Local Plan Working Party
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 Time: 17:00 Venue: Supper Room Address: Town Hall, Hall Plain, Great Yarmouth, NR30 2QF
AGENDA
Open to Public and Press
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
You have a PERSONAL INTEREST in a matter being discussed at a meeting IF
• It relates to something on your Register of Interests form; or • A decision on it would affect you, your family or friends more than other people in your Ward.
You have a PREJUDICIAL INTEREST in a matter being discussed at a meeting IF
• It affects your financial position or that of your family or friends more than other people in your Ward; or • It concerns a planning or licensing application you or they have submitted • AND IN EITHER CASE a reasonable member of the public would consider it to be so significant that you could not reach an unbiased decision.
If your interest is only PERSONAL, you must declare it but can still speak and vote. If your interest is PREJUDICIAL, you must leave the room. However, you have the same rights as a member of the public to address the meeting before leaving.
Page 1 of 229 1 Minutes 3 - 5 To confirm the minutes of the last meeting held on 22 July 2013.
2 Matters Arising To consider any matters arising from the above minutes.
3 Core Strategy Consultation To receive a verbal update in respect of the above.
4 Infrastructure Plan and Open Space Study 6 - 8 To consider the attached report and following documents:
Draft Infrastructure Plan 9 - 66
Open Space Study 67 - 222
5 Duty to Co-operate 223 - 229 To consider the attached report which includes the following:
(a) Broads Authority - Memorandum of Understanding
(b) Norfolk-Wide District Members Meeting (9th October 2013)
(c) Waveney District Council
6 Section 106 Working Party To receive an update in respect of the above.
7 Any Other Business To consider any other business as may be determined by the Chairman of the meeting as being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration.
Page 2 of 229
LARGER PRINT COPY AVAILABLE PLEASE TELEPHONE: 01493 846325
LOCAL PLAN WORKING PARTY
22 July 2013 – 5.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Williamson (in the Chair); Councillors Castle, B Coleman, Hanton, Holmes, Linden, Stone, D Thompson and T Wainwright.
Mr D Glason (Growth Group Manager), Miss S Slade and Miss K Stokes (Senior Strategic Planners) and Miss S Davis (Senior Member Services Officer).
1. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 2013 were confirmed.
2. MATTERS ARISING
There were no matters arising from the above minutes.
3. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 2013 UPDATE
The Working Party received the Growth Manager’s report setting out the Local Plan documents that the Council intended to prepare, together with the timetable for their production. Members were reminded that this would replace the current LDS published in March 2013 by bringing together a number of updates made to the evidence base, including the emerging Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Several other pieces of work, including the Sustainability Appraisal and several Background Evidence Papers, were still outstanding which meant that the timetable for the Core Strategy and other emerging Local Plan Documents had been delayed by approximately two months. It was noted that the Site Allocation and Development Policies which had previously been two separate policies under the Local Development Framework had now been merged into one.
RESOLVED: That the Growth Manager’s report be noted.
4. CORE STRATEGY UPDATE
The Working Party received the Growth Manager’s report providing an update on progress of the preparation of the Core Strategy and suggested amendments made to the content of the Pre-Submission consultation document since the last meeting. It was also explained that some elements of the emerging evidence base would be finalised in the next few weeks and the findings within these documents might lead to some sections of the Core Strategy Page 3 of 229
needing to be amended slightly and where appropriate additional text added. A suggestion was made, therefore, that the Growth Manager in conjunction with the Working Party Chairman be granted delegated power to make these and any other minor changes. It was noted that there will be two static exhibitions at Gorleston Library and the Town Hall, together with mobile exhibitions at various sites around the Borough including Bradwell, Market Gates and Martham.
With regard to the housing assessment details, it was agreed that figures for each area would be made available and not just percentages once Members agreed the targets later on in this meeting. The point was made that there was a need to look at the type and amount of land available for re-development bearing in mind flood plains in the Borough were a problem and a lot of land was under the Broads Authority’s jurisdiction. It was clarified that there was no longer a national priority for brownfield sites to be developed first which would help us meet our targets, although they still needed to be set at a realistic level.
Reference was made to Policy CS2a) and the point was made that villages would also need to take their share of housing development. It was suggested, therefore, that wording be amended to reflect that limited quality growth would be acceptable with the idea of promoting inward investment.
A discussion ensued in relation to the protection of the route alignment for the Third River Crossing and it was agreed that if the policy could not be changed to give it more emphasis to move the project forward then the wording should be amended to state that the policy “supports the development of the Third River Crossing by protecting the alignment…”.
A suggestion was also made that Appendix C – Vision should be made more positive and reflect that the Borough was open for future growth not just projected local need, especially for high quality, low density housing in the town. The point was made that the housing would have to come first and the infrastructure and economic growth would follow. The Growth Manager reported that, if Members agreed the target of 380 as proposed in the consultants report, this would be very ambitious as the figure had only been achieved once in 15 years, however, it was felt that it would be achievable.
Reference was made to the proposal for ten additional travellers’ pitches and the Senior Planner reported that this was discussed as part of the Development Plan and the point was made that many people did not know where the existing site was.
RESOLVED: (i) That the Growth Manager’s report be noted and the Draft Core Strategy, as amended in the report and above, be published for a Pre-Submission Consultation in September 2013.
(ii) That delegated power be given to the Growth Manager in conjunction with the Chairman to make final amendments to the Core Strategy prior to consultation in light of the emerging evidence base.
Page 4 of 229
5. CORE STRATEGY HOUSING TARGET
The Working Party received the Growth Manager’s report setting out the background to the proposed housing target. It was noted that the draft Strategic Housing Market Assessment had concluded that the objectively assessed need for housing was 430 dwellings per annum over the 15 year plan period, however, due to constraints and deliverability issues it was being suggested that this be reduced to 380 per annum (5,700) as a more realistic and deliverable target.
Concern was expressed that the Environment Agency’s maps gave the wrong impression of the Borough’s flood risk and could deter developers. It was agreed, therefore, that our own maps would be used alongside theirs to give a more accurate picture with two zones showing eg flood risk areas and those in areas protected by sea defences.
A discussion ensued regarding what the housing target should be set at and it was stressed to Members that the main priority was that the target had to be deliverable and achievable. The Senior Planner reported that officers had looked at land availability and completed a benefit and risk assessment of several different targets which had led to the suggested target of 380 dwellings per annum that was felt to be achievable. It was noted that planning consent had been granted for 766 dwellings borough-wide but these had not been built yet.
RESOLVED: That the Growth Manager’s report be noted and the housing target be set at 380 dwellings per annum within the Core Strategy.
6. DRAFT EAST MARINE PLANS CONSULTATION
The Growth Manager reported on the receipt of a letter from the Marine Management Organisation giving details of public consultation arrangements on England’s first draft marine plans. It was noted that drop-in sessions would be held throughout July and August around the East Coast if anyone wanted to attend.
7. CLOSURE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 6.10pm.
Page 5 of 229
Subject: Infrastructure Plan and Open Space Study
Report to: Local Plan Working Party - 30 October 2013
Report by: Growth Manager
SUBJECT MATTER/RECOMMENDATIONS
The Infrastructure Plan and Open Space Study form part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. The Infrastructure Plan sets out the infrastructure requirements to support the growth identified in the Core Strategy. The Open Space Study assesses open space within the Borough and recommends open space standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the content of the Infrastructure Plan and Open Space Study.
1. INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
The Infrastructure Plan outlines how infrastructure will be put in place to facilitate the growth detailed within Local Plan documents and it should be read in conjunction with the Core Strategy. The Infrastructure Plan is currently out for consultation along with the Core Strategy (from 27 September to 8 November 2013) and is attached to this report.
Once finalised the Infrastructure Plan will identify the physical, social and green infrastructure needed to support and underpin the borough’s growth through to 2029, forming a key part of the evidence base for the emerging Core Strategy.
Each infrastructure need is classed as either ‘critical’ or ‘desirable’. ‘Critical’ requirements are those which need to be in place before any new development can take place. These are usually development driven, such as an extension to the foul sewerage network for a new housing site. Items defined as ‘desirable’ are not necessarily needed to facilitate immediate development but they are facilities and services that the Council aims to put in place over the lifetime of the Core Strategy.
2. OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT
Page 6 of 229
The Open Space Assessment forms part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan including the Core Strategy. The study informs the approach taken in the Core Strategy and provides a platform for the forthcoming Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan document.
Part 1 of the Open Space Study is attached to this report, and contains audits of various open space types and sets local standards for the provision of open space in relation to existing and future provision. Section 9.1 of the attached Study sets out the local standards for each of the open space types and are based on public consultations and open space audits.
Part 2 of the study will be produced at a later stage and will use these audits and standards to set guidelines for the developer contributions towards open space provision that will be required in relation to new development.
3. RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the content of the Infrastructure Plan and Open Space Study.
Add information as is relevant to report being written, plus the following two boxes must be completed:-
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
EXECUTIVE BOARD OR DIRECTOR CONSULTATION:
Does this report raise any Issues No legal, financial, sustainability, Legal No equality, crime and disorder or Financial No human rights issues and, if so, Risk No
Page 7 of 229 have they been considered? Sustainability Yes Equality No Crime and Disorder No Human Rights No Every Child Matters No
Y:\HMLS\MemberServices\Robin Hodds\Reports\Master Report To Committees (New) - February 2008.doc
Page 8 of 229 Draft Infrastructure Plan
September 2013
Page 9 of 229
Page 10 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 2
Foreword
The emerging Local Plan sets out an ambitious vision for the borough to realise over the next 15 years. To achieve our vision for the borough, we need to have the necessary infrastructure in place.
This Infrastructure Plan provides invaluable information about existing infrastructure in the borough, planned infrastructure and investment commitments, and important priorities for future investment. The preparation of this plan also provides an opportunity to identify smarter ways of partnership working, reduce any duplication and capitalise on the potential for making savings with limited impact on service delivery.
Securing committed investment into this required infrastructure will be challenging given the levels of reduced funding that public sector organisations are facing, as a result of the Government’s commitment to reducing the national deficit. But, by clearly setting out what is required, the potential costs and phasing, the Council and our partners can work collaboratively towards funding essential infrastructure to deliver the Local Plan.
Councillor Bernard Williamson Cabinet Member for Transportation and Regeneration
Page 11 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 3
Page 12 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 4
Contents
Foreword
Section 1: Introduction 7 1.1 Introduction 8 1.2 Why Produce an Infrastructure Plan? 8 1.3 What is Infrastructure? 8 1.4 Planning Policy Context 11 1.5 How was the Infrastructure Plan Prepared? 13 1.6 How is the Plan Structured? 14 1.7 How will the Plan be monitored? 14
Section 2: Physical Infrastructure 15 2.1 Transport: Highways 16 2.2 Transport: Rail Services 18 2.3 Transport: Bus Services 19 2.4 Transport: Cycling 20 2.5 Transport: Parking 22 2.6 Utilities: Water Supply 24 2.7 Utilities: Wastewater Collection and Treatment 24 2.8 Utilities: Gas Generation and Distribution 25 2.9 Utilities: Electricity Generation and Distribution 26 2.10 Communications: Broadband, Landlines and Mobile Phones 27 2.11 Flood defence: Tidal and Surface Water Flooding 27 2.12 Waste and Recycling: Collection and Disposal 29 2.13 Summary of Physical Infrastructure 29
Section 3: Social Infrastructure 33 3.1 Housing: Affordable Housing 34 3.2 Housing: Gypsies and Travellers 35 3.3 Community Facilities: Libraries 36 3.4 Community Facilities: Community Centres 36 3.5 Community Facilities: Museums and Cultural Facilities 37 3.6 Emergency Services: Police 37 3.7 Emergency Services: Fire 38 3.8 Education Facilities: Schools 39 3.9 Healthcare: Primary Care Centres 40 3.10 Leisure Facilities 41 3.11 Summary of Social Infrastructure 42
Section 4: Green Infrastructure 45 4.1 Open Spaces: Parks and Gardens 46 4.2 Open Space: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) 47 4.3 Play Provision: Children’s Play Areas 47 4.4 Play Provision: Playing Pitches/Sports Pitches 48 4.5 Biodiversity: Enhancement, Habitat Management and Creation 49 4.6 Summary of Green Infrastructure 50
Page 13 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 5
Section 5: Financing and Delivering Infrastructure 51 5.1 How is Infrastructure Funded? 52 5.2 How is Infrastructure Delivered? 54 5.3 Next Steps 55
List of Figures
Figure 1: The planned A12/A143 link road (in red) and the proposed Sainsbury’s roundabout (in blue) 17 Figure 2: Wherry lines route map and onward travel links 18 Figure 3: Proposed cycle routes (as identified by the County Council and Great Yarmouth Cycle Forum) 21 Figure 4: Pay and display and resident parking provided by the Council 23
List of Tables
Table 1: Categorising physical infrastructure 9 Table 2: Categorising social infrastructure 10 Table 3: Categorising green infrastructure 10 Table 4: Physical infrastructure requirements matrix 29 Table 5: Affordable housing thresholds and percentages (emerging Core Strategy Policy CS4) 34 Table 6: Available places at local schools 39 Table 7: Social infrastructure requirements matrix 42 Table 8: Parks and gardens within the borough 46 Table 9: Distribution of playing fields, courts and greens 48 Table 10: Green infrastructure requirements matrix 50
Page 14 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 6
Section 1: Introduction
Page 15 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 7
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 This draft document has been developed alongside other key Council plans and strategies including the Draft Core Strategy. It is the result of a continuing programme of work, with more information and detail becoming available as new plans and strategies have been prepared and updated. It should be read in conjunction with the Core Strategy as it is designed to outline how infrastructure will be put in place to facilitate the growth detailed within Local Plan documents.
1.1.2 Once finalised the Infrastructure Plan will identify the physical, social and green infrastructure needed to support and underpin the borough’s growth through to 2029, forming a key part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan.
1.2 Why produce an Infrastructure Plan?
1.2.1 Having an up to date Infrastructure Plan ensures that new development is delivered in a sustainable way, providing not just homes and jobs but all the other elements that collectively make great places in which to live, work and spend time. The plan also helps aid the delivery of new development by providing vital and useful information for the Council and its key partners on what is needed to achieve growth and help guide investment priorities, especially during a period of reductions in public spending and the continuing uncertain economic climate.
1.2.2 When finalised, the plan will assist in discussions and negotiations regarding planning obligations, which are a key source of infrastructure funding. It also provides background information and evidence for investigations into the potential implementation of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge which may be used to fund future infrastructure in the borough.
1.3 What is infrastructure?
1.3.1 For the purposes of this plan, infrastructure refers to anything that is needed to deliver the vision and objectives set out in the emerging Local Plan including the Core Strategy, including but not limited to the provision of housing and schools, emergency services and hospitals, utility provision, flood protection and maintaining green spaces.
1.3.2 As infrastructure refers to such a wide range of facilities and services, national guidance uses the terms physical, social and green infrastructure to further define different areas of infrastructure provision. Historically, infrastructure planning has focused primarily on the physical sector (such as public transport and utilities), it is now seen as good practice to consider the term in its widest sense, including social and green infrastructure. This plan categorises infrastructure under the three main categories of physical, social and green and under several sub-categories which are shown in the tables on the following pages.
Page 16 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 8
Table 1: Categorising physical infrastructure
Physical Infrastructure Infrastructure Examples Responsible Organisations sub-categories (includes but is not limited to) Transport Highways Norfolk County Council Rail services Highways Agency Bus services Network Rail/Greater Anglia Cycle paths First Group Parking Sustrans Great Yarmouth Borough Council Utilities Water supply Essex and Suffolk Water Wastewater collection and Anglia Water treatment National Grid Gas generation and distribution UK Power Networks Electricity generation and distribution Telecommunica- Telephones British Telecom tions Broadband and wireless internet Various providers Mobile telephones Norfolk County Council Flood Defence Surface water management Environment Agency Flood risk management Great Yarmouth Borough Council Coastal sea defences Norfolk County Council Waste and Collection and management Great Yarmouth Borough Council Recycling Recycling and disposal Norfolk County Council
Page 17 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 9
Table 2: Categorising social infrastructure
Social Infrastructure Infrastructure Examples Responsible Organisations sub-categories (includes but is not limited to) Housing Affordable housing Registered Providers (Housing Sheltered accommodation Associations) Sites and facilities for gypsies, Great Yarmouth Borough Council travellers and travelling show Norfolk County Council people Community Libraries Norfolk County Council facilities Community centres Norfolk Museums Service Museums and cultural facilities Parish Councils Cultural facilities such as public art Neighbourhood Management Groups Emergency Police Norfolk Constabulary Services Fire and rescue Norfolk Fire Service Educational Nursery and pre-school Norfolk County Council Facilities Primary and secondary schools Independent Academies Further education Healthcare Primary care centres (medical HealthEast Community Interest centres, dentists, pharmacies) Company Hospitals The Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health Trust James Paget University Hospital Leisure Leisure centres Norfolk County Council facilities Sport centres Sport England Swimming pools Great Yarmouth Borough Council Great Yarmouth Sports and Leisure Trust
Table 3: Categorising green infrastructure
Green Infrastructure Infrastructure Examples Responsible Organisations sub-categories (includes but is not limited to) Open Spaces Community parks and gardens Great Yarmouth Borough Council Green wedges/strategic gaps Norfolk County Council Sustainable Drainage Systems Parish Councils (SUDs) Great Yarmouth/Gorleston Allotment Association Play provision Play areas Great Yarmouth Borough Council Playing pitches/sports facilities Norfolk County Council Parish Councils Biodiversity Habitat management and creation Great Yarmouth Borough Council Norfolk Wildlife Trust Wild Anglia Norfolk County Council
Page 18 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 10
1.3.3 This plan also further defines infrastructure by differentiating between infrastructure requirements resulting from a population increase and those which are required as a result of new development:
Population driven – population is increasing due to a rise in life expectancy and levels of immigration. Certain infrastructure such as new schools, are required to serve the new development that a rising population will bring.
Development driven – some larger development proposals may require a single piece of infrastructure, for example a new access road, to enable the development to proceed. These are likely to only be required once over the life of the Local Plan.
1.3.4 An estimated timescale is attached to each infrastructure requirement, depending on when it is likely to be delivered. Short term infrastructure is expected to be delivered within the first five years of the Core Strategy’s adoption. Medium term infrastructure is expected between five and ten years from the adoption date, while long term requirements will be delivered over the 15 year lifetime of the Core Strategy. However, these timescales are always subject to change and are likely to be influenced by a number of external factors. Whether infrastructure is seen as population driven or development driven is likely to affect its expected delivery timescale. Development driven requirements are usually required in the short term to allow new development to take place, whilst population driven requirements are generally more long-term aspirations that will be required as the local population increases over time.
1.3.5 Each infrastructure need within this plan is also classed as either ‘critical’ or ‘desirable’. ‘Critical’ requirements are those which need to be in place before any new development can take place. These are usually development driven, such as an extension to the foul sewerage network for a new housing site. Items defined as ‘desirable’ are not necessarily needed to facilitate immediate development but they are facilities and services that the Council aims to put in place over the lifetime of the Core Strategy.
1.4 Planning Policy Context
1.4.1 Creating prosperous and sustainable communities can only be done if the necessary infrastructure is in place. Effective and co-ordinated investment in the right infrastructure, of the right quality and at the right time, is essential to achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan and to ensure the sustainable economic, social and environmental future of the borough. The Draft Core Strategy contains Policy CS14: Securing essential new infrastructure, which focuses on delivering the infrastructure needed to support new development. However, other policies contained within the Draft Core Strategy also acknowledge the importance of infrastructure provision, in particular Policies CS17 and CS18, which detail plans for key site designations in the centre of Great Yarmouth and in south Bradwell.
1.4.2 The need for a planned approach to infrastructure provision is evident in national planning policy and as such, this plan has been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF highlights the importance of infrastructure planning and delivery in the plan making process and recommends working with other authorities and service providers to develop a partnership approach. Paragraph 156 states that:
Page 19 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 11
“Local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for the area in the Local Plan. This should include strategic policies to deliver:
the homes and jobs needed in the area; the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development; the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat); the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; Climate change mitigation and adaption, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.”
1.4.3 Paragraph 163 of the NPPF reiterates the need to “work closely with other providers and authorities in order to:
assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.”
1.4.4 This plan is designed not only to react to national planning polices but also to be a forward thinking and positive document that clearly sets out the future needs of the borough. By clearly specifying what the different infrastructure requirements are and how they will be implemented, this document can aid future decisions made by the Council and help to bring forward new development as set out in the Core Strategy.
Page 20 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 12
1.5 How has the Infrastructure Plan prepared?
1.5.1 The preparation of this plan has involved many different processes and required input from numerous external bodies. The diagram below demonstrates how this plan was prepared:
Compile existing evidence and review the current
infrastructure provision in the borough
Review emerging Local Plan to establish anticipated levels of growth and broad locations
Identify and contact relevant service providers to establish future plans
Analyse infrastructure requirements to determine if they are critical or desirable
Identify delivery mechanisms and funding streams
Publish a draft Infrastructure Plan for public
consultation
Review received comments and make any final amendments
Publish the final plan and monitor, reviewing the content when necessary
Page 21 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 13
1.6 How is the plan structured?
1.6.1 The final output of the Infrastructure Plan is to provide a matrix of infrastructure requirements with details of funding sources and delivery mechanisms for each of the three infrastructure types. Each matrix will be included at the end of chapters’ two to four which form the main body of the plan. They will also be used to feed back into the emerging Core Strategy and may influence forthcoming Local Plan policies.
1.6.2 Chapters two to four each focus on one of the three types of infrastructure. Using a similar format, they individually examine the different infrastructure currently available in the borough, identify shortfalls in provision through analysing information supplied by different service providers and then demonstrate how these shortfalls will be met in the future. Each chapter contains a separate matrix of infrastructure requirements. Finally, chapter five explores the different ways and means for financing and delivering infrastructure needs.
1.7 How can you have your say?
1.7.1 Comments are welcomed on the draft Infrastructure Plan during a consultation period running from Friday 27 September to 5:00pm on Friday 8 November 2013. If you wish to comment on the draft Infrastructure Plan you can either use the online Local Plan consultation portal at www.great-yarmouth.gov.uk/localplan or complete a Local Plan comments form. Comments forms are available from the Town Hall in Great Yarmouth, all public libraries in the borough and online during the consultation period. If required, a form can be posted out on request. Completed comments forms should be sent to:
Strategic Planning Team, Great Yarmouth Borough Council Town Hall, Hall Plain, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR30 2QF
Or email them to [email protected]
1.7.2 If you wish to make more than one comment please ensure that you fill in and submit a separate form for each individual comment. In circumstances where there are individuals/ groups/organisations who share a similar view as to how the plan should change, it would be helpful if representations could be made as a single comment. It would also be useful if the group/organisation state how many people the submission is representing and how the comment was authorised. Please be aware that anonymous comments cannot be accepted, in order for your comment to be considered you must include your contact details (all personal information will be held in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998).
1.7.3 Once all consultation comments have been received, the Infrastructure Plan will be amended where appropriate and a final version of the document will be published on the Council’s website. The plan will then be formally updated and published alongside the Annual Monitoring Report in December each year. This is to ensure it is a ‘living’ document that is able to respond to the frequently changing nature of the supply, demand and planning of infrastructure.
Page 22 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 14
Section 2: Physical Infrastructure
Page 23 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 15
2.1 Transport: Highways
Current Provision
2.1.1 There are two main trunk roads in the borough which are the Acle Straight section of the A47 running from Acle to Great Yarmouth and the A12 from the junction of the A47 (Vauxhall roundabout) southbound into Suffolk and on to London. The A47 is the main strategic route linking Norfolk to the midlands and the north (westbound) and central/northern Europe (eastbound). The road is largely single carriageway, resulting in slow and unreliable journeys. There are particular problems at Vauxhall Roundabout where the A47 ends to form one of the main strategic entrances into Great Yarmouth. At peak times the roundabout becomes particularly congested which can cause long tail-backs onto the Acle Straight.
2.1.2 The towns of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston also suffer from congestion within their built up areas. This is primarily due to there being only two crossings over the River Yare at Haven Bridge and Breydon Bridge. As these are both located in Great Yarmouth, these bridges can become very congested as all traffic must pass over them to cross the river. The South Denes peninsula in Great Yarmouth is particularly inaccessible and problems are exacerbated by industrial and freight traffic needing to access this area.
2.1.3 At present, the key site designation in south Bradwell is not easily accessible and would have an inadequate transport network for 1,000+ additional dwellings. The main access to the site would currently be from a small slip road on the A143 Beccles Road or through residential streets to the north in Bradwell and Gorleston.
Future Schemes
2.1.4 A47 Improvements: Norfolk County Council has made this a priority in order to boost the economic development of the whole region, including the borough of Great Yarmouth. The County and Borough Councils form an integral part of the A47 Alliance which brings together businesses, local authorities, MPs and stakeholders along the route to work together to make the case for improved infrastructure. The Alliance is campaigning for improvements to the stretch of road running from Great Yarmouth as far as Peterborough, which provides important strategic links to Norwich airport as well as settlements throughout Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. The Alliance have long term plans to dual the Acle Straight in order to improve journey times and safety and to make improvements at Vauxhall Roundabout which is the key interchange. Norfolk County Council also has aspirations to make improvements to Fullers Hill roundabout and the ASDA/train station approach junction in order to further ease congestion.
2.1.5 The A47 Alliance has estimated that Acle Straight dualling will cost in the region of £84 million. It is identified as a scheme for which support is needed to secure additional funding with no potential local contributions at present. The Vauxhall Roundabout scheme has been estimated to cost £20-30 million to deliver. It is also identified as a scheme for which support is needed to secure additional funding.
2.1.6 Beacon Park Roundabout and A12/A143 Link Road: A planning application has been submitted for a new Sainsbury’s superstore at Beacon Park. As part of the scheme, the developer plans to finance a new roundabout in the Beacon Park development with a spur
Page 24 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 16 onto a proposed link road from the A12, through Beacon Park, to the A143 Beccles Road. The link road will provide access to the proposed strategic development site in south Bradwell and is the key to unlocking this development. Funding has already been secured for the scheme, with the Department for Transport allocating £4.7 million towards the cost of the road, with development funding the remainder of the £6.7 million link road.
Figure 1: The planned A12/A143 link road (in red) and the proposed Sainsbury’s roundabout (in blue)
Page 25 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 17
2.1.8 Third River Crossing: This has also been recognised by Norfolk County Council as a key priority for Great Yarmouth in order to ease congestion and improve accessibility in the town, including access to the seafront, South Denes and outer harbour areas. The County Council has adopted a preferred route alignment for a third river crossing south of the existing bridges. This will continue to be safeguarded by Norfolk County Council and the Borough Council until funding becomes available. It is estimated that the whole scheme will cost in the region of £112 million and is a project for which support is needed to secure additional funding, with no potential local contributions at present.
2.2 Transport: Rail Services
Current Provision
2.2.1 The train station at Great Yarmouth is the only station in the borough. It forms part of the ‘Wherry Lines’ which connects Norwich to the coast at Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Network Rail owns the station and the track infrastructure but passenger services are presently operated by Greater Anglia. The line from Norwich splits at Brundall, with one branch serving Lingwood, Acle and Great Yarmouth. The other branch essentially serves Lowestoft via Cantley and Reedham, although this branch does reconnect to Great Yarmouth and is served by occasional services on weekdays and weekends via Berney Arms. In total, there are 23 services per day running from Great Yarmouth to Norwich with an hourly service (and half hourly peak). Fewer services run at the weekends with more operating via the Berney Arms branch line.
Figure 2: Wherry lines route map and onward travel links
2.2.2 The train service transports commuters to and from Great Yarmouth throughout the year, but during the summer months the service is a vital transport link for tourists visiting the town and surrounding area. It links Great Yarmouth with Norwich, which has direct services to London, Cambridge the midlands and the north of England. However, the train service has relatively long journey times of 35 minutes to Norwich and the rolling stock operating on the route consists largely of two carriage class 153 or 156 diesel multiple units dating from the late 1980s. Many of these units are in poor condition and in need of refurbishment. The appearance of Great Yarmouth station is also poor, especially considering its strategic
Page 26 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 18
position at the ‘gateway’ to the town. A complete refurbishment/redevelopment of Great Yarmouth station is required to bring it up to a standard that passengers would expect of a modern interchange.
Future Schemes
2.2.3 Norfolk County Council have recently published the Norfolk Rail Prospectus (2012) which sets out the rail improvements that the County Council and its partners see as being needed in order to ensure the continued economic success of the county and to deliver the jobs and housing growth that are planned for the area. The prospectus was agreed following a number of studies which provided the evidence base for the document. Consultation was carried out with a range of partners including the rail industry, businesses and local authorities. Great Yarmouth Borough Council is also involved with the Wherry Lines Community Rail Partnership and the Norfolk Rail Policy Group which have had input into the document.
The priorities set out for the Wherry Lines were as follows:
New or fully refurbished rolling stock Good connections at Norwich Service frequency - a year round minimum service level requirement of not less than hourly Improvements to railway stations
2.2.4 The Norfolk Rail Prospectus identifies refurbishment and upgrading of Great Yarmouth station as a priority. This ranges from general tidying/smartening up of the station’s appearance in the short term to a more comprehensive scheme including improving passenger access between the station and town by public transport, walking and cycling. Such a project might include: refurbishment of the existing Vauxhall footbridge between the station and North Quay (including investigating its potential as a bus-link); improving the pedestrian link onwards to Market Gates; creating a bus interchange in front of the station and a redesigned car park. These plans tie in with the aspirations set out in the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP) and the draft Core Strategy. As the station is located in an important strategic position at one of the major gateways into the town, the regeneration of the station and surrounding area is important.
2.3 Transport: Bus Services
Current Provision
2.3.1 The main bus terminal within the borough is at Market Gates in Great Yarmouth, situated just off the central market place. From here there are numerous bus services with routes throughout the borough and to other parts of Norfolk and Suffolk. The main services run from Great Yarmouth to Norwich (X1 and X47) and onwards to Kings Lynn and Peterborough (X1) and from Great Yarmouth to Lowestoft, usually on a half hourly basis. There are numerous local bus services operating in and around Great Yarmouth, Gorleston and Bradwell, with further routes through the rural southern and northern parishes of the borough. As there is only one train station in the borough and much of the rural area is served by only minor roads, bus services are a particularly important form of transport for many local residents. There are also long distance coach services operating from Market Gates. There are four routes in total, running between Great Yarmouth and Birkenhead,
Page 27 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 19
Birmingham and two towards London. These offer an alternative to long distance train travel and are another important link for tourists visiting the area.
2.3.2 Bus services in the borough are run by a number of different operators. Local services are predominantly controlled by First bus group as well as Anglia bus, whilst long distance services are operated by National Express coaches.
Future Schemes
2.3.3 New development within the borough will be served by bus routes providing there is sufficient demand amongst the local population to support a new route or the extension of an existing service. The Council will continue to promote bus services and campaign for more integration with rail services. A key priority is to re-establish a bus service from Great Yarmouth train station which will connect it with the town centre and outlying villages.
2.3.4 Norfolk County Council is also delivering a series of bus stop infrastructure improvements which will provide improved surfaces, raised boarding, tactile paving and dropped kerbs. This is an ongoing, county-wide programme that incorporates 300-350 bus stops across Norfolk.
2.4 Transport: Cycling
Current Provision
2.4.1 At present there is an extensive cycling network in the urban areas of the borough, especially in the towns of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston-on-sea (see fig. 3), where there are various on-road cycle routes with some cycle facilities and dedicated off-road cycle tracks. With a relatively flat terrain and compact urban community, the borough lends itself well to cycling. There are particularly good cycle facilities along Great Yarmouth seafront where there is a special cycle lane shared with horse carriages and the land train running the length of the Golden Mile. A bye-law preventing cycling on both Gorleston and Great Yarmouth’s Esplanades in the summer months has recently been lifted on a trial basis to allow cyclists to share this route with pedestrians for 12 months a year. A significant part of the Norfolk Coast Cycleway from Cromer to Great Yarmouth also passes through the northern part of the borough.
2.4.2 One of the main issues with cycling provision within the borough is the lack of adequate linkages between the urban areas and the adjoining rural settlements. Apart from a cycleway along Caister Road, there are few dedicated cycle routes outside of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston and cycling to the northern or southern parishes requires the use of busy vehicular routes.
2.4.3 The Great Yarmouth Cycle Forum is a group that brings together local stakeholders, residents, Borough Council planning officers, the town centre manager, the traffic manager for Norfolk Constabulary, local Members and Norfolk County Council representatives. The aim of the group is to involve its members in future cycling schemes and initiatives as a consultee, and to encourage and promote cycling. A Great Yarmouth cycle map and guide has been compiled by Norfolk County Council in conjunction with the Great Yarmouth Cycle Forum and the Borough Council. The Cycle Forum has identified a number of advisory routes that they wish to see designated in the future, some of which help to improve access between urban and rural areas.
Page 28 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 20
Figure 3: Proposed cycle routes (as identified by the County Council and Great Yarmouth Cycle Forum)
Page 29 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 21
Future Schemes
2.4.4 Work is presently being carried out on Vauxhall Bridge in Great Yarmouth to improve this important travel route. The bridge is not currently open for vehicular traffic but is a very important pedestrian and cycle route which acts as a gateway to the town linking the train station and the town centre. At present, a feasibility study and structural assessment of the bridge is being carried out, with future phases of the restoration plan aiming to improve the cycling and pedestrian experience for those using the bridge.
2.4.5 In May 2013, plans were approved to allow cycling along Great Yarmouth Promenade on a trial basis. This is a similar scheme to the one on Gorleston Esplanade, in that lifting the existing bye law will allow pedestrians and cyclists to share this important route along the seafront. The progress of both schemes is currently being monitored by the Borough Council with a view to lifting the bye law permanently if the schemes are successful.
2.4.6 It is a long term ambition of the Council to create a cycle route along Warren Road which will link the south of Gorleston with Hopton via a dedicated off-road cycle route. Creating this route would help to link the main urban areas in the borough with parts of the southern parishes. The project would cost in the region of £125,000 to complete and although funding was originally made available, the money has now been withdrawn due to legal objections to the route. At present, the Borough Council and the Cycle Forum are working closely with Sustrans to find a new source of funding.
2.4.7 The Great Yarmouth Cycle Forum has also identified other ‘rural priority links’ and ‘aspirational rural links’ which will help improve access throughout the borough and in particular to the northern and southern parishes from urban areas.
2.4.8 In addition to this, there is a potential pedestrian and cycle route which would cross the River Yare and link Southtown with the South Denes peninsula. This route is outlined in the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan as part of the Third River Crossing and would be a significant improvement to walking and cycling provision in Great Yarmouth. The link would encourage greener modes of transport for shorter journeys and may well be preferable to using the existing vehicular crossings to the north. These routes along with others are shown in figure 3.
2.5 Transport: Parking
Current Provision
2.5.1 Great Yarmouth Borough Council offers a number of different ‘pay and display’ and free parking sites around the centre of Great Yarmouth (see figure 4) outside of the existing ‘Zone A’ residents’ parking area. In total there are 881 pay and display spaces available in the town centre and 1,006 on the seafront. There are also 57 free spaces and 1,154 private spaces.
Page 30 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 22
Figure 4: Pay and display and resident parking provided by the Council
Page 31 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 23
Future Schemes
2.5.2 There is a considerable demand for parking spaces directly on Great Yarmouth seafront in the peak summer season. The North Drive car park on the seafront is due to be extended to incorporate a further 50 parking spaces. There are also plans to extend the car park at Central Beach to allow an additional 150 vehicles to park there. The Council is examining the possibility of developing an additional multi storey car park in Great Yarmouth town centre, possibly on an existing parking site if it is deemed to be suitable for this purpose.
2.6 Utilities: Water supply
Current Provision
2.6.1 Water in Great Yarmouth borough is mainly supplied by Essex and Suffolk water (aside from a small area in the northern part of the borough which is served by Anglian Water), which serves over 1.7 million people in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Greater London. The northern/central water resource zone, which covers the borough, is bounded by the River Waveney and River Bure to the west and the coastline from Southwold in Suffolk to Winterton-on-Sea in Norfolk in the east. The zone includes the towns of Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, north Halesworth, Bungay and Beccles. Demand in the zone is heavily influenced by the large population centres in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. The transient holiday population in Great Yarmouth during the summer, and the annual pea harvest in late June/early July have a notable seasonal affect on demand. Approximately 70% of the water supplied in the northern/central resource zone is sourced from surface water, with 30% being sourced from groundwater in the south of the zone.
Future Schemes
2.6.2 Both Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water are required to produce a Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) which is updated every 5 years. Essex and Suffolk Water’s current WRMP covers the period from 2010 to 2035, although they are currently preparing an update for 2015-2040. The WRMP is a 25 year plan to balance supply and demand and to ensure that water consumption does not exceed what the region can provide. The plan outlines how this balance will be maintained by investing in demand management and developing new water resources. The plan tackles the challenges of regional growth and the effects that climate change and new environmental legislation will have on water supplies.
2.6.3 The plan identifies that there is no foreseeable problems with water supply to the proposed development in the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP). However, the proposals at land south of Bradwell would require additional infrastructure provision. The development will require a connection to a large diameter main in the existing Beacon Park development and the main extended to supply any new housing. Essex and Suffolk Water are required to provide a water supply to these new properties and as such, water supply is not currently considered to be a constraint on development. There should be few limitations in supplying water to smaller development sites around the borough.
2.7 Utilities: Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Current Provision
2.7.1 Wastewater refers to any water from household appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, showers or baths, as well as sewage water containing human waste or other Page 32 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 24
substances such as oils and chemicals. In this borough, Anglian Water is responsible for the treatment of waste water. There is a wastewater treatment works at Pump Lane in Caister (north of Great Yarmouth) which is the main treatment works for the borough.
Future Schemes
2.7.2 Anglian Water have analysed the effects of proposed new development on the existing wastewater treatment network. They concluded that there is sufficient capacity at Caister Pump Lane wastewater treatment works to serve the proposed new development outlined in the emerging Local Plan. Should all the available capacity be taken up at the water treatment works in the future, then upgrades may be required that could involve seeking consent from the Environment Agency for an increase in the discharge of final effluent to the sea.
2.7.3 However, Anglian Water has identified a need for infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades to the foul sewerage and surface water network capacity in order to serve proposed growth. There are currently major constraints due to the lack of sewerage infrastructure at developments in Gorleston, at Beacon Park and at the proposed key site to the south of Bradwell, caused by many of these sites being undeveloped greenfield land. In order to address this issue, contributions from developers will be sought to provide the necessary infrastructure required to facilitate growth.
2.7.4 In terms of surface water network capacity, there are also major constraints to the provision of infrastructure and/or treatment to serve proposed growth throughout the borough. Anglian Water have identified this as a major issue causing flooding in the existing network and proposed new allocations in the Core Strategy could increase the risk of flooding in the catchment area. However, as the network is a combined sewerage system, the removal of surface water from the system by utilising sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) would assist in providing capacity in the network. This reiterates the need to incorporate SuDS in all new development where the waste water network capacity is a limiting factor. This will reduce the burden on developers to finance improvements to the existing network to increase capacity. The draft Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) identifies areas at risk of surface water flooding within the borough and provides an assessment of options to address this risk. This information can be used to inform the location of SuDS. For more information regarding tidal and surface water flooding, see section 2.11.
2.8 Utilities: Gas Generation and Distribution
Current Provision
2.8.1 National Grid owns and operates the national transmission system throughout Great Britain which connects to eight regional networks. In our area, National Grid also own and operate the local gas distribution network and are therefore also responsible for distributing gas to the borough. National Grid has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical transmission system for the conveyance of gas and respond to requests for new gas supplies in certain circumstances. Bacton Gas terminal is a large gas terminal located on the north Norfolk coast with an underground pipeline connecting the terminal with the gas power station in South Denes in Great Yarmouth.
Page 33 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 25
Future Schemes
2.8.2 There are likely to be no future supply issues with gas provision. Improvements to the gas distribution network are generally carried out as a result of significant growth in overall regional demand rather than site specific requirements.
2.9 Utilities: Electricity Generation and Distribution
Current provision
2.9.1 National Grid own the electricity transmission system in England and Wales and operate the entire transmission network throughout Great Britain, which links the major power stations and transports electricity in bulk across the country. The electricity distributor for the borough of Great Yarmouth is UK Power Networks, which is known as a Distribution Network Operator (DNO), covering 29,000sq km of London, the south east and east of England. Their role is to take electricity at high voltages from the National Grid and transform it down to voltages suitable for commercial and domestic use. UK Power Networks are responsible for ensuring that the infrastructure that brings power to homes, businesses, hospitals, schools and other public services continues to deliver reliable, safe and sustainable electricity at all times.
Future Schemes
2.9.2 In response to a consultation on the Draft Core Strategy, UK Power Networks has commented on future electricity distribution in the borough. Their overview considers the current network, although as the timescales of development (2013-2028) span a considerable amount of time, the network may be subject to change from other developments during this period. It is also likely to be affected by general load growth.
2.9.3 The 33kV and 132kV electricity distribution networks supplying the Great Yarmouth area currently have reasonable headroom and as such, the proposed development in the borough should not trigger any upstream reinforcement issues. Housing developments of the size proposed are usually supplied by local distribution substations, fed at 11kV and supplying 230v to domestic housing. It is likely that dedicated local substations will be required to supply these developments, the costs of which vary depending on the amount of 11kV cable required to connect to the existing 11kV network. Costs for the substation work are typically in the region of £40-50k, with cable requirements being dependant upon individual cases. A typical substation will supply in the region of 250 domestic dwellings, dependant upon housing type and distance from the substation. The provision of existing 11kV substations within the locations being considered would suggest that due to the presence of existing 11kV network, extension of these networks would not be a major issue. This would be subject to a detailed network study to determine any spare capacity on existing 11kV circuits and the extent of any network extension requirements.
2.9.4 There has also been significant investment in the renewable energy sector in Great Yarmouth with plans for further infrastructure development across the borough. Most of this development is focussed around the south denes area of Great Yarmouth, with the recently designated Enterprise Zone providing an opportunity to build on the town’s strengths in the energy sector and take advantage of the huge growth potential offered by this sector to create thousands of new jobs. There is also significant interest in on shore solar farms and wind turbines in existing and new sites in other parts of the borough which will contribute further to local electricity generation.
Page 34 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 26
2.10 Communications: Broadband, Landlines and Mobile Phones
Current Provision
2.10.1 At present, landline services provided by BT are available throughout the borough although the mobile phone signal is poor in some areas with the A143 corridor leading out of Great Yarmouth being identified as a particular black spot. The County Council have also identified that improving broadband services in Norfolk is considered key to the sustainable economic development of the county. It will bring benefits to the whole of Norfolk, not just the urban areas and the strategic areas of growth. It will allow people to access services remotely as well as run businesses and work from home, reducing overheads and the need to travel.
Future Schemes
2.10.2 Broadband - In December 2010, the Government launched its National Broadband Strategy: ‘Britain’s Superfast Broadband Future’ which sets out the Government’s vision for the UK to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. The Government initially announced the availability of £530m with a further £300m in funding to follow. In March 2011, tier 1 local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships were invited to submit proposals for funds to improve broadband in their area. It was announced in May 2011 that Norfolk County Council’s (NCC’s) bid had been successful and it was awarded £15.44 million of Government funding - NCC is contributing a further £15 million. This money will be added to a significant sum from the private sector partner appointed to deliver Norfolk’s better broadband infrastructure. One of the main priorities of the scheme is to ensure that Norfolk’s Enterprise Zones, located at South Denes in Great Yarmouth and Beacon Park in Gorleston, are fully enabled to receive superfast broadband. These Enterprise Zones have been established by New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership to encourage the offshore renewable energy sector to grow. Providing superfast broadband (24 Megabits per second (Mb/s) plus) will create higher ‘speed uplift’ leading to the largest economic and other benefits.
2.10.3 Mobile phones - The Government have also committed £150 million of capital expenditure to improve mobile coverage and quality. The project will bring improved coverage from 2013 and will be completed by 2015. This commitment is part of a bigger investment project in which £780 million will be invested in the UK’s digital infrastructure. The ‘Mobile Infrastructure Project’ is designed to target areas with no mobile phone coverage and is expected to deliver coverage to an additional 60,000 UK homes and businesses. As part of this project, coverage will be improved along major roads, with an initial 10 priority roads identified, one of which being the A143 corridor between Great Yarmouth and Haverhill in Suffolk. It is also thought that there will be some benefit for mobile phone coverage as a result of the broadband project mentioned above.
2.11 Flood Defence: Tidal and Surface Water Flooding
Current Provision
2.11.1 Due to its location on the North Sea coast and at the mouth of the River Yare, Great Yarmouth is considered to be at risk of tidal and coastal (sea) flooding. Tidal flooding from defence overtopping and breaching is considered to be the most significant source of flooding in the borough but the risk of surface water flooding in certain areas is also considered to be high. Although the consequences of surface water flooding are typically less than tidal flooding, the probability of occurrence is significantly greater. The risk of Page 35 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 27
fluvial (river) and groundwater flooding is considered to be relatively low compared to the risk of tidal flooding.
2.11.2 Many of the affected areas within the borough are currently protected and as such widespread flooding of Great Yarmouth due to tidal, coastal or fluvial events has not been experienced in the recent past. Some flooding of the area around North River Road adjacent to the River Bure has occurred in recent years, although this was due to surface water becoming trapped behind the defences rather than direct flooding from the river. However, more than 3,000 people were evacuated from their homes in Great Yarmouth in 2007, when a surge tide came close to overtopping the flood defences.
2.11.3 Much of the proposed Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP) area lies within flood zones 2 and 3, meaning it is at medium and high risk of flooding. The Council must demonstrate that the sequential test has been applied to the allocation of development within these areas and that there are no reasonably available alternative sites for development in areas of lower risk. Following application of the sequential test, the exception test will also have to be applied for more vulnerable and highly vulnerable development in these zones, such as housing.
Future Schemes
2.11.4 The Environment Agency is responsible for maintaining flood defences in the borough. In February 2013, they announced a £28.6 million project to improve the flood defences in the centre of Great Yarmouth which currently protect over 4,000 homes. More than 660 metres of flood wall will be replaced in Cobholm and Southtown, and other flood defences will be repaired, to ensure the continued protection of homes and businesses from tidal flooding. Work on this project started in spring 2013 with completion due in December 2015, although the flood defence scheme is dependent upon £6 million of local contributions being secured. These contributions from local authorities, businesses and private investors are needed to unlock the funding announced for the project. The Anglian (Eastern) Regional Flood and Coastal Committee recognise the importance and urgency of these works and have approved a £3 million contribution. Part of the Government funding for the Great Yarmouth scheme will come from the £120 million acceleration and economic growth fund announced in the 2012 autumn statement to speed up the construction of around 50 schemes in England.
2.11.5 Based on the geology and soils of Great Yarmouth there are very few areas within the catchment with permeable soils that would be suitable to implement infiltration based sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Non infiltration based SuDS techniques are generally recommended for use in Great Yarmouth, this is due to the soil properties which appear to have high clay content, thus reducing the potential for infiltration. Green (living) roofs are at the top of the sustainability hierarchy for SuDS techniques and are suitable in this area, although on sites larger than 1 Hectare, the Environment Agency wish to see other SuDS techniques supplementing green roofs. As well as flood reduction benefits, green roofs also provide pollution control and landscape and wildlife benefits. Permeable surfaces and filter drains are another non-infiltration based SuDS technique that should be considered in all new development in the borough. Recent residential development at Beacon Park has incorporated such techniques and new development at the key strategic site to the south of Bradwell will be required to incorporate SuDS in order to combat surface water flooding.
Page 36 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 28
2.12 Waste and Recycling: Collection and Disposal
Current Provision
2.12.1 Great Yarmouth Borough Council is responsible for collecting waste from domestic properties across the borough, while Norfolk County Council is the Waste Disposal Authority and is therefore responsible for disposing of refuse. At present, waste collection services are based at the Churchill Road depot in Great Yarmouth. From here, collection vehicles and crews serve the entire borough. Once waste and recycling material is collected, it is taken to a waste transfer facility at Caister which is operated by Norfolk Environmental Waste Service (NEWS) on behalf of Norfolk County Council.
Future Schemes
2.12.2 A refuse collection round can service approximately 5,500 - 6,000 properties, so the housing proposed over the plan period could easily be accommodated by one extra refuse vehicle and crew. The additional waste generated could also be accommodated at the current Churchill Road site in Great Yarmouth. In addition, the waste transfer facilities at Caister operated by Norfolk Environmental Waste Service (NEWS) on behalf of Norfolk County Council are expected to continue their current operation and could easily accommodate an additional waste collection round for potential onward transfer to landfill. There are therefore no physical infrastructure issues foreseen over the plan period in terms of waste and recycling collection and disposal.
2.13 Summary of Physical Infrastructure
2.13.1 The table below provides a summary of future physical infrastructure schemes, with details of how each project will be funded and delivered and the Core Strategy policies that each scheme relates to. At present, the figures in the matrix are estimates and are subject to change.
Table 4: Physical infrastructure requirements matrix
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable
Transport: Highways Beacon Park CS3 Link Road Developer funded Short-medium Norfolk County Roundabout & CS14 £6.7 million (through section term/Critical Council/ A12/A143 Link Road CS16 roundabout 106 agreement)/ GYBC CS18 £100,000 Department for Transport Acle Straight (A47) CS14 £84m Central Long term/ Norfolk County dualling CS16 Government Desirable Council, A47 Alliance Vauxhall CS14 £20-30m Central Long term/ Norfolk County Roundabout CS16 Government Desirable Council, A47 Improvements Alliance Third River Crossing CS14 £112m Central Long term/ Norfolk County CS16 Government Desirable Council CS17
Page 37 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 29
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable AAP site CS3 To be Developer funded Long term/ Norfolk County contributions to off CS14 assessed (through section Critical Council site junction CS16 106 agreement) improvements CS17
Transport: Rail Station CS16 Schemes will Wherry Lines Short-medium Norfolk County Improvements at CS17 vary Community Rail term/ Council, GYBC Great Yarmouth Partnership, Desirable Network Rail, Franchisee Greater Anglia, (Greater Anglia), Central GYBC and Norfolk Government County Council Norfolk Rail CS14 Schemes will Central Long term/ Norfolk County Prospectus priorities: CS16 vary Government, Desirable Council, new or refurbished CS17 Network Rail, Network Rail, rolling stock and Franchisee Central improved (Greater Anglia) Government connections and service frequency Transport: Buses New route to serve CS14 TBC TBC Short term/ Norfolk County train station CS16 Desirable Council, bus CS17 companies Bus stop CS16 £2,750 per Norfolk County Short term/ Norfolk County improvements stop Council Desirable Council New routes to serve CS14 Schemes will Developer funded Short - medium Developer, development at key CS16 vary (through section term/Desirable Norfolk County sites CS17 106 agreement) Council, GYBC CS18 Transport: Walking and Cycling Vauxhall Bridge CS14 £15,000 Norfolk County Short term/ Norfolk County Feasibility Study CS16 Council Desirable Council, GYBC, CS17 Sustrans Vauxhall Bridge CS14 £63,000 Heritage Learning Short term/ Norfolk County Structural CS16 Fund bid Desirable Council, GYBC, Assessment CS17 Sustrans Vauxhall Bridge CS14 £1.25-2.75M £300,000 of Big Long term/ Norfolk County Restoration CS16 Lottery funding Desirable Council, GYBC, CS17 Sustrans Transport: Parking Additional 150 car CS6 Share of £2- Capital funding Short - medium GYBC parking spaces at CS8 3M bid term/Desirable Central Beach pay and display
Page 38 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 30
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable Utilities: Water Supply Main connection and CS3 TBC Developer funded Short - medium Essex and extension at south CS14 (through section term/Critical Suffolk Water, Bradwell CS18 106 agreement) Developer Utilities: Wastewater Treatment Upgrade/provide CS3 TBC Developer funded Short - medium Anglian Water, foul sewerage CS14 (through section term/Critical Developer network capacity at CS17 106 agreement) all sites CS18 Provide surface CS3 Incorporated Developer funded Short - medium Anglian Water, water drainage at all CS14 into build (through section term/Critical Developer sites CS17 costs 106 agreement) CS18 Provide sewage CS3 TBC Developer funded Short - medium Anglian Water, pumping station at CS14 (through section term/Critical Developer Bradwell south CS18 106 agreement) Utilities: Wastewater Treatment
No confirmed schemes
Utilities: Electricity Generation and Distribution New electricity CS3 £40-50,000 Developer funded Short - medium UK Power substations at key CS14 per (through section term/Critical Networks, sites CS17 substation 106 agreement) Developer CS18 Communications: Landlines, Mobile Phones and Broadband Improving mobile CS6 Share of Central Short - medium Norfolk County phone signal on CS14 £150M Government term/Desirable Council A143 corridor national expenditure Improving CS6 £30M+ Central Short - medium Norfolk County Broadband services CS14 Government, term/Critical Council, British including superfast CS18 Norfolk County Telecoms Broadband for Council (£15M Enterprise Zones each), Private sector partner Flood Defence: Surface Water Flooding
Incorporating SuDS CS3 Included in Developer funded Short - long Environment into new CS14 landscaping (through section term/Critical Agency, development where CS18 costs 106 agreement) Anglian Water, possible Developer, GYBC
Page 39 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 31
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable Flood Defence: Tidal Flooding Replacement flood CS3 £28.6M Environment Short Environment wall in Cobholm and CS13 Agency/Local term/Critical Agency Southtown CS17 contributions including £3M from Anglian Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Waste and Recycling: Collection and Disposal Additional refuse CS12 TBC GYBC Short - long GYBC collection and crew CS14 term to serve key site CS17 Critical designations CS18
Page 40 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 32
Section 3: Social Infrastructure
Page 41 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 33
3.1 Housing: Affordable Housing
Current Provision
3.1.1 In 2007, the Borough Council carried out a Housing Market Assessment (HMA) which took into account current and future projected market conditions and demonstrated a high level of need for affordable housing in the borough. The assessment recommended that an affordable housing target of 35% of all new dwellings should be affordable, in order to meet the high demand.
3.1.2 Since that date the following affordable housing figures have been achieved:
2007: 22 dwellings 2010: 58 dwellings 2008: 58 dwellings 2011: 56 dwellings 2009:71 dwellings 2012: 28 dwellings
3.1.3 Although the HMA suggested that the level of affordable housing need is very high, it has not always been possible to achieve this level of provision. The average number of homes delivered between 2007 and 2012 was 48, so the percentage of affordable housing delivered has not reached the 35% target figure. This is due to a number of considerations such as land supply, delivery and financial viability.
3.1.4 As a result, the emerging Core Strategy sets new targets for affordable housing provision, based on an affordable housing viability assessment which was commissioned by the Council in 2012 to better understand the capacity of private development to deliver affordable housing. This assessment used market prospects and a range of cost implications, including other section 106 contributions, to determine the viability of different levels of affordable housing throughout the borough. The assessment identified geographical differences in viability across the borough and as such the emerging Core Strategy has supported the setting of sub-market area based affordable housing thresholds and percentages (see table 5).
Table 5: Affordable housing thresholds and percentages (emerging Core Strategy Policy CS4)
Affordable housing sub-market area Threshold figure Percentage sought Caister-on-Sea, Gorleston, Great Yarmouth 5 dwellings 20% affordable North and Northern Rural Bradwell, Great Yarmouth South and South 5 dwellings 10% affordable Quay, Gorleston West and South West Rural Great Yarmouth Town Centre 15 dwellings 10% affordable
Future Schemes
3.1.5 In line with the revised figures contained within the emerging Core Strategy, the Council will continue to seek affordable housing as part of new development. If development sites come forward in areas where demand is low (some rural parishes for example), developers will be asked for affordable housing contributions to meet higher demand elsewhere in the borough. Location also has a significant effect on the strategy the Council employs when it comes to the type of affordable housing required. For instance, shared ownership schemes
Page 42 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 34
are favoured in rural areas rather than the centre of Great Yarmouth or Gorleston where house prices are already relatively affordable.
3.1.6 At present, the Council is working on plans to provide stand alone affordable housing schemes in the borough. Part of the Great Yarmouth Borough Council Beach Coach Station site in Great Yarmouth is currently being developed to include three affordable units. There is also an ongoing development at Covent Garden Road in Caister where six affordable units are under construction. In addition, the Council has received significant section 106 contributions from developers which it is using in conjunction with local parish councils and registered providers (housing associations) to deliver affordable housing schemes.
3.1.7 The Council has also recently sold two large properties to a local developer who is working in partnership with Saffron Housing Trust to provide affordable housing. A total of 26 units will be created through the conversion of Trafalgar House and the Old Fire Station on Hall Quay in central Great Yarmouth.
3.1.8 The key site designation in south Bradwell will incorporate a significant amount of affordable housing, although the exact percentage sought will depend on a viability appraisal. The Council will ask for a higher percentage of one bed units and some bungalows with wheelchair access to address shortfalls of these two dwelling types. In terms of tenure, social rented, affordable rented, low cost home ownership and shared ownership are all currently considered as acceptable.
3.1.9 Great Yarmouth Community Housing is responsible for the management of the Borough Council’s housing stock of some 6,100 homes. They have immediate plans in place to deliver five affordable units in Martham, five units in Caister and three in Bradwell as the first phase of development through the Norfolk Development Company. These will be the first Council homes to be built in around 20 years. There are also a number of other sites identified across the borough which may be suitable for further Council housing although it is yet to be decided which of these will be sold privately and which could be developed for affordable housing.
3.2 Housing: Gypsies and Travellers
Current Provision
3.2.1 Gypsies and Travellers in Norfolk live in a variety of accommodation types. Some are settled in permanent housing or in caravans on authorised sites whilst others live in temporary encampments, either authorised or unauthorised by the landowner. There are currently four transit sites within Norfolk, with one located in the borough of Great Yarmouth at Gapton Hall. It is important to maintain and where possible improve provision for Gypsies and Travellers in order to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments. The Gapton Hall site was extended in 2008 to incorporate 6 new pitches, a new toilet block and play area.
Future Schemes
3.2.2 The Council will safeguard the existing travellers site at Gapton Hall (25 pitches) for use by gypsies and travellers. The Council will also seek to identify additional permanent pitches for use by gypsies and travellers within the borough. In addition, the Council aims to ensure that sites are made available on a temporary basis for travelling show people as and when they are required.
Page 43 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 35
3.3 Community Facilities: Libraries
Current Provision
3.3.1 There are currently five libraries serving the borough which are all run by Norfolk County Council. These are located in Great Yarmouth, Gorleston, Caister and Martham with an additional independent community library in Bradwell. Libraries are important community facilities that provide valuable resources for local people. The County Council also operate a mobile library service which serves rural areas and smaller settlements in the borough. This service is extremely important for those people in more isolated areas without access to the main libraries.
Future Schemes
3.3.2 Housing developers are often required to make library contributions through section 106 agreements if a new housing scheme contributes to demand for library services. This will continue to be encouraged by Great Yarmouth Borough Council in order to maintain the current level of library provision and to finance extra facilities to serve new residents. If new facilities cannot be provided in certain areas, the Council will work with Norfolk County Council to seek an extension to the current mobile library coverage.
3.3.3 Norfolk County Council have identified that proposed development at the strategic key site designation in south Bradwell would place increased pressure on the existing library service, particularly in relation to library stock, such as books and information technology. As a result, they have recommended that developer contributions should be sought to increase the stock and capacity of Gorleston library at a cost of £60 per additional dwelling.
3.4 Community Facilities: Community Centres
Current Provision
3.4.1 There are numerous community centres and village halls throughout the borough, with smaller villages usually having one facility and larger settlements such as Bradwell and Caister having numerous community buildings.
3.4.2 Community and village halls are another important facility that form a focal point for communities, often providing a base for local organisations and events. They help to build local identity and in some more rural areas may be one of the only forms of social infrastructure available to residents. Their importance is recognised in the NPPF which lists the delivery of sufficient community and cultural facilities and services as one of the 12 core planning policies. It is extremely important that they are protected for the future and expanded where needed in order to serve a growing population.
Future Schemes
3.4.3 Developer contributions will be sought through section 106 agreements to fund the continued provision of community centres and/or new facilities on designated key sites. Housing developers are often required to make contributions towards community centre facilities as a new housing scheme contributes to demand for services. This will continue to be encouraged by the Council in order to maintain the current level of provision and to finance extra facilities to serve new residential development.
Page 44 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 36
3.4.4 The Council is currently working with Martham Parish Council to extend Martham Community Centre. Money received from developer contributions has been transferred to the Parish Council to help fund the extension and to improve the facilities on offer in the village. The key site designation in south Bradwell may include new community facilities which will be required to serve this urban extension.
3.5 Community Facilities: Museums and Cultural Facilities
Current Provision
3.5.1 There are a number of museums in Great Yarmouth borough including the Time and Tide Museum, The Nelson Museum, The Elizabethan House and The Toll House. There are also a number of scheduled ancient monuments such as Caister Castle and two Roman Forts at Burgh Castle and Caister. These are managed by a combination of Norfolk Museums Service, Norfolk County Council and English Heritage. St George’s Theatre on King Street in Great Yarmouth has recently reopened after the St George's Theatre Trust was re-created in 2010 to operate St George's Theatre and manage its restoration on behalf of Great Yarmouth Borough Council. There is also the Pavilion Theatre in Gorleston and the Hippodrome Circus in Great Yarmouth, which has been operating since it was built in 1903. All these facilities play a particularly important part in the borough’s tourism industry as they are an alternative to the traditional offer of seaside tourism. They increase the diversity of tourism facilities and provide attractions outside of the traditional summer months. However, they can often be expensive to operate and the Council will therefore seek funding to maintain the current range of museums and cultural attractions in the borough.
3.5.2 Future Schemes
Housing developers are occasionally required to make contributions towards museums and similar attractions through section 106 agreements if a new housing scheme will contribute to demand for services. This will continue to be encouraged by Great Yarmouth Borough Council in order to maintain the current level of provision and to finance extra facilities to serve new residential development.
3.6 Emergency Services: Police
Current Provision
3.6.1 Norfolk Constabulary currently operates three police stations within the borough which are supported by additional police facilities and services. Great Yarmouth police station is a large divisional HQ with a significant staff of 196. Gorleston police station is a smaller deployment base with a staff of 74 whilst Caister police station has a staff of 12. There is also a recently completed police investigation centre built adjacent to Harfrey’s roundabout in Great Yarmouth. This facility has a purpose built custody block which serves the Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft area. In addition to these facilities, there are drop-in centres at Great Yarmouth High School, which is used by the local safer neighbourhood team and at Great Yarmouth and Gorleston seafronts, which operate during the summer tourist season.
Page 45 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 37
Future Schemes
3.6.2 Norfolk Constabulary has published the Great Yarmouth Command Policing Plan to identify the infrastructure required in order to serve the needs of the community taking into account the planned growth in the borough. The impact of proposed growth has been assessed across the whole of the policing command through consultation with area commanders, by analysing current crime levels, anti-social behaviour and other local issues and assessing the size and location of planned development. Norfolk Constabulary has determined that the proposed level of growth in the borough will significantly increase demand for policing services and place increased pressure on the existing infrastructure base. It also acknowledges that as central Government funding has been reduced, funding must be secured through the planning system via section 106 agreements to ensure that policing can be provided commensurate with development growth.
3.6.3 The Great Yarmouth Command Policing Plan identifies the following infrastructure needs as set out below:
Expansion/alteration of Great Yarmouth Police Station to cater for additional staff in terms of work space/parking/equipment storage Land for new deployment base in Gorleston Start up costs for additional staff – to include training, equipment, computers, upgrade for IT/Airwave CCTV, ANPR (automatic number plate recognition)
3.6.4 Although the cost and delivery timescales of policing infrastructure are subject to change, Norfolk Constabulary has provided some estimated figures which are listed in the social infrastructure requirements matrix.
3.7 Emergency Services: Fire
Current Provision
3.7.1 There are three serving fire stations within the borough located at Great Yarmouth, Gorleston and Martham, all of which are operated by Norfolk Fire Service. The largest of these is at Great Yarmouth which is a wholetime and retained station. It has four wholetime watches consisting of one watch manager, two crew managers and nine firefighters. It also has a retained crew consisting of one watch manager, two crew managers and nine firefighters. There are also fire safety and administrative staff based there. Meanwhile, Gorleston and Martham are both retained stations also consisting of one watch manager, two crew managers and nine firefighters.
3.7.2 Between 2011-12, the three stations dealt with a total of 2,000 incidents, often assisting fire crews in neighbouring Suffolk. Great Yarmouth fire station alone handled 1,741 of these incidents, making it the busiest fire station in Norfolk.
Future Schemes
3.7.3 New development within the borough will be covered by the existing fire stations within the area. However, Norfolk Fire Service have indicated that the proposed development at the key site designation in south Bradwell will require a total of 25 new fire hydrants of no less than a 90mm main at a cost of £412 each. The onus will be on the developer to finance and
Page 46 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 38
install the hydrants during construction to the satisfaction of Norfolk Fire Service and at no cost.
3.8 Education Facilities: Schools
Current Provision
3.8.1 Norfolk County Council is responsible for providing educational facilities within the borough although some schools now operate independently as academies. Within Great Yarmouth borough there are 31 primary and infant schools, five secondary schools: Caister High School, Great Yarmouth High School, Cliff Park School and Ormiston Venture Academy (both Gorleston) and Lynn Grove School (Bradwell). There are also two further education colleges: East Norfolk Sixth Form College in Gorleston and Great Yarmouth College, which serve a large catchment area that extends well beyond the borough boundaries.
Future Schemes
3.8.2 New residential development and population increase will inevitably bring an increased demand for school places. Although some local schools have extra capacity, there may be a need for more places to be made available or for completely new education facilities to be built.
3.8.3 Norfolk County Council has calculated that new development on the key site designation in south Bradwell will generate the following demand:
Nursery School: 97 children (3-5) Primary School: 295 children (5-11) Secondary School: 162 children (11-16)
Table 6: Available places at local schools (Sept 2012)
Spare capacity School Capacity Numbers on Roll No. of places Nursery Provision (3-5) 246 196 +50 Hillside Primary School 210 (excluding 235 -25 (5-11) mobiles) Homefield Primary 210 211 -1 School (5-11) Woodlands Primary 420 382 +38 School (5-11) Lynn Grove High School 1125 1119 +6 (Academy) (11-16) Ormiston Venture 900 605 +295 Academy (11-16)
3.8.4 The figures in table 6 show that there is likely to be a deficit of Primary School places in the catchment area for the key site designation in south Bradwell. Therefore, the County Council have presented the following options:
3.8.5 Option 1: Expand existing primary provision in the Bradwell area to accommodate additional children from this proposed development. If this option was preferred the following
Page 47 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 39
amount(s) would be requested (calculated using the basic need multiplier cost per school place):
For Nursery provision: £5,822 x 64 = £372,608 For Primary school provision: £11,644 x 295 = £3,434,980 For Secondary school provision: £17,546 x 162 = £2,842,452
3.8.6 Option 2: To plan for a new 1.5 form entry (315 places) primary school including nursery provision within the new development to accommodate the additional children. If this option was preferred the following amount(s) would be requested:
1.5ha of land free of charge The cost of building a new 315 place primary school (in the region of £6 - £6.5 million)
3.8.7 For secondary school provision for this option, the County Council expect that Ormiston Venture Academy would be the preferred school and with the amount of spare capacity currently available, no contributions would be sought. However, without changing the catchment boundaries, the new development is still in the catchment of Lynn Grove High School so children who live in this new development would have a right to attend this school if there was space. Therefore, at this stage Norfolk County Council will have to consider both options – either Ormiston Venture Academy with no contributions or Lynn Grove High School with contributions as stated above. Further consultations with local schools are currently being arranged so a clearer strategic plan for the area will be available once these meetings have taken place.
3.8.8 Norfolk County Council has also made comments regarding the development of the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP) area. They have identified that development of Ice House Quay and Haven Approach would require developer contributions towards expansion of Southtown Infant School, Edward Worlledge Community Junior School and Cliff Park High School as necessary in order to mitigate against the impact of new housing. Development of Bure Harbour would lead to increased demand for places at Cobholm Primary. However, as this school cannot be expanded, the County Council would again seek developer contributions towards expansion of Southtown Infant School, Edward Worlledge Community Junior School and Cliff Park High School as necessary and would also consider distribution of school places across catchment area boundaries.
3.8.9 Although development elsewhere in the borough is likely to be on a smaller scale, it will still contribute towards the demand for school places. Therefore, the Council will continue to seek developer contributions towards school places and educational facilities in these areas where necessary.
3.9 Healthcare: Primary Care Centres
Current Provision
3.9.1 Within the borough there are nine medical centres/doctor’s surgeries, seven dentists and eight pharmacies, all of which are operated by the NHS. The James Paget Hospital in Gorleston is the largest healthcare facility in the borough serving the towns of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston as well as the surrounding rural areas both within and outside the borough boundary.
Page 48 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 40
3.9.2 Great Yarmouth and Waveney Primary Care Trust has been replaced by HealthEast, which is the clinical commissioning group for the borough. HealthEast works in partnership with other organisations, including Great Yarmouth Borough Council, to buy health services and to improve the health and wellbeing of the residents of Great Yarmouth borough. HealthEast plans which services are needed and agrees contracts with hospitals, mental health trusts and voluntary organisations to provide care for patients within a set budget.
Future Schemes
3.9.3 The James Paget Hospital will continue to be the primary healthcare facility within the borough. However, there are plans for an increased focus on the newly built Greyfriars Health Centre on Greyfriars Way in Great Yarmouth, with the intention to consolidate some existing nearby services into this improved site. Community based services will continue to be based from Northgate Hospital with a focus on delivering healthcare in the home.
3.9.4 Although there are no confirmed schemes in other parts of the borough, Healtheast have aspirations to improve some existing healthcare facilities. These are usually considered on a case by case basis rather than once a critical population mass has been reached. The Shrublands Health Centre in Gorleston needs to be upgraded as it is currently within a temporary modular building that was developed under a 5 year planning consent. The Falklands Surgery in Bradwell may need to be extended, particularly when considering the impact of new residential development at the key site designation. Caister has also been identified as an area of need, with discussions ongoing about the expansion of Caister Health Centre into new premises.
3.10 Leisure Facilities
Current Provision
3.10.1 Some of the sports and leisure facilities within the borough are privately owned, including a number of member only gyms and golf courses, as well as leisure facilities within hotels, private health clubs and schools and colleges. However, there are numerous public sports facilities including football and cricket pitches, tennis courts and bowling greens. These are covered in more detail in section 4.4. The Great Yarmouth Sport and Leisure Trust, under contract from Great Yarmouth Borough Council, is a not for profit organisation which operates publicly available leisure facilities within the borough. The Trust manages the Marina Centre - the largest sports centre in the area, with a 396m² swimming pool, a gym, indoor bowls, squash and badminton courts, as well as the 250m² Phoenix Pool, which is a smaller swimming pool in Bradwell.
Future Schemes
3.10.2 Great Yarmouth Borough Council has plans to invest £3.5 million in refurbishing the Marina Centre in Great Yarmouth. The Borough Council is working in partnership with the Great Yarmouth Sports and Leisure Trust to significantly improve the existing facilities on offer. This will enhance the Marina Centre’s reputation as one of the largest and most used leisure and sporting facilities in the area.
3.10.3 There are also plans for a new cycle facility located on Great Yarmouth seafront. The Great Yarmouth Bike Project is being set up by Activating CIC, which is a not-for-profit social enterprise that works with the local community, transforming physical activity levels and
Page 49 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 41
driving grassroots participation in cycling. The project will include bike facilities including a workshop, as well as other community assets such as media facilities, a cafe and rooms for community groups. Although still at the early stages, it is hoped the project will become a significant leisure and sporting facility within the borough.
3.11 Summary of Social Infrastructure
3.11.1 The table below provides a summary of future social infrastructure schemes, with details of how each project will be funded and delivered and the Core Strategy policies that each scheme relates to. At present, the figures in the matrix are estimates and are subject to change.
Table 7: Social infrastructure requirements matrix
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable Housing: Affordable Housing Affordable housing CS3 Schemes will Developer Short term GYBC/ scheme and CS4 vary funded (through Critical Registered contribution at Covent CS14 section 106 providers Garden Road, Caister agreement) Stand alone affordable CS3 Schemes will Registered Short - long GYBC/ housing schemes CS4 vary providers term/Critical Registered throughout the borough CS14 providers Affordable housing at CS3 Schemes will Developer Short - long GYBC/ all sites over the CS4 vary funded (through term/Critical Registered relevant size threshold CS14 section 106 providers CS17 agreement) CS18 Community Facilities: Libraries Improve library facilities CS7 Schemes will Developer Short - long Norfolk County across the borough CS15 vary funded (through term/ Council /extend mobile library section 106 Desirable coverage agreement) / Norfolk County Council Increase stock and CS7 £74,000 Developer Short - long Norfolk County capacity at Gorleston CS15 funded (through term/ Council/GYBC library to serve CS18 section 106 Desirable Bradwell key site agreement) / development Norfolk County Council Community Facilities: Community Centre Extend Martham CS7 £63,000 Developer Short term/ GYBC, Martham Community Centre CS15 funded (through Desirable Parish Council section 106 agreement)
Page 50 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 42
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable Improve Community CS7 Schemes will Developer Short - long GYBC, Norfolk Centres across the CS15 vary funded (through term/ County Council borough section 106 Desirable agreement) /Norfolk County Council Emergency Services: Police Great Yarmouth Police CS14 To be Norfolk Long term/ Norfolk Station - construction of assessed Constabulary Desirable Constabulary new or refurbishment of existing facility Gorleston Police Station CS14 To be Norfolk Long term/ Norfolk - construction of new assessed Constabulary Desirable Constabulary suitable facility Caister Police Station - CS14 To be Norfolk Long term/ Norfolk construction of new assessed Constabulary Desirable Constabulary suitable facility Borough wide office CS14 £21,023 per Norfolk Short - long Norfolk space member of Constabulary term/ Constabulary staff Desirable Officer start up costs CS14 £9,157 per Norfolk Short - Norfolk officer Constabulary medium term Constabulary Desirable Police Community CS14 £4,052 per Norfolk Short - Norfolk Support Officer (PCSO) PCSO Constabulary medium term/ Constabulary start up costs Desirable New 4x4 vehicle two CS14 4x4: £24,500 Norfolk Short - Norfolk marked cars, bicycle Marked cars Constabulary medium term/ Constabulary (x2): Desirable £17,045 bicycle: £460 Upgrade Automatic CS14 £5,450 per Norfolk Short - Norfolk Number Plate installation Constabulary medium term/ Constabulary Recognition throughout Desirable borough Upgrade CCTV CS14 To be Norfolk Short - Norfolk throughout borough assessed Constabulary, medium term/ Constabulary, Town Centre Desirable Town Centre Partnership Partnership Emergency Services: Fire 25 new fire hydrants to CS14 £10,300 Developer Short - long Norfolk Fire serve Bradwell key site CS18 funded (through term/Critical Service development section 106 agreement)
Page 51 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 43
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Source Phasing/ Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Critical or Policy Desirable Educational Facilities: Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools New 315 place primary CS3 £6-6.5 Developer Short - long Norfolk County school on 1.5 hectares CS14 million funded (through term/Critical Council of land on Bradwell key CS18 section 106 site designation OR: agreement) Expand existing Nursery CS3 £372,608 Developer Short - long Norfolk County School provision in the CS14 funded (through term/Critical Council Bradwell area CS18 section 106 agreement) Expand existing Primary CS3 £3,434,980 Developer Short - long Norfolk County School provision in the CS14 funded (through term/Critical Council Bradwell area CS18 section 106 agreement) Expand existing CS3 £6,650,040 Developer Short - long Norfolk County Secondary School CS14 funded (through term/Critical Council provision in the CS18 section 106 Bradwell area agreement) Borough wide CS3 Schemes will Developer Short - long Norfolk County improvements to CS14 vary funded (through term/Critical Council educational facilities section 106 agreement) Healthcare: Primary Health Facilities
No confirmed schemes
Leisure Facilities: Refurbishment of CS8 £3.5million Great Yarmouth Medium term Great Yarmouth Marina Centre CS15 Borough Desirable Borough Council Council/Great Yarmouth Sports and Leisure Trust
Page 52 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 44
Section 4: Green Infrastructure
Page 53 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 45
4.1 Open Spaces: Parks and Gardens
Current Provision
4.1.1 Within the borough of Great Yarmouth there is a total of 223.5 hectares of open space provision. This includes a variety of public parks, gardens and green spaces which are managed by Great Yarmouth Borough Council and allotments managed by parish councils and Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Allotment Association. These are extremely important natural features that help to add individual character to different parts of the borough as well as providing leisure and employment opportunities for local residents. They can be an essential component in maintaining sustainable communities, providing a focus for local people and helping to promote healthy lifestyles.
4.1.2 Parks and Gardens are designated into three broad categories:
Neighbourhood parks – areas with limited or no facilities and relatively simple landscaping and planting, used predominantly by the immediate community Middle order parks – areas with typically a wider range of users, with better facilities than that of a neighbourhood park. These parks are typically utilised by more than one local community Strategic parks – areas that people travel to from further afield to access a wide range of facilities, catering for a diverse range of people. Strategic parks will have the largest range of facilities and clear thought will have been put into their design and use for both cultural and educational purposes.
Table 8: Parks and gardens within the borough
Park/Garden Size hectares Designation St Georges Park, GY 1.6 Strategic Park Gorleston Cliffs 10.7 Strategic Park Priory Gardens, GY 1.0 Middle Order Park Waterways Garden, GY 4.3 Middle Order Park Anchor Gardens, GY 0.5 Neighbourhood Park Clock Gardens, GY 0.2 Neighbourhood Park Gorleston Pool Garden 0.3 Neighbourhood Park Harbour Gardens, 0.3 Neighbourhood Park Gorleston Meadow Park, Gorleston 1.6 Neighbourhood Park Middleton Gardens, 0.4 Neighbourhood Park Gorleston South Beach Gardens, GY 0.9 Neighbourhood Park
4.1.3 Maintenance of existing or provision of new open space within the borough is predominantly funded by developer contributions through section 106 agreements. The type and level of provision expected for each new development depends on the specific characteristics of the proposal, the site and its context. In most cases it is necessary to assess the extent and quality of existing infrastructure in the wider area and use this as the basis for deciding on the proposed types of open space or the financial contribution sought.
Page 54 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 46
Future Schemes
4.1.4 The Borough Council want to ensure that all new developments contribute to the provision of recreational green space and incorporate improvements to the existing green infrastructure according to local circumstances. The Council will continue the current requirement for housing developers to make open space contributions through section 106 agreements if a new housing scheme will contribute towards an increase in demand, in order to maintain the current level of provision and to finance extra facilities to serve new residential development. If new facilities cannot be provided in certain areas, a financial contribution would be sought for the maintenance or creation of new parks and gardens in the vicinity. To serve the increased local population, the key site designations in central Great Yarmouth and at south Bradwell will be required to provide a significant amount of open space on site, in line with nationally recognised guidance.
4.2 Open Space: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
Current Provision
4.2.1 Sustainable Drainage Systems are an effective method of tackling flooding issues but they can also be used as attractive landscape features that provide accessible open space. The SuDS constructed on Beacon Park in Gorleston act as a landscape feature as well as surface water drainage.
Future Schemes
4.2.2 Please refer to Section 2: Physical Infrastructure, for plans relating to the implementation of SuDS. Paragraph 2.7.4 relates to the use of SuDS to relieve pressure on the wastewater treatment network and paragraph 2.11.5 expands on the use of non-infiltration based SuDS to reduce surface water flooding. As well as their primary purpose of providing surface water drainage, SuDS will also contribute to the green infrastructure within the borough.
4.3 Play Provision: Children’s Play Areas
Current Provision
4.3.1 There are numerous play facilities located throughout the borough which are aimed at a variety of age groups, all of which are managed by Great Yarmouth Borough Council. They have been predominantly funded by section 106 agreements although some have been provided through lottery funding or by community groups. There are a total of 68 publically accessible playgrounds within the borough, and an additional 17 Great Yarmouth Community Housing playgrounds which have access restricted to community residents. Play facilities are classified by three different age ranges, those for juniors (under 8 years), intermediates (6-12 years) and seniors (8-14 years). Play areas are also further classified as follows:
Local Areas for Play (LAP) – an unsupervised area designed for young children enclosed by fencing or other barriers and overlooked by housing Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) – an unsupervised area equipped for children of early age with consideration for the needs of supervised children from birth to 4 years and unaccompanied children older than 8
Page 55 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 47
Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP) – an unsupervised site equipped mainly for older children (8-14 years) with consideration for slightly younger supervised or accompanied children, other children and those with special needs.
Future Schemes
4.3.2 New play facilities in the borough will predominantly be funded by developer contributions through section 106 agreements. Facilities are often included within a new housing development or if this is not suitable, a contribution is used towards providing infrastructure elsewhere in the locality. At present, there is a significant amount of section 106 funding available to finance children’s play areas which will see new schemes delivered throughout the borough. This includes £57,000 available for improvements to junior play facilities in Southtown, £55,000 to provide play space and equipment in Bradwell and £20,000 for the refurbishment of the existing Cornfields play area in Bradwell. The Council has also agreed a number of other section 106 agreements which will see developers continuing to contribute towards new play provision in the future.
4.4 Play Provision: Playing Pitches/Sports Facilities
Current Provision
4.4.1 The borough has approximately 111 hectares of playing fields which are largely used for sports activities and approximately 6 hectares of courts, greens and multi-use games areas (used for football, tennis, bowls, netball, basketball, etc) as well as a skate park. The distribution of outdoor sports facilities within the borough is shown in table 7 (where facilities overlap borders, the entire space has been allocated to just one parish). The figures show that many rural parishes are deficient in sports facilities, which closely follows the population distribution of the borough.
Table 9: Distribution of playing fields, courts and greens
Parish Area of Playing Fields Area of Courts & Greens (hectares) (hectares) Ashby with Oby 0 0 Belton with Browston 5.3 0.2 Bradwell 23.3 0.4 Burgh Castle 2.0 0 Caister-on-Sea 7.6 0.3 Filby 2.8 0.2 Fleggburgh 1.7 0.2 Fritton & St Olaves 0 0.1 Great Yarmouth 43.6 3.0 Hemsby 2.0 0.2 Hopton-on-Sea 1.9 0.4 Martham 10.4 0.4 Mautby 0 0.1 Ormesby St Margaret 4.0 0.2 Ormesby St Michael 0 0 Repps with Bastwick 1.3 0.1 Rollesby 2.8 0.1
Page 56 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 48
Somerton 0 0 Stokesby with Herringby 0 0 Thurne 0 0 West Caister 0 0 Winterton-on-Sea 2.1 0.2 Borough Total 111.1 6.1
Future Schemes
4.4.2 New playing pitches and sports facilities in the borough are predominantly funded by developer contributions through section 106 agreements. Facilities may be included within a new housing development or the Council will require a contribution towards providing infrastructure elsewhere in the locality. At present, there is significant section 106 funding available to finance ‘amenity areas’ which includes provision of new playing pitches and facilities throughout the borough, including £78,000 which is being used for an extension of Gorleston skate park. The Council has agreed a number of other section 106 agreements which will see developers contributing towards playing pitches and open space schemes in the future.
4.5 Biodiversity: Enhancement and Habitat Management and Creation
Current Provision
4.5.1 The borough’s natural environment is rich in biodiversity and includes internationally and nationally recognised nature designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Protected Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar sites. These designations provide increased protection to a variety of wild animals, plants and habitats and are a vital part of efforts to conserve biodiversity. Alongside these international designations, the borough also has designated protected landscapes including part of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and The Norfolk Broads (part of the National Park family) as well as nationally significant nature conservation sites including Norfolk County Wildlife Sites, National Nature Reserves and Local Nature Reserves.
Future Schemes
4.5.2 The Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed to translate national objectives set by Government into local action. It contains clear targets and actions that specify what needs to be done, by whom and by when, to conserve Norfolk’s most endangered animals, plants and habitats. The Council aim to ensure new development does not harm biodiversity but improves it where possible. This may be through the provision of new open spaces or more specific measures designed to protect certain species. Biodiversity protection is also likely to be funded by developer contributions received through section 106 agreements. A commuted sum may be required where appropriate to cover the future maintenance of existing habitats and biologically diverse areas. If a development is deemed harmful to local biodiversity, developers will be required to mitigate against these effects by providing adequate compensation which can be used elsewhere in the borough.
Page 57 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 49
4.6 Summary of Green Infrastructure
4.6.1 The table below provides a summary of future green infrastructure schemes, with details of how each project will be funded and delivered and the Core Strategy policies that each scheme relates to. At present, the figures in the matrix are estimates and are subject to change.
Table 10: Green infrastructure requirements matrix
Infrastructure Core Estimated Funding Phasing Delivery Lead Requirement Strategy Cost Source Critical or Policy Desirable
Open Spaces: Parks and Gardens Open space CS9 Schemes will Developer Short – long term GYBC provision CS11 vary funded Desirable incorporated into CS15 (through new development section 106 agreement) Open Spaces: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
See Physical Infrastructure requirements matrix
Play Provision: Children’s Play Areas Improvement to CS15 £57,000 Developer Short term/ GYBC junior play provision available funded Desirable in Southtown (through section 106 agreement) Provide play space CS15 £55,000 Developer Short term/ GYBC and equipment in available funded Desirable Bradwell (through section 106 agreement) Refurbishment of CS15 £20,000 Developer Short term/ GYBC Cornfields play area available funded Desirable in Bradwell (through section 106 agreement) Play provision: Playing Pitches/Sport Facilities Expansion of CS15 £78,000 Developer Short term/ GYBC Gorleston Skate Park funded Desirable (through section 106 agreement) Biodiversity: Enhancement through Habitat Management and Creation Enhancement of CS11 Schemes will Developer Short - long term/ GYBC existing biodiversity vary funded Desirable through new (through development section 106 agreement)
Page 58 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 50
Section 5: Funding and Delivering Infrastructure
Page 59 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 51
5.1 How is infrastructure funded?
5.1.1 As the types of infrastructure featured in this plan vary greatly, so do the various forms of funding used to deliver them. Given the current financial climate and in particular the Government’s cuts to local authority budgets and public spending, it is particularly important to establish if funding can be secured for infrastructure projects and more importantly, which source it will come from. During the life of this plan, there are likely to be four main sources of funding available to deliver different types of infrastructure.
Central Government
5.1.2 Many large scale strategic infrastructure projects such as public transport provision and energy production are funded by Central Government, often in partnership with the private sector. When such projects are required, they are likely to serve large areas and may require the Council to work in partnership with other stakeholders in order to secure funding for strategic infrastructure. The Government’s National Infrastructure Plan (2011) (and the subsequent 2012 update) contains plans for a number of nationally important infrastructure projects, although these are large scale schemes which are not required to deliver the Great Yarmouth Borough Core Strategy.
5.1.3 The Homes and Communities Agency manages the Local Infrastructure Fund to provide a range of support to deliver the infrastructure needed to boost Enterprise Zone schemes and accelerate locally-supported large scale housing developments. Large scale land, property or commercial projects can apply for a commercial loan or equity for upfront infrastructure work. The Government has also announced some specific funding for Enterprise Zones which continue to offer retained business rates, a proportion of which is reinvested to provide infrastructure and to meet operating costs.
5.1.4 In November 2012, the Department for Transport (DfT) consulted nationwide Local Transport Bodies (LTB) on a new infrastructure funding pot called the ‘Local Pinch Point Fund’ and asked for proposals for a share of the £170 million which would be made available through a competitive bidding process. A share of the Local Pinch Point Fund would be made available to infrastructure projects that could demonstrate a benefit from congestion alleviation and unlocking new growth.
5.1.5 In February 2013, Norfolk County Council (as LTB) jointly submitted a proposal with Great Yarmouth Borough Council for a key section of link road between the A12 and the A143 to help relieve congestion and to unlock up to 1,000 new homes and valuable new employment land to the west of the Enterprise Zone, capitalising on the burgeoning offshore energy industry in the borough and across the region. In June 2013, the A12/A143 bid was successfully announced, as one of only 72 other bids nationwide, at a total project cost of £6.77 million.
Local Government
5.1.6 Local authorities are responsible for funding many types of infrastructure such as waste and recycling collection, parks and gardens and some healthcare facilities. Funding for these projects often originates from Central Government grants as well as contributions from developers through planning obligations (see further detail below). However, the amount of money available from Government grants has reduced significantly. Therefore, local authorities are examining different methods of generating income through new income streams or alternative sources of funding.
Page 60 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 52
5.1.7 Funding from the European Union has helped to facilitate some projects, but the Government has also put new initiatives in place to help develop infrastructure schemes. This includes the ‘Growing Places Fund’ which aims to generate economic activity in the short term by adressing immediate infrastrucutre and site constraints and promoting the delivery of jobs and housing. The project makes available £500 million worth of funding nationally which can be applied for by Local Enterprise Partnerships in collaboration with local authorities.
5.1.8 The Council also benefits from the New Homes Bonus which is a national pot of almost £1 billion set aside by the Department for Communities and Local Government over the Comprehensive Spending Review period (2011 to 2015). The Government have agreed to match fund Council Tax revenue raised from new homes and properties brought back into use with an additional figure for affordable housing. Local authorities can decide how to spend the money but they are expected to consult local communities to identify needs with a particular focus on infrastructure provision. In 2012-13, Great Yarmouth Borough Council received a total of £274,155 and is set to receive £829,174 in 2013-14.
5.1.9 A further potential source of funding is Tax Increment Financing (TIF) which will allow local authorities to borrow against predicted growth in tax revenues. This will finance the borrowing required to fund public infrastructure improvements that will in turn create the increased revenues. The TIF has the potential to ‘unlock’ future development and infrastructure that is required but may not otherwise be provided due to financial constraints.
Private Sector
5.1.10 Some private sector organisations are required to provide infrastructure improvements when and where they are needed, for example a water company may improve and extend sewage systems to serve new development where necessary. The private sector may also work with local authorities through a number of different partnerships and joint ventures that will often provide mutual benefits.
5.1.11 Planning obligations, which are financial contributions received through section 106 agreements, are one of the major sources of private sector funding. They form part of a legal agreement which requires developers to financially contribute towards infrastructure or to provide facilities that will serve new development. For example, this may include contributions towards a new school, library or open space. Instead of making a direct financial contribution towards a local authority, a developer may also agree to carry out works such as improving road surfaces or building a children’s play area within a new housing scheme.
5.1.12 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new system that is replacing section 106 agreements in some areas. The CIL must be levied as a tariff in £’s per square metre of floorspace arising from any chargeable development. The charge is applied to the gross floorspace of most new buildings or extensions to existing buildings. The revenue can then be used by local authorities to support development by funding new infrastructure. Although at present the Council has no plans to introduce CIL, it may be implemented in the borough in the future. The latest CIL regulations have implications for the way that section 106 funding can be used. They state that from April 2015, local authorities can no longer pool section 106 funds from more than five agreements to pay for infrastructure schemes.
Page 61 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 53
Voluntary and other Agencies
5.1.14 The National Lottery is a significant source of charitable funding that can be used to meet local infrastructure needs. Lottery funding is split into a number of different organistaions that provide funding for different areas. Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts in England, distributing public money from Government and the National Lottery. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) gives grants to sustain and transform heritage ranging from museums, parks and historic places to archeology, the natural environment and cultural traditions. There has been considerable success with HLF projects in Great Yarmouth in recent years including significant funding secured for the redevelopment of St Georges Theatre and the White Lion pub on King Street. Sport England is another branch of lottery funding that invests in projects that help people to start, stay and succeed in sport and physical activity at every level.
5.2 How is infrastructure delivered?
5.2.1 Delivery of infrastructure will involve partnership working between a number of different organisations and stakeholders. This includes the Norfolk Development Company (NDC) which aims to bring together the various development skills and resources of Norfolk County Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council to provide greater capacity for delivery. The company structure provides a mechanism for joint venture activity, which will enable new projects to be agreed and implemented more quickly. Partnership working will also include collaborating with neighbouring authorities on cross boundary issues such as transport infrastructure.
5.2.2 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are another important part of this process. LEPs are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and businesses, formed in 2011 by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. They aim to help determine local economic priorities and lead economic growth and job creation within their local area. New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership is the LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk which acts as a catalyst and commissioning body, bringing together the expertise and knowledge of the private and public sector to help businesses grow. The LEP maintains a strong focus on the energy and tourism sectors particularly within Great Yarmouth borough.
5.2.3 New Anglia has identified business sectors that offer real and immediate potential for jobs growth and is working to help develop these sectors. It provides support for businesses and also some funding for certain projects with major potential for New Anglia funding towards offshore related projects within the borough. New Anglia is also the national leader on developing the green economy, working to provide practical solutions in the development of low-carbon and environmental goods and services. Whilst New Anglia LEP has the energy and tourism sectors as key economic drivers, Wild Anglia is a nature partnership linked to the LEP which aims to strengthen nature for the long term, working to prevent the loss of species and habitats across Norfolk and Suffolk.
5.2.4 The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) work closely with LEPs, local authorities and communities to support and facilitate the delivery of strategies through Local Investment Plans. The HCA have worked with local authorities, either individually or in groups, to draw up Local Investment Plans that reflect local priorities for action and investment. The outcomes of the local investment planning processes reflect local circumstances and priorities and so plans vary significantly in content, focus and length, with an emphasis on priority projects and the support needed over the short and long-term to deliver them.
Page 62 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 54
Some plans also focus on particular aspects or themes such as increasing the supply of homes for older people or rural communities, or making best use of public assets in a particular area.
5.2.5 Parish Councils and local community organisations are important stakeholders when it comes to identifying local infrastructure needs and helping to deliver new projects. Some parishes have parish plans which can contribute towards this process and the Borough Council will use these documents in order to deliver new services and facilities where they are most needed. There is now also the potential for local community groups to create Neighbourhood Plans (under the Localism Act) which are given more recognition in planning terms.
5.3 Next Steps
5.3.1 The plan concludes that over the lifetime of the Core Strategy, the amount of new development in the borough and the anticipated growth in population will require infrastructure improvements to be provided. The critical areas which have been identified in this version of the plan are:
A new roundabout at Beacon Park and an A12/A143 link road Expanding school facilities in the Bradwell area Improving utility provision at key sites including upgrading water supply and electricity substations Improvements to surface water and waste water drainage systems across the borough Improving communications, in particular broadband facilities Replacing flood walls and improving flood protection in Great Yarmouth Increasing the level of affordable housing in the borough
5.3.2 The requirements summarised above are all ‘critical’ infrastructure requirements which need to be in place before any new development can start. However, obtaining sufficient funding is often the key limiting factor when it comes to delivering infrastructure improvements, especially as the level of funding available at a national, regional and local level has been vastly reduced in recent years, making delivering new infrastructure more challenging. Despite this trend, it is encouraging to see that funding and delivery mechanisms are already in place for many of the ‘critical’ projects identified in this Infrastructure Plan, which should facilitate the growth planned in the emerging Core Strategy.
5.3.3 As the Infrastructure Plan is reviewed, there will be continued discussion with infrastructure providers to inform future versions of the document. It is important that regularly reviewing this document helps to identify new funding sources and delivery mechanisms to ensure the continued provision of infrastructure. This will maintain the delivery of ‘critical’ infrastructure and may unlock funding for other ‘desirable’ projects that are not necessarily needed to facilitate immediate development but are facilities and services that the Council aims to put in place over the lifetime of the Core Strategy. The Infrastructure Plan will then be formally updated and published alongside the Annual Monitoring Report in December each year. This is to ensure it is a ‘living’ document that is able to respond to the frequently changing nature of the supply, demand and planning of infrastructure.
Page 63 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 55
Page 64 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 56
Page 65 of 229Infrastructure Plan, September 2013 Page 57
Strategic Planning Team, Page 66 of 229 Great Yarmouth Borough Council Town Hall, Hall Plain, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR30 2QF Telephone: 01493846626 Email: [email protected]
Open Space Study
Part 1: Open Space Audits and Local Standards
September 2013
Page 67 of 229 11
Contents
Executive Summary...... 4
Section 1: Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Purpose of this Study ...... 7 1.2 Geographic, Social and Economic Context ...... 8 1.3 Demographic Profile of the Borough ...... 12 1.4 National Policy Context ...... 15 1.5 Related Studies and Guidance ...... 16 1.6 Typology of Open Space ...... 18 1.7 Methodology ...... 19
Section 2: Urban Parks and Gardens ...... 24 2.1 Urban Parks & Gardens Consultations ...... 25 2.2 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit- Quantity ...... 28 2.3 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit- Quality ...... 31 2.4 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit- Accessibility ...... 34 2.5 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit Summary ...... 36 2.6 Urban Parks & Gardens Local Standards ...... 37
Section 3: Accessible Natural Greenspace ...... 38 3.1 Accessible Natural Greenspace Consultations ...... 39 3.2 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit- Quantity ...... 41 3.3 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit- Quality ...... 50 3.4 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit- Accessibility ...... 53 3.5 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit Summary ...... 58 3.6 Accessible Natural Greenspace Benchmark Standards ...... 59 3.7 Accessible Natural Greenspace Local Standards ...... 60
Section 4: Outdoor Sports Facilities ...... 61 4.1 Outdoor Sports Facilities Consultations ...... 62 4.2 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit- Quantity ...... 66 4.3 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit- Quality ...... 93 4.4 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit- Accessibility ...... 98 4.5 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit Summary ...... 101 4.6 Outdoor Sports Facilities Benchmark Standards ...... 102 4.7 Outdoor Sports Facilities Local Standards ...... 102
Section 5: Amenity Greenspace ...... 103 5.1 Amenity Greenspace Consultations ...... 104 5.2 Amenity Greenspace Audit- Quantity ...... 109 5.3 Amenity Greenspace Audit- Quality ...... 111 5.4 Amenity Greenspace Audit- Accessibility ...... 111 5.5 Amenity Greenspace Audit Summary ...... 112 5.6 Amenity Greenspace Benchmark Standards ...... 112
Page 68 of 229 2
5.7 Amenity Greenspace Local Standards ...... 113
Section 6: Children’s Playspace ...... 114 6.1 Children’s Playspace Consultations ...... 115 6.2 Children’s Playspace Audit- Quantity ...... 117 6.3 Children’s Playspace Audit- Quality ...... 125 6.4 Children’s Playspace Audit- Accessibility ...... 125 6.5 Children’s Playspace Audit Summary ...... 131 6.6 Children’s Playspace Benchmarks Standards ...... 132 6.7 Children’s Playspace Local Standards ...... 133
Section 7: Allotments ...... 134 7.1 Allotments Consultations ...... 135 7.2 Allotments Audit- Quantity ...... 137 7.3 Allotments Audit- Quality ...... 140 7.4 Allotments Audit- Accessibility ...... 143 7.5 Allotments Audit Summary ...... 143 7.6 Allotments Benchmark Standards ...... 145 7.7 Allotments Local Standards...... 147
Section 8: Churchyards and Cemeteries ...... 148 8.1 Churchyards and Cemeteries Audit- Quantity ...... 149
Section 9: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 150 9.1 Conclusions ...... 151 9.2 Recommendations ...... 155 9.3 Next Steps ...... 155
Appendix 1 ...... 156
Page 69 of 229 3
This study forms part of the evidence base for Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan. The study informs the approach taken in the Core Strategy and provides a platform for the forthcoming Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan document. This document forms Part 1 of the Open Space Study, and has audited the quantity, quality and accessibility of various types of open space. The average quantity of open space across the borough is shown below.
Urban Accessible Outdoor Amenity Children’s Churchyards Allotments Total Parks & Natural Sports Greenspace Playspace & per 1,000 Space Gardens Greenspace Facilities per 1,000 per 1,000 Cemeteries pop (ha) per per per 1,000 per pop (ha) pop (ha) per 1,000 Ward 1,000 pop (ha) 1,000 pop (ha) per pop pop (ha) 1,000 (ha) pop (ha) 0.23 15.67 1.22 0.76 0.17 0.39 0.47 18.91
The report also sets the following locally derived standards for the provision of open space in relation to existing and future provision:
Urban Parks & Gardens Quantity: 0.4ha per 1,000 population in the urban area Quality: Strategic Parks – 80% quality, 73% value Middle Order Parks – 70% quality, 65% value Neighbourhood Parks – 71% quality, 55% value Litter and dog waste bins – one per 0.5ha or one per entrance. Seating and signage to be provided. Parks over 1ha to contain facilities for young people Accessibility: Straight line distances for residents in the urban area: 500m to a Neighbourhood Park 1km to a Middle Order Park 2km to a Strategic Park Wheelchair access to all parks and gardens
Accessible Natural Greenspace Quantity: 16ha accessible natural greenspace of any type, minimum size 1ha per 1,000 population Quality: 68% quality, 75% value Accessibility: site of over 1ha within 2km for all residents, where possible this should have wheelchair access
Page 70 of 229 4
Outdoor Sports Facilities Quantity: 1.2ha formal outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf courses) per 1,000 population Quality: wheelchair access, changing facilities and a range of activities available. Floodlighting where a need is identified. Synthetic turf pitches to be included in new provision Accessibility: a catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius for each sport facility. Fully accessible by pedestrians and public transport, with a range of facilities available for those with mobility problems. Pedestrian crossings on main roads as required
Amenity Greenspace Quantity: 0.8ha informal amenity greenspace per 1,000 population Quality: all amenity greenspace to be located close to both residential development and employment sites. Seating to be provided where appropriate Accessibility: within the following straight line distances from dwellings/work-places: Sites up to 1ha – within 150m Sites 1-3ha – within 200m Sites 3-10ha – within 500m
Children’s Playspace Quantity: 0.2ha formal play space per 1,000 population. 30 children (0-14) per item of play equipment and 200 teenagers per teen facility. Separate teen facilities if there are none within 1km Quality: all play spaces to be safe and welcoming, with a range of play equipment (themed if possible). Junior play areas to be fenced in. Teen facilities to be separated from children’s Accessibility: straight line distances from dwellings: Junior (0-8yrs) – up to 100m Intermediate (6-12yrs) up to 300m Senior (8-14yrs) up to 600m Teen (14+yrs) up to 1km Full disabled access. Pedestrian crossings as required
Allotments Quantity: 7 allotment plots per 1,000 population, or 0.18ha per 1,000 population Quality: 80% quality, 75% value. Adequate water supply and composting bins should be provided. Secure boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities on site Accessibility: straight line distance to an allotment site of up to 900 metres for residents. Sites should have pedestrian, vehicular and disabled access, with adequate parking space
Page 71 of 229 5
Page 72 of 229 6
1.1 Purpose of this Study
1.1.1 This study forms part of the evidence base for Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan. The study informs the approach taken in the Core Strategy and provides a platform for the forthcoming Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan document. This document forms Part 1 of the Open Space Study, and contains audits of various open space types and sets local standards for the provision of open space in relation to existing and future provision. Part 2 of the study will be produced at a later stage and will use these audits and standards to set guidelines for the developer contributions towards open space provision that will be required in relation to new development.
1.1.2 The Great Yarmouth Parks & Open Spaces Strategy (2005) adopted the NPFA standard for combined forms of open space. This document progresses the borough’s standpoint by advancing locally derived standards for open space. However, it retains all other aspects of the strategy, including the 2005 document’s vision for open space in the borough as: ‘A network of easily accessible, safe, attractive and welcoming parks and open spaces which meet the needs of everyone and which contribute to the economic, social, environmental and educational well- being of people and places now and for future generations.’
1.1.3 A Leisure Strategy for Great Yarmouth (2006-2016) contained an audit of the borough’s leisure provision. This study goes some way to updating this audit, for outdoor sports facilities. It does not over-write any other aspect of the strategy.
1.1.4 The Great Yarmouth Play Strategy (2006-2012) audited play spaces in the borough. Again, this study updates the audit aspect, but does not replace any other elements of the strategy.
Page 73 of 229 7
1.2 Geographic, Social and Economic Context
1.2.1 Located in the East of England, the Borough of Great Yarmouth is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the city of Norwich to the west and the coastal town of Lowestoft to the south. The town of Great Yarmouth is a well-established coastal tourist resort; with many other resorts along the borough’s 24 kilometres of coastline. The hinterland of the borough is rural and forms part of the protected Broads landscape and also includes part of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Winterton-on-Sea.
1.2.2 Great Yarmouth Borough covers over 17,000 hectares with a population in the region of 96,3001. The largest settlements are Great Yarmouth and Gorleston which combined form the third largest urban area in Norfolk. Adjoining Gorleston is Bradwell, which is the next largest settlement in the borough, and the rural areas of the borough are intermittently scattered with small and medium-sized settlements, the largest being Ormesby St Margaret. Population density is estimated to be 542 people per square km2.
1.2.3 Great Yarmouth is a principle centre for retail, services and employment, including port related activities. Gorleston is the secondary town in the borough and contains a well-functioning high street and is also a popular seaside resort. There are two sites of Enterprise Zone status within the borough, at Beacon Park, Gorleston and South Denes, Great Yarmouth providing opportunities to further strengthen the boroughs economy in terms of the energy sector.
1.2.4 Tourism is the other major contributor to the borough's economy, with over 4.4 million visitors (day trippers and staying) worth a total of over £492 million, in 20093. Visitors have been coming to Great Yarmouth since the late 1700s and the resort is now one of the most popular in the UK for day trips, weekend breaks and longer holidays. The resort features a pleasure beach, amusement arcades and summer shows, and there are several other seaside resorts along the borough’s coast.
1.2.5 In addition to seaside tourism, the borough attracts tourists for outdoor activities such as walking, sailing and bird-watching. The ‘Trinity Broads’ (Filby, Ormesby, and Rollesby) within the borough are popular for sailing. Martham Broad is a National Nature Reserve, Breydon Water is a Local Nature Reserve, and both are popular with bird-watchers and ramblers. The Thurne, Bure and Yare rivers run through the borough and are busy with river cruising craft in the summer. In 2008, the revenue from tourism across the entire Broads area was estimated to be nearly £414 million4.
1 Based on ONS population estimates, 2009 2 ONS Regional Data Table 1.2 3 Economic Impact of Tourism in Great Yarmouth 2009, East of England Tourism 4 A Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism in the Broads 2011-2015 Page 74 of 229 8
1.2.6 Personal wealth can impact on the range of facilities that can be accessed, and the two most deprived areas in Norfolk are in the urban area of Great Yarmouth (Nelson Ward and Central & Northgate Ward). Nelson is the most deprived ward in Norfolk, and 19.1% of the entire borough’s population were income-deprived in 20105. 22.22% of the borough’s working-age residents claim benefits, compared to a Norfolk average of 14.48%6. Therefore, the accessibility of open space will be an important consideration throughout this report.
1.2.7 The annual income needed to buy an average home in the borough in 2009 was £29,6897 while the average gross annual income was £16,0388. In April 2010 just over 82% of the borough’s housing stock of 43,780 homes was privately-owned9, with 6,293 households (about 14.9% of all households) on council or housing association waiting lists10.
1.2.8 The Broads Authority has responsibility for the planning functions of the Broads area which accounts for about 37%11 of the total Great Yarmouth Borough area. The Broads are Britain's largest protected wetland, with the status of a national park. It presents an apparently natural landscape, despite being the result of historic human activity. While the Broads Authority area within the Borough of Great Yarmouth is included in the audit of open space, this study does not seek to impose standards in the Broads Authority area. Any additional open space in this area will have to be established in conjunction with the Broads Authority (there was no Open Space Study performed for the Broads Authority Core Strategy, adopted in 2007).
5 DIN note 4/11, Norfolk County Council 6 Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study, February 2011 7 CLG Live Table 582, Council of Mortgage Lenders Table MM11 8 ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009 (table 8.7a) 9 CLG Live Table 100 10 CLG Live Table 600 11 Broads Authority area within Great Yarmouth Borough= 6,650 ha; Great Yarmouth Borough total area = 18,218 ha Page 75 of 229 9
Fig. 1: Great Yarmouth Borough Wards
Page 76 of 229 10
Fig. 2: The Broads Authority Executive Area within the Borough
Page 77 of 229 11
1.3 Demographic Profile of the Borough
1.3.1 It is essential to consider the demographic profile of the borough, as key demographic features are known to influence the demand for open space. For example, particular sports and leisure activities attract certain age groups; cultural backgrounds may affect recreation choices. The key demographic features of the borough are outlined in this section.
1.3.2 The population of the borough is 96,27112. The largest settlements are Great Yarmouth and Gorleston with a combined population of 50,940 which is the third largest urban area in Norfolk. Adjoining Gorleston is Bradwell, which is the next largest settlement in the borough, with a population of 10,642 followed by Caister- on-Sea, a large village to the north of Great Yarmouth with a population of 8,782.
1.3.3 The rural areas of the borough are scattered with small and medium-sized settlements, the largest being Ormesby St Margaret with a population of 4,112.
1.3.4 The ethnic mix of the population reflects that of the rest of the county as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Ethnic Mix (Comparison between Great Yarmouth Borough and Norfolk)
% White % White % White % Mixed % Asian % Black % British Irish Other or Asian or Black Chinese/ British British Other Ethnic
Great Yarmouth Borough 90.86 0.62 2.91 1.14 2.7 1.14 0.62 Norfolk 90.64 0.60 3.09 1.15 2.29 0.91 1.35 Source: 2009 Mid-Year Estimates, ONS
1.3.5 The borough’s age distribution is also similar to the rest of the county, with an ageing population, approximately equal in gender distribution13. There is a concentration of younger people and families with children in the settlements of Great Yarmouth, Gorleston and Martham, with the 50+ population more concentrated in the rural parishes of Somerton and Winterton, while Caister-on- Sea and West Caister also have a significant retired population.
1.3.6 The combination of the demographic information set out in Table 1 and 2 suggests that there is a need for open space to suit the needs of families in the urban area and to suit the population over 50 in the rural areas.
12 2009 Mid-Year Estimates, ONS 13 2009 Mid-Year Estimates, ONS Page 78 of 229 12
Table 2: Distribution of Population, by Age and Gender
Parish Population % Aged % Aged % Aged % Aged % Aged % % 2009 0-15 16-24 25-49 50-64* 60+** Female Male Ashby with Oby 65 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24
Belton with 3,912 16.86 10.48 29.32 21.01 22.32 49.82 50.18 Browston
Bradwell 10,642 16.35 9.51 28.98 16.59 28.57 51.53 48.47 Burgh Castle 1264 11.81 10.19 27.6 21.76 28.65 49.48 50.52
Caister-on-Sea 8,782 13.17 9.33 26.68 17.54 33.28 51.75 48.25
Filby 760 12.83 11.51 27.99 21.77 25.89 50.31 49.69 Fleggburgh 940 13.97 10.28 30.17 21.26 24.32 50.53 49.47 Fritton and St 496 15.15 7.69 30.46 22.77 23.93 50.74 49.26 Olaves Great Yarmouth 50,940 19.1 12.05 32.72 14.84 21.3 51.18 48.82 (and Gorleston) Hemsby 3,419 13.22 9.92 27.23 19.74 29.89 51.16 48.84 Hopton-on-Sea 3,113 17.03 10.03 29.95 17.01 25.97 50.71 49.29
Martham 3,486 17.13 11.33 28.54 16.7 26.31 51.46 48.54 Mautby 374 15.43 8.71 32.94 20.6 22.32 50.82 49.18 Ormesby St 4,112 15.12 8.78 26.54 20.49 29.06 50.7 49.3 Margaret & Scratby
Ormesby St 295 17.4 9.42 28.97 18.77 25.44 51.6 48.4 Michael Repps with 392 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24 Bastwick
Rollesby 1,060 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24 Somerton 250 12.9 7.55 23.16 23.35 33.04 52.42 47.58 Stokesby with 314 15.43 8.71 32.94 20.6 22.32 50.82 49.18 Herringby
Thurne 133 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24 West Caister 184 12.58 9.11 25.6 16.49 36.22 51.66 48.34
Winterton-on- 1,339 12.9 7.55 23.16 23.35 33.04 52.42 47.58 Sea Borough Total 96,271 17.21 10.89 30.47 16.64 24.79 51.13 48.87
*Females aged 50-59, Males aged 50-64 **Females aged 60+, Males aged 65+
Page 79 of 229 13
Fig. 3: Distribution of Population, All Ages
Page 80 of 229 14
1.4 National Policy Context
1.4.1 The production of this study followed guidance set out in Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002). At the time of publication, PPG17 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework; therefore for clarity both existing and current guidance has been referenced. The Framework retains the requirement from PPG17 to undertake assessments of the needs for open space and therefore the methodology of this study is considered to be compliant with the NPPF as it follows the requirements set out in paragraph 73.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
1.4.2 Paragraph 73 of the NPPF recognises the importance of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation, to the health and well-being of communities.
1.4.3 The Framework states that: ‘Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to -date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.’
1.4.4 Paragraph 76 of the NPPF introduces a new designation to protect local green areas of particular importance to local communities known as Local Green Spaces. The Local Green Space designation allows communities to identify and protect areas that are of value to the community through local and neighbourhood plans.
1.4.5 The NPPF sets out the principles for the Local Green Space designation and includes the criteria that green space will need to meet. These criteria state that the land must be local in character and reasonably close to the community, must not be extensive and must be demonstrably special i.e. for beauty, recreational value or wildlife. If appropriate, Local Green Space’s put forward by the community and supporting policies will be defined through the emerging Development Polices and Site Allocations Local Plan Document.
PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) and its Companion Guide: Assessing Needs and Opportunities (2002)
1.4.6 This provided the following guidance for assessing open space:
Local needs should be assessed, alongside an audit of open space and recreation facilities
Page 81 of 229 15
The assessment can be used to set local standards for the minimum provision for open space, sport and recreation
Supply of open space, sport and recreation facilities should be assessed according to quantity, quality and accessibility
Planning policies should make provision for new facilities, to meet the needs of existing and new development
1.5 Related Studies and Guidance
1.5.1 Open space, recreation and sporting activities cover a wide range of interests and furthermore the provision of open space intersects with many sustainable development objectives. A number of studies and guidance relate to this Open Space Study.
Urban Green Nation: Building the Evidence Base (2010)
1.5.2 This study by CABE Space found that suburban areas generally have a larger quantity of parks and green space, while urban areas have more recreation grounds and sports pitches. The study also confirmed that deprived areas have far less green space than affluent ones. Almost 9 out of 10 people use green spaces, and they are highly valued. Investing in the quality of parks and green spaces is an important way to tackle inequalities in health and wellbeing and to improve residents’ perceptions of their area.
Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch Strategies (2003)
1.5.3 Sport England have produced a ‘best practice’ 8-stage model to guide the development of provision standards for sports pitches, which covers a range of sports. Following the model should produce standards which are tailored to the needs of the local population.
Planning for Play: Guidance on the Development and Implementation of a Local Play Strategy (2006)
1.5.4 The Children’s Play Council guidance on provision standards emphasises the importance of assessing the engagement and enjoyment aspects of play spaces, but acknowledges the difficulty of setting qualitative standards.
Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008)
1.5.5 Produced by Fields in Trust, the successor to the National Playing Fields Association, this guide updates and expands upon the previous landmark Six Acre Page 82 of 229 16
Standard, still widely used as a benchmark for open space and playing space provision. It advocates a minimum of 2.4ha recreational open space per 1,000 population, which is broken down into 0.8ha of children’s play space (both designated and informal) and 1.6ha of outdoor sports space (comprising pitches and other informal sports space) but acknowledges the different needs of rural and urban authorities. To ensure accessibility, the standard also includes a distribution factor, with desirable walking time/distance to different levels of play area, reflecting the ages of the children for whom the play areas are aimed.
Better Places to Play Through Planning (2009)
1.5.6 Play England highlights ways for planners and transport authorities to clarify the local need for and supply of play space. The document offers guidance on standards for quantity, quality and access for all, and advice on the implementation of such standards can be achieved through cross-agency dialogue and co- operation.
Nature Nearby (2010)
1.5.7 This guidance from Natural England elaborates on the implementation of the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, and advocates the use of the Green Flag quality standard for parks and other green spaces.
A Place to Grow (2010)
1.5.8 The Local Government Association and Department for Communities and Local Government have produced this guidance to supplement the previous good practice guide - Growing in the Community. It acknowledges that need for allotments is not static, and advocates a ‘hectares per household’ local provision standard.
Page 83 of 229 17
1.6 Typology of Open Space
1.6.1 When defining the range of open space types to be included in the study, the starting point was PPG17 and its Companion Guide. However, the category Natural and Semi-Natural Urban Greenspace was substituted by the similar but more detailed definition used by Natural England for Accessible Natural Greenspace. This provided efficiency in meeting two evidence requirements with one document. These typologies are defined in Table 3.
Table 3: Typology of open spaces included in this study
Open Space types Purpose
Urban Parks and Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal Gardens recreation and community events.
Accessible Natural Areas with a predominant feeling of ‘naturalness’ Greenspace important for wildlife conservation, biodiversity, and environmental education and awareness, which are accessible to the public.
Outdoor Sports Facilities for participation in outdoor sports such as Facilities pitch and court sports, bowls, athletics or countryside and water sports.
Amenity Greenspace Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas.
Areas designed primarily for play and social Children’s Playspace interaction involving children and young people, such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard areas and teenage shelters.
Allotments 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.
Cemeteries and Quiet contemplation and burial of the dead often Churchyards linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity.
Page 84 of 229 18
1.7 Methodology
Process
1.7.1 The individual tasks undertaken to complete the assessment and develop standards of provision are summarised in Fig. 4.
Fig 4: Process used to undertake this study
Stage 1: Identification of local needs A review of existing policies and provision standards relating to open space, sport and recreation facilities Consolidation of previous consultations with communities and stakeholders consultation with parish councils
Stage 2: Audit of local provision Review of quantitative information held by Great Yarmouth Borough Council Exploration of alternative sources of information (e.g. Sport England’s Active Places website, Norfolk Churches Trust etc)
Desk-based identification of all known open space, sport and
recreation facilities with community use (including ‘extended
schools’)
Consultation of appropriate national agency regarding proposed
audit method
Setting thresholds for minimum size of space to be audited
Desk-based identification of users of each type of space
Qualitative assessments of representative sites visited Mapping the location and user catchment area of each space
Stage 3: Setting provision standards
Quantity standards set following site audits, consultation and
demand modelling Quality standards set following site audits and consultation findings Accessibility standards set following site audits, consultation findings and mapping catchment areas
Page 85 of 229 19
Demography
1.7.2 All current population statistics in this study are 2009 ONS Population Estimates, and can be found on Norfolk Insight14. For population projections to 2026, 2006- based dwelling-led projections from the same source have been used.
1.7.3 Where the distribution of space was mapped alongside population, this was done at the lowest level at which population data was available; Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). These are small areas of relatively even size containing around 1,500 people. This was appropriate for the maps of, for example, football pitch location, showing the pitches alongside the density of football-playing aged population.
1.7.4 When space was calculated in relation to 1,000 head of population, this was done by ward to make analysis more meaningful in the urban, un-parished area of Great Yarmouth.
1.7.5 However, where population distribution was not necessary, the various types of space have been mapped by parish, to provide a familiar geography for readers.
Consultation
1.7.6 In order to avoid consultation fatigue and to improve efficiency, this study has drawn upon existing data from previous consultations about open space in the borough. Although some of the consultations would benefit from a refresh, the current constraints on public resources have precluded this option.
1.7.7 Previous consultations include borough and county-wide Citizen’s Panel surveys, national Sport England surveys, and bespoke surveys to support previous Great Yarmouth strategies and policy documents.
1.7.8 Assessing quality and value is difficult under most circumstances; further consultation would improve the qualitative aspects if this study is repeated.
1.7.9 Parish councils were consulted to establish local need for and quality of outdoor sports facilities and ancillary amenities such as changing rooms, car parking and floodlighting. Parish councils were also consulted to establish the quality of facilities on allotment sites.
Audit
1.7.10 It was appropriate for open space to be mapped by parish, as this is a familiar geography for most readers. It also allowed maps to synchronise with the results of the parish council consultations. However, assessment of the borough’s total open
14 www.norfolkinsight.org.uk Page 86 of 229 20
space provision was performed at ward level, to make analysis of the un-parished urban area of Great Yarmouth more meaningful.
1.7.11 For Outdoor Sports Facilities and Children’s Playspace, existing provision was mapped in tandem with the appropriate population age groups to assess the demand-supply relationship for those areas.
1.7.12 To supplement the audit of playing fields, schools participating in the extended schools programme, allowing public or community access, were identified. Extended schools and playing fields with sports pitches were included in the Outdoor Sports Facilities category, and those without pitches were incorporated into Amenity Grrenspace.
1.7.13 Defining Urban Parks & Gardens as distinct from Amenity Greenspace was at times difficult. Meadow Park and Middleton Gardens are examples of spaces which were considered to be on the periphery of the definition.
1.7.14 The quantity of Accessible Natural Greenspace was assessed in conjunction with advice from Natural England about which sites could be judged ‘accessible’. To assess the demand for Accessible Natural Greenspace, previous surveys of visitors to particular sites were used.
1.7.15 As Sport England acknowledge in Towards a Level Playing Field, establishing precisely how many pitches there are within the study area is difficult. However, best efforts have been made to identify pitches through a combination of the use of aerial photography, site visits and contact with parish councils, and has been as rigorous as possible.
1.7.16 Sports associations and clubs were contacted to model the demand for outdoor sports facilities. Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model (PPM) was then used to assess the adequacy of football, cricket, rugby and hockey capacity in the borough. For sports not covered by the PPM, Sport England’s Active People Survey 2010 was used to estimate the demand for various sports in the borough. The number of matches played in most sports has taken account only of programmed competitive play. Team practice sessions, informal games etc have not been factored into the calculations, other than for borough-managed tennis courts and bowls greens.
1.7.17 Amenity Greenspace is more fragmented than other types, and for this reason a minimum size threshold of 0.01ha was imposed. Sites smaller than this were not included in the quantity audit.
1.7.18 Children’s Playspace was audited for quantity according to the borough’s own categorization of the spaces as designed for Junior (0-8), Intermediate (6-12) and Senior (8-14) children, and teens.
1.7.19 Qualitative audits of Urban Parks and Gardens were made according to criteria established in the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy, 2005. This
Page 87 of 229 21
allows some comparison with previous findings, although different auditing staff completed both surveys.
1.7.20 Qualitative audits of Accessible Natural Greenspace and Allotments were performed by the author according to bespoke criteria as identified in the relevant sections. Each criteria was allocated a total possible score, and the threshold for a ‘good’ score was consistent throughout the study for all quality and value audits of open space.
1.7.21 Qualitative audits were also performed by the author according to bespoke criteria as identified in the relevant section.
1.7.22 Qualitative audits of Outdoor Sports Facilities were performed remotely, by parish councils, due to the need for efficiency.
1.7.23 Children’s Playspace is regularly audited for quality and safety, and the results of the most current audits (at the time of writing) have been used for this study.
1.7.24 Quality audits had regard to PPG17’s suggested approach to assess the quality and value of a space as set out in Fig 5. For the purposes of this study, 55% was judged to be the minimum score for a site to be considered ‘high’ (quality or value).
Fig 5: Quality and value combinations
High quality/low value High quality/high value
Wherever possible the preferred policy Ideally all spaces and facilities should come approach to a space or facility in this into this category and the planning system category should be to enhance its value in should then seek to protect them terms of its present primary purpose. If this is not possible, the next best policy approach is to consider whether it might be of high value if converted to some other primary purpose. Only if this is also possible will it be acceptable to consider a change of use Low quality/low value Low quality/high value
Wherever possible, the policy approach to The policy approach to these spaces or these spaces or facilities should be to facilities should always be to enhance their enhance their quality provided it is quality and therefore the planning system possible also to enhance their value. If should seek to protect them this is not possible, for whatever reason, the space or facility may be ‘surplus to requirements’ in terms of its present primary purpose
Source: Assessing needs and opportunities: a companion guide to PPG17, DCLG (2002)
Page 88 of 229 22
1.7.25 Accessibility was audited using GIS to establish the percentage of address points within catchment areas. The radii of these catchment areas was established with reference to the guidance received. For Outdoor Sports Facilities, the catchment radii were drawn for travel by car and by foot, according to advice received by Sport England. Accessible Natural Greenspace access was determined according to Natural England’s published catchment areas. Access to Children’s Playspace required some adaptation of the guidance in National Playing Field Associations’ (NPFA) Six Acre Standard to reflect the borough’s age group categories. Due to the lack of guidance in relation to the accessibility of Allotments, a suitable distance has been established based on the function of allotments as local facilities serving local catchment populations.
1.7.26 Standards were set according to the findings of the audits, having regard to any national benchmark standards, and taking into account local feedback from past consultations. The standards also take account of development viability issues and maintenance costs, to ensure future application of the standards is practicable.
Page 89 of 229 23
Page 90 of 229 24
2.1 Urban Parks & Gardens Consultations
2.1.1 The public consultation carried out in 2004, relating to the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2005) provided detailed responses to residents’ opinions. When asked what was most liked about the borough’s parks and open spaces the top five answers were: Overall landscape (156) Cleanliness (144) Accessibility (47) Children’s facilities (42) Peacefulness (36)
2.1.2 When asked what was least liked about the borough’s parks and open spaces the top five answers were: Anti-social behaviour (150) Litter (137) Drug and alcohol abuse (107) Dogs (104) Market place television (50)
2.1.3 Other criticisms included the lack of maintenance (particularly relating to grass cutting and play equipment), poor accessibility (parking facilities), poor enclosure facilities (lack of gates and resulting issues around safety of children), fears around safety (afraid of using spaces at night) and an overall shortage of provision.
2.1.4 When asked what residents’ would like to see in their parks and open spaces the five most popular responses were: More/better policing by rangers or wardens (123) More bins (including drug disposal units) (107) More facilities for children and young people (83) Stricter rules/monitoring of dogs (52) Quieter/more seats for relaxation (48)
2.1.5 Other responses included more toilets, more events, better lighting/security, more refreshment opportunities, more natural/biodiversity areas, water features, more flowers/trees and better quality grass and more sports areas.
2.1.6 The Place Survey 2008 surveyed residents’ satisfaction with parks and open spaces. Only 57.8% of those surveyed stated they were very or fairly satisfied with parks and open spaces in Great Yarmouth compared to a Norfolk average of 65.3%. However, the Citizens’ Panel Wave 16 in 2008 found that 67% of respondents were satisfied with the parks and open spaces of the borough.
2.1.7 Citizens’ Panel Wave 16 in 2008 and Wave 19 in 2010 asked residents’ in Great Yarmouth about their satisfaction with parks and open spaces. The result from 2010 showed that 65% of respondents were satisfied with parks and open spaces
Page 91 of 229 25
compared with 15% who were dissatisfied and 20% who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
2.1.8 Later in 2010 the Citizens Panel Wave 20, asked residents to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of the parks and open spaces provided by Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Around three quarters (73%) of those providing a valid response were satisfied with parks and open spaces. In terms of specific aspects, satisfaction was highest in relation to accessibility (89%), the general maintenance (85%) and landscape quality (77%). Highest levels of dissatisfaction were seen in terms of dog fouling (50%) and the number and locations of litter bins (37%).
2.1.9 Respondents who live in a rural location were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (81%). In terms of ACORN (A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods)15, those in the category ‘hard-pressed’ were most likely to be satisfied (82%).
2.1.10 Older respondents were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (78% of those aged 55 – 64; 78% of those aged 65+), compared with younger age groups (18% of those aged 25-44 were dissatisfied overall).
Fig. 6: Satisfaction with the parks and open spaces (all Great Yarmouth respondents –valid responses only) 2010 responses
Accessibility 89% 8% 3%
General standard of maintenance of parks/open spaces 85% 7% 8%
Landscape quality 77% 12% 11%
General cleanliness 70% 10% 20%
Quality of facilities within the park 66% 17% 18%
Security and safety 61% 22% 16%
Community needs 58% 27% 15%
Number and location of litter bins 51% 12% 37%
Dog fouling 35% 15% 50%
Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 73% 15% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied
15 This provides a classification of the UK population into 5 categories based on demographic, social, population and consumer behaviour, ranging from ‘Wealthy Achievers’ to ‘Hard Pressed’. Page 92 of 229 26
2.1.11 Comparing the Citizens’ Panel results, between 2008 and late 2010 satisfaction has improved in all aspects but one (dog fouling). Improvements were particularly marked in terms of security and safety (from 44% in 2008 to 61% in 2010) and accessibility (77% in 2008 to 89% in 2010).
Table 4: Satisfaction with parks and open spaces in 2008 compared with 2010 (all Great Yarmouth respondents- valid responses only)
2008 2010 Accessibility 77% 89% (+12) General standard of maintenance of parks and open 83% 85% (+2) spaces Landscape quality 74% 77% (+3) General cleanliness 63% 70% (+7) Quality of facilities within the park 63% 66% (+3) Security and safety 44% 61% (+17) Community needs 52% 58% (+6) Number and location of litter bins 45% 51% (+6) Dog fouling 35% 35% ( - ) Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 67% 73% (+6) NB. Sample bases vary
Consultation summary
2.1.12 From the consultation results the key points to notes are: Overall satisfaction with parks is high Local satisfaction has improved in most aspects There are issues around anti-social behaviour and drug and alcohol abuse There is concern over the quantity of litter and lack of bins There are issues related to dogs fouling
Page 93 of 229 27
2.2 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit – Quantity
2.2.1 Parks and Gardens were designated into three broad categories: Neighbourhood Parks – areas with limited or no facilities and relatively simple landscaping and planting, used predominantly by the immediate community Middle Order Parks – areas with typically a wider range of users, with better facilities than that of a Neighbourhood Park. These parks are typically utilised by more than one local community Strategic Parks – areas that people travel to from further afield to access a wide range of facilities, catering for a diverse range of people. Strategic Parks will have the largest range of facilities and clear thought will have been taken to their design and their use for both cultural and educational purposes
2.2.2 PPG17 recognises that some forms of open space provision will be found in exclusively rural areas while others will be found in a more urban setting. It also recognises that residents in rural areas cannot realistically expect to have the same level of access to the full range of different types of open space normally available to more densely populated urban areas.
2.2.3 Taking into account that parks and gardens are usually found only in urban areas, supply will be considered in relation to the population of those areas.
Image 1: Gorleston Pier Gardens
Page 94 of 229 28
Fig. 7: Location of the Borough’s Parks and Gardens
Page 95 of 229 29
Table 5: Size and Designation of Parks and Gardens
Park/Garden Size (ha) Designation St Georges Park 1.65 Strategic Park Gorleston Cliffs 10.75 Strategic Park Priory Gardens 1.02 Middle Order Park Waterways Garden 4.33 Middle Order Park Anchor Gardens 0.56 Neighbourhood Park Clock Gardens 0.25 Neighbourhood Park Gorleston Pool Garden 0.31 Neighbourhood Park Harbour Gardens 0.32 Neighbourhood Park Meadow Park 1.58 Neighbourhood Park Middleton Gardens 0.39 Neighbourhood Park South Beach Gardens 0.92 Neighbourhood Park
Table 6: Area of Parks and Gardens by Ward (Urban Area Only)
Ward Population Total Parks and Parks and Gardens Gardens (ha) per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 0 0 Central & Northgate 8,614 4.33 0.50 Claydon 7,451 0 0 Gorleston 5,421 10.75 1.98 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 Nelson 8,166 3.38 0.41 Southtown & Cobholm 5,314 0 0 St Andrews 4,800 3.63 0.76 Yarmouth North 4,471 0 0 Urban Total/Average 57,899 22.08 0.38
2.2.4 The total area of parks and gardens in the borough is just over 22 hectares. This means that across the borough there are 0.23ha of parks and gardens per 1,000 population, but 0.38ha per 1,000 population in the urban area of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston.
Image 2: Great Yarmouth Waterways Gardens Page 96 of 229 30
2.3 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit – Quality
2.3.1 A quality and value assessment was undertaken for the borough’s parks and gardens similar to that which was used for the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy, 2005. Parks and Gardens were assessed according to the criteria set out in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8: Criteria used to measure Quality and Value
Quality Landscape – How well designed is the park? How good are its features? How appropriate and attractive are the park’s boundaries? Facilities – How good are the parks facilities? How good is the park’s furniture? How well designed are the buildings? How good are the special features at enhancing the quality of the park? Maintenance – How well maintained are the buildings/furniture/ shrubberies/trees and woodland/bedding areas/grass/water features? How well managed is the park for its habitat/wildlife value? How clean is the area from litter/dog foul? Management – How appropriate is the level of management? How accessible are the park staff? How good is the information regarding events and activities? How much are the community involved in the park? Security – What is the sense of personal safety during the day/night? Is the level of use sufficient to ensure self-surveillance? What are the levels of vandalism or anti-social behaviour?
Value Access and circulation – How welcoming are the entrances? How well located are the entrances to the surrounding routes? Does the infrastructure meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)? How well do the signs communicate? Natural environment – How well is the area managed to maximise the benefit to wildlife? How well are the objectives for nature conservation communicated? How much evidence is there of sustainable management practices? Cultural heritage – How well are the historic structures/ landscapes conserved? How much is the park used for cultural activities? Health and education – How much is the park used for specific initiatives in relation to physical and mental health? What amount of sports and exercise facilities are there? How good is the interpretation material? How many tours or educational based activities are there? Meeting the needs of a wide range of visitors – children, the elderly, youth, diverse cultures, disabled, families, active pursuits, social activity
Page 97 of 229 31
2.3.2 All sites were audited on the same day in June 2011. Each park or garden was evaluated for each criterion and given a score between 1 and 5. Where parks did not have certain criteria (e.g. a water feature) when calculating the overall percentage value the criteria was NOT included, it was however included in the overall quality or value score.
Table 7: Quality and Value of Parks and Gardens Park/Garden Quality Quality Value Value Score Percentage Score Percentage Anchor Gardens 68 62% 49 45% HIGH LOW Clock Gardens 56 53% 37 34% LOW LOW Gorleston Pool 71 65% 51 46% Garden HIGH LOW Harbour Gardens 40 42% 36 33% LOW LOW Meadow Park 71% 51% 50 HIGH 43 LOW Middleton Gardens 64% 36% 45 HIGH 27 LOW Priory Gardens 70 61% 50 43% HIGH LOW Waterways Garden 67 56% 42 37% HIGH LOW Gorleston Cliffs 74 64% 69 60% HIGH HIGH South Beach Gardens 83% 53% 54 HIGH 37 LOW St Georges Park 80 70% 73 63% HIGH HIGH Average 61 63% 47 46%
2.3.3 Overall, parks achieved a higher score for quality than they did for value. Parks and gardens achieved an overall percentage score of 63% in terms of quality and 46% in terms of value. Therefore in overall terms the parks and gardens in Great Yarmouth can be described as being of high quality but low value16.
2.3.4 Of the parks and gardens that did not fall into this particular category, two were of low quality and low value: Clock Gardens and Harbour Gardens (both Neighbourhood Parks) and two were of high quality and high value: Gorleston Cliffs and St. Georges Park (both Strategic Parks). This is perhaps not particularly surprising given their designations but does highlight the need to consider what a
16 Scores of under 55% were considered to be ‘low’ while scores over 55% were considered to be ‘high’ Page 98 of 229 32
‘Neighbourhood Park’ can reasonably be expected to provide in terms of both quality and value.
2.3.5 In terms of overall quality only the management criteria fell into the low quality category. Parks with a particularly low score in this category were Waterways Gardens (35%), Harbour Gardens (40%) and Gorleston Pool Gardens (45%).
2.3.6 Parks which were considered to be of both low landscape and facility quality were Harbour Gardens (33% and 27% respectively), Clock Gardens (40% for both categories) and Anchor Gardens (53% and 50% respectively). This is primarily due to their smaller size and designation as ‘Neighbourhood Parks’. Those parks which were considered to be of low maintenance quality were Harbour Gardens (48%), Clock Gardens (51%) and Waterways Gardens (53%). Only Priory Gardens was considered to be of low security quality (35%) but this was primarily because of its very enclosed nature. The park is bounded by high walls and it was felt that this would be of safety concern if levels of passive surveillance were low.
2.3.7 In terms of overall value, all the categories, with the exception of access and circulation, were rated as low value. Categories with a particularly low value score included the natural environment (28%) and health and education (30%).
2.3.8 For access, Middleton Gardens scored very low, due to the lack of paths and poor entrance thresholds. No park or garden was considered of high natural environment value and only Gorleston Cliffs was considered to be of high health and education value and this was because of its wide variety of sports facilities. In terms of cultural heritage only Anchor Gardens and St Georges Park were considered to be of high value with Anchor Gardens being given a high value regarding conservation of the historic landscape. Regarding meeting the needs of different groups of people Clock Gardens and Waterways Gardens were judged to be of particularly low value. Neither were considered to be particularly user friendly for children and young people or the disabled; they were also not considered to be very attractive for active pursuits or social activity. Harbour Gardens and Priory Gardens did not score very highly in this category either.
Image 3: Priory Gardens, Gorleston Page 99 of 229 33
2.4 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit – Accessibility
2.4.1 Depending on the designation, the distance people would travel to a park or garden has been assumed based on the fact that most people walk to parks or gardens but may be prepared to travel further for a park of a strategic designation. This distance has been defined as: Neighbourhood parks – up to 500m Medium order parks – between 500m and 1km Strategic parks – up to 2km
2.4.2 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments.
Table 8: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of various park sizes
Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Park Size Population 20% 500m Neighbourhood 25% 1km Middle Order 55% 2km Strategic
2.4.3 Although a large proportion of the borough’s population do not live within the catchment area of the borough’s parks, most residents within the urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston are considered to be within an accessible distance of a park or garden. There are times when the road traffic causes an effective barrier to access, and there is a particular deficiency in the area of Bradwell which should ideally be provided for. Because of the coastal location of Great Yarmouth it is not unexpected that several of the town’s parks and gardens are located along the seafront but if growth is to occur in the Bradwell area in the future provision may need to be considered here.
Page 100 of 229 34
Fig. 9: Catchment Areas for Parks and Gardens
Page 101 of 229 35
2.5 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit Summary
2.5.1 Although borough-wide access is low, the urban area is well supplied with parks and gardens. There could be a need for new provision in Bradwell.
2.5.2 Value is considered to be a concern. Issues include the need to emphasise the benefits of parks to the natural environment, health and education and cultural heritage.
2.5.3 Some simple alterations could improve the overall quality of parks and gardens in the borough. For example:
Dual aspect seating particularly in Harbour Gardens and Anchor Gardens Better signage- applicable to all parks and gardens Good quality features and facilities maintained to a high standard More varied planting including more flowering plants to offer colour More frequent maintenance of street furniture
Image 4: St Georges park, Great Yarmouth
Page 102 of 229 36
2.6 Urban Parks & Gardens Local Standards
2.6.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of urban parks and gardens which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.
Fig. 10: Urban Parks and Gardens Local Standards Quantity 0.4 hectares per 1,000 population in the urban area. Current provision almost meets these standards, and consultation results do not suggest that the quantity of open spaces is of particular concern to residents in the borough. Quality and Value Strategic Parks should achieve a quality score of 80% and a value score of 73% Middle Order Parks should achieve a quality score of 70% of and a value score of 65% Neighbourhood Parks should achieve a quality score of 71% and a value score of 55% Bins for litter and dog waste should be provided at the rate of at least one per 0.5 hectares or one per entrance, whichever is the greater.
In the larger parks (over 1 hectare) areas specifically designed for young people will be provided. Meeting the needs of different communities, particularly young people will be given greater consideration. Facilities will be located to maximise passive surveillance and limit anti-social behaviour. Appropriate waymarkers will provide directions in every park and garden. The quality targets are based on best performing parks (St George’s Park, Priory Gardens, Gorleston Pool Gardens) and value targets are considered to be appropriate for the size of park. Value is considered to be the primary area for improvement according to the audit. Improvements can be made to the natural environment and promoting health, education and culture through events in parks. However, consultation suggests that people are more concerned about issues relating to anti-social behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, dogs, litter, lack of facilities for young people. Passive surveillance affects the perception of security in parks and public perception could be addressed through improved communication of improvements made within the borough. Some existing features could be made more valuable, such as re- instating boats at the Waterways Gardens. Accessibility Straight line distances for residents in the urban area: 500m to a Neighbourhood Park 1km to a Middle Order Park 2km to a Strategic Park All parks and gardens should have wheelchair access. Current accessibility to parks is considered to be good within the urban area, other than in Bradwell. If development is to be focused in Bradwell a new park or garden should be provided in the area. Middleton Gardens does not have wheelchair access.
Page 103 of 229 37
Page 104 of 229 38
3.1 Accessible Natural Greenspace Consultations
3.1.1 Citizen’s panel wave 15, 2007 asked how frequently respondents visited the countryside, seaside, a park or nature reserve. For such a rural, coastal borough, it is unsurprising that 23% of Great Yarmouth residents did so once a week or more (the county average was 20%). This frequency was particularly high in Bradwell and the rural Flegg villages, with 33% of respondents visiting once a week or more.
Fig. 11: Frequency of Visiting Countryside, Seaside, Nature Reserve or ParkHow frequently, if at all, do you take part in: visiting the countryside, seaside, a park or nature reserve?
South Yarmouth Area
Rural Flegg Villages
North Yarmouth Area
Gorleston Area
Cobholm & Southtown Area
Caister and Coastal Villages
Bradwell Area
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not at all in the past 12 months Only done it once, for the first time this year About once this year, but not for the first time About once every 6 months About once every 2 to 3 months Once a month Once every 2 to 3 weeks Once a week or more Not stated
3.1.2 Visitor surveys were carried out for the Habitat Regulations Assessment in 2009. Visitor counts and questionnaires were conducted on one weekend day and one weekday in July 2008, on the north-western edge of North Denes dunes, and on a weekend day in January 2009 at Breydon Water. The surveys found that most visitors are:
Local Aged 45+ Employed Dog-walkers
And that most of them:
Arrived by car Stayed less than 1 hour Visit daily
Page 105 of 229 39
3.1.3 Additionally, the Broads Authority 2010 visitor survey provides a picture of visitors to the Broads, and how they spend their time. Although the Broads extend beyond Great Yarmouth Borough, they are an important part of the natural environment within the borough, and the survey is therefore pertinent. The 2010 survey found that:
63% of Broads visitors are in socio-economic code ABC117 Around one quarter of parties are families, with older children likely to be present in water-based parties 50% of all land-based visitors were on a day visit from home Overwhelmingly, visitors would like the Broads to remain as natural as possible
3.1.4 Between the surveys of 2005 and 2010 there has been a reduction in visitor satisfaction with the Broads experience. Most importantly for this study, there has been a drop in satisfaction with:
Provision of waymarked paths Provision of cycle routes
Consultation summary
3.1.5 From the consultation the main points to notes are: Great Yarmouth residents frequently visit natural outdoor spaces Dog walking is a popular reason to visit Visits tend to be short, and car based Visitors value the naturalness of the Broads Waymarked paths and cycle routes need improvement
Image 5: Caister Beach
17 According to the National Readership Survey (NRS) social grading system. Page 106 of 229 40
3.2 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit - Quantity
3.2.1 37% of the borough’s land is covered by the Broads Authority area. The Broads consists of natural ‘meres’ (historically), man-made ‘broads’, rivers, marshes, mud flats and Breydon Water, which once was the delta to the river Yare. Although the Broads were originally man-made, the whole wetland area has an overwhelmingly natural appearance. There is also approximately 422ha of sandy beaches, and an abundance of public footpaths (the long-distance footpaths of Weavers’ Way, Wherryman’s Way and Angles’ Way also run through the borough). The borough therefore has a wealth of accessible natural space, and is a popular destination for walkers and bird-watchers.
3.2.2 The strict definition of accessible land would encompass only land upon which people are free to walk at will, unrestricted to footpaths. This could comprise land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, common land, beaches or land managed by the Woodland Trust, for example.
3.2.3 However, some natural parts of the borough benefit from densely located footpaths, and as such entire areas could be said to be accessible in a wider sense (for example, for ramblers and bird-watching). This type of ‘accessible land’ includes Martham Broad and Breydon Water (both navigable and with footpaths almost completely encircling them, and some marshes. Advice received from Natural England suggests that these sites could be included if the footpaths provide a level of access considered to make the site fully accessible.
3.2.4 According to guidance received from Natural England, bodies of water can be included if they are surrounded by accessible land. The nearly 993ha of the Broads system (excluding rivers and marshes) in the borough will not automatically contribute towards accessible natural greenspace for this study. However, Breydon Water and Martham Broad, which are almost entirely encircled by public footpaths and adjacent greenspace, are considered accessible in their entirety. The Trinity Broads are accessible by boat, but a lack of surrounding accessible greenspace or footpaths precludes them from this category. The 15 miles of beaches in the borough have been included.
3.2.5 This study will assess the quantity and quality of natural/semi-natural land, and will set standards based on this interpretation of Natural England’s definition of accessible natural greenspace.
3.2.6 There are many other sites which contain footpaths but access across the site is considered to be limited. Therefore, these sites will not be included in the audit, but to illustrate the full extent of public access, footpaths have been summarised and mapped (see Fig. 13).
3.2.7 To set the context for the study, within the borough there are many natural sites protected by the EU, or by national or local designations. These include the sites in
Page 107 of 229 41 the Table 9. The area covered by these designations is illustrated on the map at Fig. 12.
Table 9: Designated Sites in Great Yarmouth Site SSSI SPA SAC Ramsar NNR LNR Common CWS AONB Belton Common Brakehill Sandpit Breydon Water Brick Kiln Coverts Burgh Common Caister Beach California Coastal Strip Decoy Wood/South Wood Dunham Carr East of Martham Broad Filby Broad Fritton Warren South Gypsies Green Hall Farm Fen, Hemsby Horse Common, Fritton Howard’s Common Kitchener Road Cemetery Lacon Covert Lily Broad Martham Broad North Denes North Wood
Page 108 of 229 42
Site SSSI SPA SAC Ramsar NNR LNR Common CWS AONB Ormesby Broad Ormesby St Michael Staithe Parish Pit, Fritton Pulk Hole Reedham Marshes Rollesby Broad Rollesby Staithe Stokesby Common The Dell, Fritton Thurne Marshes Waveney Forest West Coverts/Home Broad Winterton Dunes Winterton PCC Land NB. Kitchener Road Cemetery is a County Wildlife Site, so has been included in this category rather than Cemeteries and Churchyards, as suggested by Natural England.
Image 6: Ormesby Broad Page 109 of 229 43
Fig. 12: Designated Natural Green (and Blue) Space
NB. Many of these sites have some form of public access through Public Rights of Way (PRoW).
Page 110 of 229 44
Public Footpaths and Long-distance Footpaths
3.2.8 Access to the Broads landscape and other natural open space within the borough is facilitated by a network of Public Rights of Way (PRoW). The definitions of the PRoW types are:
Public Footpath: open only to walkers; may be waymarked with yellow arrows Public Bridleways: open to walkers, horse riders and cyclists; may be waymarked with blue arrows Restricted Byways: open to all non-motorised users including vehicles such as horse-drawn carts; may be waymarked with plum-coloured arrows Byways Open to All Traffic: can also be used by motorists, although most are inaccessible to all but off-road vehicles
3.2.9 There are almost 197km of PRoW in the borough, as categorised in Table 10. Guidance received from Natural England suggests that land can be considered accessible if it is crossed by public rights of way. However, some sites with theoretical accessibility are so unmanaged that they are not accessible in a practical sense. Those sites considered to be fully accessible natural spaces (where visitors have access across the site and are not restricted to use of the footpaths) are listed in Table 11.
Table 10: Categorisation of PRoW
Type of PRoW Total Length Footpath 165,979m Bridleway 18,340m Restricted Byway 10,658m Byway Open to All Traffic 1,882m
Page 111 of 229 45
Image 7: Wherryman’s Way at Breydon Bridge
Fig. 13: Public Rights of Way
Page 112 of 229 46
Table 11: Accessible Natural Greenspace Sites Site Description Size (ha) Belton Common County Wildlife Site, adjacent to golf course. 5.75 (part of) Privately owned but dog walkers allowed. Bradwell Community Small area of woodland, adjacent to Bradwell 1.01 Wood Playing Field, a Woodland Welcome wood Brakehill Sandpit Common Land adjacent to Fritton Lake 1.01 Breydon Water Extremely tidal Local Nature Reserve, navigable, 614.34 containing bird hide, footpath almost encircles it. Burgh Castle Wood A privately owned wood, which is open to the 1.18 public. Caister beach Including some common land. 14.03 Fritton Lake A ‘country park’ containing Fritton Lake and 243.14 woods. Entry charge applies. Gipsies Green Common Land adjacent to Bradwell Playing Field 0.52 Gorleston and Ranging from the urban to the more remote 20.12 Hopton beach Great Yarmouth Including North Denes containing colony of Little 122.17 beach Terns, terminating just north of outer harbour Herbert Barnes Park Semi-natural area wrapped around a sports field 15.07 and adjacent to Breydon Water Horse Common, Small patch of ‘wilderness’ tucked behind a 0.13 Fritton children’s play area. Kitchener Road County Wildlife Site providing nature in an urban 10.10 Cemetery setting Martham Broad and A National Nature Reserve and SSSI. Footpath 75.18 marsh almost encircles it. Newport and Partially adjacent to Hemsby holiday resort, but 51.37 Scratby Beach beach is visually shielded by sand dunes Ormesby St Michael A small patch of Common Land adjacent to the 0.13 Staithe Trinity Broads Parish Pit, Fritton Patch of Common Land on edge of settlement 0.92 Pulk Hole Common Land adjacent to Waveney Forest 0.15 Rollesby Staithe Common Land adjacent to the Trinity Broads 0.20 Shrublands Way Ex-allotment site, overgrown with brambles but 3.90 paths provide access from rec to Meadow Park St Mary’s Church, Ruins now overgrown but paths still intact, 0.45 East Somerton providing access Stokesby Common Common Land outside main settlement close to 0.23 the river The Dell, Fritton Common Land between Waveney Forest and 0.50 Fritton Lake Waveney Forest Privately owned wood open to public, contains a 117.39 County Wildlife Site Winterton beach Including SSSI, SPA and SAC designated area 209.19 Borough Total Accessible Natural Greenspace 1,508.18
NB The lake in Fritton Lake Country Park straddles the border with Waveney; the park’s entire size has been used to calculate catchment area, although the lake is effectively a barrier to access of the Waveney section. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Page 113 of 229 47
Table 12: Accessible Natural Greenspace by Ward
Ward Population Total ANG (ha) ANG per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 1.01 0.15 Bradwell South & 6,796 15.66 2.30 Hopton Caister North 4,502 8.93 1.98 Caister South 4,464 29.48 6.60 Central & 8,614 644.13 74.78 Northgate Claydon 7,451 0 0 East Flegg 5,008 226.89 45.31 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.23 0.10 Gorleston 5,421 4.98 0.92 Lothingland 5,672 370.17 65.26 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 Nelson 8,166 27.81 3.41 Ormesby 4,407 30.22 6.86 Southtown & 5,314 15.07 2.84 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 3.90 0.81 West Flegg 5,135 75.38 14.68 Yarmouth North 4,471 54.69 12.23 Borough 96,271 1,508.55 15.67 Total/Average
3.2.10 The total accessible natural greenspace in the borough of over 1,500ha equates to around 0.02ha per person, or around 15.67ha per 1,000 population. Of this total, the only space in the borough designated as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is Breydon Water, at 614.34ha, equating to 6.38ha of LNR per 1,000 population. Of all these areas, there are three woods, totalling just under 120ha, equating to 1.2422ha of accessible woodland per 1,000 population.
3.2.11 Additionally, the marshes at Ashby (approx. 34ha) Mautby (approx 260ha) and just north of Breydon Water (approx 143ha) are ringed by PRoW and are therefore could also considered to be accessible. Natural England have suggested this type of accessibility could be included, which would take the total accessible natural greenspace in the borough to 1,945ha, or 20ha per 1,000 population.
3.2.12 Assessing the demand side of quantity, the majority of users of accessible natural greenspace tend to be walkers, dog-walkers and bird-watchers, although kite flying and family holiday activities are also very popular on the borough’s beaches.
Page 114 of 229 48
3.2.13 The Great Yarmouth branch of The Ramblers organises on average of 3 or 4 walks per month, with around 20 people taking part in walks varying from 5 to 10 miles long. There are approximately 120 members of the branch.
3.2.14 Bird-watching is very popular in the borough, although visitor numbers are not available.
3.2.15 Visitor surveys carried out for the Habitat Regulations Assessment were conducted in July 2008 and involved visitor counts and questionnaires on one weekend day and one weekday on the north-western edge of North Denes dunes. Over both days, there were 120 groups, comprising 187 people and 141 dogs. Scaling these observations to 12 hour days, an estimated 98 people visit per day on weekdays and 183 at weekends.
3.2.16 Of the 120 groups observed, 45 of them (37.5%) were interviewed. Of those interviewed, 69% considered themselves to be local, 31% were tourists.
3.2.17 On a Saturday in January 2009, a survey of visitors to Breydon Water noted 77 walkers, dog walkers and birdwatchers. Of those interviewed (one person from each group on the northern shore) bird-watching was the most popular reason for being there, although there were 40 dogs accompanying the 77 people, so dog walking is also very popular at this site.
Image 8: Waveney Forest
Page 115 of 229 49
3.3 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit - Quality
3.3.1 A quality and value assessment was undertaken for the borough’s accessible natural greenspace. Areas were assessed according to the criteria set out in Fig. 14.
Fig. 14: Criteria used to measure Quality and Value for Accessible Natural Greenspace
Quality
Paths – How well sign-posted are they? Are the surfaces in keeping
with the natural surroundings? Would they be passable in wet
conditions?
Flora – How verdant is the area? Is there wide biodiversity (trees,
marsh, meadow etc)?
Walls/fences – How well maintained are the boundaries? Bins – Are there sufficient bins to prevent litter? Seats – Is seating provided at all (could take natural forms such as fallen tree trunks)? Litter – Is the area free from litter? Dog fouling – Is this an issue? Vandalism – Is there evidence of graffiti etc? Aesthetics – Is the site attractive? Are there impressive vistas?
Value
Designation – Has the site been designated, either locally, nationally,
or internationally? How well are the objectives for nature
conservation communicated?
Pedestrian Access – How welcoming are the entrances? How well
located are the entrances to the surrounding routes? Would the site
be considered accessible for those with mobility problems? How well
do the signs communicate?
Social Potential – Is the site used for cultural or educational
activities? Is there potential for benefit to health initiatives?
Habitat Value – Does the site appear to offer a variety of habitats
(hedges, reed beds, trees)?
Safety – Does the site have good visibility? Would it be suitable for more vulnerable members of society?
3.3.2 Due to resource constraints, only areas larger than 2ha have been selected for quality audit from Table 11. Beaches north of Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour have been scored separately to reflect any differences caused by their hinterland context. Each site was scored according to quality and value criteria, as shown in Table 13.
Page 116 of 229 50
Table 13: Quality and Value Scoring Criteria
Quality Value Item Score Item Score Paths 0-3 Designation Local = 3; Flora 0-3 National = 6; Walls/fences 0-3 International = 9 Bins 0-3 Pedestrian Access 0-3 Seats 0-3 Social Potential 0-3 Litter 0-3 Habitat Value 0-3 Dog fouling 0-3 Safety 0-3 Vandalism 0-3 Aesthetics 0-4
Image 9: Gorleston Beach
3.3.3 All sites were audited on the same day, in July 2011. Items which were not present at a site (e.g. seats) were scored N/A and removed from the total possible score, thus the quality score is not reduced due to the absence of a feature. Resultant scores are shown in Table 14. Scores of under 55% were considered to be ‘low’ while scores 55% and over were considered to be ‘high’.
3.3.4 Overall, the borough’s accessible natural greenspaces are of high quality and high value. Those scoring low for quality were Breydon Water and Waveney Forest, both of which scored badly for litter, dog fouling and vandalism and Caister Beach and Shrublands Way which scored badly for litter. A low value score at the site in Belton reflects the fact that the gate is locked although a sign suggests dog walkers are welcome, while access to Shrublands Way is also hindered by the overgrowth. Where sites do not have a designation, there is often increased social value, with close proximity to residential areas or holiday resorts.
Page 117 of 229 51
Table 14: Results from the Quality and Value Audit of Sites
Site Quality Quality Value Value Score Percentage Score Percentage Belton Common 15 68% 7 33% (part of) HIGH LOW Breydon Water 6 27% 15 71% LOW HIGH Caister Beach 14 50% 9 75% LOW HIGH Fritton Lake 26 93% 11 92% HIGH HIGH Gorleston and 19 86% 9 75% Hopton Beach HIGH HIGH Gt Yarmouth 13 59% 19 90% Beach/North Denes HIGH HIGH Herbert Barnes Park 19 68% 9 75% HIGH HIGH Kitchener Road 22 88% 13 62% Cemetery HIGH HIGH Martham Broad 12 63% 15 71% HIGH HIGH Newport and 16 64% 9 75% Scratby Beach HIGH HIGH Shrublands Way 11 44% 4 33% LOW LOW Waveney Forest 11 44% 12 57% LOW HIGH Winterton Beach 17 68% 19 90% HIGH HIGH Borough Average 15 63% 12 69%
Page 118 of 229 52
3.4 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit - Accessibility
3.4.1 From the Habitat Regulations Assessment survey in 2009, the audit of visitors to North Denes beach showed that 50% of visitors live within 2km, 67% live within 4km and 80% live within 8.5km.
3.4.2 Regarding wider accessibility, the undeveloped nature of this type of space is likely to cause accessibility problems for some sectors of society. For example, Breydon Water is an area run by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Their website advises: ‘This is a natural site with unimproved paths and trails - the access around this site may not be suitable for all visitors.’
3.4.3 The measure of accessibility recommended by Natural England sets travel distance thresholds which depend on the size of each space. The borough’s beaches are in two continuous strips, either side of the Outer Harbour and mouth of the river Yare. To the north, the beach runs continuously from the northern border at Winterton to the Outer Harbour (some 396.77ha of beach at mean high tide) and the total area of this continuous beach has been used to define the beach’s catchment area. Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments, as shown in Table 15. These catchment areas, or ‘buffer zones’ are shown in Figs. 15-18.
Table 15: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of various Accessible Natural Greenspace sizes
Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Accessible Natural Population Greenspace of Size 24% 300m Any 21% 300m 2ha+ 86% 2km 20ha+ 96% 5km 100ha+ 94% 10km 500ha+
3.4.4 It is clear that while there is good accessibility (at a longer range) to large areas of natural greenspace, some parts of the borough are lacking in small pockets of accessible natural greenspace. There is also reduced availability of accessible natural greenspace in the north of the borough. However, with a wide network of public rights of way (see Fig. 13) there may be no perception of such a shortage.
Page 119 of 229 53
Fig. 15: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 2ha and above
Page 120 of 229 54
Fig. 16: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 20ha and above
Page 121 of 229 55
Fig. 17: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 100ha and above
Page 122 of 229 56
Fig. 18: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 500ha and above
Page 123 of 229 57
3.5 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit Summary
3.5.1 The borough has a predominantly rural feel, and there are many areas of natural space accessible to the public. Key natural assets include: Sandy beaches Bodies of inland water and rivers Marshland Woodland
3.5.2 Walking, bird-watching and dog-walking are popular activities in the borough. There are issues with litter, vandalism and dog fouling.
3.5.3 Overall, the borough’s accessible natural greenspaces are of high quality and high value. Most residents have access to large natural sites, but there are fewer small natural sites.
Image 10: North of Gorleston Recreation Ground, South of Meadow Park (ex allotment land)
Page 124 of 229 58
3.6 Accessible Natural Greenspace - Benchmark Standards
3.6.1 Natural England produced the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, which state that everyone, wherever they live, should have accessible natural greenspace:
At least 2 ha in size, no more than 300 metres (5 mins walk) from home At least one accessible 20 ha site within 2 km of home One accessible 100 ha site within 5 km of home One accessible 500 ha site within 10 km of home A minimum of 1 ha of statutory Local Nature Reserve per 1,000 population
3.6.2 In addition, Woodland Trust’s Woodland Access Standards suggest a benchmark of:
Accessible woodland of minimum 2ha within 500m of home At least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 8km round trip of home
Image 11: Breydon Water from the North Bank
Page 125 of 229 59
3.7 Accessible Natural Greenspace - Local Standards
3.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of accessible natural greenspace which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.
Fig. 19: Accessible Natural Greenspace Local Standards
Quantity 16ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 population across the borough. This could be heath, marsh or woodland and minimum size requirement is 1ha, as smaller pockets of natural space are valuable on a local level. Developments in the north west of the borough should address local shortages of accessible natural greenspace. There is current provision of 15.7ha (20 ha if marshes included) of accessible natural greenspace (including 1.24ha publicly accessible woodland) per 1,000 population. Therefore provision currently almost meets these standards, and as the quantity of public rights of way and beaches in the borough is so extensive, it is not felt that the borough is particularly deficient in this aspect. However, new developments would benefit from additional areas of ‘untamed’ fully accessible open space, particularly in the north west of the borough. Quality and Value Any site of accessible natural greenspace should achieve minimum scores of 68% for quality and 75% for value using this study’s scoring criteria. Targets are derived from existing scores for Winterton Beach (quality 68%) and Gorleston/Hopton Beach (value 75%). A high quality score is more achievable when litter and dog fouling are under control. A high value score to some extent depends on the habitat or social value of the space. Providing either picnic areas or bio-diverse habitats with educational interpretation boards for visitors would increase the social value of a space. Accessibility All residents should have accessible natural green space of over 1ha within 2km and where possible this should have wheelchair access. Current accessibility to natural greenspace is considered to be good for large sites (20ha and above) within the borough, with almost all residents falling within Natural England’s suggested catchment areas. However, in the 2 -19ha category, only 21% of the population currently lives within Natural England’s suggested catchment of 300m for accessible natural greenspace.
Page 126 of 229 60
Page 127 of 229 61
4.1 Outdoor Sports Facilities Consultations
4.1.1 The Norfolk Citizen’s Panel, Wave 15 in 2007 surveyed the frequency of taking part in and of watching sport/physical activity. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth, 44% of people surveyed had not watched a live sport event or activity at all in the previous 12 months (compared to 46% across Norfolk) and the borough claimed the highest percentage (10%) of Norfolk citizens who watched a live sports event or activity once a week or more (Norfolk average was 6%). Breaking this down geographically, a high proportion of respondents in Bradwell (21%) and south Yarmouth (20%) claimed to watch live sports on a weekly basis.
4.1.2 The proportion of the Great Yarmouth population who had not taken part in a sporting or physical activity at all in the previous year (43%) was broadly in line with the Norfolk average of 42%, but was particularly high (58%) in the Cobholm and Southtown area and higher still (67%) in the south Yarmouth area. The percentage of borough residents who had taken part in sports at least once a week (27%) was below the county average (32%) but in Bradwell the figure rose to 45%, in Gorleston it was 43% and in the rural Flegg villages it was 35%.
4.1.3 The Place Survey 2008 assessed borough residents’ satisfaction with sport/leisure facilities, finding that only 27.6% of respondents were very or fairly satisfied (it should be noted that there was a fairly low response rate of just 32% for this survey, the lowest of all districts in Norfolk).
4.1.4 The Norfolk Citizen’s Panel, Wave 19 in Great Yarmouth in 2010 found that only 45% of residents of the borough were satisfied with sport/leisure facilities. Those most likely to be dissatisfied with sport/leisure facilities were those with children in the household (44%) and those in the 25-44 age group (40%).
Page 128 of 229 62
Fig. 20 Satisfaction with sport/leisure facilities (all respondents in Great Yarmouth who provided a valid response to Citizen’s Panel Wave 19)
Sport/leisure facilities 45% 26% 30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Page 129 of 229 63
4.1.5 The annual Active People Survey (APS) is performed by Sport England to measure the sporting habits of adults in England. In 2010 it found that the percentage of all adults in the Borough of Great Yarmouth who participate in 30 minutes’ sport and active recreation at least 3 days per week is currently 20.3%18 compared to APS 1 when it was 17.6%. Despite the local increase, the current figures are still below the county average at 20.4% and the national average 22.1%19.
4.1.6 Breaking the above result down by gender and age groupings, it is the adult female population of the borough who are less active (15.1%) than the county average (18.3%) or national average (19%). The middle-aged population (aged 35-54) are slightly less active (22.2%) than the county average for that age group (25.1%). However, activity amongst the older population (over 55s) of the borough compares favourably (13.4%) to the county average (12.7%). Comparable figures by age bands are not available at national level.
4.1.7 Since the Active People Survey started (2005/6) the percentage of men who have participated in 30 minutes sport and active recreation at least 3 days per week has steadily increased from a starting point of 18.7% (APS 1) to 25.9% (APS 3/4 combined), whereas women’s participation has seen a decline from 16.6% (APS 1) to 15.1% (APS 3/4 combined). Thus the growth in the borough’s overall activity levels amongst adults is built on the increase in male participation over this period.
4.1.8 Active People Survey 4 (2009/10) data shows that fewer of the population of the borough spend at least one hour a week volunteering to support sport (3.9%) compared to the county average (5.5%) and the national average (4.5%).
4.1.9 The same survey found that:
Sport club membership amongst adults is lower in the borough (19.1%) than the county (21.3%) and the national population (23.9%) Satisfaction with local sports provision in the borough (61.9%) is below the county average (68.9%) and the national average (69%), and displays a different trend to the regional and national average (see Fig. 21) Adults receiving sports tuition in the borough (13.8%) is below the county average (16.9%) and the national average (17.5%) Adults in the borough taking part in organised sporting competition (11.4%) is lower than the county average (13.7%) and the national average (14.4%)
18 Figures based on APS3/4 survey Oct 08 and Oct 10. 19 Figure based on APS 4 survey Oct 09 and Oct 10. Page 130 of 229 64
Fig. 21: Satisfaction with Local Sports Provision, Great Yarmouth
KPI6 Satisfaction with Local Sports Provision
72 70 68 66 64 62
Satisfied 60 58 56 54
% Adult Population Very or Fairly Fairly or VeryPopulation Adult % 52 2005/6 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10
Gt Yarmouth East of England England
Source: Sport England, Active People Survey 4, Key Performance Indicator 16, 2010
4.1.10 In May 2011, parish councils were consulted to establish local levels of satisfaction with provision of outdoor sport facilities. Most responses were positive, although a few changing rooms are reportedly in need of upgrading, and there was an acknowledged shortage of tennis courts and a need for improved access at some parish facilities (see page 88 for full details).
Consultation Summary
4.1.11 From the consultation, the main points to notes are:
Great Yarmouth residents watch live sports more but play sports less frequently than the Norfolk average- this is amplified in urban areas Women residents of the borough are less active than the county or national average Older residents are more active than the county average There is comparatively less satisfaction with sports provision in the borough than nationally Several parish facilities require improved changing amenities
Page 131 of 229 65
4.2 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit – Quantity
4.2.1 The borough has approximately 111ha of playing fields which are largely used for sports activities (sports pitches are marked out within this total space, which includes clubhouses but excludes car park space) and approximately 6ha of sports courts and greens (for tennis, bowls, netball, basketball, etc). Depending on the context of the location, some multi-use games courts have been categorised as teen play areas, and therefore do not contribute to this Courts & Greens area. The distribution of outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf provision, as recommended by the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) within the borough is shown in Table 16 (where facilities overlap borders, the entire space has been allocated to just one parish).
Table 16: Capacity of Outdoor Sports Facilities by Parish
Area of Playing Fields* Area of Courts & Greens Parish (ha) (ha) Ashby with Oby 0 0 Belton with Browston 5.30 0.24 Bradwell 23.30 0.38 Burgh Castle 2.05 0 Caister-on-Sea 7.58 0.36 Filby 2.82 0.17 Fleggburgh 1.71 0.24 Fritton & St Olaves 0 0.09 Great Yarmouth 43.60 2.99 Hemsby 1.99 0.17 Hopton-on-Sea 1.98 0.39 Martham 10.40 0.38 Mautby 0 0.08 Ormesby St Margaret 4.05 0.18 Ormesby St Michael 0 0 Repps with Bastwick 1.37 0.14 Rollesby 2.77 0.11 Somerton 0 0 Stokesby with Herringby 0 0 Thurne 0 0 West Caister 0 0 Winterton-on-Sea 2.19 0.22 Borough Total 111.11 6.14 *Some schools open their grounds to local communities outside of school hours/terms under the extended schools programme. Sports pitches/courts at schools doing so are included within this section of the study (schools with no sports pitches but which open to the local community are covered under the Amenity Space section). Borough totals may not sum due to rounding.
Page 132 of 229 66
4.2.2 It is clear that the most rural parishes are deficient in sports facilities, which closely follows the population distribution (see Fig. 3). However, in Burgh Castle the population is slightly denser and this could indicate a shortage of tennis courts or bowling greens. The supply of outdoor sports pitches, courts and greens has been mapped on the following pages.
Fig. 22: Playing Fields by Parish
Page 133 of 229 67
Fig. 23: Courts and Greens by Parish
Page 134 of 229 68
4.2.3 The quantity of outdoor sports provision per 1,000 population has been calculated by ward (where facilities overlap borders, the entire space has been allocated to the ward containing the majority of the facility).
Table 17: Area of Outdoor Sports Facilities by Ward
Ward Population Total Outdoor Outdoor Sports Sports Facilities Facilities per 1,000 (ha) pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 16.32 2.48 Bradwell South 6,796 9.74 1.43 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 0 Caister South 4,464 7.94 1.78 Central & 8,614 9.95 1.15 Northgate Claydon 7,451 10.11 1.36 East Flegg 5,008 4.56 0.91 Fleggburgh 2,388 5.02 2.10 Gorleston 5,421 5.88 1.09 Lothingland 5,672 7.68 1.35 Magdalen 7,086 8.20 1.16 Nelson 8,166 1.78 0.22 Ormesby 4,407 4.22 0.96 Southtown & 5,314 4.51 0.85 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 1.95 0.41 West Flegg 5,135 15.17 2.95 Yarmouth North 4,471 4.22 0.94 Borough Total/Average 96,271 117.25 1.22
4.2.4 The borough has a total of 1.22 ha of outdoor sports facilities per 1,000 population. The wards of Caister North, Nelson and St Andrews have relatively low provision while the residents of West Flegg, Bradwell North and Fleggburgh are well- provided with outdoor sports facilities.
4.2.5 For many sports, the supply of pitches, courts and greens has been mapped separately, with analysis of demand for each sport.
4.2.6 Demand and supply for pitch sports has been analysed by sport, using Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model where applicable to calculate pitch requirements for football, cricket, hockey and rugby union. Assumptions include:
All teams play a home game once in two weeks
Page 135 of 229 69
Each pitch is capable of no more than 2 matches per week; mini football pitches have greater capacity Artificial pitches have been allocated to senior football, junior football and hockey uses within the model, each pitch counted once only There will be minimal increase in participation rates for football, otherwise only population-related increases in participants Borough-wide dwelling-derived population projections to 2026 retain the geographic distribution of 2009 ONS population estimates The adult/junior team ratio for all sports in 2026 will be the same as 2010/11 season Pitch demand has only been considered for programmed competitive play. Although the extent to which pitches have to accommodate training activity and informal use is an important factor, this has not formed part of the Playing Pitch Model calculations
Supply of Football Pitches
Table 18: Football Pitches by Parish Senior Parish Pitches Junior Pitches Mini Pitches Artificial Pitches Ashby with Oby 0 0 0 0 Belton with Browston 2 1 2 0 Bradwell 8 2 0 2 Burgh Castle 1 0 0 0 Caister-on-Sea 3 2 2 3 Filby 1 2 0 0 Fleggburgh 0 1 1 0 Fritton & St Olaves 0 0 0 0 Great Yarmouth 15 4 2 1 Hemsby 3 1 4 0 Hopton-on-Sea 1 1 0 0 Martham 6 2 4 0 Mautby 0 0 0 0 Ormesby St Margaret 2 2 0 0 Ormesby St Michael 0 0 0 0 Repps with Bastwick 1 1 0 0 Rollesby 1 0 0 0 Somerton 0 0 0 0 Stokesby with Herringby 0 0 0 0 Thurne 0 0 0 0 West Caister 0 0 0 0 Winterton-on-Sea 1 0 1 0 Borough Total 45 19 16 6
Page 136 of 229 70
4.2.7 Football pitch provision is shown in Figs. 24-27, along with the distribution of the population considered by Sport England to be of football-playing age. The maps are followed by the results for football of the Sport England Playing Pitch Model.
Fig. 24: Senior Football Pitches and Population Aged 16-45
Page 137 of 229 71
Fig. 25: Junior Football Pitches and Population Aged 10-15
Page 138 of 229 72
Fig. 26: Mini Football Pitches and People Aged 6-9
Page 139 of 229 73
Fig. 27: Artificial Pitches
NB Artificial pitches may be used for sports other than football.
Page 140 of 229 74
Demand for Football Pitches
4.2.8 Information from the Football Association, updated by contact with individual clubs, suggests the following football teams were based in the borough for the 2010/11 season.
Table 19: Football Teams 2011
Men’s 11 Women’s Male Youth Female Mini Soccer Small Sided 11 Youth 59 1 63 9 48 42 NB this excludes one mini-soccer team whose base could not be identified, two ‘local’ senior soccer teams who play competitive matches in Norwich and 42 small-sided senior teams.
4.2.9 Temporal demand for games has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of football pitch provision within the borough and by ward. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:312 (people of the applicable age) with 3.2 teams per 1,000 active population (excluding mini-soccer and small-sided teams).
Table 20: Football Pitch Demand
Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches in 2011 Pitches in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 44.6 44.7 Saturday afternoon 33.8 34.2 Sunday morning 42.2 42.3 Sunday afternoon 37.7 38 Midweek 47 46.7 Junior Saturday morning 19.1 19.7 Saturday afternoon 17 17.9 Sunday morning 18.4 19.1 Sunday afternoon 2.9 6.5 Midweek 22 22 Mini Saturday morning 8.3 9.5 Soccer Saturday afternoon 11.2 12 Sunday morning 1.1 3.5 Sunday afternoon -1.8 1 Midweek 16 16
4.2.10 This would suggest that there is a need for careful scheduling of some matches, particularly for mini-soccer. However, supply of football pitches overall is more than adequate to meet demand now and in 2026.
4.2.11 Considering the population distribution alongside the location of pitches (as in figures 24, 25 and 26) Cobholm, Southtown, Hopton and parts of Martham are
Page 141 of 229 75
more densely populated, but less well-provided, than other areas. See section 4.4 regarding accessibility of outdoor sports facilities.
Image 12: Fleggburgh Playing Field
Supply of Cricket Pitches
4.2.12 The borough has a total of 10 cricket pitches. The distribution is shown in Table 21 and this has been mapped in tandem with the distribution of population of cricket- playing age (Fig. 28).
Table 21: Cricket Pitches by Parish
Parish Pitches Belton with Browston 1 Caister-on-Sea 1 Gt Yarmouth 4 Hemsby 1 Martham 1 Rollesby 1 Winterton-on-Sea 1 Borough Total 10
Demand for Cricket Pitches
4.2.13 There are 7 cricket clubs in the borough, with a total of 28 teams as shown in Table 22. Temporal demand for games has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of cricket pitch provision within the borough and by ward. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:1,881 (people of the applicable age) with 0.5 teams per 1,000 active population.
Page 142 of 229 76
Table 22: Cricket Teams 2011
Men’s Women’s Male Youth Female 11 11 Youth 18 1 9 0
Table 23: Cricket Pitch Demand
Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches in 2011 Pitches in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 10 10 Saturday afternoon 2.3 3.8 Sunday morning 10 10 Sunday afternoon 5.1 6 Midweek 9.3 9.5 Junior Saturday morning 10 10 Saturday afternoon 9.3 9.4 Sunday morning 10 10 Sunday afternoon 10 10 Midweek 4.4 4.9
4.2.14 Table 23 would suggest that there are adequate cricket pitches for the teams in the borough, both in 2011 and in 2026. However, it should be noted that the Playing Pitch Model could not take account of cricket matches lasting a full day, hence the apparent availability of all pitches on Saturday and Sunday mornings.
4.2.15 According to Fig. 28 some borough residents would have to travel a considerable distance if they wanted to play cricket regularly (see section 4.4 regarding accessibility of outdoor sports facilities).
Page 143 of 229 77
Fig. 28: Cricket Pitches and People Aged 18-55
Page 144 of 229 78
Demand for Rugby Pitches
4.2.17 The Lowestoft and Yarmouth Rugby Football Club have 3 senior and 6 junior teams, but are based at Gunton, outside the borough. There is just one rugby club (Broadland and Great Yarmouth Rugby Football Club) based in the borough, with a total of 5 teams as shown below.
Table 25: Rugby Teams 2011
Men’s Women’s Male Youth Female Youth 2 0 3 0
4.2.18 Temporal demand for games by this one club has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of rugby pitch provision within the borough and by ward. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:7,263 (people of the applicable age) with 0.1 teams per 1,000 active population (if taking account of all rugby players in the Lowestoft and Yarmouth RFC in addition, this would change to 1:2,594 and 0.4 respectively).
Table 26: Rugby Pitch Demand
Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches in 2011 Pitches in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 4.5 4.5 Saturday afternoon 4.5 4.5 Sunday morning 5 5 Sunday afternoon 5 5 Midweek 5 5 Junior Saturday morning 1 1 Saturday afternoon 1 1 Sunday morning 0 0.3 Sunday afternoon 0.5 0.7 Midweek 1 1
4.2.19 The results suggest that there are adequate rugby pitches for the teams in the borough, both in 2011 and in 2026. However, if the Lowestoft and Yarmouth RFC decided to base themselves in the borough, this would affect pitch availability, depending on where they were based and when they played matches.
4.2.20 According to Fig. 29 some borough residents would have to travel a considerable distance if they wanted to play rugby regularly, particularly those of rugby-playing age living around Hemsby (see section 4.4 regarding accessibility of outdoor sports facilities).
Page 145 of 229 79
Fig. 29: Rugby Pitches and People Aged 18-55
Page 146 of 229 80
Supply of Hockey Pitches
4.2.21 Hockey is usually played on artificial pitches, of which the borough has 6. However, artificial pitches are also used for other sports, notably for football practice. As football is the most popular team sport, artificial pitches have been mapped with the analysis of football pitches; they have also been mapped alongside the distribution of population of hockey-playing age below.
Table 27: Hockey Pitches by Parish Parish Pitches Bradwell 2 Caister-on-Sea 1 Great Yarmouth 3 Borough Total 6
Demand for Hockey Pitches
4.2.22 There are 2 hockey clubs in the borough, with a total of 4 teams. Temporal demand for games by these clubs has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of hockey pitch provision within the borough and by ward. For the purposes of the model the borough’s 6 artificial pitches have been matched to adult and junior football, with just one pitch nominally allocated to hockey. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:10,021 (people of the applicable age) with 0.1 teams per 1,000 active population. As shown in Table 29, there are adequate hockey pitches for the teams in the borough, both in 2011 and in 2026.
Table 28: Hockey Teams 2011
Men’s Women’s Male Youth Female
Youth
1 2 0 1
Table 29: Hockey Pitch Demand Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches Pitches in 2011 in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 0 0.2 Saturday afternoon 0.5 0.6 Sunday morning 1 1 Sunday afternoon 1 1 Midweek 1 1 Junior Saturday morning 1 1 Saturday afternoon 0.5 0.6 Sunday morning 1 1 Sunday afternoon 1 1 Midweek 1 1
Page 147 of 229 81
Fig. 30: Artificial Pitches and People Aged 16-45
Page 148 of 229 82
Supply of Tennis Courts
4.2.23 The borough has a total of 31 tennis courts available for public use. The distribution of these courts is shown in Table 30 and Fig. 31.
Table 30: Location of Tennis Courts
Location Number Parish Browston Hall 2 Belton with Browston Ormiston Academy 4 Bradwell Broadland Sports Club 3 Fleggburgh Marine Parade, Gorleston 6 Great Yarmouth Southtown Common 1 Great Yarmouth Wellesley Recreation Ground 2 Great Yarmouth North Beach 4 Great Yarmouth Cliff Park High School 4 Great Yarmouth Hemsby Social Club 1 Hemsby Hopton (holiday park) 2 Hopton-on-Sea Flegg High School 2 Martham Borough Total 31
Demand for Tennis Courts
4.2.24 There are several ways to calculate the number of tennis players. At a national level, Sport England Active People Survey (2010) found that 1.04% of the 16+ adult population (437,500 people) participate in tennis on a regular basis (once a week or 4 days out of the previous 28 days) and that this figure is decreasing. 1.04% of the borough’s 16+ adult population would equate to 829 tennis players, if the national proportion of players applies.
4.2.25 Extracting local information from membership data supplied by Tennis East (part of the Lawn Tennis Association representing Norfolk) suggests that around 324 residents of Great Yarmouth Borough are signed up British Tennis Members. Not all regular tennis players would take out membership - nationally, the number of British Tennis Members account for around 73% of the national Sport England regular tennis player figure. If the same proportion applied to Great Yarmouth borough, it could be estimated that 444 of the borough’s residents play tennis regularly. If this is true, there appears to be a comparatively low level of tennis playing by residents of the borough.
4.2.26 The only evidence of distribution of tennis players is British Tennis Membership, shown below. There are concentrations of players in Bradwell South, Gorleston and Magdalen wards. The borough total equates to only 10 British Tennis Members per tennis court, although if there were 444 regular tennis players in the borough, the borough-wide average figure would be 14 players per court. If national frequency of tennis playing applies in the borough, 829 players would equate to 27 players
Page 149 of 229 83 per court. These figures ignore casual players of the game who play less frequently. An estimate of tennis players residing in the borough is therefore likely to be between 324 (BTM members) and 829 (the national ratio). There will also be some demand from the tourists staying in or visiting Great Yarmouth in the summer season.
Fig. 31: Tennis Courts in the Borough
Page 150 of 229 84
Table 31: Distribution of Tennis Courts and British Tennis Members
Ward Approximate British Tennis Courts British Tennis Tennis Members Members per Court Bradwell North 25 0 No courts Bradwell South 37 6 6 Caister North 8 0 No courts Caister South 9 0 No courts Central and 1 Northgate 8 6 Claydon 19 1 19 East Flegg 11 1 11 Fleggburgh 41 3 14 Gorleston 30 10 3 Lothingland 23 2 11 Magdalen 30 0 No courts Nelson 8 0 No courts Ormesby 17 0 No courts Southtown 7 0 No courts St. Andrews 23 0 No courts West Flegg 18 2 9 Yarmouth North 10 0 No courts Borough Total 324 31 10.4
4.2.27 Tennis games are affected by bad weather. For the purposes of calculating court capacity, it has been assumed that tennis can be played on only half the days of the year. Annual booking levels at borough-managed tennis courts during 2008 and 2010, and the rate of players per court per day (assuming 182 days of play) are shown in Table 32.
Table 32: Tennis Players Per Court (Borough-Maintained)
Facility Number 2008 2010 Players per Courts Bookings Bookings court/day North Beach 4 1,599 1,084 1-2 Marine Parade, Gorleston 6 2,285 1,632 1-2
4.2.28 The average of 1-2 players per court per day at borough-managed courts suggests that provision is adequate and there could be some spare capacity.
Page 151 of 229 85
Supply of Bowling Greens
4.2.29 There are 24 bowling greens within the borough, the distribution of which are shown in Table 33 and Fig. 32.
Table 33: Location of Bowling Greens Location Number Parish Browston Hall 1 Belton with Browston Green Lane Bradwell 1 Bradwell King George V 1 Caister-on-Sea Filby 1 Filby Flegg 1 Fleggburgh Fritton 1 Fritton & St Olaves North Beach 2 Great Yarmouth North Drive 3 Great Yarmouth Marine Parade, Gorleston 2 Great Yarmouth PH on Caister Road 1 Great Yarmouth Wellesley Recreation Ground 1 Great Yarmouth Hemsby 1 Hemsby Hopton (holiday park) 1 Hopton-on-Sea St Margaret’s Church 1 Hopton-on-Sea Martham 1 Martham Runham Mautby 1 Mautby Ormesby St Margaret 1 Ormesby St Margaret Repps 1 Repps with Bastwick Rollesby 1 Rollesby Winterton 1 Winterton-on-Sea Borough Total 24 NB. In addition to these greens, there is a world-class (mostly indoor) bowling centre at Potters Leisure, Hopton, and several other indoor bowls facilities, not covered by this study.
Image 13: Bowling Green, Adjacent King George V Playing Field, Caister
Page 152 of 229 86
Fig. 32: Bowling Greens in the Borough
Page 153 of 229 87
Demand for Bowling Greens
4.2.30 Demand is difficult to separate from supply, as the clubs are based at the greens (there are multiple clubs based at Gorleston and North Drive). Individual club membership varies and therefore aggregate demand is difficult to quantify. The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 2.92% of the adult population (age 16+) plays bowls, and that this figure is decreasing. 2.92% of the borough’s 16+ adult population would equate to 2,327 bowls players, resulting in a borough-wide average of 97 bowls players per green. While this seems like a high figure, the sport is popular among the older age groups, and the borough has an aging population. The sport is also popular with some of the 4.4 million tourists who visit the borough each year.
4.2.31 Seven of the greens located in Great Yarmouth town are operated by the Borough Council. There has been an annual Festival of Bowls held at the Britannia Greens since 1945. It is considered to be the biggest four-week outdoors bowls 20 tournament in the UK, attracting over 1,500 entrants .
4.2.32 Outdoor bowls matches are affected by bad weather. For the purposes of calculating court capacity, it has been assumed that bowls can be played on only half the days of the year. Annual booking levels at borough-managed bowls greens during 2008 and 2010, and the rate of players per green per day (assuming 182 days of play) were:
Table 34: Bowls Players per Green (Borough-Maintained)
Facility Number 2008 2010 Players per Greens Bookings Bookings green/day North Drive 2 3,535 2,346 6-10 Britannia Bowls* 3 1,554 1,718 3 Marine Parade, Gorleston* 2 1,641 1,604 4-5 * includes club rinks, but excludes touring sides, club matches and the Festival of Bowls
4.2.33 If the local bowls player/court ratio is around 97 regular bowls players per green (see above) the average of 4-6 players per green per day at borough-managed facilities suggests that most regular players use other greens in the borough.
20 www.pitchcare.com Page 154 of 229 88
Supply of Golf and Pitch & Putt Courses
Table 35: Location of Golf and Pitch & Putt Courses Location Type Parish 9-Hole Golf and Pitch & Browston Hall Country Club Putt Belton with Browston Great Yarmouth & Caister 18-Hole Golf Caister-on-sea Bure Park Pitch & Putt Great Yarmouth Marine Parade Pitch & Putt Great Yarmouth Caldecott Hall 18-Hole Golf Fritton & St Olaves Hemsby Pitch & Putt Hemsby Gorleston 18-Hole Golf Hopton-on-sea Palms at Potters Pitch & Putt Hopton-on-sea
Demand for Golf and Pitch & Putt Courses
4.2.34 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 2.04% of the adult population (age 16+) participates in golf regularly and this is decreasing. In the borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 1,626 golfers, 203 golfers per facility.
Fig. 33: Golf Courses in the Borough
Page 155 of 229 89
Supply of Basketball Courts
Table 36: Location of Basketball Courts
Basketball Courts Number Parish Green Lane 1 Bradwell Mill Lane 1 Bradwell Bell Lane 1 Belton with Browston Caister Playing Field 1 Caister-on-Sea King George V Field 1 Caister-on-Sea Diana Way 1 Caister-on-Sea Fleggburgh 1 Fleggburgh North Beach 2 Great Yarmouth Marine Parade, Gorleston 1 Great Yarmouth Peggotty Road 1 Great Yarmouth Gorleston Recreation Ground 1 Great Yarmouth Cobholm 1 Great Yarmouth Beacon Park 1 Great Yarmouth Wellesley Recreation Ground 1 Great Yarmouth Martham Recreation Ground 1 Martham Borough Total 16
NB. provision for basketball includes some Multi-use Games Areas, the areas of which have been included in the Children’s Playspace section of the study. While all basketball facilities are listed here, they do not all contribute to the overall area of courts and greens.
Demand for Basketball Courts
4.2.35 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 0.36% of the adult population (age 16+) plays basketball regularly and this is decreasing. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 287 basketball players, or 18 players per court. While there would appear to be an over-supply of basketball courts, many of these are on multi-use games areas, and double for use with other sports.
Supply of Netball Courts
Table 37: Location of Netball Courts
Netball Courts Number Parish Cliff Park High School 2 Great Yarmouth Martham Primary School 1 Martham Borough Total 3
Page 156 of 229 90
Demand for Netball Courts
4.2.36 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 0.34% of the adult population (age 16+) plays netball regularly and this is one of the few sports in which participation is increasing. In the borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 271 netball players, or 90 players per court.
Supply of Outdoor Gyms/Athletics
Table 38: Location of Outdoor Gyms/Athletics Outdoor Gyms/Athletics: Parish
Adizone, Mill Lane PF Great Yarmouth
Trim Trail, Gorleston Great Yarmouth
Wellesley Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth
Demand for Outdoor Athletics/Gyms
4.2.37 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 4.45% of the adult population (age 16+) participates in athletics regularly and this is one of the few sports in which participation is increasing. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 3,547 athletes, which seems very high.
Supply of Multi-Use Games Areas
4.2.38 In addition to the other sports facilities, there are multi-use games areas (including court markings for tennis, netball, basketball, 5-a-side football) at:
Beacon Park, Gorleston Diana Way, Caister-on-Sea Gorleston Recreation Ground Hopton Playing Field King George V Playing Field, Caister-on-Sea (floodlit) Marine Parade, Gorleston Martham Playing Field Mill Lane Recreation Ground, Bradwell Mill Road, Cobholm (floodlit) Southtown Common Wellesley Recreation Ground, Great Yarmouth
Demand for Multi-Use Games Areas
4.2.39 Although not exclusively for teenager use, teens are the principal users of these types of sites (see Children’s Playspace for teen population). It is believed that there is a substantial under-supply of teen facilities in the borough.
Page 157 of 229 91
4.2.40 Additionally, the borough contains a horse racing track, speedway circuit, greyhound racing track and lots of opportunity for watersports on the rivers, broads and at the coast, although these facilities have not been assessed in this study as they are either largely spectator sports or are water-based.
Fig. 34: Other Outdoor Sports Facilities
Page 158 of 229 92
4.3 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit – Quality
4.3.1 Due to resource constraints, a full qualitative audit of pitches, courts and greens has not been carried out for this study.
4.3.2 Pitch quality affects the number of games which can be accommodated, and for pitches run by Great Yarmouth Borough Council this is monitored on an on-going basis with matches rotated to preserve pitch quality. Many other pitches are run by parishes, who report pitches are in good quality generally.
4.3.3 Measures of quality for outdoor sports facilities include floodlighting and changing amenities. 25 of the borough’s publicly accessible playing fields include changing rooms (around 68%); 5 have floodlighting (around 14%). These are shown in Figs. 35/36.
Table 39: Location of Changing Facilities
Changing Rooms Located At: Parish New Road Playing Field Belton with Browston Mill Lane Playing Field Bradwell Green Lane Playing Field Bradwell Burgh Castle Playing Field Burgh Castle Caister Playing Field Caister-on-Sea King George V Playing Field Caister-on-Sea Caister High School Caister-on-Sea Filby Playing Field Filby Fleggburgh Playing Field Fleggburgh Fleggburgh Primary School Fleggburgh Wellesley Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Beaconsfield Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Southtown Common Great Yarmouth Gorleston Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Cobholm Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Magdalen Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Cliff Park High School Great Yarmouth Hemsby Recreation Ground Hemsby Hopton Playing Field Hopton Martham Recreation Ground Martham Ormesby St Margaret Playing Field Ormesby St Margaret Repps with Bastwick Playing Field Repps with Bastwick Rollesby Recreation Ground Rollesby Rollesby Cricket Club Rollesby Winterton Playing Field Winterton
Page 159 of 229 93
Table 40: Location of Floodlighting
Facilities with Floodlighting Parish King George V Playing Field Caister-on-Sea Wellesley Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Magdalen Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Cliff Park High School Great Yarmouth Martham Recreation Ground Martham
4.3.4 In May 2011 Parish councils were asked for their opinions on the quality of parish sporting facilities. The responses received regarding quality are summarised in Table 41.
Local opinion is that the changing rooms at Filby, Fritton and Burgh Castle are in poor condition
Belton, Burgh Castle and Fleggburgh expressed some demand for synthetic turf pitches (STP)
Belton, Fleggburgh and Hopton expressed demand for floodlighting (Hopton had sought planning permission at the time of the study)
Repps with Bastwick stated that a tennis court would be welcome (although demand for this has not been quantified)
Table 41: Parish Council Views on Quality of Outdoor Sports Facilities
Parish Pitch/Court/Green Quality of Quality of Other Comments Pitch Change /Court/Green Facility Belton Playing Field Fair Excellent Demand for STP and floodlighting Moorlands Primary Good School Bradwell Green Lane Playing Very good Good Field Green Lane Bowls Very good Green Mill Lane Recreation Good Good Ground Burgh Playing Field Fair Poor No courts/greens. Castle Demand for STP. Filby Playing Field Fair Poor Filby Primary School Fair Filby Bowling Green Good No tennis courts
Page 160 of 229 94
Parish Pitch/Court/Green Quality of Quality of Other Comments Pitch/ Change Court/Green Facility Fleggburgh Playing Field Good Demand for STP and floodlighting Broadland Sports Good Club Flegg Bowling Green Good Fritton Fritton Institute Good Poor Bowling Green Hopton Playing Field Good Fair No need for STP. Planning permission sought for floodlighting. Holiday park Open for tennis/bowls tourists only St Margaret’s Church Good bowls Repps with Playing Field Good Fair Tennis court Bastwick would be welcome. No need for STP or floodlights. Bowls Club Good Rollesby Recreation Ground Good Good No need for STP or floodlighting. Cricket Club Good Bowls Club Good Winterton Playing Field Good Good No need for STP Bowling Green Good
Image 14: Basketball Courts, Fleggburgh
Page 161 of 229 95
Fig. 35: Changing Amenities at Outdoor Sports Facilities
Page 162 of 229 96
Fig. 36: Floodlights at Outdoor Sports Facilities
Page 163 of 229 97
4.4 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit – Accessibility
4.4.1 Senior football teams often play home matches at a variety of pitches, as pitch quality and prior bookings require. However, for most other types of sport, the facilities serve a very local population.
4.4.2 Sport England was contacted regarding typical catchment areas for outdoor sports facilities. Their Facilities Planning Model was suggested as a proxy for outdoor sports facilities (although it was designed for indoor facilities such as swimming pools). The model uses travel times to define catchments, derived through national surveys, and finds that regardless of mode of transport, almost 90% of journeys to sports facilities are made within 20 minutes. Within this, between 58% and 66% of such journeys are made within 10 minutes. The latter has been mapped using walking speed of 4 miles per hour and driving speed of 48 miles per hour21 giving distance thresholds of 0.6 miles and 8 miles respectively. These have been converted to straight line radii of 0.5 miles and 7 miles to take some account of road layouts. The driving radius suggests coverage of the entire borough through 10 minute drive catchments (although this does not take account of barriers to access e.g. the river). Approximate walking catchments (disregarding barriers to access) for the borough’s pitches, courts and greens are illustrated in Fig. 37).
4.4.3 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments, as shown in Table 42. This show that there is very good accessibility to the borough’s outdoor sports facilities both on foot and by car.
Table 42: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of an Outdoor Sports Facility
Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Mode of Transport to Population Outdoor Sports Facility 91% 0.5 miles By foot 100% 7 miles By car
21 Dept for Transport Table TRA9906, 2009 Page 164 of 229 98
Fig. 37 Catchment Radius of 0.5 Miles Applied to Outdoor Sports Facilities
Page 165 of 229 99
4.4.4 The coastal parts of Hemsby and Scratby are not covered by walking catchments; these are largely tourist areas. Parts of Southtown, Cobholm and Bradwell are also just outside the theoretical walking catchments of local facilities, but (according to the Sport England Facilities Planning Model) all the facilities in question would still be considered accessible by foot to around 23% of the population. Therefore, the only parts of the borough considered to be without pedestrian access to outdoor sporting facilities are the most rural areas. However, it should be noted that coverage by sport facility varies across the borough. There could be scope for sport- specific facilities in some areas, and focused local consultation is recommended.
4.4.5 Parish councils were asked if local outdoor sports facilities were accessible for people with mobility problems/visual impairment, if they were well connected to the settlement for pedestrian access, if there was sufficient car parking and access by public transport. The responses are shown in Table 43.
Table 43: Parish Council Quality Feedback
Parish Comment Belton Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking but no public transport nearby Bradwell Good pedestrian and public transport access, adequate car parking. Burgh Castle Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby. Fleggburgh Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby. Fritton Accessible, well connected to settlement (path on one side of highway), car parking but more needed and no public transport nearby. Hopton Facilities well connected to settlement, with car parking and public transport nearby. Repps with Bastwick Facilities are accessible with help. Bowls green requires wheelchair access (changes to car park) electricity supply and WC facilities. Well connected to settlement, with car parking but poor public transport access. Rollesby Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby. Winterton Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby.
Page 166 of 229 100
4.5 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit - Summary
4.5.1 Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model suggests there is sufficient supply of pitches for football, cricket, rugby and hockey. Bookings at tennis and bowls facilities managed by the borough suggest there are sufficient of these facilities. The most rural parts of the borough are lacking in outdoor sports facilities. The urban wards of Caister North, Nelson and St Andrews have low ratio of sports provision per 1,000 population. The provision for individual pitch sports would seem to be adequate, both now and projecting population changes to 2026.
4.5.2 The quality of most pitches is adequate, but there are concerns over the quality of ancillary facilities such as changing rooms, car parking and floodlighting. Filby, Fritton and Burgh Castle require improved changing amenities. Belton, Burgh Castle and Fleggburgh may benefit from Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs). Belton, Fleggburgh and Hopton expressed demand for floodlighting. Repps with Bastwick stated that a tennis court would be welcome. 25 of the borough’s publicly accessible playing fields include changing rooms (around 68%); 5 have floodlighting (around 14%).
4.5.3 Most of the borough residents have pedestrian access to some form of outdoor sports space. The only parts of the borough considered to be without pedestrian access to outdoor sporting facilities are the most rural areas. Fritton needs additional car parking and public transport connections; the bowls green at Repps with Bastwick requires additional access for those with mobility issues.
Image 15: Playing Field at Broadland Rugby Club, Cobholm
Page 167 of 229 101
4.6 Outdoor Sports Facilities Benchmark Standards
4.6.1 The NPFA’s ‘Six Acre Standard’ Standard is widely used as a benchmark and has previously been adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (see Parks & Open Space Strategy, 2005). It is expressed as hectares per 1,000 population, and proposes 1.6 ha of outdoor sports space per 1,000 people (excluding golf courses). Of this total, 1.2 ha should be playing pitches.
4.7 Outdoor Sports Facilities Local Standards
4.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of outdoor sports facilities which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.
Fig. 38: Outdoor Sports Facilities Local Standards
Quantity 1.2ha formal outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf courses) per 1,000 population, which can comprise sports pitches or tennis courts or bowling greens. Currently the average across the borough is 1.22ha outdoor sports space per 1,000 population but some wards/parishes do not meet this level. There may be local shortages of certain sports provision which should be addressed. Quality All outdoor sports facilities should be accessible, with changing facilities and a range of alternative activities available. Floodlighting should be provided where a need is identified. Synthetic turf pitches should be included in new provision. Currently pitches are well-maintained but ancillary facilities can be poor or non- existent. The changing facilities at Filby, Fritton and Burgh Castle are particularly in need of improvement. Accessibility Outdoor Sports Facilities should be considered accessible where they have a catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius. All sites should be fully accessible by pedestrians and public transport; there should be a range of facilities available for those with mobility problems. Pedestrian crossings should be provided on main roads as required. Currently much of the built-up part of the borough meets these standards. New development could provide valuable outdoor sports facilities, which, in the rural area, may require negotiation with the Broads Authority. Existing sites with deficient disabled access should be improved.
Page 168 of 229 102
Page 169 of 229 103
5.1 Amenity Greenspace Consultations
5.1.1 The Place Survey 2008 assessed residents’ satisfaction with parks & open spaces and the keeping of public land clear of litter and refuse. 55.4% of the residents of Great Yarmouth were very or fairly satisfied with the latter (county-wide this was 62.9%), while 57.8% of borough residents were very or fairly satisfied with parks and open spaces (65.3% across Norfolk).
5.1.2 Citizens Panels Wave 16 in 2008 and Wave 19 in 2010 surveyed Great Yarmouth borough residents’ satisfaction with elements of parks and grass-cutting. In 2008, overall, over two thirds of respondents (67%) were satisfied with the parks and open spaces service. The highest levels of satisfaction related to the general standard of maintenance, accessibility and landscape quality. Nearly three quarters (74%) were satisfied with landscape quality. The highest levels of dissatisfaction related to dog fouling (46%) and the number/location of litter bins (36%).
5.1.3 At that time (2008) satisfaction with the overall appearance of grass cutting was high, with 86% rating themselves as satisfied or very satisfied. 81% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied at the frequency of cutting, but fewer (60%) were very or fairly satisfied with the post-cutting clearance of cut grass and litter.
5.1.4 In 2010 the Citizens Panel (Wave 20) were asked again to rate their satisfaction with these aspects and satisfaction levels had risen. Around three quarters (73%) of those providing a valid response were satisfied with parks and open spaces. In terms of specific aspects, satisfaction was highest in relation to accessibility (89%), the general maintenance (85%) and landscape quality (77%). Highest levels of dissatisfaction were seen in terms of dog fouling (50%) and the number and locations of litter bins (37%).
5.1.5 Respondents who live in a rural location were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (81%). In terms of ACORN classification, those in the category ‘hard-pressed’ were most likely to be satisfied (82%).
5.1.6 Older respondents were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (78% of those aged 55 – 64; 78% of those aged 65+), compared with younger age groups (18% of those aged 25-44 were dissatisfied overall).
Page 170 of 229 104
Fig. 39: Satisfaction With Elements Of Parks and Open Spaces 2010 (all valid responses)
Accessibility 89% 8% 3%
General standard of maintenance of parks/open spaces 85% 7% 8%
Landscape quality 77% 12% 11%
General cleanliness 70% 10% 20%
Quality of facilities within the park 66% 17% 18%
Security and safety 61% 22% 16%
Community needs 58% 27% 15%
Number and location of litter bins 51% 12% 37%
Dog fouling 35% 15% 50%
Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 73% 15% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Page 171 of 229 105
5.1.7 In 2010, the Citizen’s Panel results for grass cutting showed that satisfaction levels were still high but had reduced. 82% of respondents rated themselves satisfied with the overall appearance of grass cutting. Around three quarters were satisfied with the level of disruption from grass cutting (77%) and with how frequently the grass was cut (74%). However, dissatisfaction rose in relation to the post-cutting clearance of cut grass and litter, with only 52% of respondents satisfied with these aspects.
5.1.8 33% of respondents in urban areas were dissatisfied with ‘what happens to the grass after it is cut’. Dissatisfaction with treatment of both the grass cuttings and litter was highest in:
Respondents aged 65+ Those in the ACORN category ‘comfortably off’ Home owners
5.1.9 Comparing the Citizens’ Panel results, between 2008 and late 2010 satisfaction with parks and open spaces has improved in all aspects but one (dog fouling). Improvements were particularly marked in terms of security and safety (from 44% in 2008 to 61% in 2010) and accessibility (77% in 2008 to 89% in 2010).
Table 44: Satisfaction with parks and open spaces in 2008 compared with 2010 (valid responses only)
2008 2010 Accessibility 77% 89% (+12) General standard of maintenance of parks and open spaces 83% 85 (+2) Landscape quality 74% 77% (+3) General cleanliness 63% 70% (+7) Quality of facilities within the park 63% 66% (+3) Security and safety 44% 61% (+17) Community needs 52% 58% (+6) Number and location of litter bins 45% 51% (+6) Dog fouling 35% 35% ( - ) Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 67% 73% (+6) NB. Sample bases vary
Page 172 of 229 106
Fig. 40: Satisfaction With Aspects of Grass Cutting Services in the Local Area – 2010 (valid responses)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall appearance of grass cutting
Level of disruption from grass cutting
How frequently the grass is cut
What happens to the grass after it is cut
Clearance of litter as part of cutting operation
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Page 173 of 229 107
5.1.10 While overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces increased between 2008 and 2010; satisfaction with grass cutting decreased over the same period.
Table 45: Satisfaction With Grass Cutting Services in 2008 Compared With 2010 (valid responses only)
2008 2010 Overall appearance of grass cutting 86% 82% (-4) The level of disruption from grass cutting in your area 85% 77 (-8) How frequently the grass is cut 81% 74% (-7) What happens to the grass after it is cut 60% 52% (-8) Clearance of litter as part of cutting operation 60% 52% (-8) NB Sample bases vary
Consultation Summary
5.1.11 From the consultation, the key points to note are:
Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces is 73% Satisfaction with parks and open spaces has increased Satisfaction with the overall appearance of grass cutting is 82% Satisfaction with grass cutting has decreased Most of the dissatisfaction around grass cutting derives from the clearance of cut grass and litter
Image 16: Village Green, Martham
Page 174 of 229 108
5.2 Amenity Greenspace Audit - Quantity
5.2.1 Amenity greenspace consists of informal green space open to spontaneous use by the public but not maintained for a specific function. In order to maximise efficiency, it was decided to audit only sites over 0.01ha size. The sites included within this definition range from small-scale improvements to the setting of dwellings to large playing fields that could not be included in Outdoor Sports Facilities due to lack of pitches. The largest site categorised as amenity greenspace is Bure Park, which was considered to be more informal than its name suggests. The breakdown of amenity space by ward is shown in Table 46.
Table 46: Amenity Greenspace by Ward
Ward Population Total Amenity Amenity Greenspace (ha) Greenspace per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 5.66 0.86 Bradwell South 6,796 6.22 0.91 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 4.54 1.01 Caister South 4,464 0.39 0.09 Central & 8,614 2.26 0.26 Northgate Claydon 7,451 3.59 0.48 East Flegg 5,008 3.16 0.63 Fleggburgh 2,388 1.55 0.65 Gorleston 5,421 1.55 0.29 Lothingland 5,672 2.45 0.43 Magdalen 7,086 15.77 2.22 Nelson 8,166 1.61 0.20 Ormesby 4,407 4.73 1.07 Southtown & 5,314 1.47 0.28 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0.58 0.12 West Flegg 5,135 4.87 0.95 Yarmouth North 4,471 13.12 2.93 Borough Total/Average 96,271 73.52 0.76
5.2.2 The urban wards of Southtown & Cobholm, Yarmouth North and Magdalen are well supplied with amenity greenspace, contributing to the borough total of 0.76ha per 1,000 population. As amenity greenspace is often provided alongside development, it might be expected that rural wards would have less amenity greenspace. However, wards with the least amount of amenity space are Caister South, Central & Northgate, Gorleston and Nelson, which are also urban. The total amenity space (over 0.01ha) has been mapped across the borough by parish (see Fig. 41).
Page 175 of 229 109
Fig. 41: Amenity Greenspace by Parish
Page 176 of 229 110
5.3 Amenity Greenspace Audit – Quality
5.3.1 The amenity greenspace within the borough is maintained on a 3 weekly cycle. This comprises cutting the main grass areas, litter picking the site and reporting defects. Strimming and cutting to the site perimeter is also done on a 3 weekly basis. A full assessment of the quality and value of amenity greenspace has not been performed for this section due to the wide variation in the function of these spaces, which therefore cannot be analysed comparatively.
5.4 Amenity Greenspace Audit – Accessibility
5.4.1 By its nature, amenity greenspace is usually provided within built-up areas, close to housing and workplaces. It has been assumed that amenity space would have a smaller catchment than parks or natural greenspace, since it has fewer elements to attract people to it. The following shows a range of radii that have been used to assess how many people in the borough have access to amenity greenspace.
Table 47: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of a various Amenity Greenspace sizes
Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Amenity Greenspace Size Population 32% 100m 0.01 – 0.09ha 32% 150m 0.1ha – 0.99ha 5% 200m 1ha – 2.9ha 12% 500m 3ha – 10ha
5.4.2 Although very small patches of amenity greenspace have been excluded from this study, it would appear that few of the borough’s population are provided with amenity greenspace. Sites larger than 3ha are less important than smaller sites, since the demand for larger sites can be met by other forms of open space.
Page 177 of 229 111
5.5 Amenity Greenspace Audit Summary
5.5.1 Some urban areas of the borough have the highest quantity of amenity greenspace, while other urban areas have the lowest quantity of amenity greenspace. Therefore there is no trend to be drawn from the distribution of amenity greenspace.
5.5.2 Amenity space is maintained on a 3-weekly cycle; including grass cutting, litter picking and reporting defects.
5.5.3 Only a minority of residents have appropriate access to amenity greenspace, which is surprising given that it is usually provided in built up areas, close to housing and workplaces. However small areas of amenity greenspace have not been considered in this study. Where there are shortages these should therefore be addressed, especially in areas where new development is likely to take place.
5.6 Amenity Greenspace Benchmark Standards
5.6.1 The NPFA’s ‘Six Acre Standard’ Standard is widely used as a benchmark and has previously been adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (see Parks & Open Space Strategy, 2005). It is expressed as hectares per 1,000 population, and proposes 1.6 ha of outdoor sports space per 1,000 people. Of this total, 0.55 hectares should be informal space.
Page 178 of 229 112
5.7 Amenity Greenspace Local Standards
5.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of amenity greenspace which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.
Fig. 42: Amenity Greenspace Local Standards
Quantity 0.8ha informal amenity greenspace per 1,000 population. Currently the average across the borough is 0.76ha amenity greenspace per 1,000 population but some wards do not meet this level. There are local shortages of amenity greenspace provision which should be addressed, particularly if development occurs in Caister South, Central & Northgate, Gorleston and Nelson wards. Quality All amenity greenspace should be accessible, located close to both residential development and employment sites. Seating should be provided where possible and appropriate. Currently amenity greenspace is maintained on a 3-weekly cycle. Local satisfaction levels are high, but there are concerns over the disposal of grass cuttings and litter. Accessibility Amenity greenspace should be considered accessible by residents or workers within the following straight line distances: Sites up to 1ha within 150m Sites 1-3ha within 200m Sites 3-10ha within 500m. Currently a small percentage of the population live within the amenity greenspace catchments, although very small patches of amenity greenspace were excluded from the study. New development could provide valuable provision to residential/employment areas.
Page 179 of 229 113
Page 180 of 229 114
6.1 Children’s Playspace Consultations
6.1.1 The public consultation carried out in 2004 relating to the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2005) identified Children’s Playgrounds/Somewhere for Children/Family Oriented as the 4th most popular response to “what do you particularly like about the borough’s parks and open spaces?”. In the same survey a small proportion of responses identified the poor state of play equipment as something not liked, and “more Children’s Play Facilities/Youth Facilities/Teenage Play” was the third most popular response to “what would you like to see in the borough’s parks and open spaces”.
6.1.2 In 2005 a further borough-wide consultation was undertaken specifically for the Great Yarmouth Play Strategy 2006 - 2012. It identified an aspiration among residents for a better standard of play and more improved opportunities for play for children of all ages. The key findings from this survey from an adult perspective were a lack of facilities at existing playgrounds, for young children (73% of respondents) and teenagers (62% of respondents). 69% of adults said there was not enough seating. Accessibility of play provision was much less cited as a problem, but 85% of adults said it was important to have a playground within walking distance.
6.1.3 This was echoed by children under 10, who cited “not enough to do”, “litter/dog poo” and “older children” respectively as the top three things they did not like about their local playgrounds, while 25% of children were worried about the distance from their home to the playground.
6.1.4 65.3% of young people aged 11-17 when asked if there were adequate facilities for teenagers answered “no” with those aged 14-17 being the most dissatisfied (64% of those aged 14-17 were either “unhappy” or “very unhappy” with the level of provision). The most popular facilities among young people were multi-use games areas, skate/BMX parks and outdoor fitness equipment. Two out of three young adults said it was important to have a playground within walking distance, but only 20% would walk for more than 10 minutes.
6.1.5 In 2008 a survey of over 2,000 children in the borough (the sample chosen to represent rural, urban black and minority ethnic, and children with disabilities) attempted to identify the real or perceived barriers preventing children from using playgrounds across the borough. The main barriers identified were weather, teenagers and their behaviour, and vandalism. 140 participants stated they would attend a playground more regularly if they lived closer (these comments applied equally to urban/rural respondents) and most of these comments came from children in the 7-11 age group. Some children (or parents of children) also cited a lack of fencing as a concern for safety. When asked what would make the playgrounds they use better, the overwhelming response was more, different or improved equipment, and others cited more football provision, or facilities for riding bikes.
Page 181 of 229 115
6.1.6 This survey was followed up by another survey in 2010 about some of the borough’s initiatives to increase use of playgrounds, such as website content, leaflets, and programmes to tackle teenage behaviour and littering.
Fig. 43: Barriers to Playground Use (Great Yarmouth Play Survey, 2008)
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150
Number of comments of Number 100 50 0 Weather Teenagers Anti-social Dogs Safety Time behaviour by teenagers
Consultation Summary
6.1.7 From the consultation, the key points to note are:
Existing playspaces are valued and more are desired The borough’s playgrounds could be improved for both young children and teenagers Existing teen facilities are sparse, impacting on teenagers but also on younger children For younger and more vulnerable children, fencing around play areas is important for perceived safety (and to keep out dogs) The presence of teenagers can intimidate younger children Teenagers are not prepared to walk very far for facilities
Page 182 of 229 116
6.2 Children’s Playspace Audit - Quantity
6.2.1 Defining the formal ‘areas of play’ has required an arbitrary decision over where the primary function of the space changes from play to active recreation or amenity (recreation grounds are a case in point). Therefore, many of the areas identified for play exclude large areas of adjacent open space which would be suitable for children and adults to use for informal recreation and play. This section should be read in conjunction with Outdoor Sports Facilities and Amenity Greenspace sections.
6.2.2 The play areas in the borough are defined according to age groupings of 0-8 years (Junior), 6-12 years (Intermediate) and 8-14 years (Senior). There has been an effort to ensure the needs of the widest range of local children have been catered for in the borough, and therefore even small play areas with just a few pieces of equipment often cater to a range of age groups. Play provision is therefore more adaptable as the local child population ages, but accordingly it has not been possible to classify the play areas according to the nationally recognised classification of Local Area of Play, Local Equipped Area of Play and Neighbourhood Area of Play.
6.2.3 Some play areas are restricted to use by residents of the immediate dwellings and their invited guests. These Housing Play Areas are identified separately in the following location maps.
6.2.4 Play provision has been mapped against the child population in Figs 44, 45, 46 and teen provision (including teen shelters, multi-use games areas (MUGA) and skate parks) is mapped at Fig. 47. It is clear from the maps that there is a concentration of play areas within Great Yarmouth town, and far fewer around the rest of the borough. This does reflect the distribution of children, although more play/teen facilities might be expected in:
Ormesby Martham Hopton
In Great Yarmouth town, there are concentrations of children of all age groups in:
Cobholm Runham Vauxhall Newtown Southtown South Denes
Throughout the borough there is a scarcity of teen facilities (15 locations between 4,744 children aged 14-17).
Page 183 of 229 117
Fig. 44: Location of Junior Play Areas and Distribution of Children aged 0-8
Page 184 of 229 118
Fig. 45: Location of Intermediate Play Areas and Distribution of Children aged 6-12
Page 185 of 229 119
Fig. 46: Location of Senior Play Areas and Distribution of Children aged 8-14
Page 186 of 229 120
Fig. 47: Location of Teen Facilities and Distribution of Children aged 14-17
Page 187 of 229 121
6.2.5 Formal play areas cover a total of 16.5 hectares of equipped play space (plus a further 0.25 hectares of Housing Play Areas) with the smallest being just over 60 square metres. The average across the borough is approximately 0.17 ha per 1,000 population and the total play space (of both types) by ward is shown in Table 48:
Table 48: Area of Play Space by Ward
Ward Population Total Play Space Play Space per (ha) 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 1.59 0.24 Bradwell South 6,796 1.69 0.25 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 1.08 0.24 Caister South 4,464 0.16 0.04 Central & 8,614 0.71 0.08 Northgate Claydon 7,451 0.47 0.06 East Flegg 5,008 0.59 0.12 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.67 0.28 Gorleston 5,421 0.10 0.02 Lothingland 5,672 1.39 0.25 Magdalen 7,086 2.03 0.29 Nelson 8,166 0.96 0.12 Ormesby 4,407 0.52 0.12 Southtown & 5,314 1.33 0.25 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 2.23 0.47 West Flegg 5,135 0.74 0.14 Yarmouth North 4,471 0.49 0.11 Borough Total/Average 96,271 16.75 0.17
6.2.6 Some of these play areas are immediately adjacent to open space which has been classified as either Outdoor Sports Facilities or Amenity Greenspace, therefore this measure should be read in conjunction with those sections of the report. However, the wards with the least area categorised as formal play space (for all ages) are:
Gorleston Caister South Claydon Central & Northgate
6.2.7 The quantity of children’s play space has also been assessed according to the number of play areas per ward and number of items of play equipment per child (aged 0-14) by ward. It should be noted that this table cannot take account of play
Page 188 of 229 122
area catchments which overlap ward boundaries, and therefore serve the children of more than one ward.
Table 49: Number of Play Areas and Play Equipment per Child by Ward
Ward Children 0 - Number of Equipment Children Per Ages 14 Play Areas Items Item Catered For Bradwell North 997 4 25 39.88 All ages Bradwell South and Hopton 1,049 8 61 17.20 All ages Caister North 567 2 12 47.25 All ages Caister South 515 3 13 39.62 All ages Central and Northgate 1,414 3 23 61.48 All ages Claydon 1,272 4 24 53.00 All ages East Flegg 596 4 29 20.55 All ages Fleggburgh 315 5 26 12.12 All ages Gorleston 887 1 4 221.75 Junior Lothingland 822 4 20 41.10 All ages Magdalen 1,201 5 35 34.31 All ages Nelson (Great Yarmouth) 1,600 18 61 26.23 All ages Ormesby 606 4 18 33.67 All ages Southtown and Cobholm 1,192 7 35 34.06 All ages St Andrews 918 7 26 35.31 All ages West Flegg 773 5 26 29.73 All ages Yarmouth North 706 3 30 23.53 All ages Borough Total/Average 15,430 87 468 32.97
6.2.8 On average across the borough, there are 177 children (aged up to 14) per play area. It can be seen that Gorleston has significantly more children per item of play equipment than other wards, and also that currently only the Junior age category (0-6) is catered for in the ward (although one play area in the adjacent ward of Magdalen is within range for some Gorleston children).
Page 189 of 229 123
Table 50: Teenage Facilities per Ward
Ward Children 14-17 Number of Teen Teens Per Location Areas Bradwell North 307 1 307 Bradwell South and Hopton 282 2 141 Caister North 191 1 191 Caister South 226 1 226 Central and Northgate 392 0 0 Claydon 383 1 383 East Flegg 203 0 0 Fleggburgh 158 1 158 Gorleston 289 0 0 Lothingland 274 1 274 Magdalen 356 1 356 Nelson (Great Yarmouth) 387 4 96 Ormesby 243 0 0 Southtown and Cobholm 300 1 300 St Andrews 220 2 110 West Flegg 257 1 257 Yarmouth North 276 0 0 Borough Total 4,744 17 279.06
6.2.9 There is a comparative shortage of facilities for teenagers: 279 teens per area, compared to 177 children per area (page 115). Within the facilities that do exist, there is a proliferation of basketball courts. See Outdoor Sports Facilities section for comment on sport participation.
Image 17: Teen Shelter, Southtown Common, Gorleston
Page 190 of 229 124
6.3 Children’s Playspace Audit – Quality
6.3.1 All borough play sites are regularly inspected for wear and tear, vandalism, litter and graffiti by Environmental Rangers on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis depending upon their assessed risk. Any required work is carried out by GYB Services. GYB Services also carry out operational inspections of the structural and engineering aspect of the play equipment quarterly. Annually, an external independent inspector provides a comprehensive inspection and risk assessment. Therefore as quality is regularly inspected, a further assessment has not been undertaken as part of this study.
6.3.2 Consultation shows the borough’s play areas are valued by local residents, although there is a widespread desire for improved equipment.
6.4 Children’s Playspace Audit – Accessibility
6.4.1 Accessibility for children with disabilities is assessed through annual inspections. In 2010, there were two sites with severely limited access for some: St Nicholas Recreation Ground and Gorleston Recreation Ground.
6.4.2 Distance thresholds to the formal play areas have been calculated with reference to The Children’s Play Council and NPFA thresholds, but having regard to the target age ranges the play areas were designed for. The age ranges and travel thresholds for each type of play area are:
Junior (ages 0-8) up to 100m straight line; Intermediate (ages 6-12) up to 300m straight line; Senior (ages 8-14) up to 600m straight line.
6.4.3 These distance thresholds have been mapped on the following pages for play areas of each age category, excluding Housing Play Areas which are for exclusive use of residents and therefore do not have a distance threshold.
6.4.4 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments. These catchment areas have been mapped on the following pages at Figs. 48, 49, & 50.
Table 51: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of Playspace
Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Playspace age Population 6.4% 100m Junior 42.6% 300m Intermediate 79.7% 600m Senior
Page 191 of 229 125
Fig. 48: Catchment of 100m Radius for Junior Play Areas
Page 192 of 229 126
Fig. 49: Catchment of 300m Radius for Intermediate Play Areas
Page 193 of 229 127
Fig. 50: Catchment of 600m Radius for Senior Play Areas
Page 194 of 229 128
6.4.5 Only a very small percentage of Great Yarmouth residents live within a walking catchment of Junior play spaces (although this excludes Housing Play Areas, as stated). Even for Intermediate and Senior play areas, there is a significant population outside the theoretical catchment areas.
6.4.6 There are localised shortages of play equipment in urban areas. Settlements where scrutiny of the catchments would suggest lack of accessible formal play provision are:
Martham Hemsby Scratby Great Yarmouth Newtown Parts of Gorleston Parts of Hopton
6.4.7 The formal play areas are concentrated around the main settlements as would be expected, leading to localised shortages in the rural areas of the borough, which should be addressed for any future developments in rural areas. However, the sparsely populated rural areas are not indicated for high levels of development in the future. Additionally, the number of children in rural areas is low (see figs. 44- 47) which makes the cost per user much higher, and also intensifies the isolation for the young people who live in these locations.
6.4.8 Importantly, as illustrated at Fig. 51, some of this need falls within the Broads Authority executive area (shown in blue) and there will be a need for co-operation on this subject between the two authorities for any development which falls under Broads Authority planning control.
Image 18: Play Area, King George V Playing Field, Caister
Page 195 of 229 129
Fig. 51: The Broads Authority Executive Area in Relation to Play Area Catchments
Page 196 of 229 130
6.5 Children’s Playspace Audit Summary
6.5.1 There is a very wide disparity of provision of play areas between wards. As might be expected, in rural areas children have less provision and will have to travel further to play facilities, and there are notable shortages (compared to child population) in the settlements of Ormesby, Martham and Hopton.
6.5.2 In the urban area there is a concentration of play areas, particularly those for children up to 8 years old. Apparent shortages in provision for all ages exist in Cobholm, Runham Vauxhall, Newtown, Southtown and the South Denes area.
6.5.3 Gorleston, Caister South, Claydon and Central & Northgate wards are those with the smallest area devoted to formal children’s play space and Gorleston also has significantly more children per item of play equipment than other wards, with only 0-8 age group catered for currently. Provision for teenagers generally in the borough is markedly less than for children aged 1-14.
6.5.4 Quality is assessed frequently and remedial work is ongoing. Residents value the play areas but would like to see improvements, including updated and themed equipment
6.5.5 Access to play areas is far better in the urban areas. Settlements where catchment mapping suggests poor access include parts of Martham, Hemsby, Scratby, Great Yarmouth (Newtown), Gorleston, Hopton. Access to play areas is poor in the rural areas, but much of the rural area comes under the Broads Authority planning control. Disabled access is poor at Gorleston and St Nicholas recreation grounds.
Image 19: Play Area, Fleggburgh (near Fleggburgh Village Hall)
Page 197 of 229 131
6.6 Children’s Playspace Benchmark Standards
6.6.1 The NPFA’s ‘Six Acre’ Standard is widely used as a benchmark and in many areas is the adopted standard. It is expressed as hectares per 1,000 population and includes distribution elements to cover accessibility. The Six Acre Standard suggests 0.8 ha per 1,000 people for children’s play space, which includes designated areas with equipment and casual playing space within housing areas. The latter has not been measured in this category (see Amenity Greenspace and Outdoor Sports Facilities sections of the report). The recommended straight line distance from home to play space depends on the age of the child and the number of items of equipment in a Local Area of Play (very young children); Local Equipped Area of Play (early school age) and Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (older children). The NPFA distances recommended are set out in Table 49.
Table 49: NPFA distances recommended to play area types
Play Area Type Time Pedestrian Route Straight Line LAP 1 minute 100 metres 60 metres LEAP 5 minutes 400 metres 240 metres NEAP 15 minutes 1,000 metres 600 metres
Image 20: Play Area, Ormesby St Margaret Playing Field
Page 198 of 229 132
6.7 Children’s Playspace Local Standards
6.7.1 The 2005 Parks and Open Spaces Strategy set standards for open space based on the NPFA benchmark, as set out in 6.6. National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in provision of play space which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.
Fig. 52: Children’s Playspace Local Standards
Quantity 0.2ha formal play space per 1,000 population, 30 children (0-14) per item of play equipment and 200 teenagers per teen facility. Separate teen facilities should be provided if there is none within 1km. Currently the average across the borough is 0.17ha formal play space per 1,000 population and 33 children per item of play equipment. There is a shortage of provision for teenagers, with 279 teens per facility across the borough. In some areas there is a need to adapt the provision to suit local age groups and in some areas the emphasis should be on updating existing equipment. Quality All play spaces should be safe and welcoming, with a range of play equipment and should be themed where possible to provide an original play experience. Play areas for young children should be fenced in and teen facilities should be separated from children’s play areas. Currently equipment is maintained for safety but some play spaces are showing signs of wear. There is an element of similarity between the styles of play areas, restricting the options for children who have a choice of sites to use. Some existing play spaces incorporate teen facilities. Accessibility Straight line distances from dwellings: Junior play areas (ages 0-8) up to 100m Intermediate play areas (6-12) up to 300m Senior play areas (8-14) up to 600m Teen facilities up to 1km All sites to be fully accessible to all children, regardless of disability, with pedestrian crossings for main roads as required. Currently only a very small percentage of the population live within the walking catchment for Junior play areas. The study has identified some settlements where there is a particular lack of play provision. New development could provide valuable play space provision, which in the rural area, may require negotiation with the Broads Authority. Existing play sites with deficient disabled access should be adapted.
Page 199 of 229 133
Section 7
Allotments
Page 200 of 229 134
7.1 Allotments Consultations
7.1.1 There is a small amount of evidence which relates to allotment provision and the general profiles of allotment users at both national and local levels. Primarily, two national allotment surveys were undertaken during the late 1990’s to provide evidence on the Government Paper ‘The Future of Allotments22’.
7.1.2 Some of the more general (national) findings of the 1998 survey are listed below:
A traditional image of an allotment user as an older, retired man Waning interest characterised by high plot vacancies and low waiting register Cultural differences – the north of England tended to have longer waiting lists than the south – suggesting more demand/interest Allotments of higher quality coincide with high occupancy rates (higher value) Conversely, poorly equipped/maintained allotments suffer from higher vacancy rates
7.1.3 The traditional allotment profile has begun to evolve in recent years, characterised by an awareness of healthier lifestyles, earlier retirement ages, a pro-organic movement and a growing popularity in gardening and cookery programmes. A survey conducted in 2009 concluded that the appeal of allotments has been widening and that single parents are the most likely group to want to rent or apply for an allotment - with one in three stating they were interested in a plot.23
7.1.4 Whilst not discounting this resurgence, the number of UK allotments remains relatively deflated at 200,000 compared to its peak at 1.4million plots during the Second World War.
7.1.5 To understand the local story, general information regarding allotment provision, quality, value and accessibility was gathered via questionnaires posted to the Great Yarmouth & Gorleston Allotment Association and Parish Councils.
7.1.6 The initial feedback from respondents concluded that up to two thirds (63%) perceived allotment provision to be ‘good’ in their area and the remaining third (36%) stated it as ‘excellent’. The adequacy of each allotment plot, in terms of size, function and practicality, was also predominantly perceived to be ‘good’ (63%) and ‘excellent’ (36%).
7.1.7 The survey did not provide details on the number of individual plots due to variations in plot areas. Traditionally the Saxon measurement of 10 ‘rods’ (equivalent to 250sqm) was considered to be the standard area, however over time, many plots have been subjected to sub division. For the purposes of this study, an average plot area will be assumed as 250sqm.
22 The Future of Allotments’, Select Committee on Environmental, Transport and Regional Affairs, 1998 23 LV (2009), ‘Brits Rediscover the Good Life’. Press Release, Liverpool Victoria, 2 June 2009, http://www.lv.com/media_centre/press_releases/brits-discover-good-life Page 201 of 229 135
7.1.8 The questionnaire also posed qualitative questions regarding on-site facilities and the general consensus was that on-site access to water was under provided and composting facilities and toilets were also under represented. Interestingly, respondents considered the general quality of allotments as being ‘good’ (80%) or ‘excellent’ (20%) – potentially suggesting that the actual provision of allotment may outweigh concerns of underprovided facilities.
7.1.9 The results of the survey also highlighted some criticism towards general security, which was regarded by 60% as being ‘poor’ or ‘fair’, and 40% of respondents were critical of the general ease of access within allotments.
Allotments Consultations Summary
7.1.10 From the consultation, the main points to note are:
Allotments are appealing to a wider age range of the population not just the retired population Overall satisfaction with allotments in the borough is high There are some perceived issues with allotment security and ease of accessibility Nearly half of all allotments do not provide basic amenities such as an adequate water supply
Image 21: Allotments, Cess Road, Martham
Page 202 of 229 136
7.2 Allotments Audit – Quantity
7.2.1 The borough has approximately 45 hectares of allotment land which is predominantly located within the urban area of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston and the adjoining settlement of Bradwell. Allotment provision is more concentrated in the northern parishes than the southern with 11.68ha24 and 7.49ha respectively. The location and distribution of known allotments in the borough is shown in Fig. 53
7.2.2 The breakdown of allotment space per ward and per 1,000 people is illustrated in Table 50.
Table 50: Allotment space per ward and per 1,000 people
Ward Population Total Allotment Allotment Space Space (ha) (ha) per 1,000 people Bradwell North 6,576 2.57 0.39 Bradwell South 6,796 7.02 1.03 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 0 Caister South 4,464 3.19 0.71 Central & 8,614 6.91 0.80 Northgate Claydon 7,451 3.08 0.41 East Flegg 5,008 1.59 0.32 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.62 0.26 Gorleston 5,421 0 0 Lothingland 5,672 0.47 0.08 Magdalen 7,086 2.67 0.38 Nelson 8,166 0 0 Ormesby 4,407 1.43 0.32 Southtown & 5,314 7.26 1.37 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0 0 West Flegg 5,135 4.85 0.94 Yarmouth North 4,471 3.51 0.79 Borough Total/Average 96,271 45.17 0.47
24 The northern and southern totals exclude allotments provided in the Great Yarmouth urban area i.e. Bradwell North, Central & Northgate, Claydon, Gorleston, Magdalen, Nelson, Southtown & Cobholm, St Andrews and Yarmouth North wards Page 203 of 229 137
Fig. 53: Location of Allotment Sites in the Borough
Page 204 of 229 138
7.2.3 The borough has on average 0.5ha of allotment space per 1,000 people. At ward level, Southtown and Cobholm have the largest proportion of allotment provision at 1.37ha per 1,000 people - however the overall provision within the urban area is 0.45ha per 1,000 people, which is on a par with the borough average.
7.2.4 Allotment provision is under-served in both Lothingland and Fleggburgh Wards, particularly in Lothingland where sole provision is constrained on a piece of land between the church, primary school and residential area in Belton.
7.2.5 Caister North ward, and the urban wards of Gorleston, Nelson and St Andrews, do not provide any allotment provision. It is conceivable that the over concentration of allotment provision within the urban area could meet the needs for these, and similarly, the large allotment along Fremantle Road in Caister could provide for the needs of Caister North too.
Image 22: Allotments, Yarmouth Road, Hemsby
Page 205 of 229 139
7.3 Allotments Audit – Quality
7.3.1 An audit which quantified the quality and value of each allotment site was undertaken in April 2012 to identify how utilised provision was across the borough and to identify any potential weaknesses that could inhibit their use. The audit was undertaken in house and complimented the information that was obtained from the parish councils and allotment associations and were assessed according to the criteria as set out in Fig. 54.
7.3.2 Criteria points were marked out of 5 (5 being high) and a total value or quality score per allotment was marked out of a maximum of 30. Scores of under 55% were considered to be ‘low’ while scores 55% and over were considered to be ‘high’.
Fig. 54: Criteria for assessing the quality and value of allotments
Quality Demarcation/Fencing - Are the allotment plots adequately demarked? Is there appropriate fencing? Are there any boundary concerns between plots? Vandalism - Is there any evidence of graffiti? Break-ins, or arson attacks? Facilities - Does the allotment have a range of facilities in-situ i.e. an adequate water supply? Maintenance - Are the allotments/allotment plots maintained well? Is there any evidence of decline? Management - Is the allotment well managed? Is there a dedicated allotment officer? Is there a waiting list? Security - How well secured is the allotment? Does the allotment compound have adequate protection/security measures?
Value Vacancy - Are there significant vacancies on the allotment? What is the ratio of utilised/under-utilised allotment land? Social Potential - Does the allotment have wider ties with the community i.e. through schools or church groups? Safety - Is the allotment secure? Does the allotment feel safe? Do properties overlook the allotment aiding to surveillance? Visitor Accessibility- Is the allotment suitable/flexible for all allotment users? Accessibility and Circulation - How well connected is the allotment to the local highway network? Frequency of pathways? Is there adequate parking and/or ease of access onto the site? Habitat Value - Is there a breadth of biodiversity i.e. trees, shrubbery, hedgerows on the allotment which aid biodiversity and recreational benefits?
Page 206 of 229 140
Table 50: Quality and Value of the borough’s allotments
Allotment Quality Quality Value Value % Score (out % Score (out of 30) of 30) Belton (Church Lane) 26 80% 20 66% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Beccles Road) 21 70% 21 70% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Cley Road) 26 86% 17 68% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Crab Lane) 21 70% 19* 76% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Long Lane) 25 83% 21* 84% HIGH HIGH Caister (Fremantle Road) 25 83% 26 86% HIGH HIGH Caister (Ambrose Road) 22 73% 20 66% HIGH HIGH Filby (Thrigby Road) 21 70% 27 90% HIGH HIGH Fleggburgh (Town Road) 22 73% 22 73% HIGH HIGH Gorleston (Common Road) 25 83% 23 76% HIGH HIGH Gorleston (Woodfarm Lane) 24 80% 21* 84% HIGH HIGH Gorleston (Western Road) 21 70% 17* 68% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Marsh Road) 21 70% 18 60% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Lawn Avenue) 25 83% 21 70% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Queen Anne’s 16 53% 16 53% Road) LOW LOW Great Yarmouth (Runham Vauxhall) 28 93% 17 56% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Off Northgate 23 76% 20 66% Street) HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Fremantle Road) 25 83% 26 86% HIGH HIGH Hemsby (Yarmouth Road) 24 96% 18* 72%* HIGH HIGH Martham (Cess Road) 20 66% 18 60% HIGH HIGH Ormesby (Cromer Road) 24 80% 20 66% HIGH HIGH Repps with Bastwick (Church Road) 21 70% 16 53% HIGH LOW Repps with Bastwick (Low Road) 21 70% 17 56% HIGH HIGH Rollesby (Court Road) 20 66% 21 70% HIGH HIGH Winterton (Black Street) 21 70% 25 83% HIGH HIGH Borough Average 23 76% 20 70% Page 207 of 229 141
7.3.3 The results of the allotments audits suggest that the borough has a predominantly high quality and high value allotment offer. This could be reflective of a number of local circumstances – for example the borough’s ageing population which may engender a reliance upon allotments for its low impact recreational benefits.
7.3.4 The results of the audit did not suggest any differentiation between rural and urban allotments in terms of quality and value. Both areas were regarded as having allotments of high quality and value.
7.3.5 The highest scoring allotment for quality was an allotment along the Yarmouth Road in Hemsby. It scored 96% which is reflective of its recent opening, the breadth of its facilities and the careful planning, orientation and security of the allotment.
7.3.6 Allotments of highest value were located at Cley Road (86%); Long Lane, Bradwell and Woodfarm Lane, Gorleston (both scoring 83%). Their key strengths included their location which provided key open space amenity to the densely populated suburb, the ease of access onto and around the allotment; and, free and ample parking for allotment holders.
7.3.7 Only one allotment was audited as being both low quality and low value (52%). This allotment was located on the outskirts of the Great Yarmouth urban area, along Queen Anne’s Road and the contributing factors toward its low score included its lack of basic amenities, it was in poor condition and was adjacent to low grade wasteland which contributed towards some fly-tipping in the area. The lack of apparent interest in the allotment and likelihood of anti-social behaviour has contributed towards its declining state.
7.3.8 The audit only identified one other low scoring allotment. This was located along Low Road in Repps with Bastwick and was attributed with a low value score of 53% due to its particularly poor accessibility. The allotment is accessed off a minor road with no footpath and no car parking and is a particularly vulnerable environment for the elderly who are likely to be users of the allotment.
Page 208 of 229 142
7.4 Allotments Audit – Accessibility
7.4.1 Based on the function of allotments as local facilities serving local catchment populations, in particular those with little garden space, it has been assumed that an acceptable distance to travel would be about 900 metres. This equates to roughly a 15 minute walk25 or a short car journey.
7.4.2 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by this catchment. As shown in Table 51 the accessibility of allotments is fairly good, with nearly 70% of the population within a suitable walking distance from an allotment plot.
Table 51: Percentage of the population living within a 900m catchment from an allotment site Percentage of population Catchment area 67% 900m
7.4.3 Figure 55 illustrates the parts of the borough which are within the catchment area of an allotment. The map shows fairly good borough wide coverage, with over concentration in the urban areas. There are notable gaps in the catchments’ coverage, for example at Hopton-on-Sea, Fritton and St Olaves and part of Caister- on-Sea.
7.5 Allotments Audit Summary
7.5.1 The borough is fairly well provided for in terms of allotments, in both rural and urban areas. There are three urban wards which have no allotment provision; however many other urban wards have provision which is well above the borough average. The main rural area to be underserved is Lothingland.
7.5.2 The quality of allotment provision in the borough is generally very high. Only one site scored low for quality, and two scored low for value. Key issues which resulted in lower scores included a lack of car parking and basic amenities such as adequate water supply.
7.5.3 Accessibility of allotments is considered to be fairly good throughout the borough, both in rural and urban areas. There is an overconcentration of allotments in urban areas.
25 This is consistent with the walking speed used by Natural England as referenced in Section 3, equating to approx. 4 miles per hour Page 209 of 229 143
Fig 55: Allotment sites showing a catchment radius of 900m
Page 210 of 229 144
7.6 Allotments – Benchmark Standards
7.6.1 Although there are no formal standards set for allotment provision, the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG)26 advocates an informal standard for allotment provision of 15 plots per 1,000 households.
7.6.2 By taking into consideration the average size of the UK household (2.3 persons27), the standard would recommend an approximate provision of 15 plots per 2,300 people.
7.6.3 To retrofit this standard to the circumstances in Great Yarmouth, one will need to consider: The total number of plots in the borough The total population
7.6.4 The allotment survey was unable to establish the total number of plots in the borough due to the lack of acquired information. However, it is possible to ascertain an estimation of plot numbers by calculating their gross area.
7.6.5 For the purposes of the study, the average allotment plot size has been considered as 250sqm (in line with the 10 ‘rod’ principle), therefore equating to the total (gross) area of the borough’s allotments (451,700sqm), the borough has approximately 1,807 allotment plots.
7.6.6 Taking into account the total population (96,271) and the standard set at 15 plots per 2,300 people, the borough is calculated as requiring 628 plots to maintain an adequate provision for the size of the population. In real terms, the borough has an over-supply of 1,179 plots equivalent to approximately 29.48ha.
7.6.7 This estimation does not take into account how allotment provision is spread at a local level. Table 52 calculates the number of expected plots per ward (as a benchmark) and illustrates where the borough has an under or oversupply of allotment plots.
26 The NSLAG is the recognised representative body for the allotment movement in the UK and is officially recognised by the Government. 27 ONS Population and Household Estimates for the United Kingdom, March 2011 Page 211 of 229 145
Table 52: Total Allotment Plots per Ward
Ward Population Total Allotment plots Actual Plots Allotment (benchmark (surplus Space (ha) equivalent) /deficit)
Bradwell North 6,576 2.57 102.8 +59.9 Bradwell South 6,796 7.02 280.8 +236.5 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 0 -29.4 Caister South 4,464 3.19 127.6 +98.5 Central & 8,614 6.91 276.4 +220.3 Northgate Claydon 7,451 3.08 123.2 +74.6 East Flegg 5,008 1.59 63.6 +29.5 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.62 24.8 +7.9 Gorleston 5,421 0 0 -35.4 Lothingland 5,672 0.47 18.8 -18.2 Magdalen 7,086 2.67 106.8 +60.6 Nelson 8,166 0 0 -53.3 Ormesby 4,407 1.43 57.2 +28.5 Southtown & 5,314 7.26 290.4 +255.7 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0 0 -31.3 West Flegg 5,135 4.85 194 +160.5 Yarmouth 4,471 3.51 140.4 +111.2 North Borough Total 96,271 45.17 1,807 +1,179
7.6.8 As shown above, allotment provision is mostly lacking in Nelson ward, where statistically, there is a requirement for approximately 53 allotment plots. This is followed by similar demands of around 30-35 plots in Gorleston and St Andrews, and a demand of approximately 18 additional plots in Lothingland. There is significant surplus in the urban areas, which is expected, as traditionally allotments have been situated in inner urban areas as a way of providing a means to growing produce for those without access or means to an appropriate garden.
7.6.9 Given the ability of the urban areas to compensate due to the surplus of allotment land, it is not felt that there is a need for more allotments within the urban area. The main area in need is Lothingland, which could be considered for the future, especially if there was to be any housing development in this location.
Page 212 of 229 146
7.7 Allotments Local Standards
7.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in provision of allotments which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.
Fig 55: Allotments Local Standards Quantity 15 allotment plots per 1,000 households (2,300 people) which is equivalent to approximately 7 allotment plots per 1,000 people, or 0.18ha per 1,000 residents. The borough has approximately 0.47ha per 1,000 residents – the equivalent of 1,807 allotment plots, or 1,179 plots over and above the calculated benchmark provision (of 656 plots) for the borough.
There is a minor allotment shortage in Lothingland (Belton), and should land become available adjacent to the allotment, provision should be made for an additional 0.45ha of allotment land to meet minimum requirements. Quality Allotments should achieve a quality score of 80% and a value score of 75%.
Adequate water supply and composting bins should be provided. Secure boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities. A number of allotment sites scored high marks for quality and value, the quality targets have been based on the upper end of the results to set a desirable yet achievable target. A number of parish councils suggested that there are currently no composting bins on allotments and that the water supply is not adequate, these improvements would further improve the quality and value of the sites. Some parish councils also suggested that allotments are not as secure as they could be, boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities would improve this. Accessibility Allotments should be considered accessible by residents where they are within a 900 metre straight line distance.
Sites should have both pedestrian and vehicular and disabled access, with adequate parking space. Currently, much of the built up part of the borough meets these standards. While walking is to be encouraged as the preferred method of access to allotments it is recognised that at certain times cars will be needed to transport equipment onto and off the site. Allotments function as local facilities and therefore an acceptable walking distance has been set, or a short car journey.
Page 213 of 229 147
Page 214 of 229 148
8.1 Churchyards and Cemeteries Audit – Quantity
8.1.1 This report will not attempt to set standards for churchyards and cemeteries, as it is felt that the primary function of these spaces should drive supply, quality and accessibility. However, as they also function as quiet open space suitable for contemplation, the quantity has been assessed and included in the overall audit of open space.
Table 54: Area of Churchyards* per Ward
Ward Population Churchyards* (ha) Churchyards* per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 0 0 Bradwell South 6,796 9.11 1.34 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 6.84 1.52 Caister South 4,464 0.97 0.22 Central & 8,614 3.08 0.36 Northgate Claydon 7,451 5.33 0.72 East Flegg 5,008 2.53 0.50 Fleggburgh 2,388 3.02 1.27 Gorleston 5,421 0 0 Lothingland 5,672 1.46 0.26 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 Nelson 8,166 0.14 0.02 Ormesby 4,407 0.72 0.16 Southtown & 5,314 0.19 0.04 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0.94 0.20 West Flegg 5,135 2.44 0.47 Yarmouth North 4,471 1.14 0.25 Borough Total/Average 96,271 37.91 0.39 * includes cemeteries, but excludes Kitchener Road Cemetery, which has been included under Accessible Natural Greenspace (see Section 3)
8.1.2 The borough has approximately 0.4 hectares of churchyard/cemetery space per 1,000 people, with the majority of provision in the rural wards (71%).
Page 215 of 229 149
Page 216 of 229 150
9.1 Conclusions
Quantity
9.1.1 The total figures for open space provision by ward are detailed in Appendix 1. This shows that the level of accessible natural greenspace provision is significantly higher than any other type of open space. There are nearly 16 ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 people which is of great benefit to borough residents.
9.1.2 For urban parks and gardens the provision almost meets the proposed standard, with the population in the urban areas having a good supply of urban parks and gardens.
9.1.3 The average quantity of outdoor sports facilities meets the proposed standard and for most types of sport there is sufficient supply. However, there are local variations and deficiencies in rural areas which have been identified in this study.
9.1.4 The average amenity greenspace is considered sufficient for the borough, but shortfalls occur in a number of urban wards. However, it could be argued that this shortfall is balanced out by these areas having better access to formal parks and gardens.
9.1.5 For children’s playspace the provision almost meets the proposed standard but the shortfall is mainly in the teen category with many more teenagers to each facility than the recommend level.
9.1.6 Overall the borough has a surplus of allotment provision. However there are localised shortages with insufficient provision in some rural and urban wards. There is an overconcentration of allotments in the urban area as a whole.
9.1.7 The quantity standards that have been set for each type of open space generally reflect the current position, indicating that on average the quantity of open space provision within the borough is sufficient. However, the need for further provision will be assessed in relation to the local area when considering the impact of new development.
Quality
9.1.8 The quality of the open space in the borough is generally very high. This means that for each open space type high standards have been set for quality and in many cases these are already being met.
9.1.9 Urban parks and gardens score highly for quality, but the lowest scores were in terms of value. Suggestions to improve value include enhancement to the natural environment of parks and promoting health, education and culture through parks. The Strategic Parks scored highly for both quality and value indicating that the larger parks which benefit a greater population are more attractive and are well maintained.
Page 217 of 229 151
9.1.10 The quality and value of accessible natural greenspace is considered to be very good, with high overall averages for quality and value. Those spaces scoring low for quality were due to issues of litter, dog fouling and vandalism. Improvements should therefore be made in these areas, along with enhancement to the education and social value of the spaces which could include educational information boards or picnic benches.
9.1.11 In terms of sports facilities these are considered to be well maintained across the borough, but the issues lie with the ancillary facilities which require improvements, particularly changing rooms in some parishes as well as a need for enhanced facilities such as floodlighting and synthetic turf pitches.
9.1.12 While the quality of amenity greenspace was not formally assessed as part of this study, public consultation shows that satisfaction is generally high with these spaces, but there are concerns over the disposal of grass cuttings and litter.
9.1.13 Children’s playspace was not formally assessed for quality, as inspections are regularly carried out by the Council. However, from the public consultation, the main suggestions to improve the quality of the spaces were to provide a range of play equipment and for teen areas to be provided separately to increase the perceived safety of younger children.
9.1.14 The quality of allotment provision is also considered to be very high in the borough, with only a couple of sites receiving low scores. Key considerations to improve the quality of these sites include providing sufficient facilities such as an adequate water supply and sufficient access and parking.
Accessibility
9.1.15 The level of accessibility for open spaces varies according to open space type, but many fall short of benchmark standards. The local standards proposed therefore seek to increase the accessibility of open space in relation to new development.
9.1.16 Accessibility to urban parks and gardens is low across the whole borough, but is high for the urban area. By the very nature of these parks it would be unreasonable to assume the whole of the borough to have similar access to these parks as the urban area, therefore the proposed accessibility standards apply to the population of the urban area.
9.1.17 In terms of accessible natural greenspace, accessibility is considered to be very good within the borough, with most of the borough having access to the larger sites. The smaller sites are considered to be less accessible, with some areas in the north west of the borough lacking in accessibility. However, with extensive public rights of way links, it could be argued that there is no lack of accessibility.
9.1.18 The borough’s outdoor sports facilities are considered to be accessible, with most of the facilities’ catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius, and many are accessible by public transport.
Page 218 of 229 152
9.1.19 Only a minority of residents have appropriate access to amenity greenspace, which is surprising given that it is usually provided in built up areas, close to housing and workplaces. However small areas of amenity greenspace have not been considered in this study.
9.1.20 Children’s playspace provision is provided throughout the borough but in terms of the recommended walking catchments to these play areas, the borough falls short for all ages, in particular to junior play space provision. There are localised shortages which have been identified in the study.
9.1.21 There is considered to be good accessibility to allotments, with a significant proportion of the population currently within the catchment recommended. There are some sites however where there is a need to improve the access and car parking provision.
Local Standards
9.1.22 Based on the public consultations and audits, local standards have been recommended for each open space type as follows:
Urban Parks & Gardens Quantity: 0.4ha per 1,000 population in the urban area Quality: Strategic Parks – 80% quality, 73% value Middle Order Parks – 70% quality, 65% value Neighbourhood Parks – 71% quality, 55% value Litter and dog waste bins – one per 0.5ha or one per entrance. Seating and signage to be provided. Parks over 1ha to contain facilities for young people Accessibility: Straight line distances for residents in the urban area: 500m to a Neighbourhood Park 1km to a Middle Order Park 2km to a Strategic Park Wheelchair access to all parks and gardens
Accessible Natural Greenspace Quantity: 16ha accessible natural greenspace of any type, minimum size 1ha per 1,000 population Quality: 68% quality, 75% value Accessibility: site of over 1ha within 2km for all residents, where possible this should have wheelchair access
Page 219 of 229 153
Outdoor Sports Facilities Quantity: 1.2ha formal outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf courses) per 1,000 population Quality: wheelchair access, changing facilities and a range of activities available. Floodlighting where a need is identified. Synthetic turf pitches to be included in new provision Accessibility: a catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius for each sport facility. Fully accessible by pedestrians and public transport, with a range of facilities available for those with mobility problems. Pedestrian crossings on main roads as required
Amenity Greenspace Quantity: 0.8ha informal amenity greenspace per 1,000 population Quality: all amenity greenspace to be located close to both residential development and employment sites. Seating to be provided where appropriate Accessibility: within the following straight line distances from dwellings/work-places: Sites up to 1ha – within 150m Sites 1-3ha – within 200m Sites 3-10ha – within 500m
Children’s Playspace Quantity: 0.2ha formal play space per 1,000 population. 30 children (0-14) per item of play equipment and 200 teenagers per teen facility. Separate teen facilities if there are none within 1km Quality: all play spaces to be safe and welcoming, with a range of play equipment (themed if possible). Junior play areas to be fenced in. Teen facilities to be separated from children’s Accessibility: straight line distances from dwellings: Junior (0-8yrs) – up to 100m Intermediate (6-12yrs) up to 300m Senior (8-14yrs) up to 600m Teen (14+yrs) up to 1km Full disabled access. Pedestrian crossings as required
Allotments Quantity: 7 allotment plots per 1,000 population, or 0.18ha per 1,000 population Quality: 80% quality, 75% value. Adequate water supply and composting bins should be provided. Secure boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities on site Accessibility: straight line distance to an allotment site of up to 900 metres for all residents. Sites should have pedestrian, vehicular and disabled access, with adequate parking space
Page 220 of 229 154
9.2 Recommendations
9.2.1 Based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that: The standards in this report are adopted as a basis for assessing the current levels of surplus or deficiency in terms of the quality, quantity, and accessibility for the various open space types covered in this study.
Guidance is developed based on this study to establish the need for and extent of developer contributions in relation to new development in the borough.
Strategic and detailed policies are developed which reflect the key outcomes of this study. Policies should seek to protect the current level of provision, seeking improvements to the quality and accessibility of these spaces. Policies should also seek to secure the provision of additional open space in relation to new development, which link with the current network of open spaces in the borough.
9.3 Next Steps
9.3.1 Having established the different types of open space within the borough and assessed these according to their quantity, quality and accessibility, it is important that the Council maintain and enhance the existing open space and seek to increase the level of provision in the borough. In relation to new development, planning obligations can be sought to ensure that open space provision is enhanced and increased. Part 2 of the Open Space Study will build on the work carried out in this study, to set out the process for determining the level of developer contributions required towards open space provision in relation to new development.
Page 221 of 229 155
Appendix 1 Total Area of Open Space per 1,000 Population per Ward Ward Population Urban Parks ANG per Outdoor Amenity Children’s Churchyards/ Allotment Total Open & Gardens 1,000 pop Sports Green Space Play Space Cemeteries Space per Space per Ward per 1,000 (ha) Facilities per per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 pop 1,000 pop per 1,000 pop pop (ha) 1,000 pop (ha) pop (ha) pop (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 0 0.15 2.48 0.86 0.24 0 0.39 4.27 Bradwell S & 6,796 0 2.30 1.43 0.91 0.25 1.34 1.03 7.26 Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 1.98 0 1.01 0.24 1.52 0 4.75 Caister South 4,464 0 6.60 1.78 0.09 0.04 0.22 0.71 9.44 Central & 8,614 0.50 74.78 1.15 0.26 0.08 0.36 0.80 77.93 Northgate Claydon 7,451 0 0 1.36 0.48 0.06 0.72 0.41 3.03 East Flegg 5,008 0 45.31 0.91 0.63 0.12 0.50 0.32 47.79 Fleggburgh 2,388 0 0.10 2.10 0.65 0.28 1.27 0.26 4.66 Gorleston 5,421 1.98 0.92 1.09 0.29 0.02 0 0 4.29 Lothingland 5,672 0 65.26 1.35 0.43 0.25 0.26 0.08 67.63 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 1.16 2.22 0.29 0 0.38 4.05 Nelson 8,166 0.41 3.41 0.22 0.20 0.12 0.02 0 4.38 Ormesby 4,407 0 6.86 0.96 1.07 0.12 0.16 0.32 9.49 Southtown & 5,314 0 2.84 0.85 0.28 0.25 0.04 1.37 5.63 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0.76 0.81 0.41 0.12 0.47 0.20 0 2.77 West Flegg 5,135 0 14.68 2.95 0.95 0.14 0.47 0.94 20.13 Yarmouth 4,471 0 12.23 0.94 2.93 0.11 0.25 0.79 17.25 North Borough Total/Average 96,271 0.23 15.67 1.22 0.76 0.17 0.39 0.47 18.91
Page 222 of 229 156
Subject: Duty to Cooperate including the Memorandum of Understanding with the Broads Authority
Report to: Local Plan Working Party - 30 October 2013
Report by: Growth Manager
SUBJECT MATTER/RECOMMENDATIONS
The report provides an overview on the work undertaken to meet the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate in the preparation of Local Plans. This includes the Memorandum of Understanding with the Broads Authority on development targets.
RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the content of the report and endorse the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the Broads Authority.
1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
It is a requirement of the Localism Act (2011) that local planning authorities demonstrate wider cooperation in plan making with adjoining authorities and other organisations known as the Duty to Cooperate. The Duty to Cooperate is a legal requirement of the plan preparation process and the Council has to demonstrate how it has met the Duty.
The importance of the need to meet the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate has been highlighted recently by a number of council’s who have had to withdraw Local Plans from examination following advice from the Planning Inspector that they have not complied with the Duty.
2. THE ‘DUTY TO COOPERATE’
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides guidance and states that the Duty applies to ‘planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156’ (paragraph 178). The NPPF is clear that local planning authorities and other public bodies should work collaboratively on these strategic
Page 223 of 229 priorities and reflect this in Local Plans. These strategic priorities listed in the NPPF are:
the homes and jobs needed in the area; the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development; the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat); the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; and climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.
3. MEETING THE ‘DUTY TO COOPERATE’
The Duty to Cooperate requires ongoing constructive and active engagement on the preparation of development plan documents and other activities relating to the sustainable development and use of land, in particular in connection with strategic infrastructure or matters that would fall under the remit of a county council.
Paragraph 181 of the NPPF which was published in March 2012, states that: ‘Local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination’.
Co-operation on strategic issues with Waveney District Council, Norfolk County Council and other public bodies such as the Environment Agency has been ongoing throughout the preparation of the Local Plan. The main areas of work are detailed below:
3.1. Housing Needs
The current housing target in the Core Strategy is 380 dwellings per annum which is considered realistic and deliverable. This housing target does not meet the full objectively assessed need of 420 dwellings per annum, as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013). The NPPF requires that if the objectively assessed housing need can not be met the Local Planning Authority must engage with neighbouring authorities to discuss whether they can accommodate any of the unmet needs.
Therefore discussions have been held with neighbouring districts of Waveney District, South Norfolk District, Broadland District, and North Norfolk District plus Norwich City to see if they could meet any of the Borough’s unmet housing need. All of the neighbouring authorities stated that they did not have the capacity to meet any of the boroughs unmet housing need. Further
Page 224 of 229 more as all the authorities have adopted housing targets there is limited scope to adjust them in the short term to take into account the boroughs housing need.
3.2. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Waveney District Council
There is a history of close working with Waveney District Council largely due to the linkages between the towns of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The early development of the council’s respective development plans, inclusive of jointly commissioned sub-regional evidence base studies and regeneration-led Area Action Plans has meant a long standing close working relationship between the two local authorities.
Discussions have been held with Waveney on the Duty to Cooperate and it is proposed to formalise the relationship with a Memorandum of Understanding in order to demonstrate that the Duty has been met. The Local Plan Working Party group will be informed and consulted at future meetings on this matter.
3.3. Norfolk Duty to Cooperate Members Forum
A Duty to Cooperate Member Forum has been established with all districts in Norfolk, Norfolk County Council and key prescribed bodies such as the Environment Agency. Other authorities such as Suffolk County Council and Waveney District will be invited to attend when necessary. The first meeting of this group was held on 9 October 2013 where it was agreed to set up the forum and the subject matters which will be discussed at future meetings.
3.4. Memorandum of Understanding with the Broads Authority
The Broads Authority has drafted a Memorandum of Understanding on housing, employment and other growth Local Plan targets in the Broads area. The Memorandum formalises the current arrangement where the Borough Council continues to assess the needs of the whole borough, including the Broads area, and plans for the delivery of housing and employment needs outside of the Broads area.
The Broads will however, continue to support limited housing and employment within the Broads where this meets an identified local need. Any housing or employment development which does take place within the Broads area will continue to be counted as windfall towards the borough’s targets.
This Memorandum was discussed at Local Plan Working Party meetings on 7 March 2013 and 18 April 2013 when representatives from the Broads Authority also attended. The Memorandum of Understanding has been revised following comments received at these meetings and is Page 225 of 229 attached in Appendix 1.
4. RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the content of the report and endorse the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the Broads Authority.
Add information as is relevant to report being written, plus the following two boxes must be completed:-
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
EXECUTIVE BOARD OR DIRECTOR CONSULTATION:
Does this report raise any Issues No legal, financial, sustainability, Legal No equality, crime and disorder or Financial No human rights issues and, if so, Risk No have they been considered? Sustainability Yes Equality No Crime and Disorder No Human Rights No Every Child Matters No
Y:\HMLS\MemberServices\Robin Hodds\Reports\Master Report To Committees (New) - February 2008.doc
Page 226 of 229 Appendix 1
Duty to Cooperate Treatment of housing and employment needs and delivery in the Broads Authority Area
Memorandum of Understanding
Introduction
Due to the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy (East of England Plan), and the Duty to Cooperate requirement introduced by the Localism Act (2011) there is a need for an agreed approach to determining the strategic allocation of housing and employment growth etc in the Broads area. This is to ensure that the Broads is properly conserved and the risks from flooding are minimised.
It is proposed that districts continue to assess the needs for the whole of their area, and provide land to meet the level of planned delivery derived from that within their planning areas outside of the Broads. Hence there would continue to be no strategic housing, employment, etc target for the Broads area as was the case when the East of England Plan was part of the development plan. Housing and employment development completions in the Broads area (usually windfalls) would, however, continue to be counted by the relevant districts towards meeting their housing targets.
Memorandum of Understanding
Parties:
Broads Authority (as sole local planning authority and special purpose statutory authority for the designated Broads area);
Broadland District, Great Yarmouth Borough, North Norfolk District, Norwich City, South Norfolk District and Waveney District Councils (as housing authorities and in their role supporting economic development in their administrative areas, and as local planning authorities for that part of their areas outside the Broads) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Districts’];
Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils (in their role in strategic planning under the ‘duty to cooperate’ in development monitoring and economic development, etc.).
1. In recognition of a. the responsibilities of all the parties as planning and related authorities for areas in and around the Broads; b. the responsibilities of the Districts as housing authorities, and of all the council parties for economic development of, their areas;
Page 227 of 229 c. the duty to cooperate on strategic planning matters imposed on the parties by the Localism Act 2011; d. the duty of all the parties to have regard to the Broads statutory purposes imposed by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1989 (as amended), these purposes being i. conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads; ii. promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and iii. protecting the interests of navigation. e. the revocation of the East of England Plan which formerly allocated strategic housing and employment targets to the districts but not the Broads; f. the general inappropriateness of significant housing and employment development in the Broads, and the potential risks to the area associated with housing and employment targets, in the light of i. the status of the Broads as a national park equivalent, which the National Planning Policy Framework states has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty, and where conserving landscape and scenic beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage should be given the greatest weight; ii. the ‘National Parks and the Broads - UK Government Vision and Circular 2010’, which states ‘The Government recognises that [these areas] are not suitable locations for unrestricted housing and does not therefore provide general housing targets for them’. iii. the serious risk of flooding affecting almost the whole of the Broads area (the boundary of which largely follows the extent of the flood plain); and g. the relatively limited housing need arising within the Broads as a result of its small population the parties agree the following approach to the strategic planning of housing and employment growth for the area . 2. The Districts will assess, for planning purposes, the housing and employment needs of their whole administrative areas, and plan for the delivery of this development outside the Broads area (whether in the same district or elsewhere) unless specific circumstances are identified, and agreed with the Broads Authority, where a development to meet a particular need (e.g. local or affordable) can be accommodated within the Broads area (notwithstanding the constraints).
3. The Broads area has no strategic housing target to deliver a particular quantum of housing or employment development.
4. The Broads Authority will continue to support limited housing and employment development within the Broads area where this meets identified local needs or supports the Broads purposes
Page 228 of 229 5. The Broads Authority will give particular weight to developing affordable housing within its area where this can be accommodated within the constraints outlined above. It will also seek provision of affordable housing, or contributions to affordable housing provision, from market housing development within its area, in line with the adopted standards of the relevant district council.
6. Such housing and employment development as does take place within the Broads will be reported to the relevant district, and will be counted as windfall by the district towards its housing and employment delivery target(s). (It will, however, continue to be counted as within the Broads for the purposes of New Homes Bonus.)
7. Without prejudice to the he above, in any case where the potential for a significantly large development is identified within the Broads, the desirability of making a specific variation to the above arrangements will be considered jointly by the Broads Authority and the relevant District or County.
8. The approach outlined above will inform the preparation of the parties’ development plans, so far as it is relevant.
9. This Memorandum of Understanding shall expire at the end of March 2021 (the East of England plan period), or on such earlier date as mutually agreed.
10. In the event of any of the parties deciding to unilaterally withdraw from operation of this understanding they will give the other parties 6 months notice of this.
[Ends]
Signed:
On behalf of:
Date:
Page 229 of 229