DOCSLIB.ORG

Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Leisure Services Philips Park Management Plan 2005 – 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Leisure Services Philips Park Management Plan 2005 – 2010 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Leisure Services Philips Park Management Plan 2005 – 2010 1 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Contents........................................................................................................2 1. Feedback from Green Flag 2007 ......................................................... 3 1.1 Desk Assessment Feedback.................................................................. 4 1.2 Field Assessment Feedback ..............................................................… 7 2. Introduction .....................................................................................……. 11 2.1 Summary Information ........................................................................... 12 2.2 Manchester Parks – An Introduction..................................................... 14 2.3 Strategic Policy Framework.................................................................. 15 3. Where Are We Now? .........................................................................…. 16 3.1 History .................................................................................................. 17 3.2 The Locality........................................................................................ 19 3.3 Map of Facilities ................................................................................... 21 3.5 Audit ..................................................................................................... 22 3.6 A Welcoming Place .............................................................................. 24 3.7 Healthy, Safe and Secure..................................................................... 25 3.8 Well Maintained & Clean ...................................................................... 27 3.9 Sustainability ........................................................................................ 28 3.10 Conservation and Heritage................................................................. 29 3.11 Community Involvement ..................................................................... 30 3.12 Marketing..........................................................................................… 31 4. Where Do We Want To Get To?.............................................................. 32 4.1 A Welcoming Place .............................................................................. 33 4.2 Healthy, Safe and Secure..................................................................... 34 4.3 Well Maintained and Clean................................................................... 34 4.4 Sustainability ........................................................................................ 35 4.5 Conservation and Heritage................................................................... 35 4.6 Community Involvement ....................................................................... 35 4.7 Marketing.............................................................................................. 36 5. How Will We Get There?...................................................................... 37 5.1 Map of Site………………………………………………………………….. 39 5.2 Development Plan Matrix………………………………………………….. 40 5.3 Photos of Future Development areas…………………………………….. 46 5.4 Timetable for Community Consultation and Development…………….. 50 5.5 Maintenance Matrix .............................................................................. 53 6. How Will We Know When We Have Arrived? ........................................ 58 6.1 Management Plan ................................................................................ 59 6.2 Performance Indicators ........................................................................ 59 6.3 Incident Reports ................................................................................... 59 6.4 Satisfaction Surveys & Feedback......................................................... 59 6.5 Ward Coordination Action Plans........................................................... 60 7. Appendix................................................................................................ 61 7.1 Key Performance Framework............................................................... 62 7.2 Key Manchester City Council Corporate Strategies and Policies ......... 63 7.3 Key Manchester City Council Park and Environmental Policies………. 66 2 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 1.Feedback from Green Flag Assessment 2007 3 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Overall band score 70-74 Desk Assessment Feedback Band score 20-24 Assessment Strengths Recommendations Actions Criteria Presentation Good presentation with The judges recommend that Manchester Leisure has done a full review of of helpful plans and the annual plan 2007 is Management/Development plans throughout management photographs. Inclusion of extracted from the action plan all sites and has issued a standardise version plan judge’s comments and matrix (page 44). The based on Philips Park document. It has been actions from last year inclusion of the document decided to kept the format and review in 2008. makes it easier to track entitled “Environmental improvements over time. Improvements in Philips Park Environmental Improvements in Philips Park The management plan has 2006/07”would make a 2006/07 is currently under review to be in-line improved since last year. welcome addition to the with the bio-diversity action plan that will be management plan available in 2008. Health, safety Helpful detail on inspection Continue to update. The The poplar programme was completed in Nov and security and maintenance judges were pleased to note 2007. standards. Improvement that a programme of plans linked to outcomes management of the from public consultation Manchester Poplars was planned. Maintenance Building maintenance Continue to update as of equipment, standards and reporting necessary. buildings and procedures are now landscape included. Consultation outcomes are being used to raise standards. Comprehensive site information was available 4 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Assessment Strengths Recommendations Actions Criteria for inspection Litter, Specific standards for litter Continue to update as cleanliness, collection and graffiti necessary and removal have now been vandalism included. Environmental Positive statement and Consider how achievements These outputs will be link to the bio-diversity sustainability action to improve could be measured to plan in 2008 environmental sustainability demonstrate benefits (base line data gathered) Conservation A positive statement and It is suggested that the A decision was made to reduce the size and of heritage action is demonstrated in inclusion of the information complexity of our management plan by and nature the plan, including from the Register of Parks omitting these documents, however we will be ecological survey linked to and Gardens of Special more than happy to make these documents management plans. Historic Interest would be a available either electronically or hard copy on valuable addition to the request . management plan appendix. Include results of ecological survey in due course. Community The plan includes Continue to update. involvement outcomes from public consultation; theses are put to good use to inform improvements. Evidence of involvement with local schools and other agencies 5 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Assessment Strengths Recommendations Actions Criteria Marketing Good evidence of Continue to publicise marketing, excellent improvements as the park website. Numerous develops. examples of informative and promotional leaflets and articles. Overall The plan provides a useful Continue to refine and update management and informative document the pla n as referred to above. including an assessment of the parks strengths and challenges. The plan has improved since last year 6 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Field Assessment Feedback Band score 50-54 Assessment Strengths Recommendations Actions Criteria A welcoming The park has good quality The security fencing between Due to the issues regarding access to the place signage at each entrance the bowling green and the bowling green it is felt by Manchester Leisure with plans of the park and Peace Garden could be and the Philips Park bowling club opening this location indicators. Good opened up by the introduction access would compromise the security of the display of information at of an access gate to site. We are investigating alternative options the main entrance. New encourage visitors around the to encourage visitors to the bowling green. boundary railings enable bowling green. views into the park and are in keeping with the historic setting. There is good access around the park for users with a good network of footpaths for people with physical disabilities. Facilities at the visitor centre are limited by available space but provide a useful resources with good display materials and information Healthy, safe Philips Parks has a good Continue with existing and secure range of facilities that are practices. Monitor well maintained and of a observance of new dog good standard. The control measures and review presence of the Park as necessary. Ranger adds to the feeling 7 Philips Park Management Plan 2005 - 2010 Assessment Strengths Recommendations Actions Criteria of security. The introduction of Dog Control Orders provided visitor information with clear signage. Clean and Good standards of Proposed management of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Q05a 2011 Census Summary
    Ward Summary Factsheet: 2011 Census Q05a • The largest ward is Cheetham with 22,562 residents, smallest is Didsbury West with 12,455 • City Centre Ward has grown 156% since 2001 (highest) followed by Hulme (64%), Cheetham (49%), Ardwick (37%), Gorton South (34%), Ancoats and Clayton (33%), Bradford (29%) and Moss Side (27%). These wards account for over half the city’s growth • Miles Platting and Newton Heath’s population has decreased since 2001(-5%) as has Moston (-0.2%) • 81,000 (16%) Manchester residents arrived in the UK between 2001 and 2011, mostly settling in City Centre ward (33% of ward’s current population), its neighbouring wards and Longsight (30% of current population) • Chorlton Park’s population has grown by 26% but only 8% of its residents are immigrants • Gorton South’s population of children aged 0-4 has increased by 87% since 2001 (13% of ward population) followed by Cheetham (70%), Crumpsall (68%), Charlestown (66%) and Moss Side (60%) • Moss Side, Gorton South, Crumpsall and Cheetham have around 25% more 5-15 year olds than in 2001 whereas Miles Platting and Newton Heath, Woodhouse Park, Moston and Withington have around 20-25% fewer. City Centre continues to have very few children in this age group • 18-24 year olds increased by 288% in City Centre since 2001 adding 6,330 residents to the ward. Ardwick, Hulme, Ancoats and Clayton and Bradford have also grown substantially in this age group • Didsbury West has lost 18-24 aged population (-33%) since 2001, followed by Chorlton (-26%) • City Centre working age population has grown by 192% since 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Transfer of Residual Properties Report to Council 28 March 2012
    Manchester City Council Item 11 Council 28 March 2012 Manchester City Council Report for Resolution Report to: Executive – 15 February 2012 Council – 28 March 2012 Subject: Stock Transfer of Residual Properties Report of: Director of Housing Summary To update Members on the progress of the proposed Small Scale Voluntary Transfer (SSVT) of Council-owned dispersed “miscellaneous” homes and seek approval to changes to the original proposals. Recommendations 1. To authorise the City Solicitor to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State (SoS) to the transfers of the tenanted and void properties. Wards Affected: Ancoats and Clayton, Baguley, Bradford, Charlestown, Cheetham, Crumpsall, Gorton North, Harpurhey, Miles Platting, Moss Side, Northenden, Sharston Community Strategy Spine Summary of the contribution to the strategy Performance of the economy of Enhanced opportunities for the attraction and the region and sub region retention of economically active residents and workers by offering a range of products including affordable homes . Reaching full potential in The receiving landlords will work with contractors education and employment who will endeavour to employ local trades people and engage local young people as apprentices to promote employment and education in the local area. This ensures the best possible opportunity for local people to obtain training and/or employment, which directly helps to promote economic development in the local area, by developing the local workforce and delivering improvements for the whole community. Individual and collective self Improving residents’ homes to bring them up to esteem – mutual respect the Government’s Decent Homes Standard will improve individual and collective self esteem. Manchester City Council Item 11 Council 28 March 2012 Neighbourhoods of Choice The delivery of high quality refurbishment works, the provision of local management and the offer of affordable homes will encourage people to stay in their local areas and enable positive housing choices to be made by residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Regeneration Frameworks & Area Teams
    Maximising Local Economic Benefit - The’ Role of Strategic Regeneration Frameworks & Area Teams Sara Todd Assistant Chief Executive (Regeneration) Introduction • Manchester in Context • Key Challenges and Opportunities • Regenerating Manchester: Leadership • The importance of Strategic Regeneration Frameworks (SRFs) to the renaissance of the City • Ensuring procurement reaps maximum benefit - examples. • What more can be offered to existing and potential suppliers to Manchester City Council at SRF level? Manchester: The City Region Context • Area of 3,111km² covering 15 local authority districts with the City of Manchester at its core • A population of 3.2 million • Over 110,000 businesses and 1.5 million jobs • Largest economy outside of London – contributing half of Caption for photograph/image/etc the northwest’s regional output - £47 billion GVA Manchester: Historical Context • Population 703,000 in 1951 → 422,000 in 2001 • The historical drivers of change stimulating decline were: • Monolithic provision, property type & tenure skew • Decentralisation • Clearance and the nature/type of urban re-development • Economic change and the collapse of the Victorian mixed-use environment Manchester: Historical Context Manchester: The Challenge IMD 2007 • Manchester is ranked the 4th - Manchester Higher Blackley Charlestow n most deprived LA in England Crumpsall Moston Harpurhey Cheetham Miles Platting and New ton Heath • 228,235 residents in worst Ancoats and Clayton 10% most deprived City Centre Bradford Hulme Ardw ick neighbourhoods nationally
    [Show full text]
  • Free Schools in 2013
    Free Schools in 2013 Application form Mainstream and 16-19 Free Schools Completing your application Before completing your application, please ensure that you have read the ‘How to Apply’ guidance carefully (which can be found here) and can provide all the information and documentation we have asked for – failure to do so may mean that we are unable to consider your application. The Free School application is made up of nine sections as follows: Section A: Applicant details and declaration Section B: Outline of the school Section C: Education vision Section D: Education plan Section E: Evidence of demand and marketing Section F: Capacity and capability Section G: Initial costs and financial viability Section H: Premises Section I: Due diligence and other checks In Sections A-H we are asking you to tell us about you and the school you want to establish and this template has been designed for this purpose. The boxes provided in each section will expand as you type. Section G requires you to provide two financial plans. To achieve this you must fill out and submit the templates provided here. Section I is about your suitability to run a Free School. There is a separate downloadable form for this information. This is available here You need to submit all the information requested in order for your application to be assessed. Sections A-H and the financial plans need to be submitted to the Department for Education by the application deadline. You need to submit one copy (of each) by email to: <Redacted>. If there is any additional information that you wish to submit as part of your application please add it to the annexes section at the end of this template.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester City Council Report for Resolution Report To
    Manchester City Council Report for Resolution Report to: Executive – 13 February 2019 Subject: Housing Revenue Account 2019/20 to 2021/22 Report of: Strategic Director (Development) and City Treasurer Purpose of the Report This report presents members with details on the proposed budget for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for 2019/20 and an indication of the 2020/21 and 2021/22 budgets. It seeks approval for the 2019/20 HRA budget, and the proposed average rent reduction of 1% for all properties with the exception of properties managed under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract, where the rent will be increased by CPI (at September 2018) plus 1%. The proposed rent changes are in line with Government guidance. It is also proposed that the City Council continue with the policy of where rent is not yet at the formula rent level, then the rent will be revised to the formula rent level when the property is re-let. Recommendations: The Executive is recommended to: a) Note the forecast 2018/19 HRA outturn as set out in section 4. b) Approve the 2019/20 HRA budget as presented in Appendix 1 and note the indicative budgets for 2020/21 and 2021/22. c) Approve the proposed 1% decrease to dwelling rents (subject to the exceptions outlined above), and delegate the setting of individual property rents, to the Director of Housing and the City Treasurer, in consultation with the Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration and the Executive Member for Finance and Human Resources. d) Approve the proposal that where the 2019/20 rent is not yet at the formula rent level, the rent is revised to the formula rent level when the property is re-let.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancoats and New Islington Neighbourhood Development Framework – Final Draft
    Manchester City Council Item 5 Executive 29 October 2014 Manchester City Council Report for Resolution Report to: Executive - 29 October 2014 Subject: Ancoats and New Islington Neighbourhood Development Framework – Final Draft Report of: The Chief Executive Summary The April 2014 meeting of the Executive received a draft version of an updated Neighbourhood Development Framework for Ancoats and New Islington. This covering report accompanies a final draft of the Framework for consideration and approval. The final draft of the document has been concluded following a public consultation process involving local residents, businesses, public services and the voluntary & community sectors. The Ancoats and New Islington Neighbourhood Development Framework seeks to update the existing frameworks developed and encapsulated in the 2008 – 2018 East Manchester Strategic Regeneration Framework. Recommendations The Executive is asked to: 1. Note the comments received from residents, businesses and services contained within the report; 2. Approve the final draft Ancoats and New Islington Neighbourhood Development Framework to guide the future development of the area, with the intention that it will also be a material consideration in the Council’s decision making as a Local Planning Authority. Wards Affected: Ancoats and Clayton, Bradford Community Strategy Summary of the contribution to the strategy Spine Performance of the The proposals for Ancoats and New Islington offer the economy of the region potential for, amongst other things, residential and and sub region commercial development to be brought forward enabling the area to add to the performance of the sub- regional and regional economy; increasing housing supply to support economic growth objectives and creating new employment opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • 'After Housing Costs' Child Poverty Rate from Highest to Lowest
    Notes: This spreadsheet ranks wards in Greater Manchester by their 'after housing costs' child poverty rate from highest to lowest. This is done using data published by End Child Poverty in 2019. The data also ranks areas based on the proportion of the population in a ward classified as black and minority ethnic (BAME) in census data. The higher the proportion of people who are BAME in a ward the higher the rank. This data shows that areas with the highest BAME populations in Greater Manchester are often the areas with the highest rates of child poverty. Local Ward GM Child poverty rank GM BAME authority area (after housing costs) rank Oldham Werneth 1 1 Oldham St Mary's 2 6 Oldham Coldhurst 3 3 Manchester Longsight 4 4 Salford Ordsall 5 48 Manchester Cheetham 6 9 Rochdale Central Rochdale 7 10 Manchester Hulme 8 16 Rochdale Milkstone and Deeplish 9 2 Manchester Gorton South 10 17 Rochdale Kingsway 11 23 Salford Broughton 12 47 Bolton Great Lever 13 13 Manchester Rusholme 14 11 Salford Kersal 15 82 Oldham Alexandra 16 25 Oldham Medlock Vale 17 22 Salford Irwell Riverside 18 55 Manchester Crumpsall 19 15 Manchester Ardwick 20 12 Manchester Bradford 21 29 Manchester Miles Platting and Newton Heath 22 52 Tameside St Peter's 23 30 Bolton Rumworth 24 7 Salford Langworthy 25 72 Manchester Gorton North 26 27 Bury Sedgley 27 56 Bolton Harper Green 28 37 Bolton Halliwell 29 20 Manchester Ancoats and Clayton 30 40 Rochdale Smallbridge and Firgrove 31 36 Manchester Levenshulme 32 18 Trafford Clifford 33 8 Manchester Moss Side 34 5 Manchester Fallowfield
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Community Involvement
    Statement of Community Involvement Purpose of Statement This Statement of Community Involvement has been produced by Indigo Planning in support of a proposal comprising 21 dwellings and ground floor retail / restaurant use at 42-50 Thomas Street in the Northern Quarter, Manchester. The applicant recognises that development proposals have an impact on local residents and businesses, particularly in the Northern Quarter which is a much-loved, characterful part of the city. For this reason, Council officers, councillors, Historic England and the general public have been involved in the evolution of the proposal. Site and Proposal A full description of the proposal is set out in the Design and Access Statement and the Planning Statement. In brief, the application site is comprised of numbers 42 to 50 Thomas Street which back onto Back Turner Street, and number 7 Kelvin Street. The area is characterised by its vibrant mix of residential, leisure, entertainment and retail uses. The site has been occupied by a firm of shopfitters for almost sixty years who use the premises as a retail shop with associated storage. The proposal involves The retention, repair and change of use of the upper floors of Grade II listed 7 Kelvin Street from A1 to 3no residential dwellings (Use Class C3); the demolition of numbers 42 to 50 Thomas Street, and the construction of 18no dwellings (C3) over five storeys with residents’ cycle parking for 20 bicycles. At ground floor, permission is sought for up to 265 sqm of retail / restaurant (A1/A3) floorspace; and to basement level, up to 350 sqm of retail / restaurant (A1/A3) floorspace.’ Engagement with Historic England As a listed building will be directly altered as a result of the proposals, and the site is located within a Conservation Area, Historic England (HE) was consulted at a very early stage, in line with the powers held by Historic England (English Heritage) at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Land
    Site Name / Property Address Ward Size Property Description / Use Alpine Street / Ben Street scheme Ancoats and Clayton 2.4 ha Cleared housing site Eccleshall Street Ancoats and Clayton 7.8ha Large cleared site, formerly comprised terraced housing, industrial buildings and other land Former Christian Lighthouse Centre, Scout Drive M23 2 Baguley 0.13ha Cleared site of fomer laundry and church Glendene and Frank Kelly Centre, Greenbrow Road, Newall Green Baguley 0.47ha Vacant grassed site to the rear of the Frank Kelly M23 2RE Centre Land at junction of Wastdale Road and Greenbrow Road, Baguley 0.41ha Vacant cleared former housing site Newall Green, M23 2RZ Land at Gransmoor Avenue Bradford 0.166ha Vacant and overgrown site at the top of Gransmoor Avenue Land at Pollard Street M13 Bradford 1.57ha Vacant land adj metrolink. Land on corner of Stanley St / Lees St, Ashton Old Road M11 2NG Bradford 0.27ha Vacant site, previously with residential development and a public house. Land at Kellbrook Road Bradford 1.6ha Vacant site on the junction of Parkhouse Lane and Kellbrook Road. Former Bank Meadow School, Bradford 1.48ha Cleared site of former school (adjacent to Bound by Limebank St, Byrcland Close and Markham Close (nr Eastcliffe site below). Palmerston St) M12 6NS Land on Fairfield Road, adj 126 -146 Fairfield Road Bradford 0.14ha Vacant land Former Day Centre 2 Broadmoss Drive, M9 7HP Charlestown 0.25ha Cleared site of former Day centre and luncheon club. Former Whitemoss Resource Centre, Benmore Road M9 6LE Charlestown 0.54ha Vacant site of former care home.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Changes in Greater Manchester's 'Deprived'
    Understanding changes in Greater Manchester’s ‘deprived’ neighbourhoods 2004 to 2015 using a typology of residential mobility Working paper 01/2018 Ceri Hughes & Ruth Lupton Inclusive Growth Analysis Unit Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 PART 1: INTRODUCING A TYPOLOGY OF NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL MOVES ........... 5 1.1 Describing the typology and its use in policy ................................................................... 5 The Robson typology................................................................................................................... 5 The value and use of the typology............................................................................................... 7 What the typology does not tell us .............................................................................................. 9 PART 2: DESCRIBING TYPOLOGY RESULTS FOR 2004 AND 2015 ....................................... 11 2.1 How neighbourhoods are distributed within the typology ............................................. 11 The distribution of neighbourhoods by type in Greater Manchester in 2004 .......................... 11 The distribution of neighbourhoods by type in Greater Manchester in 2015 .......................... 15 2.2 Describing neighbourhood change using the typology .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ancoats & Clayton and Bradford Neighbourhood Mosaic Profile
    Ancoats & Clayton and Bradford Neighbourhood Mosaic Profile Summary There are just over 17,200 households in the Ancoats, Clayton and Bradford Neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is split between a mixture of relatively young, single people living in low cost rented accommodation, less well off families and more deprived older people in Clayton and Bradford and younger, more affluent households in parts of Ancoats close to the City Centre. Around two-thirds of households in Bradford contain people whose social circumstances suggest that they may need high or very high levels of support to help them manage their own health and prevent them becoming high users of acute healthcare services in the future. Households in Ancoats and Clayton are split almost equally between people in households estimated to require high or very high levels of support and those requiring low or very low levels. Introduction This profile provides more detailed information about the people who live in different parts of the neighbourhood. It draws heavily on the insights that can be gained from the Mosaic population segmentation tool. What is Mosaic? Mosaic is a population segmentation tool that uses a range of data and analytical methods to provide insights into the lifestyles and behaviours of the public in order to help make more informed decisions. Over 850 million pieces of information across 450 different types of data are condensed using the latest analytical techniques to identify 15 summary groups and 66 detailed types that are easy to interpret and understand. Mosaic’s consistent segmentation can also provide a ‘common currency’ across partners within the city.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Funded Sources.Xlsx
    Please note this has been done on a best fit basis and does not provide 100% accurancy and should be used as a guide. NORTH OMVCS Funded Groups Name of Organisation Funding Programme Areas Operating In 4CT Limited Our Manchester VCS & Throughout Manchester, with a large number of Young Manchester service users based in North Manchester Cheetham Hill Advice Centre Our Manchester VCS Primarily North Manchester, including Cheetham, Crumpsall and Higher Blackley. EMERGE (FareShare Greater Our Manchester VCS Throughout Manchester Manchester) Higher Blackley Community Our Manchester VCS Higher Blackley, Charlestown, Crumpsall, Moston Organisation Justlife Foundation Our Manchester VCS Majority of work is with residents in Bradford and the surrounding wards Manchester Carers Centre Our Manchester VCS Work with residents throughout Manchester Manchester Settlement Our Manchester VCS & Young Work with residents primarily in North and East Manchester Manchester. Nephra Good Neighbours Our Manchester VCS Moston, Crumpsall, Charlestown, Ancoats & Clayton North Manchester Black Health Our Manchester VCS Majority of work is with residents of Cheetham and Forum the surrounding areas St George's Community Centre Our Manchester VCS Throughout Manchester including Ancoats and Clayton, City Centre, Harpurhey, Higher Blackley, Miles Platting and Newton Heath. Talbot House Support Centre Our Manchester VCS Across Manchester, with many coming from Miles Platting and Newton Heath and surrounding areas Turkey Lane & Monsall Our Manchester VCS Primarily work with
    [Show full text]