher Meadow, Clayton-le- Woods  1473 - Between Chapel Lane/ Poplar

Amenity greenspace Quality High Low Drive, Coppull  1483 - Jubilee Way Play Area, Croston  1495 - The Cherries Play Area, Euxton  1506 - Off Radburn Brow, Clayton Brook/Green  1510 - Waterford Close Playground, Adlington  1515 - Adjacent Gardenia Close, Clayton Brook/Green  1521 - Adjacent 77 Redwood Drive, Chorley  1528 - Rear of Amber Drive, Chorley  1554 - Adjacent Weldbank House, Weldbank Lane, Chorley  1556 - Clematis Close Play Area, Off Euxton Lane, Chorley  1609 - Between 20 and 26 Riverside Crescent, Croston  1631 - Land off Meadow Lane, Clayton Brook/Green  1315 - Between 6 and 8 Dorking Road, Great Knowley, Chorley

 1316 - Opposite 155 Draperfield, Eaves Green, Chorley  1349 - Clayton Hall, Spring Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods  1352 - Between 107and 108 Mendip Road, Clayton-le-Woods  1354 - Between 113 and 152 Mendip Road, Clayton-le-Woods  1356 - Between 164 and 172 Mendip Road, Clayton-le-Woods  1436 - Adjacent 94 Deerfold, Astley Village, Chorley  1481 - Adjacent 3 Flag Lane, Heath Charnock  1485 - Between 3 and 33 Riverside Crescent, Croston  1504 - Off Wilderswood, Clayton Brook/Green  1535 - Rear of Delph Way/ Cross Keys Drive, Whittle-le-Woods  1543 - Adjacent 57 Cowling Brow/ Rear of Ridge Road, Chorley  1711 - Off Wood End Road, adjacent to reservoir, Clayton Brook/Green  1719 - Adjacent Millennium Way/ M61 Junction, Chorley  1739 - The Apiary, Adjacent Bretherton Parish Institute, South Road, Bretherton  1760 - Gillibrand, Off Burgh Wood Way, Chorley  1769 - Gillibrand, Keepers Wood Way/ Lakeland Gardens, Chorley  1771 - Gillibrand, Adjacent Walletts Wood Court, Chorley   1705 - Between Wood End Road/ Bearswood Croft, Clayton Brook/Green  1793 - Rear of 86-89 Greenwood, Clayton Brook/Green  1798 - Between Forsythia Drive/Homestead, Clayton

Amenity greenspace Quality High Low Brook/Green  1831 - Adjacent Fairview Community Centre, Adlington  1957 - Buttermere Avenue Play Area, Chorley  1439 - Adjacent Derian House, Chancery Road, Chorley  1459 - Adjacent Cottage Fields, Chorley  1487 - Croston Walls, Castle Walk, Croston  1490 - Opposite the Paddock, Gib Lane  1499 – Adjacent 275 The Green, Eccleston  1512 - Meadow Lane, Off Preston Road, Clayton Brook/Green  1532 - Opposite 26-29 The Bowers, Chorley  1533 - Middlewood Close Play Area, Eccleston  1540 - Between Chancery Road/ Hallgate, Astley Village, Chorley  1542 - Between Heather Close and Eaves Lane, Chorley  1545 - Fell View Park, Cowling Brow, Chorley  1546 - Mayflower Gardens, Eaves Green, Chorley  1550 - Adjacent Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green, Chorley  1558 - Playground rear of 36 Foxcote, Astley Village, Chorley  1659 - Between Preston Road and Church Hill, Whittle-le-Woods  1678 - Adjacent 53 Broadfields, Chorley  1688 - Adjacent Chancery Road, Astley Village, Chorley  1706 - Adjacent 19 Holly Close, Clayton Brook/Green  1734 - Between Preston Road and Watkin Road, Whittle-le-Woods  1770 - Gillibrand, Yarrow Valley Way Play Area, Adjacent Woodchat Drive, Chorley  1778 - Adjacent 44 Long Acre, Clayton Brook/Green  1786 - Between Carr Meadow/ Carr Barn Brow, Clayton Brook/Green  1788 - Adjacent 87 Daisy Meadow, Clayton Brook/Green  1815 - Adjacent 92 Mile Stone Meadow, Euxton  1884 - Clancutt Lane, Coppull  1921 - Adjacent Northgate, Chorley  1928 - Adjacent 10 Oakwood View, Chorley  1951 - Opposite 4-6 Burghley Close, Clayton Brook/Green  1954 - Off Cypress Close, Clayton-le- Woods  1974 - Spurrier Square, Chorley  1958 - Adjacent Minstrel Pub, Lower

Amenity greenspace Quality High Low Burgh Way, Eaves Green, Chorley  1959 - Rear of 27-30 The Cedars, Eaves Green, Chorley  1963 - Guernsey Avenue, Buckshaw Village  1967 - Jubilee Fields, Station Road, Adlington  1968 - Rear of Chapel Street/ Park Road, Adlington  1971 - Rear of Community Centre, Unity Place, Buckshaw Village  1979 - Tanyard Garden, Coppull  2007 - Maltby Square, Buckshaw Village  2009 - Shannon Close, Buckshaw Village  2011 - Harpers Lane Recreation Ground, Chorley  2013 - Adjacent Fairview Drive, Adlington  2014 - Adjacent Meadow View, Adlington  2015 - Cortland Avenue, Eccleston  2016 - Rosewood Close, Chorley  2024.1 – Barrow Nook Grove, Adlington

 1394 - Rear of 60 Hawkshead Avenue,  1785 - Adjacent 9 Brow Hey, Clayton Low Euxton Brook/Green

Green Corridors Quality High Low

 1686 - Between Chancery Road/  1669 - Rear of Larkfield Westway  1692 - Withnell Linear Park, off Bury Lane  1693 - Withnell Linear Park, rear of Railway Road  1723 - Opposite Railway Road  1724 - Former Railway Line, Harpers Lane High  1892 - Adjacent Meadowcroft  1965 - Between Perthshire Value Grove/Grenadier Walk  1966 - Between Guernsey Avenue/Buckinghamshire Place  1972 - Liverpool Walk  2008 - Between Unity Place/Maltby Square  2012 - Rear of Fairview Drive

Low

Parks and gardens Quality High Low  1386 - Millennium Green, Red  1416 - Wymott Park Play Area, Ulnes House Lane, Eccleston Walton  1435 - Astley Park, Chorley  1689 - Bothy Garden, Withnell Fold  1610 - Millennium Green, Hurst  1690 - Memorial Garden, Withnell Fold Green, Mawdesley  2017 – Orchard Garden, Charnock  1613 - Euxton Hall Park, Euxton Richard  1625 - Millennium Green, Withnell Fold  1744 - War Memorial Garden, Railway Road, Adlington

High  1750 - Lever Park, Rivington  1803 - Jubilee & Bradley Lane

Value Fields, Eccleston  1978 - Coppull Memorial Garden, Coppull  2018 - Leonard Fairclough Memorial Garden, Adlington  2020 - Berry Garden, Chapel Lane, Coppull  2027 – Village Green, Jct Out Lane and Town Road, Croston.

Low

Natural and semi-natural greenspace Quality

 1336 - Adjacent Chorley North  1696 - Rear of Firbank, Euxton Industrial Park and Laburnum Road,  1827 - Plock Wood, Lower Burgh Chorley Way, Eaves Green, Chorley  1468 - End of Blainscough Road,  1852 - Rear of Outterside Avenue, Coppull Adlington  1683 - Between Broadfields/ Euxton Lane, Chorley  1691 - Adjacent Leeds Liverpool Canal, Off Marsh Lane, Withnell Fold  1694 - Lodge Bank, Brinscall  1701 - Denham Hill Quarry, Holt Lane, Brindle  1704 - Rear of Wilderswood Close, Clayton Brook/Green  1714 - Between Higher Meadow/ Cunnery Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods  1712 - Off Spring Meadow, Clayton- le-Woods  1728 - Reservoir, Mill Lane, Coppull

 1730 - Chapel Brook West Valley Park, Coppull  1762 - Gillibrand, Nightingale Way, Chorley  1828 - Copper Works Wood, Stansted Road, Chorley  1857 - Opposite 34-37 Brow Hey, Clayton Brook/Green  1858 - Opposite 16-44 Carr Meadow,

Value Clayton Brook/Green

 1804 - Adjacent 80 Princess Way, Euxton  1807 - Yarrow Valley Country Park, Chorley/Euxton  1810 - Cuerden Valley Park, Clayton- le-Woods  1829 - Adjacent Yarrow Valley Way, Chorley  1875 - Rear of 16-28 Bearswood Croft, Clayton Brook/Green  1897 - Rear of 21-41 Empress Way, Euxton  1975 - Hic Bibi LNR, Coppull  1372 - Off Tanyard Close, Coppull  1627 - Off Withnell Fold Old Road, Withnell  1697 - Adjacent Euxton Hall Gardens, Euxton  1725 - Between St Gregory's Place/ Burgh Meadows, Chorley  1764 - Gillibrand, Adjacent Little Wood Close, Chorley  1855 - Rear of 41-44 Woodfield, Clayton Brook/Green  1861 - Rear of School Field, Clayton Brook/Green  1876 - Adjacent Blackthorn Croft,

Natural and semi-natural greenspace Quality

Clayton Brook/Green  1952 - Between Osborne Drive/ Chorley Old Road, Clayton Brook/Green  1953 - Between Wood End Road/ Rowan Croft, Clayton Brook/Green  2028 – Wilderswood Pond

6.0 FUTURE PROVISION

6.1 Delivery of the Deficiencies and Key Recommendations

Management and Development

The following issues should be considered when undertaking site development or enhancement:  Financial viability.  Security of tenure.  Planning permission requirements and any foreseen difficulties in securing permission.  Gaining revenue funding from planning contributions in order to maintain existing sites.  Gaining planning contributions to assist with the creation of new provision where need has been identified.  Analysis of the possibility of shared site management opportunities.  The availability of opportunities to lease site to external organisations.  Options to assist community groups/parish councils to gain funding to enhance existing provision.  Negotiation with landowners to increase access to private strategic sites.

Funding Sources

Outside of developer contributions there are also a number of potential funding sources1available to community and voluntary groups. Each scheme is different and is designed to serve a different purpose. In order for any bid to be successful consideration to the schemes criteria and the applicant’s objectives is needed. Below is a list of funding sources that are relevant for community improvement projects involving parks, open spaces and nature conservation.  BIG Lottery Fund  Awards for All  Access to Nature (only eligible to existing Access to Nature projects)  Heritage Lottery Fund  Community Development Foundation  Landfill Communities Fund  Esmee Fairbairn Foundation  Lloyds TSB Foundation  Co-Operative Group Community Fund  Forestry Commission – English Woodland Grant Scheme  Biffa Awards  Lancashire Environment Fund (LEF)

There will be other sources of funding available in addition to those listed above. Sources for funding applications are continuously changing and regular checking of funding providers should be undertaken.

1 Source: Potential funding for community green spaces, DCLG

How Provision is to be made to Address Deficiencies

New housing developments in the Borough are required to contribute towards open space provision. The requirements vary according to the type of open space to be provided. Collecting contributions from developers will be undertaken through the following process.

Seeking developer contributions

The Open Space and Playing Pitch Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted on the 17th September 2013. It sets out the Council’s approach to securing open space provision and improvements through new housing development. The guidance forms the basis for negotiation with developers to secure contributions for the provision or improvements of appropriate facilities and their long term maintenance. Section 106 contributions can also be used to improve the condition and maintenance regimes of playing pitches. A number of management objectives will be implemented to enable the above to be delivered:

 Continue to ensure that where sites are lost, through development or closure, that facilities of the same or improved standard are provided to meet the continued needs of residents.  Consider ring-fencing capital receipts from disposals of open spaces specifically for investment into other open spaces.  Planning consent should include appropriate conditions and/or be subject to a Section 106 Agreement. Where developer contributions are applicable, a Section 106 Agreement must be completed specifying the amount and timing of sums to be paid.  A ‘central pot’ for developer contributions across each authority should be established to invest in open space provision and maintenance.  Where significant new open spaces are provided, car parking should also be incorporated to service the site.

Determining contributions

Establishing whether open space provision is required and whether it should be provided on site is detailed in the SPD. Elements to consider when determining this include:

 the total amount of open space provision within the locality and whether the amount of provision will be above the quantity standards set for each typology following completion of the development  whether the locality is within the accessibility catchment standards as set for each open space typology  whether enhancement of existing provision is required if either or both the quantity and accessibility standards are sufficiently met.

In development areas where open space provision is identified as being sufficient in terms of quantity, provision of new open space is not deemed necessary. It may be more suitable to seek contributions for quality improvements.

Off-site contributions

In instances where it is not realistic for new provision to be provided on site or if there is a surplus in the quantity of provision it may be more appropriate to seek to enhance the existing quality of provision and/or improve access to sites. Standard costs for the enhancement of existing open space and provision of new open spaces are clearly identified in the SPD and will be revised on a regular basis by each local authority. A financial contribution should be, for

example, required principally but not exclusively for the following typologies; subject to the appropriate authority providing and managing the following forms of open space provision:

 Parks and gardens  Allotments  Amenity greenspace  Provision for children/young people  Natural/semi-natural greenspace

The wider benefits of open space sites and features regardless of size should be recognised as a key design principle for any new development. Particularly in instances where it is not deemed appropriate for new onsite provision or for contributions towards the enhancement of offsite provision. The SPD sets out that appropriate provision of open space features (e.g. trees, hedging, gaps in the built form) should be sought. These features and elements can help to contribute to the perception of open space provision in an area whilst also ensuring an aesthetically pleasing landscape providing social and health benefits.

The figure below sets out the processes needing to be considered when determining developer contributions towards open space, sport and recreation provision.

Determining developer contributions

Decide if the number of dwellings proposed is required to provide open space and the types of open space, No sport and recreation facilities required.

Yes

Determine whether, after the development, there will be a sufficient amount of open spaces within the accessibility catchments of the development site, including on site, to meet the needs of existing and new populations based on the proposed local standards.

Yes No

Does the quality of open spaces within the Work out the requirement for each accessibility catchments match the quality applicable type of open space thresholds in the Assessment?

Determine whether the open space Yes No can/should be provided on site

No developer contribution The developer will be towards new or required to contribute to the enhancing open space enhancement of offsite No Yes provision is normally provision within the required accessibility standards set

Determine whether Determine whether No further action the open space the open space will can/should be be designed and built provided on a by the Council No Calculate the recommended contribution for different site No enhancing existing provision. Yes Yes

The developer should Work out the Calculate the developer design and build developer contribution for new provision onsite contribution for provision new provision

Maintenance contributions

There is a requirement on developers to demonstrate that where onsite provision is to be provided it will be managed and maintained accordingly. In some instances the site may be adopted by the Council, which will require the developer to pay a sum of money in order to pay the costs of the sites future maintenance. Often the procedure for Councils adopting new sites includes:

 The developer being responsible for maintenance of the site for 12 months or a different agreed time period.  Sums to cover the maintenance costs of a site (once transferred to the Council) should be intended to cover a period of 10 years.

The maintenance contributions required are set out in the SPD and are based on current maintenance costs.

Calculating onsite contributions

The requirement for open spaces should be based upon the number of persons generated from the net increase in dwellings in the proposed scheme, using the average household occupancy rate of 2.4 persons per dwelling as derived from the Census 2001.

The next stage is to calculate the open space requirement by typology per dwelling. This is calculated by multiplying the number of persons generated from the development by the quantity standard for that typology (ha per 1,000 population). Using amenity greenspace in Chorley as an example, the recommended standard is 0.73 ha per 1,000 population.

This figure is then divided by 1,000 to identify the amount of provision to be made as the standards are set out as hectares per 1,000 population.

7.0 STRATEGY REVIEW

This report analyses and summarises the findings of the Open Space Study. It identifies where there are deficiencies and where further provision is required. It also identifies where improvements are needed to existing sites.

The majority of sites are being protected through the Local Plan and improvements being made to the quality and/or value of these sites.

The majority of deficiencies can be addressed by securing new provision from housing developments either on-site or by way of a financial contribution towards off-site provision.

The Open Space Strategy does recommend allocating some sites to meet identified deficiencies. It recommends new allotment provision in Adlington, Croston and Euxton, sites have been allocated in the Local Plan.

As recommendations and deficiencies are addressed it is important to continually update the baseline data.

Appendix A

Maps Showing Typologies within Settlements

Appendix B Total Open Space Provision by Settlement and Ward

Current provision by settlement (updated August 2017)

Parks and Natural/ Semi- Amenity Provision for Provision for Parks and Natural/ Semi- Amenity Allotments - Gardens - Natural - Greenspace - Children/Young Children/Young Allotments - Settlement Gardens - Natural - Greenspace - current current current current People - current People - surplus/deficit surplus/deficit surplus/deficit surplus/deficit provision provision provision provision provision surplus/deficit Abbey Village 0 -0.450 0 -1.095 0.087 -0.085 0.131 +0.112 0.720 +0.703 Adlington 0.112 -10.269 0.625 -24.593 2.465 -1.502 0.466 +0.031 0 -0.380 Bretherton 0 -1.291 0 -3.137 0.245 -0.248 0.125 +0.071 0 -0.047 Brindle 0 -1.190 3.066 +0.175 0 -0.455 0 -0.050 0 -0.044 Buckshaw Village 0 -4.964 0 -12.059 3.012 +1.115 0.488 +0.280 0 -0.182 Charnock Richard 0.263 -1.998 0 -5.494 0 -0.864 0.102 +0.007 0 -0.829 Chorley Town 39.388 -25.789 22.289 -136.046 41.460 +16.549 3.500 +0.671 3.633 +1.244 Clayton Brook/Green 0 -19.816 5.399 -42.741 13.243 +5.669 0.307 -0.523 0.374 -0.352 Clayton-le-Woods 0 -7.541 104.759 +86.440 4.210 +1.328 0.285 -0.031 0 -0.276 Coppull 0.193 -12.886 11.118 -20.657 2.796 -2.176 3.226 +2.678 0.470 -0.009 Croston 0.080 -4.607 0 -11.387 3.151 +1.360 0.111 -0.085 0 -0.172 Eccleston 6.905 -1.149 4.419 -15.148 0.577 -2.501 0.637 +0.300 0 -0.295 Euxton 3.295 -11.857 330.670 +293.861 2.837 -2.954 0.569 -0.066 0 -0.555 Gib Lane 0 -0.583 0 -1.415 0.192 -0.031 0 -0.024 0 -0.021 Gregson Lane 0 -0.777 0 -1.888 0 -0.297 0 -0.033 0 -0.028 Higher Wheelton 0 -0.476 0 -1.155 0 -0.182 0 -0.020 0 -0.017 Hoghton 0 -1.125 0 -2.733 0 -0.430 0 -0.047 0 -0.041 Mawdesley 1.511 -0.273 0 -4.334 0.082 -0.600 0.190 +0.115 0 -0.065 Wheelton 0 -1.560 0 -3.791 0.209 -0.387 0.042 -0.023 1.070 +1.013 Whittle-le-Woods 0 -8.578 0 -20.838 4.745 +1.467 0.439 +0.080 0.856 +0.542 Withnell/Brinscall 0 -4.549 4.595 -6.457 0.403 -1.336 0.158 -0.033 0.511 +0.344

Current provision by ward (updated August 2017)

Provision for Parks and Natural/ Amenity Provision for Parks and Natural/ Semi- Amenity Children/ Allotments - Gardens - Semi-Natural Greenspace - Children/ Allotments - Ward Gardens - Natural - Greenspace - Young People current current - current current Young People - surplus/deficit surplus/deficit surplus/deficit surplus/deficit - current provision provision provision provision surplus/deficit provision Adlington and Anderton 0.112 -13.271 0.625 -31.887 2.377 -2.738 0.455 -0.105 0 -0.490 Astley Village and Buckshaw 0 -6.989 3.482 -13.496 15.881 +13.210 0.396 +0.103 0 -0.256 Brindle and Hoghton 0 -4.177 8.673 -1.475 0.192 -1.404 0 -0.175 0 -0.153 Chisnall 0.263 -7.546 2.265 -16.708 1.419 -1.566 3.064 +2.737 0.470 +0.184 Chorley East 0 -12.509 0 -30.387 6.324 +1.543 0.677 +0.153 1.065 +0.607 Chorley North East 0 -14.037 3.414 -30.685 3.072 -2.293 0.250 -0.338 1.074 +0.560 Chorley North West 39.388 +28.224 2.822 -24.299 1.617 -2.650 0.810 +0.342 0.727 +0.318 Chorley South East 0 -11.915 0 -28.944 3.107 -1.447 0.873 +0.374 0.490 +0.053 Chorley South West 0 -15.311 338.566 +301.372 14.102 +8.250 0.453 -0.188 0.277 -0.284 Clayton-le-Woods and Whittle-le-Woods 0 -13.603 4.429 -28.617 6.188 +0.989 0.679 +0.110 1.880 +1.204 Clayton-le-Woods North 0 -12.782 0.970 -30.081 10.663 +5.778 0.187 -0.348 0 -0.468 Clayton-le-Woods West and Cuerden 0 -8.381 104.759 +84.399 4.210 +1.007 0.285 -0.066 0 -0.307 Coppull 0.193 -12.025 8.853 -20.829 2.183 -2.486 0.695 +0.183 0 -0.448 Eccleston and Mawdesley 8.416 -0.352 4.419 -23.440 0.659 -3.724 0.820 +0.340 0 -0.420 Euxton North 0 -8.643 2.170 -18.826 1.973 -1.330 0.244 -0.118 0 -0.317 Euxton South 3.295 -4.383 2.505 -16.148 0.570 -2.365 0.315 -0.007 0 -0.281 Heath Charnock and Rivington 146.633 +142.452 0 -10.157 0.592 -1.006 0.011 -0.164 0 -0.153 Lostock 0.945 -10.702 0 -28.295 6.146 +1.695 0.272 -0.216 0 -0.427 Pennine 0 -4.393 0 -10.672 2.077 +0.398 0.048 -0.136 1.070 +0.782 Wheelton and Withnell 1.197 -6.655 4.595 -14.480 0.699 -2.302 0.331 +0.002 1.556 +1.393