Brent Open Space Report - PPG17 Assessment
2009 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. POLICY CONTEXT 5
3. PUBLIC PARKS PROVISION 14
4. PROVISION FOR CHILDREN 21 AND YOUNG ADULTS
5. OUTDOOR SPORTS 29 FACILITIES
6. INDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES 36
7. ALLOTMENT GARDEN 60 PROVISION
8. SEMI-NATURAL GREENSPACE AND 64 CORRIDORS | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 This report compiles the details of all relevant open space and recreation audits, needs assessments and public consultation conducted or commissioned by the council in recent years. The report provides a single reference point for the evidence base in developing the Local Development Framework policy towards the protection and enhancement of open space in the borough. The report sets out how the council has fulfilled the requirements of PPG17 in conducting a comprehensive assessment of open space to develop policy contained in the LDF.
1.2 The council has conducted or commissioned a number of different studies and strategies which cover the various forms of open space in the borough. The intention of this document is draw out the relevant details of these separate reports and strategies which have informed development of LDF policy. Also concluded, where relevant are studies which have been conducted by the GLA at regionally level but provide a detailed assessment of provision in Brent. The report is a live document which can be updated as new or updated studies are completed.
1.3 The following strategies and reports have been drawn upon in collating this report. They comprise of a range of elements including audits of current open space and recreation provision, local demand and supply analysis, public consultation on local needs, priorities for improvement and implementation plans.
Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 – 2008
Carried out by leisure consultants McAlpine, Thorpe & Warrier Ltd on behalf of Brent Borough Council, this strategy covers the team sports of football, cricket, rugby union, hockey and Gaelic football. It follows the latest Sport England Guidelines for Playing Pitch Strategies. The study incorporates the results of a detailed analysis of the supply of pitches, the condition of local authority owned playing pitches and their ancillary facilities, the current and future demand for pitches and the adequacy of supply to meet this demand. The strategy is currently under review.
A Strategy for Sport & Physical Activity in Brent 2004 - 2009
In February 2003 a Framework for the Development of Sport in Brent was written following the Audit Commissions inspection of Sports and Leisure. This framework and the consultation which formed the backbone to the document identified that that a Strategy endorsed by key stakeholders would make a significant impact on agreeing priorities and coordinating the delivery of sports opportunities across the Borough by all providers. The strategy was made available for public consultation during March and April 2004 and all comments raised were fed back to the Brent Sports Forum for review to assist in the production of the final Sports Strategy.
Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy 2008-2021
In early 2007, Sport England approached Brent Council to become a pilot in their Local Sport and Recreation Strategic Planning Support Programme. Through this programme, consultants - Leisure and the Environment and Genesis - have supported the Council through offering advice and facilitation, acting as the enabler in producing this document. A steering group was set up, with members representative of all key service areas within Brent Council, including the Sports Service, Parks Service, Planning Service, Children and Families and Policy and Regeneration Unit. Throughout the process greater partnership working has taken place where all stakeholders have been able to feed into developing a sports facility strategy and benefit from the research which has been carried out. This strategy was endorsed by the Council's Executive in November 2008 and its priorities and recommendations will be incorporated into forthcoming Supplementary Planning Documents, a Sustainable Community Strategy and taken up by the Local Strategic Partnership.
2 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Assessment and Analysis of Local Satisfaction Levels with Sports Facilities in the London Borough of Brent – 2008
Conducted by visiting students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute on behalf of Brent Planning Service, this report investigates local needs for sport and open space. By conducting a household survey, key informant interviews, and G.I.S mapping, the project identifies key areas of deficiency in sports provision and identifies facilities most suited to meet local needs.
Brent Parks Strategy 2004-2009, Draft Strategy 2009
This Strategy sets out a clear policy framework for Brent Parks over the next five years and links to the community strategy process. The Strategy is designed to set local standards based on assessments of need, demographic and cultural changes and audits of existing parks and open spaces. It is the basis for redressing quantitative and qualitative deficiencies and recommends strategies and standards for the improvement of Brent’s green spaces. The scope of the Strategy includes public parks, public open spaces, children’s play areas and allotments. The strategy is currently under review.
Brent Play Strategy 2005- 2008
Brent Play Strategy aims to be a practical working tool, to be referred to whenever decisions about play need to be made. It is applicable to all forms of children and young people’s services. It is intended that the strategy will have an impact on individual council departments, key partner agencies (such as Brent Primary Care Trust) and voluntary sector organisations.
The purpose of the strategy is to:
address the play needs of children and young people in Brent act as a clear outline of how Brent intends play provision to develop from 2005- 2008 be flexible and able to respond to future change and development. improve the basis of quality in play provision provide a framework for allocation of resources continue to emphasise the close co-operation between all agencies in the provision and development of a play service
The strategy is informed and shaped by considerable consultation with children and young people
Audit of Brent Outdoor Sports Provision 2007-08
A survey of all outdoor sports facilities in the borough was conducted by Ashley Godfrey Associates on behalf of the council between October 2007 and February 2008. The survey looked at the quantity of outdoor sports pitches, other outdoor built sports facilities, changing and ancillary facilities, and school and college sport facilities in Brent, as well as the quality and access to these facilities.
Consultation
Annual Parks Survey
A household survey sent to a random sample of 10% of households each year with a 15-20% response rate. Survey relates to local parks and sports provision.
3 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
LDF Issues and Options Survey October 2005
Distributed to every house through Brent Magazine. Received a 1% response rate of all households in the borough.
Sport England Active People Survey I (2005/06) and II (2008/09)
National survey conducted by Sport England with a sample of 1,000 respondents from each borough or district. Survey focuses on sport and physical activity participation rates and Key Performance Indicators such as proportion of population taking part in 3x30mins of sport and physical activity per week.
Willesden and Vale Farm Sports Centre non –user survey Feb 2008
Approached individuals at random in selected areas, of which 224 responded to these face to face interviews. Questions targeted at mainly sport centre use, awareness, and why people do not use the sports centres.
Brent Citizens Panel Survey September 2003
Questionnaires were mailed out to all members of the citizens’ panel (2,111), 510 responses. Range of questions asked including section on satisfaction with local sports provision.
Priority Sports Development Plans
Surveys of sports clubs identified as priority sports in the borough.
4 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 2. Policy Context
National Policy
Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1)
2.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) sets out overarching national planning policy context for national planning guidance. Sustainable development is a key objective for planning and plan making across all planning policy areas. PPS1 states that planning should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole, and give a high level of protection to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. PPS1 seeks to ensure that planning facilitates and promotes sustainable patterns of urban and rural development, by protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities.
Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17)
2.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) sets out national policy guidance for open space, sport and recreation. The Government recognises that access to and use of high quality open space, sport and recreation facilities can improve people’s quality of life, and secure other related benefits such as social inclusion, good health and well being, sustainable development and urban renaissance.
The main objectives and requirements of PPG17 are:
To ensure effective planning for open space, sport and recreation by assessing the needs of local communities. PPG17 requires local authorities to undertake assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities. Local authorities should also undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, the use made of existing facilities, access in terms of location and opportunities for new open space, sports and recreation facilities. Audits should consider both the quantitative and the qualitative elements of need for open space, sports and recreational facilities. Audits of quality will be particularly important as they will allow local authorities to identify potential for increased use through better design, management and maintenance. Assessments and audits will allow local authorities to identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in their areas. They form the starting point for establishing an effective strategy for open space, sport and recreation at the local level and for effective planning through the development of appropriate policies in plans. Good quality assessments and audits should lead to clear strategies supported by effective planning policies.
Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17
2.3 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister produced a companion guide to aid the implementation of the advice provided in PPG 17. The companion guide sets out ways in which to undertake an assessment of local need and opportunities for open space, sports and recreation and suggests that the following be considered throughout the assessment:
Local communities must be consulted in order to obtain views on existing local provision and needs for new and improved facilities; The needs of those working in, visiting and residents of an area should be assessed; Audits of existing open space, recreational and sports facilities should be undertaken and should consider access in terms of location, cost (charges) and opportunities for new open space and facilities; Assessments should consider qualitative and quantitative elements of open space and sports and recreational facilities;
5 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Assessments will enable local authorities to identify specific needs, deficits and surpluses and forms the start of establishing a strategy for open space, sport and recreation; The information gained from the assessment should be used to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities. Standards should identify existing provision to be protected, enhanced and should identify areas where new provision is required; Locally derived standards should be included in the Local Plan.
2.4 The PPG17 companion guide also sets out in detail the requirements for each stage of carrying out the assessment. Below is a brief description of what each stage entails:
Step 1: Identify Local Needs - Through consultation obtain views on the existing provisions and what the community's needs are.
Step 2: Audit Local Provision – Using existing information (including Local Plan green space and recreation designations, grounds maintenance information on sites maintained by the local authority and education departments information on Council owned schools) to undertake an assessment of accessibility, quantity and quality of the existing open space, sports and recreation facilities in the area; identifying catchment areas for different forms of sports provision in order to assess how far people are willing to travel to a facility and by what method of transport; analysing the quality of the facilities through use of existing models or a scoring system dependant on the type of open space, sports and recreation facility.
Step 3: Set Provision Standards – This involves defining the standards for quantity, quality and accessibility of the provision; it also involves identifying normal / acceptable costs / charges and design standards.
Step 4:Apply the Provision Standards – This involves applying the standards on a site by site basis to identify deficiencies in accessibility, quality and identify deficiencies and surpluses in quantity of provision.
Step 5: Draft Policies - Identify the strategic provision of open space and sports and recreational facilities required and draw up polices and strategies for implementation of the provision. Identifying provision to be protected, enhanced and identifying areas where new provision is required.
2.5 Where a local authority has not undertaken an assessment of need an applicant for planning permission may undertake an independent assessment to seek to demonstrate that the land or buildings are surplus to requirements. Developers will need to consult the local community and demonstrate that the community supports the proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9)
2.6 Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out national planning policy on the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. It states that planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the environmental characteristics of local areas. These characteristics should include the relevant biodiversity and geological resources of the area. In reviewing environmental characteristics, local authorities should assess the potential to sustain and enhance these resources. The most important sites for biodiversity are those identified through international conventions and European Directives, for example Sites for Scientific Special Interest. Planning should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, enhancing biodiversity in green spaces and among developments so that they are used by wildlife and valued by people, recognising that healthy functional ecosystems can contribute to a better quality of life and to people’s sense of well-being.
6 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Fields in Trust (previously National Playing Field Association) - The Six Acre Standard (2001)
2.7 Fields In Trust (FIT), previously the National Playing Field Association, are an independent UK wide organisation focused on protecting and improving outdoor sports and play spaces and facilities. The key aims of Fields in Trust are to improve the quality of life and health of everyone throughout the UK, through protecting and developing high quality, well-used local facilities for outdoor sport and play and to secure community spaces for future generations.
2.8 Fields in Trust set recommended open space standards for Local Planning Authorities across the UK. FIT promote an indicative minimum open space standard of 2.4 hectares (6 acres) per 1000 people (The Six Acre Standard, National Playing Field Association/ Fields in Trust, 2001). The figure is a general target which is set for local authorities and others who wish to check that existing provision is adequate and reasonable for the population it is intended to serve, and to arrive at an appropriate scale of provision for new developments. FIT defines outdoor playing space as “Space that is safely accessible and available to the general public, and of a suitable size and nature, for sport, active recreation or children’s play”. FIT does not regard ‘outdoor playing space’ to be the same as public open space, rather it is space that is safely accessible and available to the general public, and of a suitable size and nature, for sport, active recreation or children’s play.
2.9 The FIT open space standard of 2.4 hectares per 1000 people is comprised of two open space components - an outdoor sport standard of 1.6 hectares (4 acres) and a children's playspace standard of 0.8 hectares (2 acres). The outdoor sport standard includes open space designations/ facilities such as pitches, greens, courts, athletics tracks and miscellaneous sites such as croquet lawns and training areas owned by local authorities at all tiers, including those facilities that are available in the education sector for public use by written agreement, and those facilities that are within the voluntary private, industrial and commercial sectors which serve the leisure time needs for outdoor recreation of their members, or the public. The play space standard includes designated areas for children and young people containing a range of facilities and an environment that has been designated to provide focused opportunities for outdoor play, and casual or informal playing space within housing areas.
Spatial Planning for Sport and Active Recreation (2005)
2.10 Sport England is a non-departmental public body and a key Government advisor on sports facilities and playing fields. Sport England has been a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields since August 1996. Sport England’s publication, Spatial Planning for Sport and Active Recreation (2005), provides guidance on planning for sport and sets out its aspirations for sport and recreation under the new spatial planning system. Sport England regards the emergence of the spatial planning system as an opportunity to deliver its own aspirations for sport and active recreation, as well as contributing to the aspirations of its partners in public, private and voluntary sectors.
Spatial Planning for Sport and Active Recreation focuses on the following six key themes:
1. Environmental Sustainability - sport and recreation can demonstrate and contribute to the sustainable use of natural resources.
2. Community Safety – sport can help to directly reduce social exclusion and disaffection.
3. Local Economic Viability – sport directly and indirectly contributes to local and national economic vibrancy.
4. Quality of Life and Well-Being – physical activity contributes to peoples’ perceptions and experience of well-being and sense of attachment to their surroundings.
5. Health Improvement – physical activity should be a natural part of everyday life.
7 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
6. Raising Standards in Schools – the foundations of life-long health and sporting excellence lie in early opportunities for taking part in sport and active recreation.
Green Spaces, Better Places (DETR, 2002)
Green Spaces, Better Places (2002) is the final report of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force, commissioned as the basis for developing a new national strategy for urban spaces.
The report is in four parts:
Parks and green spaces and urban life - The first part of the report emphasises the benefits urban parks and green spaces bring to people, neighbourhoods and cities; Challenges and responses - Part two of the report considers some of the problems affecting urban parks and green spaces and how they might be overcome; Creating green spaces networks - Part three makes recommendations for good practice; Making it happen - Part four shows how and why the recommendations made in parts two and three can help deliver our wider vision of 'liveable' , sustainable, modern towns and cities.
2.11 The report summarises that a lack of investment in parks and public open space in recent years has caused severe decline in the quality of public parks. The report makes a number of recommendations to try to reverse this, focusing on themes such as regeneration and urban renaissance, provision of open space, addressing the diverse needs of local people (particularly children and young people), making the best use of new and available resources and establishing new partnerships. Many of the recommendations in the report were brought forward in the latest Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG17) on open space.
Living Places – Cleaner, Safer, Greener (ODPM, 2002)
2.12 Living Spaces – Cleaner, Safer Greener (ODPM, 2002) sets out the Government’s commitment to make public spaces cleaner, safer and greener, and to achieve spaces which enhance the quality of life in neighbourhoods, towns and cities.
The report explains:
why quality public spaces are important; what the current policies of the Government are in respect of improving the quality of local environments, the need for green healthy environments, and the need for a balance of green spaces in towns and cities; the increased profile given to the quality of urban parks etc and the measures which the Government will implement to produce continuous improvements and a better future for these spaces; and how the Government intends to build on success.
2.13 The report identifies four key challenges related to planning for open space - namely, that public space is not a single definable service; that it is dynamic, it can suffer from creeping degradation; that the quality of public spaces in disadvantaged neighbourhoods needs to be addressed so as to ensure that people are not excluded from enjoying high quality neighbourhoods; and that there is need for public spaces to respond to changing requirements of users (pedestrians, public transport users, motorists, etc.).
The Government considers that action for continuous improvement means:
• Getting the basic right - co-ordinating Ministerial policies and programmes, providing funding, making legislation relevant for the purpose, and making sure spaces are accessible to all;
• Tackling problems in the poorest communities - targeting and co-ordinating mainstream resources; reviewing social and environmental exclusion.
8 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
• Tackling the needs of urban parks and green spaces - setting up a new unit attached to the Commission for the Built Environment to deliver a comprehensive programme of work, implementing a clear national policy framework and stronger planning framework, and improving data good practice and quality standards, and working with partners.
• Communicating ideas and promoting best practice - raising awareness on the benefits of high quality spaces, sharing best practice, raising standards of design and encouraging changes in behaviour and attitudes.
The five components of success identified are ensuring committed leadership, strong partnerships, effective community involvement, quality and innovation and the effective communication of ideas.
Play England - The National Charter for Children’s Play
Play England
2.14 Play England, part of the National Children’s Bureau, is a lottery funded organisation promoting the needs of children and young people in England to have regular access to and opportunity for free, inclusive, local play provision and play space. Play England offers advice and support to all those involved in the strategic development of children's play, including policy makers, politicians, local planning authorities and residents.
Play England's objectives are to:
promote local play strategies build partnerships for play research and demonstrate the benefits of play promote equality and diversity in play provision raise awareness and promote standards.
The Charter for Children’s Play
2.15 The Charter for Children’s Play was first published in 1992, and was last reviewed in 1998. The Charter sets out a vision for children’s play, developing the themes of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Article 31 on the child’s right to play. The Charter acts a catalyst for organisations to examine, review and improve their services, activities and functions in the light of children’s play needs. It offers a template for those involved in providing play opportunities, and how these principles could be achieved.
Natural England's ANGST (Accessible Natural Green space) Standards
2.16 Natural England's Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGST) were first published in the 1992 report, Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A review of appropriate size and distance criteria (1992). The report was commissioned by Natural England to help Local Authorities develop policies which acknowledge, protect and enhance the contribution natural spaces make to local sustainability. Three aspects of natural space in cities and towns are discussed in the report: their biodiversity; their ability to cope with urban pollution, and ensuring natural spaces are accessible to everyone. The report aims to show how size and distance criteria can be used to identify the natural spaces which contribute most to local sustainability.
2.17 Natural England considers that local authorities should consider the provision of natural areas as part of a balanced policy to ensure that local communities have access to appropriate mix of greenspaces providing for a range of recreational needs, of at least two hectares of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 population. This can be broken down by the following system:
No person should live more than 300 metres from their nearest area of greenspace; There should be at least one accessible 20 hectare site within 2 kilometres;
9 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
There should be at least one 100 hectare site within 5 kilometres; There should be at least one accessible 500 hectares site within 10 kilometres.
2.18 Natural England notes that this may be more difficult for some urban areas/ plannning authorities than others, and recommends that local authorities identify the most appropriate policy and response applicable to their borough.
Regional Policy
London Plan 2008
2.19 The Mayor recognises the benefits associated with the provision and use of open space, including those associated with health, sport and recreation, children's play, regeneration, the economy, culture, biodiversity and the environment. Policy 3D.12 encourages Local Planning Authorities to produce open space strategies to protect, create and enhance all types of open space in their area, which include approaches for the positive management of open space where appropriate to prevent or remedy degradation or enhance the beneficial use of it for the community. The London Plan suggests boroughs undertake audits of existing open space and assessments of need in their areas, considering both the qualitative and the quantitative elements of open space, wildlife sites, sports and recreational facilities, as part of an open space strategy and in accordance with the guidance given in PPG17.
2.20 London Plan policy 3D.8 states that local authorities should “treat the open space network as an integrated system that provides a "green infrastructure" containing many uses and performing a wide range of functions…all developments will be expected to incorporate appropriate elements of open space that make a positive contribution to and are integrated with the wider network”.
In addition to this, London Plan policy 3D.11 states that Local Authorities through the planning system should:
identify and support Regional and Metropolitan Park opportunities identify broad areas of public open space deficiency and priorities for addressing them on the basis of audits carried out as part of an open space strategy, and using the open space hierarchy set out in Table 3D.1 as a starting point ensure that future open space needs are considered in planning policies for Opportunity Areas and other areas of growth and change in their area encourage functional and physical linkages within the network of open spaces and to the wider public realm, improve accessibility for all throughout the network and create new links based on local and strategic need identify, promote and protect Green Corridors and Green Chains and include appropriate designations and policies for the protection of local open spaces that are of value, or have the potential to be of value, to local communities.
2.21 The majority of London’s open space is designated in the London Plan as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). The Mayor gives MOL the same protection status as Green Belt land, i.e. that development may only be justified in very special circumstances, and that development that is considered acceptable will be those uses which are ancillary to the use of open space for recreation and leisure. Metropolitan Open Land is defined in the London Plan as:
land that contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built-up area; land that includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport, arts and cultural activities and tourism which serve the whole or significant parts of London;
10 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
land that contains features or landscapes of historic, recreational, nature conservation or habitat interest, of value at a metropolitan or national level; land that forms part of a Green Chain and meets one of the above criteria.
2.22 The Mayor recognises the importance of providing play and informal recreation spaces for children and young people. Policy 3D.13 encourages boroughs to produce strategies on play and informal recreation to improve access and opportunity for all children and young people in their areas, by undertaking audits of existing play and informal recreation provision and assessments of need. Qualitative, quantitative and accessibility elements of play and informal recreation facilities should be considered. Boroughs and other partners should ensure that all children have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation provision. Housing developments should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.
Mayor of London Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) - Providing for Children and Young People's play and Informal Recreation
2.23 The Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation, provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of London Plan policy 3D.11i. The SPG recognises the need to secure good quality play facilities through the planning process, and states that stimulating, safe play facilities are essential to children's welfare, health and future development.
2.24 The SPG requires London boroughs to produce play strategies, which must identify the play and recreation needs of children and young people. The play strategies should identify areas of deficiencies, and the types of play space that are needed across the borough to inform these strategies, and to provide some mechanisms to address current and future needs. Play strategies will encompass all categories of play space and informal recreation areas including provision within housing areas and will identify opportunities to improve and upgrade provision and access to it in accordance with the Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance.
2.25 The guidance also provides benchmark plays pace standards. They are intended to be a tool for assisting in the development of local standards, and to be flexible enough to meet the varying needs of children and young people across London, taking into account differences in local circumstances. The Mayor of London recommends that Boroughs use the benchmark standards in setting local standards in the context of their open space and play strategies. A consistent approach is, however, promoted to ensure that opportunities for improving existing provision and securing high quality new play provision to meet the needs of children and young people.
The benchmark standards will help to:
establish a baseline level of provision for comparative purposes; establish local and community needs; enable an objective assessment of where the worst deficiencies in provision are located and for action to be taken; set appropriate targets and priorities for different groups; support external funding bids; provide a negotiating position to secure on-site provision, and where appropriate, commuted payments as part of new development proposals; and address diversity issues and the sometimes differing needs of boys and girls, children with disabilities and those from minority ethnic groups.
11 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
2.26 The SPG identifies three key components that make up the benchmark standards; quantity, quality and accessibility. The SPG identifies a benchmark of 10sqm of play or informal recreation space per child and young person. This figure applies to existing and new residents. The SPG covers all people 18 years old and younger. For consistency in applying the benchmark standards and assessing needs, three age groups are used. These are ‘under 5s’, ‘5-11’ years and ‘12+’.
2.27 The SPG requires all residential planning applications, which will house more than 10 children, to show how their play and recreation needs are to be met. Playspace facilities for under-5s are required to be in the development itself. Facilities for the 5-11 age group can be within 400 metres and, for the 12-plus group, within 800 metres, if all the access and design criteria are met.
Local Policy Context
London Borough of Brent Community Strategy
2.28 A Community Strategy is a long term strategy aimed at promoting and delivering the environmental, social and economic well being of an area. Every Council is required to produce a Community Strategy under Government legislation. The Community Strategy is the overarching document that is intended to sit at the apex of all strategic and service plans within a Local Planning Authority, and corporately brings together the key priorities of the Local Authority as a whole.
2.29 Brent's Community Strategy sets out the Council's priorities and ambitions for the borough between 2006 and 2010. It includes details of how the Council intends to work with its partners to deliver the community strategy, and how it intends to increase the performance and efficiency of Council services, to improve the quality of life for people living and working in Brent. The London Borough of Brent's Community Strategy sets out a number of goals for the borough relating to open space.
These are:
Ensuring open spaces are safe and worth visiting; Providing clean, well-designed and cared for streets and open spaces so that people feel good about the areas in which they live and work; Ensuring that open spaces are maintained to a high standard; Increasing the number of local parks obtaining ‘Green Flag’ status by 2010 and developing further district parks; Raising the standards for the provision of playground and youth facilities in Brent’s parks and open spaces; Increase the number of district parks by 2010; Improve pitch drainage and changing accommodation on sports pitches by 2010; Refurbish the Welsh Harp Environmental Educational centre by 2010 and encourage at least 3,500 schoolchildren a year to visit the centre; Increase the number of older people using Brent's parks for recreation and exercise; Ensuring easy access for all Brent residents to open spaces and parks.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
2.30 Brent's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted on 14th January 2004, and later revised on 27th September 2007 by the Secretary of State. The UDP provides town-planning guidance for the development and use of land and buildings throughout the Borough. It seeks to promote Brent Council's economic health and protect what is best in our built and open environment.
12 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
2.31 Chapter 10 of the UDP sets out the Council's approach to land use planning for open space and recreation. There are also four strategic (Part I) policies within the UDP that relating to open space, which aim to do the following:
Protect strategic open space, i.e. Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains, from inappropriate development; Refuse development which will lead to a loss of sports facilities, other than in those exceptional circumstances defined within the Plan where appropriate compensatory provision is secured, in order to ensure the adequate provision of locally and strategically important sports facilities in North West London; Promote the improvement of the Borough’s public open spaces and sports facilities, especially in those areas with a deficiency of quality facilities; Protect and enhance sites that have nature conservation value, and ensure that the design and management of any scheme takes into account the amenity value and the needs of wildlife.
2.32 The Council designates its parks, sports facilities, nurseries, allotments, cemeteries, waterways, areas of nature conservation, woodlands, golf courses and its areas of public and private open space and playing fields as Metropolitan Open Land. The Council allows development on Metropolitan Open Land only if the proposed development is complementary to its open space land use, or if the development is small-scale and required to preserve or enhance activities associated with its particular open space use.
2.33 The designation of open space, as classified generically in the UDP as Metropolitan Open Land, provides the overarching policy framework to protect all aspects of open space. UDP policies OS4 to OS23 go into more detail about the types of open space within the borough, and how these might be protected and enhanced. For example, policy OS5 seeks to protect the continuity of Green Chains, and requires all developments to incorporate a landscaped area of public open space, including a public footpath with provision for a cycleway.
London Borough of Brent Play Strategy
2.34 The London Borough of Brent's Play Strategy (2005 - 2008) was produced in September 2005. The Play Strategy aims to:
bring together a range of activities, disciplines and interests to promote closer working around the key theme of children and young people’s enjoyment of play and recreation; support children and their families and engage and empower the local community; establish effective networks between the public, private and voluntary sectors to support the development of play; support the learning and personal development of children leading to the enrichment of their communities; support parents when taking up training and employment; identify gaps in local provision; provide the basis for a consistent approach that contributes to a strategic overview within Brent’s current priorities.
2.35 The strategy is divided into a number of chapters including the context of the borough; the current position with regard to play in Brent focusing on play opportunities and staffing; the details and results of consultation on play in Brent; delivering the strategy; outcomes and objectives and the borough's implementation plan.
13 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 3. Public Parks Provision
Introduction
3.1 In this report, the council defines parks as areas of public open space that are separate from other areas of informal amenity space and allow public access through them. In parks where there are other uses of open space, for example sports facilities, this land has been counted where access is permitted through these facilities.
3.2 This section covers:
Current provision of public parks in the borough, including quality and quantity (drawing upon the Brent Council Parks Survey 2004); Local demand and use of parks (drawing upon the Parks Survey 2008 and the Planning Service pilot household survey 2008); Local standards for parks and public open space (London Plan 2008, Fields in Trust); Areas of deficiency and future priorities (Parks Survey 2008 and the Planning Service pilot household survey 2008).
Current Provision
3.3 Brent has a total of 463 hectares of public parks, as outlined in Figure 1 below. The open space size designations in the table are derived from the London Plan, 2008.
3.4 The highest proportion of park space is located in the north of the borough, where the majority of the larger parks are also located. This includes the borough's only Metropolitan Park, Fryent Country Park, along with the borough's three District Parks, Vale Farm, Northwick Park and Gladstone Park. There are fewer parks in the south of the borough, and the size of the parks are also considerably smaller than those in the north. The most deficient areas of Brent include the very south of the borough around the Kilburn area, the south west of the borough around the Wembley area and in the south of the borough in the Stonebridge Park area. Local Parks and Open Spaces, Small Open Spaces and Pocket Parks are, therefore, very important in the south of the borough.
3.5 The parks size designations are taken from the GLA's "open space hierarchy" as adopted in the London Plan, 2008. London Plan Policies 3D.8, 3D.11 and Table 3D.1 introduce the hierarchy, the purpose of it being to act as a starting point for boroughs to identify broad and future open space needs. The table offers some structure to help identify priorities for addressing open space deficiencies, giving indicative maximum distances of particular areas of parkland away from houses, which will be discussed more fully later in the chapter. The GLA's indicative distance standards are shown in the fourth column in the table below (N.B. this typology includes recreation grounds which are also covered in the sports chapter).
Table 3.1 Size and type of Brent parks and open spaces
Type Count Area (ha) Distance from homes
Metropolitan Parks (60-400ha) 1 115 3.2 kilometres
District Parks (20-60ha) 3 99 1.2 kilometres Local Parks and Open Spaces (more than 2a) 28 208 400 metres Small Open Spaces (under 2ha) 22 23 Less than 400 metres Pocket Parks (under 0.4ha) 20 3.5 Less than 400 metres Linear open spaces - - Wherever feasible Total 85 463
14 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
3.6 The Planning service conducted a pilot Open Space survey in June 2008, which asked residents what they thought about the quantity of parks within the borough. The survey was sent out to a random sample of households in the north and south west of the borough, where the quantity of parks and individual park sizes differs considerably.
3.7 The survey results showed that 72% of respondents living in the north of the borough considered that there was enough or more than enough open space in Brent. Satisfaction with the quantity of open space fared slightly worse in the south west of the borough, with 68% of respondents considering that there was enough or more than enough open space. These results concur with the Council's consideration that there is better provision of open space in the north of the borough.
Quality of provision
3.8 A measure of quality for parks and green spaces is the national Green Flag award. The award is given on an annual basis and winners must apply each year to renew their Green Flag status. Parks and green spaces are judged against 8 criteria; 'A Welcoming Place', 'Healthy, Safe & Secure', 'Clean & Well Maintained', 'Sustainability', 'Conservation & Heritage', 'Community Involvement', 'Marketing' and 'Management'. Six parks in Brent currently hold the Green Flag award status:
Roundwood Park - winner since 1999 Gladstone Park - winner since 2005 Queen's Park - winner since 1997 (City of London) Mapesbury Dell - winner since 2009 Barham Park - winner since 2009 Preston Park - winner since 2009
3.9 Roe Green Walled Garden also holds a Green Pennant award that recognises high quality green spaces managed by voluntary and community groups.
3.10 The Planning service Pilot Open Space survey asked respondents how they rated their local Brent park in terms of its quality.
3.11 The survey results showed that the majority of residents in the north and the west of the borough considered that public parks were of an excellent or good standard (75%). However, residents in the north of the borough, where there is a larger provision of open space, were less satisfied with the quality of their parks; only 66% of residents rated the quality of open spaces as being "good" or "excellent", compared to 80% living in the west of the borough. Indeed, fewer residents in the west of the borough felt that parks in their area were of a poor or very poor standard, at 15%, compared to 26% of respondents living in the north of the borough. These figures might be explained by the fact that there are more parks, especially larger parks in the north of the borough, which might be harder to manage and maintain than the smaller parks in the south of the borough, therefore their quality is generally poorer or more "wild".
Local demand, use of parks and accessibility
3.12 The Parks Survey 2008 is an annual survey conducted by the London borough of Brent Park Service. The main objectives of this annual survey are to:
establish the standard of parks in the borough and whether they meet the demands/needs and expectations of communities both now and in the future; ascertain what the real issues are amongst stakeholders, how well used and appreciated parks and open spaces are, how accessible they are and what improvements /changes people wish to see; monitor service improvements.
15 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
3.13 The survey asked initially how often residents used parks and if the parks that the residents used were local parks. The survey showed that 704 respondents out of a total 1001 respondents (70%) had used one of the parks managed by the Council within the last year, whilst 30% had used a park outside Brent within the last year. This indicates a rise in the use of Brent Parks by residents since the previous Parks Household Survey. Around five per cent of the 1001 people who responded to the Survey stated that they did not visit a park at all. The main reasons for this were concerns over safety (27%); a lack of mobility/ age related illness or disability (21%); no time to visit parks (14%) and no need to use parks as other facilities such as sports grounds and other open spaces are are used (14%).
Table 3.2 Frequency of visits to parks
Frequency Per cent
Almost every day 21.9%
Once or twice a week 40.2%
Once a month 20.8%
Once every six months 5.8%
Once a year 1.8%
Less often 3.4%
No visit 5.7%
3.14 Respondents were also asked whether they preferred to use the park nearest to their house or a different park. 70% of respondents did use their local park whilst 18% did not. Those who did not were asked why this was. The most popular response, accounting for one fifth of responses, was because of a lack of facilities at the nearest park. Other top reasons for people not visiting their nearest park was because of a poor quality environment (20%); a preference for visiting other parks (15%); safety concerns at the local park (13%) and lack of play facilities at the local park (7%). Presence of dogs, too many young people and lack of a cafe were other reasons given for not visiting the local park.
Table 3.3 Reasons why people do not visit their local park
Reasons for not visiting nearest park Lack of facilities in park 22.4% Poor quality environment 20.4% Prefer other park 14.5% Do not feel safe in local park 12.9% Play area not big enough/ no play facilities 7.1% Park too small 5.1%
3.15 The Planning service Pilot Survey also asked residents how far they were prepared to travel to visit parks. The 2008 survey found that over 75% of people were prepared to undertake a travel up to 15 minutes to a park in order to visit it. The most popular method of getting to the park was by walking.
3.16 It is also important to note that people who work in the borough may also use Brent's local parks, before or after work, or/and during lunch breaks - the survey does not take into account the open space needs of these people.
16 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
3.17 The report showed that the majority of respondents who used parks did use them on a regular basis (i.e. more than one to two times per week). This indicates that the parks people are visiting, both inside and outside the borough, are local to people in one way or another, for example their proximity to the workplace or their home (including those which lie outside the borough but are close to people's homes), or as a through-way to a particular place.
3.18 The Planning Service Pilot Household survey 2008 asked residents' opinions and expectations of areas of open space within the borough of Brent. Question 5 required respondents to rate different aspects of open space between one and ten, ten being most important, and were asked how far they were prepared to travel to visit each area of open space by classification. An average of 41% of respondents that returned the questionnaire filled in Question 5, a much lower figure than responses for most of the other questions in the survey. This may be because fewer people understood what was required of the question, and so did not answer it, or those who did filled it in incorrectly. Despite these problems, those who did answer question 5 correctly generally did so fully, although with a response rate range of only 13 between each sub question. Whilst the responses were based only a pilot study, it is acknowledged there is some value in the responses which helps to support the Parks Annual Survey data.
3.19 The Planning Service Pilot Household survey 2008 concluded that residents rated parks as the most valuable areas of open space, with 46% of respondents rating their value as 10/10, the highest possible score. The results were scored cumulatively by giving each response by per cent a value, with the higher ratings scoring more points than the lower ratings (for example a rating of 1 scored one point, whilst a rating of 10 scored ten points). These scores were added up to give each classification of open space a cumulative score, which enabled each classification of open space to be ranked cumulatively by its value to the local community. Parks scored the highest at 548, followed by children's playgrounds at 484 and amenity areas at 464. Residents rated natural areas, followed by cemeteries and churchyards the least valuable, with scores of 219 and 298 respectively.
3.20 In assessing local demand, it is important to look at future predictions and demands on open space as this will be important in setting local standards. The London borough of Brent's population is expected to grow significantly, which will have implications on the pressure placed on open space, and in some areas, new open space will be required. The 2001 Census recorded a residential population of 263,454 and the GLA has recently estimated that Brent's population had increased to 276,849 in 2006 (Mid Year Estimates). However, the Council’s own study, undertaken by Professor Mayhew, concluded that Brent’s actual population figure was at least 289,000.in 2007. To facilitate this growth, the Council has allocated five core "Growth Areas" within its Core Strategy, to deliver at least 22,000 homes up to 2026. A total of 11,500 of these homes are to be built in the Wembley area.
Setting Local Provision Standard
3.21 Parks are some of the most valuable open space designations within the London borough of Brent, as was identified by residents in the Council's Planning Service Pilot Survey (2008) and the Annual Household Parks Survey (2008). It is important that the Planning Service and the Council sets a holistic standard for the provision, protection, enhancement and maintenance of parks in the borough. The Planning Service has worked with the Council's Park Service to set an open space standard that it is workable, realistic, deliverable, affordable, and one that can be consistently maintained in the future. It should be noted that the Council has a responsibility to be in conformity with regional and national planning policy, as well as taking note of other physical, social, economic and environmental objectives and constraints in the borough. An example of some of the other issues within the borough are:
density constraints; demand for housing and housing delivery (Brent to deliver 1,120 homes per year as set by the London Plan 2008);
17 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
lack of affordable housing; overcrowding.
3.22 Conflicting pressures on land in Brent and its position in London as a high density outer London borough make it a particularly problematic area for which to set an open space standard. Fields in Trust set recommend an indicative minimum open space standard of 2.4 hectares (6 acres) per 1000 people (The Six Acre Standard, National Playing Field Association/ Fields in Trust, 2001). The standard is comprised of two open space components - an outdoor sport standard of 1.6 hectares (4 acres) and a children's play space standard of 0.8 hectares (2 acres). It should be noted that this is a national standard and is not sensitive to the unique circumstances of London where the opportunity for creating new open space is problematic at best, given high land prices and the intensity of existing development. Indeed, if this standard were to be adopted, the Council would be some way off providing the 2.4 hectares per 1000 people, with currently only having 1.67 hectares per 1000 people. The Council does not consider that this is an achievable or realistic standard.
3.23 The GLA has adopted a more pragmatic approach to meeting current and future open space needs, which better reflects the situation in London. As mentioned earlier, London Plan policies 3D.8, 3D.11 and Table 3D.1 introduce an open space hierarchy to use as a tool for boroughs to identify broad areas of public open space deficiencies and priorities for allocating new open space (see Table 1). The Council has a duty to ensure that its priorities relating to open space provision are realistic and can be delivered, whilst ensuring that the open space needs of its residents are met. The Council recognises that, in order to be multi-functional, parks should normally be over 2 hectares in size. The Local Authority has a large number of 'Local Parks' (i.e. parks over 2 hectares) which are distributed fairly evenly across the borough, and make up the majority of open space provision in Brent (over half of open space provision at 131 ha). Local Parks are also recognised as being the most deliverable classifications of open space both in financial and land availability terms, and maintain a large enough area to meet the needs of residents by being appropriately sized and versatile. Therefore, it is considered that the provision of local parks is a good measuring stick for identifying present and future open space deficiencies in Brent. Map 3.1 shows Local Park open space deficiencies in Brent using the London Plan 2008 access standard of 400m.
18 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Map 3.1 Local Open Space Deficiency Areas
3.24 The Council recognises that where there are no plans for major growth, there is very little scope to find available funding or land to provide new park space; this is because of high land values and a lack of available land, making new park land hard to secure. However, in Growth Areas, the Council recognises that the increased population will have a knock on effect for open space.
3.25 The Council's research has shown that there is an intrinsic link between the quality of parks and how much they are utilised. When parks are of a poorer quality in the borough, fewer people have tended to visit these parks. Therefore, the Council's primary aim is ensure that its existing parks reach their full potential in terms of visitors by ensuring they are of a high enough quality to ensure their maximum utilisation. At present, five of Brent's parks have Green Flag awards for their high standards of maintenance. These are Gladstone Park, Roundwood Park, Barham Park, Mapesbury Dell and Preston Park (Queen's Park also has a Green Flag award and is owned and managed by the City of London). The Council's Parks Service has a measurable target of bringing all parks in the borough up to Green Flag award standard (including parks which are too small to be eligible for the award - the standard is to be used as a baseline target). This target enables the quality of the parks to be measured and monitored consistently.
3.26 The Planning service considers its key aims, in priority order relating to open space provision to be:
1. Maintaining high standards and facilities in parks; 2. Enhancing and improving the borough's parks and existing facilities;
19 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
3. Improving access to parks, especially by foot and by bike; 4. Providing a range of new facilities within parks that promote and are compatible with a multitude of users; 5. Providing new areas of park land where this is viable and where maintenance costs can be covered and maintained.
Areas of deficiency and future priorities
3.27 The Council's key priority for its parks is to improve those within the areas where there are the most deficiencies, in line with the priorities in the Parks Strategy. Future priorities to respond to key public concerns include; safety and security, infrastructure repairs and landscape improvements and general maintenance and upkeep. Indeed, one of the key elements of this will be to obtain Green Flag Awards in areas in the borough where there are the most open space deficiencies, or where parks were voted the poorest quality/ least visited etc.
3.28 The Council will also respond to opportunities where they arise in areas where there is evidence of need to create new public open spaces. The Infrastructure and Investment Framework has identified the following open space needs arising in the the Growth Areas:
Table 3.4 Open space requirements by growth area
Growth or Regeneration Area No. of expected new Open Space Requirements homes up to 2026 Wembley 11,500 New park (min. 1.2ha)
3 x new pocket parks/local squares (min 0.4ha)
Improved links to existing open spaces at Sherrans Farm and Chalkhill
Enhance wildlife area along Wealdstone Brook
Alperton 1,600 New public open space (1ha) 3 x new canal-side pocket parks/local squares Burnt Oak/Colindale 2,500 3 x new pocket parks (min 0.2ha) Church End 800 New 2 ha park (incorporating cemetery land) South Kilburn 2,400 Expand South Kilburn Open Space 4 x pocket parks Park Royal ~ New park at Coronation Gardens (2ha) 3 x new pocket parks/local squares (0.2ha) North Circular Road ~ Green links - improve walking and cycling links between open spaces in the area New open space corridor adjacent to the NCR
20 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 4. Provision for children and young adults
Introduction
4.1 Children's play and outdoor recreation comes in a number of shapes and forms including equipped play areas, ball courts, and skate parks. This section focuses on open space provision dedicated to children's play. In some instances, particularly with provision for older children and young people there will be overlaps with outdoor sports provision - for example multi-use games areas are covered in the outdoor sports section.
Summary of docs/strategies drawn upon
1. Brent Play Strategy (2005) 2. Brent Parks Strategy (2004-2009) 3. Brent Playbuilder bid 2008 4. Brent Parks Strategy (Draft 2009)
Current Provision
Quantitative assessment
4.2 There are 48 play spaces in the borough which are managed and maintained by the Council. 6 of these do not have any equipment, there are also a number of play facilities across the borough which are not maintained by the council and are within housing areas or other locations (e.g sports facilities). The Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance - Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation sets a typology of 4 key different types of play space in London - doorstep, local, neighbourhood and youth space. Each category has a target age group and minimum size requirement. The SPG recommends that the minimum size for a neighbourhood play space should be 500 sqm. Within Brent however, play spaces catering for all age groups tend to be at least 1500 sqm.
Table 4.1 Mayor's Typology of Play Spaces in London
Type Description Age Group Typical Size Location Doorstep Playable A small landscaped area including engaging 0-5yrs 100sq m Residential areas, pockets parks, public Space features for young children and seating area for squares, home zones. carers Local Playable Space Landscaped area & equipment for children up to 0-11yrs 300sq m Residential areas, local parks. 11 years and seating area for carers Neighbourhood Varied landscaped area with equipment for children All ages 500sq m Larger residential areas & housing Playable Space up to 11 years and also some youth facilities and estates, Local parks, District parks. seating area for carers. May be supervised. Youth Space Social space for young people aged 12 & over to 12+ Min 200sq m Larger residential areas, adjacent to meet, hang out & take part in informal physical community facilities, local parks, district activity. parks, town centres.
4.3 Play spaces in the borough range in size from 240sqm to over 2000 sqm. The majority (76%) of Brent play spaces are Local playable spaces. Other play spaces not managed by the council tend to be smaller facilities catering for residential areas - doorstep play spaces (52%). A map of all play spaces is provided in Appendix 2.
21 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Table 4.2 Brent play spaces
Playground Type Number of council playgrounds Other play facilities Doorstep Playable Space 2 11 Local Playable Space 32 9 Neighbourhood Playable Space (1500 sqm) 8 1
Map 4.1 Brent Play Spaces 2009
Qualitative assessment
4.4 Brent play spaces are inspected regularly and all are maintained to a good standard, the quality of other types of play space is more varied, at some sites play equipment has been removed due to problems maintaining the facility
4.5 Feedback from the annual parks survey provides a sample of resident's views on the quality of play provision in Brent parks. In 2007, 7 playgrounds were rated as fair (16%), 34 as good (79%) and 2 as Very Good (5%). Residents also state what improvements they would like to see, common responses include:
Greater range of equipment for children with disabilities More adventure play Sandpits
22 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Creative & innovative play More bins and benches More equipment for younger children Paddling pool Equipment made from natural products Incorporate the natural environment more Division of space between young and older children More trim trials More equipment with sports emphasis
4.6 For parents, concerns over stranger danger is consistently given as a reason for not using facilities. Brent Parks Wardens are permanently based at seven major parks with a mobile patrol service covering all other parks in the borough. Parks Wardens patrol Roundwood Park, Barham Park, Gladstone Park, King Edwards VII Park, Roe Green Park, Preston Park and St Raphael’s/Gibbons Recreation. The wardens can respond to problems raised by members of the public and their presence helps children and families using the parks and play sites feel safe and secure.
Local Needs
Consultation with Young People
4.7 Young people have been targeted in a number of consultation events to establish their needs and aspirations for play provision in the borough.
Brent Play Strategy
4.8 The Play Strategy sets out a shared vision for play in Brent. Wide consultation was undertaken for its preparation in 2004 which included workshops targeting children aged 10/11, a summer play scheme project involving 500 children who were asked to design their 'perfect play environment', parent and children surveys and a one day event held at the Children's Forum. The results of the consultation are organised around 4 themes and a summary is provided below:
Table 4.3 Brent Play Strategy Consultation Results
Outdoor Play Playing Sports Strong demand for aerial runway, adventurous climbing frames Football, basketball, cricket and netball most popular team games & tunnel slide Swimming pool very popular (reference also to wave machines, warm Slides & swings are the most popular equipment water & safer changing facilities) Strong demand for animal/pet areas Strong demand for more open space to 'run around' Separation of under 8's and over 8's play was popular Demand for more organised activities in parks Sand and water most requested play activity materials Suggested designated 'play areas' where traffic is prohibited Demand for borough-wide events, tournaments
Indoor Play Access Ball ponds popular with children & parents Demand for 7 days a week play opportunities Refreshments/vending machines important Adventure Playground single most requested play facility (children Music very popular element of indoor play & adults) Football tables & pool tables most popular equipment Parents of children with special needs request same opportunities Access to drinking water as mainstream children Sensory, soft play, quiet room common suggestion
Brent Playbuilder Programme
23 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
4.9 Brent successfully bid for £1 million 'Playbuilder' funding to improve play provision between 2008-2011. The consultation plan for the improvement programme included Planning for Real workshops with 8-13 year olds which involved visits to existing play sites and survey type exercises. 31 children from over 20 primary schools took part in the consultation. The children gave responses to the following three survey questions;
Table 4.4 Playbuilder Consultation
What type of adventure play equipment If you could only change one thing in a If you had £1 million to spend on the perfect would you like to see in a playground? playground, what would it be? playground, where in Brent would it be and what would it include? Mini train railway Trampoline floor/soft floor/safety tarmac Where?
Monkey bars More equipment Kingsbury, Harlseden, Willesden, somewhere easy to get to, Barham Park, Gladstone Park, in the middle of Brent, Slides & swings More space Wembley, Thurby Rd Park, Maysbury Park, Vale Farm, Roundwood Park. Basketball, football, rugby & tennis Nature and natural materials What? Roundabout More colourful Flowers, grass, nature area, monkey bars, swings, slides, Skate boarding area No dogs lots of balls, rackets, climbing frame, slide, space net, disabled swing, see-saw, sandbox, ships, football pitch, Seesaw More cleaners and youth workers skateboard & mountain bike park, tree house, swimming pool, go-karting, electronic games, police, cleaners, youth workers, jungle, trampoline, bike racks, tennis court. Climbing frame More equipment for children with disabilities
Sandbox General condition of equipment - make sure it's not broken or rusty Bike park Separate younger & older children's Disabled area/ wheelchair swing equipment
Tree house
Pirate boat
Waterfall/water fountains
Obstacle course
Space net
Hop scotch
Imaginative things
Animal & bird watching
Bouncy castle
TellUs3 Survey (2008)
The TellUs survey is a national survey carried out by Ofsted asking young people their views about their local area. Evidence from the survey contributes towards the local authority's annual performance assessment of children's services. 60 Brent schools were randomly selected by Ofsted to take part and in total 1,768 young people completed the survey. Key findings from the 2008 survey which relate specifically to open space and recreation were:
Local Parks: 60% said local parks and play areas were very/fairly good compared to 44% nationally. 17% said they were fairly/very poor compared to 30% nationally.
24 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Physical activity: 30% said they did at least 30 mins of sport in last 6-7 days. This was below the national average of 36% but an improvement on 2007 results. Things to do in the local area: Swimming, going to the cinema, sports club or youth club are activities young people in Brent would like to do but don't at the moment (comparable with the national average). Improving the local area: when asked what could be done to make the area a better place to live, the most popular answers were: cleaner and less litter (53% compared to 48% nationally), better sports clubs or centres (49% compared to 44% nationally) and safe area or less crime (56% compared to 39% nationally).
Children & Parents open space and play workshop - Harlesden Library
A workshop was held at Harlesden Library in July 2008 to gather the views of children and parents about their local green spaces and play facilities. Twenty children took part in the afternoon. 3-4 parents were also involved. The children annotated maps of their local area, completed a questionnaire, designed their 'dream play area' and reviewed plans for a new play space near by. Most people walked to their local open space, and it generally took between 5 -10 mins. Roundwood Park is the nearest district park to Harlesden, and is one of the most popular parks in the borough. When asked, the children and parents were happier with the quantity of local open space (60% said good) and play facilities (66% said good/fair) but were less happy with the quality (20% rated the quality as poor).
Needs not currently met
4.10 Similar issues have been raised in different consultation events with children, young people and parents/carers and the following gaps in provision have been identified:
Adventure Playground (since consultations Stonebridge Adventure Playground has been refurbished & reopened) Animals, sand and water most desired features School playgrounds are an underused resource Fears of road safety and perceived 'strange danger' - importance of help points, lighting and prioritising traffic calming Demand for at least one specialised play facility designed to cater children with wide range of disabilities or special needs. Better sports facilities (particularly swimming pool) More supervision and organised activities Need for disabled toilet facilities in parks
Setting Local Provision Standards
4.11 The Major's SPG Providing for Children and Young's People's Play and Informal Recreation sets benchmark standards for the provision of play within new development. The standards have been developed to address the need for playable space in London and they take into account the following issues:
Child occupancy rates depending on type & tenure of development Play provision for mix-use developments Accessibility standards for different age groups Quality play provision Varied types of play provision Enhancement of existing off-site provision Safety and security Inclusive play provision to promote social cohesion
25 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
4.12 The SPG sets a minimum benchmark standard of 10 sqm of dedicated play space per child to meet the needs arising from an increase in the child population of an area (this is in addition to other quantitative standards for open space provision, although the SPG acknowledges the multi-functional use of open space). The SPG also sets accessibility to play standards:
Table 4.5 Mayor's SPG Play accessibility standards
Maximum walking distance from residential unit (taking into account barriers) Under 5's 100m 5 -11 year olds 400m 12 and over 800m
4.13 Provision for under 5's should always be provided on-site, whereas the provision for older children should either be provided on-site or off-site depending on whether there is existing play facilities and whether these are within the maximum walking distances.
Applying the standard, identifying areas of deficiency and local priorities
4.14 An assessment of how well existing play provision meets local needs was made by using the 400m accessibility standard to measure how well areas are served for play taking into account child population density. Actual walking distances to play areas have been used, whereby barriers such as major roads and railway lines are taken into account . Two types of deficiency area are identified - Access and Quality. Areas with a high child population density (over 1,250 children per sqkm) and which do not have a play area within 400m are defined as having poor access. Areas which have access to a play area within 400m but the play area scores poorly in quality, are defined having poor quality. Map 4.1 shows the distribution of these small areas. Wembley Central, north of Dollis Hill, Stonebridge and north of Willesden Green wards have poor access to play. Parts of Kilburn and Church End have poor quality play.
26 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Map 4.2 Play Priority Areas
4.15 As this benchmark standard has been designed to meet play needs in London, Brent proposes to use the standard locally. The standard has informed a recent successful funding bid to the Government’s ‘Playbuilder’ fund which included a detailed needs analysis of play areas across Brent including play provision in the borough’s parks. The needs assessment included spatial mapping of the accessibility of 43 existing play sites (using the London Plan 400m actual walking distance threshold) in relation to areas of child population density. It also mapped the play spaces in relation to other amenities (i.e. public open space, schools, public toilets), and in relation to areas of relative deprivation. The needs assessment included a detailed audit of the condition of sites and included proposed developments at the time of the audit. The following priority play spaces were identified through the needs analysis:
Table 4.6 Playbuilder Scheme 2008-11
Year Play Space Ward 2008-9 Carlton Vale Open Space Kilburn Gladstone Park Dollis Hill Woodcock Park Kenton Neasden Recreation Ground Dollis Hill One Tree Hill Open Space Alperton Springfield Open Space Queensbury
27 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Year Play Space Ward Streatley Open Space Kilburn Eton Grove Queensbury 2009-10 Villiers Road - New Play Space Dudden Hill Mount Pleasant Alperton Brent River Park Tokynton Kimberley Road Kilburn 2010-2011 Bramshill Road - New Play Space Harlesden Chalkhill Open Space - New Play Space Barnhill Barham Park Sudbury Roundwood Park Harlesden Sunny Crescent Stonebridge Hazel Road Open Space Kensal Green King Edward Park Preston
28 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 5. Outdoor Sports Facilities
Introduction
5.1 Outdoor sports provision in Brent includes sports pitches (football, gaelic football, rugby and cricket) tennis courts, basketball courts, netball courts, bowling greens, athletics tracks and associated changing facilities. These facilities can be on natural or artificial surfaces and are both publicly and privately owned. A significant proportion of the borough's pitches are on school grounds.
5.2 This section covers the following:
1. Current provision of outdoor sports (drawing on Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy 2008 - 2021 and Outdoor Sports Audit 2008) 2. Local demand for outdoor sports (Planning Service targeted household survey 2008, Active People Survey 2006, Annual Parks Survey 2008) 3. Local standards for outdoor sports provision (Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy 2008 - 2021) 4. Areas of deficiency and future priorities (Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy 2008 - 2021, Assessment and Analysis of Local Satisfaction Levels with Sports Facilities in the London Borough of Brent 2008)
Current Provision
Quantity of provision
5.3 Table 5.1 shows the quantity of all types of outdoor sports provision in the borough. Over half of pitches and outdoor courts/facilities are local authority owned and publicly available. A third of outdoor sports facilities are on school grounds where there may be some limited public access available out of school hours. Private facilities are generally owned and managed by clubs/private organisations which require membership or an admission fee in order to use. The table shows there is relatively few mini football pitches, however the larger football pitches can be split up for smaller youth-sided matches and training. Multi-use games areas (MUGAs) is the generic name for purpose built outdoor facilities for multiple sports, usually basketball, netball or tennis. Some MUGAs are purpose built for 5-a-side football or hockey but for the purposes of the audit these were classified under Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs)
Table 5.1 Quantity of outdoor sports provision
Type Local Authority owned Education Private Total Football (All types) 36 26 + 2 decommissioned 8 70 Senior Football Pitches 12 5 1 18 Junior Football Pitches 22 19 6 47 Mini Football Pitches 2 2 1 5 Cricket 8 4 5 17 Gaelic Football 8 0 0 8 Rugby 2 1 1 4 Tennis 35 17 22 74 Multi-use games areas (MUGAs) 10 10 1 21 Bowling Greens 7 0 2 9
29 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Type Local Authority owned Education Private Total Synthetic Turf Pitches 1 4 2 7 Athletics Tracks and facilities 1 + 1 decommissioned 0 0 1
5.4 In total there is 76.3ha of grass pitches in the borough. This equates to 0.26ha per 1,000 population.
Quality of provision
5.5 Brent's provision of outdoor sports was audited by Ashley Godfrey Associates in February to March 2008. A Visual Quality Assessment (VQA) incorporating the Electronic Toolkit developed by Sport England was used to assess the quality of sports pitches. The tool was applied to both sports pitches and changing facilities. Full details of the audit can be found in the Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy 2008-2021, a summary and selected results are shown here. The VQA assessment of sports pitches provides ratings according to the range in which the % score falls. This is shown in the following table:
Table 5.2 VQA Assessment of pitches
Score Assessment 90% + An excellent pitch 64-90% A good pitch 55-64% An average pitch 30-54% A below average pitch Less than 30 A poor pitch
5.6 Table 5.3 shows the average quality of outdoor sports provision according to the sport and ownership.
Table 5.3 Quality of Outdoor Sports Provision
Type Local Authority Education Private Football 54 70 58 Cricket 54 ~ 81 Gaelic football 70 n/a n/a Rugby 51 64 73 Changing facilities 66 77 74 Tennis 64 70 85 MUGAs 66 70 95 Bowling Greens 62 n/a 67 Bowling Green Pavillions 67 n/a 54 Synthetic Turf Pitches 62 93 100 Athletics Tracks and facilities Very good n/a n/a
5.7 Disappointingly local authority pitches are in the worst condition, with 15 out of the 36 football pitches being below average quality and with none being rated as excellent. Only 11% of Brent's grass pitches are in good condition for outdoor sport and potentially the remaining pitches are substantially underutilised. Pitch drainage improvements have recently been undertaken at Gibbons Recreation Ground and Gladston Park. There have also been pitch improvements at a number of schools (Preston Manor High School, Kingsbury High School,
30 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Claremont High School and Queens Park Community School). The quality of education pitches is generally better than the local authority pitches, only one football pitch is rated as below average, and 8 are rated as average. None are rated as excellent.
5.8 From the site survey the symptoms of poor conditions on local authority sites included water-logged pitches indicating poor drainage, poor condition of goalmouths and uneven surfacing, high proportion of weeds, damage from cars having been driven across them, collapsed drains, golf divots, damage from horse riders, and at Silver Jubilee Park bricks were observed at surface level.
5.9 Not all playing pitches in Brent have changing room facilities available. One third of Brent sports pitches have changing rooms available for public use. Just over half are in good or excellent condition with Gladstone Park, Willesden Sports Ground and GEC Sports Ground rated the highest. Only 2 were rated as poor, being at Silver Jubilee Park and Tokyngton Recreation Ground. New changing room facilities at Gibbons Recreation Ground were under construction at the time of the audit. Only 7 of the 29 education facilities have changing facilities, most of which are in good condition. Two were rated as being in excellent condition, being the new changing facility at Claremont High School and relatively new facility at the Jewish Free School. More than three quarters of the private playing fields in Brent have changing facilities, which are mainly of average condition.
5.10 There are no floodlit grass pitches in the borough apart from the decommissioned floodlights for the junior pitch at Alperton Sports Ground. There were also once floodlighting facilities at the former Wasps training ground at Vale Farm.
5.11 Local authority tennis courts vary in quality. Of highest quality are King Edward VII Park, which were refurbished in 2006 and Preston Park. In poor condition are Alperton, Chelmsford Square and Woodcock Park, where they have deteriorated to a point where they are virtually unusable. The main problems with local authority tennis courts include uneven and broken surfacing, dilapidated or absent fencing and nets in poor condition. Only four secondary schools in the borough have tennis courts available. However the quality of existing education tennis courts is generally good with an average quality rating of 70%. The private tennis courts in the Borough are generally in good condition. The only clay courts in the borough are at Elmwood LTC and require investment. Wembley & Sudbury LTC have recently been refurbished and two of the courts are floodlit.
5.12 Several primary schools have received grant funding to develop MUGAs in recent years. These facilities are available to the wider public out of school hours. A new MUGA was under construction at Grove Park at the time of the audit. A further MUGA has been granted planning permission at Vale Farm.
5.13 All bowling greens in the borough are in relatively good condition with the exceptions of Alperton Sports Ground and Gladstone Park. Alperton Sports Ground is no longer in use and although Gladstone Park was refurbished in 2006 with Heritage Lottery Funding it was only brought up to a casual standard of play, in the event that demand for bowls may increase in future and subsequently brought up to club standard. Roundwood Park green is the most well used and in the best condition, however the pavilion associated with it is in one of the worst conditions.
5.14 All STPs in the borough are in good condition, with the exception of Vale Farm which appears to be coming to the end of its life. All except Wembley High Technical College have changing room facilities available. A commercial five a-side centre at Goals, adjacent to Alperton Sports Ground provides 14 five a-side courts and 1 seven a-side court, all in excellent condition with high quality changing facilities.
5.15 There is one outdoor floodlit athletics track with high jump, long jump, and pole vault pits plus a hammer and shot put cage at Willesden Sports Centre. This facility is in very good condition, although it was noted that training was allowed on the inside track, which leads to swift deterioration of the surface. The facility at Vale Farm is no longer in use.
31 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Local Needs
Playing Pitch Usage
5.16 The tables below demonstrate the average utilisation of Council owned pitches ascertained from 2007/08 pitch booking records. The majority of football pitches are utilised less than 50% of the time available (4 booking slots are available per pitch - Saturday am/pm and Sunday am/pm). Only the full size football pitches at John Billam are fully booked. The poor quality of the some of the borough's pitches will contribute to their under utilisation. Utilisation of cricket pitches in the borough is significantly higher.
Table 5.4 Pitch usage levels
Playing Pitch Average pitch Football Football Football Gaelic Rugby quality (full size) (Junior) Football (7-a-side or
5-a-side)
Alperton Sports Ground 63 25% ~ ~ Silver Jubilee 37 33% 25% ~ Gibbons Recreation Ground 59 25% ~ ~ Northwick Park 55 38% ~ ~ 25% ~ Tiverton Green 50 ~ ~ ~ ~ 25% Vale Farm 62 67% Sudbury Court 51 63% 50% 50%
Church Lane 55 50% ~ ~ ~ ~
Tokynton 71 25% 25% John Billam 58 100% ~ 25% ~ ~
Roe Green 53 25%
Average 56 45% 33% 38% 25% 25%
Table 5.5 Cricket Pitch Usage
Cricket pitch Average Pitch quality Pitch utilisation Northwick Park 71 50% Vale Farm (not marked out at time of audit) 88% Sudbury Court 46 75% Preston Park (not marked out at time of audit) 100% Average 59 78%
Consultation results
5.17 Extensive consultation has been undertaken to ascertain the views of residents and local sports clubs towards local outdoor sports provision, this includes the Annual Parks Survey, targeted sports club consultation as part of the Priority Sports Development Plans and the Planning Pilot Open Space Survey. A summary of the results of which are provided here to establish local needs for outdoor sports.
32 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Annual Parks Survey
5.18 The annual parks survey of 10% of households in the borough includes a question on satisfaction with sports facilities in Brent parks. The results of the 2007 survey are shown in the table below. Satisfaction levels are generally higher for tennis courts and bowling greens and lowest for football pitches. However there is lack of knowledge about what sports facilities are available in parks and people had a tendency to give a satisfaction rating for facilities that were not actually there.
Table 5.6 User ratings of quality
Very good (%) Good (%) Fair (%) Poor (%) Very Poor (%) Football pitches 8 28 26 11 27 Rugby/Gaelic pitches 10 28 34 22 6 Cricket pitches 9 31 25 24 10 Bowling greens 20 38 22 16 4 Tennis courts 13 35 22 15 14
5.19 Improved drainage, better changing facilities and resurfacing of courts are all improvements residents indicated they would like to see. The 2008 Parks survey asked what facilities would encourage residents to take part in physical exercise, people suggested marked walks and jogging routes would encourage greater physical activity in parks.
Setting Local Provision Standards
5.20 PPG17 requires local authorities to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreation facilities. Local provision standards should include:
A quantitative component A qualitative component An accessibility component
5.21 The Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy sets quantity standards based upon assessments of demand using sport participation figures, team generation rates, and consultation findings.
Table 5.7 Summary of Local Standards for Outdoor Sports
Sports type Local standard (per Quality standard Accessibility standard population) Synthetic Turf Pitches 1 per 50,000 Full size, floodlit STP of good or excellent 1.6km or 20 min walk quality Athletics Tracks 1 lane per 50,000 Good or excellent quality Retain existing provision & accessibility Football Pitches 1ha of grass pitch per 2,500 Good or excellent quality 1.6km or 20 min walk Gaelic Football Pitches 1 pitch per 34,000 Good or excellent quality Located to maximise club development Tennis Courts 1 court per 3,000 Good or excellent quality 1.6km or 20 min walk MUGAs 1 court per 8,000 Good or excellent quality 800m or 10 mins walk in area of high child population density Bowling Greens 1 green per 33,000 Good or excellent quality Retain existing provision & accessibility Rugby Pitches 1 pitch per 279,000 Good or excellent quality Retain new provision at Gladstone park Cricket Pitches 1 pitch per 27,500 Good or excellent quality 1.6km or 20 min walk
33 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Sports type Local standard (per Quality standard Accessibility standard population) Netball Courts 1 per 7,500 Good or excellent quality Provision linked to schools and sports centres Changing Rooms All outdoor sports facilities with Good or excellent quality. Accommodate Publicly accessible adjacent to major 2 or more grass pitches use at same time by different ages and outdoor sports facilities (2 or more pitches) genders. Provide toilet facilities. Larger pitches to provide pavilion.
5.22 Brent is a densely urban area with limited opportunities to increase supply, increasing provision is largely confined to existing pitch sites and improving the quality of sites which have fallen into disrepair. The following priorities have been identified to alleviate deficiencies in provision.
Table 5.8 Outdoor Sports Priorities
Facility Type Location Details Priority Grass pitch GEC Pellat Road Recreation Ground Drainage improvements to allow for new football, gaelic & High improvements cricket pitches Willesden Sports Centre Layout football pitches to meet unmet demand High John Billam Recreation Ground Drainage improvements & new cricket wicket to allow more High intensive use Vale Farm Improve cricket wickets High Northwick Park Drainage improvements to allow more intensive use Medium Silver Jubilee Recreation Ground Pitch & pavilion improvements to allow more intensive use Medium
Alperton Sports Ground Upgrade floodlights to increase floodlit training opportunities Low in the borough Tenterden Sports Ground Drainage improvements to improve rugby provision Medium King Edward VII, Wembley Install pitches for football & cricket to meet unmet demand in High area of expected population growth. Refurbish pavilion. New grass Roe Green Park Install pitches & changing facilities for football & cricket High pitch facilities Vale Farm Bring grass floodlit training ground back into operation High Gibbons Recreation Ground Install changing facilities High Eton Grove Install pitches & changing facilities for football & cricket Medium Grove Park Install junior football pitches Medium Chalkhill Sports Ground Install pitch & changing facilities for football Medium Roundwood Park annex Install pitches & changing facilities for football (subject to Low ground suitability) Preston Park Install junior football pitches Low Refurbish Eton Grove Tennis courts in dilapidated condition. Upgrade facilities in High tennis courts borough parks identified as priority by Tennis Development Alperton Sports Ground Group. Refurbished courts will meet unmet demand in areas Woodcock Park lacking pay and play provision. Chelmsford Squre Gladstone Park Roe Green Park New tennis Central area band of the borough falls outside 4 new courts required to meet current deficit. Medium courts catchment of existing provision. Refurbish One Tree Hill Open Space Dilapidated MUGA in area of high young person density Meidum MUGAs Chalkhill Youth Centre
34 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Facility Type Location Details Priority New MUGAs Gibbons Recreation Ground Lack of publicly accessible facilities in area of high youth High population density King Edward VII Park, Wembley Church Lane Recreation Ground Medium Woodcock Park Eton Grove Gladstone Park (East) Neasden Recreation Ground
South Kilburn Open Space Low
Alperton Sports Ground
Preston Park Sherran's Farm New netball As part of Sports Centre redevelopment & 2 per Need to provide publicly available courts in the borough for Medium courts secondary school this priority sport. New hard court areas should provide for a range of sports including netball. Synthetic Turf Central of the borough Lack of provision in the area, parts of Tokyngton/ Barnhill/ Medium Pitch Welsh Harp has to travel over 20 minutes to a STP. Need for affordable pay and play provision in the borough. BMX Track Chalkhill Lack of dedicated cycling facilities in the borough. Medium refurbished Redevelopment potential of almost disused facility
5.23 Prioritisation for future investment will be needed based on agreed criteria linking to the available resources of clubs, schools, coaches, volunteers and our own Sports Development Team to develop programmes to ensure the new facilities provided are used for the benefit of local communities.
35 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 6. Indoor Sports Facilities
Introduction
6.1 Indoor sports facilities includes those which are provided by the council, the private sector, the voluntary/community sector and other public providers. A variety of different sports can be played using indoor sports facilities, including bowls, tennis, swimming, squash and athletics. These sports can be played in a number of different facilities, including leisure centres, gyms, sports halls and other facilities within schools.
6.2 This section covers the steps to undertaking an assessment of open space as required in the PPS17 Companion Guide:
Current provision of indoor sports (drawing on Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities 2008-2021); Local demand for indoor sports (Planning Service targeted household survey 2008, Active People Survey) Local standards for indoor sports provision (Sports Facilities Improvement Strategy) Areas of deficiency and future priorities (Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities 2008-2021, Assessment and Analysis of Local Satisfaction Levels with Sports Facilities in the London Borough of Brent 2008).
Current Provision
Sports Halls
6.3 Sports halls are extremely important in the borough as they provide a multipurpose space for a variety of sports such as badminton, basketball, netball, gymnastics, indoor tennis and indoor football. They are also used for events/functions, keep fit activities and are a vital community asset where more localised activities can take place.
Quantity of provision
6.4 The borough has 28 sports halls providing a total of 108 badminton-sized courts. Figure1 below shows the sports halls according to ownership, access and size of hall. In total there are 8 sports halls that are available on a pay & play basis, 11 halls which are open to sports clubs or community associations on a booking basis and 9 which are private use only. 40% of halls are small providing 3 or less courts. All sports halls are shown on figure 4. There is no pay & play sports hall provision in the North East of the borough.
Table 6.1 Sports Halls Provision
Ownership Number of large halls (4-courts or Number of small halls (3 or less more) courts) Local Authority Pay & Play 4 2 Education Pay & Play 2 0 Sports club/community association 7 4 Private use 3 6
6.5 Figure 6.2 below shows capacity rations for public and private sports halls. In terms of overall provision, Brent has a high capacity ratio with 68.23m² of sports hall space per 1,000 population. This above the London average of 59.77m, but below that national average of 74.54m. When the private sports halls are removed from the analysis, the borough capacity ratio falls to 47.31m. On face value, it can be seen that in the future with population increases sports hall provision will need to increase with population growth.
36 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Table 6.2 Ratio and supply of public and private sports halls in the borough up to 2016
Overview Current Provision Capacity Ratio (facility type per 100 population) Deficiency/ surplus (in comparison with London Average)
Facility Type Facilities Total (m2) 2001 2011 2016 London England Current Mid (2011) Future (2016) Average Average (2001)
All Sports Halls 28 17,980 68.24 61.17 58.87 59.77 74.54 2232m2 414m2 -274m2 Publicly 19 12,466 47.32 42.42 40.82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A accessible
6.6 Figure 6.3 below shows a breakdown of the wards and the provision of sports hall space divided by the total population in the area. Wards such as Wembley Central, Willesden Green, Sudbury and Queens Park Ward all have over supply compared to the total population in that ward, whilst the South Central and Eastern wards are deficient in sports hall space.
Table 6.3 Sports hall space by ward
Ward Total Area in m2 of all halls Total Population Capacity Ratio Per 1000 Alperton Ward 360 12,340 29.17 Barnhill Ward 3,126 13,172 237.32 Brondesbury Park Ward 861 11,664 73.82 Dollis Hill Ward 679 12,096 56.13 Dudden Hill Ward 0 13,380 0 Fryent Ward 360 11,879 30.31 Harlesden Ward 0 12,250 0 Kensal Green Ward 1,224 10,658 114.84 Kenton Ward 360 11,867 30.34 Kilburn Ward 486 14,137 34.38 Mapesbury Ward 0 13,263 0 Northwick Park Ward 1,206 12,169 99.1 Preston Ward 954 12,821 74.41 Queens Park Ward 1,404 12,385 113.36 Queensbury Ward 741 13,185 56.2 Stonebridge Ward 600 15,941 37.64 Sudbury Ward 1,199 12,314 97.37 Tokyngton Ward 594 11,839 50.17 Welsh Harp Ward 324 12,428 26.07 Wembley Central Ward 1,989 11,010 180.65 Willesden Green Ward 1,844 12,709 145.09
Quality of Provision
The majority of the Borough's sports halls are over 30 years old and, as a consequence, they tend to be less efficient to operate, have increased maintenance costs and lower levels of customer satisfaction. This has resulted in fewer bookings and therefore fewer people are utilising the facilities; conversely, Willesden Sports Centre is a brand new and is well utilised facility despite its fairly low Public Public Transport Accessibility Level. Indeed, the majority of sports halls are located on school sites and these are generally older facilities. The Building
37 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Schools for Future (BSF) programme provides an opportunity to upgrade school sports halls. However, a majority of these sports halls are not available to the community and hence if they were updated, community access must be negotiated. Three other of the borough's non-school sports halls, at Bridge Park, Charteris and Vale Farm sports centre are also ageing but could potentially have the biggest impact on increasing capacity for growth as they are the largest providers for their local communities.
Accessibility
6.7 The map below shows the locations of the sports halls with a breakdown of sports halls which have public access and ones which have private access. All the sites include a 20 minute walk time catchment to represent how much of the borough has access to a sports hall. This 20 minutes (1.6km) catchment has been used as Sport England use this as an indicator for the CPA assessment - Choice and Opportunity which wants to increase the opportunity for people to become more active. The distance has been selected on the basis of previous surveys which have identified that the majority of facility users will travel for up to 20 minutes by foot in urban areas, however it has been noted that for more specialised sports facilities people are willing to travel further. The map shows the whole of the borough is covered with sports hall provision, however the map clearly indicates that people living in the East Central of the borough don't have public accessible sports halls located with a 20 minute walk time. The majority of sports halls are located south of the borough with less in the west and east parts of the borough. This limited public access to sports hall provision does have an impact on levels of unmet demand and this will be discusses further in the section supply and demand.
6.8 Active Places Power website designed by Sport England provides some useful strategic planning tools to help analyse sports provision. One of the planning tools shows how many minutes by walking residents are away from a sports hall which is shown by the map below. Even though there is plentiful supply of sports halls people shown by the red triangles are still over a 17 minute walk time and this doesn't take into account that some sports halls are private and hence there would be even more red triangles if they were taken out of the equation.
Map 6.1 Sports Halls
38 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Swimming pools
6.9 Swimming was recorded to be the most popular activity as recorded in the active people survey. A number of different activities take place in swimming pools from learning to swim to aerobics and they are an essential facility, especially when records show that swimming is women's most popular activity. Given that women's participation rates in 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity is lower than men's participation rates, swimming pools are clearly a valuable resource for women's participation in sport.
Quantity of provision
6.10 Table 6.4 below shows there are 8 pools within the borough and of these 8 only only two swimming pools are accessible to the public on a pay and play basis, with 3 of them belonging to schools with no public access and 3 pools in private health clubs, which are available to the public but only through private membership. Both publicly accessible swimming pools have a 25 m pool and a separate learner pool.
Table 6.4 Current swimming pool provision within the borough
Map Facility Name Post code Ward Lanes Ownership Facility Year Access Point Age Refurbished 1 Vale Farm Sports HA0 3HG Sudbury 6 Local Authority 1979 Pay and Play 2 Willesden sports centre NW10 3QX Willesden Green 6 Local Authority 2006 Pay and Play 3 Grove Park School NW9 0JY Queensbury 3 Community Special 1977 Private School 4 Wykeham Primary NW10 0EX Welsh Harp 2 Community School 1972 Private School 5 North West London NW6 7PP Brondesbury 0 Voluntary Aided 1986 2005 Private Jewish Day School Park School 6 Livingwell Health Club HA9 8DS Tokyngton 0 Commercial 1994 2007 Registered member use 7 Cannons Health Club NW2 5JY Brondesbury 3 Commercial 2002 Registered Park member use 8 Manor Health and NW2 6PG Mapesbury 0 Commercial 2006 Registered Leisure Club member use
6.11 Brent has a significant deficit of water space in comparison with other London Boroughs and the London average. The current provision of 8 pools across the borough equates to 1602 m2 of water space in total (private and public) generating a capacity ratio of around 6.08 m2 per 1000 population. To match the London average of 17.38m2, the borough currently requires an additional 2997m2. This could rise to almost 3,506m2 by 2016 if no additional provision is made and population growth occurs as projected, as detailed in Figure 6 below. When discounting private water space from the calculations, the capacity ratio falls to just 3.26m2 per 1000 population.
Table 6.5 Ratio and supply of public and private swimming pools
Overview Current Provision Capacity ratio (Facility Type per 1000 population) Deficiency/ surplus (in comparison with London Average)
Facility type Facilities Total m2 2001 2011 2016 London England Current Mid (2011) Future (2016) Average Average (2001)
All swimming 8 1602 6.08 5.45 5.25 17.38 18.44 -2977m2 -3506m2 -3706m2 pools Public swimming 2 860 3.26 2.93 2.82 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a pools
Quality of provision
39 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
6.12 The age of the facilities have been included in the table above as this will have an affect on the capacity of the swimming pool, with age the swimming pool won't be able to cope with the same demands as a new pool. The average age of the facilities above are 28 years old which would cause concern about their quality which in turn with affect capacity. The older facilities located at the schools and at Vale Farm sports centre in particular could have an affect on the capacity and their attractiveness for people to use the facilities. The two older school sites with ageing swimming pools are not as much as a concern as they don't allow for public access however if in the future they were to be upgraded/refurbished then there could be an opportunity to negotiate more community access to the facilities.
Accessibility
6.13 The locations of the borough's swimming pools are shown on Map 6.2 publicly accessible facilities are denoted with blue catchment areas of 1.6 km, 20 minute walk and the private facilities are denoted with an orange catchment. The map indicates that the borough has insufficient swimming pools to cover the borough. The majority of residents live outside the recommended catchment of any swimming pool and only a small minority live within a 1.6km (20 minute walk) of one of the two pools accessible on a pay and play basis. The Central, North West, North East and South Central areas of the borough lack provision most at present. This information shows the importance of the two current publicly accessible swimming pools and the need to create more pools open to the public on a pay and play basis.
Map 6.2 Swimming pools
Health and Fitness Facilities
6.14 Sport England defines health and fitness suites as those facilities providing fitness stations for both cardiovascular and strength training more commonly known as gyms and excludes spaces for aerobics and dance activities. The borough has a lower than national average participation in gym activities.
Quantity of provision
6.15 There are 20 health and fitness suites within the borough and only 6 of these are available to the general public on a pay and play basis, 9 are for registered membership use only and 5 are school sites. The 20 venues provide 1258 health and fitness stations across the borough as identified in the table below.
40 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Table 6.6 Provision of health and fitness facilities across the borough
Map Facility Name Post code Ward Stations Ownership Facility Year Access Point Age Refurbished 1 Vale Farm Sports HA0 3HG Sudbury 6 Local Authority 1979 Pay and Play 2 Willesden sports centre NW10 3QX Willesden 6 Local Authority 2006 Pay and Play Green 3 Grove Park School NW9 0JY Queensbury 3 Community 1977 Private Special School 4 Wykeham Primary School NW10 0EX Welsh Harp 2 Community School 1972 Private 5 North West London NW6 7PP Brondesbury 0 Voluntary Aided 1986 2005 Private Jewish Day School Park School 6 Livingwell Health Club HA9 8DS Tokyngton 0 Commercial 1994 2007 Registered member use 7 Genesis Gym and Fitness HA0 1EF Alperton 60 Commercial 1996 2004 Registered member Studio use 8 Uniq Health and Fitness HA1 3TS Northwick Park 50 Commercial 2006 Registered member use 9 Kingsbury High School NW9 9JR Queensbury 8 Foundation School 1991 Private (uppersite) 10 Convent of Jesus and NW10 4EP Kensal Green 6 Voluntary Aided 2003 Private Mary Language College School 11 Fitness First Health Club HA0 4LW Alperton 126 Commercial 2000 2004 Registered member (Alperton) use 12 JFS School HA3 9TE Barnhill 6 Voluntary Aided 2003 Private School 13 Capital City Academy NW10 3ST Willesden 18 Academy 2003 Private Facilities Green 14 Fitness First Health Club NW9 9HN Queensbury 110 Commercial 1998 2007 Registered (Kingsbury) Membership Use 15 Manor Health and Leisure NW2 6PG Mapesbury 270 Commercial 2001 2004 Registered member Club (Cricklewood) use 16 Cannons Health Club NW2 5JY Brondesbury 70 Commercial 2002 2005 Registered member Park use 17 Oakington Manor School HA9 6NF Tokyngton 11 Foundation School 2004 Private 18 Livingwell Health Club HA9 8DS Tokyngton 21 Commercial 1994 2007 Registered Membership Use
19 Energie Fitness Club HA9 6DE Tokyngton 77 Commercial 2004 Registered Membership Use 20 Fitness First Health Club NW6 6RG Queens Park 126 Commercial 1998 2007 Registered Kilburn Membership Use TOTALS 1258 6 Pay and Play
9 Registered Membership Use
5 Private
41 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
6.16 A calculation of capacity ratio as illustrated in Table 6.7 below shows there are 4.77 stations per 1000 population, a ratio that is below the London average of 6.50. To bring the current level of provision in health and fitness facilities in line with the London average, Brent would require an additional 455 stations across the borough now, and by 2016. Without further investment, the shortfall could increase to 727.
Table 6.7 Capacity Ratios of public/ private health and fitness facilities
Overview Current Provision Capacity ratio (Facility Type per 1000 population) Deficiency/ surplus (in comparison with London Average)
Facility type Facilities Total m2 2001 2011 2016 London England Current Mid (2011) Future (2016) Average Average (2001) All fitness 20 1258 4.77 4.2 4.12 6.5 6.42 -455 -652 -727 stations Public Access 6 299 1.13 1.02 0.98 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Quality of provision
Health and fitness sites in the borough are relatively new or recently refurbished, as customers expect to see modern equipment in gyms. The average age of the facilities is 5 years old; when compared to the swimming pools and sports halls, this is substantially better and will generally mean that capacity will not be affected as much in these facilities as the others. Regarding the 4 local authority owned sports centres, all the gyms have had new equipment in the last year and 2 of the gyms have seen them extended and refurbished to increase capacity further. The sports centres have seen a growing number of people using the gyms as new equipment attracts people to use the facilities.
Accessibility
6.17 Map 6.3 indicates that the publicly accessible health and fitness centres are located around the edge of the borough in the South, West and North West and no facilities are located in the North, Central or East parts of the borough. Private facilities cover some of the borough where there are no publicly accessible facilities, however there is a distinct lack of provision in the Central East part of the borough and smaller pockets in the North Central areas. The lack of publicly accessible facilities is a cause for concern for the borough as people may not be able to afford the joining fees and monthly membership fees that private facilities charge, acting as a barrier to certain groups within the borough. It is important to have publicly accessible health and fitness facilities that provide an affordable access and pay and play options, particularly in areas such as Harlesden, Stonebridge and Wembley Central which are affected by deprivation the most.
42 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Map 6.3 Health and Fitness Facilities
Indoor Bowls
Quantity of provision
6.18 The borough is host to only one private indoor bowls centre providing 6 rinks for bowls. Bowls is predominantly a sport which is taken up by older people in the borough, although there has been an emerging crowd of younger people involved in the sport. The demographics of the borough is one of a younger population where other parts of the country have an increasing older population. However, it is still important to provide facilities which will attract an older age group, as the active people survey recorded that participation rates in sports and physical activity drop off as people get older.
Quality of provision
6.19 The bowling facility at the Century Bowling club was first opened in 1928 and was resurfaced in 1990. Planning permission was granted in 2007 for the redevelopment of one outdoor green for housing to fund improvements including a new all-weather pitch and club house improvements.
Accessibility
6.20 The map below shows the location of the bowls facility and the 1.6km catchment area surrounding it, indicating that 75% of the borough is out of this 1.6km catchment area. Consequently there is the need for further development to allow a greater proportion of the borough access to such a facility.
43 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Map 6.4 Provision of indoor bowls pitches
Indoor Tennis
Quantity of provision
6.21 The borough currently has no indoor tennis centres, however there are tennis provisions aimed at younger people at the local authority owned sports centres. Indoor tennis is important for the development of tennis participation to allow people to play the sport all year round, as the report 'The Need for Covered Courts' (1998) states.
6.22 Capacity Ratios
6.23 It has already been established that Brent does not currently have any indoor tennis facility provision. However, analysing the capacity ratios for London there is a score of 0.03 tennis courts per 1000 of the population. Consequently, Brent would need 8 court indoor tennis centres to meet the average capacity in London. However, this does not take into consideration facilities in other boroughs that may take away the demand in Brent and this works on the hypothesis that the London average adequately covers the population. Comparing capacity ratios with other London boroughs, all the neighbouring boroughs have indoor tennis provisions; a conclusion could be drawn that they may cover Brent's demand for indoor tennis courts. However, with 11 of the 33 London boroughs including Brent not having any indoor tennis provisions, there maybe more opportunities to provide the facilities.
Accessibility
6.24 There are indoor tennis facilities in the surrounding boroughs and it has been recorded before that people are willing to travel further for the more specialised sports facilities. However, as can be seen from the map below, people living in the green, yellow, orange and red areas have to travel at least 30 minutes, whilst those living in the red triangle areas have to walk for nearly 80 minutes to walk to the nearest indoor tennis centre. To increase participation it is vital to have facilities located close to communities, especially in areas of deprivation where people do not have the means to travel.
44 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Map 6.5 Walking distance to the nearest indoor tennis centre
Indoor Squash Courts
Quantity of provision
6.25 There are only 7 squash courts in two locations across the borough, one location being a not for profit tennis and squash club in Sudbury, where there are 2 squash courts. The other 5 squash courts are located in Vale Farm Sports Centre. Squash became popular in the 1970s, however in recent years the demand for the squash has decreased and any squash courts have been used for alternative activities such as children's play areas or gyms. Vale Farm originally had 6 squash courts, but because of a fall in demand one was converted into a café. Vale Farm still receives over 8,000 visits per year to play squash, which would relate to just over 20 visits a day. However, the spaces lend themselves to be multipurpose in nature and Vale Farm takes advantage of using the courts at quiet times for aerobic classes, for example.
Quality of provision
6.26 The facilities at Vale Farm have recently be refurbished to improve 3 of the courts and further work on the other two courts have brought their standard up to the same level and will now hopefully increase usage.
Accessibility
The two sites which have squash facilities on them are very close together, as illustrated on the map below. Consequently, the majority of the borough are not within a 20 minute walk time to any squash facilities. As previously mentioned squash is seeing a decline in popularity and people are more willing to travel further for squash facilities, however if the facilities were more localised then there would be suggestions that the number of people playing the sport would increase.
Indoor Athletics
Quantity of provision
45 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
There is currently 1 indoor athletics facility in the borough located in the south of the borough at the local authority owned Willesden Sports Centre. This provision is a well used multi use space and a variety of different activities, such as indoor 5-a-side football, spinning classes, tennis, and other children's activities take place within this area. Currently, athletics provision is subdued and sport development initiatives are in place to encourage the use of this facility of people all over the borough.
Quality of provision
The facility is a recently opened (November 2006) indoor straight running track and there is also an outdoor athletics track also supporting the facilityThe track is of a very high standard and in pristine condition ensuring capacity is at its fullest.
Accessibility
The indoor athletics facility at Willesden is illustrated on the map below with a 1.6km catchment.Figure 15 below illustrates that most of the borough are not within a 20 minute walk time of this facility, however as mentioned before for specialised facilities such as these people are willing to travel further as UK Athletics recommend. There are indoor facilities in Haringey, and Windsor which are within a 30 minute drive to the facility, however from the North of the borough none of the facilities are easily accessible via public transport. However in terms of the location the sports centre is in an ideal location to meet the needs of the more deprived areas of the borough.
Indoor athletic facilities need to be considered with the outdoor athletics facilities in the same format as indoor tennis and bowls as indoor facilities tend to be less viable due to higher costs of maintaining and running the facility and are often referred to as luxury additions to outdoor facilities.
Local Needs
6.27 The supply of indoor sports facilities is assessed in a number of ways. These include the strategic planning tools on the Active Places Power website and the two Sport England Facilities Planning Models, which look at sports hall provision and swimming pool provision.
6.28 Sport England’s comprehensive nationwide database of sports facilities ‘Active Places Power’ allows the generation of a local supply and demand analysis based on the population of the the wards in the borough and the capacity of the facilities. This takes into account the number of visits to a facilities based on peak time usage and whether or not the facility is available at these times or whether it is just for private use such as facilities based on school sites. However, these tools are only available to analyse the following facilities:
Sports halls; Swimming pools; Indoor Bowls.
6.29 Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM) provides a step further in relation to analysis of facility provision. The FPM evaluates the capacity and availability of each facility during opening hours and sets this against the demographic profile of the population (and therefore the propensity of a percentage of the population to participate) within a recognised catchment of the facility (1.6km). In doing so, a measure of the level of demand met can be established. Conversely, the resulting level of ‘unmet demand’ (e.g. population that cannot get access to a sports hall whether as a result of location or programming) proves valuable in evaluating the need for further sports facility provision and the locations in which that need is greatest. The FPM also takes in consideration the age of the facility, given that they will have an affect on the usage of the centre.
46 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
6.30 This measurement is not restricted to borough boundaries. The FPM modelling applies to a designated study area (typically the neighbouring boroughs in which the FPM is being run) and takes into account the likely import and export of demand across the borough. In addition, the facilities planning model allows analysis of different scenarios such as the impact of planned facility provision or the closure of existing facilities. The FPM model only relates to sports halls and swimming pools and the results are summarised below.
Sports Halls - supply and demand analysis
6.31 A comprehensive assessment of levels of both supply and demand has been made for Sports Halls, using Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM).This strategic facility planning tool allows an estimation of demand across a set study area (Brent and neighbouring boroughs) against the current and future level of provision. Calculating how supply vs demand changes is dependent on key scenarios, notably changes in facility stock and increases in population, allows a prediction of the future issues in relation to sports hall provision across the area.
6.32 Figure 16 below gives a breakdown of the supply and demand for specific wards within the borough. This allows for an analysis to be made at a local level, although it does not take into account the fact that people in other wards may also use a facility. Barnhill ward has an extremely high supply of sports halls compared to the demand, however wards surrounding Barnhill, Fryent, Kenton, Preston, and Welsh Harp don't have any sports hall provision; therefore it is more than likely that people will use facilities in Barnhill. Out of the 21 wards there are 11 which do not have any sports hall provision which could lead to problems with certain sections of the borough not having access to facilities. Only 6 of the wards in the borough actually cover the demand of the ward for sports hall provision, however overall 84.22% of the demand is met in the borough, lower than the national average of 109.4% but higher than the London average of 78.3%.
Table 6.8 Supply and demand of sports halls by ward
Ward Capacity Demand Balance % Demand Met Alperton Ward 0 626 -626 0% Barnhill 3435 621 2814 553.14% Brondesbury Park Ward 495 592 -97 83.61% Dollis Hill Ward 0 601 -601 0% Dudden Hill Ward 0 685 -685 0% Fryent Ward 0 576 -576 0% Harlesden Ward 0 616 -616 0% Kensal Green 0 547 -547 0% Kenton Ward 0 550 -550 0% Kilburn Ward 607.5 736 -128 82.54% Mapesbury Ward 0 704 -704 0% Northwick Park 710 593 117 119.73% Preston Ward 0 627 -627 0% Queens Park 1110 647 463 171.56% Queensbury Ward 502.5 635 -132 79.13% Stonebridge Ward 810 796 14 101.76% Sudbury 1012.5 613 400 165.17% Tokyngton Ward 560 587 -27 95.4% Welsh Harp Ward 0 614 -614 0%
47 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Ward Capacity Demand Balance % Demand Met Wembley Green 0 550 -550 0% Willesden Central 1875 685 1190 27 Brent % Demand Met 82.22% London Average % Demand Met 78.30% England Average % Demand Met 109.04%
Sports Halls - analysis of population and provision up to 2016
6.33 Research carried out for the council's Sports Improvement Strategy ran two assessments of the Facilities Planning Model (FPM). Run 1 identified current capacity, whilst the Run 2 assessed the supply relating to population forecasts up to 2016. The first run identified that the supply of Brent’s sports halls are above the average supply for London and is in fact the second highest level of sports hall capacity across the study area, with 8,700 visits compared to the 46,000 visits in total, across Brent and the seven neighbouring boroughs. However, because of issues of accessibility, demand outstrips capacity considerably across the study area as a whole.
6.34 At present, Brent has a deficit of 4,700 visits compared to the demand and as Brent has one of the largest capacity for sports halls, demand will also be imported from the surrounding boroughs putting even more pressure on the already limited capacity. It is estimated that over 1,270 visits are imported from Westminster and over 1,160 visits from Kensington and Chelsea. Demand for these facilities is greatest towards the south of the borough and just over the borough boundary into Westminster and Chelsea because of their low levels of sports hall capacity. However, there are also high levels of demand across the borough, in central, eastern and northern areas.
6.35 Currently within Brent, unmet demand stands at 28.6% of the population - this equates to approximately 18 badminton courts. The South East of the borough demonstrates the highest shortage at present and 17% of satisfied demand is imported from Westminster, with 15% of demand imported from Kensington & Chelsea (both of which are located south of Brent). Some residents living in central east locations of the borough fall outside a 1 mile catchment of a sports hall and this situation is unlikely to change with the facility provision proposed. An opportunity does however exist to increase access to existing provision located at school sites, and should be explored in context with improvements in quality and access to sports facility provision as part of the BSF programme. The bar chart below illustrates London borough residents' access to sports halls, and it shows that 14% of the borough do not have access to any sport halls which compared to the neighbouring boroughs is only better than Barnet and Hammersmith and Fulham's scores. Around 70% of Camden's residents have two or more sports halls within a 20 minute walking distance.
6.36 The England Badminton priority is to have at least 1 development centre per 50,000 people or within a 15 minute drive time of anyone within an urban area. On this Brent would require just under 6 development centres to the current level of population in areas which would allow access to all of the borough.
48 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Figure 6.1 Population within a 20 minute walking distance of sports halls
6.37 The second run of the FPM in the Sports Improvement Strategy indicates that by 2016, an additional four sports hall sites will be required to be accessible across Brent. The Copland School, Wembley Academy and the re-opening of the currently closed sports halls at Chalk Hill Youth Centre and Moberly Education Centre will provide this sports hall space.
6.38 Assuming the existing facilities remain open, the projected increase in sports hall capacity by 2016 would be a highly significant 48.2%, with more than 12,900 visits compared to only 8,700 visits in 2007. Over the same time frame, the projected demand increase is an additional 3.7% from 13,400 visits to 13,900. This is because the population of Brent will grow from 274,400 in 2007 to 293,400 in 2016 an additional 19,000 people or a 6.9% increase (please note these are conservative estimates of the population growth used in the FPM run, however Brent's own estimates of the growth is considerably more). Sport England have developed a useful tool to assess the impact of increased population on the demand for sports facilities in terms of what is needed and how much it costs. This tool is utilised in many councils to help them work out how much contributions should be made to the council from housing developments. Using the calculator it predicts that an additional 19,000 people over the 9 years will mean that an extra three court sports hall would be needed to cope with the extra demand and this would cost around £2 million to provide at current prices. However because of the increase in sports hall capacity in Brent, the FPM confirms that with the location of the proposed facilities and the increase in capacity this will eradicate most, but not all, unmet demand; on the whole the findings suggest the need for a marginal 2-3 additional badminton courts borough-wide by 2016.
6.39 There is a decrease in the percent of people that have no access to a sports hall within the borough by 2016. If the sports halls are provided this will decrease to 5% compared to 2007, where 14% of the borough had no access within a 20 minute walk to a sports hall (as illustrated below).
49 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Figure 6.2 Population within a 20 minute walking distance of sports halls in 2016
Swimming Pools - Supply and demand analysis
6.40 The Active Places Power website tool, as mentioned earlier, looks at the location of the pools and the demand in that area, identifying where greatest need is for swimming pool provision. The table below illustrates that the Stonebridge ward has the most demand for swimming pools. This is an area of deprivation and would benefit the local population and surrounding wards if provision was located here. However, the tool doesn't take into account the fact that people from other wards or boroughs would use the facilities (especially as both local authority swimming pools are located close to the borough boundary, with Vale Farms catchment even going into Ealing). The table below suggests that 72.53% of the demand is met for swimming pools in the borough however this may appear good until it is compared with London's average score of 156.60% which is double that of Brent, indicating that another two 25m pools are needed to bring it up to the same as the London average. This score includes private facilities and if these were taken out only 43.17% of the demand is met with the current supply, which identifies the need for more public accessible swimming pool provision.
Table 6.9 Supply and demand of swimming pools by ward
Ward Capacity Demand Balance % Demand Met Alperton Ward 0 769 -769 0% Barnhill 0 771 -771 0% Brondesbury Park Ward 1300 704 596 184.66% Dollis Hill Ward 0 744 -744 0% Dudden Hill Ward 0 831 -831 0% Fryent Ward 0 717 -717 0% Harlesden Ward 0 776 -776 0% Kensal Green 0 659 -659 0% Kenton Ward 0 681 -681 0% Kilburn Ward 0 895 -895 0% Mapesbury Ward 1657.5 829 829 199.94% Northwick Park Ward 0 730 -730 0%
50 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Ward Capacity Demand Balance % Demand Met Preston Ward 0 764 -764 0% Queens Park Ward 0 783 -783 0% Queensbury Ward 683.44 790 -107 86.51% Stonebridge Ward 0 1017 -1017 0% Sudbury Ward 3483.59 753 2731 462.63% Tokyngton Ward 1105 709 396 155.85% Welsh Harp Ward 0 757 -757 0% Wembley Central Ward 0 674 -674 0% Willesden Green 3493.75 810 2684 431.33%
Research carried out for the council's Sports Improvement Strategy ran two assessments of the Facilities Planning Model (FPM). Run 1 identified current capacity, whilst the Run 2 assessed the supply relating to population forecasts up to 2016. The first scenario based upon current population and facility provision showed Brent to have the lowest number of pool sites and capacity across the entire study area( capacity of 9,800 visits). Predictably, given the geographical locations, a high percentage (just under 50%) of the Brent population does not live within a 1.6km catchment of a pool site as can be seen from the chart below. Compared to neighboring boroughs Brent is the worse off and Barnet which has the second worse score is about half Brent's score. Notably most of the residents in Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster have access to 2 or more swimming pools within the same catchment area. This is probably because of the high number of private health clubs with pools.
Figure 6.3 Population within a 20 walking distance to a swimming pool
6.41 Demand outstrips supply considerably with demand in Brent representing 16,600 visits compared to a capacity of 9,800 visits. This therefore means that a considerable proportion of Brent’s satisfied demand for swimming is exported to neighbouring Ealing and Harrow - both of which have higher capacity than demand. Despite this, and a critical factor in the case for additional pool provision within Brent, residents across a large area of central and northern Brent are outside the catchment area of any pool which represents 13.5% of unmet demand which is extremely high. The map below identifies the current densities of unmet demand across the borough and surrounding areas. The central, west central, north central, and north east areas of the borough suffer from the highest levels of unmet demand currently.
51 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
6.42 Considering all of the above it means that to cover the unmet demand that is not being met by Brent or the neighbouring boroughs, Brent would require two additional 25 metre 4 lane swimming pools to cover the demand. This is worked out by Brent having the demand of 16,650 visits per week and only a capacity of 9750 visits, meaning that after excluding demand which is exported to other borough there is still an unmet demand of 14% which equals to 2,250 visits or equivalent of two 4 lane 25 metre pools.
6.43 The bar chart below illustrates the borough's problems further when compared to other boroughs. It shows that even though demand is being exported to other borough's facilities there is still a large proportion of the borough who do not have access to a swimming pool shown by the unmet demand bar.
Figure 6.4 Unmet swimming pool demand, 2007
6.44 The FPM also gives estimates on the mode of travel to the sites with swimming pools in the Sports Improvement Strategy. Car ownership in Brent is lower than the regional and England average and the below; apart from Willesden Sports Centre the pools are located in areas where the majority of people will have to use cars or public transport to use the swimming pools.
6.45 This will mean that people in Brent will have further constraints put on them from gaining access to a swimming pool as a low proportion of the borough do not have access to a car. This needs to be taken into consideration when planning for future sports provision and it is vital to have them in areas where there are good transport links. It is estimated that only 12% of people travel by public transport across the four sites meaning that the majority of people will have to drive to go swimming and as mentioned previously Brent has a low car ownership rate so people without a car are less likely to use the sites to go swimming.
Health and fitness facilities - Supply and demand analysis
6.46 Provision and supply and demand of health and fitness facilities are provided in detail in the Sports Improvement Strategy. A total of twenty venues provide a combined 1280 health and fitness stations across the borough. Six venues are accessible on a pay and play basis and nine require registered membership for use and may not be affordable and therefore accessible to all sectors of the local community. In addition, 5 are private facilities and do not allow public access (e.g. Those located at school sites). The distribution of publicly accessible facilities is very much focused towards the southern periphery of the borough. Areas in the north, central and east parts of the borough have fewer health and fitness facilities.
6.47 The table below sets out the number of health and fitness memberships in the borough, this excludes the school sites which do not allow public access. Only 6 of the 15 sites allow the general public to use the facilities on a pay and play basis. 4 of the sites are owned by Brent and one other facility is own by the City of Westminster, giving in total 5 local authority sites. This is important to identify as the National Audit of Fitness consumers
52 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report identified that the lower income groups are underrepresented in health and fitness facilities. However, there is a larger majority of people on lower incomes who use local authority owned health and fitness facilities rather than the privately owned facilities, which emphasises the need for more pay and play facilities in Brent provided by the local authority.
Table 6.10 Health and Fitness Membership
Facility Members Membership Type Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre 270 Pay and Play and Monthly Cannons Health Club 3300 Monthly Membership Charteris Sports Centre 300 Pay and Play and Monthly Energie Fitness Club 350 Monthly Membership Fitness First Health Club (Alperton) 3000 Monthly Membership Fitness First Health Club (Kilburn) 2000 Monthly Membership Fitness First Health Club (Kingsbury) 2000 Monthly Membership Genesis Gym and Fitness Studio 750 Monthly Membership Livingwell Health Club 700 Monthly Membership Manor Health and Leisure Club 1000 Monthly Membership Moberly Sports and Education Centre 1500 Pay and Play and Monthly Uniq Health and Fitness 900 Monthly Membership University of Westminster 650 Pay and Play and Monthly Vale Farm Sports Centre 1050 Pay and Play and Monthly Willesden Sports Centre 5000 Pay and Play and Monthly Total Members 22,770 6 pay and play, 9 Monthly Average Number of members 1518
6.48 In total there are 22,770 health and fitness members within the borough and the Fitness Industry Association (FIA) has stated that 12% of the population currently have a health and fitness membership which is set to continue to grow as it has increased 3% over the last year alone. With current population figures of 279,200 people in Brent, this is only an 8% conversion of the population who have memberships at these facilities. To achieve the national average, there would need to be another 11,168 memberships within the borough. This converts to another 7 health and fitness facilities with 80 stations (560 stations in total) in each needed with an average of 1500 members per facility. The increase of the borough's population will only increase the demand for more health and fitness facilities and by 2016, an additional 13,900 memberships are expected with population growth. This would require an additional 9 health and fitness facilities or 720 stations.
6.49 It has already been stated that there is limited supply of health and fitness facilities in the north, central and east parts of the borough meaning these are ideal locations for new facilities. The majority of health and fitness facilities are supplied by the private industry and it is important to provide more affordable facilities to people who cannot afford to use these facilities. With such a vast amount of health and fitness facilities needed, the private industry should be encouraged to locate the borough or open up health and fitness facilities to the wider community.
6.50 Furthermore, the proposed Building Schools for the Future programme is a vital element to increasing this stock of health and fitness facilities. The majority of fitness members as stated by the FIA report into fitness memberships (2007) are willing to travel up to 2 miles for a local authority health and fitness facility, however for private health and fitness facilities people are willing to travel up to 3 miles. This is important information as it will
53 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report affect the location of health and fitness facilities. Brent's low car ownership will also affect the willingness to travel, therefore facilities should be located in areas with good public transport links and within a large catchment area so people do not have to travel far to use the facilities.
Indoor Bowls
6.51 The borough is home to just one indoor bowls facility with 6 rinks as previously identified. The location of the facility means that it does not cover the borough and a large majority of the population are over 30 minutes walk away from indoor bowls provisions. The Active Places Power tool local supply and demand balance identifies that 46.11% of the demand within Brent is met through this one facility in the Preston Ward. This is because the demand for bowling in relation to health and fitness and swimming is substantially lower. The south of the borough has a particularly low personal share of indoor bowls, however, overall the borough has a higher personal share of 0.45 compared to the London average of 0.44, but lower than the national average of 0.60, which would suggest that bowls provision is not a priority.
6.52 The travel times to facilities also indicated an area south central in Harlesden, Stonebridge and Willesden Green area of the borough where residents were over a 60 minute walk to the nearest indoor bowls facility. However to invest in an standalone bowls facility which can accommodate 6 rinks would be at a cost of £1.7 million as estimated by Sport England's Facilities Calculator. The Facilities Calculator presumes that there should be at least 2 indoor bowls centres with 7 rinks in each for the current population and if the population is to go up to 305,400 by 2016 an additional rink would be needed taking it up to 15 rinks within the borough at a cost of £365,000. Again this is important to know as new housing developments need to take this into consideration as it will increase the demand on an already limited supply. However this should be used with caution as the facility calculator only takes into account demand within Brent and not the import or export to other boroughs.
6.53 A standalone indoor bowls facilities will be costly to build and not viable, therefore other options should be explored, such as making a sports hall adaptable to accommodate indoor bowls facilities. The population in the borough is getting younger and it is predicted that demand for bowls will fall further with years to come in the borough and hence it is suggested that the current provision is adequate for the time being. However if the chance arises to include bowls provision in an adaptable space then it should be considered.
Indoor tennis
6.54 It was previously mentioned in the current supply that an eight court indoor tennis centre would be required to take the borough up to the national average, however local demand for this type of facility needs to be determined. The borough has 6 private tennis clubs within the area which suggests that local demand is there but the viability of an indoor tennis centre would need to be established.
6.55 The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) recommendations for indoor tennis courts is to have a court per 200 regular players and taking the active people survey that 2% of the population play tennis that would equate to 5,488 people playing tennis in Brent. If there was a court per 200 players this would mean that in 2007 Brent would require 27 courts. In 2016 with the increase in the population Brent would require 29 courts. These are recommendations from the LTA however it shows that Brent is extremely deficient in terms of indoor courts and it would be useful to work with the LTA and local clubs further to assess how to make improvements to encourage uptake of the sport.
6.56 Vale Farm Sports Centre has been identified as a potential location for indoor tennis centre as it has the supporting infrastructure such as existing hard courts, grass courts and a small pavilion already located next to the sports centre and it has the infrastructure that exists that may prove worthwhile starting point for further investigation. Vale Farm Sports Centre was identified in the sports centre review as a potential multi sports hub and as part of this site it could attract commercial interests in providing sports facilities including indoor tennis
54 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report courts. The Vale Farm site would be ideally located to support indoor tennis facilities as shown previously people located in the central, west areas of the borough have the furthest to travel to an indoor tennis facility. However the north east part of the borough is also an ideally location for indoor tennis facilities.
Indoor Athletics
6.57 There is currently one indoor facility within the Borough which would cover the demand of the borough according to the UK Athletics target of having one indoor training centre per 500,000 people living within 30 minutes drive. The location of the facility is south of the borough in Willesden Green, which the rest of the borough could access within 30 minutes drive, however low car ownership within the borough needs to be considered and public transport going from one end of the borough to Willesden could be a potential barrier for people using this facility. There are facilities within the surrounding boroughs that would help with demand for an indoor facility however accessing these facilities via public transport is a problem. It was previously identified that the use of the facility at Willesden Sports Centre is lower than expected for Athletics however it is felt that extra sport development activities need to be explored to increase the usage of this facility. Better transport links allowing the north of the borough to use facilities in Willesden will also mean that the facilities will be better utilised and develop the sport further.
Indoor Squash
6.58 There are currently 7 squash courts within the borough across 2 sites. England Squash do not have any recommendations about the number of squash courts, however they are fighting to keep the squash courts that remain, so any redevelopment of Vale Farm Sport Centre would have to take into consideration the demand for the facility and how many squash courts would be needed. Vale Farm Sports Centre receives over 8,000 visits per year to play squash which relates to just over 20 visits per day, which spread over 5 courts would equal only 2 matches per court per day. If these were played at peak time there would be spare capacity for more games suggesting the demand isn't there to cover the current provision. It has been mentioned before that squash courts provide multi use spaces for a variety of activities and if squash courts were provided else where or in the redevelopment of Vale Farm collapsible walls would create even more uses for the space.
6.59 The concern with the squash courts is around their location, both sites are located almost on top of each other with their 1.6km catchment area actually going outside of the borough into Ealing. Therefore meaning that if the squash courts were provided elsewhere within the borough in a place with good transport links it would increase demand due to increase accessibility however it is not seen as a priority but should be thought about in any new developments in other areas of the borough.
Setting Local Provision Standards
As stated in previous sections, PPG17 requires local authorities to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreation facilities. Local provision standards should include:
A quantitative component A qualitative component An accessibility component
6.60 Whilst some indoor sports facilities are in good supply, Brent is a densely urban area with limited opportunities to increase supply, increasing provision is largely confined to existing pitch sites and improving the quality of some sites which have fallen into disrepair.
55 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
6.61 A quantity standard for provision has been derived based upon assessments of demand using sport participation figures, team generation rates, and consultation findings. Much of the local demand assessments is drawn from work undertaken in producing the Sports Facilities Improvement Strategy. The locally derived provision standards are compared with national, regional and other relevant local authority standards where available.
Sports halls
6.62 Sports hall provision is adequate to meet the demand but community accessibility is low especially sports halls located on school sites and a majority of the sports halls are old and of a low quality meaning capacity is reduced. South East and eastern wards are deficient in community accessible sports halls and have the furthest to travel to a sports hall.
Swimming pools
6.63 Brent has a significant deficit of water space in comparison with other London boroughs with only 2 community accessible swimming pools meaning 50% of the borough live more than 20 minutes walk from any swimming pool. The central, north west, north east and south central ares of the borough lack provision most at present. There is demand now for two 25 metre swimming pools currently and this is unchanged by 2016. Demand for health and fitness centres currently outstrips supply. To meet current demand a further 7 health and fitness facilities are needed currently and a further 2 needed to meet additional demand by 2016. There is potential to increase capacity of health and fitness facilities by allowing community access to facilities on school sites to help with unmet demand.
Health and fitness facilities
6.64 There is limited affordable pay and play facilities but also limited private health and fitness facilities, will need to encourage the private sector to increase supply to help meet some of the demand. Pay and play facilities are needed in areas such as Central Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge and Tokyngton. Facilities already located in these areas need to increase capacity to better serve the needs and demands of the community. Need to increase capacity of existing sites with health and fitness facilities to cover the shortfall in demand as it will be hard to introduce 7 new health and fitness facilities. North central and central east areas have the furthest to travel to use a play and pay facility. Research has shown that the borough has demand for another 6 rink indoor centre however research into participation of bowls shows that this is in decline and an indoor centre may not be viable for the future and is therefore not seen to be a priority. The borough currently has no indoor tennis provision and investigations have shown there is a demand for at least and 8 court indoor centre to help the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) develop the sport. The LTA suggests the demand for indoor tennis courts would be higher but seen as the borough currently has no facilities it is appropriate to bring it up to the London average.
Indoor bowls
6.65 The supply and demand for indoor bowls facilities has identified there is unmet demand within the borough. The research has identified that a further 6 indoor bowls rinks are needed within the borough to meet the current demand and this should be located in the south west of the borough where demand is highest. However this will need to researched further to the viability of these sports facilities in such an area as the participation levels of bowling is dropping and the private centre that already exists in the borough has had to explore other avenues to ensure the business is viable. However as there is an increase in sports facilities providing multi use, adaptable spaces bowls facilities could be included in these and not as a standalone bowls centre. On this evidence new bowls facilities shouldn't be a priority but should be taken into consideration.
56 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Indoor tennis
6.66 Assessment of indoor tennis facilities has shown that there is demand for an eight court indoor tennis centre currently and by 2016 the borough would require 9 indoor tennis courts. The Active People Survey identified that 2% of the borough currently take part in tennis and using the Lawn Tennis Associations recommendations the strategy has identified that Brent could accommodate 27 indoor courts currently and in 2016 this could increase to 29 courts to help develop the sport. However these figures do not take into account provision outside of the borough meaning and that the priority of the borough would be to bring the number of courts up to the London average. The location of the indoor tennis court provision would be ideallysuited at the Vale Farm Sports Centre as the supporting infrastructure to develop the sport already exists in this location.
Indoor Athletics
6.67 The current indoor athletics facility at Willesden Sports Centre south of the borough has shown that the facility at the moment is not fully utilized indicating that there is spare capacity meaning no extra provision is need within the borough. This is backed up by the recommendations of UK Athletics who suggest an indoor athletics provision per 500,000 people of which there are only 279,000 people in the borough currently. The only concern about this facility is the under utilisation of the facility at this point of time and this main indicate that transport links to and from the site made need to be improved to encourage people from the north of the borough to use the facility as well.
Indoor squash facilities
6.68 Indoor squash facilities within the borough are located on top of each other and ideally they would be separated to ensure that a larger proportion of the borough are within a 1.6km walk to squash facilities. However the current supply has spare capacity and it is not seen as a priority to add more facilities within the borough with a decreasing participation rate in squash. However if the Vale Farm site was to be redeveloped a number of squash courts should remain as suggest by England Squash but the space could be utilized for other activities at the same time.
6.69 There would be a need for sport development programmes to be put in place in all the sports facilities to ensure they had the desired affect on sports participation and local club formations. There is also a need for a hierarchy of facilities to provide a quality network of facilities to increase participation in sports and develop the clubs within the borough.
Summary of Local Provision Standards - swimming pools, sports halls and health and fitness facilities
6.70 The table below sets out the summary of local provision standards for those facilities as assessed by the Sport England Facilities Planning Models, which look at sports hall provision and swimming pool provision.
Table 6.11 Local standards
Indoor Sport Facility Local Standard Standard per 1000 population
Swimming pools 1 pool per 40,000 residents 5.8m2
Sports halls One four court hall per 13,000 residents 46.7m2 Health and fitness facilities - 6.3 stations
Applying Local Provision Standards and key priorities
6.71 The following table sets out the priorities which should address the issues identified in the strategy. Further details on these standards are set out in the Sports Facilities Improvement Strategy.
57 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Table 6.12 Key priorities for indoor sports facilities
Sports facility Location Reason Opportunities Additional community swimming pool Central North of the Unmet demand in this area, Kingsbury Borough additional 2 x 25m pools needed in the borough. High School
Additional Community Central area of the Unmet demand in this area, Wembley Borough Swimming Pool (25m) additional housing growth, area Regeneration
affected by deprivation, currently have to travel long Area, New distance to nearest facility. Additional demand Academy coming from proposed housing School developments in the area.
Redevelopment of Vale Farm Current location, but to Current facility expensive to increase catchment area Sports Centre: sports could be moved away maintain, to improve capacity of sports halls, fitness from the borough facilities, swimming pools, synthetic turf pitch and grass village/multi sports hub. boundary. pitches. 8 indoor tennis court facility needed within the borough. Possibly link it up with schools facilities in vicinity Redeveloped swimming swimming of the sports centre. pools, sports hall, dance studios, dojo, 3 squash courts with removable walls, , 120 station fitness suite,
children's/ ladies gym,
commercial synthetic turf
pitch, 8 indoor tennis courts,
upgraded cricket, football and
rugby pitches, community
facilities for clubs.
Redevelopment of Bridge Current Location Current facility is coming to the end of its life, a new more compact facility would better serve the local community. Park Community Leisure High demand for swimming pool in this area. Help combat deprivation, crime, and Centre, possibility to include health (obesity) problems in the swimming pool into centre area. High proportion of young and children's interactive people located in the area. gym.
Redevelopment of Charteris Current Location Facility to increase capacity in the south of the borough for health and fitness space, current centre is not viable in the Sports Centre, larger space future, more sustainable, better serve local needs.
for health and fitness at the expense of the sports hall
(provision to be reallocated
58 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Sports facility Location Reason Opportunities elsewhere, South Kilburn masterplan)
Indoor Tennis (8 courts) Vale Farm Sports Centre Demand for an 8 tennis court centre identified. LTA 'The need for covered courts' for the development of the sport. 80 station Health and Fitness North of the borough To increase pay and play provision in an area where Kingsbury School, (attached to additional demand for this facility is high. To make sure thispart of the Claremont High Facility pool) borough is within a 1.6 km walking catchment of a health and fitness facility. School,St Gregory's High School,
Fryent Country Park
80 station Health and Fitness Central Wembley To increase pay and play provision in an area where Wembley (attached to additional demand for affordable facilities to help combat crime, health Regeneration, New facility pool) and social problems. To make sure this part of the borough is within a 1.6 km walking Academy School
catchment of a health and fitness facility. Additional demand coming from proposed housing developments in the area.
Health and Fitness Facility East of the borough To increase pay and play provision in an area where John Kelly demand for affordable facilities to help combat crime, health and social problems. Technical
To make sure this part of the College
borough is within a 1.6 km walking catchment of a health and fitness facility.
Sports Hall North of the Borough To increase supply of publicly Kingsbury (Attached Sports Hall To additional pool) accessible provision. Quality of School
current sports halls is poor.
Sports Hall Central / East Wembley To increase supply of publicly Academy School (attached to additional Central Wembley pool) accessible provision. Quality of
current sports halls is poor.
Additional demand coming from proposed housing developments in
the area.
Sports Hall South East of the borough. Area of unmet demand and if Part of South Kilburn Masterplan Charteris should loose a sports hall then additional provision needs to be provided.
59 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 7. Allotment Garden Provision
Introduction
7.1 Allotments gardens provide dedicated spaces for local and outer borough residents to grow good low cost food. Their existence is embedded within legislation known as the ‘Allotments Act’, originating from the ‘Enclosures Acts’ dating as far back as 1845. But regardless of this historic legislation allotment gardens are not strictly protected from new development as has been the case in Brent with the redevelopment of its allotments at Elthorne Way (LPA ref: 03/1879) and Monks Park (LPA ref: 02/2578) for housing. Reasons for loss of these spaces were justified under previous council policies but since the last ‘Needs Assessment’ review of 2003, there has been a surge in the uptake of allotment gardening that cumulatively results in a10 year waiting list for spaces. As such the council is very keen to protect and maintain its existing allotment garden sites which are now integral spaces of the borough’s suburban landscape that engender well-being. Allotments are not just places for undertaking an outdoor hobby, but are distinctive community spaces which:
bring together different cultural backgrounds improve physical and mental health nurture wildlife and biodiversity help characterise today’s suburban culture
7.2 In line with PPG17 the following information provides a baseline from which spatial planning interventions can help to provide better or more allotment space for “opportunities for those people who wish to do so to grow their own produce as part of the long term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion”
Allotment Management
7.3 Brent Parks Service currently manage and promote the borough’s existing allotment sites. There is a dedicated Allotments Officer who regularly monitors the sites to inform maintenance needs and help develop the borough's ‘self-management’ model of these sites.
Current Allotment Provision
7.4 In total there are 22 available allotments that are managed by Brent Parks (location map 7.1). The sites comprise a total of 1069 plots each measuring 125.5m2, currently priced for hire at £29-£32 per year.
60 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Map 7.1 Location of Brent's existing allotment gardens sites
7.5 All of Brent’s allotment garden sites are fully occupied and have waiting lists which highlights an existing new demand for allotment garden spaces. The popularity of allotment gardening is speculated to have grown from various television programmes; but there is a further reason, as in other London Boroughs, related to population growth. New housing developments especially those which do not have access to a private garden may also have driven this new demand for allotment gardens in Brent.
Table 7.1 Allotment garden sites in Brent and their current condition
Grid Name of allotment site Number of Current condition reference plots F3 Birchen Grove 74 Sheds in poor condition. Urgent need for toilet provision. Site currently full with long waiting list. E6 Bovington Avenue 47 Overall condition is poor. Site is full with waiting list. G6 Bridge Road 73 Now has new fencing,water pipes,sheds and toilet. Site full with waiting list.
61 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Grid Name of allotment site Number of Current condition reference plots C6 Cecil Avenue 36 Site Full. Pathway needs urgent repair. B7 Clifford Road 18 Pathway needs repair. Site full. G6 Dog Lane 64 Now has new fencing,water pipes & noticeboard. Overall condition is good. F3 Dors Close 66 Overall condition is good. H7 Furness Road 22 Site full with waiting list. F6 Gibbons Road 30 Now has new fencing,water pipes,path,toilet, noticeboard. Overall condition is good. Site full with waiting list. H4 Gladstone Park Gardens 120 Fencing nearly finished. Condition of site is very good. C3 Kinch Grove 22 Pathways need urgent repair. Site full. H7 Leighton Gardens 13 Site full and with long waiting list. Pathway needs attention. G6 Longstone Avenue 30 Sheds are in poor condition. Site full with waiting list. C6 Lyon Park Gardens 39 Overall condition is good H4 Nutfield Road 25 Site currently full with small waiting list. Overall condition is good. E2 Old Kenton Lane 180 Now has new gates. Overall condition is good. Entering 'self management'. A4 Sudbury Court Road 49 Reasonable condition. C3 Tenterden Close 51 Gates and fence in need of some repair. Condition of site is good. H6 Tower Road 9 Pathway needs installing. Site full with waiting list. F2 Townsend Lane 64 Now has new fencing,water pipes,roadway,toilets, noticeboards. Site full. A5 Vale Farm 6 Site is full. Good condition. B4 Woodfield Avenue 31 Pathway needs urgent repair. Condition is good. Total 1069
7.6 Spatial distribution of users: Analysis of plot holders shows that the majority are Brent residents; and those who are not registered as living in the borough live in close proximity to its borders.
7.7 Quality of allotments: the Parks Service makes continuous efforts to improve existing allotment facilities. The Allotment Officer directly liaises with the allotment holder voluntary groups to gauge the extent of any physical improvements the allotment sites may require and whether they are a priority. This ensures the allotments are cared for, well maintained and valued as a recreational space.
7.8 The current condition of each of Brent's allotment sites are detailed in table 7.1 and the Draft Brent Parks Strategy 2009. The Draft Strategy also sets out a series of objectives and demonstrates how Brent's allotment gardening culture is cherished and is a distinctive part of Brent’s commitment to Local Agenda 21 and the borough’s Biodiversity Action Plan.
7.9 In terms of nurturing the existing and future needs of allotment gardening in Brent, the planning service can help provide funds for improving its existing allotment garden sites through Planning obligations (S106) and perhaps provide new areas for allotment gardening within its regeneration projects. Previous S106 funding has helped improve many of Brent's existing allotment sites turning them into the flourishing community spaces that they are today.
Setting Local Provision Standards
7.10 The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners suggest a national standard of 20 allotments per 1,000 households (i.e. 20 allotments per 2,200 people based on 2 people per house) or 1 allotment per 200 people.
62 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
7.11 Given Brent's population is approximately 270,000; one can calculate that the borough requires 1350 allotment gardens to support adequate provision for an allotment culture. As there are currently 1069 plots in existence, the borough should to provide and extra 281 plots to fulfil an appropriate provision.
7.12 Due to the high value of land and the priority requirement the borough has for building new homes, it is unlikely that Brent will be able to provide specific sites for establishing new allotment gardens. Nevertheless, given the existing demand for allotment gardens in Brent as illustrated by its lengthy waiting lists, it may be feasible to design spaces for new allotment gardens into large housing developments where access to a private garden is absent or restricted.
7.13 It should be noted however that spaces for allotment gardens do not always need to be located on the ground. They can be placed on flat roof spaces where large beds can be provided for food growing and recreational use.
7.14 As such, a local provision standard should take into account the extent of the allotment gardens waiting list, the density of a new development and its level of provision for private garden access.
63 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Chapter 8. Semi-natural greenspace and corridors
Introduction
8.1 Although Brent is very much an urbanised area there are a range of semi-natural green spaces throughout the borough that play an important role for both biodiversity and wildlife and in providing relief from the urban environment for people living, working and visiting the borough.
Documents/surveys drawn upon
GLA/LBP Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Survey 2006/07 London Plan Implementation Report: Improving Londoners’ Access to Nature Brent Biodiversity Action Plan 2007 Draft Parks Strategy 2009
Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation
8.2 A series of semi-natural green spaces are designated for value for biodiversity and wildlife. These are called Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). There are a total of 62 SINCs in Brent, covering 458 ha.
8.3 The SINCs are categorised into 3 types according to their relative biodiversity value and regional or local importance. Sites of Metropolitan Importance are the most important sites for biodiversity, these are of regional importance and are designated by the Mayor of London and the GLA. There are 3 Metropolitan sites in Brent; Brent Reservoir, Fryent Country Park and London Canals.
8.4 Sites of Borough Importance are important wildlife habitats at the borough level. The Borough sites are split into two types; Grade I and Grade II. Grade I sites are protected for their rich wildlife habitats, and there are 13 Grade I sites in Brent. Grade II sites may not have intrinsic wildlife value but are important at the borough level in providing people access to natural areas. There are 17 Grade II sites in Brent.
8.5 Local sites are smaller wildlife sites scattered across the borough and include school playing fields, pocket parks and community gardens. They are important in ensuring everybody has access to nature close to home. There are 29 Local sites in Brent.
SINC Number Area (ha)
Metropolitan sites 3 178
Borough Grade I sites 13 124
Borough Grade II sites 17 110
Local sites 29 46
8.6 The SINCs network was surveyed in 2005/06. Full details of all sites is available on the London Wildweb website http://wildweb.london.gov.uk/wildweb/.
Other designations of semi-natural greenspace
8.7 There are further areas of green space which have wildlife value specifically by providing a continuous network of habitat to allow wildlife to move along and connect isolated habitats. Connecting and increasing the size of fragmented habitats is important to increasing the resilience of biodiversity to climate change.
64 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
8.8 Wildlife corridors comprise of connected habitats such as railway sidings, riverside open space, allotments and gardens. Wildlife corridors includes land not accessible to the public but often the corridor will provide visual amenity (e.g along railway lines).
8.9 Green Chains are also a designation of connected open spaces which are specifically protected and promoted for public access and informal recreation. Green chains consist of 36ha of public open space along the River Brent and Grand Union Canal.
8.10 The Blue Ribbon Network applies to all of the waterways within London including rivers, canals, reservoirs, lakes and ponds. The Blue Ribbon Network has an important wildlife habitat role and in many cases is also designated under the Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation system. The two major rivers in the borough are the River Brent and the Wealdstone Brook.
Local Needs
8.11 Increasing the natural feel and wildlife of the borough’s parks and open spaces is a common theme in the annual household survey. Residents say they want to see green open spaces, which are rich in wildlife and restful.
Standards
8.12 Natural England’s Access to Natural Green Space Standard (ANGST)
8.13 Natural England (formerly English Nature) is the statutory body that champions the conservation and enhancement of the wildlife and natural features of England. Natural England has worked for a number of years to promote the provision of natural green space and, in1996, it adopted its current Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt) model. The ANGSt model is not exclusive to greenspaces with recognized biodiversity value, rather it uses a broader definition of greenspace. The ANGSt model requires:
That no person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural green space of at least 2ha in size At least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1,000 population At least one accessible 20ha site within 2km from home One accessible 100ha site within 5km One accessible 500ha site within 10km 8.14 Brent Council supports Natural England’s view that access to natural green space is important to residents’ health and wellbeing (both physical and psychological). The Council also strives to meet the ANGSt model standards where possible, however, the first standard – i.e. no person to live more than 300m from a natural green space of at least 2ha – is not considered a realistic target particularly in the more densely developed areas in the south of the borough. Accordingly, the Council adopts the more achievable London Plan target of 400m distance from local parks and open spaces of 2ha or more.
8.15 In relation to greenspace with specific nature conservation value, Brent uses the London applicable standard of 1km walking distance to a Metropolitan of Borough (Grade I or II) sites which provide good access to nature.
65 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report
Areas of Deficiency
8.16 Areas of deficiency in access to nature are defined as localities more than 1km from publicly accessible green space, which offers an experience of the natural environment and wildlife. Within Brent, publicly accessible Metropolitan and Borough Grade I sites of nature conservation are considered to provide a substantive experience of wildlife. Map 8.1 shows areas of deficiency. Preston, Queensbury, Tokynton and Mapesbury wards have the greatest areas of deficiency.
8.17 The London Plan also identifies the more densely populated south east of the borough around Kilburn as deficient in areas of access to nature.
Picture 8.1 Areas of Wildlife Deficiency
Priorities for Improvement
London Plan Improving Londoners’ Access to Nature
8.18 The Mayor’s London Plan Implementation Report: Improving Londoners’ Access to Nature identifies opportunities for improving access o nature and meeting the objectives of the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. The Implementation Report identifies opportunities based on areas of deficiency (defined as more than 1km from a publicily accessible Metropolitan Site of Nature Conservation), socio-economic deprivation and access to public open space. Three priority types are identified, the first are opportunities to reduce areas of deficiency, the second are opportunity sites which are unlikely to achieve Borough Importance and will not reduce deficiency
66 | Open Space and Recreation Report
Open Space and Recreation Report areas but will improve overall access to nature. The third set of priority sites are key Borough Importance sites where improvements will particularly benefit nearby regeneration areas. Six opportunity sites are identified in Brent:
1. Priority sites for reducing areas of deficiency – Roe Green Park (improve biodiversity, £31-100k) Diageo Lake & Coronation Gardens (improve access), Barham Park (improve biodiversity, <£30K) Woodcock Park (improve biodiversity, £30-100k), 2. Priority sites for alleviating areas of deficiency – King Edward VII Park (Improve biodiversity, <£30k), 3. Priorities for enhancing key Sites of Borough Importance – Brent River Park
Brent Biodiversity Action Plan 2007
8.19 The Brent Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) sets out the strategy for conserving and increasing different habitats in the borough, the current BAP includes the following commitments:
Conserve, manage and improve the diversity of the hay meadows at Fryent Country Park Conserve, where possible, areas of acid grassland in the Borough Encourage the creation and management of small meadows in gardens, parks and other areas Create and maintain areas of rough grassland where practical Encourage hedges in parks, gardens and other area River Brent restoration project: Work towards achieving the restoration of the River Brent and tributaries through Brent, including continuation of the restoration work at St. Raphael’s Open Space and Tokyngton Recreation Ground Plant trees in parks towards the achievement of targets in Brent’s Tree Planting Programme
67