Open Space Study a Final Report by Pmp December 2008

Home , Beaumont College, Claires Court School, Clewer South, Punt (boat), Sunninghill and Ascot, Victory Road (2020)

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – OPEN SPACE STUDY

FINAL REPORT

PMP

DECEMBER 2008 CONTENTS

Page

Section 1 Introduction and background 1 Section 2 Undertaking the study 7 Section 3 Strategic context 20 Section 4 Parks and gardens 38 Section 5 Natural and semi natural open space 59 Section 6 Amenity green space 77 Section 7 Provision for children and young people 94 Section 8 Outdoor sports facilities 123 Section 9 Allotments 141 Section 10 Cemeteries and churchyards 154 Section 11 Civic spaces 160 Section 12 Green corridors 163 Section 13 Overall summary and recommendations 170

APPENDICES (under separate cover)

Appendix A Benefits of open space

Appendix B Household survey

Appendix C School survey

Appendix D External consultees

Appendix E Parish Council survey

Appendix F Site list

Appendix G Site assessment

Appendix H Strategic review

Appendix I Quantity standard worksheet

Appendix J Quantity standards

Appendix K Quantity standards benchmarking

Appendix L Quality standards

Appendix M Accessibility standards

Appendix N Accessibility maps

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Introduction and background

The study

1.1 During December 2007, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (the Council) appointed PMP to undertake an Open Space Audit and Green Infrastructure Study. This report sets out the study findings and includes an assessment of local needs and existing open space provision. The green infrastructure study is included as a supplementary document to accompany the main open space report.

1.2 The study will assist the Council in the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF), establish appropriate open space standards, identify areas in the Borough where there are deficiencies in provision and identify solutions to meet any deficiencies.

1.3 The two overall objectives for the study are to:

• produce an open space strategy which will examine existing provision as well as mapping and surveying new sites. Recommendations are required relating to the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision

• carry out an assessment of the green infrastructure to identify areas of provision and potential linkages between them, and to look at areas of search, particularly in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA).

1.4 The findings of this work will enable the Council to adopt a clear vision, priorities for the future (based on local need) and establish a direction for the allocation of resources.

1.5 This study is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of PPG17, and its Companion Guide published in September 2002. Further details of these documents are set out later in this section.

Why public open space?

1.6 Open space and recreation provision in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (the Borough) has an important role to play in supporting the implementation of both national objectives and more locally in the achievement of key Council priorities.

1.7 The provision of open spaces, sport and recreation facilities is becoming increasingly important on the national stage and the contributions it can bring to both national and local priorities are now more widely recognised. The popularity of open spaces in local communities is reflected in the recently published Park Life Report (GreenSpace, June 2007), which indicates that 92% of all those questioned had visited a park within the last month.

1.8 In addition, the recently published Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross Government Strategy for England (2008), supports the creation of a healthy society, particularly healthy children, and recognises the role of sport and physical activity in doing this. There is a need for quality, accessible sporting facilities and opportunities as acknowledged in The Children’s Plan: Building Brighter Futures (DCSF).

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 1 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.9 PPG17 states that well designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives, which include:

• supporting an urban renaissance

• supporting a rural renewal

• promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion

• health and well being

• promoting more sustainable development.

1.10 The Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper (May 2007) highlights minimising climate change and the protection of the environment as some of the key challenges to be addressed through the planning system in future years. The provision of green space will be instrumental in the achievement of these objectives.

Function and benefits of open space

1.11 Open spaces can provide a number of functions within the urban fabric of towns and villages. For example, the provision for play and informal recreation, a landscaping buffer within and between built environments and/or a habitat for the promotion of biodiversity.

1.12 Each type of open space has both primary and secondary functions. For example, the primary function of allotments is for the growing of produce; the primary function of play areas for children’s play and for playing pitches it is for formal sports training and events. Open space can additionally perform a secondary function. For example, outdoor sports facilities have an amenity value in addition to facilitating sport and recreation. Many types of open spaces can also provide places for young people to meet and hang out.

1.13 There is a need to provide a balance between different types of open space in order to meet local needs. For example, not all residents in a particular area will show a demand for playing pitches or allotments; but there may be a demand for green corridors such as nature walks or bridleways.

1.14 Changing social and economic circumstances, changed work and leisure practices, more sophisticated consumer tastes and higher public expectations have placed new demands on open spaces. They have to serve more diverse communities and face competition from various developers. While the provision of open spaces can be challenging, open spaces can also promote community cohesion, encourage community development and stimulate partnerships between the public and private sector. Open spaces should provide residents with places where they are safe in the face of crime and disorder issues within communities.

1.15 Parks and open spaces are more accessible to a wider range of people than some sport and leisure facilities and are better able to realise the aims of social inclusion and equality of opportunity. The provision of open spaces and recreation is key to a sustainable and thriving community.

1.16 The Park Life report (GreenSpace, June 2007) highlighted that 83% of those surveyed feel that parks are the focal point of a community. In rural areas, village greens are often the centre for village activity.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 2 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.17 It is widely recognised that the provision of high quality public realm such as parks and open spaces can help promote an area as an attractive place to live, and can result in a number of wider benefits. These are highlighted in Appendix A.

National Policy Context: Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation & Assessing Needs and Opportunities - PPG17 Companion Guide

1.18 PPG17 states that local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities (paragraph 1). It encourages local authorities to plan effectively for the future delivery of appropriate open space, sport and leisure facilities.

1.19 PPG17 states local authorities should undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, the use of existing facilities, access in terms of location and costs and opportunities for new open space and facilities (paragraph 2).

1.20 Paragraph 5 states that “The Government expects all local authorities to carry out assessments of needs and audits of open space and recreational facilities” and that “local authorities should use the information gained from their assessments of needs and opportunities to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities in their areas”.

1.21 The policy guidance sets out priorities for local authorities in terms of:

• assessing needs and opportunities - undertaking audits of open space, sport and recreational facilities

• setting local standards

• maintaining an adequate supply of open space

• planning for new open space.

1.22 The Companion Guide to PPG17 sets out the process for undertaking local assessments of needs and audits of provision. It also:

• indicates how councils can establish the needs of local communities and apply provision standards

• promotes a consistent approach across various types of open space.

1.23 PMP and the Council have followed the recommendations of PPG17 and its Companion Guide throughout the study. In following these recommendations, this study has the potential to make a significant difference to the quantity, quality and accessibility of open spaces in the Borough.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 3 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Need for local assessments

1.24 This assessment of open space and local needs will enable the Council to:

• plan positively, creatively and effectively in identifying priority areas for improvement and to target appropriate types of open space

• ensure an adequate provision of high quality, accessible open space to meet the needs of the local community

• ensure any accessible funding is invested in the right places where there is the most need

• conduct Section 106 negotiations with developers from a position of knowledge with evidence to support such negotiations.

1.25 Where no assessment exists, developers can undertake their own independent assessment to demonstrate that open space is surplus to requirements. It is therefore desirable for the Council to have robust data to protect open space within the Borough.

Local features and demographics

1.26 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead lies in the east of the Berkshire, bordering Slough, Reading, Wokingham, South Bucks, Wycombe, Surrey Heath, Runnymede, Spelthorne and Bracknell Forest. The Borough covers an area of 76 square miles and is divided into 23 wards. For the purposes of this study, these 23 wards have been grouped into four analysis areas: Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton, the Northern wards, and the Southern wards (further detail is provided in Section 2, Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2).

1.27 According to the 2001 Office of National Statistics report, the Borough has a population of 133,641. Population estimates based on the Population in Berkshire 2004 Review suggest that this figure is likely to increase to 136,047 by 2016, should the annual housing requirements be satisfied. This increase raises the pressure on existing open spaces, sport and recreation facilities and will also create demand for further provision.

1.28 Children under the age of 15 account for around 19% of the population, which is in accordance with the national average and identifies the significance of provision for young people. Equally important is meeting the needs of older people, particularly given that 20% of the population are over the retirement age.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 4 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.29 Maidenhead is the major settlement in the Borough with a population of circa 45,000, followed by Windsor, with a population of approximately 28,000. Besides these, the main urban areas are Cookham, Bisham and Bray in the north and Old Windsor, Eton, Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale in the south. The majority of residents in the Borough live within these urban areas, so there will be a greater demand for localised facilities in these areas.

1.30 Within the Borough there is a noticeable rural and urban divide, with the most affluent wards (in monetary terms) located in the more rural areas of Bray, Maidenhead Riverside, Oldfield, Old Windsor, Horton and Wraysbury, Sunninghill and South Ascot, and Sunningdale. All wards in the Borough have a relatively low level of deprivation compared to national averages. The appropriate provision and enhancement of open space has the potential to reduce this rural/urban divide and also ensure that all residents have good access to local provision.

1.31 The outlying rural areas present a different challenge for the Council in terms of open space, sport and recreation provision, with much of the provision in the ownership and management of parish councils.

1.32 The wards with the highest levels of income deprivation are Furze Platt, Belmont, and Clewer East. The enhancement of open space could lead to the improvement of quality of life within these wards by providing high quality local amenities and encouraging community involvement.

The role of green space in the Borough

1.33 The Borough has an extensive green network. Green space is a key feature of the design of both Windsor and Maidenhead and remains an important characteristic of each town. However, it is recognised that these green spaces need to be better connected to fully benefit from their value in terms of community amenities, recreation and biodiversity. For many residents, the sense of the environment within the town is the main attraction of living in the Borough. The green network of the National Trust, the Crown and publicly managed open spaces also facilitates linkages with settlements in the more rural areas of the Borough.

1.34 Compared to towns such as Cookham and Bray, Maidenhead is relatively new, established as a key crossing point on the Thames and on the main route from London to Bristol. Windsor was developed around the Royal Estate and grew substantially in the 20th Century as a market and commuter town.

1.35 83% of the Borough is Green Belt. The areas to the south around Chobham Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); near Sunningdale and the Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths SSSI to the south of Ascot are the nearest parts of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area to the Borough. These areas have been designated under the European Union Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) to protect the habitat of the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. Most of the southern wards fall within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area buffer zone and additional restrictions apply to new housing development in that area.

Structure of this report

1.36 This report is split into 13 sections. Section 2 summarises the methodology used to undertake the study and Section 3 provides the strategic context to the study.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 5 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.37 Sections 4-12 relate to each of the typologies identified within the scope of the study. Each of section sets out the strategic context for its particular typology, the recommended quantity, quality and accessibility standards (which are detailed in grey boxes within each section of the report), the application of these standards and the resulting priorities. Section 13 summarises the local standards and recommendations for each typology.

1.38 There are also a number of appendices that support the report, providing further background detail and statistical calculations. These are referenced throughout the report.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 6

SECTION 2

UNDERTAKING THE STUDY SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

Undertaking the study

Introduction

2.1 This study was undertaken in accordance with PPG17 and its Companion Guide. The key emphasis of PPG17 is the importance of undertaking a local needs assessment as opposed to following national trends and standards.

2.2 The Companion Guide indicates that the four guiding principles in undertaking a local assessment are:

(i) understanding that local needs will vary even within local authority areas according to socio-demographic and cultural characteristics (ii) recognising that the provision of good quality and effective open space relies on effective planning but also on creative design, landscape management and maintenance (iii) considering that delivering high quality and sustainable open spaces may depend much more on improving and enhancing existing open space than new provision (iv) taking into account that the value of open space will be greater when local needs are met. It is essential to consider the wider benefits that sites generate for people, wildlife and the environment.

2.3 PPG17 recognises that individual approaches appropriate to each local authority will need to be adopted as each area has different structures and characteristics. The process set out in PPG17 has therefore been tailored to ensure that the needs and expectations of residents in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are adequately addressed.

Types of open space

2.4 The overall definition of open space within the government planning guidance is: “all open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can also act as a visual amenity”.

2.5 PPG17 identifies 10 typologies including nine types of green space and one category of hard open space. It states that local authorities, when preparing assessments of needs and audits of existing open space and recreation facilities, should use these typologies, or variations of it.

2.6 Table 2.1 sets out the types of open space included within this study. In line with guidelines set out in PPG17, only sites within settlement boundaries have been included in Figure 2.1 Grenfell Park (ID 239) the audit. The significance of sites outside of these boundaries, alongside areas of nearby natural countryside will be considered, where appropriate, throughout this report. The study takes into account open spaces provided, owned and managed by public and private organisations to provide an accurate picture of current provision.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 7 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

Table 2.1 – Typologies of open space, sport and recreation facilities within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Type Definition Primary purpose

Parks and Includes urban parks, formal gardens and • informal recreation gardens country parks. Parks usually contain a variety of facilities, and may have one or more other • community events open space types within them. Natural and Includes publicly accessible woodlands, • wildlife conservation semi-natural urban forestry, scrub, grasslands (eg green spaces downlands, commons, meadows), wetlands • biodiversity and wastelands. • environmental education and awareness Amenity green Most commonly but not exclusively found in • informal activities space housing areas. Includes informal recreation close to home or green spaces and village greens. work • children’s play • enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas Provision for Areas designed primarily for play and social • children’s play children interaction involving children below age 12. Whilst it is recognised that a wide variety of opportunities for children exist (including play schemes and open spaces not specifically designed for this purpose), as per PPG17, this typology considers only those spaces specifically designed as equipped play facilities.

Provision for Areas designed primarily for play and social • activities or meeting young people interaction involving young people age 12 places for young and above. Whilst it is recognised that a wide people variety of opportunities for young people exist (including youth clubs and open spaces not specifically designed for this purpose), as per PPG17, this typology considers only those spaces specifically designed for use by young people eg: • teenage shelters • skateboard parks • BMX tracks • Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs).

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 8 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

Type Definition Primary purpose

Outdoor sports Natural or artificial surfaces either publicly or • facilities for formal facilities privately owned used for sport and recreation. sports participation Includes school playing fields. These include: • outdoor sports pitches • tennis courts and bowls greens • golf courses • athletics tracks • playing fields (including school playing fields). Allotments Opportunities for those people who wish to do • growing vegetable, so to grow their own produce as part of the fruit and flowers long-term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion. May also include urban farms. Private gardens are not included. Cemeteries and Cemeteries and churchyards including • burial of the dead churchyards disused churchyards and other burial grounds. • quiet contemplation

Green corridors Includes towpaths along canals and • walking, cycling or riverbanks, cycleways, rights of way and horse riding disused railway lines. • leisure purposes or travel • opportunities for wildlife migration Civic spaces Hard surfaced areas located usually located • community events within town or city centres. • setting for civic buildings Source: PPG17 Companion Guide (2002)

The geographical area

2.7 Analysis of the open space across the Borough has been undertaken by looking at the supply and demand in four different areas within the local authority boundary (referred to as analysis areas in this report). These areas were discussed and agreed with the Council at the outset of the study.

2.8 The use of analysis areas allows examination of data at a more detailed local level, enabling an understanding of the geographical distribution of open spaces and ensuring that differences in perception and opinion of open spaces across the Borough are understood.

2.9 These analysis areas have been used to ensure that consultation was undertaken proportionately across the Borough, and the application of local standards will enable the identification of priorities at neighbourhood level.

2.10 Table 2.2 details the analysis areas used in this study and the wards within each analysis area.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 9 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

2.11 Quantity standard calculations in this report have been undertaken using population estimates contained within the 2001 Office of National Statistics. For 2026, projections figures from the Population in Berkshire - 2004 Review have been used.

Table 2.2 – Analysis areas of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Current 2026 Area name Wards included Population* Population

Pinkneys Green, Furze Platt, Belmont, Boyn Maidenhead 42,850 48,677 Hill, Oldfield, Maidenhead Riverside

Eton Wick, Eton and Castle, Castle Without, Windsor and 33,304 37,075 Clewer North, Clewer South, Clewer East, Eton Park

The Northern Bisham and Cookham, Hurley and Walthams, 31,597 28,808 wards Cox Green, Bray

Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, Old Windsor, The Southern 25,890 33,092 Ascot and Cheapside, Sunninghill and South wards Ascot, Sunningdale

*Census 2001 data Total 133,641 147,652

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 10 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

Figure 2.2 Analysis areas in the Borough

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 11 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

PPG17 – Five step process

2.12 The PPG17 Companion Guide sets out a five step process for undertaking a local assessment of open space. This process was followed in this study. The five step process is shown in Figure 2.2. As the figure shows, Steps 1 and 2 were undertaken simultaneously.

2.13 The five step process is as follows:

• Step 1 – identifying local needs

• Step 2 – auditing local provision

• Step 3 – setting local provision standards

• Step 4 – applying local provision standards

• Step 5 – drafting policies – recommendations and strategic priorities.

Figure 2.3 Study process

Step 1 - Identifying local needs

2.14 PPG17 states that community consultations are essential to identify local attitudes to existing provision and local expectations for additional or improved provision.

2.15 The PPG17 guidance relies less on the implementation of national standards and places increased emphasis on local needs. The assessment of needs should result in qualitative visions and quantity and accessibility standards that reflect the type and amount of facilities that local communities want to see. It is essential that the local standards set are directly reflective of local needs and expectations.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 12 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

2.16 In order to identify local needs, a series of consultations were carried out including:

• household survey

• neighbourhood ‘drop in’ sessions

• Internet survey for children and young people

• external agencies survey

• internal Council officers

• parish and town council survey.

2.17 Background is provided on each of the key elements of the consultation in the paragraphs that follow.

Household survey

2.18 The household survey provides an opportunity for randomly selected households to comment on the quality, quantity and accessibility of existing open space provision as well as identifying their aspirations for future provision.

2.19 5,000 questionnaires were distributed to households across the Borough to capture the views of both users and non-users of open spaces. Households were randomly selected using the electoral register.

2.20 Random distribution of questionnaires to a geographically representative sample (based on the populations living in each of the identified analysis areas) of households ensures that representatives from all age groups, ethnic groups and gender were given the opportunity to participate. A copy of the household survey and its covering letter can be found in Appendix B.

2.21 506 postal surveys were returned, providing a statistically sound sample that can be used to estimate responses for the remaining population across the Borough. Obtaining more than 400 responses means that the results are accurate to +/- 5% at the 95% confidence interval.

2.22 The household survey provides residents with an important opportunity to give their views on open spaces. However, it should be noted that whilst examples are provided, in some instances, perception of different types of open space may affect comments made and specific comments made regarding types of open space may overlap. For example, some children may call a play area a park. This will be returned to in the typology specific sections where appropriate.

Neighbourhood ‘drop in’ sessions

2.23 Neighbourhood ‘drop in’ sessions were held in five locations across the Borough, specifically:

• Nicholson's Centre, • Cookham Library Maidenhead • Waitrose, Sunningdale • Windsor Central Station • Datchet Library.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 13 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

2.24 These sessions were advertised to the public via the local press and provided an informal opportunity for residents to give their views on open space in the Borough. These sessions were well attended and the key issues arising from discussions have fed directly into the recommended local standards.

Internet survey for children and young people

2.25 Consultation with young people and children is traditionally difficult, but it is important to understand the views of this large sector of the community as children are important users of open space.

2.26 A questionnaire was designed to identify key issues applicable to young people and posted on the internet. All schools within the Council boundary were notified of the website address and asked to encourage their pupils to complete the questionnaires. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.

2.27 The survey received 150 responses in total. The majority of responses were from students at Windsor Boys School, Datchet St Marys C of E Primary School, and Churchmead School.

2.28 The information obtained through the distribution of these questionnaires has supplemented the findings of the other consultation techniques and guided the development of recommendations in this report, specifically regarding provision for children and young people.

External agencies survey

2.29 Questionnaires were distributed to key regional and local agencies with the aim of obtaining the viewpoint of key stakeholders and ensuring that the recommended local standards dovetail with local and regional priorities. A list of consultees can be found in Appendix D.

Internal Council officers

2.30 Internal consultations with Council officers were undertaken in order to understand the work, focus and key priorities of the Council and to provide a detailed strategic and practical overview. These sessions facilitated a greater understanding of the priorities of various Council departments and their aspirations for open space. The consultations also identified what plans were in place to develop specific open space sites.

Parish and town Council survey

2.31 A questionnaire was distributed to all parish and town councils in the Borough to gain their views on the quantity, quality and accessibility of open spaces within their settlements. With a number of open space sites owned or managed by local councils this was an important element of the consultation, particularly in obtaining comments on site specific issues. Follow-up consultation calls were made in an attempt to ensure all parish representatives were given the opportunity to inform the study. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix E.

Step 2 - Auditing local provision

2.32 PPG17 states that audits of provision should encompass all existing open space, sport and recreation irrespective of ownership and the extent of public access. The logic for this is that all forms of provision can contribute to meeting local needs.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 14 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

2.33 Audits should also include all primary and secondary schools and other educational institutions. It was agreed with the Council that sports provision at schools will be categorised under the outdoor sports facilities typology but that no qualitative analysis will be carried out. This is in line with key recommendations emerging from the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy (2007).

2.34 Audits should consider both the quantitative and the qualitative elements of open space. Audits of quality are particularly important as they allow local authorities to identify potential for increased use through better design, management and maintenance.

2.35 The multi functionality of some types of open space can present a challenge during the audit process. In order to address this issue, all spaces are classified by their primary purpose. This ensures that all spaces are counted only once, but does not negate the need to consider the inter-relationships between different types of open space as part of the study.

2.36 Additionally, some specific types of open space are located within a larger space. Where this occurs and the primary purpose is clearly defined, these sites are considered to be two separate sites and have been subdivided. A good example is the location of a children’s play area within a park. It is important that these sites are considered separately as they have different roles and fall into different typologies.

2.37 The Council provided PMP with all available data on the provision of open space across the Borough. PMP then undertook a detailed desk based exercise to audit all open space provision. Data sources included aerial photography, the local plan, maps and internet search engines.

2.38 It is important to note that only those sites within settlement boundaries have been included in the audit, in line with guidelines set out in PPG17. Grass verges and farmland were also excluded from consideration.

2.39 A total of 424 sites were identified during the audit process. Each site was classified into a relevant typology and site assessments were then carried out at each site.

2.40 Site assessments were undertaken using a matrix developed with Council officers enabling comparisons between sites in the same typology and across typologies. For consistency purposes, all sites were assessed by the same person. Sites were rated against the following categories:

• accessibility

• quality

• wider benefits (such as health and educational).

2.41 The site assessment process resulted in an overall quality and accessibility score for each site in addition to ratings for each individual factor. A full list of sites and their scores can be found in Appendix F. The site assessment matrix can be found in Appendix G.

2.42 In addition to assessing the quality, accessibility and wider benefits of open space sites across the Borough, the site visits also provided an opportunity to ensure that no sites had been omitted and that the classification of each open space was correct.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 15 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

2.43 Each open space site was then digitised by the Council using Geographic Information System (GIS) software and its associated ratings and characteristics were recorded on an Access database. The Access database enables further updates of open spaces and varying forms of analysis to be undertaken. It allows a dynamic reporting and assessment mechanism and enables individual sites or specific geographical locations to be examined in detail.

Steps 3 and 4 - Setting and applying provision standards

2.44 PPG17 recommends that local authorities use information gained from the assessment of needs and opportunities (Step 1) to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space. These local standards should include:

• quantitative elements (how much new provision may be needed)

• a qualitative component (against which to measure the need for enhancement of existing facilities)

• accessibility (including distance thresholds).

2.45 The local standards for quality, quantity and accessibility of open space should relate directly to the local consultation undertaken and should therefore be reflective of local needs. PMP has produced locally based standards using the findings of the household survey and other consultations undertaken where appropriate.

2.46 Table 2.3 summarises the process adopted for setting each of the local standards.

Table 2.3 – The setting standards process

Process Stage Methodology National standards Analysis of any existing national standards for each typology. These are usually provided by national organisations, for example, Fields in Trust for playing pitches. It is important to ensure that national standards are taken into account as part of determination of local standards. Existing local Consideration of existing local standards for each typology that are standards currently applied by the Council. These include standards set out in the Local Plan and in other strategies and documents. Current provision Assessment of the current quantity of provision within the local (quantity standards authority area as a whole and within each of the four analysis areas. only) Benchmarking Figures detailing local standards set by PMP for other open space projects to provide a benchmark when setting local standards.

Consultation Consideration of the findings of the household survey with regards the (household survey) quantity of provision for each type of open space. This analysis provides a robust indication (at the Borough wide 95% confidence level) of public perception of the existing level of provision of all different types of open spaces. Consultation PPG17 indicates that where local provision is regarded as inadequate comments it is important to establish why this is the case. A feeling of deficiency can sometimes be due to qualitative issues of existing open space sites rather than actual quantity issues.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 16 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

Process Stage Methodology It is therefore important to assess findings of the household survey, the drop in sessions and other qualitative consultation to gain a thorough understanding of local community need. Comments emerging through qualitative consultation are particularly important to test the themes emerging from the household survey. PMP PMP recommendation of a local standard. The standard is based on an recommendation assessment of the local community need and will be in the form of: • quantity – x hectares/number of facilities per 1000 population • accessibility – a distance threshold in metres or drivetime • quality – a list of essential and desirable features. PMP justification Full justifications for the recommended local standard based on qualitative and quantitative consultations are provided for each typology.

Quantity

2.47 The open space audit enables an understanding of the quantity of provision for each type of open space in each area of the Borough. This level of detail enables the calculation of the provision of each type of open space per 1,000 population. This information is provided within typology specific Sections 4-12.

2.48 The overall aim of the quantity assessment is to:

• provide an understanding of the adequacy of existing provision for each type of open space in the Borough

• establish areas of the Borough suffering from deficiency of provision of each type of open space

• provide a guide to developers as to the amount of open space expected in conjunction with new development.

2.49 This assessment measures the quantity of provision against the current population of 133,641 (Census, 2001). Consideration is also given to the likely implications of future population growth up to 2026. The Council provided the population projections used in this report, which are based on the potential levels of growth set out in the Population in Berkshire - 2004 Review.

2.50 In order to ensure that standards set are reflective of local community needs and opinions, key themes emerging from consultations in each analysis area relating to the quantity of each type are analysed. The key issues for each type of open space are assessed within Sections 4 – 12. Local standards are subsequently set, taking into account the current level of provision compared to the perceived community need.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 17 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

Accessibility

2.51 Accessibility is a key criterion for open space sites. Without good accessibility for the public, the provision of good quality or sufficient quantity of open space would be of limited value. The overall aim of accessibility standards should be to identify:

• how accessible sites are

• how far people are willing to travel to reach open space

• areas of the Borough that are deficient in provision (identified through the application of local standards).

2.52 Similar to quantity standards, accessibility standards should be derived from an understanding of the community views, particularly with regards to the maximum distance that members of the public are willing to travel.

2.53 Distance thresholds (ie the maximum distance which typical users can reasonably be expected to travel to each type of provision using the preferred mode of transport) are a useful planning tool especially when used in association with a GIS. PPG17 encourages any new open space sites or enhancement of existing sites to be accessible by environmentally friendly forms of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport. There is a real desire to move away from reliance on the car.

2.54 Accessibility standards are set in the form of a distance in metres where walking is considered to be the most suitable mode of travel, and a drive time where driving to the open space site would be more appropriate.

Quality

2.55 The quality and value of open space are fundamentally different and can sometimes be completely unrelated. Examples of this are:

• a high quality open space is provided but is completely inaccessible. Its usage is therefore restricted and its public value is limited

• a low quality open space may be used every day by the public or have some significant wider benefit such as biodiversity or educational use and therefore has a relatively high value to the public.

2.56 The overall aim of a quality assessment should be to identify deficiencies in quality and key quality factors that need to be improved within:

• the geographical areas of the Borough

• specific types of open space.

2.57 The quality standards set as part of the study are intended to provide information on the key features of open space that are important to local residents. Sites are then assessed and given a score for a range of factors including:

• cleanliness and • vegetation maintenance • ancillary accommodation. • security and safety

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 18 SECTION 2 – UNDERTAKING THE STUDY

2.58 Each element of quality is rated on a scale of very good (5 points) to poor (1 point) and a total percentage score is then calculated. Where an element of provision (such as toilets) is considered to be not applicable, this will not be taken into account in the calculation of the percentage score.

2.59 These scores are then weighted (multiplied either by 4, 3, 2 or 1) to reflect the importance of the factors for each type of open space. These weightings are derived from the findings of the consultation. Factors that are given higher weightings are perceived to be the most important and to have the largest impact on the quality of the site according to local residents. Factors with a higher weighting will therefore influence the total score more than factors with lower weightings.

2.60 Full details of the linkages between the quality assessments and the site visits undertaken can be found in Appendix L.

2.61 Scores achieved during site visits are translated into percentages and can then be benchmarked against each other. The application of the process for each typology can be found in typology specific Sections 4 – 12.

Step 5 – Drafting policies - recommendations and strategic priorities

2.62 The application of the local standards enables the identification of deficiencies in terms of accessibility, quality and quantity and also enables spatial distribution of unmet need.

2.63 Based on this analysis, strategic options can be devised based on existing provision to be protected, existing provision to be enhanced, existing provision to be relocated and proposals for new provision.

2.64 The recommendations contained within the report are based on the findings of the application of the local standards for each typology. An example is provided below:

P&G1 Given the low number of sites within the Borough, all park and garden sites should be afforded protection.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 19

SECTION 3

STRATEGIC CONTEXT SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Strategic context

Introduction

3.1 This section reviews the strategic context and provides background on the national/regional picture relevant to open space, sport and recreation facilities. The Council has provided all documents reviewed within this section of the report. Whilst this review is not exhaustive it provides details on the context considered important within this study.

3.2 For the purposes of this study, PPG17 and the Companion Guide are the key overarching documents. All documents reviewed within this report influence the provision of facilities in the Borough and the strategic priorities of the Council.

3.3 Relevant information from local strategic documents has been included within the individual typology sections, highlighting specific strategic objectives that link into this study. Regional and local documents have been reviewed later in this section. A review of national strategic documents is below. Further detail is provided in Appendix H.

National strategic documents

Voluntary Quality of Life and Cross-Cutting Indicator (Audit Commission, April 2001 – March 2002)

3.4 The Audit Commission consulted on a set of voluntary Quality of Life indicators for local authorities during autumn 2000. The exercise was prompted by the new powers given to local authorities in the Local Government Act 2000 to promote the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of their area.

3.5 32 indicators were identified for the voluntary exercise. All the proposed indicators are designed to paint a picture of the quality of life in the local area and to challenge all partners locally to address the issues within their community strategies.

3.6 Open spaces provide a major factor in the quality of people’s lives and this was demonstrated with five of the 32 Quality of Life Factors having a direct link with the provision of open spaces. These factors were:

• area of parks and green spaces per 1,000 head of population (includes urban parks and open spaces plus other ‘public open areas’)

• percentage of rivers and canals rated as good or fair quality

• area of Local Nature Reserve (LNR) per 1,000 population. LNRs are for both people and wildlife and provide opportunities to study, learn and enjoy nature

• the area of land designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - provide wonderful opportunities for people to enjoy wildlife and landscape

• kilometres of dedicated cycle routes per 100km of principal and other local authority roads.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 20 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 - Planning for Open Space Sport and Recreation, July 2002 and its Companion Guide (September 2002)

3.7 PPG17 is the key strategic document relevant to this study. It sets out policies that must be taken into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of regional planning guidance notes and by local authorities in the preparation of development plans.

3.8 It aims to support the wider government objectives of:

• supporting an urban renaissance

• supporting urban renewal

• promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion

• health and well-being

• promoting more sustainable development.

3.9 It states that: “the government expects all local authorities to carry out assessments of needs and audits of open space and sports and recreational facilities”.

3.10 Its associated Companion Guide sets out the process for undertaking local assessments of needs and audits of provision. It also:

• indicates how councils can establish the needs of local communities and apply provision standards

• promotes as consistent an approach as possible across varying types of open space.

3.11 The major change in the policy guidance compared to the previous version is the requirement for local authority decisions regarding open space to be informed by local needs assessments and an audit of existing provision. Such audits should incorporate qualitative, quantitative and accessibility considerations as well as the overall non-monetary value of the land including the level of use. National standards are no longer considered to meet local needs, although they may be used as benchmarks.

3.12 Other subsequent changes in PPG17 are:

• the definition of open space should be taken to mean all open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals and lakes which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation

• a greater emphasis is placed on qualitative considerations – this is particularly important as it will allow local authorities to identify potential for increased use through better design, management and/or maintenance of open space

• the setting of local standards appropriate to the local area rather than assessment by national standards although these can be used as benchmarks. Government believes that national standards are inappropriate, as they do not take into account the demographics of an area, the specific needs of residents and the extent of built development

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 21 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

• further guidance on the constituent elements of open space typologies

• acknowledgement of the multiple functions that open spaces can perform.

3.13 The policy guidance sets out priorities for local authorities in terms of:

• assessing needs and opportunities – undertaking audits of open space, sport and recreational facilities

• setting local standards

• maintaining an adequate supply of open space

• planning for new open space.

Green Spaces, Better Places – Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) – The Final Report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce (2002)

3.14 This report set the context of much of what was delivered through PPG17 and its Companion Guide. The report recognises that parks and green spaces are a popular and precious resource, which can make a valuable contribution to the attractiveness of a neighbourhood, to the health and wellbeing of people, as well as expanding educational opportunities of children and adults alike. The report is in four parts:

• Parks and Green Spaces and Urban Life - emphasises the benefits urban parks and green spaces bring to people, neighbourhoods and cities

• Challenges and Responses - considers some of the problems affecting urban parks and green spaces and how they can be overcome

• Creating Green Space Networks - makes recommendations for good practice in providing a strategic policy framework

• Making It Happen – indicates that strong civic and local pride and responsibility are necessary to achieve the vision reinforced by a successful green spaces strategy.

3.15 The final report concludes that now is the time for an urban renaissance with these valuable but often neglected areas.

Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces (DTLR, 2002)

3.16 The vital importance of parks and other urban green spaces in enhancing the urban environment and the quality of city life has been recognised in both the Urban Taskforce report and the Urban White Paper. The research was commissioned by the DTLR in April 2001, and was conducted by the Department of Landscape at the University of Sheffield.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 22 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

3.17 Urban Green Space is defined as land that consists predominantly of unsealed, permeable, soft surfaces such as soil, grass, shrubs and trees. It is the umbrella term for all such areas whether or not they are publicly accessible or publicly managed. Key findings included:

• research confirms the importance of urban green spaces. It is estimated that, in England, over 33 million people make over 2.5 billion visits to urban green spaces each year

• the five main barriers deterring people from using urban green spaces are:

- lack of, or poor condition of, facilities (including play facilities for children)

- other users (including anti-social behaviour)

- concerns about dogs and mess

- safety and other psychological issues (eg feelings of vulnerability and inertia)

- environmental quality issues such as litter, graffiti and vandalism.

• access issues are of concern to the elderly and particularly to people with disabilities

• most of the barriers are resource issues which relate to the location, accessibility or environmental quality of urban green spaces and could therefore be overcome if planners, designers and managers of these spaces could address them satisfactorily

• the most frequently mentioned characteristics of the ideal urban green space were vegetation, play opportunities, comforts, good access, sport and events

• there is no clear link between levels of spending and the extent of good or innovative practice

• there were large differences in the amount of external funding that had been gained by local authorities

• lack of resources for capital spending was identified as a major problem by all local authorities in the research. Heritage Lottery Funding and Section 106 Agreements were seen as the most valuable external sources for capital development. In most cases private sponsorship is not significant

• urban green spaces can act as a catalyst for wider community initiatives. That parks are open every day with free entry and offer neutral ground with non- discriminatory access makes them completely different from many building based activities.

3.18 Urban green spaces have both an existence value and a use value. In particular they:

• contribute significantly to social inclusion because they are free and accessible to all

• can become a centre of community spirit

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 23 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

• contribute to child development through scope for outdoor, energetic and imaginative play

• offer numerous educational opportunities.

3.19 Urban green spaces also provide a range of health, environmental and economic benefits. Demonstrating how parks and other green spaces meet wider council policy objectives linked to other agendas, like education, diversity, health, safety, environment, jobs and regeneration, can help raise the political profile and commitment of an authority to green space issues.

3.20 The Urban White Paper stresses the need to identify opportunities for both building and supporting partnerships for managing open spaces in and around towns, particularly where this involves businesses and local communities. Community involvement in local parks can lead to increased use, enhancement of quality and richness of experience and, in particular, can ensure that the facilities are suited to local needs.

3.21 Evidence has been put forward to suggest that environmental enhancement not only makes places more attractive and pleasant, but that green space initiatives can result in community strengthening and local economic stimulation, as well as improvement to local environmental quality.

3.22 Four levels of integration of urban green space into urban renewal can be identified, characterised by an increasing strategic synergy between environment, economy and community. They are:

• attracting inward economic investment through the provision of attractive urban landscapes

• unforeseen spin-offs from grassroots green space initiatives

• parks as flagships in neighbourhood renewal

• strategic, multi-agency area based regeneration, linking environment and economy.

The Use of Public Parks in England (Sport England, 2003)

3.23 The aims of this national survey commissioned by Sport England, the Countryside Agency and English Heritage were to establish:

• how many adults in England use parks

• what activities people take part in when visiting parks

• the reasons people visit particular parks

• the levels of satisfaction with the amenities on offer

• why non-users do not use parks.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 24 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

3.24 The definition of a park used in the survey was very broad and included both formal provision such as town parks, country parks and recreation grounds and also less formal provision such as village greens and common land. Key findings include:

• just under two thirds of adults in England had visited a public park during the previous 12 months

• there is a distinct bias in the use of parks by social groups, with almost three quarters of adults from the higher social group visiting a park compared with only half of those from the lower social group

• people from black and ethnic minority communities also have relatively low participation as well as those adults with a disability

• over 8 in 10 adults who had used a park in the previous 12 months did so at least once a month during the spring/summer with almost two thirds visiting a park at least once a week, and women tended to visit parks more often than men

• it is estimated that the 24.3 million adults who use parks make approximately 1.2 billion visits to parks during the spring and summer months and 600 million visits during the autumn and winter months – a total of 1.8 billion visits a year

• the most popular type of park visited was an urban/ city park.

Spatial Planning for Sport and Active Recreation (Sport England, 2005)

3.25 Sport England’s aims are for two million more people to be active by 2012 and to provide more places to play sport. Sport England seeks to:

• develop and improve the knowledge and practice of sport and physical recreation in England

• encourage and develop higher standards of performance and the achievement of excellence

• foster, support and undertake the development of facilities

• advise, assist and cooperate with other government departments and local authorities.

3.26 Sport England will provide advice on what type of sports facilities are needed for communities in the future. They will also advise on how to protect and improve the current stock of facilities, in particular protecting playing fields.

3.27 Sport England takes the definition of spatial planning as set out in Planning Policy Statements 1 (PPS1) as its starting point. This states that: “Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function.”

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 25 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

3.28 Sport England sees the planning system as an opportunity to deliver its own aspirations for sport and recreation, whilst contributing to the goals of partners in public, private and voluntary sectors. With this there is the opportunity to deliver a planned approach towards the provision of facilities helping to reach sustainable development goals. These are:

• taking a broader view of the role of spatial planning as an enabling function which goes beyond the setting and delivery of land-use policy

• identify opportunities for delivering an enhanced quality of life for communities, in the short, medium and longer term

• recognising and taking full advantage of the unique ability of sport and active recreation to contribute to a wide array of policy and community aspirations

• the development of partnership working stimulated by, and perhaps centred on, sport and active recreation as a common interest

• using sport and recreation as one of the building blocks of planning and delivery of sustainable communities.

Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper, Communities and Local Government (DCLG, 2007)

3.29 The correct provision and promotion of high quality, accessible leisure facilities is a vital component of improving quality of life, creating vibrant, healthy communities and improving local and national Infrastructure.

3.30 Particular protection is needed for parks and urban green spaces. New development which positively shapes open spaces, public parks, and sports or other recreational facilities is encouraged and development which has the potential to enhance the surrounding area, as well as improving community access to open green space or to providing additional recreational facilities is welcomed.

3.31 The White Paper:

• recommends the removal of the requirement for leisure and sport facility applications to prove ‘need’

• recommends that developments will have to provide links to quality open space.

The Park Life Report (GreenSpace, 2007)

3.32 The key findings of the report are:

• 92% of respondents stated that they visit parks and green spaces – 70% are regular and 20% are irregular visitors

• 68% of respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied and 14% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the standard of open space provision

• over 90% of respondents agree that there is a park or green space within walking distance from their home

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 26 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

• 69% of people visit parks and green spaces on foot, while 25% travel to parks in cars

• few people use public transport to visit parks and green spaces with only 2% travelling by bus and less than 1% visiting by public transport

• 62% of respondents reported that their local parks are generally clean and well maintained.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 27 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

3.33 Table 3.1 provides a strategic review of local and regional documents applicable to this study. This review was completed by the Council.

Table 3.1 – Strategic Context – Implications for this assessment of open space, sport and recreation facilities

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study Regional Planning This document provides the Strategic Planning guidance for the South East Overview of documents purpose. Guidance Note 9 region of England. (December 2000) RPG9 will be superseded by the South East Plan during late 2008 when the South East Plan is adopted autumn / winter 2008. This document, once adopted, will provide the Strategic Planning guidance for Overview of documents purpose. the South East region of England. The document is in draft version at present South East Plan: and was submitted to the Government in March 2006. The Examination In Public (Proposed Modifications) took place between November 2006 and March 2007. The Inspectors Report August 2008 was published during August 2007. Proposed changes were published during July 2008 and these are open to public consultation until 24 October 2008. The South East Plan will, at the time of writing, be adopted late 2008. Once adopted this document will supersede RPG9. South East Plan: Section Policy S1 (Supporting Healthy Communities): the Planning system can Both Policy S1 and S5 set the regional context D10 Tourism and related develop and shape healthy sustainable communities by providing good access for the encouragement of healthy communities sports and recreation to these facilities; by promoting mixed and cohesive communities through through the promotion of recreation and focussing on access to housing for socially excluded groups, and by sporting activity.

encouraging healthier forms of transport (ie incorporating cycle lanes, footpaths in planned developments). Policy S5 (Cultural and sporting activity): participation in sport, recreation and cultural activity should be encouraged (with relevant policies in place to encourage participation by disadvantaged/socially excluded persons/groups). An up to date strategy including an audit of current supply against estimated demand/growth should be the basis of cultural and sporting activity provision, and facilities accessible by a number of modes should have joint service provisions in place.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 28 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study Berkshire Structure Plan This document provides the strategic framework for Berkshire. It guides Overview of document’s purpose. 2001 – 2016. Adopted development in the Borough. This document has been adopted for development (July 2005) control purposes by the Council. These policies all provide guidance at the strategic county wide level. Detailed policy/guidance is contained within the Local Plan. Structure Plan Chapter: DP3 (Green Belt): the policy sets out the broad extent of the Green Belt and Policy DP3 emphasises the importance of the Spatial Strategy and briefly sets out the forms of development that would be acceptable within it. Green Belt and indicates that proposals for Development Principles Planning permission will be given only in special circumstances such as, development would only be granted planning agriculture and forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, permission provided that they meet certain

cemeteries etc, providing it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does limited criteria. One of these criterion related to not conflict with the purpose of including land within it. More detail is provided by essential facilities for outdoor sport and the Local Plan policy. recreation. Boundaries of the Green Belt and of the settlements have been identified in local This is an important consideration for the plans. Green Belt boundary changes will only be made in exceptional Council as 83% of the Borough is designated circumstances through Local Plan reviews. as Green Belt. Given the location of the Borough to London and major transport infrastructure there is intense pressure for development. Structure Plan Chapter: S1 (Major retail and leisure development in town centres): the sequential Policy S1 stipulates that major leisure Shopping and Leisure approach in identifying suitable sites should be adopted; the scale and nature of developments in town centre areas would be development will be consistent with the role of the centre, and proposals must required to contribute towards improved

demonstrate that they will (on their own or cumulatively) not adversely affect the access and transport choices to the centre vitality and viability of other town centres nor result in unacceptable increases in through developer contributions. the numbers of car borne shopping or leisure trips or in their average length of

stay. Where appropriate, developments will be expected to contribute towards improved access and choice of transport to the centre. S3 (Leisure Development outside major town centres): development will only Policy S3 refers to the criteria that developers be permitted outside the centres where the: proposing leisure development located outside of the major town centres would be required to • need has been demonstrated meet. • sequential approach has been followed in site selection

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 29 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study • development will (solely or cumulatively) not adversely affect the vitality and viability of other town centres, nor cause any significant adverse impacts on

the environment or upon the amenity of nearby residents.

Any changes in travel patterns over the catchment area would be in accordance with the Transport Strategy in Policy T1 and the development of the Strategic Transport Network.

S4 (other sport, recreation, Tourism and Leisure uses): proposals for these Policy S4 provides strategic level guidance on non key town centre uses should be in a location appropriate to their use, and of the location of sport and recreation facilities not a scale and form appropriate to their current and future accessibility and level of covered by policies S1 and S3. infrastructure, services and employment. The sequential approach should be followed and proposals for uses in rural locations must be in accordance with other policies regarding development in the countryside. Potential effects of increased visitors on landscape, wildlife, habitats etc will be considered. A strategic priority of the Community Strategy is to improve the appearance of Two key themes of the Community Strategy the Borough by improving parks, combating litter and vandalism and attaining are to improve the quality of parks and also to RBWM Community “green flag” quality assurance status for parks by improving the landscape and improve the health of the Borough’s population Strategy 2007 - 2013 design of public open spaces through tree and bulb planting. It also seeks to by encouraging both sport and recreational promote sustainable lifestyles and protect the environment by improving access activity. to the countryside through public rights of way.

The Strategy also seeks to promote sustainable and prosperous communities and recognises that a healthy workforce can assist with this through participation in sports and recreational activities. Strengths in this area are that the Borough: • actively safeguards and enhances public rights of way • consults and works with interested parties to achieve the provision of a well maintained and signed network of public rights of way • ensures that the public rights of way network is properly maintained and well publicised and landowners are assisted to understand their responsibilities and rights. One area for development is seen as improving the access to the countryside through public rights of way.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 30 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study RBWM Local Plan This document provides the detailed framework for guiding, controlling and Overview of documents purpose. (incorporating bringing forward development in the Borough at the local level. This document Alterations) Adopted has been adopted for development control purposes by the Council. June 2003

Local Plan Chapter: Policy GB1 (Green Belt): this policy set out the purposes of the Green Belt and Policy GB1 provides guidance, at the local Environment the limited uses considered appropriate within these locations. These purposes level, for development located within the Green are defined in PPG2 and include agriculture, forestry, certain types of residential Belt. It reflects the stipulations set out by the

development, and essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries Structure Plan which themselves reflect the and other uses, which preserve the openness, and purpose of including land in national guidance set out by PPG2 (Green the Green Belt. Belts). Objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt include the provision of It emphasises the importance of limiting the opportunities for access for outside sport and to the open countryside. impact of any development proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. For example, new Construction of new buildings for essential facilities genuinely required is sporting facilities located in a rural location appropriate development providing it preserves the openness of the Green Belt could need parking facilities, changing and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. facilities, stadium facilities etc. All of this additional development will impact on the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt in the first place. Policy HG1 (Historic Gardens and Formal Landscapes): this policy seeks to The policy emphasises the importance of prevent development proposals which would have an adverse effect on the limiting the impact on Registered Historic “special” historic interest, appearance or setting of the parks and gardens Gardens and formal landscapes of identified in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. development adversely affecting them. This could include recreational uses and associated built development. Local Plan Chapter: Policy R1 (Protection of urban open spaces): Proposals that would result in Policy R1 seeks to retain open land in urban Leisure the loss of existing areas of important urban land (shown on the Local Plan areas which meets the recreational needs of proposals map) will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or the community. Some that may not have public can best be retained and enhanced through a redevelopment of a portion of the access but do contribute to the environmental site. quality will also be protected by this policy. For example; allotments, private playing fields, detached school playing fields and cemeteries and other privately owned amenity space.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 31 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study Local Plan Chapter: R3, (New Housing Developments will be required to include public open Policies R3, R4 and R5 set out specifically the Leisure space): the policy sets out that the minimum standard for open space provision open space/equipped play area requirements for new housing developments is 4.3ha per 1,000 population. for the Borough.

R4, (New Housing Developments will be required to allocate a minimum provision of public open space on site): open space provision for new

housing developments should be contained in one area and not spread throughout the development site. A capitalised maintenance payment will be sought by the Council for future site management.

R5 (Provision for play areas in new family house developments): sites

larger than 0.4ha or 15 units will require the provision of a Local Area for Play (LAP). Sites larger than 0.8ha or 50 units, in addition to LAP, will also require a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP).

R7 (Formal sports and leisure facilities): development which results in loss of Policy R7 provides protection for the existing a built sport or leisure facility available to the public will not be permitted unless a similar size replacement is provided or a smaller facility of greater recreational level of sports and leisure facilities within the value is retained on site. Borough. R8 (New developments for recreation use): development will be permitted for public or private recreation use except where it would result in significant Policies R8, R11 and R13 all seek to either environmental or highway problems or where it would conflict with other policies. improve access to sports / recreation facilities

R11 Recreation facilities in major commercial redevelopment schemes): or promote additions to the supply of these Local Plan Chapter: where appropriate, formal sports facilities will be sought as part of a scheme for facilities. Leisure the redevelopment of all or part of an identified employment/commercial area. If facilities cannot be provided on site then a contribution will be sought by means

of a planning obligation to the Council to provide new facilities.

R13 (Other specialist recreation facilities): use of land or water for specialised Local Plan Chapter: or organised activities will be permitted if: Leisure • adequate access and parking is provided • it will not harm character, agriculture etc of countryside

• it will not adversely affect amenities and safety of local residents/other users of countryside

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 32 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study Local Plan Chapter: Leisure R14 ( Rights of way and countryside recreation): the Council will safeguard and enhance the public rights of way network and recreational cycle routes, particularly by: 1. Supporting the Countryside Commission in its efforts to establish the Thames Path National Trail, and seek to prevent any encroachment of the Policies R14 looks at linear recreation facilities route by development in the form of public footpaths and riverside 2. Support establishment of the Green Way Recreational Route between trails. These are of particular importance for Cookham and Bray through: the study in regard of promoting the linkages - signposting and promoting the use of the Green Way between the other types of open space. - making the route accessible to all including the disabled and elderly - resist proposals which would affect enjoyment of route - encourage improved access and landscape enhancement to areas adjoining the route 3. Support development of circular walks Local Plan Chapter: Policy T7 (cycling): special provisions will be made for cyclists to: Policy T7 promotes the provision of cycle ways within the Borough. The study will look at the Transportation and • provide safe cycle routes, lanes etc linkages between sport and recreation facilities Movement • achieve the network of desirable cycle routes and this policy could help to provide additional • provide convenient and secure facilities particularly in town centres linkages. • improve cycle links to public transport facilities • ensure new development make provision where appropriate- for cyclists • consider cyclists needs to design and improvement of roads • strengthen links with Thames Valley Long Distance Cycle Route Local Plan Chapter: MTC 3 (Maidenhead Town Centre Leisure facilities): the loss of existing Policy MTC3 looks to promote (amongst other leisure facilities will be resisted and additional provision encouraged, within and things) leisure facilities within and adjoining Area based policies and adjoining the town centre in order to enhance its role as a focus for recreational, Maidenhead town centre. The explanatory text proposals entertainment, social and cultural activities. to the policy indicates that areas to the north of Saint-Cloud Way and around Bridge Street are considered to be particularly appropriate for this.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 33 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study Supplementary Planning The purpose of the SPG is to assist in the interpretation of the public open space Overview of documents purpose and main Guidance (SPG): policies of the Council’s Local Plan (July 1999). It provides no new policies of its points. Interpretation of policies own, but provides a greater level of detail for understanding the open space The SPG provides a greater degree of detail to R3, R4, R5 and (Public policies already contained in the Local Plan, concentrating on Policy R3. The enable developers to understand the Open Space Provision). guidance is area specific to provide greater certainty to residents and developers requirements for open space provision about requirements throughout the Borough. Adopted February 2003 throughout the Borough. (incorporating A general standard of 4.3ha of open space per 1,000 population has been amendments May 2004& adopted by the Council, which is considered a reasonable amount to February 2005) accommodate the spread of recreational demands of the local population. The 4.3ha should comprise the following categories:

• formal sports provision 1.8ha / 1000 population (pitches, courts, greens, tracks) • informal open spaces 2.5ha / 1000 population (passive recreation). In addition to the quantitative standard the Council has also adopted an accessibility standard of 400m and is based on the standards set by the National Playing Field Association (NPFA). RBWM Playing Pitch There are 238 playing pitches in the Borough. The strategy assesses the Recommendations for analysis areas include: Strategy (March 2007) provision of playing pitches (i.e. the playing surface, safety margins etc) and not Maidenhead: only 33.5% of pitches in the area playing fields or open spaces (i.e. grass or other areas not used for sport) within secured for community use – shortfall of 18.6 the Borough including those not (currently) available for community use. The pitches (specific demand for adult rugby and assessment is primarily concerned with voluntary participation by adults and cricket pitches and all forms of junior pitches) young people in competitive association football, cricket, rugby union and

hockey. Windsor and Eton: shortfall of junior grass pitches. Oversupply of STPs – focus on The study reveals an undersupply of facilities in relation to demand and improving quality of current grass pitches recommends all pitch sites to be afforded protection within the LDF. Pitch sites should not be developed unless it can be proved through the application of both Northern wards: slight oversupply of adult the playing pitch methodology and PPG17 that it is surplus to requirements and pitches which should meet the demand for not providing an important local amenity. junior pitches. Aim to increase percentage of non-community agreed sites. The document also recommends identifying opportunities to increase the number of community use agreements at school sites and a more efficient and Southern wards: main undersupply of junior effective use of recreational facilities and open spaces. football and adult rugby union. Oversupply of

STPs which should be used more.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 34 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study 52% of pitches are secured for community use although if school pitches are Overall undersupply of 27.4 pitches across the included, which are currently used but there is not formal agreement then this Borough – the main recommendation was increases to 73%. increasing community access and agreement to use school pitches. 1.18ha per 1,000 The supply of pitches is above the national average for football 1:1,509 (average population of playing pitches is recommended. 1:1,840), cricket 1:2,551 (average 1:4,243), and rugby union 1:2,976 (average 1:8,968). The projections for 2011 identify an oversupply of 9.3 adult football pitches, 7.1 adult rugby

pitches, and 11.3 hockey pitches. There will be an undersupply of 25.7 junior football pitches, 31.1 mini-soccer pitches, 14.5 cricket pitches, and 10.4 junior rugby pitches across the Borough. Across all pitch types, in 2011 Windsor will have an oversupply of 2.5 pitches, and all other areas an undersupply (northern wards 7.3 pitches, Maidenhead 24.9 pitches, southern wards 24.2 pitches). Planning Obligations and The SPD has been produced to provide advice to developers on how Overview of documents purpose. Developer Contributions contributions, in relation to their development, will be sought for facilities and SPD – Developers Guide infrastructure. Including recreation and leisure matters. (December 2005)

RBWM Play Strategy The document highlights the need for children to be physically active, ideally for Important to identify what improvements 2007-2010 at least 60 minutes per day, in an environment that provides the opportunity to envisaged within the Play Strategy have experience risk taking in play, without unacceptable danger. The experience actually been realised. A Play Partnership was should allow the individual to develop their problem-solving, social, language, set up to oversee the Action Plan. Key planning, construction, creativity, co-ordination, and negotiation skills (without an elements of this plan included: adult necessarily present). • appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 The National Childcare Strategy is promoting an initiative to open school to champion, co-ordinate and lead on the premises up during out-of-school hours so the facilities, including play items can play strategy (£80k) be used. • improve play provision in identified Through the Council’s Play Policy, attempts are being made to actively involve localities by June 2008 (£60k) and consult with a range of community groups.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 35 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Document Reviewed Summary Links to open space and green infrastructure study The RBWM Local Plan 1991-2006 stipulates a standard of 4.3ha per 1,000 • improve the play areas at Desborough population, to include 2.5ha of informal open spaces (which include equipped Park by April 2008 (£100k from S106) and unequipped children’s play spaces). The plan endorses the Fields in Trust standard, aiming to provide all residents with a play facility within 400m of their • provide a MUGA in Imperial Park by homes. December 2007 (£150k from S106) Between 1996-2006 the Borough has gained three open spaces, four open • installation of floodlights at Vansittart Skate spaces and play areas, 18 teenscenes, three play areas and teenscenes, and Park by January 2008 (£25k YOF grant by seven play areas. Within the same period one open space, one play area and SK8) teenscene and one separate play area has been lost. • sessional community play rangers by July The areas that are prioritised for improved play space are Old Windsor, Eton 2007 (£42k) Wick, Sunninghill and Ascot, and Bray. • play ranger/officer to develop the school sports partnership to allow for ‘free play’ by September 2008 (£35K) While play areas need to offer a range of equipment and diversity of activity, the number of play sites and their accessibility should also be explored, especially in the rural wards. A review of this strategy will be required in light of the PPG17 findings.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 36 SECTION 3 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Summary and conclusions

3.34 The provision of open spaces, sport and recreation facilities contributes to the achievement of wider governmental objectives such as social and community cohesion, urban renaissance and promoting a healthy and enjoyable life. Any development of open spaces (ie provision of either new or enhancement of existing spaces) should take into account bio-diversity and nature conservation opportunities and develop an increasing environmental awareness, as well as facilitating increased opportunities to participate in sport and active recreation.

3.35 Many organisations are willing to work in partnership together to manage and develop existing open spaces and share similar aims and objectives eg protecting, enhancing and maximising usage and nature conservation value of open spaces. The importance of enhancing biodiversity across the region as well as maintaining and improving the green network is a key feature of many regional strategies.

3.36 Points emerging from the strategic review that are integral to the development of this open space study for the Borough include:

• improvements and continuing enhancement of the local environment are an important feature of the region, providing a tool to achieve many wide-ranging issues impacting on health levels as well as increasing the well-being of residents, workers and visitors

• housing developments and geographical allocations driven by national planning policies, and employment land allocations will have a direct impact on open space, sport and recreation provision and sustainability. High population growth will place increasing demands on existing open spaces as well as generating higher needs for recreational open space provision

• a large amount of the Borough is designated Green Belt and there is a large emphasis on protecting this area and ensuring sufficient green corridors are provided.

3.37 In summary, this review of strategic documents highlights the local importance of maintaining and improving open space sites within the Borough. This local needs study and resulting strategy will contribute to achieving the wider aims of a number of local and national agencies.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 37

SECTION 4

PARKS AND GARDENS SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Parks and gardens

Introduction and definition

4.1 This type of open space (as defined by PPG17) includes urban parks, formal gardens and country parks that provide opportunities for various informal recreation and community events, within settlement boundaries.

4.2 Parks often contain a variety of facilities and amenities, including some that fall within different classifications of open space, eg children’s play facilities, sport pitches and wildlife areas. For classification purposes, the different open spaces within parks have been separated according to the PPG17 typology under which they most appropriately fall.

4.3 Large green areas, footpaths, lakes and less dense woodland will provide the park area (total hectares) and the other facilities will be calculated separately under their own classification. This ensures that open space sites are not counted twice within the PPG17 assessment.

4.4 While parks (and other open spaces where appropriate) are subdivided in order to reflect the specific facilities within the site, the multifaceted nature of these facilities should also be recognised. In many instances, it is the variety and type of facility available at the site that attracts visitors.

4.5 Parks provide a sense of place for the local community and help to address social inclusion issues within wider society. According to the recently published Park Life Report (June 2007), 83% of those questioned feel that parks are a focal point of community life. Parks also provide an important recreational resource, and many residents enjoy visiting parks to walk or to undertake more physical exercise.

4.6 The Active People Survey (updated 2008) reveals that walking is the most popular recreational activity for people in England. Over eight million adults aged 16 and over did a recreational walk for at least 30 minutes in the last four weeks. Provision of parks therefore represents a key opportunity to increase levels of physical activity across the local population and to subsequently address health inequalities.

4.7 In addition to the recreational opportunities provided by parks, these large green spaces provide structural and landscaping benefits to the surrounding local area. They also frequently offer ecological benefits, particularly in more urban areas. The provision of parks to break up urban landscapes is becoming increasingly important, particularly in light of growing fears regarding climate change and the role that provision of green space can play in reducing this impact. Raymill Island (ID 279)

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 38

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.8 Larger facilities tend to attract users from a wider catchment than the smaller parks and tend to have a higher local profile. The main strategic and publicly accessible park within the Borough is Windsor Great Park. Consultation highlighted the value of this site and the adjacent Long Walk both to local residents and also to those living further afield. However, it is important to note that for the purposes of this study Windsor Great Park has been categorised within the natural and semi-natural green space typology due to the fact that the majority of the site is grassland and therefore has more natural and semi natural, as opposed to park features.

4.9 As detailed in Section 2, the multi functionality of some types of open space can present a challenge during the audit process, therefore in addition to Windsor Great Park there are a number of other sites in the borough that could be perceived to be within the park and gardens typology but based on their primary purpose have been classified as an amenity greenspace, outdoor sports facilities or natural and semi- natural greenspace. The inter-relationships between different types of open space are therefore considered where appropriate throughout this and other relevant sections.

Context

4.10 There are no specific standards relating to the quantity of parks and gardens in the Borough and no specific Borough-wide park strategy. The key issues for parks and garden sites arising from a review of strategic documents are set out below:

• Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces (2002) is a review by the Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions which identified the importance of parks within urban green spaces. Key barriers to use included poor condition of facilities, safety and environmental concerns. Access is also a major concern of many people and should be considered by any urban planner

• Heritage Lottery Funding (HLF) and Section 106 Agreements were seen as the most valuable external sources for capital development. In most cases private sponsorship is not significant. Evidence has been put forward to suggest that environmental enhancement not only makes places more attractive and pleasant, but that green space initiatives can result in community strengthening and local economic stimulation, as well as improvement to local environmental quality

• The Use of Public Parks in England (2003), produced by Sport England, identified that those people belonging to lower social economic groups were less likely to use public parks. This was similar with ethnic minorities and disabled groups

• The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead conduct an annual Analysis of Parks and Open Space Usage and Satisfaction. Oaken Grove Park has consistently proven one of the most popular parks in the Borough.

• the annual Park Survey conducted by the Borough reported:

- for both 2006 and 2007 60% of respondents indicated that they walk to parks

- in 2007, 77% of respondents indicated that they use the parks, a significant rise from 65% in 2006

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 39

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

- from 2003-07 there is a consistent pattern indicating that the most popular reasons for using parks are to take children to play (23% in 2007) and for exercise (17% in 2007)

- the average length of visit has fallen over the past few years. Possible reasons for this are that respondents indicated that they feel less safe while at parks because of teenage behaviour and the control of dogs

- the perceived quality of toilet provision has fallen between 2006 and 2007

- quality perceptions of cleanliness, cut grass, flowers, car parking, play areas, seats and bins, and signage have all risen

- overall the report identifies that there are just under 10 million visits per annum.

Consultation

4.11 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted the following key issues:

• household survey findings indicated that parks and gardens were perceived to be particularly important to local residents, both in the rural and the urban areas. Parks were also a key theme of the drop-in sessions, with residents generally satisfied with provision, particularly in the larger urban settlements

• parks and gardens are one of the most frequently used types of open space within the Borough, with 65% of respondents to the household survey indicating that they use them at least once a month. Only 8% of respondents indicated that they never visit parks at all

• 50% of young people indicated through the internet survey that parks were their favourite type of open space, meaning that parks were the most popular of all typologies. The range of facilities and amenities offered in parks was a particularly attractive feature, as well as being a place that was free and easy to access. However, it is likely that in some instances, young children referred to parks but were also thinking about play areas

• the wider benefits of parks are far reaching, and it is evident that many residents use parks for informal recreation and walks, reinforcing the health benefits that these spaces offer. In addition, parks were also perceived to offer significant landscaping and environmental benefits, particularly within the urban area of Maidenhead and Windsor. Parks were also seen as a focal point of the community, encouraging social interaction and acting as a meeting place for the old and the young.

PG1 Maximise the role that parks can play in increasing participation in health and physical activity across the Borough by effectively promoting these opportunities.

Consider the provision of alternative means of exercise such as health walks, outdoor gyms and trim trails.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 40

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Quantity of existing provision

4.12 The provision of parks and gardens across the Borough is summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Provision of parks and gardens across the Borough Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current per 1,000 population (hectares) sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (Hectares) Projected population (2026) Provision (hectares) per 1,000 population (2026)

Maidenhead 24.33 0.57 10 0.20 5.28 48,677 0.50

Windsor and Eton 7.99 0.24 6 0.37 3.18 37,075 0.22

Northern wards 3.52 0.02 1 0.62 0.62 28,808 0.02

Southern wards 2.92 0.11 3 0.05 2.77 33,092 0.09

Overall 38.76 0.27 20 0.05 5.28 147,652 0.24

4.13 The key issues emerging from Table 4.1 and consultations (primarily the household survey but also considers drop-in sessions and internal consultations) relating to the quantity of provision of parks and gardens across the Borough include:

• 61% of respondents to the household survey stated that the quantity of parks and gardens in the Borough is about right. However, a significant proportion of respondents (32%) also felt there was an undersupply

• across the individual analysis areas, the overarching perception is that the provision of parks and gardens is about right, with the majority of household survey respondents indicating this in each of the four analysis areas. The highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards, where 67% of respondents felt that provision was about right. In contrast, the lowest levels of satisfaction were in the Northern wards, where 22% believed there was not enough provision and a further 15% identified a slight shortfall. This is reflected in the lack of formal park and garden provision in this part of the borough

• the proximity of Windsor Great Park to residents in Windsor and those in the Southern wards has a key impact on overall levels of satisfaction as expressed through the household survey. Whilst listed in the audit as a natural and semi-natural site due to its ecological benefits, Windsor Great Park also offers extensive features associated with parks. Windsor and Eton residents recorded the second highest levels of satisfaction, proving the impact such an accessible open space can have.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 41

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

• the highest level of current provision is in Maidenhead, which has 24.33 ha equating to 0.50 ha per 1,000 population by 2026. Levels of satisfaction as expressed through the household survey are average for this analysis area and greater emphasis needs to be focussed on ensuring residents from the Northern wards have access to the significant number of sites in Maidenhead.

Setting provision standards – quantity

4.14 The recommended local quantity standard for parks and gardens has been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix I.

Quantity Standard (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

0.27 ha per 1,000 population 0.27 ha per 1,000 population

Justification Parks are perceived to be particularly important to local residents. There is a greater level of satisfaction regarding the provision of parks than there is for most other types of open space.

Variations in the level of satisfaction suggest that there may be some locational deficiencies in the distribution of parks and gardens.

When benchmarked against other similar local authorities (Appendix K), the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has a significant supply of parks and gardens which is supported by several natural and semi natural sites that have park features. The standard set ensures that all current sites are protected and the focus shifts to ensuring residents have the best possible access to these existing sites.

Windsor Great Park has been omitted from the quantitative calculations due to its natural and semi natural features and ecological benefits it provides to the area. However, it is perceived by many residents as a park and is used regularly. As it is an extremely large strategic site serving the needs of residents across Windsor and Eton and the Southern wards it is unrealistic to consider the quantitative supply of the park typology exclusively in these analysis areas.

Consideration has been given to the important role of the urban parks in the Maidenhead analysis area. It is vital that a high quality of provision is ensured if these sites are to justify being protected. When addressing the undersupply of parks in the Northern wards it is important to consider how the features of natural and semi natural and amenity green space areas can replicate many park features. For example, if certain sites such as the Maidenhead Thicket can be maintained so that, where appropriate, in places they offer similar features to parks, then satisfaction in the Northern wards should improve.

PG2 Identify natural and semi natural areas in the Northern wards analysis area that can be developed to offer levels of access and features associated with parks.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 42

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Current provision - quality

4.15 The quality of existing parks and gardens in the Borough was assessed through site visits. Key findings are summarised in Table 4.2. Detailed comments from each site assessment can be found in the Access database that accompanies this study. It is important to note that site assessments are conducted as a snapshot in time and are therefore reflective of the quality of the site on one specific day.

4.16 The quality scores are weighted according to the findings of the local consultation. Those elements that were highlighted through consultation as being a particularly important determinant of the quality of a park have been weighted higher. This ensures that they have a greater influence on the overall quality score that each site achieves. The full rationale behind this approach is set out in Appendix L.

4.17 The Green Flag Award is a national standard for parks and greenspace and provides a benchmark of excellence in recreational green areas. In 2008, Kidwells Park (ID 241) received Green Flag accreditation. The aim for the Council is to achieve this award for six parks across the Borough over the next two years.

Table 4.2 – Quality of parks and gardens across the Borough Geographical area Geographical sites of Number scores of quality Range (%) (%) scores quality Average sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest

Maidenhead 10 74 - 100 89.6 Grenfell Park Kidwells Park (ID 239) (ID 241), Raymill Island (ID 279)

Windsor and Eton 6 50 - 92 78.4 Duke Street Bachelors Acre Communal Open Space Garden (ID 41) (ID 47)

Northern wards 1 74 74.0

Walgrove Gardens (ID 340)

Southern wards 3 68 - 86 78.0 Broomhall Rec Datchet Village Ground (ID Green (ID 10) 433)

Overall 20 50 - 100 84.1 Duke Street Kidwells Park Communal (ID 241), Garden (ID 41) Raymill Island (ID 279)

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 43

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.18 The key issues emerging from Table 4.2 and the consultation relating to the quality of parks and gardens are:

• results from the household survey show a split in opinion regarding the quality of parks and gardens. 64% of respondents feel the quality of this typology is good and 34% feel the quality is average. Only 2% of respondents feel that the quality of park and garden provision is poor. The overall perception from the drop-in consultations regarding quality of parks was generally positive, especially in the urban areas

• the lowest scoring analysis area on average was the Northern wards. This area also has the second lowest quantity supply of parks and a significant shortfall based on the local standard. Respondents from the Northern wards also reported the lowest satisfaction scores in the household survey with only 47% identifying parks as good, and with 49% of respondents suggesting this open space is average and 3% that it is poor

• general comments from the household survey regarding the quality of parks and gardens revolved around a lack of parking (particularly in Maidenhead), litter problems and the need for more bins, particularly to tackle dog fouling. It was also felt that not enough policing and enforcement of rules were carried out when it came to dog fouling, vandalism and graffiti in parks

• the highest scoring area was Maidenhead with two sites scoring ‘very good’ for each quality criteria (cleanliness and maintenance, security and safety, vegetation, ancillary accommodation) through the site assessments

• the site assessment quality scores for the parks that the Council wish to achieve Green Flag status over the next two years are detailed below. Comments are provided that identify areas for improvements:

- Desborough Park, ID 235 (92%) – small amount of graffiti on trees and some litter

- Oaken Grove Park, ID 303 (86%) – dog fouling issues, grass worn on pitches

- Braywick Park, ID 255 (82%) – evidence of overuse of pitches

- Kidwells Park, ID 241 (100%) – excellent condition

- Clewer Memorial Park, ID 154 (74%) – benefit from lighting and benches.

Setting provision standards – quality

4.19 The recommended local quality standard for parks and gardens is summarised overleaf. Full justifications and consultation relating to the quality of provision for the local standard is provided within Appendix L. In order to produce applicable, objective quality standards, in conjunction with the Council a list of essential and desirable characteristics that parks and gardens sites should comprise were agreed. This provides a tool for future quality assessments.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 44

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Quality standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – PARKS AND GARDENS

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential to local residents and should be reflected in the quality of parks and garden provision in the Borough.

Essential features: Desirable features:

Clean and well maintained Nature/ biodiversity/ conservation features

Flowers/ trees and shrubs Parking on-site

Well kept grass

Achieve Green Flag status

Accessibility

4.20 42% of respondents to the household survey use parks and gardens more frequently than any other typology in the Borough. Of these respondents, most (52%) walk to this type of open space, with 36% indicating they travel by car.

4.21 Household survey results indicated that typical travel times to parks and gardens were split between 5 and 10 minutes (36%), 11 and 15 minutes (27%) and less than 5 minutes (22%).

Setting provision standards – accessibility

4.22 The accessibility of sites is paramount in maximising usage. The recommended local standard is set in the form of a distance threshold and is derived directly from the findings of the local consultation.

4.23 Site specific accessibility issues were also analysed as part of the programme of site visits where information and signage, transport and general issues were assessed.

4.24 Consultation and analysis has shown that the key issues with regards accessibility are:

• based on the household survey findings there is a preference for walking to local parks and gardens, both in terms of current travel patterns and expectations for the future. Across the individual analysis areas similar results are revealed, with the majority of household respondents in all areas stating walking as the preferred method of travel. However, in the more rural Northern analysis area a significantly higher proportion of residents (37%) indicate a preference to travel by car to access this type of open space

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 45

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

• the 75th percentile response borough-wide shows that household respondents are willing to travel for 15 minutes on foot to access this typology, with the modal response being 10 minutes. This 75th percentile figure is consistent across all of the analysis areas, with the exception of the rural Northern wards (analysis area 3), where 20 minutes was recorded, indicating that respondents expect to have to walk further to reach parks and gardens

• for those who prefer to travel by car, the 75th percentile of household respondents would be willing to travel for up to 15 minutes to access a park or garden in the Borough, with the modal response time being 10 minutes

• consultation with officers highlighted that several parks are both poorly located and poorly served by public transport links. For example, it was felt that Grenfell Park in Maidenhead had limited access due to dual carriageways and railway lines and that there was insufficient open space networks to link these sites with the town centre.

PG3 Consider the location of both walking routes and public transport links when identifying the appropriate location for the future provision of parks and gardens across the Borough. Additionally, attempts should be made to improve access to public parks.

4.25 The recommended local accessibility standard for parks and gardens is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix M.

Accessibility Standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard

10 MINUTE WALK TIME (480 METRES) – URBAN

10 MINUTE DRIVE TIME - RURAL

Justification

Consultation illustrates an emphasis in favour of walking to local parks and gardens both in terms of current travel patterns and aspirations of local residents.

The standard for urban areas is set at 10 minutes walk time to local parks and gardens. This reflects the modal response of 10 minutes from the main urban analysis area ie Maidenhead. The modal response for the Windsor and Eton analysis area (ie the other urban area in the Borough) was 5 minutes. Whilst, the 75th percentile for the urban area is 15 minutes it was agreed that 10 minutes is a more suitable and aspirational local standard. A 10 minute walk time for urban areas is also in line with benchmarking with other similar local authorities. This still leaves gaps in provision across the Borough but it is important that open space opportunities are exploited where natural and semi natural and amenity green space can offer park features.

Given that parks tend to be larger more strategic facilities offering a range of activities it would not be realistic to expect this type of facility within a walking time or within each village in rural areas, therefore a drive time of 10 minutes has been set based on the findings from the household survey. The 75th percentile threshold for all those that prefer to drive to parks overall is 15 minutes but the 75th percentile is 10 minutes in both of the rural analysis areas (ie Northern and Southern wards). This means that setting the rural local The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 46

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

standard at 10 minutes rather than the overall 75th percentile of 15 minutes is more directly applicable to local expectations ie those living in the rural areas of the Borough. The standard is therefore aspirational but should realistically be achieved.

Setting separate accessibility standards is reflective of the fact the current quantity of provision is deemed to be satisfactory. All those within the urban areas of Maidenhead and Windsor and Eton should be able to access a park within a 10 minute walk time, which is reflective of consultation findings. It is suggested that the Council should be pursuing improvements to the accessibility of the urban parks for rural residents (such as public transport networks or cycleways etc), offering an approach that facilitates the use of high quality sites and increases their value to all residents.

Setting a standard at this level will enable the Council to identify areas that do not have sufficient access to sites and explore the opportunities of investing in other typologies to provide park-style facilities. The standards will also be representative of resident’s propensity for travel to this typology and ensure that any relocation of current sites enhance the value of this open space. *a straight-line distance of 720m has been used rather than the pedestrian distance of 1200m. This is based on average walking distances reduced by a factor of 40% to account for the fact that people do not walk in straight lines. The 40% factoring is based on the approach set out in the FIT Six Acre Standard.

Applying provision standards

4.26 The application of the recommended quantity, quality and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of open space and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need.

4.27 The quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance. Applying the standards together is a more meaningful method of analysis than applying the standards separately.

4.28 The future level of provision required across the Borough to satisfy the local quantity standard is summarised in Table 4.3. Areas of under provision are shown as negatives and areas of surplus are shown as positives.

Table 4.3 – Application of quantity standard

Future provision (2026) in hectares balanced against local standard Analysis areas (0.27 hectares per 1,000 population)

Maidenhead 11.27

Windsor and Eton -1.97

Northern wards -7.11

Southern wards -5.96

Overall -3.76 Green = above the standard, Red = below the standard

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 47

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.29 The key headlines in relation to the quantity of provision are:

• the local quantity standard has been set at the overall current level of provision. Due to projected population increase for 2026 it is predicted that there will be an aggregated shortfall of 3.76 ha per 1,000 population

• when comparing the projected 2026 provision per 1,000 population against the local standard of 0.27, only provision in Maidenhead (11.27 ha per 1,000) exceeds the minimum level of provision. The remaining three analysis areas all show provision being below the minimum recommended level, with the greatest being in the Southern wards analysis area, resulting in an overall deficiency of 5.96 ha in 2026.

4.30 Whilst this table provides a starting point for the quantitative application of the local standards, it is particularly important to consider the spatial location of parks and their geographical relationships to one another. As the household survey indicates, parks are major facilities that may attract a significant proportion of their users from across the authority and potentially from outside of the borough.

4.31 The application of the local accessibility standards for parks and gardens is set out in Figure 4.1.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 48

SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Figure 4.1 - Provision of parks and gardens in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study page 49 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.32 As can be seen in Figure 4.1, application of the local accessibility standard (for the rural area) indicates that the majority of residents living outside of the main towns of Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton are within the recommended 10-minute drive-time of a park and garden site. The main urban areas where residents cannot access a park within the recommended 10 minute drive-time are the Cookham area, and the Holyport/ Fifield/ Oakley Green areas.

4.33 In contrast, there are significantly higher expectations in the urban area of the town and there are numerous residents outside of the recommended catchment area (10 minute walk) of a park and garden site.

4.34 Figure 4.2 demonstrates that there is insufficient access in the north and west of the Maidenhead analysis area. This could be due to the high density of residential housing in these areas. When the distribution of natural and semi natural and amenity green spaces is also considered there is good coverage, especially when consideration is also given to several outdoor sport facilities that have an informal, community use.

4.35 The emphasis in the Maidenhead analysis area is therefore to improve the quality and accessibility of other typologies so that areas that are not currently within a 10 minute walk time of parks or garden sites have access to other open spaces with facilities that might typically be found in parks.

Figure 4.2 – Provision of parks and gardens in Maidenhead analysis area

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study page 50 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.36 Figure 4.3 displays the layout of parks and gardens within the Windsor and Eton analysis area. The main residential areas that do not have access to a park or garden within the recommended 10 minute walk time are Water Oakley, Eton Wick, Eton, and between Bolton Road, Kings Road, and Frances Road in Windsor. Again when natural and semi natural and amenity green spaces are considered, all residential areas are provided for (see paragraph 4.44 for more information). This is partly due to the significant size and strategic location of Windsor Great Park (categorised as a natural and semi-natural greenspace) which attracts visitors not only from across the analysis area but also from outside of the Borough boundaries.

Figure 4.3 - Provision of parks and gardens in Windsor and Eton analysis area

10 min drivetime catchment (rural)

10 min walk catchment (urban)

Applying the quantity, quality and accessibility standards

4.37 The recommended local quantity standard is equal to the current level of provision across the Borough. This ensures that all current parks are protected from development. Levels of satisfaction are relatively high across the Borough compared to other open space typologies. The only areas where residents specifically implied that shortfalls existed were to the north of Maidenhead and around Cookham.

4.38 The distribution of sites is reasonably even with the exception of east Maidenhead where several catchment areas overlap while the north and west of Maidenhead has a relatively low level of provision. There is also a significant residential area to the south west of Maidenhead. Although much of this is outside of the Maidenhead analysis area there is still a high residential density with few other open spaces to mitigate against provision being below the minimum level of provision.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study page 51 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

PG4 Given the low number of sites within the Borough, all park and garden sites should be afforded protection in line with Local Plan Policy R1 (Protection of urban open spaces).

4.39 The quality of parks is predominantly good, with only four sites (Grenfell, Bath Island Pleasure Ground, Duke Street Communal Garden and Walgrove Gardens) achieving scores below 80% following the site visits. In light of the low numbers of parks and the value placed on parks, the quality of these sites should be maintained and any sites not reaching the quality vision be improved.

4.40 Given that the quantity shortfalls exist in the Southern and Northern ward analysis areas it is suggested that the focus is on qualitative improvements to sites to meet the recommended local quality standard.

PG5 Strive to achieve the recommended quality standard at all sites across the Borough and target improvements at sites where quality does not reach this level.

4.41 As highlighted, Windsor Great Park is a focal point for both residents of the Borough and visitors travelling into the Borough. As well as acting as a key strategic site, the park also meets the local needs of some residents living within the Southern wards. The quality of this site is covered further in Section 5, although it should be noted that the quality score is fairly low at 62% with issues over litter and lighting most prominent.

4.42 In light of the importance of the park to residents and the role of the park in both local community life and attracting visitors to the area, a Royal Borough Park strategic framework should be produced, which includes the following principles:

• continue to liaise with the Crown Estate over Windsor Great Park to provide a public green space and recreational resource of regional significance

• achieve sufficient quality of provision to promote the park as a national example of best practice in park design and management

• develop a sustainable approach to the evolution of the park to secure its long term role at the heart of Windsor for future generations

• fully integrate the park with any future redevelopment of Windsor town centre to improve the spatial and visual relationship between the two and maximise benefit for the park from this relationship..

PG6 Continue to liaise with the Crown Estate over Windsor Great Park to ensure that it meets both local and regional needs and is afforded protection from adverse development proposals in line with Local Plan Policy HG1 (Historic Gardens and Formal Landscapes) . Promote the park as a resource for local people and an example of good practice regionally.

4.43 Residents placed an emphasis on the need for local parks and hence a challenging accessibility standard of 10 minutes walk (480m) was set.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study page 52 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.44 Figure 4.4 illustrates the provision of parks in the context of amenity space and natural and semi natural open space in the Borough. The presence of amenity green space and natural and semi natural open space in areas deficient of parks provide an opportunity to introduce more formal park like features within these spaces and better meet the needs of local residents. Examples are provided later in this section. It should be noted that these are examples for consideration only and that other sites may also be appropriate (or more appropriate).

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study page 53 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Figure 4.4 - Provision of amenity green space, natural and semi natural areas, and parks and gardens

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study 54 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.45 As detailed in para 4.9, amenity green space fulfils many of the same roles as parks. Where parks are provided within a 10-minute walk time catchment (the recommended distance threshold for amenity space – set in Section 6) they may negate the need for further provision of amenity space (as a higher order facility they provide a greater range of facilities). This is discussed in Section 6.

4.46 Application of the quantitative and accessibility standards highlights the highest deficiency of parks is in the rural south and north of the Borough. The greatest current quantitative deficiencies (-6.21 and -4.24ha respectively) can also be found in these areas. Whilst there is formal park provision in the south of the borough, such as at Nell Gwynn Memorial Garden (ID 413) and Broomhall Lane (ID 433) it is also important to consider sites such as Victory Field Recreation Ground (ID 409), which also provides informal recreation opportunities to local residents but for the purpose of this study has been classified as an outdoor sport facility based on its primary purpose.

Figure 4.5 South of the Borough

4.47 The obvious place to locate a new park would be in the Cookham and Bisham area. Figure 4.6 identifies the area that currently lies outside of the accessibility catchment area. Possible existing sites within this area that could be formalised to offer park features (such as additional bin, benches, paved paths and other features in line with the recommended standard) include Westbrook AGS (ID 378).

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study Page 55 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

4.48 Pocket parks are growing in popularity across many local authorities as they provide park amenities in a compact and accessible setting. These sites are often amenity green spaces that are redeveloped to offer features common with parks yet are often owned and managed by local residents and associations. Their purpose can often be to protect and conserve local wildlife, heritage and landscape and can subsequently take on features that bear similarities to natural and semi natural sites, being as small as 0.02ha. A scheme that actively promotes pocket parks can deliver social and economic benefits to a local community and engage residents with their open space. This may be suitable in areas of the Borough where new park provision is being considered.

Figure 4.6 North east of the Borough

ID 378

Westbrook

AGS

PG7 Investigate opportunities for providing at least one additional park within each of the Northern and Southern wards through the formalisation of an existing amenity green space. The new park should encompass the recommendations set out within the recommended quality standard. A possible location in the Northern area is Westbrook AGS.

PG8 Identify levels of resident interest in establishing a pocket park scheme, managed by local resident associations. Pocket parks should be prioritised in locations that are currently outside of park accessibility catchment areas and where residents have easy and direct access to sites.

4.49 Windsor is also deficient in parks. Although the provision of amenity green space is lower in this area (see Figure 4.7), there remain several opportunities to formalise amenity green space. Due to the significant size of Windsor Great Park any new development does not need to be substantial in size and could be a formal urban garden.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study Page 56 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Figure 4.7 Windsor

PG9 Consider the re-designation of surplus amenity green space to formal parks and garden sites within Windsor or Eton in order to meet identified deficiencies in the provision of parks within these areas of the borough.

4.50 While there is little quantitative provision of formal parks within the rural area, provision is not considered to be a priority in light of potential access to larger central sites on the boundaries of urban areas. The focus for investment in rural areas will be discussed later in this report. However, in light of the assumption that rural residents must travel to access formal parks, improvements to public transport links should be prioritised where possible in order to facilitate this. This is important in both the rural and urban areas and is reinforced through recommendation PG2.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study Page 57 SECTION 4 – PARKS AND GARDENS

Summary

4.51 Parks and gardens were perceived to be particularly important to local residents, both in the rural and urban areas and were one of the most frequently used types of open space within the Borough, with 65% of respondents to the household survey indicating that they use them more than once a month. Only 8% of respondents indicated that they never visit parks at all. Parks were also a key theme of the drop-in sessions. The wider benefits of parks were also recognised by residents.

4.52 The quality of parks and gardens varies across the Borough, with quality scores ranging from 50-100%. Windsor Great Park attracts both the local community and residents from far afield although requires further attention to bring it up to an accepted quality standard.

4.53 Although the importance of maintaining the high quality of the existing park stock is recognised, application of the accessibility standards highlights some key deficiencies in provision particularly in the rural Northern and Southern wards. In light of the emphasis placed on access to local formal parks by residents, addressing these deficiencies is considered to be a priority for action.

4.54 It is important to note that deficiencies will increase most rapidly in the areas that will see the greatest level of growth under the LDF. In almost all areas, formalising existing amenity or natural areas can address the identified shortfalls.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study Page 58

SECTION 5

NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Natural and semi natural open space

Introduction and definition

5.1 This type of open space includes woodlands, urban forestry, scrubland, grasslands (eg downlands, commons, meadows), wetlands, nature reserves and wastelands with a primary purpose of wildlife conservation and bio-diversity within the settlement boundaries. Natural and semi natural open space can frequently be found within other open space types, and in some instances there may be some sites classified as amenity green space or parks that play a similar role to natural and semi natural open space sites. This serves to highlight the overlap between typologies. In particular, natural and semi natural sites often offer important opportunities for play.

5.2 In line with PPG17, larger sites that sit outside of settlement boundaries have been excluded from the audit and calculations. However, it is important to consider the role that these sites play in alleviating deficiencies and providing resources for both residents and wildlife. This is particularly pertinent in the Borough, where 83% of the Borough is Green Belt and given the significance of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

5.3 Although natural and semi natural open space plays a key role in wildlife conservation and biodiversity, the recreational opportunities provided by these spaces are also important. In this respect, natural and semi natural open spaces play a similar role and function to that of amenity green space and parks and gardens. It is essential that a balance between recreational use and biodiversity and conservation is achieved.

5.4 This section outlines the strategic context and key consultation findings relating to natural and semi natural open space within the Borough, with the conclusion of this section being the development of local standards. These local standards are applied in the context of existing provision, with due consideration to the provision of parks and amenity green space (which can fulfil similar roles).

Context

5.5 The key issues for natural and semi natural open spaces arising from a review of strategic documents are:

• National England standards recommend that all residents should have access to a natural green space within 300 metres of their homes. There should be at least one 20 ha site within two kilometres of all homes. The Rethinking Open Space Report indicates that on average there is 2 ha per 1,000 population across local authorities in the UK

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 59 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

• the RBWM Local Plan (2003) states the loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme

• the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) is safeguarded by the European Union Birds Directive EC/79/409 and was designated to protect its population of rare birds (Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler). The TBHSPA affects 13 local authority areas and covers an area of 8,274 ha across Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire

• a strategy to protect the population of designated bird species in these areas from disturbance is currently being developed jointly by the South East England Regional Assembly and the affected local authorities. The strategy indicates that whilst residential development within 400m of designated SPAs would not be appropriate, between 400m and 5km of an SPA residential development may be appropriate subject to the impact of additional population on the SPA being effectively mitigated against. For the RBWM the 5km zone affects the parishes of Old Windsor (part of) Sunninghill and Sunningdale.

• a key part of the strategy to mitigate against the impact consists of the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The areas of land designated as SANG would be required to have specific characteristics and also be located so as to either attract or intercept visitors who would otherwise have gone to the SPA

• the Council is aspiring to develop a network of SANG. The size and location of SANG is therefore very important to enable it to effectively perform this function. The Natural England standard is 8ha of SANG per 1,000 additional population. However, it should be noted that this would only be an issue for the southern parishes of the Borough covering the settlements of Ascot, South Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale and this will be incorporated into a separate Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that targets specifically these affected areas.

Consultation

5.6 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted the following key issues relating to natural and semi natural open space:

• 31% of respondents to the household survey indicated that natural and semi natural open spaces are the open space type which they use most frequently. Within this group of users, 55% prefer to access natural and semi natural open spaces on foot. Preferred travel times were evenly split between five, 10 and 15 minutes

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 60 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

• in addition to the recreational value of natural resources, household survey respondents also stated that they recognise the wider benefits of natural open spaces, particularly in terms of providing opportunities for biodiversity and habitat creation. It was felt particularly in rural areas that linkages between sites is poor and that a strategic plan is required to ensure that public rights of way provide clear access to natural and semi natural areas

• the lowest levels of satisfaction were in the Northern wards and Maidenhead. 38% of household survey respondents in both these analysis areas highlighted that there were insufficient quantity levels of natural and semi natural open spaces.

Quantity of existing provision

5.7 The provision of natural and semi natural open space in the Borough is summarised in Table 5.1. As detailed in Section 4, Windsor Great Park has been deemed to have sufficient ecological and natural features to be classed within this typology although its opportunities to provide features similar to parks is recognised later in this section.

5.8 The projections of likely provision by 2026 assume that the quantity of natural and semi natural open space will remain constant until 2026.

Table 5.1 – Provision of natural and semi natural open space across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current per 1,000 population (hectares) sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) per Provision (ha) 1,000 population (2026) Maidenhead 177.59 4.14 7 0.34 104.28 48,677 3.65 Windsor and Eton 171.37 5.15 16 0.05 130.62 37,075 4.62 Northern wards 305.62 9.67 12 0.62 117.67 28,808 10.61 Southern wards 54.81 2.12 13 0.60 12.34 33,092 1.66 Overall 709.39 5.31 48 0.05 130.62 147,652 4.80

5.9 The key issues emerging from Table 5.1 and consultations relating to the quantity of provision of natural and semi natural open space across the Borough are:

• based on the findings of the household survey, 62% of respondents feel that the provision of natural and semi-natural open space is adequate/more than adequate and 34% feel there is nearly enough/not enough provision, highlighting a split in opinion. The most common response (52%) is that provision is about right

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 61 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

• across the individual analysis areas it is evident that the highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards, where 73% of household survey respondents feel provision is about right/more than enough. This is surprising as this analysis area has the lowest level of provision. The accessibility and size of Windsor Great Park may have affected perceptions. The lowest levels of satisfaction can be found in Maidenhead and the Northern wards, where 38% of respondents in both analysis areas feel provision is insufficient. This highlights a mixed satisfaction level between the rural and urban analysis areas. While rural areas will generally contain higher quantities of natural and semi natural open spaces there may be issues with regard quality or accessibility that are influencing residents perceptions

• consultations identified the need to protect existing natural and semi natural areas and ensure public access is provided wherever possible, especially around the Crown Estate and National Trust land. It was also mentioned that churches in rural areas are providing successful wildlife habitats that should be maintained and protected

• there are currently 48 natural and semi natural open spaces in the Borough. The overall level of provision is currently 709.39 hectares, producing an average site of 14.77 hectares per open space. The size of sites ranges significantly – with some sites as small as 0.05 hectares (Keepers Farm Close South, ID 104) whilst others are as large as 130.62 hectares (Windsor Great Park, ID 77). This can be explained by the broad nature of this typology

• as shown in Table 5.1, there is a large variety in terms of both the number of sites and the level of provision per 1,000 population. The largest number of sites is in the Windsor and Eton analysis area (16), whilst the smallest number is in the Maidenhead analysis area (7)

• the Southern wards have significantly less natural and semi natural open space than the other analysis areas. Despite this, satisfaction levels are relatively high, indicating that accessibility to sites such as Windsor Great Park may be good compared to access to sites in the northern settlements of the Borough.

Setting provision standards – quantity

5.10 The recommended local quantity standard for natural and semi natural open space has been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix I.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 62 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Quantity Standard (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

5.31ha per 1000 population 5.4ha per 1000

Justification

The value placed on natural and semi natural open space is clear, both in terms of the recreational resource these spaces offer and the role that natural areas play in biodiversity and conservation. While the household survey reveals a split in opinion between those who perceive there to be insufficient natural areas and those who are satisfied with current levels of provision, all other consultations emphasised the protection of existing provision and increasing accessibility to sites through better networking of footpaths and cycle ways.

It is therefore suggested that the local standard is set at a higher level than current provision. A figure of 5.4 ha per 1,000 population has been agreed with officers. Much of this will be to mitigate against planned growth in population to the north of Maidenhead and ensuring sites in the Northern wards are clearly accessible.

The green nature of the Borough has meant several extremely large natural and semi natural open spaces exist across the Borough. While sites such as Windsor Great Park and the Maidenhead Thicket serve predominantly as natural and semi-natural areas it is vital that a balance is ensured between the conservation of biodiversity and public accessibility to these strategic sites.

Current provision - quality

5.11 The quality of existing natural and semi natural open space in the Borough was assessed through site visits, the findings for which are set out in Table 5.2. It is important to note that site assessments are conducted as a snapshot in time and are therefore reflective of the quality of the site on one specific day.

5.12 The quality scores are weighted according to the findings of the local consultation. Those elements that were highlighted through consultation as being particularly important determinants of quality have been weighted higher to ensure that they have a greater influence on the overall quality score that each site achieves. In particular, the quality and variety of the vegetation was perceived to be particularly important for natural and semi natural open spaces. The full rationale behind this approach is set out in Appendix L.

5.13 Site assessments that have been undertaken do not consider the ecological or biodiversity value of the site in any great detail. In general terms, larger sites would be expected to have the highest potential ecological value.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 63 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Table 5.2 – Quality of natural and semi natural open space across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Geographical area Geographical sites of Number Scores of quality Range (%) scores quality Average (%) sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest

Maidenhead 7 20 – 80 61.5 The Gullet (ID 234) Braywick Park NSN (ID 260) Windsor and 16 34 – 88 56.8 Kenneally NSN (ID Trinity Wildlife Area Eton 119) (ID 51) Northern wards 12 20 – 80 59.5 Chosely Road NSN Ockwells Park (ID 347) Nature Reserve NSN (ID 210) Southern wards 13 20 – 80 40.1 Allens Field (ID Broomhall Rec 418) Woodland (ID 439) Overall 47 20 - 88 57.0 The Gullet (ID Trinity Wildlife 234), Chosely Area (ID 51) Road NSN (ID 347)

5.14 The key issues emerging from Table 5.2 and the consultation relating to the quality of natural and semi natural open space are:

• findings from the household survey indicate that there is an overall perception that the quality of natural and semi-natural areas is good (68%). 27% indicated that the quality is average and only 5% stated the quality is poor

• across the individual analysis areas similar results from the household survey are evident, with the lowest level of satisfaction in Windsor and Eton, where 7% of residents feel the quality of natural and semi-natural open space is average/poor

• respondents to the household survey also identified that the items that were deemed least satisfactory and should be addressed were toilets, provision of litter bins, seats and benches, cycle parking and dog related facilities (at least 15% of all respondents who use this typology most frequently indicated these items were unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory)

• the Southern wards scored the lowest average score and also has the highest quantity shortfall based on 2026 population projections and the local standard

• 42% of all sites scored below 60% for quality with the sites that scored lowest having the following quality issues:

- The Gullet, ID 234 (20%) – litter, graffiti, appears unmanaged

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 64 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

- Chosely Road NSN, ID 347 (20%) – appears derelict with significant litter

- Allens Field, ID 418 (20%) – disused football pitch, overgrown.

Setting provision standards – quality

5.15 The recommended local quality standard for natural and semi natural open space is summarised overleaf. Full justifications and consultation relating to the quality of provision for the local standard is provided within Appendix L.

Quality standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents. The recommended local standard does not include any desirable features.

Essential

Clean and litter free

Nature/conservation/biodiversity features

Delineated footpaths

Good site access (disabled)

Accessibility

5.16 31% of respondents to the household survey indicated that they visited natural and semi-natural areas most frequently out of all typologies. Within this group, 55% of residents currently walk to sites with travel times for all forms of transport evenly split between 0-5 minutes (32%), 5-10 minutes (28%), and 10-15 minutes (25%)

Setting provision standards – accessibility

5.17 The local standard is set in the form of a distance threshold and is derived directly from the findings of the local consultation.

5.18 Consultation and analysis highlights that the key issues with regards accessibility include:

• Council officers highlighted the importance of promoting natural and semi natural areas, particularly nature reserves

• it was also flagged that the public right of way network needs to be improved whilst maintaining biodiversity within existing sites, which is of paramount importance

• 66% of respondents from the household survey expect to walk and 26% expect to travel by car to natural and semi-natural open space.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 65 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

• of those who would expect to walk to a natural and semi natural open space, 56% would be willing to travel between 5-10 minutes. Of those respondents who would prefer to drive, 61% expect a journey to take between 5 and 10 minutes. All of these figures are consistent across all of the analysis areas.

• site assessments highlighted that information, signage and a poor entrance to the site were key issues with a large number of sites scoring (57%) recording an access score of below 60%.

5.19 The recommended local accessibility standard for natural and semi natural open space is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix M.

Accessibility standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard

15 MINUTE (720 METRES*) WALK TIME

Justification

When identifying preferred methods of transport, local consultation highlights the split in opinion regarding whether natural and semi natural sites should be accessed by walking or driving (26% of respondents would travel by car, whilst 66% of people stated that they would walk). To a certain extent this will relate to the varying size and function of spaces within each locality. An assessment of the 75th percentile threshold level for the Borough suggests that residents are willing to walk up to 15 minutes to a natural and semi natural open space. The modal response time was 10 minutes and current usage patterns indicate that 25% of residents currently travel between 10-15 minutes to access natural and semi natural sites.

A drive time local accessibility standard would produce a significantly larger distance threshold than a walk time standard. PPG17 states that higher thresholds may be appropriate if there is no realistic possibility of sufficient new provision to allow lower thresholds to be achievable, but that this can result in levels of provision that are too low and may not meet some local needs.

In terms of local consultation findings on the quantity of provision (22% think that there is not enough as opposed to only 10% who think there is more than enough) and given the importance of facilitating everyday contact with nature, a standard based on a walk time is recommended as this will help to deliver a greater number of localised natural and semi natural spaces.

Of household survey respondents who visit natural and semi-natural sites more frequently than any other type of open space and who currently drive to such sites, but in future would expect to walk, 31% were from the Maidenhead analysis area, 18% from the Windsor and Eton analysis area, 27% from the Northern wards analysis area and 11% from the Southern wards analysis area. This identifies Maidenhead as the analysis area where people are most amenable to change from accessing natural and semi natural areas by car to walking. Further strategies should identify ways of facilitating this.

*a straight-line distance of 720m has been used rather than the pedestrian distance of 1200m. This is based on average walking distances reduced by a factor of 40% to account for the fact that people do not walk in straight lines. The 40% factoring is based on the approach set out in the NPFA Six Acre Standard.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 66 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Applying provision standards

5.20 The application of the recommended quality, quantity and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of open space and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need.

5.21 The quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance. Applying the standards together is a much more meaningful method of analysis than applying the standards separately.

5.22 The application of the local standard for quantity results in the following issues:

Table 5.3 – Application of quantity standard

Future provision (2026) in hectares Analysis areas balanced against local standard (5.4 hectares per 1000 population)

Maidenhead -85.27

Windsor and Eton -28.84

Northern wards 150.06

Southern wards -123.89

Overall -87.93 Green = above the minimum standard, Red = below the minimum standard

• applying the standard against the projected population in 2026 reveals that there are likely to be deficiencies in three of the four analysis areas, namely Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton, and the Southern wards

• household survey consultation results indicate that those in the Southern wards perceive provision to be satisfactory compared to other analysis areas despite having a projected deficiency of 123.89 hectares. As previously mentioned, Windsor Great Park may impact upon this score. There may also be large farming areas that are not deemed as public but where public rights of way permit access

• the Northern wards currently have high levels of natural and semi natural open space. This is predominantly due to the Cockmarsh area in Cookham, the Maidenhead Thicket site and Bisham Woods. Despite the abundance of woodland offered by the Maidenhead Thicket site the accessibility scores are relatively low due to the lack of signposting on several sites. This may affect local perceptions of publically accessible space within the area

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 67 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

• Windsor Great Park contributes approximately 137 of the 175 hectares of natural and semi natural open space in the Windsor and Eton analysis area. While this site has a high biodiversity value its presence as a regional parkland may impact upon its long term ecological diversity. The Council should identify ways of protecting the biodiversity within the natural and semi natural parts of this site by identifying and promoting opportunities to establish new natural and semi natural open space sites towards the south of the Borough.

5.23 The application of the local accessibility standards for natural and semi natural open space is set out in Figure 5.1 overleaf.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 68 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Figure 5.1 - Provision of natural and semi natural open space in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Point A: Waltham St Lawrence

Point B: North Maidenhead

Point C: South of Old B Windsor

Point D: North of Sunningdale

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 69 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

5.24 As illustrated in Figure 5.1, natural and semi natural open space sites are well distributed across the Borough. While the Maidenhead Thicket site serves a significant area of the Northern wards and Maidenhead analysis area, Windsor Great Park is an important strategic site in the south.

5.25 Indeed it is the abundance of natural open space that many residents feel is integral and defines the character of the Borough. The need to protect these sites from development was one of the overriding themes of consultation.

NSN1 In light of the wider benefits of natural and semi natural open spaces and the expressed importance of these sites by local residents, the Council should protect all natural and semi natural sites from development.

5.26 With the exception of residents living within small rural settlements (where there is usually good access to nearby countryside) the majority of residents in Windsor, Ascot, south Maidenhead, Cookham and Bisham are able to reach at least one natural and semi natural open space site within the recommended distance threshold.

5.27 The notable residential areas that do not have access to sites within the recommended accessibility standards of a 10 minute walk time are the central and northern areas of Maidenhead, Old Windsor and north of Sunningdale. Other smaller settlements that do not have access to natural and semi natural sites that require further attention are White Waltham, Shurlock Row, Paley Street, Fifield, Woodlands Park, and Hurley. All these smaller settlements are in the Northern wards and despite the current level of provision being above the recommended minimum local standard in this analysis area, it is important that these residents are able to access natural and semi natural sites.

5.28 The local quantity standard implies that an increase of circa 18 hectares is currently required across the Borough to meet the minimum level of provision. Based on the projected population growth this will increase to an additional 90 hectares by 2026.

5.29 In light of the varying nature of natural and semi natural open space, development of new sites can be both challenging and a long term process. It is recommended that the Council address the low levels of satisfaction in the Northern wards, particularly in the smaller settlements where access on foot to the current sites within 10 minutes is not possible. A new strategically placed site in Waltham St Lawrence or Shurlock Row (A on Figure 5.1), if well publicised, may increase local public perception of provision. The Council should investigate the opportunity of permitting public access to any natural and semi-natural sites that already exist in this area.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 70 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

5.30 Other opportunities to address the shortfall of provision in analysis areas are shown on Figure 5.1. While increasing accessibility for Maidenhead residents to the major natural and semi natural sites to the north west of Maidenhead the Council should also explore the opportunities to develop pocket parks which include natural and semi natural features, particularly in the north of Maidenhead (B on Figure 5.1). There are several amenity green spaces that could be developed to offer the biodiversity natural features highlighted as desirable in consultations. The opportunities for other typologies to be developed to meet this shortfall in Maidenhead are addressed later in this section (Figure 5.2).

5.31 Finally the largest quantitative shortfall is in the Southern wards. Despite the close proximity of Windsor Great Park, which in part mitigates against the shortfall, the Council should seek opportunities around Old Windsor and north Sunningdale to open up large areas of publically accessible open space (Points C and D on Figure 5.2).

NSN2 The Council should address the quantitative deficiency by identifying sites in northern part of Maidenhead town, Old Windsor and Sunningdale that can be developed to offer natural features and clear public access.

5.32 The importance of qualitative enhancements is reinforced by the findings of the site assessments, which suggest that the quality of natural areas was significantly lower than many other types of open space, with an average score of just 57%. Future efforts should therefore be concentrated into improvements to the quality of natural and semi natural spaces where it is the intention that these sites should be for public use. In some instances, the visual amenity of natural and semi natural open space may take on greater importance than the recreational benefits that the site can bring. Where this is the case, quality enhancements may be inappropriate.

5.33 While it is not expected that these sites will be managed in the same way as formal parks/amenity spaces, they should be inviting and controlled. Many natural sites were perceived to be poor or very poor in terms of safety and security (with insufficient lighting and poorly defined boundaries). Ancillary features (such as signage, bins and benches) are also a key area for improvement. Where qualitative improvements are made to natural and semi natural open spaces, it will be essential that these are integrated within the overall character of the site.

NSN3 Strive to improve the quality of natural and semi natural sites (where appropriate), taking into account recommendations made within the Green Infrastructure Study.

5.34 The quality of provision of natural and semi natural open spaces should not only consider recreational opportunities, but should also take into account the biodiversity and wildlife value of the site. Many participants in consultations considered this to be imperative.

NSN4 Improve the quality of natural and semi natural open spaces in wards that contain a large number of low scoring quality sites. These include The Gullet (ID 234), Chosely Road NSN (ID 347)

and Allens Field (ID 418).

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 71 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

NSN5 Maximise biodiversity on natural and semi natural open spaces through the implementation of effective management and maintenance regimes.

5.35 Although the distribution of sites is good, it is essential to provide adequate access to natural sites across the entire Borough. Site visits highlight that signage to natural sites is particularly poor. The entrance to sites is also frequently hidden. To an extent, access can depend upon the ownership of the site (and the management). Some sites may also be inaccessible due to safety considerations.

NSN6 Increase access where appropriate to natural and semi natural open space sites by ensuring that entrances to sites are visible and that appropriate signage is provided.

5.36 In addition to natural and semi natural open spaces located within the Borough boundaries, there is also an array of larger sites bordering the Borough such as Bracknell Forest. These sites often serve local needs within the 15 minute catchment, and complement the provision within the Borough’s settlements and ensure that residents have choice and opportunity.

5.37 Within the rural areas of the Borough, accessible countryside provides much of the natural provision for residents. It is important that this countryside is made accessible through signposting rights of way and green corridors. There are many residents living in rural villages outside of the recommended catchment area for natural and semi natural open space. It is therefore essential to maximise the accessibility of the countryside, an issue that will be focussed on in more detail within the Green Infrastructure Study.

NSN7 Establish a network of accessible green corridors to link natural and semi natural sites within settlements to other types of local open space and also the wider countryside through the provision of appropriate public rights of way.

5.38 Whilst qualitative deficiencies have been identified, the emphasis should also be on addressing the significant quantitative shortfall and addressing accessibility to current and new sites, particularly in rural settlements. Opportunities to provide naturalised areas in these locations should be seized.

5.39 New provision should be targeted in localities that are lacking. In terms of the current breakdown in provision, significant quantitative deficiencies can be found in the Maidenhead analysis area and Southern wards analysis area. As discussed below, along with new provision there is potential for other typologies to help alleviate current deficiencies.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 72 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

5.40 When considering the provision to the north of Maidenhead, application of the accessibility standard supports the findings of the quantity standards to an extent, as there is a significant lack of provision to the north of the town. This is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3 North of Maidenhead analysis area (NSN provision)

5.41 The opportunities to address this shortfall are shown in Figure 5.4. There are several amenity green spaces in the north of Maidenhead that could be developed to provide pocket parks with natural features. Further to this the access routes and public rights of way between the north of Maidenhead and Maidenhead Thicket to the west should also be addressed.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 73 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Figure 5.4 North of Maidenhead analysis area

5.42 As consultation highlights, natural and semi natural open space is one of the most popular of all of the open spaces in the Borough. The nature of these spaces and the wildlife and habitat value offered within them means that balancing the ecological value of these sites and monitoring the impact of recreational use is essential.

NSN8 Monitor the impact of recreational use on natural and semi natural open space sites (in all areas but particularly at Windsor Great Park) and ensure that recreational opportunity is balanced with biodiversity.

5.43 As shown by Figures 5.5 and 5.6 overleaf, there are residents to the south of Old Windsor and north of Sunningdale that have limited access to any publically designated open space, especially natural and semi natural sites. Within these areas there is an opportunity to mitigate the pressure on Windsor Great Park by developing a sizeable site (to be identified) that can address the significant quantitative shortfall in the Southern wards analysis area.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 74 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

Figure 5.5 Sunningdale (general areas for potential provision)

Opportunities to provide publicly accessible natural open space

Figure 5.6 Old Windsor (general areas for potential provision)

Opportunities to provide publicly accessible natural open space

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 75 SECTION 5 – NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE

5.44 By 2026, the largest quantitative shortfall of natural and semi natural open space will be in the Southern wards (c. 124 ha). As shown by Figure 5.5 and 5.6 the Council should seek to identify land whereby public rights of way can be established. It is vital that these are well publicised and their impact monitored. As new provision of natural and semi natural areas is largely opportunity led, consideration should be given to the inclusion of naturalised open space within other open space types, particularly in Maidenhead.

NSN9 Seek to implement innovative solutions combining natural and semi natural spaces with other types of open space in order to best meet the needs of local residents and maximise the benefits derived from the available open space.

Summary

5.45 Natural and semi natural open space is the second most popular of all types of open space in the Borough, with 68% of residents visiting these spaces more than once a month. This reinforces how highly valued these spaces are to residents of the Borough.

5.46 In addition to the recreational value of natural and semi-natural resources, residents also frequently recognise the wider benefits of natural open spaces, particularly in terms of providing opportunities for biodiversity and habitat creation.

5.47 Natural and semi natural open spaces, alongside areas of countryside, were perceived to be a key part of the character of the Borough and the value placed on these sites was clear. The need to protect these sites from development was a key theme throughout all consultations.

5.48 Application of the recommended quality, quantity and accessibility standards highlights that the key priority for natural and semi natural open space is to increase the quantity of sites in specific analysis areas. Maximising access to natural and semi natural sites both within settlements and to those in the surrounding countryside should be a key future priority.

5.49 Opportunities to address locational deficiencies in the northern parts of Maidenhead town and in the Southern wards should be taken, however due to the nature of this typology, any new provision will need time to establish and mature.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 76

SECTION 6

AMENITY GREEN SPACE SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Amenity green space

Introduction and definition

6.1 This type of open space is most commonly found in housing areas. It includes informal recreation spaces and green spaces in and around housing, with a primary purpose of providing opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancing the appearance of residential or other areas.

6.2 Amenity green space is also often found in villages, in the form of village greens. Amenity green spaces can have an overlapping function with parks and gardens and natural green space areas and can also be used as informal areas for children’s play where there are no other facilities. It is important therefore to consider the provision of amenity green spaces in the context of other types of open space.

6.3 Green space is a central feature of the urban areas in Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton and is integral to their characters. This open space type also offers those in settlements in the rural north and south of the Borough to access open space where parks are not in their locality. In addition to vast grass verges and green links, there are large quantities of amenity green space. As well as providing a recreational resource, these spaces provide a key contribution to the landscape and setting.

6.4 This section relates to amenity green spaces and sets out the strategic context, key findings of the consultations and recommended local standards. The standards are then applied, considering the adequacy of the existing amenity green space and the associated demand for these spaces. Standards are also applied in the context of other open spaces with overlapping functions.

6.5 The key issues for amenity green space arising from a review of strategic documents are:

• the RBWM Local Plan (2003) states that the loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme

• whilst encouraging enjoyment and activity, these areas should also be safe and free from harm

• the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance: Interpretation of policies R3, R4 and R5 (Public Open Space Provision (February 2003) states that an overall open space provision target of 4.3 ha per 1,000 population has been adopted by the Council. Of this 2.5 ha per 1,000 population of informal open space should be provided

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Open Space Study page 77 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Consultation

6.6 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted that:

• amenity green space is one of the most infrequently used of all of the types of informal open space, with only 33% of respondents to the household survey visiting these more than once a month. 35% of residents never use amenity green space

• the lower levels of use of amenity green space in comparison to some other typologies of open space reflect the nature of amenity spaces. The wider benefits of these sites were recognised by local residents, particularly with respect to landscape benefits

• an improvement scheme is currently being developed for the Town Moor which will be implemented using S106 funds that have been accrued for this purpose

• the importance of the protection of amenity green space was a key theme during consultation. While the maintenance of sites was perceived as good there were specific site issues relating to vandalism and litter

• several residents commented that while the provision of multi-use games areas (MUGAs) and small play areas on amenity green space was suitable in various locations, there was the feeling that these facilities could become overwhelming, if automatically built on all amenity green space sites in the Borough. Certain sites should therefore remain as informal, natural open spaces. This links with the need for more natural and semi natural provision, particularly in the north of Maidenhead.

Quantity of existing provision

6.7 The provision of amenity green space in the Borough is summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 – Provision of amenity green space across the Borough Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current per 1,000 population (hectares) sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) per Provision (ha) 1,000 population (2016) Maidenhead 17.06 0.40 19 0.06 6.45 48,677 0.35 Windsor and Eton 17.11 0.51 35 0.05 2.72 37,075 0.46 Northern wards 24.54 0.78 26 0.06 3.79 28,808 0.85 Southern wards 12.92 0.50 13 0.05 4.37 33,092 0.39 Overall 71.63 0.54 93 0.05 6.45 147,652 0.49

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 78 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

6.8 The key issues emerging from Table 6.1 and consultation relating to the quantity of provision of amenity green space across the Borough are:

• while 26% of household survey respondents state that there is not enough amenity green space provision, 42% indicate that provision of amenity green space is about right. Dissatisfaction with the quantity of provision is particularly high within the Windsor and Eton analysis area of the Borough. The provision of amenity green space in the Windsor and Eton analysis area reflects the level of overall provision. However, due to the population density of the settlements this may be deemed by residents in this analysis area as insufficient

• the largest percentage of household survey respondents with no opinion from a particular analysis area was in the Northern wards. This may be due to the rural nature of these areas which may mitigate the need for as much amenity green space provision. The Southern wards had the highest satisfaction levels although this again could be down to the rural nature of the area

• the overall current level of provision in the Borough equates to 71.63 hectares. It can be seen that this is spread unevenly across the Borough with 24.54 hectares in the Northern wards and 12.92 hectares in the Southern wards. The smallest site was 0.05ha (Sinclair Road AGS, ID 60) and the largest amenity green space in the Borough was 6.45ha (Maidenhead Moor AGS, ID 267).

Setting provision standards – quantity

6.9 The recommended local quantity standard for amenity green space has been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and is summarised overleaf. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix I.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 79 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Quantity Standard (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

0.54 ha per 1000 population 0.59 ha per 1000 population

Justification

Whilst feedback indicates that amenity green space is valued by Borough residents, there is a split in opinion regarding the adequacy of the current level of provision. The majority of residents in all analysis areas, with the exception of the Southern wards, perceived there to be an inadequate level of amenity green space.

Analysis indicates that there may be locational deficiencies in provision. Local access is particularly important to residents and young children, and many residents highlighted that a lack of localised provision is a key determinant of their perception of the overall quantity. New housing developments are also not perceived as providing adequate new open space to address the increase in population.

Many residents highlighted the importance of the protection of existing provision of amenity green space in the Borough and expressed concerns about the potential further loss of green spaces to development.

The findings from the consultations indicated a balance between meeting the current recommended minimum level of provision in specific localities through increasing the amount of amenity green space and ensuring that the quality of sites are maintained and specific sites are improved. The imminent housing developments are seen as an opportunity to increase the overall quantitative level across the Borough. On this basis, a slight increase in provision has been deemed most appropriate.

Current provision - quality

6.10 The quality of existing amenity green space in the Borough was assessed through site visits and is set out in Table 6.2. It is important to note that site assessments are conducted as a snapshot in time and are therefore reflective of the quality of the site on one specific day.

6.11 The quality scores are weighted according to the findings of the local consultation. Those elements that were highlighted through consultation as being a particularly important determinant of the quality of green spaces have a higher weighting to ensure that they have a greater influence on the overall quality score that each site achieves. In particular, the cleanliness of sites and quality and variety of the vegetation was perceived to be important for amenity green spaces. The full rationale behind this approach is set out in Appendix L.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 80 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Table 6.2 – Quality of amenity green space across the Borough Geographical area Geographical sites of Number of quality Range (%) scores quality Average (%) scores sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest

Maidenhead 19 28 – 90 56.3 Shifford Maudsley Crescent Memorial Amenity Area Garden) (ID (ID 300) 248) Windsor and 35 40 – 96 58.9 Sydney Road Vansittart Road Eton (ID 123) Recreation Ground AGS (ID 55) Northern 26 30 – 95.6 71.7 Cox Green Heynes Green wards Road AGS (ID (ID 220) 214) Southern 13 47.5 – 96 68.7 Horton Rec Cornwall Road wards Ground (ID Open Space 166) (ID 401) Overall 93 28 – 96 63.4 Shifford Vansittart Crescent Road Amenity Area Recreation (ID 300) Ground AGS (ID 55), Cornwall Road Open Space (ID 401)

6.12 The key issues emerging from Table 6.2 and the consultation relating to the quality of amenity green space include:

• the household consultation indicated that the quality of amenity areas is perceived to be good by 32%, average by 56%, and poor by 13%

• the lowest levels of satisfaction were in Maidenhead and the Northern wards, with 14% of household survey respondents in both analysis areas citing amenity areas to be of poor quality. The highest levels of satisfaction are in the Southern wards, with 48% of respondents indicating that they are satisfied with the quality of amenity space in their locality

• respondents to the household survey suggested that the items that were most satisfactory were seats and benches and pathways. The items that were deemed least satisfactory and should subsequently be addressed were lighting, general maintenance and management, planted and grassed areas, and a ranger/monitoring service

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 81 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

• the parish council surveys identified that the quality of grounds maintenance was generally perceived as high. However, there were some comments which need addressing in relation to the quality of provision. The issue of vandalism and graffiti was cited as a problem, with some more minor concerns about litter. Signage was considered to be only average and was not perceived as presenting a welcome to visitors.

• the average quality scores from site assessments generally reflect the quantitative provision for each analysis area with the Northern wards having the highest levels and Maidenhead the lowest. Brief details of the sites scoring below 40% for quality are provided below:

- Shifford Crescent Amenity Area, ID 300 (28%) – litter and long grass

- Green Lane AGS, Maidenhead ID 263 (30%) – large amount of litter dumped, no ancillary features

- Cox Green Road AGS, ID 214 (30%) – not regularly maintained, safety poor as no proper boundaries

- Switchback Road AGS, ID 297 (38%) – litter, grass not maintained

Setting provision standards – quality

6.13 The recommended local quality standard for amenity green space is summarised overleaf. Full justifications and consultation relating to the quality of provision for the local standard is provided within Appendix L.

Quality Standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable

Clean and well maintained Dog mess bins

Suitable soft landscaping

Flowers/ trees and shrubs

Designed to enhance passive security

Analysis suggests the improvement in quality of amenity green space is considered to be equally important as increasing its provision.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 82 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Accessibility

6.14 Only a small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (1.4%). It is therefore difficult to produce sound analysis on current usage patterns based on the sample size provided. A more detailed analysis is given below in terms of expected mode of transport and travel time in relation to all respondents. Analysis of the regularity of use of amenity spaces indicates that they are less frequently used than other typologies, with many having a greater landscape value rather than recreational use.

Setting provision standards – accessibility

6.15 The accessibility of sites is paramount in maximising usage as well as providing an opportunity for all people to use the site. The recommended local standard is set in the form of a distance threshold and is derived directly from the findings of the local consultation.

6.16 Site specific accessibility issues were also analysed as part of the site visits where information and signage, transport and general accessibility issues were assessed.

6.17 Consultation and analysis shows that the key issues with regards to accessibility include:

• Council officers agreed that the borough-wide target of providing all residents with access to informal open space within 400m of their house should be supported. Again ensuring safe access to these sites will be dependent on a complete network of paths and cycleways

• the importance of ensuring that amenity green spaces are located in proximity to housing is further reinforced by the expectation that 72% of household survey respondents expect to reach an amenity green space by foot. Of these respondents, 75% expect the journey time to be under 10 minutes

• site assessments reveal that general access to sites is varied, with results ranging from very good to very poor. The information and signage at sites received relatively poor scores. However, this may be a result of the nature of the typology.

6.18 The recommended local accessibility standard for amenity green space is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix M.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 83 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Accessibility Standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard

10 MINUTE (480 METRES) WALK TIME

Justification

Given the emphasis on walking rather than driving in terms of the expectations of household survey respondents it is recommended that a local standard is set based on a walk time. The emphasis throughout consultation on protecting existing amenity green space highlights the localised value of this type of open space provision and in turn supports the recommendation that an accessibility standard based on walking is most appropriate.

At a borough-wide level, the 75th percentile threshold based on household survey responses is a 10 minute walk. The modal response was also 10 minutes. As a result, the recommended local accessibility standard is a 10-minute walk time.

In the absence of other forms of open space provision within close proximity of residents, the value of localised amenity green spaces is particularly important. This was apparent during consultation with children and young people as great emphasis was placed on the importance of the provision of local open spaces where individuals could easily and safely meet. Whilst identifying a 10-minute walk as a recommended local standard borough-wide, it was agreed that in certain localities, provision within a 5-minute walk time should be an aspiration.

A local accessibility walk time catchment of 10-minutes was also set for the parks and gardens typology, which will support localised provision for all Borough residents and facilitate delivery of increased participation in informal sport and physical activity. The importance of local amenity green space provision to break up the urban landscape also needs to be taken in to consideration.

Applying provision standards

6.19 The application of the recommended local quality, quantity and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of open space and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need.

6.20 The quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance. Applying the standards together is a more meaningful method of analysis than applying the standards separately.

6.21 The application of the local standard for quantity results in the following:

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 84 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Table 6.3 – Application of quantity standard

Future provision (2026) in hectares balanced against Analysis areas local standard (0.59 hectares per 1,000 population)

Maidenhead -11.66

Windsor and Eton -4.76

Northern wards 7.54

Southern wards -6.60

Overall -15.48 Green = above the minimum standard, Red = below the minimum standard

• the local quantity standard is set above the current level of provision, which means that existing provision is below the recommended minimum level. By 2026, due to population increases, there will be an increased shortfall in amenity green space provision, equating to circa 15 hectares

• when looking at the future provision in terms of hectares per 1,000 population balanced against the standard of 0.59 hectares per 1,000 population, three of the analysis areas show a deficiency, the greatest being in Maidenhead (-11.66 hectares)

• the Northern wards analysis area currently has a level of provision that exceeds the minimum recommended level (by 7.54 hectares).

6.22 The application of the local accessibility and quality standards for amenity green space is set out overleaf. Provision of amenity space is also considered in relation to the location of parks and gardens and natural and semi natural open space, which is discussed later in this section.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 85 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Figure 6.1- Provision of amenity space (general areas of potential provision)

Point A: Ascot

Point B: Sunninghill

G Point C: E Sunningdale

D Point D: Eton

F Point E: north east Maidenhead

Point F: southern Maidenhead

Point G: Hurley

C B

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 86 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

6.23 The key issues arising from the accessibility mapping (Figure 6.1) regarding the distribution of sites are:

• the application of the accessibility standard reveals several areas across the Borough that fall outside of the 10 minute walk time catchment for amenity green space

• there is an uneven distribution of sites across the analysis areas, with several sites in close proximity to one another. Points A, B and C on Figure 6.1 identify key residential areas that do not meet the accessibility standard for amenity green space but also lack significant provision of natural and semi natural open space and parks

• Point D identifies a shortfall of amenity open space in Eton. Analysis area of Windsor and Eton has a projected shortfall of 4.76ha in 2026 and much of the current amenity green space is clustered in a small geographic area. Despite this cluster being where the majority of residents live, opportunities should identify areas in Eton and Eton Wick that can accommodate public space

• Maidenhead analysis area has a projected shortfall in 2026 of 11.6ha. Points E and F identify areas that have a deficiency of amenity green space and that are not served adequately by other forms of informal open space. Opportunities around Point E should definitely be explored given the plans to extend the residential area of Maidenhead to the north

• despite the current oversupply of amenity green space in the Northern wards there is a lack of public open space around Hurley on the northern fridges of the Borough. The potential for an informal open space with natural features in Hurley around Point G on Figure 6.1 should be explored.

AGS1 The council should aim to increase the provision of amenity green space across the Borough. Areas of immediate importance are in the Southern wards around Ascot and to the north of the Maidenhead analysis area, as well as responding to any new residential developments.

Applying the quantity, quality and accessibility standards

6.24 The current supply of amenity green space is below the recommended local standard of 0.59 ha per 1,000 population. The accessibility mapping shows that there are significant accessibility deficiencies within all analysis areas.

AGS2 Strive to improve the quality of amenity sites, aiming to improve the quality of all sites so that they achieve 60% (the score required to fall within the top 50% of sites). In particular, it is likely that improvements to the provision of ancillary facilities will be of particular benefit to the overall quality of amenity green space.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 87 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

6.25 The breakdown of provision by analysis areas has revealed a requirement for further provision up to 2026 in three of the four analysis areas, with only the Northern wards containing sufficient provision. This is supported by the application of the accessibility standard, which suggests that there are pockets of residents within each analysis area outside of the recommended amenity green space distance threshold. However, the majority of these residents have access to open space in the form of a formal park or natural and semi natural provision. The exception is in the Southern ward which has substantial areas that require additional informal land provision where residents have limited access to any typology.

6.26 In order to ensure the future quality of open spaces, consideration should be given to the size of sites. Smaller sites (particularly those located in proximity to larger facilities) may be of limited value to the residents and costly in terms of maintenance to the provider.

6.27 The most appropriate priorities for each area of the Borough are therefore discussed taking into account the relationship between quality, quantity and accessibility, considering all forms of informal open space.

6.28 As indicated, the application of the local quantity standard suggests there is currently adequate provision within the Northern wards. However, due to the distribution of these sites, a number of residents in Hurley and Waltham St Lawrence have limited access to open space types, as illustrated in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2 Northern wards (general areas of potential provision)

Opportunities to provide publically accessible natural open space

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 88 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

6.29 As highlighted in Section 4, the north and west of Maidenhead analysis area has a shortfall of parks. Section 5 identified that the north of Maidenhead also had a shortfall of natural and semi natural areas. Figure 6.1 suggests that there is an abundance of amenity green space in this area. While there is still an overall shortfall of amenity space in Maidenhead (which could be catered for in the north east of the analysis area) there is the opportunity to develop several of the current sites. Ideally opportunities to enlarge these sites will be sought and natural or park features can be incorporated so that they meet additional requirements of local residents.

6.30 Opportunities to upgrade one or more of these sites into a park to offset existing deficiencies should be seized. North Town Moor (Site ID 283), Maidenhead Moor AGS (Site ID 267), Pinkeys Green AGS (Site ID 314), St Marks Crescent AGS (site ID 326) and Maudsley Memorial Garden (Site ID 248) are all examples of particularly large facilities, which could be upgraded to perform park (or pocket park with natural features) functions. A pocket park is usually a small area within a residential estate that is owned and maintained by a community association. Often these sites have natural features such as trees, bushes and long grass but are supplemented by benches, bins and paths.

AGS3 Investigate opportunities of formalising an amenity green space in the north of Maidenhead to provide more formal pocket park sites

6.31 In light of the quantitative surplus and overlapping catchments of amenity spaces across the Northern wards, there may be some opportunities for the re-designation of sites in this area. Only sites with limited value to residents (ie poor quality, low accessibility and overlapping catchments) should be considered and sites should be assessed in terms of their value as other open space types prior to their loss as amenity sites.

AGS4 Consider the appropriateness for re-designation of sites in the Northern wards. Capital received through the release of any land should be reinvested in areas of low provision and high demand or qualitative improvements to high value sites

6.32 Recommendation AGS4 has been based on the application of the local standard against the future population figures as shown in Table 6.2.

6.33 In quantitative terms, the largest deficiency is to the south of the Borough. This is reflected through the application of the accessibility standards, where it can be seen that there are large areas (for instance around Ascot) outside of the catchment area for amenity green space. A large proportion of these areas are also outside of the catchment for parks and natural and semi natural open space, indicating that there is a real need for local recreational space (Figure 6.3).

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 89 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Figure 6.3 Southern wards (general areas of potential provision)

Opportunities to provide publically accessible natural open space

AGS5 Opportunities to provide new amenity spaces to the south of the Borough should be identified. Areas where there is a specific deficiency include Ascot, South Ascot and Sunninghill. Where no deficiency exists, the focus should be on quality enhancement of existing sites.

6.34 Like the Southern wards, Maidenhead also exhibits deficiencies in terms of the provision of amenity green space. Deficiencies in the north east of Maidenhead are particularly important, as this area has a high residential density. As shown by Figure 6.4 it is vital that access to the nearby parks such as Raymill Island (ID 279) and Riverside Gardens (ID 279) is easy and obvious.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 90 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Figure 6.4 North East Maidenhead (general areas of potential provision)

Areas of amenity green space undersupply – need to ensure easy access to other typologies

AGS6 Identify any opportunity for an amenity green space in the north east of Maidenhead. Facilitate easy access to park and natural and semi natural open spaces for all residents in this area.

6.35 Application of the standards to the Windsor and Eton analysis area has identified that while Windsor is well served, there are accessibility deficiencies around Eton and Eton Wick. This is also reflected through the application of the quantity standard, which reveals a shortfall in provision.

6.36 As illustrated in Figure 6.5, the majority of residents within the Eton area have access to natural and semi natural areas although there is little provision of AGS. It is recommended that the Council identify an opportunity to locate a formal open space within the Eton Wick area. There is a lack of young people facilities (Section 7) in this area and the provision of a formal AGS or park site could allow for this type of development.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 91 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

Figure 6.5 Eton and Eton Wick (general areas of potential provision)

Possibility of formalising part of Eton Wick NSN (ID 32)

Opportunity for a formal open space to the east of Eton Wick

6.37 Based on the local quantity standard and the minimum required size of an amenity green space (used to define the minimum size), amenity green space should be provided in settlements where the population exceeds 70. Those settlements without sufficient provision should therefore be prioritised for improvement.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 92 SECTION 6 – AMENITY GREEN SPACE

6.38 Given the importance of providing amenity space in every area, while priority should be given to larger settlements, it should be ensured that all settlements have access to informal space. High quality amenity green space can play an important role in village life. Those settlements currently devoid of any open space and therefore requiring further investigation include:

• North: Hurley, Knowl Hill, Waltham St Lawrence, Paley Street, Fifield, Oakley Green

• South: Ascot, Sunningdale, Sunninghill,

AGS8 Ensure that all villages with over 70 residents contain an amenity green space. Consideration should also be given to providing amenity space in settlements devoid of any other open space.

6.39 The quality of facilities in the rural area was generally adequate with most sites falling below an adequate quality level in the urban areas of Windsor and Maidenhead. Vansittart Road Recreation Ground AGS (ID 55) and Cornwall Road Open Space (ID 401) were the highest scoring sites and should be viewed as a benchmark of what should be provided for new amenity green spaces.

Summary

6.40 For many residents amenity green space will be the most accessible form of open space provision. The value of amenity green spaces within proximity to residents was noted through the local consultation. While amenity green space often fulfils a similar role to larger informal open spaces (eg parks and natural areas) the local nature of this type of open space is of particular importance.

6.41 Local consultation highlighted the importance of the balance between quality and quantity.

6.42 Application of the local standards highlighted that there is an imbalance in provision, with large quantities of amenity green space in the Northern wards but with a sporadic distribution everywhere apart from Maidenhead and Windsor. In many instances those areas deficient in amenity green space also exhibit shortfalls in the provision of parks and natural and semi natural areas, indicating that there are limited opportunities for informal recreation.

6.43 While the overall direction should remain on enhancing the quality of amenity spaces (particularly with regards cleanliness and maintenance, suitable soft landscaping and ensuring they are designed to enhance security), opportunities to address the identified deficiencies should also be taken.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 93

SECTION 7

PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Provision for children and young people

Introduction and definition

7.1 PPG17 states that the broad objective of provision for children and young people is to ensure that they have opportunities to interact with their peers and learn social and movement skills within their home environment. At the same time, they must not create nuisance for other residents or appear threatening to passers-by.

7.2 This typology encompasses a vast range of provision from small areas of green space with a single piece of equipment (similar to the typology of amenity greenspace) to a large, multi purpose play areas. Fields in Trust (FIT) categorises play facilities into three distinct types of facility, specifically:

• Local Areas of Play (LAPs)

• Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAPs)

• Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play (NEAPs).

7.3 PPG17 notes that using these sub-types of provision for children and young people often ignores the needs of older children such as teenagers. Each site and range of equipment has a different purpose and often serves a different age group and catchment. Provision of facilities for children does not necessarily negate the need for provision for young people and vice versa.

7.4 For this reason, this typology has been subdivided and provision for children and facilities for young people have been analysed separately.

7.5 Provision for children is taken to include equipped children’s play areas and adventure playgrounds that are perceived to cater for children under 12. This typology relates primarily to equipped provision for children and therefore primarily focuses on the play equipment within the LEAPs and NEAPs categories. Kidwells Park Play Area, ID 244 LAPs would fall under the category of amenity green space and are therefore discussed as part of Section 6.

7.6 Facilities for young people/ teenagers is taken to include the following types of provision:

• Multi-Use Games Areas • youth shelters (MUGAs) • informal kickabout areas • skateparks • BMX tracks. • basketball courts

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 94 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Context

7.7 This section of the report sets out the strategic context, key findings emerging from consultation and assessment of current provision for children and young people. Local standards have been derived from the local consultation undertaken as part of this study and are therefore directly representative of local needs. The application of these standards provides the Council with a number of policy options for the delivery of facilities for young people and children.

7.8 The key issues for children and young people’s facilities arising from a review of strategic documents are (full details available in Appendix H):

• the Local Plan (2003) for the Borough identifies the following issues:

- that developments larger than 0.4 ha or 15 units will require the provision of a LAP. Sites larger than 0.8 ha or 50 units in addition to LAP will also require a LEAP

- another aim of the Local Plan is to facilitate dual use of school sites. The development of new and improved play facilities on school sites in partnership with schools and other agencies and improved access to these will also be encouraged. This is supported by the National Childcare Strategy

- all new recreation facilities will need to have disabled access

- in line with the Fields in Trust (FIT) guidelines all residents should have a play facility within 400 metres of their home.

• the Borough’s Play Strategy (2007) suggests the following:

- children should be physically active for at least 60 minutes per day, in an environment that provides the opportunity to experience risk taking in play, without unacceptable danger

- the experience of play should allow the individual to develop their problem-solving, social, language, planning, construction, creativity, co- ordination and negotiation skills (without an adult necessarily present)

- between 1996-2006, the Borough has gained four open spaces and play areas, 18 teenscenes, three play areas and teenscenes, and seven play areas. Within the same time period one play area and teenscene and one separate play area has been lost

- the areas that are prioritised for improved play space are Old Windsor, Eton Wick, Sunninghill and Ascot, and Bray.

• the key elements within the Council’s Play Strategy Action Plan (2007) are:

- appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 to champion, co-ordinate and lead on the Play Strategy. An element of this was to develop the School Sports Partnership to allow for ‘free play’

- improve play provision in identified localities

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 95 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

- ensuring play areas offer a range of equipment and diversity of activity. The number of play sites and their accessibility should also be explored, especially in the rural wards.

7.9 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted several key issues relating to provision for children and young people:

• from the respondents to the school survey, 44% suggested that the provision of open space is adequate. 37% identified it as good, 13% as poor and 7% did not provide an opinion

• 72% of students indicated that they liked the open spaces in their locality. In terms of new and future provision, 25% suggested more interesting play items are required, 17% suggested that an indoor non-sports place is required, 13% suggested a BMX track and 11% that more outdoor sport facilities are needed

• comments from drop-in sessions were that the level of provision in this category, particularly amongst residents as opposed to visitors, may be on the low side. This seemed to be particularly relevant for the provision of very local facilities for toddlers and young children

• the issues raised in the school survey and drop-in sessions were that existing provision of facilities are not sufficiently innovative or exciting. Respondents to the household survey indicated that more facilities for those aged under three were necessary.

Quantity of provision

7.10 The provision for children across the Borough is summarised in Table 7.1 below.

Table 7.1 – Provision for children across the Borough Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (ha) provision Current per 1,000 population (number of sites) sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) Provision (number 1,000 per of sites) population (2026)

Maidenhead 0.52 0.30 13 0.001 0.10 48,677 0.27 Windsor and Eton 1.14 0.66 22 0.003 0.15 37,075 0.59 Northern Wards 0.89 0.41 13 0.01 0.21 28,808 0.45 Southern Wards 1.14 0.46 12 0.02 0.21 33,092 0.36 Overall 3.69 0.45 60 0.001 0.21 147,652 0.41

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 96 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.11 The key issues emerging from Table 7.1 and consultations relating to the quantity of provision include:

• in total, 41.4% of household survey respondents felt that there is nearly enough/not enough provision for children and 43.4% indicate provision is about right/more than enough. This suggests that there is a perception that children’s provision is adequate borough-wide although there may be some specific localities of under provision. Those living in the Northern wards analysis area indicated the highest level of dissatisfaction with 51% of respondents stating an undersupply of provision

• general comments from the household survey indicate that there is discontent with provision in north Maidenhead, which is evidenced by findings in Table 7.1. With only 0.27 outdoor child facilities per 1,000 population based on 2026 population projections, Maidenhead is projected to have significantly lower provision than the other three analysis areas

• in contrast, the highest level of satisfaction displayed was from respondents to the household survey resident in the rural Northern wards analysis area.

• there are currently 60 play areas in the Borough with significant differences in the level of distribution across the analysis areas, the greatest number of sites are in Windsor and Eton (22) and the fewest in the Southern wards (12)

• the overall current level of provision is 3.69 hectares (60 sites), equating to an average site size of 0.06 hectares.

7.12 Table 7.2 summarises the provision of facilities for young people. Whilst there are 23 facilities in total, in reality these sites often contain several play items. This reinforces the importance of the application of the accessibility standards.

Table 7.2 – Provision for young people across the Borough Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current provision Current per 1,000 population (number of facilities) Number of Facilities Smallest facility (hectares) Largest facility (hectares) Projected population (2026) Provision (number) population per 1000 (2026)

Maidenhead 0.57 0.07 3 0.10 0.22 48,677 0.06 Windsor and Eton 0.43 0.27 9 0.002 0.11 37,075 0.24 Northern Wards 0.21 0.13 4 0.006 0.07 28,808 0.14 Southern Wards 0.53 0.27 7 0.004 0.20 33,092 0.21 Overall 1.71 0.17 23 0.002 0.22 147,652 0.16

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 97 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.13 The key issues emerging from Table 7.2 and consultations relating to the quantity of provision for young people are:

• compared to children’s play areas there is significantly higher levels of dissatisfaction regarding the supply of facilities for young people across the Borough

• analysis of household survey respondents’ perceptions across different geographical areas of the Borough indicates that this dissatisfaction is consistent. The highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards, although only 15.5% of respondents indicated provision was about right/more than enough. In all areas, over 58% of residents (including those with no opinion) were dissatisfied, indicating that there is an overwhelming perception of insufficient provision

• the information displayed in Table 7.2 reinforces the findings from the household survey, indicating that there is a lack of provision across the Borough as the provision per 1,000 for young people is low. This is with the exception of the Windsor and Eton and the Southern wards analysis area

• despite the relative high levels of provision in the Windsor and Eton wards and the Southern wards analysis area, localised deficiencies could still exist and this should be explored through the application of the local accessibility standard

• the Council’s Play Strategy identifies that localities targeted for improved provision include Old Windsor, Eton Wick, Sunninghill and Ascot, and Bray. Between 1996-2006, 18 separate teenscenes and three teenscenes combined with play areas have been provided. This report evaluates the number of facilities provided at sites (in order to consider the level of choice and opportunity provided) therefore greater emphasis will be placed on the application of the accessibility standard to reflect this. New residential development, especially to the north of Maidenhead will create additional deficiencies unless new facilities are provided as part of the development.

Setting provision standards – quantity

7.14 The recommended local quantity standards have been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and are summarised overleaf. Full justification for each of the standards is provided within Appendix I.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 98 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Quantity standard – provision for children (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

0.45 facilities per 1,000 population 0.45 facilities per 1,000 population

Justification

Consultation findings highlight that the main deficiency in children’s play provision exists in north Maidenhead. The average level of provision borough-wide is 0.45 per facilities per 1,000 population and this is deemed a suitable supply. The Council’s Play Strategy adopts the recommendations of the National Childcare Strategy and suggests that school premises should be made available out-of-school hours. It is important that the provision of new facilities for children is balanced with the need to improve the quality of existing provision. This is particularly important given that the key complaint from children regarding existing provision was that facilities are not sufficiently innovative or exciting. Respondents to the household survey indicated that more facilities for those aged under three were necessary.

The local standard set implies that the overall level of provision borough-wide will remain the same and the focus should be on quality improvements. The focus will be on ensuring that areas with lower levels of provision ie those are currently below the minimum level of provision based on the recommended local standard are focussed upon. This will either be through the development of new facilities (facilitated through S106 contributions) or relocating sites from areas in the Borough where accessibility and quality standards are already met and current sites are surplus to requirements. Accessibility standards will be accounted for and subsequent new provision will be delivered where it is most needed. In setting a standard in terms of facility numbers we are ensuring that access to at least one site for all residents is a key aim.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 99 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Quantity standard – provision for young people (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

0.17 facilities per 1,000 population 0.23 facilities per 1,000 population

Justification

There is an overriding need for more facilities for young people across the Borough. A standard significantly above the existing level of provision is therefore recommended. The location of facilities was perceived to be particularly important to encourage young people to use facilities. The preference for facilities located in proximity to residential areas places a greater demand on the quantity of facilities required. While quantity was the key concern emerging through consultation, the quality of facilities, and design of these sites was also frequently mentioned, particularly by young people themselves. In addition to setting a standard that recognises the need for increased provision across the Borough, it is important to ensure that the quality of facilities is also considered and that the need for more varied activities, besides traditional play, is considered.

The recommended local standard will result in the need for the creation of an additional 10 sites over the projected period (2026). This is also reflective of the findings of the Play Strategy. It was felt by Council officers that current provision was at around 60-75% of the current demand; this is reflected by the aspirational local standard.

Current provision - quality

7.15 The quality of provision for children and young people was assessed through site visits and is set out in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 overleaf. It is important to note that site assessments are conducted as a snapshot in time and are therefore reflective of the quality of the site on one specific day.

7.16 The quality scores are weighted according to the findings of the local consultation. Those elements that were highlighted through consultation as being a particularly important determinant of the quality have been given a higher weighting to ensure that they have a greater influence on the overall quality score that each site achieves. The full rationale behind this approach is set out in Appendix L.

7.17 Cleanliness and maintenance was perceived to be the key issue for both children and young people. For young people easy access and security and safety was considered to be more important than the facilities at the site. 75% of respondents to the young people survey indicated that they have access to a play site near their homes.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 100 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Table 7.3 – Quality of provision for children Geographical Geographical area sites of Number of quality Range (%) scores quality Average (%) scores quality Lowest sites quality Highest sites

Maidenhead 13 50 – 100 77.5 Raymond Kidwells Park Road Play Play Area (ID Area (ID 244) 252)

Windsor and 22 28.6 – 88 64.8 Kenneally Vansittart Eton Play Area Road (ID 118) Playground (ID 53)

Northern 13 60 – 92.5 80.9 Shepherds Asgarth Park wards Close Play Play Area (ID Area (ID 195), Heynes 349) Green Play Area (ID 221)

Southern 12 50 – 94 69.2 Cheapside Broomhall Rec wards Rec Play Play Area (ID Ground (ID 435) 408)

Overall 60 28.6 – 100 71.9 Kenneally Kidwells Park Play Area Play Area (ID (ID 118) 244)

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 101 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Table 7.4 – Quality of provision for young people Geographical area Geographical Number of facilities of quality Range (%) scores quality Average (%) scores sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest

Maidenhead 3 80 - 90 84.2 Desborough Oaken Grove Park MUGA + MUGA (ID YP OSF (ID 308) 236) Windsor and 9 35 – 82.5 60.6 Keeler Close Foster Avenue Eton Teenscene (ID MUGA (ID 99) 102) Northern 4 42.5 – 67 Alfred Major Phipps Close wards 87.5 Basketball MUGA Area (ID 370) (ID 227) Southern 7 38 – 94 66.0 Wraysbury Old Windsor wards Rec Ground Rec Ground Kickabout (ID MUGA (ID 176) 398) Overall 23 38 – 94 66.4 Wraysbury Old Windsor Rec Ground Rec Ground Kickabout (ID MUGA (ID 176) 398)

7.18 The key issues emerging from Tables 7.3 and 7.4 and the consultation relating to the quality of facilities for children and young people are:

Children

• 44% of respondents to the household survey identified the quality of children’s open space as good and a further 44% as average

• across the individual analysis areas the majority of respondents regard the quality of children’s open space as average or good. The highest levels of discontent were in the rural Northern analysis area (16% unsatisfied). In contrast the highest level of satisfaction was in the Southern wards analysis area (59% satisfied)

• respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction with regard to play equipment, general maintenance and management, boundary definition, provision of bins for litter, pathways, and planted and grassed areas

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 102 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

• household respondents indicated that areas where they were least satisfied with included the provision of toilets and seats and benches

• from the school survey the main reasons for not using open spaces were ‘they’re not very good quality’ (15%), ‘things aren’t there that I want to use or do’ (10%), and ‘I’m not interested’ (10%)

• 52% of respondents to the school survey stated that they feel unsafe at certain open spaces. It was suggested that safety could be improved by ‘travelling to sites with friends’ (23%), cameras/ CCTVs (22%) and better lighting (22%)

• Table 7.3 identifies Windsor and Eton and the Southern wards analysis areas as having the lowest quality scoring sites on average. All sites in the Northern wards scored highly, which reflects the household survey results

• the sites that scored significantly low quality scores (below 50%) are detailed below:

- Kenneally Play Area, ID 118 (28.6%) – poor surfacing and equipment, lack of ancillary provision

- Dedworth Manor Play Area, ID 129 (44%) – graffiti and litter.

Young people

• from the household survey the quality of teenage facilities was rated average or poor by 89% of respondents

• across the individual analysis areas, the modal response regarding the quality of teenage facilities was poor. Residents in Maidenhead portrayed the most dissatisfaction, with 56% of respondents stating the quality of facilities as poor

• general comments echoed the perception of teenage open space as being of poor quality and there was a general perception of a lack of policing around teenage facilities

• the analysis area with the highest level of satisfaction was Windsor and Eton (17% citing provision as good)

• Table 7.4 suggests that Windsor and Eton has the poorest quality facilities (contradicting the household survey satisfaction results) and Maidenhead has the highest standard of facilities. The overall quality score average of 66% is low and quality was a key concern amongst all those consulted

• the sites that scored significantly low in quality (ie below 50%) are detailed below:

- Kenneally MUGA, ID 117 (35%) – litter and poorly drained surface

- Wraysbury Rec Ground Kickabout, ID 176 (38%) – no lighting

- Alfred Major Basketball Area, ID 370 (42.5%) – limited ancillary accommodation

- South Ascot Teen Area, ID 424 (46%) – ground not maintained

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 103 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Setting provision standards – quality

7.19 The recommended local quality standards for play provision for children and for young people are summarised overleaf. Full justifications and consultation relating to the quality of provision for the local standard is provided within Appendix L.

Quality Standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – provision for children

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential features: Desirable features: Apply Fields in Trust Maximise range of play opportunities for (FIT) standards children, disabled users etc Clean and well Provision of ancillary facilities maintained eg toilets, seating User consultation for all Suitable soft landscaping new provision Analysis highlights the need for innovative and imaginative provision of facilities for children. Community involvement from children in the provision of play facilities was also considered to be particularly important.

Recommended standard – provision for young people

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable

Clean, safe and well Maximise range of activities maintained at all times

Apply FIT standards Provision of ancillary facilities eg toilets, seating

Provision of seats

User consultation for all new provision

Analysis highlights the need for innovative and imaginative provision of facilities for teenagers. Community involvement from teenagers in the provision of facilities was also considered to be particularly important.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 104 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Accessibility

7.20 A relatively small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use children’s play areas most frequently (15%); this may be due to the fact that it is very specific to its function. When accessing this type of open space 65% of these respondents stated walking was their current method of travel.

7.21 In terms of length of journey, results showed that most people travelled 5-10 minutes (54%) and under 5 minutes (22%). This indicates that the majority of people who identified play areas as their most frequented typology do not travel further than 10 minutes to reach a play area site. This may be influenced by the location of existing facilities and the function of this typology, which primarily is targeting a younger age group who may have a lower propensity for travelling for longer periods of time to reach sites.

7.22 59% of respondents to the school survey indicated that they would walk to their most frequented open space, 19% would take the car, and 13% cycle. When asked what method of transportation they would actually prefer to use in order to reach the site 44% suggested walking and 25% cycling. This supports the need to ensure that sites are accessible by cycleways, which may be addressed through the green infrastructure study. It currently takes most respondents under five minutes to reach their most frequented site (47%). 28% take 5-10 minutes, and 13% 10-15 minutes.

Setting provision standards – accessibility

7.23 The accessibility of sites is paramount in maximising usage as well as providing opportunities for people to use the site. The recommended local standard is set in the form of a distance threshold and is derived directly from the findings of the local consultations. Site specific accessibility issues were also analysed as part of the programme of site visits where information and signage, transport and general issues were assessed.

7.24 Consultation and analysis highlights that the key issues with regards accessibility of provision for children and young people include:

• the ability to access play facilities within a convenient distance of residents’ homes was a prominent features, especially for parents with young children. Local access to provision for children and young people is particularly important in order to promote use of the sites

• if new facilities were to be introduced into their locality then the highest proportion of respondents to the household survey indicated that they would be willing to travel 10-15 minutes to access the site (35%). Suitable access for those travelling on foot and public transport links are therefore instrumental in the effective delivery of facilities for children and young people

• for children’s play areas 86% of respondents to the household survey expected to be able to walk to sites. Of those that expect to walk 75% of people believed the journey should take 5-10 minutes

• when commentating on young people’s facilities, 70% of respondents to the household survey stated that walking would be the preferred option when travelling to this type of open space. Of those respondents who would expect to walk to teenager facilities, the most commonly held expectation is that this journey should take 5-10 minutes (62%)

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 105 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

• site assessment scores highlighted that most children’s facilities scored poor or very poor for surfacing and ancillary accommodation. Most young people’s facilities scored poor or very poor for cleanliness and maintenance and security and safety

• site assessments carried out at facilities for teenagers showed that the average access score for these sites is 65.9% compared to children’s facilities with an average of 69%. For children’s facilities, a large number of sites were rated as very poor (35% of children’s play areas) in relation to information and signage. 52% of young people’s facilities were rated very poor for information and signage.

7.25 The recommended local accessibility standards for children and young people are summarised overleaf. Provision of both types of facility is expected in proximity to the home. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix M. Although some analysis areas may be deemed to have sufficient provision or it could be created through planned new residential development (creating new demand in the area), locational deficiencies could still exist and this should be explored through the accessibility standard.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 106 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Accessibility standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard – provision for children

10 MINUTE (480 METRES) WALK TIME

Justification

The majority of respondents to the household questionnaire indicate that they would expect to walk to a children’s play facility (86%). Furthermore, the distances parents are willing to let their children travel unaccompanied from their homes to play facilities has reduced as concerns over safety have grown. Facilities should therefore be in proximity to the home. PPG17 suggests that distance thresholds should be reflective of the maximum distance that typical users can reasonably be expected to travel. The 75% threshold level for children using the responses from the household survey was a 10 minute (480 metre) walk time for all analysis areas with the exception of the Northern wards (15 minutes). Furthermore the modal response was a 5 minute walk time (consistent across all of the analysis areas except the Northern wards which was 10 minutes). This implies that while a 10 minute standard is consistent with PPG17 criteria the long term aspiration should be to provide provision within 5 minutes of residents’ homes.

Setting the standard in accordance with the 75th percentile threshold level is advocated by PPG17. Moreover, a larger accessibility catchment provides greater flexibility in terms of striking a balance between qualitative and quantitative improvements in provision. Where a five minute catchment would place a greater requirement on new provision, local consultation also revealed the importance of high quality sites and not just new facilities. The Council should continually seek to promote measures designed to improve accessibility, such as better public transport or cycling routes.

A standard of 10 minutes (480 metre) walk time therefore meets user expectations and provides a realistic target for implementation. Furthermore, this local standard encompasses all types of provision for children, including the larger, more strategic sites that people could be expected to travel further to visit. The provision of local facilities meets with the aspirations of children and ensures that the use of these play facilities is maximised. It is important to consider the provision of play facilities in the context of amenity green spaces and other typologies providing more informal play opportunities for children.

*a straight-line distance of 480m has been used rather than the pedestrian distance of 800m. This is based on average walking distances reduced by a factor of 40% to account for the fact that people do not walk in straight lines. The 40% factoring is based on the approach set out in the FIT Six Acre Standard.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 107 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Recommended standard – Provision for Young People

10 MINUTE (480 METRES) WALK TIME

Justification

70% of respondents to the household survey stated that walking is the preferred method of travel to a young person’s facility; therefore it is recommended that a walk time standard be adopted. A secondary point is that young people do not always have access to a motorised vehicle and consequently a walk time enables access for all ages and users. Provision of localised facilities meets the needs of young people as identified within the internet survey. Location was a particularly important determinant of the level of use of a site.

While the 75th percentile threshold level is 15 minutes, the modal response rate is 10 minutes. Given that the overriding issue emerging from consultations was a shortfall of provision for children and young people and the need for local facilities, it is recommended that the standard is set at 10 minutes in line with the modal response.

In applying the local standards, consideration should be made for other open spaces that are used by young people, such as amenity green spaces, parks and outdoor sport facilities. The Council’s Play Strategy sets out the key features that will be provided as part of the provision of facilities for young people and it should be ensured that new facilities developed are of sufficient quality and appropriate for the young people they are designed for. *a straight-line distance of 480m has been used rather than the pedestrian distance of 800m. This is based on average walking distances reduced by a factor of 40% to account for the fact that people do not walk in straight lines. The 40% factoring is based on the approach set out in the FIT Six Acre Standard.

Applying provision standards

7.26 The application of the recommended quality, quantity and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of open space sport and recreation facilities and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need.

7.27 The quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance. Applying the standards together is a much more meaningful method of analysis than applying the standards separately. The application of these standards is set out overleaf in Table 7.5.

7.28 The findings of the application of these standards should complement the principles set out in the play strategy and inform future decision-making.

7.29 The application of the local standard for quantity results in the following issues:

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 108 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Table 7.5 – Application of quantity standard

Children Young people

Analysis areas Future provision provision Future of in number (2026) facilities balanced the local against standard (0.45 facilities per 1000 population) provision Future of in number (2026) facilities balanced the local against standard (0.23 facilities per 1000 population)

Maidenhead -8.85 -8.17

Windsor and Eton 5.35 0.49

Northern wards 0.07 -2.61

Southern wards -2.86 -0.59

Overall -6.29 -10.88 Green = above the minimum standard; Red = below the minimum standard

• in terms of children’s facilities, the application of the local standard (0.45 facilities per 1,000 population) shows an overall shortfall in provision across the Borough of 6.29 (6) facility by 2026

• two analysis areas show a future deficiency in children’s play provision: Maidenhead (8.85 facilities), and the Northern wards (0.07 facilities)

• for teenage facilities, the local standard of 0.23 facilities per 1,000 population shows that up to 2026 Maidenhead and the Northern wards will have a deficiency in provision

• the total deficiency across the Borough equates to 10.88 facilities, with Maidenhead having the greatest shortfall (8.17 facilities)

• it is important to note that whilst it appears that two of the analysis areas have sufficient provision for children and one for teenage facilities in quantitative terms, locational deficiencies could still exist and this should be explored through the application of the local accessibility standard.

7.30 The application of the local accessibility standards in relation to play provision for children is set out in Figure 7.1.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 109 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Figure 7.1 – Provision for children in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – PPG17 Assessment page 110 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.31 Figure 7.1 indicates that while facilities for children are evenly distributed across the Borough, there are areas to the north and east of Maidenhead, around Cookham and in smaller settlements such as Waltham St Lawrence that do not have access to children’s play areas. These areas of deficiency are primarily in the Northern wards and Maidenhead analysis areas and reflect the overall quantitative shortfalls.

7.32 The Southern wards generally have a good supply of children’s play areas in all major settlements with the exception of South Ascot and Sunninghill. As highlighted by the quantitative analysis, there is a significant oversupply of play areas in the Windsor and Eton analysis area. The accessibility map shows that several of the catchment areas are overlapping, indicating that play areas may be surplus to requirements and meet local need better in the north of Maidenhead or Northern wards.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 111 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Figure 7.2 – Provision of amenity green space and children’s facilities (general areas for potential provision)

Point A: north east Maidenhead

Point B: west Maidenhead H G A Point C: north Ascot

Point D: Sunninghill F E Point E: north Maidenhead

Point F: north west Maidenhead B Point G: Cookham

Point H: Bisham

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 112 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.33 While this section focuses primarily on equipped areas for children and young people, it is also essential to consider the role that amenity green spaces play in offsetting the need for the provision of facilities for young people and children. Figure 7.2 maps both provision for children and amenity green space together. It reveals that several areas across the Borough that are not served by either typology. The application of the accessibility catchment highlights particular deficiencies in residential areas where there is no provision of either amenity green space or a children’s play area:

• Point A: north east of Maidenhead – Raymill Island play area serves the population south of this point but there is limited open space of any typology north of this site

• Point B: west of Maidenhead – the area around Highway Avenue and Newlands drive

• Point C: north of Ascot – there is a deficiency of all informal open space typologies in this area around Windsor Road

• Point D: Sunninghill – less of a priority as this area is not as populated although again there is a shortfall of informal open space typologies that could accommodate a play area.

7.34 The quantitative analysis identified an oversupply of around six play areas in Windsor and Eton. Further localised consultation is required although it may be possible to relocate these sites to areas of deprivation in the north of the Borough. The following are examples of potential sites that could accommodate a form of children’s play area and would serve a residential area that currently has limited access to this type of facility:

• Point E: North Town Moor (ID 283 – north Maidenhead) – subject to discussions with the National Trust

• Point F: Pinkeys Green AGS (ID 314 – west Maidenhead) - ) – subject to discussions with the National Trust

• Point G: Bell Rope Meadow (ID 375 – Cookham)

• Point H: Church Road AGS (ID 362 – Bisham)

7.35 Figure 7.3 below demonstrates how the two areas, Maidenhead and the Northern wards, which currently have a quantitative undersupply of children’s play areas, are also affected by physical barriers (dual carriage ways, railway lines, rivers) for several current sites. This primarily decreases the accessibility for those residents in the south west of Maidenhead and northern part of Bray.

C1 Use the findings of the accessibility assessment to identify suitable sites in Maidenhead and the Northern wards that are suitable for new children’s play areas.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 113 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Figure 7.3 – Children’s provision Maidenhead and the Northern wards

7.36 The application of the local accessibility standards in relation to provision for young people is set out in Figure 7.4.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 114 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Figure 7.4 – Provision for young people in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 115 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.37 The distribution of facilities for young people in Figure 7.4 also highlights the shortfall again of sites in Maidenhead and the Northern wards. There are areas of high population density in central, east, west and north of Maidenhead that are not provided for. Major settlements in the Northern wards that require provision include Bray, Cookham, Bisham, and Hurley. The Windsor and Eton analysis area is generally well catered for although the distribution of sites does mean that areas of north Windsor, Eton and Eton Wick have limited accessibility to sites within the required local standard. The quantitative supply of sites in the Southern wards analysis area meets the local standard although gaps still exist in Ascot and south of Old Windsor. It is important that if new provision is not provided in the Southern wards and the Windsor and Eton analysis areas all residents are able to easily reach current sites through well publicised rights of way.

7.38 While this section focuses primarily on equipped areas for children and young people, it is also essential to consider the role that amenity green spaces play in offsetting the need for the provision of facilities for young people and children. Areas deficient in both amenity space and formal facilities should be a particular priority for new provision. The provision of amenity green space in relation to facilities for young people is set out overleaf in Figure 7.6.

7.39 Figure 7.5 below demonstrates how two areas, Maidenhead and the Northern wards, which currently have a quantitative undersupply of young people’s facilities, are also affected by barriers for several current sites. This primarily increases the lack of accessibility for those residents in the south and centre of Maidenhead. The young people’s facility to the north of Maidenhead (Alfred Major Basketball Area) in the Northern wards has a relatively low access score (60%) and quality score (42.5%) which increases the need for further provision within this area.

Figure 7.5 – Provision for young people in Maidenhead and the Northern wards

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 116 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Figure 7.6 – Provision of amenity green space and young people’s facilities (general areas for potential provision)

Point A: north east Maidenhead I H Point B: west Maidenhead A C Point C: Hurley

G Point D: Ascot F Point E: Sunninghill J

Point F: central Maidenhead B Point G: north Maidenhead

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 117 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.40 Figure 7.6 portrays a similar picture to that which has been discussed for children’s play areas, with the shortfalls being mainly in Maidenhead and the Northern wards. Mapping facilities for young people and amenity green space shows large areas within the Borough that still cannot access one of the two open spaces within the recommended travel times. The main areas of concern are:

• Point A: north east of Maidenhead – the opportunity to locate a teenage facility on any open space around to the north of Raymill Island should be explored

• Point B: west of Maidenhead – the area around Highway Avenue and Newlands drive – the opportunity to establish a site that offered facilities for children and young people should be explored

• Point C: Hurley – there is currently no obvious open space to provide teenage facilities

• Point D: between Ascot and North Ascot – this is a large residential area with limited provision of any open space

• Point E: Sunninghill and Sunningdale - less of a priority as this area is not as populated as Ascot although again there is a shortfall of open space typologies that could accommodate a play area. The opportunity to establish a site that offered facilities for children and young people should be explored.

7.41 Figure 7.6 also identifies several areas where amenity green space could accommodate teenage facilities and provide better accessibility to all residents in the Borough. Examples of these amenity sites include:

• Point F: Fair Acre Amenity Space (ID 334 – central Maidenhead)

• Point G: North Town Moor (ID 283 – north Maidenhead) – opportunity for a site that accommodates both children and young people’s play equipment (further discussions would be required with the National Trust if this site is to be developed)

• Point H: Odney Common (ID 377 – Cookham) (further discussions would be required with the National Trust and John Lewis Partnership if this site is to be developed)

• Point I: Church Road AGS (ID 362 – Bisham) – opportunity for a site that accommodates both children and young people’s play equipment

• Point J: Barry Avenue AGS (ID 42) – the possibility of providing teenage facilities on this amenity green space would provide greater access to those resident in Eton.

C2 Use the findings of the accessibility assessment to identify suitable sites in Maidenhead and the Northern wards that are suitable for new young people’s facilities. Consideration should be given to the provision of an appropriate variety and scale of facilities.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 118 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.42 The points raised on the back of Figures 7.4 and 7.6 shows that future provision should be a priority in the areas that are currently not served by children’s facilities, young people’s facilities or amenity green space. 7.43 While the quantity of provision was the overriding theme of consultations, the quality of provision was also considered to be important, and many existing facilities were criticised for the lack of innovative and exciting play equipment.

7.44 The site assessments provide an indication of the quality of existing facilities and it is clear that there is significant variation across the Borough. The quality standard and related site assessments should inform a programme of improvements, highlighting sites in need of upgrading.

C3 Use the findings of the quality assessment to inform a programme of improvements across facilities for children and young people. Where the opportunity arises, priority should be given to poor quality play areas serving unique catchments.

C4 All sites should meet the Fields in Trust standards. Existing sites should be protected.

7.45 In light of the localised nature of play provision, consideration has been given to priorities within each analysis area. In terms of locating priority areas for new facilities, new provision should be targeted at those areas outside the distance threshold where there are sufficient people to justify new provision.

7.46 Consideration should be given to the feasibility of delivering new sites in partnership with schools, to maximise usage of the facilities and ensure best possible use of resources. This is a key theme in the Council’s Play Strategy and should be driven forwards in line with the conclusion emanating from this report with certain site prioritised for their strategic location.

C5 Investigate opportunities to deliver new facilities for both children and young people at school sites. These facilities would meet the needs of the community at the same time as optimising the use of resources.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 119 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.47 Analysis of the quantitative standards indicates that the Maidenhead analysis area shows the greatest overall deficiency in the provision of equipped facilities for children, with a shortfall of eight facilities by 2026. This suggests that there are insufficient facilities to meet the needs of current and future residents in this area. This is reinforced by the application of the accessibility standards, which highlights several areas of deficiency as shown (see Figure 7.7).

Figure 7.7 Children’s play areas and amenity green space in Maidenhead

C6 Investigate opportunities for the provision of up to eight new equipped facilities for children in Maidenhead.

7.48 Furthermore, in areas where the quantity of play areas is insufficient to meet local needs, the quality of these sites takes on greater importance. Kidwells Park Play Area is the only facility in Maidenhead that scores higher than 90%. Raymond Road Play Area and Switchback Road Play Area are the poorest quality children’s facilities in this area and are in significant need of improvement.

7.49 The other area with a shortfall is the Northern wards. Only two sites score above 90% and sites such as Shepherds Close Play Area require improvements.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 120 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

7.50 Like provision for children, application of the local standards indicates that there are also shortfalls in provision for teenagers in the Maidenhead analysis area (six facilities) and the Northern wards (three facilities).

C7 Provide new facilities for young people within the Maidenhead and the Northern wards. Any new facilities developed should be created in consultation with local teenagers to ensure that facilities meet local need and are well respected.

7.51 While there are few deficiencies for children within the Windsor and Eton and Southern wards analysis areas, facilities (both children’s and teenage) here are of worse quality than any other area in the Borough. Where there is no quantity deficiencies, opportunities should be taken to improve the quality of existing facilities. If no new sites are to be developed in the south of the Borough as this area already meets the local standard then the Council should seek to ensure easy, well publicised access routes to the current facilities for residents in Ascot and Sunninghill.

C8 Continue to protect the existing facilities in the Southern wards as all serve unique catchments. Opportunities to improve the quality and access to existing facilities should be prioritised over new provision. Investigate access to facilities for residents in Ascot and Sunninghill.

C9 Continue to protect rural play facilities and support parish councils in the ongoing provision and maintenance of these sites.

Assist in providing new facilities in areas where there is sufficient population and where local demand is expressed.

7.52 In a similar vein, effective provision for young people is challenging within the rural areas and it would not be realistic to expect dedicated facilities for young people in every village. Alternative solutions should be explored to ensure that local needs are met, for example the provision of mobile facilities for teenagers. Additionally, it will be essential to ensure good public transport links between villages and facilities to maximise opportunities for young people.

C10 Consider public transport links in the planning and development of new facilities for young people and ensure that facilities are accessible to young people within the rural areas.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 121 SECTION 7 – PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Summary and recommendations

7.53 Equipped provision for children and young people was the overriding theme of consultations throughout the study with residents expressing concerns over the quantity of provision, as well as highlighting that the quality of many facilities is insufficient and that facilities are perceived to be inadequately varied and challenging for a variety of age groups.

7.54 The recommended local standards address these issues, setting challenging criteria that can be used to identify priority areas. Analysis of existing facilities highlight that there is significant variation in the quality of sites although sites are distributed relatively evenly across the Borough.

7.55 Application of the standards highlights particular priorities in Maidenhead for both young people and children. There is also a shortfall of both types of facility in the Northern wards. In contrast, residents in Windsor have a significant oversupply of children’s play areas, with sites often having overlapping catchment areas.

7.56 Any new facilities developed should meet the suggested quality criteria. Site assessments carried out at existing facilities should also be used to inform decisions on those facilities in need of enhancement.

7.57 Effectively providing facilities in the rural area is an important challenge and it will be essential to ensure that public transport links and public rights of way are maximised.

7.58 Consideration should be given to delivering facilities for young people and children at school sites to maximise resources and ensure that all residents are able to access at least one facility.

7.59 The impact of future housing growth, will impact on the demand and access to provision for children and young people, potentially in areas that are already deficient in play provision. Any increased quantitative or accessibility deficiencies that arise as a result of housing growth should be addressed through the provision of new or upgraded facilities.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 122

SECTION 8

OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Outdoor sports facilities

Introduction and definition

8.1 Outdoor sports facilities is a wide-ranging category of open space which includes both natural and artificial surfaces for sport and recreation that are owned and managed by local authorities, town and parish councils, sports associations, schools, universities, companies and individual sports clubs. Examples include playing pitches, athletics tracks, bowling greens and golf courses with the primary purpose of participation in outdoor sports.

8.2 PPG17 considers the provision of all the different types of outdoor sport facilities as one and does not break down the typology into more detailed assessments for each sport. Sub strategies, considering the specific supply and demand for each sport should be undertaken in order to fully understand localised demand for each facility type. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Playing Pitch Strategy (2007) provides specific information regarding shortfalls and surpluses of pitches that will be used to inform the development of this document.

8.3 PPG17 states that the provision of outdoor sport facilities is normally demand-led and therefore it is possible to develop and use a population-based quantity standard. This will help to ensure an adequate supply of outdoor sport facilities over the projected period up until 2026. Participation will not only be dependent on the number of facilities but also on the degree to which facilities are accessible and of sufficient quality to persuade people that they are worth using. Therefore as with the other typologies covered by this report, quantity issues need to be considered alongside the locally derived quality and accessibility standards.

Home Park, ID 1 8.4 Outdoor sports facilities are often a focal point of a local community, functioning as a recreational and amenity resource in addition to a formal sports facility. This is particularly true of pitches, which often have a secondary function of a local dog walking and kickabout area. Clewer and Wraysbury Recreation Grounds are particular examples of this, where the primary purpose of the site is the provision of sporting facilities but where they are also of high recreational value to the local community.

8.5 The effective provision of formal and informal facilities for sports and increasing the availability of school facilities will be instrumental if the Council are to increase participation rates. The recent Active People survey (2006) highlights that the Borough currently has a high percentage of residents regularly participating in sport and active recreation, with 26.4% of residents participating on at least three occasions weekly (for at least 30 minutes each time), compared to an average of 21% nationally.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 123 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Context

8.6 The key issues for outdoor sports facilities arising from a review of strategic documents are:

• the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Playing Pitch Strategy (2007) identifies the surpluses and deficiencies of sports (football, cricket, rugby union and hockey) pitches in the Borough. Key findings are as follows:

- football – there is currently an over supply of 12.3 senior football pitches with the only slight shortfall being in the Maidenhead analysis area

- junior football – there is a significant shortfall across all analysis areas equating to an overall undersupply of 23.4 pitches

- mini-soccer – there is a significant shortfall across all analysis areas except Windsor, equating to an overall undersupply of 29 pitches

- rugby union – there are enough rugby union pitches to meet current and future demand. There is an oversupply of approximately eight adult pitches, whilst there is a current shortfall of around eight junior pitches

- cricket – there is a shortfall across all analysis areas except Windsor with an overall undersupply of 10.5 pitches

- hockey – there is a significant oversupply of 12.5 pitches due to the large number of synthetic turf pitches (STPs) in the Borough. It is worth noting that STPs are used for other forms of outdoor sports within the Borough such as football and rugby training.

• the Local Plan (2003) adopts a general standard of 4.3 ha of open space per 1,000 population, which is considered a reasonable amount to accommodate the spread of recreational demands of the local population. The 4.3 ha should comprise of formal sports provision of 1.8 ha per 1,000 population (pitches, courts, greens, tracks)

• the Local Plan states that where appropriate, formal sports facilities will be sought as part of a scheme for the redevelopment of all or part of an identified employment/commercial area. If facilities cannot be provided on site then a contribution will be sought by means of a planning obligation to the Council to provide new facilities

8.7 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted the following key issues:

• findings from the household survey showed a limited amount of interest with outdoor sport facilities, especially bowling greens and STPs with 52% and 50% of household respondents respectively stating that they had ‘no opinion’ on the level, quality or accessibility of these types of outdoor sports provision in the borough. This lack of interest is surprising given the Active People survey (2006) findings as detailed above, which indicate high levels of regular participation that would suggest an interest in sporting provision in the borough

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 124 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

• only 4% of respondents to the household survey indicated that outdoor sport facilities were their most frequented open space. Results from all respondents of the survey indicate that 22% visit outdoor sport facilities at least once a month and 26% less than once a month

• despite this, the benefits that outdoor sports facilities offer in terms of health improvements was recognised by the local population through the various other consultation methods, such as drop-in sessions. It is also important to note that parks, natural areas and amenity areas also offer significant benefits to local residents in terms of their health, encouraging them to participate in physical activity and recreation

• there are perceived issues with the quantity of provision indicating particularly that there are locational deficiencies of this type of open space. The highest levels of dissatisfaction were from household survey respondents in the Maidenhead analysis area. Although in all analysis areas, over 58% of household survey respondents were dissatisfied, indicating that there is an overwhelming perception of insufficient provision. Improvements to the quality of existing provision were also highlighted as vital

• 49% of respondents to the household survey indicated that there were nearly/not enough outdoor sports facilities and opportunities to increase the value of the sports stock to the local community through enhancing community access were highlighted. The largest shortfall indicated by the household survey was tennis courts (35% suggesting there ‘is not enough’ provision)

• consultation feedback also highlighted that Borough residents view the protection of playing pitches as particularly important. This was a recurring theme of the drop-in sessions.

• consultation with Council officers identified a significant shortfall in junior football pitch provision. Efforts are currently being made to provide adult football pitches outside of towns and converting adult pitches that are located in the towns for junior use due to greater travel constraints. There is a shift in demand in terms of adult pitches (less demand at weekends) with a growing interest in 5-a side competitions and the subsequent need for all-weather STPs.

Quantity of provision

8.8 The provision of outdoor sports facilities across the Borough is summarised in Table 8.1. The quantities include all facilities at schools across the Borough. This is in line with the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy (2007) which looks to increase community dual use access at as many school sites as possible.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 125 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Table 8.1 – Provision of outdoor sports facilities (including golf courses) across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current per 1000 (ha) population sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) per Provision (ha) 1000 population (2026)

Maidenhead 136.68 3.19 27 0.14 53.74 48,677 2.81

Windsor and Eton 161.33 4.84 38 0.02 29.88 37,075 4.35

Northern wards 214.74 6.80 28 0.13 63.59 28,808 7.45

Southern wards 99.78 3.85 24 0.05 21.79 33,092 3.02

Overall 612.53 4.58 117 0.02 63.59 147,652 4.15

8.9 Due to the size of golf courses they can often skew the quantitative analysis. Table 8.2 provides the quantity for each analysis area that excludes golf courses. Golf courses will be considered as part of the accessibility analysis although it will be the figures excluding golf courses that will be used for any standard setting and quantitative analysis.

Table 8.2 – Provision of outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf courses) across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current per 1000 (ha) population sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) per Provision (ha) 1000 population (2026)

Maidenhead 82.59 1.93 26 0.14 27.19 48,677 1.70

Windsor and Eton 152.06 4.57 37 0.02 29.88 37,075 4.10

Northern wards 59.01 1.87 25 0.13 10.22 28,808 2.05

Southern wards 81.52 3.15 23 0.05 21.79 33,092 2.46

Overall 375.18 2.81 111 0.02 29.88 147,652 2.54

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 126 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

8.10 The key issues emerging from Table 8.2 and consultations relating to the quantity of provision of outdoor sports facilities across the Borough are:

• the current level of provision is 375.18 hectares spread across 111 sites, which equates to an average site size of 3.39 hectares

• overall 30% of respondents to the household survey suggested that there were not enough outdoor sports facilities in the Borough. 12% of the respondents had no opinion with regard to this typology

• of the facility types surveyed, a general dissatisfaction was shown in terms of the provision of all facility types, with the exception of golf courses. The highest levels of dissatisfaction shown were with regards to the adequacy of provision of tennis courts, synthetic turf pitches and grass pitches

• when considering the level of satisfaction across the analysis areas, the rural Southern wards showed the highest level of satisfaction, with 41% of residents stating provision was ‘about right’ and 25% identifying provision as ‘not enough’. The rural Northern wards displayed the lowest levels of satisfaction with only 31% suggesting supply was adequate and 35% that it was ‘not enough’

• consistent with the consultation findings, Table 8.2 shows that the rural Southern wards analysis area has the second highest level of provision per 1,000 population based on 2026 population projections (2.46 ha). The Windsor and Eton analysis area has the highest levels of provision per 1,000 (4.10 ha)

• at drop-in sessions the importance of outdoor sports facilities was emphasised by Borough residents, with many viewing the protection of this type of open space as essential. Supply was deemed as adequate by most, although there was recurring reference to the fact that many grass pitches were damaged due to overuse and poor drainage

• due to the nature of the typology the size of sites varies significantly. The smallest site is found in the Windsor and Eton analysis area (0.02 hectares - Princess Margaret Royal Free School play area 2, ID 73) and the largest also found in Windsor and Eton (29.88 hectares – Home Park OSF, ID 1).

Setting provision standards – quantity

8.11 The recommended local quantity standard for outdoor sports facilities has been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and is summarised overleaf. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix I.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 127 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Quantity Standard (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard 2.81 ha per 1000 population 2.92 ha per 1000 population Justification The outdoor sports facility typology encompasses a wide variety of different facilities including athletics tracks, pitches, golf courses and bowling greens. In order to understand the demand for outdoor sports facilities in a greater level of detail, it is essential to ideally consider each type of sports facility separately. Golf courses have been excluded from the quantity setting as it is deemed that their size would skew results and that they are usually commercial ventures that are solely demand-led. The variation in responses indicates that there may be a disparity in the distribution of facilities across the Borough although overall there is dissatisfaction in the quantity of all types of facility with the exception of golf courses. This indicates that an increase in quantity across all outdoor sports facility types is required, which reflects findings from the recent Playing Pitch Strategy (2007). All potential school pitches have already been included in the quantity standard calculation in line with the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Council’s aim to increase the number of dual use sites across the Borough. The Playing Pitch Strategy identified that across all types (football, rugby, cricket and hockey) of outdoor pitches in 2011 the Windsor and Eton analysis area will have an oversupply of 2.5 pitches, and all other analysis areas an undersupply (Northern wards 7.3 pitches, Maidenhead 24.9 pitches, Southern wards 24.2 pitches). The recommendation of the Playing Pitch Strategy was to encourage community use of all school sites. For the purposes of this PPG17 study, the assumption is that all school sites are publicly accessible. The recommended local standard of 2.92 ha per 1,000 population will require 9.25 ha of additional outdoor sports facilities, which equates to the size of 11 football pitches. This is in addition to all school sites providing public access. Consultation with Council officers identified a significant shortfall in junior football pitch provision. Efforts are currently being made to provide adult football pitches outside of towns and converting adult pitches that are located in the towns for junior use due to greater travel constraints. There is a shift in demand in terms of adult pitches (less demand at weekends) with a growing interest in 5-a side competitions and the subsequent need for all-weather STPs. Given that junior pitches are smaller in size than adult pitches, it can be considered that while the layout of pitches may change (ie conversion from adult to junior), the required overall quantity of football pitch provision should remain at similar levels to the existing quantity. S106 funds are available for the provision of formal pitches north of Maidenhead. Setting the standard slightly above the current level of provision will identify local deficiencies and assist the Council in meeting a growing demand for outdoor sports facilities.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 128 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Quality of existing provision

8.12 The quality of existing outdoor sports facilities in the Borough was assessed through site visits and is set out in Table 8.2. It is important to note that site assessments are conducted as a snapshot in time and are therefore reflective of the quality of the site on one specific day.

8.13 The quality scores are weighted according to the findings of the local consultation. Those elements that were highlighted through consultation as being a particularly important determinant of quality have been given a higher weighting to ensure that they have a greater influence on the overall quality score that each site achieves. The full rationale behind this approach is set out in Appendix L. The quality of both the playing surface and the cleanliness and maintenance of sites were deemed to be particularly important for the provision of outdoor sports.

Table 8.3 – Quality of outdoor sports facilities across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Geographical area Geographical sites of Number of quality Range (%) scores quality Average (%) scores sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest Maidenhead 15 60 – 96 82.7 Pinkeys Green Maidenhead Cricket (ID Golf Course (ID 312) 207) Windsor and 15 44 – 86 67.3 Eton Eton School/ Eton Recreation Common Lane Ground Golf Course (ID (south) (ID 37) 30) Northern 20 44 – 97.1 82.0 Waltham St Ockwells Park wards Lawrence OSF (ID 209) OSF (ID 390) Southern 15 50 – 92.5 70.7 South Ascot Wraysbury wards Rec Ground Lawn Tennis (ID 422) Club (ID 462) Overall 66 44 – 97.1 73.6 Eton Ockwells Park Recreation OSF (ID 209) Ground (south) (ID 37) / Waltham St Lawrence OSF (ID 390) *no site assessment was conducted at school sites

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 129 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

8.14 The key issues emerging from Table 8.3 and the consultation relating to the quality of outdoor sports facilities include:

• responses from the household survey show mixed opinions concerning the quality of outdoor sports facilities. 50% of respondents rate their quality as average, 19% poor and 30% good

• the individual analysis areas provide similar results, with most respondents in all areas considering the quality of outdoor sports facilities to be average. The highest levels of dissatisfaction were in the Northern wards (28% indicating poor quality) and the Southern wards (21% indicating poor quality), demonstrating that there is a negative quality perception that needs to be addressed in the rural analysis areas

• drop-in session responses suggested that quality of existing facilities was adequate rather than good. There seems to be a problem with sports pitch surfaces being somewhat uneven in places, and possibly compacted from overuse

• Table 8.3 identifies Windsor and Eton as having the poorest quality facilities with Maidenhead having the highest quality sites. There are two sites that scored below 50%, details of which are provided below:

- Eton Recreation Ground (south), ID 37 (44%) – poor paths and ancillary accommodation

- Waltham St Lawrence OSF, ID 390 (44%) – limited maintenance and no ancillary accommodation.

Setting provision standards – quality

8.15 The recommended local quality standard for outdoor sports facilities is summarised overleaf. Full justifications and consultation relating to the quality of provision for the local standard is provided within Appendix L.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 130 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Quality Standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential to local residents. The recommended local standard does not include any desirable features.

Essential features: Apply relevant National Governing Body (NGB) specifications Clean/ litter free and well maintained Level surface/ good drainage Changing facilities Car parking Toilets

Accessibility

8.16 A relatively small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (4.1%). Of these frequent users, 75% travel by car and only 10% walk to access these facilities. With regards to travel times, 75% of respondents stated a current journey time of under 10 minutes.

Setting provision standards – accessibility

8.17 The accessibility of sites is paramount in maximising usage as well as providing an opportunity for all people to use the site. The recommended local standard is set in the form of a distance threshold and is derived directly from the findings of the local consultations.

8.18 Site specific accessibility issues were also analysed as part of the programme of site visits where information and signage, transport and general accessibility issues were assessed.

8.19 Consultation highlights that the key issues with regards accessibility were (full details in Appendix M):

• access to outdoor sports facilities was highlighted as a key issue, particularly where sites are located at schools and are inaccessible to the local community outside of school hours

• expectations regarding the appropriate mode of travel vary according to the type of outdoor sports facility in question. Whilst feedback from the household survey suggests that residents would expect to drive to synthetic pitches, golf courses and bowls facilities, given that these are more specific demand-led sporting facilities, there is an expectation from those consulted that outdoor pitches and tennis courts should be provided locally and therefore accessible on foot

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 131 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

• for the three types of provision for which there was an overall preference for driving the 75th percentile threshold level was a 15-minute drive time for synthetic turf pitches and bowling greens and a 20-minute drive time for golf courses, It is important to note that synthetic turf pitches support a variety of uses such as football and rugby training

• for grass pitches and tennis courts, where there the preferred mode of transport was walking, the 75th percentile threshold was 15 minutes, with a modal response of 10 minutes.

8.20 The recommended local accessibility standard for outdoor sports facilities is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided in Appendix M.

Accessibility Standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard

15 MINUTE WALK TIME (720 METRES) = GRASS PITCHES, TENNIS COURTS

15 MINUTE DRIVE TIME = SYNTHETIC TURF PITCHES, GOLF COURSES, BOWLS GREENS

Justification There are several factors to consider in setting a standard for outdoor sports facilities. In particular, the range of facilities that lie within this typology makes it difficult to set a meaningful standard that can be applied across the board as per PPG17 requirements. For example, consultation feedback has indicated that Borough residents have significantly different expectations for synthetic turf pitches (to which they are willing to travel further) than they do for grass pitches (where there is a presumption of more localised provision).

Given the findings from the local consultation, it is suggested that two local accessibility standards are set, one for grass pitches and tennis courts, and a separate standard for synthetic turf pitches, bowling greens and golf courses. This reflects local expectations regarding driving and walking to outdoor sport facilities. The 75th percentile threshold level for those who expect to walk to grass pitches and tennis courts is 15 minutes (720 metres). This 15 minute threshold level is also supported across the majority of the individual analysis areas. As a result a 15 minute (720 metre) walk time to these more local outdoor sports facilities is recommended as the local standard. This local standard will ensure quantitative improvements whilst also focusing on improving the quality of existing provision, and is in line with incorporating sustainable transport choices within the Borough.

Respondents in the Windsor and Eton analysis area and Northern wards consistently expected their travel times for walking to be higher than the other two analysis areas for synthetic turf pitches, tennis courts, bowling greens and golf courses. Further investigation should identify if this perception emanates from poor accessibility routes to these sites.

The 75th percentile threshold level for those who expect to drive to synthetic turf pitches and bowling greens was 15 minutes, with a 20-minute drive time for golf courses. Given the more specialist nature of these facilities (and the vast area that golf courses cover), alongside the fact they are usually built in strategic locations to incorporate local demand, a 15-minute drive time standard is recommended.

The formal use of school facilities by the community after school hours will be particularly important if the recommended local standards are to be achieved. Should community use of school sites not be increased, new provision and a higher quantity standard will required.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 132 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Applying provision standards

8.21 The application of the recommended quality, quantity and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of outdoor sports facilities and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need.

8.22 The quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance. Applying the standards together is a more meaningful method of analysis than applying the standards separately.

8.23 Given the broad nature of the outdoor sports facilities typology within PPG17, standards should only be applied to give a broad indication of planning need, and instead more specific studies, such as the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy (2007), should be used as the basis for decision making.

Table 8.4– Application of quantity standard

Future provision (2026) in hectares balanced against Analysis areas the local standard (2.92 hectares per 1000 population)

Maidenhead -59.55

Windsor and Eton 43.80

Northern wards -25.11

Southern wards -15.11

Overall -55.96 Green = above the minimum standard, Red = below the minimum standard.

8.24 The application of the local standard for quantity results in the following issues:

• the recommended local standard has been set higher than the current level of provision across the Borough. Based on 2026 population projections there will be a shortfall in provision across three of the four analysis areas, with only the Windsor and Eton analysis area having a level of provision above the recommended minimum level of outdoor sports facilities

• in order to meet the recommended local quantity standard, circa 55 hectares of outdoor sport facilities will be required across the Borough.

8.25 The application of the local accessibility and quality standards for outdoor sports facilities is set out overleaf in Figures 8.1 and 8.2. It should be noted that the accessibility mapping includes all school facilities.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 133 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Figure 8.1 – Provision of grass pitches and tennis courts

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 134 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

Figure 8.2 – Provision of bowling greens, synthetic turf pitches and golf courses

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 135 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

8.26 The key issues arising from the accessibility mapping regarding the distribution of sites include:

• as illustrated, overall there is a good distribution of grass pitches across all major settlements in the borough, with limited urban areas, such parts of Ascot and north east of Maidenhead, outside of an accessible catchment. As detailed above, the accessibility mapping includes all school facilities, which re-enforces the need to encourage dual use at school sites, especially within the rural analysis areas, where other provision is more limited

• the distribution of tennis courts is less widespread. The main towns of Maidenhead and Windsor serve as a centre for the northern and southern areas of the Borough respectively, although there is limited provision in rural settlements. With the majority of residents indicating that they expect to be able to walk to tennis facilities, further investigation is required in the rural settlements to establish whether localised demand justifies additional provision

• the 15-minute drive-time to golf courses, synthetic turf pitches and bowling greens means that virtually all residents in the Borough can access at least one of these facilities within the recommended local standard

• bowling greens are situated in most of the major settlements including Maidenhead and Windsor. In terms of the distribution of synthetic turf pitches, this is adequate borough-wide but is dependent upon the community use of several school sites to ensure access and opportunities for all across the borough. Golf courses are also evenly distributed across the Borough with significant provision in the Northern wards analysis area. It should be noted that residents in the Southern wards are in proximity to major golf courses outside of the Borough such as Wentworth, Royal Ascot and Sunningdale golf courses, however accessibility to these sites is limited, given the exclusive nature of these facilities, cost and stringent playing requirements such as handicap certificate etc.

Applying the quantity, quality and accessibility standards

8.27 Quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance.

8.28 The Playing Pitch Strategy (2007) identified that the Maidenhead analysis area (adult rugby, cricket pitches and all forms of junior pitches) and the Southern wards (junior football and adult rugby) had the largest shortfall of playing pitches.

8.29 Consultation indicated that while the quantity of facilities is problematic in some areas, there is a real need to improve the quality of many existing sites. This was reflected through the significant variation in the quality of facilities. As illustrated in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 above, there are few settlements in the borough outside of an accessible catchment of an outdoor sports facility. The focus should therefore be on the enhancement and possible extension of existing sports pitches, as well as, where appropriate, seeking new provision to address the quantitative shortfall in provision.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 136 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

OSF1 Strive to improve the quality of outdoor sports facilities in line with the recommended quality standard This should ensure that all are fit for their intended purpose.

8.30 The quantitative analysis has revealed a requirement for further provision up to 2026 in the Maidenhead, Southern wards and the Northern wards analysis areas. There is an overall demand for outdoor sport facilities and further investigation is required to identify the need for specific facilities.

8.31 Whilst there is a good distribution of outdoor sports facilities across the borough, as illustrated on Figures 8.1 and 8.2, there is still an overall shortfall in provision based on the recommended local quantity standard. Proactive measures to secure land should therefore be taken linked to new residential developments, and especially in the Maidenhead analysis area, where the quantitative shortfall is greatest. In particular, there is a highlighted need for grass pitches and additional synthetic turf pitches in the borough.

8.32 In addition, the capacity of existing facilities should be considered to ensure that these can accommodate the level of demand from local residents and sports clubs. A lack of access to facilities (or to the specific type of facility required), will exacerbate any overall shortfall in provision. If current sites are unable to expand to accommodate the existing demand then sites on the outskirts of settlements should be identified.

OSF2 Continue to protect all existing outdoor sports facilities.

8.33 This reinforces the need to maximise the number of sites that are accessible to local residents, in particular focusing on access to school facilities for local residents. This is particularly critical in Maidenhead and the Northern wards, where there are greater levels of deficiencies. Facilitating community access to school sites is a key recommendation of the Playing Pitch Strategy (2007), and also reflects the Local Plan policy on dual-use facilities. The Playing Pitch Strategy (2007) identified that 52% of pitches across the Borough are secured for community use although if school pitches are included that are currently used but there is not formal agreement then this increases to 73%. This indicates that further partnership working is required with schools to promote and formalise a higher level of community use at school sites.

8.34 In order to address locational quantitative issues, in the section that follows, consideration is given to the opportunities for new provision within the different areas of the Borough. A significant proportion of outdoor sports facilities are currently school facilities it is not feasible to relocate sites (although some opportunities will arise through the Building Schools for the Future programme). Instead the opportunities to address the two shortfalls in Maidenhead and the Northern wards are considered.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 137 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

8.35 Within Maidenhead, the majority of residents are within the appropriate distance threshold of at least one outdoor sports facility. Despite this, application of the local quantity standards has revealed an approximate requirement for over 50 ha of new provision up to 2026, the largest of all analysis areas (Figure 8.3). New provision may be particularly important.

Figure 8.3 Maidenhead (pitches and tennis courts)

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 138 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

8.36 Priority for any new facilities should be given to those areas where access to outdoor facilities is more limited, specifically within the north east of Maidenhead. Braywick Park to the south of Maidenhead serves a significant number of sports teams. Further investigation is required to identify which school sites in the north of Maidenhead can accommodate dual access and whether there is land north of Maidenhead that can be acquired and developed as a strategic sports hub for those residents to the north of the town. As detailed above, promoting dual-use of school sites is a key recommendation of the Playing Pitch Strategy (2007).

8.37 Like the Maidenhead analysis area, the Northern wards analysis area has a projected under provision of 25 ha by 2026 (based on current levels of provision) against the local quantity standard (as shown in Figure 8.4). While Cookham appears to have limited provision there are sports pitches to the north east of the town that fall outside of the Borough boundaries. Several of the sites in Bisham are private and do not accommodate local teams.

Figure 8.4 Northern wards

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study 139 SECTION 8 – OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

OSF4 Maximise access to existing facilities within the Northern wards and consider the provision of new facilities.

8.38 There is sufficient supply within the Windsor and Eton analysis area. In addition, there is a wide variety of provision within the rural Southern wards and most of the larger settlements have access to facilities.

Summary

8.39 Outdoor sports facilities is a wide-ranging category of open space which includes both natural and artificial surfaces for sport and recreation that are owned and managed by RBWM town and parish councils, sports associations, schools and individual sports clubs.

8.40 This PPG17 study considers the provision of all the different types of outdoor sport facilities as one but acknowledges the localised expectations with desired accessibility catchment areas being split into two groups. The Playing Pitch Strategy (2007) considers current and future pitch provision in detail as a bespoke element of outdoor sport facilities. It is recommended that a similar approach be taken with all other outdoor sports facilities.

8.41 Consultation has highlighted issues with both the quality and quantity of facilities. Analysis of the existing provision supports this. There is significant variation in the quality of facilities across the Borough, with site assessment scores ranging from 44% to 97%.

8.42 The distribution of outdoor sport facilities across the Borough appears even, if school sites are included, suggesting a good spread of facilities. Despite this, there is a large difference in the amount of land dedicated to these facilities, which is reflective of the type of facilities in each area. Analysis of the application of the accessibility standards highlights few deficiencies, in terms of settlements that lie outside of an accessibility catchment area.

8.43 Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing facilities (particularly school sites) should be prioritised on a par with identifying suitable land for new provision, especially in the Maidenhead analysis area to the north of Maidenhead town. This is particularly important given that many existing school sites may not currently be available to the local community.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study 140

SECTION 9

ALLOTMENTS SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Allotments

Introduction and definition

9.1 This typology includes all forms of allotments with a primary purpose of providing opportunities for people to grow their own produce. This type of open space may also include urban farms.

9.2 Like other open space types, allotments can provide a number of wider benefits to the community in addition to their primary purpose. These include:

• improving physical and mental health

• providing a source of recreation

• making a wider contribution to the green and open space network

• bringing together different cultural backgrounds

• providing refuge areas for wildlife.

9.3 Allotments are becoming increasingly popular nationally, following the recognition of the role that they can play in encouraging all sectors of the community to participate in active recreation. Of those residents who use an allotment in the Borough, many commented on how they enjoy the tranquillity of the site and the social element of working on an allotment.

9.4 Changing trends in house building, with an increasing focus on flats and apartments, may also generate an upturn in the demand for allotments, as residents without access to private gardens seek alternatives.

9.5 The quality, quantity and accessibility of allotments in Borough are discussed in this section alongside the key issues relating to the quality and quantity of provision.

Context

9.6 The key issues for outdoor sports facilities arising from a review of strategic documents are:

• The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners states that 20 allotment plots per 1,000 households (i.e. 20 allotments plots per 2,200 people (2.2 people per house) or 1 allotment plot per 200 people should be provided. With an average allotment plot of 250 m2 this equates to 0.125 ha per 1,000 population

• Policy R1 of the Royal Borough’s Local Plan states that the loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 141 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

• allotments sites in Maidenhead are currently managed by the Council’s Outdoor Facility Team. Those sites in Windsor are managed by the Windsor Allotments and Home Gardens Association. The parish councils or the Fuel Allotment Trust are responsible for the management of rural sites. At present the waiting list for plots in Maidenhead is around two years. Breadcroft Lane Allotments and Green Lane Allotments were rated the highest in quality following the sie assessments.

9.7 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted the following key issues:

• results from the household survey show that 46% of respondents who expressed an opinion feel the provision of allotments in the Borough is insufficient. 33% of residents indicated that supply was either about right or more than enough. Although, this suggests that overall there is a shortfall in provision, it should be noted that 39% of residents across the Borough have no opinion with regard allotments. This level of no opinion is replicated in other local authorities

• there are currently 26 allotments sites in the Borough. Consultation with Council officers identified a recent trend with a growing popularity of allotments and a waiting list in excess of 400 (circa two years) in Maidenhead alone. The Windsor Allotment site (run by the local association) is currently at around 80% capacity and several sites are bringing previously redundant plots back into use

• rural allotments are run by the Fuel Allotment Trust and parishes and are mostly full. The parishes that identified a shortfall were Sunningdale and Ascot, and Eton.

Quantity of existing provision

9.8 The provision of allotments across the Borough is summarised in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 – Provision of allotments across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current ) per 1000 (ha) population sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) per Provision (ha) 1000 population (2026)

Maidenhead 6.78 0.16 7 0.22 1.83 48,677 0.14

Windsor and Eton 22.12 0.66 9 0.21 5.74 37,075 0.60

Northern wards 4.87 0.15 6 0.43 1.21 28,808 0.17

Southern wards 7.15 0.28 4 0.59 3.35 33,092 0.22

Overall 40.92 0.31 26 0.21 5.74 147,652 0.28

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 142 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

9.9 The key issues emerging from Table 9.1 and consultations relating to the quantity of provision of allotments are:

• as detailed above, results from the household survey indicated that 46% of respondents feel the provision of allotments in the Borough is insufficient

• the greatest level of dissatisfaction regarding the adequacy of allotment provision is in the Windsor and Eton analysis area, where 30% of household survey respondents felt that provision is ‘nearly/not enough’. This is despite this analysis area currently having substantially higher levels of provision per 1,000 population than the other three analysis areas in the borough

• however, interestingly the greatest level of satisfaction regarding the adequacy of allotment provision was also in the Windsor and Eton analysis area, where 40% of household respondents indicated provision was ‘about right’. With a relatively high number of respondents indicating both a perceived shortfall and oversupply of allotment provision, the current allotment association in Windsor and Eton may need to investigate this situation further and better manage potential users

• the level of provision varies significantly across the analysis areas, with the Northern wards having the least provision (4.87 ha) and Windsor and Eton having the most (22.12 ha).

9.10 Parish Councils, the Fuel Allotments Trust and allotment associations play an important role in the provision of allotments. Consultation identified that rural allotments are run by the parishes and Fuel Allotments Trust and are mostly full.

Setting provision standards – quantity

9.11 The recommended local quantity standard for allotments has been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and is summarised below. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix I.

Quantity Standard (see Appendices I and J)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

0.31 ha per 1000 population 0.325 ha per 1000 population

Justification

The clear message from consultation findings is that the quantity of allotments, particularly in the Maidenhead analysis area, is insufficient (currently 0.31ha per 1,000 population borough- wide). This is supported by waiting lists for several sites across the Maidenhead area. It is therefore recommended that a local quantity standard above the existing level of provision is set. The focus should then be on increasing the number of allotment sites in Maidenhead to cater for the growing demand.

The recommended local standard will ensure that deficiencies in the quantity of allotments and access to allotments can be addressed across the Borough. Setting a standard at this level equates to the requirement for an additional 280 allotment plots in the projected population period up until 2026. Assuming an average allotment plot of 250 sq/m this equates to circa 7 ha of additional allotment provision across the borough. This will contribute towards offsetting the existing and future unmet demand.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 143 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Quality of existing provision

9.12 The quality of existing allotments in the Borough was assessed through site visits, a summary of which is set out in Table 9.2. It is important to note that site assessments are conducted as a snapshot in time and are therefore reflective of the quality of the site on one specific day.

9.13 The quality scores are weighted according to the findings of the local consultation. Those elements that were highlighted through consultation as being a particularly important determinant of the quality of allotments have been given a higher weighting to ensure that they have a greater influence on the overall quality score that each site achieves. The full rationale behind this approach is set out in Appendix L.

Table 9.2 – Quality of allotments across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Geographical area Geographical sites of Number (%) scores of quality Range (%) scores quality Average sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest Maidenhead 7 57.1 – 88 77.6 Courthouse Croft Road Allotments Allotments (ID 238) (ID 307) Windsor and 9 40 - 86 72.4 Eton Wick Maidenhead Eton Road Road Allotments 1 Allotments A (ID 31) (ID 141) Northern 6 53.3 – 86 75.9 Alfred Major Allens Lane wards Allotments Allotment (ID 372) (ID 366) Southern 4 42.9 – 86 68.2 Allens Way Church wards Allotments Road (ID 420) Allotments (ID 432) Overall 26 40 – 88 74.0 Eton Wick Croft Road Allotments Allotments (ID 238) 1 (ID 31)

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 144 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

9.14 The key issues emerging from Table 9.2 and the consultation relating to the quality of allotments include:

• the majority of household respondents (53%) consider the quality of allotments to be average. 39% regard their quality as good and 9% poor

• the individual analysis areas mirror the borough-wide results of the household survey. The greatest level of dissatisfaction is located in the Northern wards, where 19% of residents state the quality of allotments is poor. In contrast, the highest levels of satisfaction are in Windsor and Eton, where 53% of respondents identify the quality of their allotments as good

• feedback from the parish councils suggested that quality standards were good. This may reflect the fact that allotment holders frequently have to wait for a plot to become available so that those who do own a plot tend to be keen to keep them in good condition

• Table 9.2 suggests that the quality of allotments is fairly even across all analysis areas. There are two sites that score below 50% for quality based on the site assessment, details are provided below:

- Eton Wick Road Allotment 1, ID 31 (40%) – appears abandoned and no longer in use as there are several areas of litter and it is generally overgrown

- Allens Way Allotment, ID 420 (42.9%) – several plots are not currently being cultivated.

9.15 Assessment of allotment provision relies heavily on responses from users. There were not enough household survey responses in order to be statistically significant. In addition, site assessors were invariably unable to enter each site due to security measures, thus making assessment difficult and not as robust as compared with other open space typologies.

9.16 Allotment use is a private activity and therefore the best indicator of allotment quality is the feedback from users themselves. Our initial research indicates that there are no major issues with regards to lack of ancillary facilities, where they are deemed to be appropriate. However, a fuller assessment of quality would be required to draw conclusions about the overall quality of allotment sites. A conclusion that can be drawn at this stage is that there are no notable differences in quality when comparing analysis areas.

9.17 The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) has measures of quality relating to allotment sites and can be consulted on matters of allotment quality. Essential features identified by the household questionnaire results relate to prevention of vandalism and maintenance of grass, as well as the need for clear boundaries and on site management where it is appropriate (mainly the larger sites).

Setting provision standards – quality

9.18 The recommended local quality standard for allotments is summarised below. Full justifications and consultation relating to the quality of provision for the local standard is provided within Appendix L.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 145 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Quality Standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – ALLOTMENTS

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential features: Desirable features: Clean/litter free and well maintained Toilets Safe and secure Sustainable practices including the use of water

Accessibility

9.19 A relatively small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (1.9%). Of these frequent users, 33% travel by car and only 44% walk to access allotments. With regards to travel times, 78% of respondents stated a current journey time of under five minutes.

Setting provision standards – accessibility

9.20 The accessibility of sites is paramount in maximising usage as well as providing opportunities for all people to use the site. The recommended local standard is set in the form of a distance threshold and is derived directly from the findings of the local consultations. Site-specific accessibility issues were also analysed as part of the site visits and information and signage, transport and general accessibility issues were assessed.

9.21 Consultation and analysis highlights that the key issues with regards accessibility include:

• respondents to the household survey indicated that walking (69%) would be the most popular travel method when visiting allotments, with 25% preferring to travel by car. This was also reflected in the drop in sessions, with residents suggesting that allotments should be accessible on foot and should be a local amenity

• the borough-wide results from the household survey indicated that the 75th percentile of respondents would travel 15 minutes on foot and 10 minutes by car to allotments. Individual travel times for each area remained constant with the exception of northern wards with a 12 minute walk time and Maidenhead with a five minute drive time

• site assessment ratings shows the majority of allotments are either good (55%) or average (45%) in terms of transport links and general access. Information and signage has been highlighted as a potential issue, with modal ratings of poor (32%) and very poor (32%).

9.22 The recommended local accessibility standard for allotments is summarised overleaf. Full justification for the local standard is provided within Appendix M.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 146 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Accessibility standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard 15 MINUTE (720 METRE) WALK TIME Justification The provision of allotments is very much a demand led typology, which should be reflected in the application of the accessibility and quantity standards. As such any deficiencies that are highlighted through the application of the study should be assessed further to indicate if there is genuine demand in that area. However, as a guide, the local standard has been set at a 15-minute (720 metre) walk time in line with the 75th percentile level. Although a challenging standard, this reflects the findings of the household survey as 46% of respondents (with an opinion) stated there are not enough allotments in the Borough. Residents responding to the household survey also indicated that they would expect to walk to allotments and a walk time is recommended. This is in line with the promotion of healthy lifestyles and targets a reduction in the reliance on private transport. Given the 75% threshold level is for a 15 minute (720 metre) walk, setting a standard at this level is in accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide. Individual travel times for each analysis area remained constant with the exception of the Northern wards with a 12 minute walk time. By setting the standard at a 15 minute walk time; this will encompass the expectations of most users and potential users of this type of open space. *a straight-line distance of 720m has been used rather than the pedestrian distance of 1200m. This is based on average walking distances reduced by a factor of 40% to account for the fact that people do not walk in straight lines. The 40% factoring is based on the approach set out in the FIT Six Acre Standard.

Applying provision standards

9.23 The application of the recommended quality, quantity and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of open space sport and recreation facilities and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need.

9.24 The quantity standards enable the identification of areas that do not meet the minimum provision standards, while the accessibility standards will help determine where those deficiencies are of high importance. Applying the standards together is a more meaningful method of analysis than applying the standards separately.

9.25 Apparent deficiencies should be investigated in detail in order to understand the real level of demand in the area at any one time. Should new allotment sites be developed, community involvement in the management and maintenance of the sites should be considered. This follows national good practice, and also takes into account the need to further develop communities given the expected population increase in the borough over the next few years.

9.26 Table 9.3 overleaf sets out the results of the application of the quantity standard to the current distribution of facilities.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 147 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Table 9.3 – Application of quantity standard

Future provision (2026) in hectares balanced against Analysis areas the local standard (0.325 hectares per 1000 population)

Maidenhead -9.04

Windsor and Eton 10.07

Northern wards -4.49

Southern wards -3.60

Overall -7.07 Green = above the minimum standard, Red = below the minimum standard.

9.27 The application of the local standard for quantity results in the following issues:

• based on the local standard of 0.325 hectares per 1,000 population, all areas are predicted to have a quantitative deficiency by 2026 with the exception of the Windsor and Eton analysis area

• the overall deficiency Borough wide will be 7.07 hectares (against the local standard in 2026).

9.28 Figure 9.1 overleaf illustrates the geographical distribution of the Borough’s allotment sites and the catchment areas that these serve.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 148 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Figure 9.1 – Provision of allotments in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 149

SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

9.29 The key issues arising from the accessibility mapping regarding the distribution of sites include:

• the distribution of sites across the Borough is naturally clustered around the residential areas of Maidenhead and Windsor. There is a deficiency of allotments in settlements to the west side of the Northern wards analysis area, incorporating settlements such as Hurley, Knowl Hill, and Waltham St Lawrence. The south west of Maidenhead is only served by Breadcroft Lane Allotments, at which, based on the site assessment, all plots appear occupied

• the deficiencies to the east and west of Windsor are catered for by the large sites (St Leonard’s Road Allotments, ID 74 and Maidenhead Road Allotments A, ID 141) in the centre of the town. It is important that access routes are identified and promoted so that all residents can access these sites by foot

• Ascot and Sunninghill have limited provision and further investigation is required into the demand for sites in these settlements

• there are residential pockets to the north of Maidenhead that are currently not served by allotments. Further investigation into waiting lists in Maidenhead is required to establish whether a new allotment to the north of the town can be justified.

9.30 In light of the demand led nature of allotments, application of the quantity, quality and accessibility standards should be treated as a started point only, and detailed research and monitoring should be undertaken prior to the development of new allotments.

ALL 1 Continue to, investigate and monitor demand for allotment provision and look for opportunities where demand is increasing. Ensure new housing developments allow for any increase in demand as necessary.

9.31 The breakdown of provision by analysis areas reveals that Maidenhead, the Northern ward and Southern ward analysis areas are predicted to have a quantitative shortfall for allotments up to 2026. This indicates that there is likely to be insufficient capacity within the existing sites to adequately meet the needs of local residents.

9.32 In light of the shortfalls of allotments across the Borough, the distribution of facilities (where all allotments serve unique catchment areas), and the high levels of use at all allotments sites, all current provision should be protected from development.

ALL 2 Continued protection through development plan policies of all current allotment provision in the Borough.

ALL 3 Ensure continued support to allotment providers and associations across the Borough.

9.33 The largest quantitative deficiency is found to the north Maidenhead (as shown overleaf in Figure 9.2). This is reinforced by the application of the accessibility standards. The central, north east and south west areas of the town are outside of the recommended distance threshold for allotments.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 150 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

9.34 South Maidenhead is only catered for by Croft Allotments (ID 238) and Brownfield Gardens Allotments (ID 233), both of which are at full capacity and relatively small sites. Application of the quantity standard suggests that by 2026, there will be demand for a further 360 allotment plots within the analysis area of Maidenhead (assuming that plots are of standard size (250m2).

Figure 9.2 Maidenhead

ALL4 Identify potential sites for the development of new allotment provision which will meet existing and future demand across the north, south and centre of Maidenhead.

9.35 Similar to Maidenhead, residents living in the Northern wards also have limited access to allotments (Figure 9.3). Although there are three sites falling within the Cookham and Bisham area and two sites around Bray there are large proportions of residents who are outside of the distance threshold, particularly those living in smaller settlements to the west of the analysis area. This is confirmed through the application of the quantity standards, which suggests that shortfall equates to almost 216 plots.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 151 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

Figure 9.3 Northern wards

ALL5 Identify potential sites for the development of new allotment provision which will meet existing and future demand in the Northern wards.

9.36 Shortfalls in the quantity of provision are also confirmed by the application of the accessibility standard in the Southern wards. Although quantitative deficiencies are lower, applications of local standards suggest that there is a deficiency of approximately 144 allotment plots. Application of the accessibility standard suggests that any new allotments in this area should be positioned within the Ascot and Sunninghill areas. However, the local consultations didn’t identify significant shortfalls in this area and new provision should not be deemed a priority in comparison to other analysis areas.

ALL6 Any new provision of allotments within the Southern wards analysis area should be located in the Ascot and Sunninghill areas.

Summary and recommendations

9.37 There are currently 26 allotment sites across the Borough, totalling 40.92 hectares. This equates to an overall level of provision of 0.31 hectares per 1,000 population. Most sites are at capacity.

9.38 Results from the household survey show that 46% of respondents consider the provision of allotments in the Borough to be insufficient (excluding those with no opinion). This is reflected in the recommended quantity standard being set above the current level of provision. In comparison to other local authorities, the proportion of residents perceiving a shortfall in provision in the Borough is high, reflecting the overall demand in the Borough.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 152 SECTION 9 – ALLOTMENTS

9.39 Feedback from the household survey indicated that the majority of Borough residents would expect to walk to an allotment site and hence a local accessibility standard equivalent to a 15 minute walk has been set. Application of the recommended local standards highlights a number of deficiencies, particularly in Maidenhead and the northern wards.

9.40 The quality of the majority of allotment sites was perceived to be average and a few issues were identified relating to vandalism and graffiti. As there was little variation in the quality of allotment scores according to site assessments, close attention should be made to feedback from current allotment users with regards to quality. Future investment in allotments should focus on ensuring the recommended local quality standard is met.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 153

SECTION 10

CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS SECTION 10 – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Cemeteries and churchyards

Introduction

10.1 This typology encompasses both churchyards contained within the walled boundary of a church and cemeteries outside the confines of a church. These include private burial grounds, local authority burial grounds and disused churchyards. Although the primary purpose of this type of open space is for burial of the dead and quiet contemplation, these sites frequently also have considerable value for the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity.

10.2 Some churchyards retain areas of unimproved grasslands and various other habitats. They can make a significant contribution to the provision of urban greenspace sometimes providing a sanctuary for wildlife in the urban settlements and often providing historic value to the more rural landscapes.

10.3 Cemeteries and churchyards can be a significant open space provider in rural areas. In urban areas they can represent a relatively minor resource in terms of the land, but can be important for nature conservation. In some instances, cemeteries and churchyards may be the only open space within a settlement.

Context

10.4 There are no documented strategies for cemeteries and churchyards within the Borough. The distribution of cemeteries and churchyards is largely opportunity led. While cemeteries or churchyards may provide a local open space, many residents will also travel significant distances to reach the facility of their choice.

10.5 Consultation highlighted that most residents feel that churchyards and cemeteries within the borough are of average to good quality but are not particularly well used by members of the public:

• 64% of respondents to the household survey do not use churchyards and cemeteries. However, 11% of respondents use this typology more than once a month

• 58% of household respondents rate the quality of cemeteries and churchyards to be average and 39% as good

• of those household survey respondents who use cemeteries and churchyards more frequently than any other open space type the majority currently drive or take public transport, with most journeys taking under 15 minutes

• the desired quality features identified by household survey respondents for this open space typology were flowers and trees, clean and litter free, and with good parking facilities.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 154 SECTION 10 – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Quality of existing provision

10.6 There are currently 24 cemeteries and churchyards in the Borough. The distribution of sites across the Borough is shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 – Provision of churchyards and cemeteries in the Borough Analysis areas Analysis areas provision Current (hectares) provision Current per 1,000 population (hectares) sites of Number Smallest site (hectares) site Largest (hectares) Projected population (2026) per Provision (ha) 1000 population (2026)

Maidenhead 7.75 0.18 4 0.42 3.52 48,677 0.16

Windsor and Eton 5.83 0.18 4 0.13 4.49 37,075 0.16

Northern wards 7.36 0.23 9 0.26 2.59 28,808 0.26

Southern wards 3.40 0.13 7 0.26 0.75 33,092 0.10

Overall 24.34 0.18 24 0.13 4.49 147,652 0.16

10.7 The key issues emerging from Table 10.1 and consultations relating to the quantity of provision of churchyards and cemeteries is that:

• the overall level of provision is 24.34 ha, producing an average site size of 1.01 ha. The size of sites varies significantly, ranging from 0.13 ha (Windsor Parish Church, ID 45) to 4.49 ha (Windsor Cemetery, ID 78)

• in terms of number of sites, current provision is predominantly located in the Northern wards. However, the Maidenhead analysis area currently contains the highest amount in actual hectares terms with 7.75 ha. The Southern wards has the lowest level of provision.

Setting provision standards - quantity

10.8 No quantity standards have been set for cemeteries and churchyards. PPG17 Annex states: "many historic churchyards provide important places for quiet contemplation, especially in busy urban areas, and often support biodiversity and interesting geological features. As such many can also be viewed as amenity greenspaces. Unfortunately, many are also run-down and therefore it may be desirable to enhance them. As churchyards can only exist where there is a church, the only form of provision standard which will be required is a qualitative one."

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 155 SECTION 10 – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

10.9 For cemeteries, PPG17 Annex states "every individual cemetery has a finite capacity and therefore there is steady need for more of them. Indeed, many areas face a shortage of ground for burials. The need for graves, for all religious faiths, can be calculated from population estimates, coupled with details of the average proportion of deaths which result in a burial, and converted into a quantitative population-based provision standard." This cannot be derived from the five step methodology set out in the PPG17 Companion Guide.

Quantity standard (see Appendix I)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard

No local standard to be set

Justification

No quantity standard has been set in line with PPG17. The appropriate level of provision should be calculated taking into account population estimates, birth and death rates.

10.10 Although no quantity standard has been set the consultation with parish councils identified that Eton and Datchet parishes currently have a shortfall of burial spaces. Other parish councils indicated that they have adequate capacity to serve the local population for the next 10 to 50 years.

Quality of existing provision

10.11 The quality of each site has been assessed through a detailed site visit. It is important to note that the quality score represents a snapshot in time and records only the quality of the site at the time of the site visit. The quality of cemeteries across the Borough is set out in Table 10.2.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 156 SECTION 10 – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Table 10.2 – The quality of cemeteries and churchyards in the Borough Geographical area Geographical sites of Number of quality Range (%) scores quality Average (%) scores sites quality Lowest sites quality Highest Maidenhead 4 68 – 98 81 All Saints Braywick Church (ID Cemetery (ID 254) 259) Windsor and 4 62 – 74 66.5 Windsor Windsor Eton Cemetery (ID Parish 78), Clewer Church (ID Parish 45) Church (ID 155) Northern 9 62 – 100 89.0 Knowl Hill Oakley wards Cemetery (ID Green 453) Cemetery (ID 147) Southern 7 60 – 94 80.0 St Michael’s Church Road wards Church and Cemetery (ID Cemetery (ID 395) 60) Overall 24 60 – 100 81.2 St Michael’s Oakley Church and Green Cemetery Cemetery (ID 60) (ID 147)

10.12 The key issues emerging from Table 10.2 and the consultation relating to the quality of churchyards and cemeteries are:

• 58% of respondents rate the quality of cemeteries and churchyards to be of average quality. However, a significant amount of respondents also rate their quality to be good (39%). Only 3% of respondents perceived church and cemeteries to be of poor quality

• across the individual analysis areas similar results are portrayed, with the majority of residents in each analysis area stating the quality of cemeteries and churchyards to be average. The highest level of discontent was in Windsor and Eton (3.6% perceive sites as poor) although this is relatively low

• both the parish councils and Borough council officers identified churches and cemeteries as being of good quality and as sites that should be promoted, especially in rural areas

• Table 10.2 indicates that on average across the Borough, churches and cemeteries are of a high standard (81%). The site assessments reflect the household survey indicating that the Windsor and Eton analysis area has the lowest quality sites on average

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 157 SECTION 10 – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

• detail of the poorest scoring sites in the Borough are provided below:

- St Michael’s Church and Cemetery, ID 168 (60%) – litter at entrance, limited parking and damaged wall

- Windsor Cemetery, ID 78 (62%) – limited additional lighting and vegetation

- Clewer Parish Church, ID 155 (62%) – no bins or parking

- Knowl Hill Cemetery, ID 453 (62%) – part of site overgrown, no bins or benches.

Setting provision standards – quality

10.13 In setting local standards for churchyards and cemeteries, it is only appropriate to set a quality standard. Full indication of consultation and justifications for the recommended local standard is provided within Appendix L. The recommended local standard, derived directly from consultation across the Borough has been summarised below:

Quality standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential features: Desirable features:

Flowers/ trees and shrubs Parking

Clean/ litter free and well maintained

Well kept grass

Setting provision standards – accessibility

10.14 With regards to accessibility there are no definitive national or local standards for cemeteries and churchyards. There is no realistic requirement to set catchments for such typologies as they cannot easily be influenced through planning policy and implementation.

Accessibility standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard No local standard to be set Justification There is no requirement to set catchments for cemeteries and churchyards as they cannot easily be influenced through planning policy and implementation.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 158 SECTION 10 – CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Applying provision standards – identifying geographical areas

10.15 As it is inappropriate to set local quantity and accessibility standards for cemeteries and churchyards, it is not possible to comment on areas of deficiency for this type of open space. The value of cemeteries and churchyards should, however, be recognised and opportunities should be seized to promote these sites sensitively for both human and wildlife use.

10.16 In areas of limited open space provision such as rural areas (or where churchyards are the only open space type), churchyards and cemeteries are of particular importance. In these areas, enhancement is particularly important to ensure local residents value them.

10.17 In terms of biodiversity and ecology, improvements to closed churchyards can provide a valuable resource and benefit local wildlife.

CC1 Stakeholders should recognise and promote the nature conservation value of closed cemeteries and churchyards and consider working towards developing more awareness of ecological management of cemeteries and churchyards.

10.18 It is also important to consider the quality of the provision of cemeteries and churchyards and strive to achieve the local quality standard that has been recommended. Sites scoring well in terms of quality should be considered examples of good practice.

CC2 Seek to encourage partnership working to improve and maintain the quality of closed cemeteries and churchyards in line with the quality standard and ensure provision reflects best practice.

Summary

10.19 Despite the lack of local standards for accessibility and quantity, it remains important to consider the future delivery of cemeteries and churchyards, anticipating future demand as well as assessing the current level of provision.

10.20 The essential and desirable features set out in the local quality standard should guide the future development and improvement of cemeteries and churchyards across the Borough. The quality of cemeteries and churchyards in the Borough is currently high (81%). This is reflected in the findings of the household survey, with 58% of respondents thinking that the quality of sites is average. 39% of respondents considered that the quality was good. Only 3% perceived quality to be poor.

10.21 In some instances cemeteries and churchyards are the only type of open space within a village, making them a particularly valuable element of the rural green open space network. The enhancement to the accessibility and quality should be prioritised in these areas.

10.22 The wider benefits of churchyards are key, and it is wrong to place a value on churchyards and cemeteries focusing solely on quality and accessibility. In addition to offering a functional value, many cemeteries and churchyards have wider benefits including heritage, cultural and landscape values.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 159

SECTION 11

CIVIC SPACES SECTION 11 – CIVIC SPACES

Civic spaces

Introduction and definition

11.1 Civic spaces include civic and market squares and other hard surfaced community areas designed for pedestrians. Their primary purpose is to provide a setting for civic buildings, public demonstrations and community events.

Strategic context and consultation

11.2 Civic spaces can be important open space in some areas such as urban areas and town centres.

11.3 As PPG17 states: “they are normally provided on an opportunistic and urban design led basis. Accordingly it is for planning authorities to promote urban design frameworks for their town and city centre areas”.

11.4 Civic spaces need to be considered as an important asset as an area of open space for the residents in towns and settlements across the Borough. It is the only open space type that is not considered as green space.

11.5 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted the following key issues:

• 17% of respondents from the household survey stated that they visit a civic space at least once a month

Quantity of existing provision

11.6 There is only one civic space in the Borough, which is St Ives Road/Town Hall Civic Space (ID 475) in Maidenhead.

• there are no definitive national or local standards for civic spaces.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 160 SECTION 11 – CIVIC SPACES

11.7 Feedback from the household survey indicated that 39% of respondents feel that there is adequate provision of civic spaces, whilst 26% feel that there is insufficient provision. A significant percentage (35%) of respondents stated that they had no opinion with regards to provision of civic spaces. Additional qualitative comments from the household survey indicated that people value the use of civic spaces as meeting places and suggest they provide a “sense of belonging” to a place.

Setting provision standards

Quantity

11.8 It is not possible to make a reasoned judgement in setting provision standards for civic spaces across the local authority area due to the limited amount of civic space provision. Furthermore, PPG17 suggests that it is not realistic to set a quantity standard for civic spaces. It is therefore recommended that no provision standard is set.

Quantity standard (see Appendix I)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard No local standard to be set Justification No quantity standard has been set in line with PPG17. However, PPG17 adds that it is desirable for planning authorities to promote urban design frameworks for their town and city centres, and where appropriate the Council should seek to achieve this.

Quality

11.9 The quality of the one civic space site has been assessed through a site visit. It is important to note that the quality score represents a snapshot in time and records only the quality of the site at the time of the visit. The quality score for the only civic space in the Borough, St Ives Road/ Town Hall Civic Space (Site ID 475), was 80%.

11.10 Consultation feedback relating to the quality of provision of civic spaces includes:

• consultation from the household survey indicates the majority of respondents (61%) view civic spaces to be of average quality. However, 23% rate this typology as good quality and 16% poor quality

• of those household respondents who stated that they use civic spaces most frequently, their highest rated quality aspirations were clean/ litter free areas with high quality planted areas.

11.11 In setting local standards for civic spaces, it is only appropriate to set a quality standard, taking into account any national or local standards. Full details of the consultation and justifications for the recommended local standard are provided within Appendix L. The recommended local standard, derived directly from consultation across the Borough has been summarised below.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 161 SECTION 11 – CIVIC SPACES

Quality Standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – CIVIC SPACES Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential features: Desirable features: Clean/litter free and well maintained Well cut grass Planted areas

Accessibility standard

11.12 PPG17 states that there is no realistic requirement to set catchments for civic spaces as they are limited in their scope to provide additional provision. They tend to be located in town or local centres or are led through the development of civic or large buildings (see Appendix M).

11.13 Site-specific accessibility issues were analysed on the site visit and information and signage, transport and general issues were assessed. From the site assessment carried out the civic space scored 77% for accessibility with good transport links and ease of access onto the site.

11.14 While an accessibility standard is not being set, from the household survey 59% of respondents stated that walking would be the preferred option when travelling to this type of open space. Travelling by car was second with 33%. Of those respondents who would expect to walk to civic spaces, 47% expect the journey to take between five and 10 minutes. To drive to this typology respondents expect a journey to also take five to 10 minutes (74%).

Summary

11.15 There is only one civic space in the Borough, located in Maidenhead. The nature of this typology means that they are very specific to their locality.

11.16 Whilst no quantity or accessibility standard has been set, careful consideration should be given when new developments are designed to the opportunity for providing appropriate civic spaces.

11.17 A quality standard has been set as a benchmark for new areas of civic space and the maintenance of existing areas across the borough.

The Council should work in partnership with other providers to improve and maintain the quality of current and future civic spaces across the Borough in CIV 1 line with the quality standard and to ensure civic spaces provide a value community resource.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 162

SECTION 12

GREEN CORRIDORS SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

Green corridors

Introduction and definition

12.1 Green corridors are linear features of mostly open character, including canal towpaths, riverside paths, footpaths, cycleways and bridleways, which act as wildlife corridors and attractive, safe off-road links between residential areas, open spaces, urban centres, leisure facilities and employment areas. They also give residents access to natural green space and the open countryside and provide opportunities for recreation. Green corridors increase in value if they are linked to form a network that extends within and beyond the borough boundary.

12.2 Local networks of high quality and well-managed and maintained open spaces, sport and recreational facilities help create urban environments that are attractive, clean and safe. Therefore the connectivity of all spaces through the provision of “green corridors” in the Borough is an important strategic consideration.

12.3 PPG17 states that the need for green corridors arises from the need to promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling within urban areas. This means that there is no sensible way of stating a provision standard. Instead, planning policies should promote the use of green corridors to link housing areas to the Sustrans National Cycle Network, town centres, places of employment and community facilities such as schools, shops, community centres and sports facilities. In this sense, green corridors are demand-led. However, planning authorities should also take opportunities to use established linear routes, such as the canal and riverside towpaths, roads, and river banks, as green corridors, and supplement them with proposals to 'plug in' access to them from as wide an area as possible.

Context

12.4 Green corridors are a key component of the green infrastructure of Windsor and Maidenhead and provide important links to the neighbouring local authorities for residents. In addition to improving sustainability and linking urban areas with nearby rural countryside, green corridors represent an important chance to promote sustainable transport by cycle and on foot. Provision and use of green corridors will be a key determinant in the achievement of targets for participation in sport and active recreation.

12.5 PPG17 suggests that all corridors, including those in remote rural settlements, should be considered. However, the Companion Guide suggests that unless a green corridor is used as a transport link between facilities (ie home and school, town and sports facility etc); it should not be included within an audit. The focus in this study is on important urban corridors and public rights of way (PROW).

12.6 The strategic context of green corridors is detailed below:

• the latest government plan published by the Department for Transport and entitled “Walking and Cycling: an action plan” states: “Walking and cycling are good for our health, good for getting us around, good for our public spaces and good for our society, for all these reasons we need to persuade more people to choose to walk and cycle more often”

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 163 SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

• therefore it is important to address any qualitative deficiencies of green corridors and capitalise on any opportunities to increase and enhance the network. Providing a high quality infrastructure will not only increase use of green corridors, but linkages between sites will increase use of individual open space sites and remove barriers to access

• the mixed urban and rural nature of the Borough lends itself to the provision of linear corridors which link open spaces together

• as a unitary authority, the Council is responsible for all PROW in the Borough. In addition, as a highway authority, the Council has a duty to assert and protect this PROW network. However, the responsibility for ensuring the paths are safe and convenient for the public to use is shared between others including landowners and users. The Council’s responsibilities include:

- ensuring that PROW are free from obstruction and that they can be used by the public safely and conveniently

- ensuring that the surface is in a fit condition for its intended use

- the maintenance of some, but not all, bridges

- signposting and, where appropriate, marking PROW

- authorising stiles and gates on PROW

- ensuring that the definitive map is kept up to date.

• the Council has produced a PROW Improvement Plan 2005-2015. This outlines specific proposals for the creation of new routes and links, more routes to popular recreational areas, links to public transport, and greater access along waterways in the Borough

• the Council’s commitment to the provision of green corridors is emphasised in other Council documents including the Local Plan, the Community Strategy for the Royal Borough Partnership, the Landscape Character Assessment and the previous Open Space Strategy, which states a need to:

- contribute to the creation of environmental well-being

- improve the health of local people by the services and activities available through outdoor recreation

- increase access to the landscape for both residents and visitors.

GC1 Actions detailed in existing Council documents, such as the Local Plan the Community Plan and the PROW Improvement Plan regarding the use and extension of green corridors should continue to be implemented.

Consultation

12.7 Consultation undertaken as part of the study highlighted the following key issues regarding green corridors:

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 164 SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

• 34% of household survey respondents rated green corridors as good, and 18% as poor in terms of the current quality of provision

• there were concerns regarding perceived safety whilst using green corridors. This highlights the need to address issues such as the provision of lighting where appropriate, and the removal of vegetation where this is close to the footpath, to create a light and open environment

• other quality issues that were raised as concerns by Borough residents included poor maintenance, litter and dog fouling

• feedback from the household survey indicated that quality related aspirations included the need for green corridors to be clean and litter-free; as well as to include nature features and have good access

• consultation with adjoining local authorities indicated that there are existing linear routes that extended green corridors could link with outside the Borough boundary. For example, the South Slough Jubilee River extension, within Slough Borough Council, and the High Wycombe to Bourne End walking and cycling network, which could link to the Maidenhead cycling network

• the Farming and Wildlife Action Group (FWAG) indicated that there were many opportunities to open up farmland through access agreements with landlords. This approach was successfully implemented in the London Borough of Bromley in order to create linear routeways as part of its Parks Strategy.

Quantity of existing provision

12.8 There are currently no local standards relating to the provision of green corridors. The linear nature of green corridors means it is inappropriate to measure the area and assess these spaces quantitatively. Nevertheless their importance within the Borough should not be underestimated as they provide an essential link between open spaces and increase the accessibility of other sites.

12.9 The number of green corridors in the Borough is limited to the Thames Path and the path along The Green Way. These sites are important in defining the character of the Borough, and in providing outdoor recreational opportunities. In addition, both sites could potentially form the backbone of a series of interlinked green corridors in the future. These would increase opportunities for recreation in the form of cycling, dog walking and other outdoor pursuits and could be used as “honeypots” to draw people away from damaging potentially endangered habitats and species in the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) situated in the south of the Borough (ie at Ascot and Sunningdale).

GC2 Particular attention should be paid to the protection of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area in the south of the Borough by creating links

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 165 SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

Setting provision standards

Quantity 12.10 The Annex A of PPG17 states:

“the need for Green Corridors arises from the need to promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling within urban areas. This means that there is no sensible way of stating a provision standard, just as there is no way of having a standard for the proportion of land in an area which it will be desirable to allocate for roads”.

12.11 It is therefore recommended that no provision standard should be set. PPG17 goes on to state that:

“Instead planning policies should promote the use of green corridors to link housing areas to the Sustrans National Cycle Network, town and city centres, places of employment and community facilities such as schools, shops, community centres and sports facilities. In this sense green corridors are demand-led. However, planning authorities should also take opportunities to use established linear routes, such as disused railway lines, roads or canal and river banks, as green corridors, and supplement them by proposals to ‘plug in’ access to them from as wide an area as possible”.

12.12 A significant section of the Sustrans National Cycle Network runs through the Borough. This includes some extended sections which are traffic-free, including some forest tracks. There are also links to the Round Berkshire Cycle Route.

Quantity standard (see Appendix I)

Existing level of provision Recommended standard No local standard to be set Justification No quantity standard has been set in line with PPG17.

Quality

12.13 In setting local standards for green corridors, it is only appropriate to set a quality vision. Site assessment scores have not been included in this analysis, as it is not feasible to assess the whole length of all corridors. The recommended quality standard as summarised below should be used as an aspiration for the introduction of new linkages. The full justification for the recommended local standard is provided within Appendix L.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 166 SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

Quality Standard (see Appendix L)

Recommended standard – Green Corridors

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential features: Desirable features: Footpaths Routes suitable for shared use (pedestrians/ cyclists) Clean/ litter free Nature/ conservation/biodiversity features Designed to enhance passive security Sympathetic signage/ way marking

GC3 Existing and future green corridors in the Borough should aspire to the essential and desirable quality features.

Accessibility

12.14 There is no requirement to set catchments for green corridors as they cannot be easily influenced through planning policy and implementation.

Accessibility standard (see Appendix M)

Recommended standard No local standard to be set Justification There is no requirement to set catchments for green corridors as they cannot easily be influenced through planning policy and implementation.

Applying provision standards

12.15 Given that it is not appropriate to set any local quantity or accessibility standards, it is also not appropriate to state areas of deficiency or need.

12.16 The aim is to provide an integrated network of high quality green corridors linking open spaces together and opportunities for informal recreation and alternative means of transport. Consideration should also be given to the provision of effective wildlife corridors, enabling the migration of species across the Borough.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 167 SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

Summary and recommendations

12.17 Green corridors provide opportunities close to peoples home’s for informal recreation, particularly walking and cycling, as part of every day activities, for example, travel to work or shops. The development of a linked green corridor network within and beyond the Borough boundary will help to provide opportunities for informal recreation and improve the health and well-being of the local community. In this way, green corridors can be integral to the achievement of targets for increased active participation.

GC4 The Council should seek opportunities to work with neighbouring local authorities to create links across borough boundaries, including through the development of pedestrian cycle routes, in order to further increase recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors.

12.18 There are two existing green corridors in the Borough, the Thames Path and the Green Way. There are also a large number of rights of way within the Borough, which are well-used.

GC6 Linking the Thames Path and The Green Way with other open spaces in the Borough should be a key priority for the Council. This will provide opportunities for informal recreation and alternative means of transport, using all types of open spaces.

12.19 Future development needs to encompass linkages between the larger areas of open space in the Borough, thus creating a network of green corridors. Any development should consider both the needs of wildlife and humans.

12.20 Given the increasing pressure from development and environmental change, green corridors between open space sites in the Borough will become increasingly important and valuable. A network of multi-functional greenspace will contribute to the high quality natural and built environment required for existing and new sustainable communities in the future. An integrated network of high quality green corridors will link open spaces, helping to alleviate other open space deficiencies and provide opportunities for informal recreation and alternative means of transport.

GC7 The Council should seek to work with local landowners in order to form new access agreements that would allow routes to be created across much of the rural environment which characterises parts of the Borough. For example, this could be achieved by the actions as outlined by the Farming and Wildlife Action Group (in paragraph 12.7).

12.21 Particular attention should be paid to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) to the south of the Borough. Creating links around the area as “honeypots,” means that informal sources of outdoor recreation such as cycling and dog walking can be encouraged to attract visitors away from the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and ensuring that potentially endangered species and habitats are protected.

12.22 Opportunities to link with other green corridors across the Borough boundary should be taken in order to enhance recreational opportunities and offset the motorised transport used to reach outdoor destinations.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 168 SECTION 12 – GREEN CORRIDORS

GC8 Prepare a green infrastructure study to maximise the linkages of open spaces with green corridors and help create a network of multi-functional greenspace in Windsor and Maidenhead. This should serve as an extension to this PPG17 Study and could be developed as a stand-alone study or as a policy within a Development Plan Document (DPD). A green infrastructure study should also give consideration to the need for ecological corridors or stepping-stones.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 169

SECTION 13

OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall summary and conclusions

Introduction

13.1 The study has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the latest Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, July 2002) and its Companion Guide “Assessing Needs and Opportunities” (September 2002).

13.2 The two overall objectives of the study are to:

• produce an open space audit which will examine existing provision as well as mapping and surveying new sites. Recommendations are required relating to the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision

13.3 It is important to note that the Council only controls a limited amount of the sites audited through this study. Where the report has stated that the Council needs to provide new sites, re-designate sites, or improve the quality of sites, the reality is that the relevant organisations may need to take responsibility for implementing change with the Council providing various means of support wherever possible. Partnership working will be key to achieving success.

13.4 In addition, as detailed in Section 2, it should be noted that the multi-functionality of some types of open space can present a challenge during the audit process. In order to address this issue, all spaces are classified by their primary purpose. This ensures that all spaces are counted only once, but has not negated the need to consider the inter-relationships between different types of open space as part of the study.

13.5 Table 13.1 summarises the recommended local quantity, quality and accessibility standards set for each typology. Also detailed in Table 13.1 is the current and future provision (in hectares) balanced against the recommended local quantity standard, which indicates the overall adequacy in provision of different types of open space.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 170 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 13.1 Quality, quantity and accessibility standards

Existing local Existing Recommended Current Future provision Recommended local Recommended local quality quantity standard level of local quantity provision (ha) (2026) (ha) accessibility standards provision standard balanced balanced standard against against Typology Ha per 1,000 Ha per 1,000 Ha per 1,000 recommended recommended Method Time Essential Desirable population population population local quantity local quantity standard standard

Urban: • Clean and well • Natural/ Overall open space 10mins Walk maintained biodiversity/ provision target of conservation 4.3ha per 1,000 • Flowers/ trees features Parks and population of which 0.27 0.27 0.00 -3.76 and shrubs Gardens 2.5ha per 1,000 Rural: • Parking on- population should 10mins • Well kept grass site be informal open Drive space • Achieve Green Flag standards

Overall open space • Clean and litter • N/A Natural and provision target of free 5.31 5.40 -12.27 -87.93 Walk 15mins semi natural 4.3ha per 1,000 population of which • Nature/conserv 2.5ha per 1,000 ation/biodiversit • Clean and well • Dog mess maintained bins Overall open space provision target of • Suitable soft 4.3ha per 1,000 landscaping Amenity population of which 0.54 0.59 -7.22 -15.48 Walk 10mins Greenspace 2.5ha per 1,000 • Flowers/ trees population should and shrubs be informal open space • Designed to enhance passive security

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 171 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Clean and well • Maximise maintained range of play opportunities • Apply Fields in for children, Trust (FIT) disabled standards users etc Overall open space provision target of • Provision of 4.3ha per 1,000 ancillary Provision for population of which 0.45 facilities 0.45 facilities 0.00 (facilities) -6.29 (facilities) Walk 10mins facilities eg Children 2.5ha per 1,000 toilets, population should seating be informal open space • Suitable soft landscaping • Development of the play ranger service

• Clean, safe and • Maximise well maintained range of play at all times opportunities Overall open space provision target of • Apply FIT • Provision of 4.3ha per 1,000 standards ancillary Teenage population of which 0.17 facilities 0.23 facilities -7.67 (facilities) -10.88 (facilities) Walk 10mins facilities eg Facilities 2.5ha per 1,000 • Provision of toilets, population should seats seating be informal open User space • • Development consultation for of the play all new ranger provision service

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 172 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Outdoor Overall open space • Apply relevant • N/A Sports provision target of NGB Facilities: 2.81 2.92 4.3ha per 1,000 Walk 15mins specifications Grass pitches population of which Clean, litter free and tennis 1.8ha per 1,000 • and well courts population should maintained be formal sports -15.05 provision (pitches, -55.96 • Level surface/

Outdoor courts, greens, good drainage Sports tracks) Facilities: Golf 2.81 2.92 Drive 15mins • Changing courses, 1.18ha per 1,000 facilities STPs, bowls population (playing greens pitches only) • Car parking • Toilets • Flowers/trees • Parking and shrubs Churchyards No existing local and 0.18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A • Clean/litter free standards Cemeteries and well maintained • Well kept grass • Clean/ litter free • Toilets and well maintained • Sustainable No existing local Allotments 0.31 0.325 -2.51 -7.07 Walk 15mins practices standards • Safe and secure including the use of water •

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 173 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

No existing local • Clean/litter free • Well cut Civic spaces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A standards and well grass maintained • Footpaths • Routes suitable for • Clean/ litter free shared use (pedestrians/ • Nature/ cyclists) conservation/bio diversity Green No existing local N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A features Corridors standards • Designed to enhance passive security • Sympathetic signage/ way marking

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 174 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.6 Building upon the detail in Table 13.1 regarding the balance of provision, the following tables provide a breakdown of provision by analysis area for each type of open space balanced against the recommended local standard both now and in the future (2026).

13.7 Table 13.2 details current provision balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology, whereas Table 13.3 details future provision. These tables therefore highlight the quantum of provision above or below the recommended minimum level of provision (ie degree of shortfall or surplus) for each typology. This data is broken down by analysis area and also presented as a borough-wide total.

Table 13.2 Current provision balanced against the recommended local standard (ha)

Windsor and Northern Southern Maidenhead Total (ha) Eton Wards Wards Parks and Gardens 12.83 -0.95 -7.86 -4.03 0.00 Natural and Semi- -53.80 -8.47 135.00 -85.00 -12.27 Natural Greenspace Amenity Greenspace -8.22 -2.54 5.90 -2.36 -7.22 Children’s Play -6.24 7.05 -1.19 0.38 0.00 Provision Outdoor Teenage -6.83 1.36 -3.25 1.06 -7.67 Facilities Outdoor Sports -42.53 54.81 -33.25 5.92 -15.05 Facilities Allotments -7.15 11.30 -5.40 -1.26 -2.51 Total -111.94 62.56 89.95 -85.29 -44.72

13.8 As illustrated in Table 13.2, there is currently a significant under provision (circa 45 hectares) of the total amount of open space in the borough when balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology. A brief summary of the current level of provision for each of the four analysis areas is provided below. However, it is important to note that the detail on the quantitative deficiencies for each typology within the individual analysis areas and what this means in relation to the recommended quality and accessibility standard, is provided within the relevant typology sections of this report and should be the main point of reference.

Maidenhead

13.9 The Maidenhead analysis area has the greatest shortfall of provision in terms of total amount of open space balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology. The total shortfall of open space provision is circa 110 hectares, which is primarily due to significant shortfalls in natural and semi-natural greenspace (over 50 hectares) and outdoor sports facilities (c. 42 hectares). This analysis area also has a shortfall in amenity greenspace, children’s play provision, outdoor teenage facilities and allotment provision. Only parks and gardens provision is above the recommended minimum level of provision.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 175 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Windsor and Eton

13.10 The Windsor and Eton analysis area has a total of circa 62 hectares of open space provision above the recommended minimum level, when balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology. This is predominantly due to a high level of outdoor sport provision. Children’s play provision, outdoor teenage facilities and allotment provision are also all above the recommended minimum level. In contrast, natural and semi-natural greenspace and amenity greenspace are below the recommended minimum level. Parks and gardens provision is adequate when balanced against the recommended local standard.

Northern Wards

13.11 The Northern Wards analysis area has the greatest total amount of open space provision, when balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology. This equates to a total of nearly 90 hectares of open space above the recommended minimum total level of provision. A significant proportion of this total amount of open space comprises natural and semi-natural greenspace, which is 135 hectares above the minimum level of provision when balanced against the recommended local standard. This natural and semi-natural greenspace mitigates against the shortfalls in parks and gardens, children’s play provision, outdoor teenage facilities, outdoor sports facilities and allotment provision.

Southern Wards

13.12 The Southern Wards analysis area has the second greatest shortfall of provision in terms of total amount of open space balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology. The total shortfall of open space provision is 85 hectares. Whilst the amount of outdoor sports facilities, outdoor teenage facilities and children’s play provision are all above the minimum level, there is a significant shortfall of natural and semi-natural greenspace (c. 85 hectares), which combined with a shortfall of parks and gardens and amenity greenspace results in a total shortfall of open space provision in the analysis area.

Table 13.3 Future provision (2026) balanced against the recommended local standard (ha)

Windsor and Northern Southern Maidenhead Total (ha) Eton Wards Wards Parks and Gardens 11.27 -1.97 -7.11 -5.96 -3.76 Natural and Semi- -85.27 -28.84 150.06 -123.89 -87.93 natural Greenspace Amenity Greenspace -11.66 -4.76 7.54 -6.60 -15.48 Children’s Play -8.85 5.35 0.07 -2.86 -6.29 Provision Outdoor Teenage -8.17 0.49 -2.61 -0.59 -10.88 Facilities Outdoor Sports -59.55 43.80 -25.11 -15.11 -55.96 Facilities Allotments -9.04 10.07 -4.49 -3.60 -7.07 Total -171.27 24.14 118.35 -158.61 -187.37

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 176 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.13 As illustrated in Table 13.2, there is currently a significant under provision of the total amount of open space in the borough when balanced against the recommended local standard for each typology. In particular, the Maidenhead analysis area and the Southern wards analysis areas both have a significant shortfall in provision, whereas the Northern wards analysis area and Windsor and Eton analysis area both have a level of open space provision above the minimum recommended. Due to the proposed population increases, the shortfalls in provision are further exacerbated when projected forwards to 2026. The level of these shortfalls in provision in 2026 is provided in Table 13.3.

13.14 The significant shortfalls in open space provision reinforces the need for action to address these shortfalls, such as through the re-designation of sites, new provision, site enhancements and also importantly facilitating accessibility and linkages between sites, as detailed in the Green Infrastructure Study. The recommendations from this study are summarised below, under the headings of each typology.

PARKS AND GARDENS PG1 Maximise the role that parks can play in increasing participation in health and physical activity across the Borough by effectively promoting these opportunities. Consider the provision of alternative means of exercise such as health walks, outdoor gyms and trim trails. PG2 Identify natural and semi natural areas in the Northern wards analysis area that can be developed to offer levels of access and features associated with parks. PG3 Consider the location of both walking routes and public transport links when identifying the appropriate location for the future provision of parks and gardens across the Borough. Additionally, attempts should be made to improve access to public parks. PG4 Given the low number of sites within the Borough, all park and garden sites should be afforded protection in line with Local Plan Policy R1 (Protection of urban open spaces). PG5 Strive to achieve the recommended quality standard at all sites across the Borough and target improvements at sites where quality does not reach this level. PG6 Continue to liaise with the Crown Estate over Windsor Great Park to ensure that it meets both local and regional needs and is afforded protection from adverse development proposals in line with Local Plan Policy HG1 (Historic Gardens and Formal Landscapes) . Promote the park as a resource for local people and an example of good practice regionally. PG7 Investigate opportunities for providing at least one additional park within each of the Northern and Southern wards through the formalisation of an existing amenity green space. The new park should encompass the recommendations set out within the recommended quality standard. A possible location in the Northern area is Westbrook AGS. PG8 Identify levels of resident interest in establishing a pocket park scheme, managed by local resident associations. Pocket parks should be prioritised in locations that are currently outside of park accessibility catchment areas and where residents have easy and direct access to sites. PG9 Consider the re-designation of surplus amenity green space to formal parks and garden sites within Windsor or Eton in order to meet identified deficiencies in the provision of parks within these areas of the borough.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 177 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL NSN1 The Council should look to establish a new natural and semi natural green space site of significant size in the south of the Borough. This will address quantitative deficiencies and alleviate pressure on Windsor Great Park. NSN2 The Council should address the quantitative deficiency by identifying sites in northern part of Maidenhead town, Old Windsor and Sunningdale that can be developed to offer natural features and clear public access. NSN3 Strive to improve the quality of natural and semi natural sites (where appropriate), taking into account recommendations made within the Green Infrastructure Study NSN4 Improve the quality of natural and semi natural open spaces in wards that contain a large number of low scoring quality sites. These include The Gullet (ID 234), Chosely Road NSN (ID 347) and Allens Field (ID 418). NSN5 Maximise biodiversity on natural and semi natural open spaces through the implementation of effective management and maintenance regimes. NSN6 Increase access where appropriate to natural and semi natural open space sites by ensuring that entrances to sites are visible and that appropriate signage is provided. NSN7 Establish a network of accessible green corridors to link natural and semi natural sites within settlements to other types of local open space and also the wider countryside through the provision of appropriate public rights of way. NSN8 Monitor the impact of recreational use on natural and semi natural open space sites (in all areas but particularly at Windsor Great Park) and ensure that recreational opportunity is balanced with biodiversity. NSN9 Seek to implement innovative solutions combining natural and semi natural spaces with other types of open space in order to best meet the needs of local residents and maximise the benefits derived from the available open space. AMENITY GREENSPACE AGS1 The Council should aim to increase the provision of amenity green space across the Borough. Areas of immediate importance are in the Southern wards around Ascot and to the north of the Maidenhead analysis area, as well as responding to any new residential developments. AGS2 Strive to improve the quality of amenity sites, aiming to improve the quality of all sites so that they achieve 60% (the score required to fall within the top 50% of sites). In particular, it is likely that improvements to the provision of ancillary facilities will be of particular benefit to the overall quality of amenity green space. AGS3 Investigate opportunities of formalising an amenity green space in the north of Maidenhead to provide more formal pocket park sites. AGS4 Consider the appropriateness for re-designation of sites in the Northern wards. Capital received through the release of any land should be reinvested in areas of low provision and high demand or qualitative improvements to high value sites. AGS5 Opportunities to provide new amenity spaces to the south of the Borough should be identified. Areas where there is a specific deficiency include Ascot, South Ascot and Sunninghill. Where no deficiency exists, the focus should be on quality enhancement of existing sites. AGS6 Identify any opportunity for an amenity green space in the north east of Maidenhead. Facilitate easy access to park and natural and semi natural open spaces for all residents in this area.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 178 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AGS7 Provide a new formal open space or formalise an existing open space to the east of Eton Wick with the intention of exploring possibilities of equipment provision for children or young people. Any new provision should ensure clear public rights of way to Eton and Windsor. AGS8 Ensure that all villages with over 70 residents contain an amenity green space. Consideration should also be given to providing amenity space in settlements devoid of any other open space. CHILDREN’S PLAY AND TEENAGE OUTDOOR PROVISION C1 Use the findings of the accessibility assessment to identify suitable sites in Maidenhead and the Northern wards that are suitable for new children’s play areas. C2 Use the findings of the accessibility assessment to identify suitable sites in Maidenhead and the Northern wards that are suitable for new young people’s facilities. Consideration should be given to the provision of an appropriate variety and scale of facilities. C3 Use the findings of the quality assessment to inform a programme of improvements across facilities for children and young people. Where the opportunity arises, priority should be given to poor quality play areas serving unique catchments. C4 All sites should meet the Fields in Trust standards. Existing sites should be protected. C5 Investigate opportunities to deliver new facilities for both children and young people at school sites. These facilities would meet the needs of the community at the same time as optimising the use of resources. C6 Investigate opportunities for the provision of up to eight new equipped facilities for children in Maidenhead. C7 Provide new facilities for young people within the Maidenhead and the Northern wards. Any new facilities developed should be created in consultation with local teenagers to ensure that facilities meet local need and are well respected. C8 Continue to protect the existing facilities in the Southern wards as all serve unique catchments. Opportunities to improve the quality and access to existing facilities should be prioritised over new provision. Investigate access to facilities for residents in Ascot and Sunninghill. C9 Continue to protect rural play facilities and support parish councils in the ongoing provision and maintenance of these sites. Assist in providing new facilities in areas where there is sufficient population and where local demand is expressed. C10 Consider public transport links in the planning and development of new facilities for young people and ensure that facilities are accessible to young people within the rural areas.

OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES OSF1 Strive to improve the quality of outdoor sports facilities in line with the recommended quality standard. This should ensure that all are fit for their intended purpose. OSF2 Continue to protect all existing outdoor sports facilities.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 179 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OSF3 In locations where there is expressed demand for further sporting provision, and where school facilities could be made available to the public but are not currently, the Council should consider formalising community-use agreements at school sites prior to seeking delivery of new outdoor sport facilities. OSF4 Maximise access to existing facilities within the Northern wards and consider the provision of new facilities. ALLOTMENTS ALL1 Continue to, investigate and monitor demand for allotment provision and look for opportunities where demand is increasing. Ensure new housing developments allow for any increase in demand as necessary. ALL2 Continued protection through development plan policies of all current allotment provision in the Borough. ALL3 Ensure continued support to allotment providers and associations across the Borough. ALL4 Identify potential sites for the development of new allotment provision which will meet existing and future demand across the north, south and centre of Maidenhead. ALL5 Identify potential sites for the development of new allotment provision which will meet existing and future demand in the Northern wards. ALL6 Any new provision of allotments within the central area should be located in the Ascot and Sunninghill areas. CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS CC1 Stakeholders should recognise and promote the nature conservation value of closed cemeteries and churchyards and consider working towards developing more awareness of ecological management of cemeteries and churchyards. CC2 Seek to encourage partnership working to improve and maintain the quality of closed cemeteries and churchyards in line with the quality standard and ensure provision reflects best practice. CIVIC SPACES CIV 1 The Council should work in partnership with other providers to improve and maintain the quality of current and future civic spaces across the Borough in line with the quality standard and to ensure civic spaces provide a value community resource. GREEN CORRIDORS GC1 Actions detailed in existing Council documents, such as the Local Plan the Community Plan and the PROW Improvement Plan regarding the use and extension of green corridors should continue to be implemented. GC2 Particular attention should be paid to the protection of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area in the south of the Borough by creating links

around the area for cycling, dog walking and other active outdoor pursuits in order to attract visitors away from the Special Protection Area and to protect potentially vulnerable species and habitats. GC3 Existing and future green corridors in the Borough should aspire to the essential and desirable quality features. GC4 The Council should seek opportunities to work with neighbouring local authorities to create links across borough boundaries, including through the development of pedestrian cycle routes, in order to further increase recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 180 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GC5 The Council should work with the local Primary Care Trust to maximise the use of green corridors in the Borough. GC6 Linking the Thames Path and The Green Way with other open spaces in the Borough should be a key priority for the Council. This will provide opportunities for informal recreation and alternative means of transport, using all types of open spaces. GC7 The Council should seek to work with local landowners in order to form new access agreements that would allow routes to be created across much of the rural environment which characterises parts of the Borough. For example, this could be achieved by the actions as outlined by the Farming and Wildlife Action Group (in paragraph 12.7). GC8 Prepare a green infrastructure study to maximise the linkages of open spaces with green corridors and help create a network of multi-functional greenspace in Windsor and Maidenhead. This should serve as an extension to this PPG17 Study and could be developed as a stand-alone study or as a policy within a Development Plan Document (DPD). A green infrastructure study should also give consideration to the need for ecological corridors or stepping-stones.

Formulate policy

13.15 As detailed, the open space study is an invaluable tool in the formulation and implementation of planning policies. This relates to both the protection and enhancement of existing open space and the framework for developing planning obligations.

13.16 It is therefore important that the key findings and recommendations from this study, as detailed above, are utilised to update existing Council documents and inform the basis for the development of future planning policies under the Local Development Framework (LDF). In the first instance, the key study findings and recommendations need to feed into the LDF process of which the key documents will be the Core Strategy and the Development and Delivery Principles Development Plan Documents (DPDs). The Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) relating to Planning Obligations, which is updated annually, will also need to be informed by the outcome of this study. If necessary, the guidance set out by the main LDF documents could be supplemented by the SPD. The SPD would take its lead from this Open Space Audit and Green Infrastructure Study.

Next steps

13.17 Following the completion of the Open Space Audit and Green Infrastructure Study, there is now a range of tasks to be undertaken by the Council towards the delivery of the above recommendations.

13.18 Some open space types or issues of local importance will require more detailed sub strategies. For example, covering playing pitches, play, parks or allotments. Of these sub-strategy documents, the Council already has in place a Playing Pitch Strategy (2007), a Play Strategy (2007) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Open Space Provision – Interpretation of Policies R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6 of the adopted RBWM Local Plan (2003). However, it is important to note that the above referenced SPG dates from 2003 and therefore does not reflect the findings and recommendations of this study. As a priority this should be addressed through the Core Strategy. In addition, consideration should be given to the need for additional sub-strategy documents that are not currently in place at the Council, such as a Park Strategy, an Allotment Strategy and a Biodiversity Strategy.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 181 SECTION 13 – OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.19 Based on the findings within this study, each of the relevant strategy documents should be updated as appropriate, typically on either a three or five year cycle, or in line with government guidance, and then monitored to assess whether objectives are being met. Specific monitoring and review procedures should include reference to: key performance indicators; responsibility for monitoring which indicators and how frequently the strategy and the action plan will be reviewed. With an overarching Open Space Audit and Green Infrastructure Study in place, supported by sub- strategy documents and action plans that are regularly monitored, the Council can appropriately prioritise, spend and plan resources for open space.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – open space study page 182

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

BENEFITS OF OPEN SPACE APPENDIX A – BENEFITS OF OPEN SPACE

Wider Benefits of Open Space

• providing safe outdoor areas that are available to all ages of the local population to mix and socialise • social cohesion - potential to engender a sense of Social community ownership and pride • providing opportunities for community events, voluntary activities and charitable fund raising • providing opportunities to improve health and take part in a wide range of outdoor sports and activities. • providing easily accessible recreation areas as an alternative to other more chargeable leisure pursuits • offers wide range of leisure opportunities from informal Recreational leisure and play to formal events, activities and games. • open spaces, particularly parks, are the first areas where children come into contact with the natural world • play opportunities are a vital factor in the development of children. • reducing motor car dependence to access specific facilities • providing habitats for wildlife as an aid to local biodiversity • helping to stabilise urban temperatures and humidity Environmental • providing opportunities for the recycling of organic materials • providing opportunities to reduce transport use through the provision of local facilities. • valuable educational role in promoting an understanding of Educational nature and the opportunity to learn about the environment • open spaces can be used to demonstrate virtues of sustainable development and health awareness. • adding value to surrounding property, both commercial and residential, thus increasing local tax revenues • contribution to urban regeneration and renewal projects Economic • contributing to attracting visitors and tourism, including using the parks as venues for major events • encouraging employment and inward investment • complementing new development with a landscape that enhances its value.

Page A1

APPENDIX B

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

The Royal Borough of Windsor and

Maidenhead Parks and Open Space Survey

Definitions of Open Space – These different typologies are contained within the PPG17, a piece of government legislation recently brought in that addresses the effective planning for open space, sport and recreation, accounting for the various needs of the local community.

Parks and gardens - These range from large country parks to urban parks and small memorial formal gardens. The grounds of publicly accessible country houses are also included. Natural areas - Woods, nature reserves and unmanaged greenspaces such as scrubland. Pocket parks are also included. Amenity areas - These are small or large greenspaces often found amongst housing estates (eg village greens) Play areas for children - These are equipped play areas for children (eg swings, slides and climbing frames) Teenage facilities - These range from youth shelters, to skate parks and multi-use-games-areas Outdoor sports facilities - Grass pitches, bowling greens, tennis courts and golf courses Allotments - Public or private open spaces dedicated to growing produce and gardening Civic spaces – Hard paved areas used for a variety of purposes Cemeteries and churchyards - Open and closed burial grounds and cemeteries Green corridors – Typical examples include the Grand Union Canal and disused railway lines.

SECTION ONE - QUANTITY

Q1 Please tick below whether you feel there is ENOUGH OR NOT ENOUGH provision for each type of open space within the Borough and if possible, explain briefly the reason for your answer (eg not enough in your area/ quality is poor/ inaccessible).

More than About right Nearly enough Not enough No opinion enough

Parks and gardens

Reason for answer

Natural areas

Reason for answer

Amenity areas

Reason for answer

Play areas for children

Reason for answer

Teenage facilities

Reason for answer

Outdoor sports facilities

Reason for answer

Allotments

Reason for answer

Civic spaces

Reason for answer

Page B1

Cemeteries and churchyards

Reason for answer

Green corridors

Reason for answer

Travel time

Q2 Please write the TIME you would expect to travel, and the type of transport you would expect to use, when travelling to open spaces in the Borough (please state one time and travel mode for each open space type only):

Walk Cycle Public transport Car

Parks and gardens ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Natural areas ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Amenity areas ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Play areas for children ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Teenage facilities ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Outdoor sports facilities ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Allotments ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Civic spaces ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Cemeteries and churchyards ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins Green corridors ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins ___ mins

Usage

Q3 How OFTEN do you use each of the following types of open space? (please tick one option only for each type of open space) More than once a month Less than once a month Don't use Parks and gardens Natural areas Amenity areas Play areas for children Teenage facilities Outdoor sports facilities Allotments Civic spaces Cemeteries and churchyards Green corridors

Q4 Do you or any member of your household rent an allotment in Windsor and Maidenhead Borough? Yes (please proceed to Q6)...... No ......

Q5 If NO, would you be interested in renting an allotment within Windsor and Maidenhead Borough? Yes...... No ...... If YES please ______indicate why you do not currently rent an ______allotment ______

Quality

Q6 How would you rate the quality of the following types of open space in the Borough? (If you are unsure please leave blank) Good Average Poor Parks and gardens

Page B2 Natural areas Amenity areas Play areas for children Teenage facilities Outdoor sports facilities Allotments Civic spaces Cemeteries and churchyards Green corridors

SECTION TWO - SPECIFIC TO THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE YOU MOST FREQUENTLY USE

Q7a Please indicate which open space TYPE you use MOST FREQUENTLY in the Borough? (PLEASE TICK ONLY ONE) Parks and/or gardens ...... Teenage facilities ...... Cemeteries and churchyards ...... Natural areas ...... Outdoor sports facilities ...... Green corridors...... Amenity areas ...... Allotments ...... Play areas for children ...... Civic spaces......

Q7b Please indicate whether you use any of the following open spaces regularly OUTSIDE of the Borough? Parks and/or gardens ...... Teenage facilities ...... Cemeteries and churchyards ...... Natural areas ...... Outdoor sports facilities ...... Green corridors...... Amenity areas ...... Allotments ...... Play areas for children ...... Civic spaces...... Q7c If you use open spaces outside of the Borough regularly then please explain why you do not use such spaces inside the Borough (eg site outside the Borough is closer or similar space inside the Borough is of a poorer quality): ______

Type most frequently used

Q8 Please name the SITE you use MOST FREQUENTLY and where it is located (include as complete an address as possible) Site Name ______

______Location ______

______

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHOULD BE RELATED TO THE OPEN SPACE TYPE YOU MOST FREQUENTLY USE AS INDICATED IN QUESTION 7a

Travel

Q9 How do you normally TRAVEL there? (please tick one box only) Walk……….... Public transport…………. Car…………………. Cycle………………….. Other……………..

Q10 How LONG does it take you to reach this type of open space? (please tick one box only) Less than 5 minutes...... Between 10-15 minutes...... Between 20-25 minutes ...... Between 5-10 minutes ...... Between 15-20 minutes...... Over 25 minutes......

Aspirations

Page B3 Q11 If you were describing your ideal features within this type of open space, what would be the TOP FEATURES you think should be provided? (please only tick up to FIVE) Well kept grass...... Level surface/ good Nature features (eg Good access to site...... drainage ...... wildlife) ...... Clean/litter free ...... Events (eg music) ..... Pond/lake/water On site security (eg features ...... warden/CCTV) ...... Flowers/trees and shrubs Toilets ...... Dog walking facilities Information (dog bins, enclosed boards/signage...... areas, places to tie the dog etc.) ...... Changing facilities ...... Café...... Dog free area...... Dog mess bins ...... Car parking facilities ..... Seating ...... Litter bins...... Footpaths ...... Cycle parking facilities... Picnic area ...... Facilities for children Community activities (eg and young people ..... fairs, markets)…………. Environmental educational Sports Other (please specify) programmes…………….. facilities…………. …………………………………………………..

Q12 Which of the following factors would make you feel SAFER using open space? (please tick one or more) Adequate lighting...... Staff-on-site (eg park rangers) ...... Overlooked by housing ...... Clear route to open space...... Reputation of area/space ...... Other users ...... CCTV ...... Clear boundaries ...... Other (please specify)

Quality

Q13 Please indicate whether you experience any of the following PROBLEMS at the open space type you visit most frequently as indicated in Q7a by rating the seriousness of the problem in the boxes below: Significant problem Minor problem No problem Vandalism and graffiti Safety and age of equipment (play areas, seating) Poor maintenance Litter problems Mis-use of site (eg anti-social behaviour) Dog fouling

Q14 Please rate the following quality factors for the type of open space in the Borough you visit most frequently as stated in Q7a: Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Not applicable Play equipment General maintenance and management Lighting Boundaries (railings, hedges etc) Toilets Car parking Cycle parking Provision of bins for litter Seats/benches

Pathways Information and signage Planted and grassed areas Green flag or other awards Ranger service Dog related facilities Disability access and features Other (please specify)…………………….

Page B4 SECTION THREE - OUTDOOR SPORTS

Q15 Please tick below whether you feel there is ENOUGH OR NOT ENOUGH provision for each type of outdoor sport facility in the Borough and if possible, explain briefly the reason for your answer.

More than enough About right Not enough No opinion Grass pitches

Reason for answer

Synthetic turf pitches

Reason for answer

Tennis courts

Reason for answer

Bowling greens

Reason for answer

Golf courses

Reason for answer

Q16 Please write the TIME you would expect to travel below the type of transport you would expect to use when travelling to outdoor sports facilities in the Borough (please state one time and travel mode for each open space type only): Walk Cycle Public transport Car Grass pitches __ mins __ mins __ mins __ mins Synthetic turf pitches __ mins __ mins __ mins __ mins Tennis courts __ mins __ mins __ mins __ mins Bowling greens __ mins __ mins __ mins __ mins Golf courses __ mins __ mins __ mins __ mins

General

Q17 If you have any other COMMENTS that you would like to make regarding parks and open spaces in the Borough, please write them in the box below. If you would be interested in being part of a friends or group for a park please indicate which one?

SECTION FOUR - SOME DETAILS ABOUT YOU

Q18 Are you: Male...... Female ......

Q19 How old are you? 16 or under...... 40-49 ...... 75-84 ...... 17-25...... 50-59 ...... Over 85...... 26-39...... 60-74 ...... Do not wish to answer ......

Page B5 Q20 Which of the following best describes your ethnic origin? White (British, Irish, any other white Asian or Asian British background - please specify)…… (Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, any other Asian background) please specify…………………….. Black or Black British (African Chinese or other ethnic group Caribbean, any other Black (Chinese, any other ethnic background- please background) please specify specify)…………………………. Dual or Multiple Heritage (white Do not wish to answer...... and Asian, White and Black African, White and Black Caribbean, any other dual/multiple heritage background- please specify)………………………………

Q21 Are there any children in your household under 16 years? Yes...... No ......

Q22 We operate within the framework of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), which defines Disability as: ‘A physical or mental impairment which has substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities’. Do you consider yourself to be disabled as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act? Yes...... No ......

The completion of the details below are optional Name: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Address: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Telephone/Email:……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Thank you for completing this questionnaire, please return it in the prepaid envelope provided, by Monday 28th January 2008

Page B6

APPENDIX C

SCHOOL SURVEY

Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

This is your opportunity to tell us what you think of open spaces in your area and how they can be improved for you, your friends, and the people of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

What do we mean by 'Open Space'?

Parks, play areas, skate parks, Multi-Use Games Areas (where you can play basketball or football), sports pitches and courts, public grassy areas in housing estates, and very large paved areas in towns such as civic spaces

Instructions

1) Please read each question carefully and click the box to the answer or answers that apply to you

2) Please make sure you continue to the end of the questionnaire and press " submit " once you have finished all your answers

3 ) It should not take more than 10 minutes to complete

Q1 Which school do you go to?

Q2 Which school year are you currently in: Year 11 nmlkj Year 9 nmlkj Year 7 nmlkj Year 5 nmlkj Year 10 nmlkj Year 8 nmlkj Year 6 nmlkj

Q3 Are you a... Boy nmlkj Girl nmlkj Q4 Which of the following is your favourite thing to do in your free time? (please only tick one) Indoor things (for example playing games, Reading nmlkj watching TV) nmlkj Walking (includes walking the dog) nmlkj Playing sport nmlkj Cycling nmlkj Playing or hanging out with friends outside nmlkj Skateboarding/ BMX/ roller blading nmlkj Playing or hanging out with friends inside nmlkj Shopping nmlkj Other (please write in the box):

Q5 Is there a specific place (eg shelter, park) near your house or school where you can play or hang out with your friends? Yes nmlkj Don't know nmlkj No nmlkj

Q6 Have you been to any of the following types of places near your home in the last year? Parks gfedc Outdoor sports facilities (like sports pitches, basketball courts or tennis courts) gfedc Woodland or nature reserve gfedc Youth shelters or teenscene facilities gfedc Grassy areas in a housing development, or a village green gfedc Allotments gfedc Play areas gfedc Cemeteries or churchyard gfedc Youth shelters or teenscene facilities gfedc None gfedc Other gfedc

Q7 What are your main reasons for not using open spaces (tick as many as apply)? I don't have enough time gfedc Buses don't go at the right times gfedc They're not very good gfedc I do not feel safe there gfedc It's a difficult route to get there gfedc I can't get there by bus gfedc I'm not interested gfedc I don't like the people there gfedc There aren't things there I want to use or do gfedc They're too close to a busy road/railway gfedc They're too far from my home gfedc I play at home in my garden gfedc I'm not allowed gfedc I use other parks/open spaces that are outside of the Royal Borough of Windsor and It costs too much to get there gfedc Maidenhead gfedc Getting there is not safe gfedc Other (please write in the box)

Q8 What is the name of your favourite local outdoor open space:

please write the name of the road and the village or town it is in: Section 1 - Questions 9 to 17 apply to the outdoor open space you use most often

Q9 What is the name of the outdoor open space you go to most often if it is different from question 8.

please write the name of the road and the village or town it is in:

Q10 What type of open space is it? Parks nmlkj Teenage facility eg youth shelter or skate park nmlkj Woodland or overgrown nature reserve nmlkj Outdoor sports facilities (like playing pitches, basketball courts or tennis courts) nmlkj Grassy areas in a housing development, or a village green nmlkj Allotments nmlkj Play areas nmlkj Cemeteries or churchyards nmlkj Multi-use games area nmlkj Other nmlkj Other (please specify)

Q11 How often do you visit the site? More than once a week nmlkj More than once a month nmlkj More than once a year nmlkj Once a week nmlkj Once a month nmlkj Once a year nmlkj

Q12 How do you normally get there? Walk nmlkj Skate nmlkj Car nmlkj Cycle nmlkj Bus nmlkj Other nmlkj Other (please specify)

Q13 How would you prefer to get there? Walk nmlkj Skate nmlkj Car nmlkj Cycle nmlkj Bus nmlkj Other nmlkj Other (please specify)

Q14 How long does it take you to get there? 0 to 5 minutes nmlkj 10 to 15 minutes nmlkj More than 20 minutes nmlkj 5 to 10 minutes nmlkj 15 to 20 minutes nmlkj Q15 What are your top TWO reasons for using this place? To use the playground/play equipment gfedc It's just somewhere to go gfedc To play for a team on the outdoor sports It's the only place I can go gfedc pitches/courts gfedc To walk the dog gfedc To play on sports pitches/courts with friends gfedc It has a visitors centre gfedc For a kickabout/play gfedc To take part in nature conservation / wildlife gfedc To meet friends gfedc Environmental education to take part in gfedc Other (Please specify)

Q16 What are the top TWO things you like MOST about this place? It's close to my home gfedc It's free to use gfedc The play equipment gfedc I can use it in the evening because it is well lit gfedc It's a good place to meet friends gfedc It's good for playing sport gfedc Other, please specify

Q17 What are the TWO things you like LEAST about this place? It is too far away from my home gfedc There's not enough space for playing sport gfedc The play facilities are boring gfedc It's too dirty (eg with litter, graffiti or glass) gfedc It is the only place I can go gfedc Dog muck gfedc it is closed in the evening gfedc Parents won't let me go there gfedc It is too close to people's houses gfedc I feel unsafe there gfedc It costs too much gfedc Other (please specify) Section 2 - Questions 18 to 24 are about all open spaces in your local area

Q18 Are there any open spaces where you feel unsafe? Yes nmlkj No nmlkj please say which ones:

Please write the name of the road and the village/town it is in:

What is it that makes you feel unsafe? Q19 What would make you feel safer? Lighting gfedc Houses nearby gfedc Travelling there with adults gfedc Cameras/CCTV gfedc Organised activities on-site gfedc Other gfedc Staff on-site gfedc Travelling there with friends gfedc

Q20 What do you think about the amount of open spaces near you? Good nmlkj OK nmlkj Bad nmlkj Don't know nmlkj

Q21 Do you like the open spaces near you? Yes nmlkj No nmlkj

Q22 If you could make ONE improvement to an existing open space or have ONE new place to go what would it be? More interesting things to play on nmlkj Skate park nmlkj Indoor non-sports place (eg somewhere to hang BMX park nmlkj out with friends) nmlkj Organised activities nmlkj Multi-use games area / Kickabout area nmlkj Shelters nmlkj Outdoor sports (eg tennis, football) nmlkj Nature areas nmlkj Indoor sports (eg badminton) nmlkj Park warden nmlkj Other, please specify

Q23 How long would you be willing to take getting to this new place? 0 to 5 minutes nmlkj 15 to 20 minutes nmlkj 5 to 10 minutes nmlkj More than 20 minutes nmlkj 10 to 15 minutes nmlkj

Q24 Outside of school time, have you been to any of the following sports locations locally in the last year? Tennis courts gfedc Football pitches gfedc Artificial turf pitch gfedc Rugby pitches gfedc Outside netball courts gfedc Outside basketball courts gfedc Hockey pitches gfedc Bowling green gfedc Other (please state below) gfedc Other:

Q25 If you have any other comments on open spaces or sports facilities you use, or on improvements to sports and recreation facilities you would like to see locally please write them in the box below: Q26 What is your postcode? If you don't know just write the name of the road and town/village you live on

Q27 We operate within the framework of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), which defines Disability as: ‘A physical or mental impairment which has substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities’. Do you consider yourself to be disabled as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act? Yes gfedc Don't know gfedc No gfedc

Q28 What is your ethnic origin? White British nmlkj White Irish nmlkj Black African nmlkj Black Caribbean nmlkj White and Asian, White and Black African nmlkj White and Black Caribbean nmlkj Asian Bangladeshi nmlkj Asian Indian nmlkj Asian Pakistani nmlkj Chinese nmlkj Do not wish to answer nmlkj Any other ethnic background (please specify)

Thanks for your time - now back to school work!

APPENDIX D

EXTERNAL CONSULTEES Windsor and Maidenhead EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Ownership & Management of Sites

Q1) Does your organisation own or manage any sites within the Borough? If YES, please provide details in the box below Yes...... No ......

Name of Site Address

Q2) What type of open space does you organisation use most frequently? Parks and Gardens...... Outdoor sport facilities...... Natural Areas ...... Allotments ...... Amenity Areas ...... Civic spaces ...... Play areas for children) ...... Cemeteries and churchyards Teenage facilities...... Green Corridors

Does this open space meet the needs of your organisation? if NO please specify reasons below Yes ...... No......

Page D1

Programmes / Funding

Q3) Are there any programmes / initiatives being undertaken within the area by your organisation that may affect the quantity, quality or accessibility of open space sites? If YES, please provide details in the box below Yes...... No ......

Q4) Are there any funding opportunities within your organisation that the Council may link into to improve specific open space sites? If YES, please provide details in the box below Yes...... No ......

Open Space Assessments

Q5) The following questions are addressing the overall provision of open space in the Borough. Please provide details of any specific sites/areas in the box below each question:

How would you rate the overall QUANTITY of open space in your area? Please provide details below Very good Poor Good Very poor Average

How would you rate the overall QUALITY of open space in your area? Please provide details below Very good Poor Good Very poor Average

Page D2

How would you rate the overall ACCESSIBILITY of open space in your area? Please provide details below Very good Poor Good Very poor Average

How would you rate the overall LEVEL OF USAGE of open space in your area? Please provide details below Very good Poor Good Very poor Average

Q6) Please provide any key strengths and weaknesses of open space provision within the Borough?

Strengths Weaknesses

Q7) Please provide any details of areas/specific sites of good or bad practise

- National

- Regional

- Local / more specific

Page D3

Set Standards / Parameters

Q8) Are there any provision standards set by your organisation that may influence any local standards that may be adopted by the council? If YES, please provide details in the box below Yes...... No ......

Information

Q9) Are there any key strategies/documentation that you feel we need to be aware of with regards to our open space assessment in Council? If YES, please provide details in the box below Yes...... No ......

Future

Q10) Are you aware of any plans / developments within the immediate future or long term future regarding improving, enhancing or increasing the number of open space sites within the district of Council? If YES, please provide details in the box below Yes...... No ......

Please return surveys to the FREEPOST address by Wednesday 23rd February 2008.

Page D4

Initial First Last Position Organisation Address 1 Address2 Address 3 Address 4 Postcode Mr Matt Jackson Head of Policy, Planning & WiderBerks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) The Lodge Armstrong Road Littlemore Oxford OX4 4XT Mr Peter Thorn Principal Berkshire College of Agriculture Hall Place Burchetts Green Maidenhead SL6 6QR Mr John Waterton Head of Planning Bracknell Forest Borough Council Time Square Market Street Bracknell RG12 1JD Mr G.W. Copas Copas Farms Hedsor Park Farm Heathfield Road Taplow Berkshire SL6 0HX P Everett Crown Estate Office (The) Windsor Great Park Windsor SL4 2HT Mr Ian Davie Planning Liaison Officer Environment Agency South East Office Swift House Frimley Business Park Camberley GU16 5SQ Farm Conservation Adviser Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) Unit 11 Blenheim Office Park Long Hanborough Witney OX29 8LN Ms Jane Hull Framework Development Officer Forestry Commission Berks Bucks and Oxon Area Upper Icknied Way Aston Clinton Aylesbury HP22 5NF Mr Mike Stubbs National Trust (The) Thames and Solent RegionaHughenden Manor High Wycombe HP17 8BS Mr Graham Deans Area Manager National Trust (The) Hughenden Manor High Wycombe HP14 4LA Ms Sam King Natural England Block A Government Offices Coley Park Reading, BerkshRG1 6DT Ms Julie Delcroix Countryside Planning Advisor Natural England Sterling House 7 Ashford Road Maidstone Kent ME14 5BJ Mr Steve Gilbert South East Regional Office Royal Society for Protection for Birds (RSPB) 2nd Floor, Frederick House 42 Frederick Place Brighton East Sussex BN1 4EA Mr R. Etheridge Head of Planning Runnymede Borough Council Civic Offices Station Road Addlestone KT15 2AH Head of Planning Slough Borough Council Town Hall Bath Road Slough SL1 3UQ Head of Planning South Bucks District Council Capswood Oxford Road Denham UB9 4LH Mr John Brooks Assistant Head of Planning Spelthorne Borough Council Planning Policy & ImplementCouncil Offices Knowle Green Staines TW18 1XB Mr John Feetam Senior Planning Manager Sport England 51a Church Street Caversham Reading RG4 8AX Head of Planning Surrey Heath Borough Council Surrey Heath House Knoll Road Camberley Surrey GU15 3HD Miss Georgie Cook Thames Water Clearwater Court Ground Floor East Vastern Road Reading RG1 8DB Mr Simon Thorne Thames Water Utilities Asset Investment Maple Lodge STW Denham Way Rickmansworth WD3 9SQ Land Use PMichael Stubbs Land Use Adviser National Trust (The) Hughenden Manor High Wycombe High Wycombe HP14 4LA Mr Jim Dunning Principal Development Plans Offi Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR Ms Diane Mills Regional Policy Officer Woodland Trust (The) 13 Redston Road London N8 7HL Head of Planning Wycombe District Council Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe HP11 1BB Legoland C/O Hepher Dixon 23 Furzton Lake Shirwell Crescent Milton Keynes MK4 1GA Mr John Bowles Eton College C/O NAI Fuller Peiser Whittington House 19-30 Alfred Place London WC1E 7EA Beaumont College Priest Hill Old Windsor SL4 2JN Mr N. Adzic Imperial College C/O Gerald Eve 7 Vere Street London W1G 0JB Civil Service College Larch Avenue Ascot SL5 0QE Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre c/o The Museum of OxfordshFletchers House Park Street Woodstock, Oxo OX20 1SN COMPLETED AND RETURNED

APPENDIX E

PARISH COUNCIL SURVEY

OPEN SPACE STUDY

Questionnaire

PARISH:

COMPLETED BY:

POSITION:

TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED BY NO LATER THAN TUESDAY 25th MARCH

Page E1

GENERAL ANALYSIS – OPEN SPACE

Type of open space (please tick) Level of use Quality Accessibility

(please tick) (please tick) (please tick)

Site Details of specific Name of site Managed by No. Owned by facilities available

Parks and Gardens Natural Semiand Natural Green Spaces Green Corridors Amenity Greenspace Provision for Children Provision for Young People Outdoor Sports Facilities Allotments Cemeteries & Churchyards High / Significant Often Low / Insignificant No usage Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Very good Good Average Poor Very poor

Page E2

QUANTITY ASSESSMENT

Please read:

(A1) We would like you to provide an overall QUANTITY assessment of public open spaces and outdoor recreation facilities within your Parish area, covering all provision whether under the ownership of the Parish/Town Council or other organisations. This will help us to gain a good understanding of the profile of current provision through highlighting types of open space/facilities that are perceived to be well provided as well as perceived deficiencies. We appreciate that this may be difficult in some circumstances, but as this is to provide a broad overview, please make an informed judgement where necessary and provide any specific details to support and explain the reasons for your choice.

PLEASE TICK (9) AS APPROPRIATE

REASONS FOR ANSWER MORE THAN ABOUT LESS THAN TYPE OF OPEN SPACE N/A (PLEASE PROVIDE BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE REASON WE NEED RIGHT WE NEED FOR YOUR ANSWER)

PARKS AND GARDENS

NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL

GREENSPACES

GREEN CORRIDORS

AMENITY GREENSPACE

PROVISION FOR CHILDREN

PROVISION FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES (INCLUDING ANCILLARY FACILITIES EG CHANGING ROOMS, PAVILIONS)

ALLOTMENTS

CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS

Page E3

NEW DEVELOPMENTS:

Please give details of any new developments or improvements to current facilities being proposed by the Parish/Town Council or other organisations in your area, indicating whether these plans are underway, soon to be progressed or are longer-term aspirations. Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary.

Does your organisation own or control any natural or semi natural green space which is not currently available to the public but that you consider may be suitable for recreation purposes?

Yes...... No......

If YES, please provide details in the box below:

Page E4

SUPPLEMENTARY ‘QUANTITY’ QUESTIONS

Please answer the following specific questions to provide further details on allotments and cemeteries/churchyards.

(A2) Please provide further details, as accurately as possible, on the number of ALLOTMENT plots at each site within your Parish, how many are occupied and whether waiting lists are in existence?

Number of Number of Waiting Site Name Allotment Plots List? Plots Occupied

(A3) Please provide further details, as accurately as possible, on the CEMETERIES AND CHURCHYARDS within your Parish?

Estimated year in which Site Name burial space will be full

Page E5

QUALITY ASSESSMENT – OPEN SPACE

Please read:

(B1) We would like you to provide an overall QUALITY assessment of open spaces within your Parish area, covering all provision whether under the ownership of the Parish/Town Council or other organisations. This will help us identify the key quality issues within your Parish. We appreciate that there may be site specific issues in some cases but would ask you to provide a general overview at this stage.

Please answer the questions on ‘quality’ of open spaces within your area.

Please tick (9) as appropriate Very Good Average Poor Very N/A Category Good Poor Cleanliness and maintenance Maintenance and management Absence of Litter Provision of bins for rubbish/litter Absence of dog fouling Noise Absence of vandalism and graffiti Overall cleanliness & maintenance Security and safety Lighting

Equipment (eg in play areas or recreation and sport provision such as goal posts or nets) Boundaries (including hedges, fencing and gates) Overall security and safety

Vegetation Planted areas (including trees) Grass areas Ancillary accommodation Toilets Changing rooms Parking (related to open spaces) Pathways (within the open space sites) Information & signage Other National awards (eg green flag) Overall Overall Quality Rating of open space within your Parish area

Page E6

Please answer the following questions to provide further comments on the QUALITY of open space and indoor recreation facility sites within your Parish area.

(B2) Are you aware of any concerns or complaints from residents about the ‘QUALITY’ of open space in your Parish?

Yes No

If yes, please give brief details below:

(B3) Are you aware of suggested improvements identified by local residents who are keen to see enhancements in the ‘QUALITY’ of open spaces within your Parish?

Open space Yes No

If yes, please give brief details below:

Page E7

(B4) Would you consider any open space sites in your Parish to be examples of GOOD PRACTICE (ie sites that are well-designed, well-used and maintained to a high standard) or BAD PRACTICE (ie sites that are in disrepair and/or in need of significant improvement) in terms of the ‘QUALITY’? Please give details.

Name of Site Reasons

GOOD PRACTICE

BAD PRACTICE

(B5) Please write any further comments relating to the ‘QUALITY’ of open space sites or indoor recreation facilities within your Parish area. Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary:

Page E8

ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT – OPEN SPACE

Please read:

(C1a) We would like you to provide an overall ACCESSIBILITY assessment of open spaces within your Parish area, covering all provision whether under the ownership of the Parish/Town Council or other organisations. By accessibility we mean “can those who wish to use the various types of open space get to them when they wish to do so?” This definition includes a range of factors such as transport to a site, movement across a site, visibility and awareness, information/signage and cost.

Please answer the following questions on ‘accessibility’ of open space within your area. Please tick (9) where appropriate Very Very Category Good Average Poor N/A Good Poor GENERAL

Entrance to the sites (ie are the entrances to open space sites easily seen, easily accessible etc) Availability of sites (ie sites are open to local residents at popular times or are there specific closing times for instance locking of gates to a park) Value to user (if charged) (ie are most open space sites free for use or are there charges that deter usage by the local resident population) DISTANCES AND CATCHMENT AREAS

Provision (please rate the provision of public transport to open spaces sites – if none then rate as very poor) Distance from population Public (ie do the majority of people in your Parish Transport Transport live within easy reach of open space by public transport) Provision (please rate the provision of cycleways to open spaces sites within your area) Distance from population (ie do the majority of people in your Parish Cycling live within easy reach of open space by cycling) Distance from population (ie do the majority of people in your Parish live within easy walking distance of open

Walking space) SIGNAGE & PROMOTION

Signage (ie is the signage to the open spaces appropriate where required, clear to see and easy to follow) Information and/or promotion of the sites (ie is the information and promotion, where provided, appropriate, clear to see and easy to read? Does it encourage positive usage?) OVERALL

Overall Accessibility Rating of open spaces in your Parish area Page E9

(C2) How far do you think one should be expected to travel to each type of open space/sports facility? Please indicate the maximum TIME you would expect to travel and by what MODE OF TRANSPORT.

Fill in as many boxes as you wish but please answer at least once for each type of open space/facility.

Place a time in minutes within the box relating to the type of transport. Walk Cycle Bus Car Type of Open Space Travel Time (minutes) Example Open Space 20 5 Parks and Gardens Natural and Semi-natural Greenspaces Green Corridors Amenity Greenspace Provision for Children Provision for Young People Outdoor Sports Facilities Allotments Cemeteries and Churchyards

(C3) Are you aware of any concerns or complaints from residents about the ‘ACCESSIBILITY’ of open space sites in your Parish?

Yes No

If yes, please give brief details below:

Page E10

(C4) Are you aware of suggested improvements identified by local residents who are keen to see enhanced ‘ACCESSIBILITY’ to open spaces within your Parish?

Yes No

If yes, please give brief details below:

(C5) Would you consider any open space sites in your Parish to be examples of GOOD PRACTICE or BAD PRACTICE in terms of the ‘ACCESSIBILITY’? Please give details.

Name of Site Reasons

GOOD PRACTICE

BAD PRACTICE

Page E11

(C6) Please provide any further comments relating to the ‘ACCESSIBILITY’ of open space in your Parish area:

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

If you would like to provide any supporting information or highlight any other points relating to open space or indoor recreation, please write them in the box below:

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS IMPORTANT QUESTIONNAIRE ON OPEN SPACE PROVISION

PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANY SUPPORTING INFORMATION TO THE FREEPOST ADDRESS BY NO LATER THAN TUESDAY 25th MARCH

Page E12

APPENDIX F

SITE LIST ANALYSIS AREA 1 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 265 Reitlinger Open Space 0.201748 1 266 Guards Club Park and Island 0.458986 1 264 Bridge Gardens 0.575494 1 266 Guards Club Park and Island 0.851525 1 279 Raymill Island 1.63947 1 272 Riverside Gardens 1.69149 1 239 Grenfell Park 2.47815 1 329 Boyn Grove Park 3.10147 1 241 Kidwells Park 3.71062 1 235 Desborough Park 4.3379 1 258 Braywick Park 5.27956 1 24.326413 11

313 Pinkeys Green NSN 0.384804 2 319 Maidenhead Thicket NSN E 0.622446 2 316 Maidenhead Thicket NSN B 1.74834 2 315 Maidenhead Thicket NSN A 1.98005 2 234 The Gullet 2.13147 2 317 Maidenhead Thicket NSN C 5.43637 2 317 Maidenhead Thicket NSN C 6.53925 2 317 Maidenhead Thicket NSN C 8.56318 2 260 Braywick Park NSN 12.7694 2 315 Maidenhead Thicket NSN A 33.7591 2 319 Maidenhead Thicket NSN E 49.5115 2 319 Maidenhead Thicket NSN E 54.1441 2 177.59001 12

295 Harrow Lane AGS 0.0292889 4 295 Harrow Lane AGS 0.0328527 4 287 Aldebury Road AGS 0.0734754 4 295 Harrow Lane AGS 0.0901864 4 326 St Marks Cresecent AGS 0.112814 4 334 Fair Acre Amenity Space 0.121787 4 263 Green Lane AGS 0.132369 4 251 Raymond Road Open Space 0.139102 4 263 Green Lane AGS 0.157445 4 294 Gardner Road AGS 0.1683 4 335 Altwood Road/Great Hill Crescent Amenity Area 0.194017 4 248 Maudsley Memorial Gardens 0.196411 4 314 Pinkeys Green AGS 0.227926 4 297 Switchback Road AGS 0.235145 4 310 Lancaster Road Amenity Area 0.307787 4 287 Aldebury Road AGS 0.311765 4 300 Shifford Crescent Amenity Area 0.375261 4 314 Pinkeys Green AGS 0.384414 4 311 Dorchester Close Amenity Area 0.386325 4 314 Pinkeys Green AGS 0.401852 4 293 Moffy Hill 0.415747 4 269 Cherwell Close AGS 0.550017 4 314 Pinkeys Green AGS 1.24564 4 283 North Town Moor (Nat Trust) 3.98007 4 267 Maidenhead Moor AGS 6.45013 4 229 Ross Road Open Space 0.340863 4 17.0609904 25

Page F1 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL

473 Raymill Island Play Area 0.00141025 5 230 Ross Road Open Space Play Area 0.00685398 5 299 Switchback Road Play Area 0.00706056 5 330 Boyn Grove Play Area 0.00955248 5 252 Raymond Road Play Area 0.0186344 5 249 Magnet Leisure Centre Play Area 0.0226329 5 244 Kidwells Park Play Area 0.0395219 5 237 Desborough Park Play Area 0.0485557 5 256 Braywick Park Club Play Area 0.0488545 5 273 Riverside gardens Play Area 0.0496652 5 270 Cherwell Close Play Area 0.0711251 5 305 Oaken Grove Play Area 0.0932474 5 240 Grenfell Park Play Area 0.102525 5 0.51963937 13

243 Kidwells Park Skate Area 0.0952571 6 308 Oaken Grove MUGA 0.111089 6 236 Desborough Park MUGA + YP OSF 0.139787 6 236 Desborough Park MUGA + YP OSF 0.224435 6 0.5705681 4

247 Maidenhead Bowls Club 0.140747 7 324 Holyport CE school 0.165485 7 304 Oaken Grove Bowls 0.194052 7 324 Holyport CE school 0.21064 7 262 Oldfield Primary school 0.29247 7 274 Riverside Gardens Crazygolf 0.312325 7 242 Kidwells Tennis Courts 0.324244 7 276 Claires Court School 0.433267 7 231 larchfield primary school 0.61687 7 328 Maidenhead Tennis Club 0.63548 7 245 Furze Platt school OSF 0.761391 7 288 Highfield school 0.821734 7 286 West Mead Football Pitch 0.823428 7 246 Maidenhead FC 0.827931 7 333 All Saints CE Primary school 0.891323 7 296 Furze Platt Infant school 0.973674 7 289 Laggan Fields Open Space 1.06439 7 312 Pinkeys Green Cricket 1.20218 7 290 Ellington Primary school 1.31003 7 296 Furze Platt Infant school 1.35899 7 309 Alwyn Infant school 1.83738 7 324 Holyport CE school 2.34942 7 285 North Maidenhead Football Club 3.24345 7 331 Boyne Hill Cricket Club 3.34301 7 284 Noth Maidenhead Cricket Ground 4.11415 7 232 Desborough school 4.13306 7 332 altwood school OSF 5.84518 7 303 Oaken Grove Park 8.06574 7 302 furze platt school 9.41638 7 255 Braywick Park 27.1941 7 207 Maidenhead Golf Course 53.7446 7 136.647121 82.5902 31

Page F2 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 238 Croft Allotments 0.222552 8 233 Griffin Close Allotments 0.336818 8 268 Blackamoor Lane Allotments 0.464062 8 307 Courthouse Road Allotments 1.20279 8 261 Green Lane Allotment 1.3479 8 325 St Marks Cresecent Allotments 1.37754 8 292 Sandringham Road Allotments 1.82964 8 6.781302 7

250 St Luckers Church 0.41756 9 254 All Saints Church 0.534911 9 259 Braywick Cemetery 3.27718 9 327 Courthouse Road Cemetery 3.52431 9 7.753961 4

Page F3 ANALYSIS AREA 2 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 41 Duke Street Communal Garden 0.371926 1 47 Bachelors Acre open space 0.671139 1 40 Bath Island Pleasure Ground 0.84695 1 83 Imperial Park 1.14827 1 101 Osgood Park 1.7696 1 154 Clewer Park 3.18529 1 7.993175

104 Keepers Farm Close South 0.0536638 2 103 Keepers Farm Close North 0.0806406 2 145 Ruddles NSN Area 0.139013 2 107 Wolf Lane NSN 0.284362 2 109 Graffton Drive NSN 0.293373 2 105 Castle Farm Spinney 0.293802 2 163 Bell Lane Open Space 0.360338 2 51 Trinity Wildlife Area 0.389478 2 100 Park Corner North AGS 0.57802 2 108 Hemwood Dell NSN 1.07161 2 39 Thames NSN Island 1.73163 2 119 Kenneally NSN 3.89321 2 32 Eton Wick NSN 6.39741 2 124 Sutherland Grange 9.72577 2 67 The Long Walk 15.4625 2 77 Windsor Great Park 130.617 2 16 171.37182

458 Barry Avenue AGS 0.0118978 4 458 Barry Avenue AGS 0.0151129 4 458 Barry Avenue AGS 0.0274613 4 458 Barry Avenue AGS 0.0438495 4 60 Sinclair Road 0.0506496 4 82 Princess Avenue AGS 3 0.0522479 4 63 Boltan A 0.0707837 4 112 Basford Way Woodland AGS 0.0854462 4 81 Princess Avenue AGS 2 0.0923086 4 94 Perrycroft/ ridings 0.093871 4 93 Bartlett Green 0.0966135 4 131 Loring Road AGS 0.0981847 4 458 Barry Avenue AGS 0.11 4 80 Princess Avenue 0.11235 4 125 WHitely Amenity Area 0.115404 4 88 Clewer Public Open Space 0.132137 4 116 The Limes 0.140091 4 140 Ruddles Way Amenity Area 0.141541 4 123 Sydney Road 0.159244 4 149 Clarence Road Gardens 0.173458 4 133 St Georges Close AGS 0.179225 4 134 Losfield road AGS 0.20001 4 471 Vansittart Road AGS 0.204289 4 58 Bulkeley Avenue AGS 0.21158 4 136 Knights close AGS 0.212486 4 464 Westbury AGS 0.218866 4 79 Peel Close AGS 0.237821 4 92 Stuart WAy AGS 0.248279 4 92 Stuart WAy AGS 0.273778 4 62 Nightingale Walk AGS 0.293177 4 132 Dedworth drive/ Stuartway AGS 0.29906 4 96 Greenacre AGS 0.342085 4 146 Guards Road AGS 0.445995 4 65 Osborne Road AGS 0.472155 4 125 WHitely Amenity Area 0.488241 4 122 Liddell Place 0.515088 4 44 Barry Avenue AGS2 0.737093 4 160 Stockdales Road AGS 0.842848 4 126 Sawyers Close 1.74472 4 125 WHitely Amenity Area 1.93193 4 55 Vansittart Road Recreation Ground AGS 2.46122 4 42 Barry Avenue AGS 2.72434 4 17.1069377 42

Page F4 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL

59 Bulkeley Ave, Play Area 0.00319495 5 66 Osborne Road Play Area 0.0063357 5 106 Wolf Lane Play Area 0.00993062 5 118 Kenneally Play Area 0.0220395 5 98 Keeler Close Play Area 0.0244971 5 127 Sawyers Close play area 0.0287616 5 474 Park Corner Play Area 0.0312298 5 46 Bachelors Acre Play area 0.0337837 5 61 Nightingale Walk Play Area 0.0357323 5 137 Knights Close Play Area 0.0372196 5 442 Eton Recreational Ground Play Area 0.03854 5 443 Home Park Play Area 0.045934 5 129 Dedworth Manor Play Area 0.0461653 5 89 Clewer Manor play area 0.0548289 5 114 Filmer Road Play Area 0.0566899 5 158 Eton Wick Play Area 0.0568045 5 53 Vansittart Road Playground 0.0801323 5 113 Bruce Walk Play Area 0.0816633 5 161 Stockdales Play Area 0.0938597 5 465 Imperial Park Play area 0.0981171 5 120 The Guards Road Play Area 0.102789 5 144 Clewer recreation ground P/A 0.149375 5 1.13762387 22 22

64 Osborne Road 0.00181584 6 102 Foster Avenue MUGA 0.0139168 6 99 Keeler Close Teenscene 0.027063 6 143 Clewer Recreation Ground MUGA 0.039202 6 162 Stockdales MUGA/TEEN 0.0420079 6 117 Kenneally MUGA 0.0540293 6 130 Dedworth Manor MUGA 0.0641914 6 466 Imperial Park MUGA 0.0795164 6 54 Vansittart Recreation Ground skate park 0.10748 6 0.42922264 9

73 Princess Margaret Royal Free School play area 2 0.0165898 7 472 Eton Wick Basketball Court 0.0174747 7 72 Princess Margaret Royal Free School play area 1 0.0321301 7 151 The Windsor Lawn Tennis Club 0.12373 7 456 The Goswells Bowling Green 0.131971 7 151 The Windsor Lawn Tennis Club 0.156308 7 457 The Goswells Tennis Courts 0.174607 7 70 Trevelyan Middle School Osf 0.263184 7 95 Park Corner School (Spencer Denny Centre) AGS Sout 0.351474 7 139 Homer First school OSF 0.693306 7 90 Clewer Green School/Hatch Lane OSF 0.700827 7 75 St Leonards Road Football Ground 0.901051 7 68 The Brigidine School Playing Areas 0.965798 7 35 Eton School STP's 1.35707 7 26 Eton Football Fields 1.39616 7 152 St Edwards Royal Free school 1.85805 7 29 Eton School/Common Lane Swimming Pool 1.87238 7 22 Eton Athletics Track 1.95543 7 87 windsor girls school 1.95831 7 34 Willow Place (School) playing fields 2.49664 7 52 Windsor Boys school 2.56184 7 84 Oakfield First School 2.83498 7 71 Princess Margaret Royal Free School playing fields 2.85144 7 25 Eton Rugby Ground 3.03925 7 27 Eton AGS 3.07394 7 150 Windsor Girls School OSF 3.31433 7 28 Eton Football Fields 2 3.32708 7 156 Eton Wick football and social club. 3.36109 7 36 South Meadow Lane (NORTH) 4.55166 7 142 Clewer Recreation Ground 4.92834 7 128 Dedworth Manor OSF 4.96093 7 24 Eton Playing Fields 2 6.49902 7 135 Dedworth Middle School 6.62824 7 37 South Meadow Lane (south) 7.92206 7 38 Meadow Lane South 8.1965 7 76 Windsor GRT Park Sports Ground 8.57725 7 30 Eton School/Common Lane Golf Course 9.27638 7 23 Eton Playing Fields 28.1244 7 1 Home Park OSF 29.8823 7 161.333521 152.0571 39

Page F5 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL

31 Eton Wick Road Allotments 1 0.205537 8 56 Vansittart Road Allotments 0.333018 8 33 Eton Wick Allotments 2 0.627638 8 69 Wood Close Allotments 1.43073 8 91 Bellview Close Allotments 2.49775 8 159 Eton Wick Allotments. 3.03934 8 153 Maidenhead Road Allotments B 3.38059 8 74 St Leonards Road Allotments 4.86045 8 141 Maidenhead Allotments 5.74266 8 22.117713 9

45 Windsor Parish Church 0.125932 9 157 St Johns Church 0.383337 9 155 Clewer Parish Church 0.829603 9 78 St Leonards Cemetary 4.49068 9 5.829552 4

Page F6 ANALYSIS AREA 3 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 340 Walgrove Gardens 0.221104 1 340 Walgrove Gardens 0.401142 1 0.622246

191 Stroud Farm Road NSN 1.30288 2 210 Ockwells Park Nature Reserve NSN 9.89991 2 280 Suttonroad NSN (NAT TRUST) 7.41219 2 280 Suttonroad NSN (NAT TRUST) 20.8459 2 318 Maidenhead Thicket NSN D 15.9712 2 319 Maidenhead Thicket NSN E 3.11514 2 319 Maidenhead Thicket NSN E 3.5168 2 319 Maidenhead Thicket NSN E 27.818 2 337 Waltham Grove Open Space 2.36763 2 347 Chosely Road NSN 0.619817 2 12 352 Maidenhead Thicket NSN F 0.417378 2 352 Maidenhead Thicket NSN F 23.3411 2 353 Maidenhead Thicket NSN 117.673 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.00414795 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.0112252 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.0303086 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.0420882 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.0513952 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.0706333 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.0889081 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.144715 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.270405 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.351379 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.871837 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 0.981176 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 1.71494 2 359 Biusham NSN (NT) 2.36084 2 364 Winter Hill NT 5.68872 2 367 Cockmarch NSN (N.T.) 9.51818 2 367 Cockmarch NSN (N.T.) 46.2212 2 454 Knowl Hill Common 2.53703 2 454 Knowl Hill Common 0.357995 2 305.618069

Page F7 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 187 Holyport Green 0.00794377 4 187 Holyport Green 0.0130969 4 363 Dean Lane AGS 0.0230828 4 363 Dean Lane AGS 0.027817 4 187 Holyport Green 0.0284336 4 362 Church Road AGS 0.0310683 4 187 Holyport Green 0.0326417 4 187 Holyport Green 0.0343036 4 187 Holyport Green 0.0348146 4 187 Holyport Green 0.0396745 4 362 Church Road AGS 0.0490005 4 323 Barley Mead AGS B 0.0576801 4 187 Holyport Green 0.107218 4 219 Wessex Way AGS 0.10955 4 215 Stratford Gardens 0.130737 4 196 Priors Way AGS 0.133132 4 321 Barley Mead AGS A 0.133304 4 187 Holyport Green 0.134423 4 222 Brill Close AGS 0.136354 4 187 Holyport Green 0.143659 4 187 Holyport Green 0.144231 4 341 Walgrove Gardens AGS B 0.150212 4 214 Cox Green Road AGS 0.171442 4 187 Holyport Green 0.173338 4 199 Hanover Mead AGS B 0.182392 4 183 Springfield AGS 0.195183 4 225 Heywood Avenue AGS 0.211152 4 187 Holyport Green 0.217721 4 362 Church Road AGS 0.229097 4 363 Dean Lane AGS 0.230321 4 374 Cookham Moor (NT) 0.263127 4 362 Church Road AGS 0.325282 4 213 Brill Green 0.399688 4 374 Cookham Moor (NT) 0.426556 4 211 Thurley Way AGS 0.435082 4 374 Cookham Moor (NT) 0.443863 4 186 Cadogan Close AGS 0.509234 4 363 Dean Lane AGS 0.511413 4 187 Holyport Green 0.616102 4 202 Bray Green 0.681527 4 187 Holyport Green 0.740076 4 220 Heynes Green 0.744236 4 374 Cookham Moor (NT) 0.746914 4 226 Phipps Close AGS 0.756953 4 212 Treesmill Drive AGS 0.95324 4 374 Cookham Moor (NT) 1.31166 4 362 Church Road AGS 1.31885 4 187 Holyport Green 1.32159 4 375 Bell Rope Meadow 1.45766 4 378 Westbrook AGS 1.89472 4 192 Aysgarth Park 2.04814 4 377 Odney Common (JL Partnership) 3.31666 4 24.5355964 52

Page F8 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 195 Asgarth Park Play Area 0.00727617 5 322 Barley Mean Play Area 0.0224753 5 204 Jubilee Fields Play Area 0.0356085 5 190 Holyport War Memorial Play Area 0.0372228 5 221 Heynes Green Play Area 0.0389417 5 228 Phipps Close Play Area 0.0454808 5 218 Wessex Way Play Area 0.0471172 5 342 Walgrove Gardens Play Area 0.0610416 5 356 Green Lane PA 0.0817686 5 369 Alfred Major Play Area 0.0833457 5 184 Springfield play area 0.0866346 5 208 Ockwells Park Play Area 0.13778 5 349 Shepherds Close Play Area 0.205231 5 0.88992397 13

451 Choseley Road Teenscene 0.00643287 6 227 Phipps Close MUGA 0.0600758 6 217 Wessex Way MUGA 0.0676836 6 370 Alfred Major Basketball Area 0.0731277 6 0.20731997 4

320 Bowls Club 0.133327 7 338 White Waltham Primary school OSF 0.22945 7 189 Holyport War memorial Rec Ground 0.442771 7 224 Woodlands Primary school 0.593545 7 368 cookham rise primary school 0.598087 7 185 holyport c of e primary school 0.645615 7 360 Cookham Dean CE school 0.7591 7 357 Bisham CE Primary school 0.832297 7 390 Waltham St lawrence OSF 1.04008 7 188 Holyport Cricket Club 1.07533 7 354 Bisham, Abbey National Sports Centre 1.107 7 384 Bray Cricket Rugby Club 1.1814 7 216 Wessex Nursery 1.2504 7 348 Hurley Rec Ground 1.34731 7 193 Gays Lane Field 1.42818 7 392 Shurlock Row Cricket Ground 1.48151 7 365 Cookham Cricket Club 1.48266 7 351 Hurley Cricket Gound 1.49218 7 339 White Waltham Cricket Club 1.52956 7 201 Bray Cricket Club 1.6312 7 203 Jubilee Fields OSF 1.71206 7 345 Littlewick Green - remove central area on GIS 3.21372 7 209 Ockwells Park OSF 6.72167 7 371 Alfred Manor Rec Ground 7.10001 7 223 cox green school 9.76145 7 354 Bisham, Abbey National Sports Centre 10.2173 7 386 Birds Hill Golf Centre 35.4795 7 350 Temple Gold Course 56.6688 7 373 Winter Hill Golf Course 63.589 7 214.744512 59.00721 29

372 Alfred Major Allotments 0.429204 8 194 Gays Lane Allotments 0.434216 8 197 Hanover Mead Allotments. 0.844817 8 336 Breadcroft Road Allotments 0.956528 8 366 Alleyns Lane Allotment 0.993733 8 380 Cookham Road Allotments 1.20885 8 4.867348 6

Page F9 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 453 Knowl Hill Cemetery 0.175087 9 391 Parish Church 0.260831 9 453 Knowl Hill Cemetery 0.301014 9 450 Memorial Garden 0.409303 9 361 Church Road Church 0.578052 9 200 St Michaels Church 0.64319 9 376 Bell Rope Church 0.757378 9 182 HolyPort Parish Cemetry 0.766661 9 301 Long Lane Cemetry 0.884858 9 147 Oakley Green Cemetery 2.58755 9 7.363924 10

Page F10 ANALYSIS AREA 4 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL 10 Datchet Village Green 0.0540231 1 413 Nell Gwynn Memorial Garden 0.0966527 1 433 Broomhall Rec Ground 2.76854 1 2.9192158

18 WILLOW FIELDS 7.55971 2 20 Major Farm Raod 0.891398 2 77 Windsor Great Park 6.44798 2 169 Arthur Jacob Nature Reserve 4.09022 2 170 Poyle Poplars Woodland 3.09108 2 171 Old Mill Place NSN 0.688953 2 173 Douglas Lane NSN 1.03412 2 412 Tom Greenes Field 2.73271 2 421 Allens Field NSN 12.344 2 12 426 South Ascot NSN 6.04486 2 427 Blythwood Open Space 1.15812 2 439 Broomhall Rec Woodland 0.601528 2 440 South Ascot Rec NSN 5.10393 2 418 Allens Field Rec Ground 3.02587 2 54.814479

401 Cornwall Road Open Space 0.00348802 4 401 Cornwall Road Open Space 0.0514861 4 165 Horton Village Green 0.0556088 4 178 Waylands AGS A 0.184786 4 400 Kingsbaury Brive AGS 0.194268 4 460 Horton Manor AGS 0.2286 4 425 Lyndhurst Road AGS 0.260799 4 11 HORTON ROAD AGS 0.345919 4 401 Cornwall Road Open Space 0.360948 4 166 Horton Rec Ground 0.450491 4 179 Waylands AGS B 0.510171 4 393 Day Centre Green Space 0.804982 4 389 Prince Consorts AGS 1.37058 4 13 GREEN LANE AGS 1.48253 4 389 Prince Consorts AGS 3.0013 4 9.30595692 15

167 Horton Play Area 0.0221746 5 172 Wraysbury Play Area 0.0251603 5 428 Blythwood Play Area 0.0319818 5 423 South Ascot Play Area 0.0517229 5 16 Datchet Recreation Ground play area 0.0606461 5 410 Victory Field Play Area 0.0698691 5 441 Windsor Park Village Play Area 0.0766725 5 435 Broomhall Rec Play Area 0.0875344 5 180 Waylands Play Area 0.126973 5 175 The Green Play Area 0.181353 5 397 Old Windsor Rec Ground Play Area 0.188408 5 408 Cheapside Rec Play Ground 0.214774 5 1.1372697 12

411 Victory Road MUGA 0.00371046 6 17 GREEN LANE MUGA 0.0218522 6 424 South Ascot Teen Area 0.0223932 6 176 Wraysbury Rec Ground Kickabout 0.0408812 6 398 Old Windsor Rec Ground MUGA 0.0980345 6 15 GREEN LANE PLAY GROUND 0.142006 6 434 Broomhall Rec MUGA 0.204023 6 0.53290056 7

Page F11 Id Name Area_ha TYPOLOGY_FINAL

463 Wraysbury Bowling Green 0.0468826 7 402 Kings Court First school OSF 0.0727228 7 404 st peter c of e school 0.112808 7 438 Broomhall Rec. Tennis Courts 0.1561 7 462 Wraysbury Lawn Tennis Club 0.159828 7 388 Prince Consorts Bowls 0.184082 7 12 St Marys School Playing Field 0.422371 7 402 Kings Court First school OSF 0.434344 7 419 South Grange Nursery OSF 0.521449 7 404 st peter c of e school 0.619941 7 416 Charters School OSF 0.626884 7 177 Wraysbury Rec Ground OSF 1.10489 7 8 Deepfield Cricket Ground 1.25031 7 174 Wraysbury Green 1.69958 7 422 South Ascot Recreation Ground 1.71148 7 415 Highclere Preschool school 1.92371 7 414 Ascot Race Course Cricket 2.18474 7 409 Victory Fields Rec Ground 2.24743 7 6 Pajaro Valley High School 3.08479 7 396 Old Windsor Recreation Ground 4.56207 7 437 charters road school OSF2 5.56861 7 4 Slough Rugby Club 5.93969 7 14 GREEN LANE PLAYING FIELDS 7.52288 7 436 Charters school OSF 17.5793 7 2 Datchet Golf Course 18.2509 7 387 Prince Consorts Drive Rec Ground 21.7885 7 99.78 81.52539 26

420 Allens Way Allotments 0.592627 8 432 Church Road Allotments 1.00907 8 394 Church Road Allotments 2.19448 8 3 Datchet Allotments 3.35187 8 7.148047 4

429 Kiln Lane Cemetery 0.261699 9 395 Church Road Cemetry 0.501801 9 181 St Andrews Church 0.557914 9 168 St Michaels Church and Cemetry 0.632538 9 431 Trinity Crescent Church 0.704886 9 19 Ditton Road Cemetry 0.745566 9 3.404404 6

Page F12

APPENDIX G

SITE ASSESSMENT

QUALITY SCORING ASSESSMENT

Site ID: Date of Visit:

Site Name: Specific Facilities

Site Address:

Type of Open Space: 1 Parks and Gardens 5 Play areas for children 9 Civic Spaces

2 Natural and semi natural areas 6 Outdoor Sports Facilities 10 Outdoor teenager facilities

3 Green Corridors 7 Allotments

4 Amenity Greenspace 8 Cemeteries and Churchyards

PMP Audit Codes:

Very Very Good Average Poor Weighting Assessor's Comments Good Poor

Cleanliness and Maintenance

Includes: Vandalism and Graffiti Litter problems Dog Fouling Noise Equipment Maintenance 54 3 21 x3

Security and Safety

Includes: Lighting Equipment Boundaries (e.g. fencing) 54 3 21 x2

Vegetation

Includes: Planted areas Grass areas 54 3 21 x2

Ancillary Accommodation

Includes: Toilets Parking Provision of bins for rubbish/litter Seats / Benches Pathways (within the open space sites) 54 3 21 x2

Enriched Play Environment

Includes: Criteria for enriched play environment 54 3 21 x2

PMP Open Space Site Assessment SITE ACCESS SCORING ASSESSMENT

Site ID:

Very Very Good Average Poor Weighting Assessor's Comments Good Poor

General

Includes: Entrance to site Roads, paths and cycleway access 54 3 21 x3 Disabled Access

Transport

Includes: Accessible by public transport Accessible by cycleways 54 3 21 x2 Accessible by walking

Information & Signage

Is the information & signage to the open space appropriate where required and is it clear? 54 3 21 x1

WIDER BENEFITS SCORING ASSESSMENT

Site ID:

Wider Benefits Assessor's Comments

Structural and landscape benefits Yes No

Ecological benefits Yes No

Education benefits Yes No

Social inclusion and health benefits Yes No

Cultural and heritage benefits Yes No

Amenity benefits and a "sense of place" Yes No

Economic benefits Yes No

PMP Open Space Site Assessment (SILVER) QUALITY SCORING ASSESSMENT (Definitions)

Very Good (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2) Very Poor (1)

Some evidence of vandalism or graffiti but doesn't really Increasing evidence of vandalism and graffiti which Clear evidence of vandalism and graffiti which would Vandalism and Graffiti No evidence of vandalism or graffiti Limited evidence of vandalism or graffiti detract from the cleanliness or attraction of the area would probably deter some users probably deter any usage of the open space site

Some evidence of litter but doesn't really detract from Increasing evidence of litter which would probably deter Clear evidence of litter which would probably deter any Litter problems No evidence of litter Limited evidence of litter the cleanliness or attraction of the area some users usage of the open space site

Increasing evidence of dog fouling which would probably No evidence of dog fouling; specific dog fouling wastage Some evidence of dog fouling but doesn't really detract Clear evidence of dog fouling which would probably Dog Fouling Limited evidence of dog fouling deter some users; no specific bins provided in bins provided where appropriate from the cleanliness or attraction of the area deter any usage of the open space site appropriate areas

Limited intrusion by noise; i.e. site located away from Little intrusion by noise (e.g. busy road, railway nearby) Noise intrusion apparent; may have some affect on Noise intrusion clearly apparent by a number of sources Noise Very quiet and peaceful site; no intrusion by any noise roads, railways, works sites etc but wouldn't really deter usage of the site potential usage and would probably deter some usage

Equipment (e.g. condition and maintenance Equipment in excellent condition and provides an Equipment in reasonable condition; some potential Some equipment in poor condition and obvious that Majority of equipment in poor condition and in a state of of equipment in play areas or recreation Equipment in good condition attraction for users; improvements but not a necessity at this stage improvements could be made disrepair; no signs of the issue being addressed provision) Cleanliness and Maintenance and Cleanliness

Little unattractive smells or some smells that would be a Some unattractive more permanent smells; may deter Clearly apparent unattractive permanent smells; would Smells (unattractive) No unattractive smells Limited unattractive smells one-off; shouldn't deter any usage some users deter some potential users

Clean and tidy; well-maintained site that is inviting to Reasonably clean and tidy site; some potential Some questions regarding the cleanliness of the site; Poor cleanliness; clear evidence of a lack of Maintenance and Management Clean and tidy site; good maintenance users; possibly an example of good practice improvements some obvious improvements could be made maintenance

Appropriate lighting that promotes the safety of the open Some lighting; some general improvements could be Limited lighting in poor condition; or no lighting in places Lighting Appropriate lighting; well-maintained Limited lighting; or appropriate lighting in poor condition space; well-maintained made required

Equipment in good condition; appropriate and suitable Equipment in reasonable condition; appropriate surfaces Equipment in excellent condition; excellent surfaces Equipment in poor condition; some questions regarding safety of Equipment in very poor condition; clear questions Equipment (e.g. protection of equipment surfaces provided throughout the majority of the site; provided but some potential improvements; some use; appropriate surfaces provided but in poor condition or some provided throughout the site; appropriate fencing of site regarding safety of use; inappropriate surfaces; no and appropriate flooring and surfaces) sufficient measures provided to protect equipment measures provided to protect equipment and/or ensure clear concerns regarding surfaces; limited measures to protect to protect equipment and/or ensure safety of users measures to protect equipment of users and/or ensure safety of users safety of users equipment of users

Security and Safety and Safety Security Boundaries (including hedges, fencing and Mostly clearly defined but possibly improvements to be Poorly defined and some questions regarding the Clearly defined and well-maintained to a high standard Clearly defined and maintained to a reasonable standard Poorly defined and in a state of disrepair. gates) made to the standard and condition. standard and condition.

Numerous planting, with appropriate mix of plants, Numerous planting, with appropriate mix of plants, Appropriate range of vegetation and plants but with Limited range of vegetation and plants but reasonable Limited range of vegetation and plants; poor Planted areas installed and maintained to a very high standard; no installed and maintained to a reasonable standard; very some patchy maintenance maintenance maintenance with some areas clearly suffering weeds few weeds

Grass cover throughout but with some thin patches or General grass cover but some significant areas thins, General grass cover but with some serious wear and Full grass cover throughout; cleanly cut and in excellent Full grass cover throughout and cleanly cut; few weeds Vegetation Vegetation Grass areas excessive growth in some areas; some bald areas and a saturated and/or poorly maintained; cut infrequently with tear and/or limited grass cover in many areas; little or no colour and condition but generally in good condition few weeds; but generally in good condition obvious clippings still in existence serious attempt to correct the problem

Insufficient toilets provided; or those provided are in poor No toilets in a place that should be provided; or some Provided where appropriate; easy to access; signed and Provided where appropriate; easy to access; some minor Provided where appropriate; reasonable access; Toilets condition and likely to be generally avoided by open provided but in a state of disrepair that are unlikely to be well-maintained improvements could be made (e.g. cleanliness) generally not very well maintained; space users; uninviting used

On-site or appropriate off-site parking provided; On-site parking provided; adequate number; clean and Appropriate off-site parking provided; some limit in No on-site and limited off-site parking provided; or Parking (related to open spaces) adequate number; generally clean but some Parking provision limited and in poor condition in good condition; well signposted terms of spaces; generally clean adequate number of spaces but in poor condition improvements could be made;

Insufficient number provided but in average/good Numerous bins provided and in good condition; in right Numerous bins provided and in average condition; Adequate number provided and in average condition; Provision of bins for rubbish/litter condition; or appropriate number but with significant Insufficient number provided and in poor condition; locations and clearly labeled for appropriate purpose clearly visible and in appropriate locations some signs of overuse/ damage etc signs of damage or limited maintenance

Adequate number for the size of site and in good Insufficient number but in good condition; or adequate Seats / Benches Numerous for the size of site and in good condition Numerous for the size of site and in average condition Insufficient number and in poor condition condition number but in poor condition Ancillary Accommodation Accommodation Ancillary

Suitable materials, level for safe use, edges reasonably Suitable materials, level for safe use, edges well defined; Suitable materials, level for safe use, edges well defined; Suitable materials but some faults; some difficultly with Inappropriate materials and/or significant faults; edges well defined; some debris and/or weeds but doesn't Pathways (within the open space sites) surfaces clean, debris and weed free and in excellent little debris and/or weeds but overall in good condition; defined edges; debris and/or weeds detract slightly from not clearly defined; significant debris and/or weeds; detract too much from overall appearance; disabled condition; good disabled access in most areas appearance; some difficulties with disabled access limited disabled access or very restricted access in some areas SITE ACCESS SCORING ASSESSMENT (Definitions)

Very Good (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2) Very Poor (1)

Easy to find, with a welcoming sign; Apparent as an entrance but no clear Fairly obvious entrance that is maintained to Poor or limited entrance; no signage; appropriate size, clean and inviting and Clear entrance and well-maintained, signage; not as well-maintained as it could Entrance to the sites (i.e. are the entrances to sites a reasonable level and which is clean and difficulty with access and not maintained easily seen, easily accessible etc) easily accessible for all users including less appropriate size and clean. be; some users may have difficulty with accessible to most potential users appropriately able bodied people. access

Suitable materials and overall in good Suitable materials, level for safe use and in Inappropriate surfaces and/or significant condition; some cycle stands provided Suitable materials; reasonable access for Some potential improvements to some Roads, pathways, cycleways and/or excellent condition; cycle stands provided faults; limited restrictions of access for where appropriate and easy and safe pedestrians and cycles etc but no real surfaces; some difficultly with general accesses and separate clearly marked routes for pedestrians and cycles; usage would be access within the site for cycles, pedestrians separate defined areas where appropriate access within the site General cycles, pedestrians and other traffic etc clearly affected and other traffic etc

Good disabled access throughout; specific Disabled access in some areas; some Disabled Access Good disabled access in most areas Some difficulties with disabled access Limited disabled access or very restricted facilities and pathways provided improvements could be made

Excellent public transport links provided Reasonable public transport links but would Good public transport links; bus stop located Limited public transport links; bus stop where appropriate; bus stop located at the not be first choice of accessible transport; No public transport links within any Accessible by public transport nearby; and/or train station within located a significant walking distance away site and/or train station in very close bus stop located within reasonable walking reasonable walking distance of the site reasonable walking distance (more than 10-15minutes); proximity distance;

No real access for cyclists; not really Easy access for cyclists although no specific Limited access for cyclists; not really Clear separated cycle routes to and within Some cycle routes to and/or within the site; encouraged by design and/or location of routes provided; local roads fairly quiet and encouraged by design and/or location of Accessible by cycleways the site; cycle stands provided in appropriate local roads quiet and safe for cyclists; cycle site; access via busy dangerous roads; no safe; cycle stands provided or suitable areas site; no cycle stands provided but some places stands provided in some places cycle stands provided and/or no clearly

Transport to lock cycles are evident areas to lock cycles evident areas to lock cycles

Pathways / walkways provided to and within Limited pathways / walkways provided to Some pathways / walkways provided to No clear pathways / walkways provided to Clearly defined pathways / walkways to and the open space site; some crossing of roads and/or within the open space site or and/or within the open space site; some and/or within the open space site; significant Accessible by walking within the open space site; pedestrian required without assistance but no real pathways provided not clearly defined; some crossing of roads required without safety issues regarding access for crossings provided where appropriate safety issues regarding access for safety issues regarding access for assistance; some potential for improvements pedestrians pedestrians pedestrians

Site clearly signposted outside the site; Site is signposted with signage in good signage in good condition; signage within condition; some signage within the site; Signage provided within or outside the site; Site not signposted and/or signage that is No information displayed in appropriate Information & Signage (i.e. is the signage to the open spaces appropriate where required and clear to see and easy site easy to follow and understand; information mostly clear and displayed in some improvements could be made; provided in poor condition and uninviting; areas; no signage / No information displayed to follow) information clearly displayed in various appropriate format; signage in relatively condition of signage reasonable limited information displayed; in appropriate areas; no signage; Signage formats (e.g. noticeboards, leaflets etc); good condition Information & WIDER BENEFITS SCORING ASSESSMENT (Definitions)

Yes No Definition Factors

The landscape framework of open spaces can contribute to the study of environmental buffer between roads and houses Structural and landscape Yes No quality. Well-located, high quality greenspaces help to define the identity and character of greenbelt land benefits an area, and separate it from other areas nearby. edge of settlement forming local landscape

designations - e.g. SSSI's, LNR's Greenspaces support local biodiversity and some provide habitats for local wildlife and diverse and rich habitats Ecological benefits Yes No may exhibit some geological features. Some may help to alleviate the extremes of urban site includes rivers, ponds, lakes that encourage local wildlife habitats climates such as noise and water pollution. local biodiversity studies

nature walks Seen as 'outdoor classrooms' ; some greenspaces offer educational opportunities in interpretational material provided Education benefits Yes No science, history, ecological and environmental activities. opportunities for volunteers in practical conservation outdoor educational facilities

range of age groups use by community groups Greenspaces , including sport and recreation facilities can promote some civic pride, Social inclusion and organised community activities Yes No community ownership and a sense of belonging; they are also one of the very few publicly health benefits social, cultural or community facilities accessible facilities equally available to everyone irrespective of personal circumstances specific walking/jogging trails and/or sports facilities

Wider Benefits Wider central location to be accessed by majority

historic buildings historic gardens Cultural and heritage Some greenspaces have a historical value and some provided a setting listed buildings; Yes No symbol of the area benefits also can be high profile symbols of towns and cities conservation area monuments and/or memorials

helps to create specific neighbourhood The network of greenspaces can contribute to the visual amenity of an urban landscape Amenity benefits and a provides important landmark Yes No and make them a more attractive place to live, work and play. They can be appreciated "sense of place" clearly visible from most areas both visually and passively - not just through the active use of facilities provided. softens urban texture

local tourist site income from sports facilities greenspaces can promote economic development and regeneration; can also help to enhancing or devaluing housing within estates Economic benefits Yes No enhance property values potential hosting of major events offers employment opportunities regeneration

QUALITY SCORING ASSESSMENT (Definitions)

Very Good (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2) Very Poor (1)

Page G4 SITE ACCESS SCORING ASSESSMENT (Definitions)

Very Good (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2) Very Poor (1)

Transport to lock cycles are evident areas to lock cycles evident areas to lock cycles

Page G5 WIDER BENEFITS SCORING ASSESSMENT (Definitions)

Yes No Definition Factors

Wider Benefits Wider central location to be accessed by majority

Page G6

APPENDIX H

STRATEGIC REVIEW APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study Regional Planning This document provides the Strategic Planning guidance for the South Overview of documents purpose Guidance Note 9 East region of England. (December 2000) RPG9 will be superseded by the South East Plan during late 2008 when the South East Plan is adopted autumn / winter 2008. South East Plan: This document, once adopted, will provide the Strategic Planning Overview of documents purpose (Proposed guidance for the South East region of England. The document is in draft Modifications) August version at present and was submitted to the Government in March 2006. 2008 The Examination In Public took place between November 2006 and March 2007. The Inspectors Report was published during August 2007. Proposed changes were published during July 2008 and these are open

to public consultation until 24 October 2008. The South East Plan will, at the time of writing, be adopted late 2008. Once adopted this document will supersede RPG9. South East Plan: Policy S1 (Supporting Healthy Communities): the Planning system Both Policy S1 and S5 set the regional Section D10 Tourism can develop and shape healthy sustainable communities by providing context for the encouragement of healthy and related sports and good access to these facilities; by promoting mixed and cohesive communities through the promotion of recreation communities through focussing on access to housing for socially recreation and sporting activity. excluded groups, and by encouraging healthier forms of transport (ie incorporating cycle lanes, footpaths in planned developments).

Policy S5 (Cultural and sporting activity): participation in sport, recreation and cultural activity should be encouraged (with relevant policies in place to encourage participation by disadvantaged/socially excluded persons/groups). An up to date strategy including an audit of current supply against estimated demand/growth should be the basis of cultural and sporting activity provision, and facilities accessible by a number of modes should have joint service provisions in place.

Page H1 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study Berkshire Structure This document provides the Strategic framework for Berkshire. It guides, Overview of documents purpose Plan 2001 – 2016 controls development in the Borough. This document has been adopted for development control purposes by RBWM. These policies all provide Adopted (July 2005) guidance at the strategic county wide level. Detailed policy/guidance is contained within the Local Plan.

Structure Plan DP3 (Green Belt): The policy sets out the broad extent of the Green Belt Policy DP3 emphasises the importance of Chapter: and briefly sets out the forms of development that would be acceptable the Green Belt and indicates that Spatial Strategy & within it. Planning permission will be given only in very special proposals for development would only be Development circumstances such as agriculture and forestry, essential facilities for granted planning permission provided that Principles outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries, etc providing it preserves the they meet certain (limited) criteria. One of openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purpose of these criteria related to essential facilities

including land within it. More detail is provided by the Local Plan policy. for outdoor sport and recreation.

This is a very important consideration for Boundaries of the Green Belt and of the settlements have been identified RBWM as 83% of the Borough is in local plans. Green Belt boundary changes will only be made in designated as Green Belt. Given the exceptional circumstances through local plan reviews. location of the Borough to London and major transport infrastructure there is

intense pressure for development.

Structure Plan S1 (Major retail and leisure development in town centres): The Policy S1 stipulates that major leisure Chapter: Shopping & sequential approach in identifying suitable sites should be adopted, the developments in town centre areas would Leisure scale and nature of development will be consistent with the role of the be required to contribute towards improved centre, and proposals must demonstrate that they will (on their own or access and transport choices to the centre cumulatively) not adversely affect the vitality and viability of other town through developer contributions. centres nor result in unacceptable increases in the numbers of car borne shopping or leisure trips or in their average length of stay. Where

appropriate developments will be expected to contribute towards improved access and choice of transport to the centre.

Page H2 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study S3 (Leisure Development outside major town centres) Policy S3 refers to the criteria that Development will only be permitted outside the centres where the: developers proposing leisure development located outside of the major town centres • Need has been demonstrated, would be required to meet. • Sequential approach has been followed in site selection, • Development will (solely or cumulatively) not adversely affect the vitality and viability of other town centres, nor cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment or upon the amenity of nearby residents.

Any changes in travel patterns over the catchments area would be in accordance with the Transport Strategy in Policy T1 and the development of the Strategic Transport Network

S4 (Other sport, recreation, Tourism and Leisure uses) Proposals for Policy S4 provides strategic level guidance these non key town centre uses should be in a location appropriate to on the location of sport and recreation their use, and of a scale and form appropriate to their current and future facilities not covered by policies S1 and accessibility and level of infrastructure, services and employment. The S3. sequential approach should be followed and proposals for uses in rural locations must be in accordance with other policies regarding development in the countryside. Potential effects of increased visitors on landscape, wildlife, habitats etc will be considered. RBWM Community A strategic priority of the Community Strategy is to improve the Two key themes of the Community Strategy 2007 - 2013 appearance of the Borough by improving parks, combating litter and Strategy are to improve the quality of vandalism and attaining “green flag” quality assurance status for parks by parks and also to improve the health of the improving the landscape and design of public open spaces through tree Borough’s population by encouraging both

and bulb planting. It also seeks to promote sustainable lifestyles and sport and recreational activity. protect the environment by improving access to the countryside through public rights of way.

Page H3 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study The Strategy also seeks to promote sustainable and prosperous communities and recognises that a healthy workforce can assist with this through participation in sports and recreational activities etc. Strengths in this area are that the Borough: • actively safeguards and enhances public rights of way • Consults and works with interested parties to achieve the provision of a well maintained and signed network of public rights of way • Ensure that the public rights of way network is properly maintained and well publicised and landowners are assisted to understand their responsibilities and rights.

One area for development is seen as improving the access to the countryside through public rights of way. RBWM Local Plan This document provides the detailed framework for guiding, controlling Overview of documents purpose (incorporating and bringing forward development in the Borough at the local level. This Alterations) Adopted document has been adopted for development control purposes by June 2003 RBWM.

Page H4 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study Local Plan Chapter: Policy GB1 (Green Belt): This policy set out the purposes of the Green Policy GB1 provides guidance, at the local Environment: Belt and the limited uses considered appropriate within these locations. level, for development located within the These purposes are defined in PPG2 and include agriculture, forestry, Green Belt. It reflects the stipulations set certain types of residential development, and essential facilities for out by the Structure Plan which outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries and other uses, which preserve themselves reflect the national guidance the openness, and purpose of including land in the Green Belt. set out by PPG2 (Green Belts).

Objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt include the provision of It emphasises the importance of limiting opportunities for access for outside sport and to the open countryside. the impact of any development proposal Construction of new buildings for essential facilities genuinely required is on the openness of the Green Belt. For appropriate development providing it preserves the openness of the example new sporting facilities located in a greenbelt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. rural location could need parking facilities, changing facilities, stadium facilities etc. All of these forms of additional development which will impact on the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt in the first place. Local Plan Chapter: Policy R1 (Protection of urban open spaces): Policy R1 seeks to retain open land in Leisure Proposals that would result in the loss of existing areas of important urban areas which meets the recreational urban land (shown of the Local Plan proposals map) will not be permitted needs of the community. Some may not unless they are replaced by a similar site or can best be retained and have public access but do contribute to the enhanced through a redevelopment of a portion of the site. environmental quality will also be protected by this policy. For example:

allotments, private playing fields, detached R2 (Identify opportunities to overcome deficiencies in open space) school playing fields and cemeteries and This stipulates that the Borough Council will work together with Parish other privately owned amenity space. Councils to identify opportunities to overcome deficiencies in open space.

This may be through enhancement or upgrading of existing facilities, improving access to existing facilities or encouraging the dual use of Policy R2 identifies the commitment to school facilities. work with Parish Council’s to identify new open space in areas of deficiency.

Page H5 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study

R3 (New Housing Developments will be required to include public open space). The policy sets out that the minimum standard for open Policies R3, R4 and R5 set out specifically space provision for new housing developments is 4.3 HA per 1000 the open space/equipped play area population. requirements for the Borough.

R4 (New Housing Developments will be required to allocate a minimum provision of public open space on site):

Open space provision for new housing developments should be

contained in one area and not spread throughout the development site. A capitalised maintenance payment will be sought by the Council for future site management.

R5 (Provision for play areas in new family house developments): Sites larger than 0.4ha or 15 units will require the provision of a Local Area for Play (LAP). Sites larger than 0.8ha or 50 units in addition to LAP will also require a Local Equipped Area for Play LEAP.

R6 (Public open space on identified housing sites): Policy R6 identifies those areas that will be The following areas will be sought for public open space as part of sought for public open space as part of identified housing sites: identified housing sites. 1. Altwood Crest House, Cannon Lane, Maidenhead (0.4ha) 2. King Edward VII Hospital, St Leonards Road, Windsor (0.2ha) 3. Little Lowbrook Farm, Cox Green (1.0ha) 4. Land to rear of Alma Road/Clarence Road, Windsor (0.4ha) 5. Kennel Green Nursery, Burleigh Road, North Ascot (1.0ha) 6. Land to rear of Sutherlands Chase, North Ascot (1.0ha) [this area includes the area of Wildlife Heritage Site to be retained]

Page H6 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study R7 (Formal sports and leisure facilities): Development which results in loss of a built sport or leisure facility Policy R7 provides protection for the available to the public will not be permitted unless a similar size existing level of sports and leisure facilities replacement is provided or a smaller facility of greater recreational value within the Borough. is retained on site.

R8 (New developments for recreation use) Development will be permitted for public or private recreation use except where it would result in significant environmental or highway problems or

where it would conflict with other policies.

R9 (Partnership ventures): Policies R8, R9, R10, R11 and R13 all Through partnership an improved range of opportunities for participation seek to either improve access to sports / in outdoor, indoor and water based recreation activities will be provided. recreation facilities or promote additions to The development of new and improved facilities on schools sites in the supply of these facilities. partnership with schools and other agencies and improved access to these will also be encouraged.

R10 (Disabled access): Access and facilities for disabled people will be required for all new recreation facilities.

R11 Recreation facilities in major commercial redevelopment schemes) Where appropriate, formal sports facilities will be sought as part of a scheme for the redevelopment of all or part of an identified employment/commercial area. If facilities cannot be provided on site then a contribution will be sought by means of a planning obligation to RBWM to provide new facilities.

Page H7 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study R12 (Golf courses): Policy R12 deals with proposals for new Planning permission to develop public/private golf facilities will be golf courses and sets out the criteria under permitted provided certain criteria are met. These include: which they are likely to be acceptable. • The proposal will not result in unacceptable concentration of golf course facilities • The proposal does not involve the loss of existing features or excessive alteration of ground • The proposal does not introduce features conflicting with the character of area • If appropriate existing buildings on site should be re-used, however new buildings would be considered.

The Council will require maintenance of existing public rights of way

across golf course land and seek the introduction of new rights of way where opportunities exist to improve links within the local public right of way network.

R13 (Other specialist recreation facilities) Use of land or water for specialised or organised activities will be permitted if: • Adequate access and parking is provided • It will not harm character, agriculture etc of countryside • It will not adversely affect amenities and safety of local residents/other users of countryside

R14 ( Rights of way and countryside recreation) The Council will safeguard and enhance the public rights of way network and recreational cycle routes, particularly by:

1. Supporting the Countryside Commission in its efforts to establish

Thames Path National Trail, and seek to prevent any

Page H8 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study encroachment of the route by development 2. Support establishment of the Green Way Recreational Route Policies R14 and R15 both look at linear between Cookham and Bray through recreation facilities in the form of public • Signposting and promoting the use of the Green Way footpaths and riverside trails. These are of particular importance for the study in • Making the route accessible to all including the disabled regard of promoting the linkages between and elderly the other types of open space. • Resist proposals which would affect enjoyment of route • Encourage improved access and landscape enhancement to areas adjoining the route 3. Support development of circular walks

R15 (The Thames): Promote the retention and enhancement of recreational value of riverside paths including The Thames Path National Trail by providing adequate car parks and cycle parking facilities and improved pedestrian access Local Plan Chapter: Policy T7 (cycling): Policy T7 promotes the provision of cycle Transportation & Special provisions will be made for cyclists to: ways within the Borough. The study will look at the linkages between sport and Movement • Provide safe cycle routes, lanes etc recreation facilities and this policy could • Achieve the network of desirable cycle routes help to provide additional linkages. • Provide convenient and secure facilities particularly in town centres • Improve cycle links to public transport facilities • Ensure new development make provision where appropriate- for cyclists • Consider cyclists needs to design and improvement of roads • Strengthen links with Thames Valley Long Distance Cycle Route

Page H9 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study Local Plan chapter: MTC 3 (Maidenhead Town Centre Leisure facilities) Policy MTC3 looks to promote (amongst Area based policies The loss of existing leisure facilities will be resisted and additional other things) leisure facilities within and and proposals provision encouraged, within and adjoining the town centre in order to adjoining Maidenhead town centre. The enhance its role as a focus for recreational, entertainment, social and explanatory text to the policy indicates that cultural activities. areas to the north of Saint-Cloud Way and around Bridge Street are considered to be

particularly appropriate for this. Supplementary The purpose of the SPG is to assist in the interpretation of the public Overview of documents purpose and main Planning Guidance open space policies of the RBWM Local Plan (July 1999). It provides no points. Document (SPG): new policies of its own, but provides a greater level of detail for Interpretation of policies understanding the open space policies already contained in the Local

R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6 Plan, concentrating on Policy R3. The guidance is area specific to (Public Open Space provide greater certainty to residents and developers about requirements Provision). throughout the Borough. Adopted February 2003 A general standard of 4.3 ha of open space per 1,000 population has The SPD provides a greater degree of (incorporating been adopted by the council, which is considered a reasonable amount detail to enable developers to understand amendments May 2004 to accommodate the spread of recreational demands of the local the requirements for open space provision & February 2005) population. The 4.3 ha should comprise the following categories: throughout the Borough. • Formal sports provision 1.8ha / 1000 population (pitches, courts, greens, tracks) • Informal open spaces 2.5ha / 1000 population (passive recreation) Total 4.3ha / 1000 population.

In addition to the quantitative standard the Council has also adopted an accessibility standard of 400m and is based on the standards set by the National Playing Field Association.

Page H10 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study RBWM Playing Pitch There are 238 playing pitches in RBWM. The strategy assesses the Recommendation for analysis areas Strategy (March 2007) provision of playing pitches (i.e. the playing surface, safety margins etc) include: and not playing fields or open spaces (i.e. grass or other areas not used Maidenhead: only 33.5% of pitches in the for sport) within the borough including those not (currently) available for area secured for community use – shortfall community use. The assessment is primarily concerned with voluntary of 18.6 pitches (specific demand for adult

participation by adults and young people in competitive association rugby and cricket pitches and all forms of football, cricket, rugby union and hockey. junior pitches) Windsor and Eton: shortfall of junior grass The study reveals an undersupply of facilities in relation to demand. pitches. Oversupply of STPs – focus on Recommends all pitch sites to be afforded protection within the LDF. improving quality of current grass pitches Pitch sites should not be developed unless it can be proved through the application of both the playing pitch methodology and PPG17 that it is Northern wards: Slight oversupply of adult surplus to requirements and not providing an important local amenity. pitches which should meet the demand for junior pitches. Aim to increase percentage The document also recommends identifying opportunities to increase the of non-community agreed sites. number of community use agreements at school sites and a more efficient and effective use of recreational facilities and open spaces. Southern wards: main undersupply of junior football and adult rugby union. 52% of pitches are secured for community use although if school pitches Oversupply of STPs which should be used are included that are currently used but there is not formal agreement more. then this increases to 73%. Overall undersupply of 27.4 pitches across The supply of pitches is above the national average for football 1:1,509 the borough – the main recommendation (average 1:1,840), cricket 1:2,551 (average 1:4,243), and rugby union was increasing community access and 1:2,976 (average 1:8,968). agreement to use school pitches. 1.18ha per 1,000 population of playing pitches is recommended.

The projections for 2011 identify an oversupply of 9.3 adult football pitches, 7.1

Page H11 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study adult rugby pitches, and 11.3 hockey pitches There will be an undersupply of 25.7 junior football pitches, 31.1 mini- soccer pitches, 14.5 cricket pitches, and 10.4 junior rugby pitches across the borough.

Across all types of facilities Windsor in 2011 Windsor will have an oversupply of 2.5 pitches, and all other areas an undersupply (northern wards 7.3 pitches, Maidenhead 24.9 pitches, southern wards 24.2 pitches). Planning Obligations The SPD has been produced to provide advice to developers on how Overview of documents purpose and Developer contributions, in relation to their development, will be sought for facilities Contributions SPD – and infrastructure. Including recreation and leisure matters. Developers Guide (December 2005) RBWM Play Strategy The document highlights the need for children to be physically active, Important to identify what improvements 2007-10 ideally for at least 60 minutes per day, in an environment that provides envisaged within the Play Strategy have the opportunity to experience risk taking in play, without unacceptable actually been realized. A Play Partnership danger. The experience should allow the individual to develop their was set up to oversee the Action Plan. problem-solving, social, language, planning, construction, creativity, co- Key elements of this plan included: ordination, and negotiation skills (without an adult necessarily present). • Appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 to champion, co- The National Childcare Strategy is promoting an initiative to open school ordinate and lead on the play premises up during out-of-school hours so the facilities, including play strategy (£80k) items can be used. • Improve play provision in identified localities by June 2008 (£60k) Through the Council’s Play Policy attempts are being made to actively • Improve the play areas at Desborough Park by April 2008

Page H12 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study involve and consult with a range of community groups. (£100k from S106) • Provide a MUGA in Imperial Park The RBWM Local Plan 1991-2006 stipulates a standard of 4.3ha per by December 2007 (£150k from 1,000 population, to include 2.5ha of informal open spaces (which include S106) equipped and unequipped children’s play spaces). The plan endorses • Installation of floodlights at the Fields in standard aiming to provide all residents with a play facility Vansittart Skate Park by January within 400m of their homes. 2008 (£25k YOF grant by SK8) • Sessional community play rangers by July 2007 (£42k) • Play ranger/officer to develop the school sports partnership to allow for ‘free play’ by September 2008 Between 1996-2006 the Royal Borough has gained three open spaces, (£35K) four open spaces and play areas, eighteen teenscenes, three play areas and teenscenes, and seven play areas. Within the same period one open space, one play area and teenscene and one separate play area While play areas need to offer a range of has been lost. equipment and diversity of activity the number of play sites and their accessibility should also be explored, especially in the The areas that are prioritised for improved play space are Old Windsor, rural wards. Eton Wick, Sunninghill and Ascot, and Bray.

A review of this strategy will be required in

light of the PPG17 findings.

Page H13

APPENDIX H

STRATEGIC REVIEW APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Page H1 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

including land within it. More detail is provided by the Local Plan policy. for outdoor sport and recreation.

intense pressure for development.

appropriate developments will be expected to contribute towards improved access and choice of transport to the centre.

Page H2 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Any changes in travel patterns over the catchments area would be in accordance with the Transport Strategy in Policy T1 and the development of the Strategic Transport Network

and bulb planting. It also seeks to promote sustainable lifestyles and sport and recreational activity. protect the environment by improving access to the countryside through public rights of way.

Page H3 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Page H4 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Page H5 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Links to open space & green Document Reviewed Summary infrastructure study

R4 (New Housing Developments will be required to allocate a minimum provision of public open space on site):

Open space provision for new housing developments should be

contained in one area and not spread throughout the development site. A capitalised maintenance payment will be sought by the Council for future site management.

Page H6 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

R8 (New developments for recreation use) Development will be permitted for public or private recreation use except where it would result in significant environmental or highway problems or

where it would conflict with other policies.

R10 (Disabled access): Access and facilities for disabled people will be required for all new recreation facilities.

Page H7 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

The Council will require maintenance of existing public rights of way

across golf course land and seek the introduction of new rights of way where opportunities exist to improve links within the local public right of way network.

R14 ( Rights of way and countryside recreation) The Council will safeguard and enhance the public rights of way network and recreational cycle routes, particularly by:

1. Supporting the Countryside Commission in its efforts to establish

Thames Path National Trail, and seek to prevent any

Page H8 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Page H9 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

In addition to the quantitative standard the Council has also adopted an accessibility standard of 400m and is based on the standards set by the National Playing Field Association.

Page H10 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

The projections for 2011 identify an oversupply of 9.3 adult football pitches, 7.1

Page H11 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

Page H12 APPENDIX H – STRATEGIC REVIEW

A review of this strategy will be required in

light of the PPG17 findings.

Page H13

APPENDIX I

QUANTITY STANDARD WORKSHEET APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council - Setting Quantity Standards

Field Comment

National Standards Details of any existing national standards for each typology usually provided by national organisations e.g. National Playing Fields Association for playing pitches

Current Provision (per 1,000 population) This is the current provision in hectares per 1,000 population within the Local Authority area

Existing Local Standards There maybe some existing local standards that will need to be taken into account and used as a guidance benchmark when setting new local standards

Benchmarking These are figures detailing actual provision and local standards set by PMP within other green space and open space projects and provide another comparison benchmark when setting local standards for other Local Authorities. This is provided as a separate sheet. York, Brighton and Telford and Wrekin have been selected as according to the Office of National Statistic’s ‘Nearest Neighbour’ these local authorities have a high statistical similarity to Windsor and Maidenhead (based on demographics, population splits, socio-economic status, geographical area, retail and residential composition etc.). Surrey Heath, Elmbridge, and Epsom and Ewell have been included as they are located geographically close to the RBWM. Consultation (too much / about right / not enough) Some statistical information that will come from the household questionnaire and needs to be applied and reported per analysis area to provide some detailed local analysis.

Consultation Comments (Quantity) A summary of reasons behind peoples choices of whether they feel there provision is about right or not enough in some areas. PPG 17 indicates that where local provision is regarded as inadequate it is important to establish why this is the case. The feeling of deficiency can sometimes be due to qualitative issues of existing open space sites rather than actual quantity issues. Any other qualitative consultation / information that has been extracted on local needs in terms of quantity of provision e.g. from neighbourhood drop-in sessions and local strategic documents PMP Recommendation PMP recommendation of a local standard for discussion and approval by the client - standard should be in hectares per 1,000 population

PMP Justification PMP reasoning and justification for the local standard that has been recommended

CLIENT APPROVAL Client to approve local standard before analysis undertaken - any changes in standards at a later date during the project will impact on re-doing calculations, analysis and report - the standards drive the analysis

Page I1 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR PARKS AND GARDENS National Standards No National Standards Current Provision ha per 1,000 0.27 ha per 1,000 population population (ha) Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-1016:

DP3 states essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation would be granted planning permission to be built on the green belt if certain criteria were met.

S4 states that any developments should consider how the increased visitor numbers will affect the landscape, wildlife, habitats etc.

RBWM Community Strategy 2007-13

The policy emphasises the use of public rights of way to access the countryside. The Borough is actively Existing Local Standards and promoting a network of paths to enable access to the main open spaces of the local authority. strategic context

RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy R1 - The loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme.

Supplementary Planning Guidance (1999)

An overall open space provision target of 4.3ha per 1,000 population has been adopted by the Council. Of this 2.5ha per 1,000 population of informal open space should be provided.

Telford and Wrekin – 44% about York – 46% about right/32% not Brighton – 59% about right/18% BENCHMARKING right/35% not enough (0.06 to enough (0.18 to 0.18ha/1,000) not enough (1.65 to 1.65ha/1,000) 0.07ha/1,000)

Page I2 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Epsom and Ewell: 75% about Spelthorne: currently 0.04 - no Elmbridge: 61% about right/19% right/ 10% not enough (0.35 to standard set not enough (1.17 to 1.17ha/1,000) 0.35ha/1,000)

More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 4.9% 60.5% 15.8% 16.0% 2.8% Maidenhead 1.8% 60.1% 20.2% 16.0% 1.8% Windsor and Eton 9.8% 59.4% 15.8% 13.5% 1.5% Northern Wards 1.0% 54.8% 15.4% 22.1% 6.7% Southern Wards 7.8% 67.0% 9.7% 13.6% 1.9%

61% of respondents to the household survey stated that the quantity of parks and gardens in the Borough is Consultation about right. However, a significant proportion of respondents (16%) also felt there was not enough (too much / about right / not provision. When added to the proportion of those that feel there is nearly enough provision (16%), this enough) represents a split in the opinions of residents.

Across the individual analysis areas, the common perception is that the provision of parks and gardens is about right, with the majority of respondents indicating this in all four analysis areas. The highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards, where 67% of respondents felt that provision was about right. The lowest levels of satisfaction are located in the Northern wards, where 22% believed there was not enough provision and a further 15% identified a slight shortfall. Within all wards more respondents identified a shortfall than an over supply of parks and gardens.

General comments identified the lack of parks that offered proper, tarmac cycleways. Proper paths are needed at Broomhall Park and Virginia Water. Additional free parking areas are required that are within close proximity of major parks in the Borough. Internal Consultations

The Council are in the process of trying to locate a five hectare site north of Maidenhead that will Consultation accommodate a park and sports facilities. It was felt by several officers that the S106 contribution funds (other) were ring-fenced in terms of primarily focusing on qualitative improvements in the area of development and that there was limited flexibility to allow for larger scale new provision.

Page I3 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Several officers identified the need to build in more flexibility into the S106 contribution system, ideally by simplifying the list while still identifying key priority sites. While there is a desire to provide 4.3ha of overall open space per 1,000 population there is the aspiration that this should be surpassed. However, there is a concern that quantitative deficiencies are not being addressed as the Council is currently not likely to buy land and prefer to make qualitative developments to increase a site’s capacity. These improvements have become reliant on S106 money as there is limited capital from the maintenance and repair budget. There are attempts being made internally to bulk up/group S106 contributions and decrease the number of small pots (usually consisting of £10-15,000). By keeping contributions focused on localised developments it is easier to justify at the planning stage, although this means that certain areas are ignored. There is also concern as to the policing of how these funds are spent in parishes, as there is limited consultation with residents and money is notoriously wasted. Currently S106 spending is limited by the work capacity of the Council’s architects.

One of the key flaws in the Borough’s core strategy was that no greenbelt review was carried out. It is now assumed that part of this area to the north of Maidenhead will need to be developed and open space will be required in line with the residential builds and the agenda to revitalise the town and capitalise upon the new Crossrail extension.

External Consultations

Many of the consultees were national or regional bodies who were capable and willing to comment on strategic and policy issues relating to provision. Some valuable documents were provided, including PPG17 studies from surrounding local authorities, and strategic open space documents from bodies such as the National Trust and the Forestry Commission.

Views were less clear about the quantity of parks and gardens provided in Windsor and Maidenhead, although those that expressed a view thought that provision was adequate, particularly in the light of large quantities of natural green space available to residents in the locality.

Parish Councils

This is a difficult typology for parish councils to comment on, as parks and gardens are not generally provided at a parish level. Most provide this function only in the form of recreation grounds with general provision for play and sport. However, there was a view that people were not far from either Windsor or Maidenhead in terms of journey time, and had ample opportunity to access the facilities in the two towns should they wish to use the more formal facilities available in the two centres.

Page I4 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

Parish Comment Sunningdale About right Wraysbury About right Bisham N/A Sunningdale & Ascot About right White Waltham About right Horton N/A Cookham Less than we need (only have Bellrope Meadow) Eton Less than we need (very little formal area) Old Windsor About right Datchet About right Bray About right

Drop-In Consultations

Drop-in sessions were held in the centres of Windsor and Maidenhead, and in two outlying villages in the Borough.

Most people felt that the amount of open space in the form of parks and gardens in Borough was about right. As a category, this is of significance in the towns of Windsor and Maidenhead, and, as with most local authorities, of less significance in outlying country areas. These do not tend to be as relevant in the countryside areas, where people considered that there was ample countryside to act as a recreational facility (see later comments relating to Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace (NSN)).

'PMP Recommendation Maintain provision – 0.27 ha per 1,000 (per 1,000 population) Parks are perceived to be particularly important to local residents. Although there is some dissatisfaction, there is a greater level of satisfaction regarding the provision of parks than there is for most other types of open space. Variations in the level of satisfaction suggest that there may be some locational deficiencies in the distribution of parks and gardens. PMP Justification

When benchmarked against other similar local authorities (Appendix D), the Borough has a significant supply of parks and gardens which is supported by NSN sites that have park features. The standard set ensures that all current sites are protected and the focus shifts to ensuring residents have the best possible

Page I5 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET access to these existing sites.

Windsor Great Park has been omitted from the quantitative calculations due to its NSN features and ecological benefits it provides the area. However, it is perceived by many residents as a park and used regularly. As it is an extremely large strategic site serving the needs of residents across the Windsor and Eton analysis area and the Southern wards it is unrealistic to consider the quantitative supply of the park typology exclusively in these analysis areas.

Consideration has been given to the important role of the urban parks in the Maidenhead analysis area and it is vital that a high quality of provision is ensured if these sites are to justify being protected. When addressing the undersupply of parks in the Northern wards it is important to consider how the features of NSN and amenity green space (AGS) areas can replicate many park features. If certain sites such as the Maidenhead Thicket can be designed and maintained so that they offer the same levels of access and similar features to parks then satisfaction in the Northern wards should improve.

Page I6 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL Natural England Standard recommends: • an accessible natural green space less than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home • statutory Local Nature Reserves at a minimum level of one hectare per thousand population • at least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home; one accessible 100 hectare site National Standards within five kilometres of home; and one accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home.

Natural England Accessible Natural Green Space Standard recommends 1 ha of LNR per 1,000 population.

Rethinking Open Space Report - Average of all LA applicable standards = 2 ha per 1,000 population - areas that promote biodiversity and nature conservation. Current Provision ha per 1,000 5.31 ha per 1,000 population population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy R1 - the loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme. Existing Local Standards and strategic context Supplementary Planning Guidance (1999)

An overall open space provision target of 4.3ha per 1,000 population has been adopted by the Council. Of this 2.5ha per 1,000 population of informal open space should be provided. Telford and Wrekin – 44% about York – 44% about right/28% not Brighton – 51% about right/41% right/33% not enough (6 to 6ha enough (1.78 to 1.79ha/1,000) not enough (1.12 to 1.12ha/1,000) (urban) and 15.3 to 15.3ha/1,000 BENCHMARKING (rural)) Spelthorne: Elmbridge: 60% about right/19% Epsom and Ewell: 63% about 2.16 to 2.16ha/1000 not enough (9.86 to right/17% not enough (11.54 to 11.54ha/1,000) 11.54ha/1,000) Consultation Based on the findings of the household survey, 62% of respondents feel the provision of NSN is adequate/ (too much / about right / not more than adequate and 34% feel there is nearly enough/ not enough provision, highlighting a split in enough) opinion. The most common response (52%) is that provision is about right.

Page I7 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 10.0% 52.0% 11.8% 22.3% 3.8% Maidenhead 5.6% 51.6% 13.0% 24.8% 5.0% Windsor and Eton 13.2% 50.4% 10.9% 23.3% 2.3% Northern Wards 11.5% 46.2% 13.5% 24.0% 4.8% Southern Wards 11.9% 61.4% 9.9% 13.9% 3.0%

Looking across the individual analysis areas it is evident that the highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards, where 73% of residents feel provision is about right/more than enough. The lowest levels of satisfaction can be found in Maidenhead and the Northern wards, where 38% of respondents in both analysis areas feel provision is insufficient. This highlights a mixed satisfaction level between the rural and urban analysis area. While rural areas will generally contain higher quantities of NSN areas there may be issues with regard quality or accessibility that are influencing residents’ perceptions.

Within Windsor and Eton the highest number of respondents (13%) indicates that there are more than enough NSN areas. While 23% suggest there is a significant shortfall. Further investigation into accessibility gaps is required and whether access via footpaths and cycleway networks is negatively influencing the perception of certain groups of residents within this analysis area.

Respondents acknowledged safety concerns as the main barrier to using this type of open space rather than a lack of provision. Internal Consultations

Consultations identified the need to protect existing NSN areas and ensure public access is provided wherever possible, especially around the Crown Estate and Burnham Beeches. It was also mentioned that churches in rural areas are providing successful wildlife habitats that should be maintained and protected. Consultation (other) External Consultations

Consultees who responded tended to be from bodies representing the provision of green space at a national or regional level, and professed little direct knowledge of quantity standards relating to NSN space in Windsor and Maidenhead. One body, the Farming and Wildlife Action Group (FWAG) felt that issues were more important in relation to the management of the service, and offered to manage this category on

Page I8 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET behalf of the Council. In general, however, the view was taken that provision was adequate.

Parish Councils

Parish Councils were of the opinion that there was adequate provision of NSN greenspace. Within the Borough, and were more concerned about the quantity of some other types of open space provision.

Parish Comment Sunningdale About right Wraysbury About right (local reservoirs cover large area for sailing) Bisham About right (appropriate for small parish) Sunningdale & Ascot About right (parish manages and maintains significant amount of green spaces) White Waltham About right Horton About right (good green space and village walks) Cookham About right Eton More than we need (green belt, flood plain) Old Windsor N/A (not under PC control) Datchet N/A (not under control of PC) Bray About right

Drop-In Consultations

There were few issues in terms of quantity, particularly as residents had access to two major assets: a large quantity of accessible countryside, and the riverside along the Thames river. The drop-in sessions were comprised of about equal numbers of residents living within the Borough, and visitors living elsewhere. Both groups were comfortable with the amount of provision in this category. ‘PMP Recommendation Slight Increase – 5.4 ha per 1,000 population (per 1,000 population) The value placed on NSN open space is clear, both in terms of the recreational resource these spaces offer and the role that natural areas play in biodiversity and conservation. While the household survey reveals a marginal split in opinion between those who perceive there to be insufficient natural areas and those who PMP Justification are satisfied with current levels of provision, all other consultations emphasised the protection of existing provision and increasing accessibility to sites through better networking of footpaths and cycle ways. It is therefore suggested that the local standard is increased from 5.29 to 5.4 hectares per 1,000 population. Much of this will be to mitigate a planned growth in population to the north of Maidenhead and ensuring

Page I9 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET sites in the Northern wards are clearly accessible. The green nature of the Borough has meant several extremely large NSN open spaces exist across the Borough. While sites such as Windsor Great Park and the Maidenhead Thicket serve predominantly as NSN areas it is vital that a balance is ensured between the conservation of biodiversity and public accessibility to these strategic sites.

Page I10 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR AMENITY GREEN SPACE Rethinking Open Space Report - average of all LA applicable standards = 2 ha per 1,000 population - areas that provide informal recreation and visual amenity or land provided for environmental or safety reasons.

NPFA (now FIT) - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population for 'playing space' consisting of 2 acres (ie 0.81 ha per 1,000 population) for children’s playing space - includes areas designated for children and young people and casual or informal playing space within housing areas.

National Standards NPFA - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha) arbitrary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure areas' or something similar that is not be covered within the NPFA standard. In almost all cases, this additional requirement is intended for residential areas and do not cover open spaces such as parks or allotments.

LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; LAPs typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity greenspace Current Provision ha per 1,000 0.54ha per 1,000 population population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy R1 - The loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme. Existing Local Standards and strategic context Supplementary Planning Guidance (1999)

An overall open space provision target of 4.3ha per 1,000 population has been adopted by the Council. Of this 2.5ha per 1,000 population of informal open space should be provided. Telford and Wrekin – 31% about York – 39% about right/29% not Brighton – 33% about right/33% right/32% not enough (1.17 to enough (1.05 to 1.07ha/1,000) not enough (0.56 to 0.58ha/1,000) 1.17ha/1,000) BENCHMARKING Epsom and Ewell: 38% about Elmbridge: 46% about right/21% Spelthorne: 1.46 to 1.46ha/1000 right/22% not enough (2.09 to not enough (1.81 to 1.81ha/1,000) 2ha/1,000) Consultation Based on the findings of the household survey, there is a split opinion regarding the provision of amenity (too much / about right / not green space (AGS), with 44% of respondents stating there is some form of undersupply and 42% indicating

Page I11 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET enough) provision is about right. It can be seen that a greater proportion of residents feel that there is a insufficient supply compared to those who feel that it is about right. There are also very few respondents who feel that there is an oversupply More than About Nearly Not No of AGS. enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 1.9% 42.1% 17.6% 26.2% 12.2% Maidenhead 1.9% 40.1% 20.4% 24.2% 13.4% Windsor and Eton 0.8% 43.3% 15.7% 32.3% 7.9% Northern Wards 2.0% 38.4% 20.2% 24.2% 15.2% Southern Wards 3.1% 45.9% 13.3% 24.5% 13.3%

When examining the individual analysis areas, results mirror those found within the overall findings. Windsor and Eton had the highest levels of dissatisfaction and the lowest number of respondents who stated any kind of oversupply. In comparison to other typologies, a large proportion of residents in the Borough have no opinion regarding the amount of AGS. The number of residents with no opinion is particularly high within the Northern wards.

Internal Consultations

Consultations identified that areas such as the Cookham Road residential estate and Aldebury Road estates in north Maidenhead were undersupplied in terms of open space. There also needs to be additional provision of publically accessible land around the North Town Moor and west of Maidenhead around Highway Avenue and Highway Road, again areas with high residential density. The Town Moor development is part of the Maidenhead masterplan and will use £160k of existing S106 money and a possible further £250k from additional housing developments in the area.

Consultation External Consultations (other)

There was a greater awareness of the provision of Parks and Gardens and NSN green space than there was of AGS. No views were expressed to indicate that there was a shortfall in provision in this category.

Parish Councils

The only significant comments in relation to this category were from Bray Parish Council, where there was a perception that the provision of AGS was low in the parish. The Parish Council has a long term plan to provide additional AGS in Fifield and Oakley Green, as and when land becomes available. Most parish

Page I12 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET council’s though felt provision to be about right.

Parish Comment Sunningdale About right Wraysbury About right Bisham About right (sufficient for residents’ use) Sunningdale & Ascot About right (located within or near residential areas White Waltham About right Horton N/A Cookham About right Eton About right Old Windsor About right Datchet About right Bray Less than we need

Drop-In Consultations

AGS was viewed as important by both residents and visitors to the Borough, although of more relevance to local residents. There was a perception that provision was about right, but there were concerns about the potential loss of such space as built development occurred in the Borough. ‘PMP Recommendation Slight Increase – 0.59ha per 1,000 population (per 1,000 population) While AGS is valued, there is a split in opinion regarding the adequacy of the current level of provision. The majority of residents in all analysis areas expect the Southern wards indicated a shortfall of AGS. Analysis indicates that there may be locational deficiencies in provision. Local access is particularly important to residents and young children, and many residents highlighted that a lack of very local provision is a key determinant of their perception of the overall quantity. New housing development s are also not perceived as providing adequate new open space to address the increase in population. Many residents PMP Justification highlighted the importance of the protection of AGS and expressed concerns about the loss of spaces to development. The findings from the consultations indicated a balance between meeting the current requirements in specific localities with an increase in provision and ensuring that the quality of sites are maintained and specific sites are improved. The imminent housing developments are seen as an opportunity to increase the overall quantitative standard across the borough. Due to this a slight increase in provision has been deemed most appropriate.

Page I13 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION OF PLAY AREAS FOR CHILDREN NPFA (now FIT) - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population for 'playing space' consisting of 2 acres (i.e. 0.81 ha per 1,000 population) for children's playing space - includes areas designated for children and young people and casual or informal playing space within housing areas.

NPFA - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha) arbitrary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure areas' or something similar that mat not be covered within the NPFA standard. In almost all cases, this additional requirement is intended for residential areas and does not cover open spaces such as parks or National Standards allotments

1) LAPs - aged 4-6; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in a straight line); min area size 100msq; LAPs typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity green space

(2) LEAPs - aged min 5; min area size 400msq; should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 metres in a straight line) Current Provision ha per 1,000 0.45 facilities per 1,000 population population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy R5 – New development sites that exceed 0.4ha or 15 units are required to provide a Local Area for Play (LAP). Developments larger than 0.8ha or 50 units are required to provide a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP).

Play Strategy 2007-10

Existing Local Standards and The RBWM Local Plan 1991-2006 stipulates a standard of 4.3ha per 1,000 population, to include 2.5ha of strategic context informal open spaces (which include equipped and unequipped children’s play spaces). The plan endorses the NFPA standard aiming to provide all residents with a play facility within 400m of their homes.

Between 1996-2006 the Borough has gained three open spaces, four open spaces and play areas, 18 teenscenes, three play areas and teenscenes, and seven play areas. Within the same period one open space, one play area and teenscene and one separate play area has been lost.

Key quantitative elements in the Action Plan include: • Appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 to champion, co-ordinate and lead on the play strategy

Page I14 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET • Provide a MUGA in Imperial Park by December 2007 • Installation of floodlights at Vansittart Skate Park by January 2008

The areas that are prioritised for improved play space are Old Windsor, Eton Wick, Sunninghill and Ascot, and Bray. Telford and Wrekin – 28% about York – 31% about right/38% not Brighton – 30% about right/32% right/46% not enough (0.092 to enough (0.04 to 0.07ha/1,000) not enough (0.04 to 0.06ha/1,000) 0.095ha/1,000) BENCHMARKING Epsom and Ewell: 25% about Spelthorne: 0.038 to Elmbridge: 31% about right/35% right/ 39% not enough (0.03 to 0.038ha/1000 not enough (0.03 to 0.03ha/1,000) 0.35ha/1,000) In total, 41% of respondents feel there is nearly enough/not enough provision for children and 43% indicate provision is about right/more than enough. The high percentage (23%) that perceive provision as not enough suggests that there is a perception that children’s provision is Windsor and Maidenhead is insufficient. Interestingly the proportion of respondents illustrating that there are more than enough play facilities is high compared to other typologies, especially in the Southern wards. This may be skewed by the respondent profile to the household survey, who do not frequently use these play facilities.

More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 3.2% 40.2% 18.4% 23.0% 15.2% Maidenhead 1.3% 44.0% 18.9% 16.4% 19.5% Consultation Windsor and Eton 2.3% 40.6% 18.0% 26.6% 12.5% (too much / about right / not Northern Wards 1.9% 31.1% 22.3% 29.1% 15.5% enough) Southern Wards 8.8% 44.1% 13.7% 22.5% 10.8%

Within the Southern wards (53%) and Maidenhead (45%) a higher proportion (from those that have stated an opinion) of residents perceive that the supply of children’s facilities meets current demand compared to those that perceive a shortfall exists. The analysis area regarded as having the most significant shortfall is the Northern wards (51% perceive supply is inadequate to meet demand).

General comments from the household survey support the view of children’s provision being insufficient. It was stated that there needs to be more provision for the under threes with better disabled access to play areas. It was suggested that the north of Maidenhead is poorly served by play facilities, especially Moor

Page I15 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Park and Laggan Park. There is also a demand for a wider range of interesting and modern equipment that encourages varied activities and movement. It was suggested that Savill Garden, Windsor would benefit from such a feature. Internal Consultations

Five new multi-use games areas (MUGAs) have been constructed (at Desborough Park, Oaklands Park, Osgood Park, Keeler Park, and Imperial Park) across the Borough. The MUGAs have been built over the last 12months, are all fenced and provide a facility for football and basketball, and are used by sports centres for coaching during the holidays (mon-fri, 11-4pm). The community safety budget is used to supervise these new sites. The Council is also currently tendering for five new play areas, including an older children’s facility at Braywick Park, with an overall value of approximately £250k.

External Consultations

External consultees had no knowledge of children’s play provision in the Borough on which to base an opinion.

Parish Councils Consultation (other) Opinions varied in relation to this category. In Bray, there is a long-term plan to build a children’s play area in the Fifield and Oakley Green wards of the Parish on the basis that provision is low. By contrast, new facilities have recently been provided for children in the Old Windsor Parish area.

Parish Comment Sunningdale About right Wraysbury About right (children’s play equipment is “varied”) Bisham About right (enclosed safe playground and ample space for play in orchard) Sunningdale & Ascot About right (major improvement programme since 2001) White Waltham More than we need (only available in Woodlands Park village) Horton About right (update 2 years ago) Cookham Less than we need (more play and sporting areas for school children needed) Eton About right (Recent town council provision) Old Windsor About right (play area to east of parish usable) Datchet About right Bray Less than we need

Page I16 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

School Survey

44% of respondents suggested that the provision of open space is adequate. 37% identified it as good, 13% as poor and 7% did not provide an opinion. 72% of students indicated that the liked the open spaces in their locality. In terms of new and future provision 25% suggested more interesting play items are required, 17% that indoor non-sports place is required, 13% suggested a BMX track and 11% that more outdoor sport facilities are needed.

Drop-In Consultations

There was a perception that the level of provision in this category, particularly amongst residents as opposed to visitors, may be on the low side. This seemed to be particularly relevant for the provision of very local facilities for toddlers and young children.

‘PMP Recommendation Maintain - 0.45 facilities per 1,000 population (per 1,000 population)

It has been suggested across the various consultation methods that the main deficiency in provision exists mainly in north Maidenhead. The average level of provision borough-wide is 0.45 per facilities per 1,000 population and this is deemed a suitable supply. The Council’s Play Strategy adopts the recommendations of the National Childcare Strategy and suggests that schools premises should be made available out-of- school hours. It is important that the provision of new facilities for children is balanced with the need to improve the quality of existing provision. This is particularly important given that the key complaint from children regarding existing provision was that facilities are not sufficiently innovative or exciting. Residents from the household survey indicated that more facilities for under threes were necessary. PMP Justification The standard set implies that the overall level of provision borough-wide will remain the same and the focus should be on quality improvements. The focus will be on ensuring that areas will lower levels of provision, which are below the standard are focussed upon. This will either be through the development of new facilities (facilitated through S106 contributions) or relocating sites from areas in the borough where accessibility and quality standards are already met and current sites are surplus to requirements. Accessibility standards will be accounted for and subsequent new provision will be delivered where it is most needed. In setting a standard in terms of facility numbers we are ensuring that access to at least one site for all residents is a key aim.

Page I17 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR YOUNG PEOPLE NPFA - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population for 'playing space' consisting of 2 acres (i.e. 0.81 ha per 1,000 population) for children's playing space - includes areas designated for children and young people and casual or informal playing space within housing areas.

NPFA - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha) arbitrary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure National Standards areas' or something similar that mat not be covered within the NPFA standard. In almost all cases, this additional requirement is intended for residential areas and does not cover open spaces such as parks or allotments.

LEAPs - aged min 5; min area size 400msq; should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 metres in a straight line) Current Provision ha per 1,000 0.17 facilities per 1,000 population population (ha) Play Strategy 2007-10

The RBWM Local Plan 1991-2006 stipulates a standard of 4.3ha per 1,000 population, to include 2.5ha of informal open spaces (which include equipped and unequipped children’s play spaces). The plan endorses the NFPA standard aiming to provide all residents with a play facility within 400m of their homes.

Between 1996-2006 the Borough has gained three open spaces, four open spaces and play areas, eighteen teenscenes, three play areas and teenscenes, and seven play areas. Within the same period one Existing Local Standards and open space, one play area and teenscene and one separate play area has been lost. strategic context Key quantitative elements in the Action Plan include: • Appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 to champion, co-ordinate and lead on the play strategy • Provide a MUGA in Imperial Park by December 2007 • Installation of floodlights at Vansittart Skate Park by January 2008

The areas that are prioritised for improved play space are Old Windsor, Eton Wick, Sunninghill and Ascot, and Bray.

Page I18 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Telford and Wrekin – 9% about York – 12% about right/59% not Brighton – 10% about right/60% right/65% not enough (0.025 to enough (0.092 to 0.095ha/1,000) not enough (0.04 to 0.06ha/1,000) 0.04ha/1,000) BENCHMARKING Epsom and Ewell: 25% about Spelthorne: 0.038 to Elmbridge: 31% about right/35% right/ 39% not enough (0.03 to 0.038ha/1000 not enough (0.03 to 0.03ha/1,000) 0.35ha/1,000) Responses from the household survey indicate the majority of residents (62%) feel the provision of open space for teenagers is insufficient. Only 12% of respondents stated provision was about right/more than enough, supporting the perception of insufficient provision in the Borough. This echoes the perceptions surrounding the provision for children and young people, and it is within these two typologies where the greatest concerns lie. More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 1.5% 10.6% 9.5% 52.7% 25.7% Maidenhead 1.3% 11.5% 12.7% 51.6% 22.9% Windsor and Eton 0.0% 9.6% 11.2% 52.0% 27.2% Consultation Northern Wards 2.0% 9.0% 5.0% 57.0% 27.0% (too much / about right / not Southern Wards 3.1% 12.4% 7.2% 50.5% 26.8% enough) Analysis of perceptions across different geographical areas of the Borough indicates that feelings are consistent. The highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards, where 16% of residents indicated provision was about right/more than enough. In all areas, over 58% of residents (including those with no opinion) were dissatisfied, indicating that there is an overwhelming perception of insufficient provision.

General comments support the perception of insufficient provision and particular reference was made to a lack of volleyball and basketball courts and more varied equipment and supervised activities available (such as climbing walls or assault courses). This suggests there is recognition that a variety of facilities should be provided to meet the needs of young people, not just equipped play facilities. Internal Consultations

Five new MUGAs have been built across the Borough in the last 12months to accompany the two skate Consultation parks in Windsor and Maidenhead. This is seen by officers as very positive although there is still the need (other) to provide a large scale central facility that offers a number of activities. The Thames Valley play area currently provides suitable equipment for disabled residents.

Page I19 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET External Consultations

External consultees had no knowledge of facilities for young people in the Borough on which to base an opinion.

Parish Councils

Opinions varied in relation to this category. In Bray, there is a long-term plan to build a youth shelter in the Fifield and Oakley Green wards of the Parish on the basis that provision is low. By contrast, new facilities have recently been provided in the Old Windsor Parish area.

Parish Comment Sunningdale Less than we need (highlighted in consultation) Wraysbury About right (Wraysbury Green has outdoor sports provision) Bisham About right (in close proximity to Bisham Abbey and Marlow) Sunningdale & Ascot Less than we need (improvements made, but demand is higher) White Waltham No answer Horton Less than we need (but funds and space unavailable) Cookham Less than we need (more needed for youths) Eton Less than we need (recent town council provision) Old Windsor About right (new teen area created) Datchet About right Bray Less than we need

Drop-In Consultations

There was a perception that the level of provision in this category, particularly amongst residents as opposed to visitors, may be on the low side. This seemed to be relevant for the provision of facilities for young people, and particularly youths in the Borough.

‘PMP Recommendation Increase to 0.23 facilities per 1,000 population (currently provision at 75% of this target) - 8 new facilities (per 1,000 population) There is an overriding need for more facilities for young people across the Borough. A standard PMP Justification significantly above the existing level of provision is therefore recommended. The location of facilities was

Page I20 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET perceived to be particularly important to encourage young people to use facilities. The preference for facilities located in close proximity to residential areas places a greater demand on the quantity of facilities required. While quantity was the key concern emerging through consultation, the quality of facilities, and design of these sites was also frequently mentioned, particularly by young people themselves. In addition to setting a standard that recognises the need for increased provision across the borough, it is important to ensure that the quality of facilities is also considered and that the need for more varied activities besides traditional play is considered.

The recommended standard will result in the need for the creation of an additional 8.22 (8) sites over the projected period (2016). This is also reflective of the findings of the Play Strategy. It was felt my council officers that current provision was at around 60-75% of the current demand, this is reflected by the aspirational standard.

Page I21 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES NPFA - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population for 'playing space' consisting of 4 acres (i.e. 1.62 per 1,000 population) for outdoor sport - includes pitches, athletics tracks, bowling greens, tennis courts training areas and croquet lawns.

National Standards 'NPFA - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha) arbitrary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure areas' or something similar that mat not be covered within the NPFA standard. In almost all cases, this additional requirement is intended for residential areas and does not cover open spaces such as parks or allotments. Current Provision ha per 1,000 2.81ha per 1,000 population (excluding golf courses) population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy R1 - The loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme

Policy R7 - Development which results in loss of a built sport or leisure facility available to the public will not be permitted unless a similar size replacement is provided or a smaller facility of greater recreational value is retained on site

Policy R8 - Development will be permitted for public or private recreation use except where it would result in significant environmental or highway problems or where it would conflict with other policies Existing Local Standards and strategic context Policy R9 - Through partnership an improved range of opportunities for participation in outdoor, indoor and water based recreation activities will be provided. The development of new and improved facilities on schools sites with better public access will be encouraged

Policy R10 - Access and facilities for disabled people will be required for all new recreation facilities

Policy R11 - Where appropriate, formal sports facilities will be sought as part of a scheme for the redevelopment of all or part of an identified employment/commercial area. If facilities cannot be provided on site then a contribution will be sought by means of a planning obligation to RBWM to provide new facilities

Policy R13 – The use of land or water for activities will be permitted as long as adequate parking is

Page I22 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET provided, the landscape is not damaged, and the local community is not negatively affected

Supplementary Planning Guidance (1999)

An overall open space provision target of 4.3ha per 1,000 population has been adopted by the Council. Of this 1.8ha per 1,000 population of formal sports provision (pitches, courts, greens, tracks) should be provided.

RBWM Playing Pitch Strategy

There are 238 playing pitches in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. There is currently an undersupply of pitches across the Borough. It recommends that all pitches should be protected within the LDF. Pitches should only be developed if they are proved through the Playing Pitch Strategy and PPG17 methodology that they do not provide a valuable local amenity.

The Strategy promotes the increase in availability of school pitches for community use.

Telford and Wrekin – 1.8 to York – 1.91 to 1.92ha/1,000 Brighton – 0.27 to 0.29ha/1,000 1.8ha/1,000 BENCHMARKING Elmbridge: 39% about right/30% Epsom and Ewell: 38% about Spelthorne: 2.37 to 2.37ha/1,000 not enough (3.27 to 3.27ha/1,000 right/22% not enough (2.75 to exc. golf courses) 3ha/1,000 exc. golf courses)

More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 2.2% 36.7% 19.2% 29.8% 12.0%

Consultation Maidenhead 1.3% 39.4% 20.6% 27.7% 11.0% (too much / about right / not Windsor and Eton 1.6% 34.9% 18.6% 32.6% 12.4% enough) Northern Wards 2.9% 31.1% 14.6% 35.0% 16.5% Southern Wards 4.0% 41.0% 21.0% 25.0% 9.0%

Page I23 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Grass Pitches: Synthetic Turf Pitches: Tennis Courts: 4.1% more than enough 1.2% more than enough 2.8% more than enough 46.6%% about right 21.4% about right 34.7% about right 19.3% not enough 27.1% not enough 34.9% not enough 30.0% no opinion 50.2% no opinion 27.6% no opinion Bowling Greens: Golf Courses: 3.9% more than enough 16.7% more than enough

28.7% about right 31.7% about right

15.4% not enough 13.4% not enough 52.0% no opinion 38.2% no opinion Internal Consultations

The main concern sighted by officers was the lack of junior pitches in the Borough. While several of the schools such as Windsor Girls School allow community use of their pitches there needs to be a more dual use sites. This would counterbalance the inflexibility of the current S106 contribution system in providing new sites. Efforts are also being made to provide adult pitches outside of towns and converting urban pitches for junior use due to travel constraints. Imperial Park offers junior pitches although there is concern over the high demand for junior pitches (rugby and football) in maidenhead and lack of provision. There is a shift in demand in terms of adult pitches (less demand at weekends) with a growing interest in 5-a side Consultation competitions and the subsequent need for all-weather STPs. (other) Plans are in place to build an STP at Windsor Leisure Centre. An £800k redevelopment of the pavilion at Braywick Park has also been proposed. The Council are currently in the process of looking for a five hectare site north of Maidenhead that will accommodate a park with two pitches and necessary infrastructure. Braywick Park is regarded as one of the leading facilities in the Borough and provides a floodlit STP, athletic track, and several rugby pitches, all deemed as being of good quality and regularly used. Plans are in place to install another two STPs (5-a side for around £200k) in the summer of 2008. Holyport Manor School is to be relocated onto the playing fields at Cox Green Comprehensive School; the redevelopment will provide two STPs, subject to planning, and a small community sports facility. This development has a two year time constraint on it.

S106 funds are available for the purchase of formal pitches north of Maidenhead although the opening up of the green belt means that none of the land is now viable for sports provision due to the potential of residential planning permission being granted. The Borough has around £6,000 per acre available for sport

Page I24 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET pitches although it is envisaged sites with residential planning permission will be valued at up to £5million per acre. It was acknowledged that a more flexible approach is required to using S106 contributions and there may be the possibility of looking for sport sites further north once residential plans have been finalised.

Currently the S106 contribution process excludes certain open space development/land purchase categories depending on the type of dwelling/commercial development being built. For example the build of OAP dwellings currently excludes the need for category one (formal land purchase) or three (informal land purchase) contributions. A review of the process could identify these type of dwellings as eligible to contribute towards relevant outdoor (bowls, tennis) or indoor sport facilities. In the case of OAP dwellings only 83% of potential contributions are being sought. There is the suggestion that this process lacks flexibility and should actually be more project focused, thus assisting in the acquisition of additional outdoor sport sites.

There has been no pitch built recently due to the lag time of around six years, although there is now significant funding available and the council are actively pursuing site selection. In addition to north Maidenhead there is also the option of developing a site to the south of Ascot. It was conceded though that money does remain latent for too long.

External Consultations

External consultees did not have enough knowledge of this category to express an opinion in relation to the quantity of supply in general, although it should be noted that an adjoining planning authority felt that the level of provision for football was relatively low.

Parish Councils

Parish Councils felt that provision of facilities in this category was veering towards “less than we need” within their parishes. This may also have been the case with the Wraysbury response, which could be an error in completion.

Parish Comment Sunningdale Less than we need Wraysbury About right (all facilities provided) Bisham N/A Sunningdale & Ascot Less than we need (but subject to funding availability)

Page I25 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET White Waltham More than we need (no proper football/rugby and only 1 cricket pitch) Horton N/A Cookham Less than we need (new tennis courts and changing needed) Eton Less than we need (existing facilities basic) Old Windsor About right (2 soccer pitches available) Datchet About right Bray About right

Drop-In Consolations

There were no major issues relating to the quantity of provision within this category. Most felt that it was “about right” within the Borough. Tennis Courts: The majority of residents across Synthetic Turf Pitches: each individual analysis area Grass Pitches: Results from the individual indicate there is not enough Individual analysis areas indicate analysis areas highlight the provision of tennis courts in all the provision of grass pitches is perception that there is not analysis areas except the about right. The greatest enough provision across all southern wards where 72% of

dissatisfaction can be found in the analysis areas. The highest those residents with an opinion northern wards, where 24% of satisfaction can be found in sight an undersupply. Over 26% residents feel there is not enough Windsor and Eton, where 24% of of respondents in each analysis provision. residents feel provision is about area, except the southern wards right. (17%), have no opinion, suggesting a lack of interest in this type of facility.

Page I26 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Bowling Greens: Within the analysis areas there is split opinion regarding the Golf Courses: provision of open space, with all Across the individual analysis of the analysis areas stating areas, residents feel the provision

provision is about right with the of golf courses is about right, with

exception of the southern wards the exception of the southern

where more residents sight a wards where 47% of those

shortfall. However, in each residents with an opinion believe analysis area there is a significant a significant oversupply exists and proportion of respondents (over only 15% sighting an undersupply 42%) that have no interest in the sport or its facilities. PMP Recommendation (per 1000 population) Increase Grass pictures – 2.92ha per 1,000 (excluding golf courses)

Page I27 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Outdoor sports facilities are demand-led and the outdoor sports facility (OSF) typology encompasses a wide variety of different facilities including athletics tracks, pitches, golf courses and bowling greens. In order to understand the demand for OSF in a greater level of detail it is essential to consider each type of sports facility separately. Golf courses have been excluded from this quantity setting as it is deemed that their size would skew results and that they are usually commercial ventures that are demand-led.

The variation in responses indicates that there may be a disparity in the distribution of facilities across the Borough although overall, there is dissatisfaction in the quantity of all types of facility with the exception of golf courses. This indicates that an increase in quantity across all facilities is required and is in line with the recent Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). All potential school pitches have already been included in this calculation as in line with the PPS the Council is attempting to increase the number dual use of sites across the Borough.

The PPS identified that across all types of sports pitches that in 2011 Windsor will have an oversupply of 2.5 pitches and all other areas an undersupply (Northern wards 7.3 pitches, Maidenhead 24.9 pitches, Southern wards 24.2 pitches). The recommendation of the study was to encourage community use of all PMP Justification school sites. This study assumes that all school sites are publically accessible. A standard set at 2.92ha per 1,000 population would require sports facilities equating to the size of 11 football pitches (Appendix I) in addition to all school sites.

Consultations with council officers identified a significant shortfall in junior pitch provision. Efforts are currently being made to provide adult pitches outside of towns and converting urban pitches for junior use due to travel constraints. There is a shift in demand in terms of adult pitches (less demand at weekends) with a growing interest in 5-a side competitions and the subsequent need for all-weather STPs. Given that junior pitches are smaller in size than adult pitches, it can be considered that while the layout of pitches may change, the required quantity of provision should remain at similar levels to the existing quantity. S106 funds are available for the purchase of formal pitches north of Maidenhead although the opening up of the green belt means that none of the land is now viable for sports provision due to the potential of residential planning permission being granted.

Setting the standard slightly above the current level of provision will identify local deficiencies and assist the council in meeting a growing demand for outdoor sports facilities.

Page I28 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR ALLOTMENTS National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners - 20 allotment plots per 1,000 households (i.e. 20 allotments plots per 2,200 people (2.2 people per house) or 1 allotment plot per 200 people. With an National Standards average allotment plot of 250 sq/m this equates to 0.125 ha per 1,000 population

1970 Thorpe Report suggested 0.2 ha per 1,000 population Current Provision ha per 1,000 0.31ha per 1,000 population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003) Existing Local Standards and strategic context Policy R1 - The loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme Telford and Wrekin – 22% about York – 36% about right/18% not Brighton – 59% about right/18% right/35% not enough (0.06 to enough (0.28 to 0.28ha/1,000) not enough (0.24 to 0.25ha/1,000) 0.07ha/1,000) BENCHMARKING Epsom and Ewell: 28% about Elmbridge: 38% about right/11% Spelthorne: 0.125ha/1,000 right/9% not enough (0.22 to not enough (0.32 to 0.32ha/1,000) 0.16ha/1,000)

Results from the household survey show 46% of respondents with an opinion feel the provision of allotments in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is insufficient. This suggests a shortfall in provision. The results suggest a slight shortfall as 33% of residents indicated that supply was either about right or more than enough. There is a significantly high proportion of residents with no opinion although this is replicated in other local authorities. Consultation

(too much / about right / not More than About Nearly Not No enough) enough Right Enough Enough Opinion

Overall 4.5% 28.1% 10.9% 17.2% 39.2% Maidenhead 3.9% 24.0% 10.4% 18.2% 43.5% Windsor and Eton 7.8% 40.3% 15.5% 14.0% 22.5% Northern Wards 2.9% 18.6% 4.9% 20.6% 52.9% Southern Wards 3.0% 28,3% 12.1% 16.2% 40.4%

Page I29 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

The highest level of dissatisfaction was in Windsor and Eton, where 30% of residents felt that the level of provision was nearly enough/not enough.

The greatest satisfaction levels with this typology is also found in Windsor and Eton, where 40% of respondents indicated provision was about right. As there is also a significant number of residents indicating an undersupply it is clear that those with allotments are satisfied and do not perceive that further provision is necessary, despite there being an indication that there is an unmet demand existing within this analysis area. With a relatively high number of residents indicating that there are too many allotments suggests that vacant allotments may exist and the current organisational structure in Windsor and Eton is not locating or managing site users and potential users suitably.

A high level of respondents with no opinion was portrayed in each analysis area. This may be due to allotments experiencing the lowest level of use out of all typologies, with 86% of respondents claiming they do not use this type of open space.

The shortfall in provision identified by findings from the household survey were supported by general comments made by respondents, with a number of people stating allotments were too far away and more provision was needed, especially if they could be linked to other open space such as parks. It is important that sites have good accessibility and are secure as residents suggested that it was often intimidating to use isolated sites. Internal Consultations

Officers identified a recent trend with a growing popularity of allotments and a waiting list in excess of 400 (three years) in Maidenhead alone. Windsor allotments (run by well by an association) are currently at around 80% capacity and several sites are bringing previously redundant land back into use. Rural allotments are run by the parishes and are mostly full. It is unlikely that any additional open space will be designated as allotments due to the individual nature of site use. Consultation

(other) External Consultations

External consultees had insufficient knowledge of this category to express an opinion about the quantity of supply in the Borough.

Parish Councils

Page I30 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Whilst acknowledging that provision generally met need, there was an anxiety that there were waiting lists for plots which were quite high in some cases, and that allotment provision needed to be well guarded. N/A probably means that parishes do not have any provision, and this may indicate a need for more plots.

Parish Comment Sunningdale About right Wraysbury N/A Bisham N/A Sunningdale & Less than we need (waiting list – only 7 plots in Cheapside) Ascot White Waltham About right Horton N/A Cookham About right Eton Less than we need (currently fashionable) Old Windsor About right (90% occupancy) Datchet N/A (none held, but adequate provision for residents in adjoining Slough site) Bray About right

Drop-In Consolations

There was a great deal of sympathy for the need to make adequate provision within the Borough. Heightened awareness about the need for healthy food sourced locally meant that people felt that, if anything, greater provision should be made in the Borough. ‘PMP Recommendation Slight Increase (Maidenhead) – 0.325ha per 1,000 (per 1,000 population) The clear message from consultation findings is that there is an overall perception that the quantity of allotments particularly in Maidenhead insufficient (currently 0.31ha per 1000 population). This is also supported by the presence of waiting lists at sites across the Borough. It is therefore suggested that a standard above the existing level of provision is set. PMP Justification This standard would ensure that deficiencies in the quantity of allotments and access to allotments can be addressed across the Borough. Setting a standard at this level would equate to the requirement for an additional 100 allotment plots in the projected population period up until 2016. This would go someway to offsetting the existing and future unmet demand.

Page I31 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR CIVIC SPACES National Standards No National Standard Current Provision ha per 1,000 Only one site in the Borough population (ha) Existing Local Standards and No standards set strategic context BENCHMARKING No standards set In total, 35% of respondents feel provision of civic spaces is about right and 26% feel there is nearly/not enough. This highlights a divide in the opinion of the provision of civic spaces.

More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 4.3% 35.2% 10.3% 15.2% 35.0% Maidenhead 5.3% 34.9% 9.9% 17.1% 32.9% Consultation Windsor and Eton 4.0% 44.4% 10.5% 17.7% 23.4% (too much / about right / not Northern Wards 3.2% 27.7% 9.6% 6.4% 53.2% enough) Southern Wards 4.3% 32.3% 11.8% 17.2% 34.4%

Findings from the individual analysis demonstrate a consensus across all analysis areas that of those residents with an interest/opinion that the majority perceived the supply to be about right or more than enough. The highest level of dissatisfaction can be found in the rural southern wards, where 29% of residents indicate provision is about nearly/not enough. A large proportion of residents in the northern wards had no opinion with regard civic spaces, suggesting a lack of supply or a lack of awareness and promotion of the current sites. General comments highlighted a need for more civic spaces that had better transport links; however this was not a significant amount. PPG17 recommends that due to the specific location of civic spaces, there is no sensible way of stating a provision standard.

‘PMP Recommendation It is therefore recommended that no provision standard should be set. (per 1,000 population)

Page I32 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR CEMETERIES National Standards No national standard Current Provision ha per 1,000 0.18ha per 1,000 population population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003) Existing Local Standards and strategic context Policy R1 - The loss of existing areas of important urban land will not be permitted unless they are replaced by a similar site or can be best retained and enhanced through a redevelopment scheme BENCHMARKING Supply ranges from 0.09ha/1,000 (Stevenage) to 0.56 ha/1,000 (Maidstone) Results from the household survey show 45% of respondents feel the provision of churches and cemeteries is about right. However, a significant proportion of respondents (32%) have no opinion with regard this typology. It is important that in rural areas where less public open space is accessible that churches and cemeteries provide an area for amenity use.

More than About Nearly Not No enough Right Enough Enough Opinion Overall 5.1% 45.0% 8.6% 9.8% 31.5% Consultation Maidenhead 6.4% 47.4% 5.8% 10.3% 30.1% (too much / about right / not Windsor and Eton 3.9% 37.5% 14.8% 11.7% 32.0% enough) Northern Wards 3.9% 47.1% 5.9% 4.9% 38.2% Southern Wards 6.0% 49.0% 8.0% 12.0% 25.0%

The individual analysis areas portray similar results and the highest level of satisfaction can be found in the Southern wards where 55% of residents state the provision of churches and cemeteries is about right/more than enough. The lowest level of satisfaction is highlighted in the Northern wards, where 26% of residents indicate there in nearly enough/not enough provision of this typology. Resident’s main concerns were vandalism, graffiti and miss-use of sites. Internal Consultations

Consultations identified the need to protect churches and their grounds, especially in rural areas where the Consultation sites not only provide necessary amenity space for residents but also natural habitats for wildlife. (other)

External Consultations

Page I33 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET External consultees simply did not have enough knowledge to comment on the quantity of provision in this category.

Parish Councils

Most PC’s felt that provision was about right, although it should be noted that in Old Windsor, for instance, there are only 6 plots left in the old graveyard, but that a new cemetery had been opened with sufficient provision in 1978.

Parish Comment Sunningdale About right Wraysbury About right (10 years left) Bisham About right Sunningdale & Ascot About right (50 years availability) White Waltham N/A Horton About right (space available, but not under control of PC) Cookham About right Eton Less than we need Old Windsor About right (new cemetery opened in1978) Datchet Less than we need (little space left in Datchet Cemetery) Bray About right

Drop-In Consolations

Drop in consultations revealed that people felt unable to comment based on a lack of knowledge of the quantity of provision in this category. PPG17 states that the need for Green Corridors arises from the need to promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling within urban areas. This means that there is no ‘PMP Recommendation sensible way of stating a provision standard, just as there is no way of having a standard for the proportion (per 1,000 population) of land in an area which it will be desirable to allocate for roads.

It is therefore recommended that no provision standard should be set.

Page I34 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUANTITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR GREEN CORRIDORS National Standards No standards set Current Provision ha per 1,000 N/a population (ha) RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy R14 - The Council will support the Countryside Commission in its efforts to establish Thames Path Existing Local Standards and National Trail, and seek to prevent any encroachment of the route by development strategic context Policy R15 - Promote the retention and enhancement of recreational value of riverside paths including The Thames Path National Trail by providing adequate car parks and cycle parking facilities and improved pedestrian access BENCHMARKING No standards set

Results from the household survey show 27% of respondents feel the provision of green corridors is about right. However, a significant proportion of respondents (29%) feel there are not enough green corridors.

More than About Nearly Not No

enough Right Enough Enough Opinion

Overall 1.7% 27.4% 13.5% 28.5% 28.9%

Maidenhead 1.3% 22.1% 19.5% 31.2% 26.0% Consultation Windsor and Eton 2.5% 28.9% 14.0% 25.6% 28.9% (too much / about right / not Northern Wards 0.0% 29.4% 10.8% 30.4% 29.4% enough) Southern Wards 3.2% 30.9% 6.4% 25.5% 34.0%

The individual analysis areas portray similar results and the highest level of satisfaction can be found in the southern wards where 34% of residents state the provision of green corridors is about right/more than enough. The lowest level of satisfaction is highlighted in Maidenhead, where 51% of residents indicate there in nearly enough/not enough provision of this typology. The main barrier to using green corridors was safety concerns with regard poor lighting. General comments highlighted the need for more specifically designated cycleways and paths across and to open spaces. These paths need to have adequate drainage and ensure that they are maintained regularly.

Page I35 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Internal Consultations

There are currently no plans for a green network although work is underway to establish a greenway between Cookham, Maidenhead, Bray, and Holyport with leaflets due to be published. The improvement of York Stream is sighted as a political priority.

There are poor networks and links between outside space and there is quite a lot of conflict between park users and cyclists. There needs to be safe, designated cycleways across parks and between Windsor and Maidenhead. Desborough Park is the only site to have a specific cycleway.

It is important to link the Crown Estate with National Trust, Thames and RBWM sites. It is vital that the town centres of Windsor and Maidenhead do not become divorced from the Thames.

External Consultations

External consultees felt in the main unable to express an opinion owing to a lack of knowledge in this category. However, FWAG felt that there was a good opportunity to arrange wayleave agreements with Consultation local landowners in order to create rural countryside greenways available to the public. (other) Parish Councils

This was a somewhat confusing category for parish councils. It is understood that the development of plans for green corridors is in its infancy in the Borough, and that further work needs to be done to link open space in rural areas.

Parish Comment Sunningdale N/A Wraysbury About right (long footpath at Hythe End) Bisham About right Sunningdale & Less than we need (environmental improvements necessary) Ascot White Waltham N/A Horton About right (change of planning policy needed to preserve existing provision) Cookham About right Eton About right (already exist alongside natural features)

Page I36 APPENDIX I – QUANTITY STANDARDS WORKSHEET Old Windsor N/A Datchet N/A Bray About right

Drop-In Consolations

Whilst consultees were in favour of the development of greenways in the Borough, there was a low level of knowledge of any that are currently available. PPG17 states that the need for Green Corridors arises from the need to promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling within urban areas. This means that there is no sensible way of stating a provision standard, just as there is no way of having a standard for the proportion ‘PMP Recommendation of land in an area which it will be desirable to allocate for roads. Key issues with regard enabling better (per 1,000 population) access to a network of open spaces and public rights of way will be addressed by the Green Infrastructure Study.

It is therefore recommended that no provision standard should be set.

Page I37

APPENDIX J

QUANTITY STANDARDS The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council - Setting Quantity Standards

Outdoor Sports Facilities Parks and Nat & Semi Nat Open Provision for Provision for Provision for Young Provision for Young Allotments (in Outdoor Sports Facilities (jn hectares) - Category Populations Amenity Green Space Gardens Space Children (hectares) Children People (hectares) People hectares) (jn hectares) EXCLUDING GOLF COURSES

Total Provision - Existing Open Space (ha) Number Number Maidenhead 42,850 24.33 177.59 17.06 0.52 13 0.57 3 6.78 136.68 82.59 Windsor and Eton 33,304 7.99 171.37 17.11 1.14 22 0.43 9 22.12 161.33 152.06 Northern Wards 31,597 0.62 305.62 24.54 0.89 13 0.21 4 4.87 214.74 59.01 Southern Wards 25,890 2.92 54.81 12.92 1.14 12 0.53 7 7.15 99.78 81.52 OVERALL 133,641 35.86 709.39 71.63 3.69 60.00 1.74 23.00 40.92 612.53 375.18 Existing Open Space (ha per 1000 Population) Maidenhead 42,850 0.57 4.14 0.40 0.01 0.30 0.013 0.07 0.16 3.19 1.93 Windsor and Eton 33,304 0.24 5.15 0.51 0.03 0.66 0.013 0.27 0.66 4.84 4.57 Northern Wards 31,597 0.02 9.67 0.78 0.03 0.41 0.007 0.13 0.15 6.80 1.87 Southern Wards 25,890 0.11 2.12 0.50 0.04 0.46 0.020 0.27 0.28 3.85 3.15 OVERALL 133,641 0.27 5.31 0.54 0.03 0.45 0.013 0.17 0.31 4.58 2.81 Future Open Space (ha per 1000 Population) 2026 Maidenhead 48,677 0.50 3.65 0.35 0.01 0.27 0.012 0.06 0.14 2.81 1.70 Windsor and Eton 37,075 0.22 4.62 0.46 0.03 0.59 0.012 0.24 0.60 4.35 4.10 Northern Wards 28,808 0.02 10.61 0.85 0.03 0.45 0.007 0.14 0.17 7.45 2.05 Southern Wards 33,092 0.09 1.66 0.39 0.03 0.36 0.016 0.21 0.22 3.02 2.46 OVERALL 147,652 0.24 4.80 0.49 0.02 0.41 0.012 0.16 0.28 4.15 2.54 Consultation (%) Quantity Calculations RECOMMENDED PROVISION STANDARD per 1,000 0.27 5.40 0.59 0.028 0.45 0.017 0.23 0.325 4.64 2.92

Balance maintain increase increase maintain currently 60-75% of required small increase increase grass pitches increase grass pitches Maidenhead 42,850 12.83 -53.80 -8.22 -0.66 -6.24 -0.17 -6.83 -7.15 -62.14 -42.53 Windsor and Eton 33,304 -0.95 -8.47 -2.54 0.22 7.05 -0.15 1.36 11.30 6.80 54.81 Northern Wards 31,597 -7.86 135.00 5.90 0.02 -1.19 -0.34 -3.25 -5.40 68.13 -33.25 Southern Wards 25,890 -4.03 -85.00 -2.36 0.43 0.38 0.08 1.06 -1.26 -20.35 5.92 OVERALL 133,641 0.00 -12.27 -7.22 0.00 0.00 -0.58 -7.67 -2.51 -7.56 -15.05 Future Balance 2026 Maidenhead 48,677 11.27 -85.27 -11.66 -0.82 -8.85 -0.28 -8.17 -9.04 -89.18 -59.55 Windsor and Eton 37,075 -1.96 -28.84 -4.76 0.12 5.35 -0.21 0.49 10.07 -10.70 43.80 Northern Wards 28,808 -7.11 150.06 7.54 0.09 0.07 -0.29 -2.61 -4.49 81.07 -25.11 Southern Wards 33,092 -5.96 -123.89 -6.60 0.23 -2.86 -0.04 -0.59 -3.60 -53.77 -15.11 OVERALL 147,652 -3.76 -87.93 -15.48 -0.39 -6.29 -0.82 -10.88 -7.07 -72.58 -55.96

APPENDIX K

QUANTITY STANDARDS BENCHMARKING PMP Definitions - Process by Typology

STEP 3 - SETTING STANDARDS STEP 4 - APPLYING STANDARDS

Accessibility Quality Apply Quantity for Quantity Standard Apply Accessibility Quantity Standard Quantity Standard Standard - Standard Surplus / Analysis Standard -catchment PPG 17 Typology (yes/no) (ha/number) catchment (yes/no) Deficiencies (LA area/analysis area) (yes/no) (yes/no)

LA Parks and Gardens ha area/Analysis Area

Natural and Semi Natural ha Analysis Area

x (see PPG17 Annex - Typologies / not not Green Corridors there is no sensible way of stating a not applicable x provision standard and instead applicable applicable planning policies should promote the use of green corridors )

Amenity Greenspace ha Analysis Area

Provision for Children and ha and (possible need for separate Analysis Area Young People standards for children's play and number teenage provision)

x (standard set for broad Outdoor Sports Facilities (refer to Playing Pitch Strategy / ha planning need only) / not applicable Sport and Rec Facility Strategy (application for sur/def for specific facilities) would be meaningless)

Allotments and ha Analysis Area Community Gardens

Cemeteries and x not not (see PPG17 Annex - Typologies / PPG 17 not applicable Churchyards process is not appropriate but any data on x x local death rates, if available, may be used applicable applicable to set some form of local standard)

x (see PPG17 Annex - Typologies - not not Civic Spaces not suitable for local standards - x not applicable x they are normally provided on an applicable applicable opportunistic and urban design-led basis)

Accessible countryside in Not Applicable urban fringe areas

Page K1 Setting Accessibility Standards

Typology National Standards and/or Benchmarks LA Name

York Brighton Telford and Wrekin Parks & Gardens No national standards Spelthorne Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell York Natural England (English Nature) Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard Brighton (ANGSt) recommends at least 2 ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 people based on no-one living more than: 300m from nearest natural greenspace / 2km from a site of 20ha / 5km from a site of 100ha / 10km Telford and Wrekin from a site of 500ha Spelthorne The Woodland Trust proposes the following accessibility standards for England: Elmbridge Accessible woodland Natural & Semi- • 10.18% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • 55.18% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km Natural Inaccessible woodland (if opened to public) • Extra 26.08% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • Extra 26.74% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km The following provision is required to meet standards: • 59.44% of population require new woodland for access to 2ha+ within Epsom and Ewell 500m (minimum additional provision of 164 hectares) • 2.31% of population require new woodland for access to 20ha+ within 4km (minimum additional provision of 20 hectares)

York Brighton Telford and Wrekin Amenity Greenspace No national standards Spelthorne Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell FIT: (1) LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m York (60m in a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; Brighton LAPs typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity Telford and Wrekin Provision for Children greenspace (2) LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area Spelthorne size 400msq ; should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 Elmbridge metres in a straight line) Epsom and Ewell (1) LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in York a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; LAPs Brighton typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity greenspace (2) Telford and Wrekin Young People LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area size 400msq ; Spelthorne should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 metres Elmbridge in a straight line) Epsom and Ewell

York New assessments by the Audit Commission as part of Comprehensive Performance Assessment Outdoor Sports assess the percentage of the population within Brighton either a 20 minute drive (rural) or 20 minute walk Facilities to at least three facilities which have met a national Telford and Wrekin standard from swimming pool, sports hall, health and fitness suite, STP, golf course and grass pitch. Spelthorne Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell York Brighton Telford and Wrekin Allotments No national standards Spelthorne Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell

Page K2 Setting Quality Standards

Other Local Authorities Standards (by PMP) Typology National Standards and/or Benchmarks LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD LA Name Local Standard Set

A welcoming, clean and litter free site providing a one-stop community facility which is safe and accessible to all and has a range of facilities and other types of open space within it. City Parks should be attractive, well designed and maintained, providing well-kept grass, flowers and trees, adequate lighting and York other appropriate safety features, as well as suitable ancillary accommodation (including seating, toilets, litter bins and play facilities). Sites should promote the conservation of wildlife and the built heritage and provide links to the surrounding green infrastructure”

Parks and gardens should be well maintained and offer a variety of plants, shrubs and flowers across the City. Ancillary accommodation should include seating, dog bins, cycle parking, litter bins, and clear signage. The Council aims to continue enabling access to toilets at key sites, with access to refreshments, picnic and shaded seating Brighton areas at larger sites. Sites should be secure and safe with adequate lighting Essential features: and, where appropriate, have a staff presence to improve security and Clean and well maintained management. Where applicable, historic buildings should be kept in good Flowers/ trees and shrubs order and other buildings kept safe. Well kept grass Achieve Green Flag standards Parks & Gardens No national standards Desirable features: Essential: Flowers/trees, footpaths, good access Desirable: Well kept Telford and Wrekin Nature/biodiversity/conservation features grass, clean/litter free, litter bins Parking on-site

“Urban parks and gardens should be free from dog fouling, vandalism, litter and anti-social behaviour. They should also be clean and tidy, well maintained, Spelthorne inviting, safe and secure with appropriate, high quality facilities and infrastructure”

“A welcoming, well-maintained site that is clean, and litter, vandalism and graffiti are kept to a minimum. It should provide a wide range of leisure and Elmbridge recreational opportunities, varied and well-kept vegetation and natural features, where suitable appropriate lighting and ancillary accommodation.”

A clean and litter free site providing varied and well-kept vegetation and nature Epsom and Ewell features and appropriate ancillary accommodation, including benches, toilets, litter bins and well signed to and within the site.

“A clean and litter free site with clear and obvious pathways that provide opportunities to link other open spaces together and where appropriate link to the outlying countryside. Sites should encourage wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental awareness and contain appropriate natural York features. Litterbins, dog bins, benches and picnic areas should be provided where possible and there should be a clear focus on balancing recreational and wildlife needs, whilst ensuring public access. Community involvement through management, maintenance and promotion of these sites should be maximised.” Land where nature conservation is actively promoted, although other uses may also take place. Habitats and species of biodiversity value should be present. Links to other areas of nature conservation value via a green network is desirable. Management, including maintenance and ensuring accessibility, should be tailored to benefit biodiversity. Natural England (English Nature) Accessible Brighton An aspirational target is for information and signage to be made available to Essential features: Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) improve the public’s awareness and understanding of nature conservation. Clean and litter free recommends at least 2 ha of accessible natural Sites should be clean and litter free. Nature/conservation/biodiversity Natural & Semi-Natural greenspace per 1,000 people based on no-one Sites should be open to all, and compliant with DDA accessibility guidance Delineated footpaths living more than: 300m from nearest natural wherever possible and appropriate. Good site access (disabled) greenspace / 2km from a site of 20ha / 5 Essential: Nature features, footpaths, flower/trees Desirable: Good access, Telford and Wrekin clean/litter free, dog bins Natural and semi-natural green spaces should be free from vandalism, litter and anti-social behaviour. The layout design should follow ‘safer by design’ Spelthorne principles with appropriate facilities provided in the least obtrusive manner. Sites should be maintained to protect any nature conservation/interest”. “A spacious and clean site with clear pathways, minimal litter, and natural features and varied vegetation which encourages wildlife conservation and Elmbridge biodiversity. Where appropriate, sites should provide a key cultural and educational resource for the community. Sites should be maintained to protect any nature conservation interest” “A clean, litter free open space with natural features (including flowers, tress, Epsom and Ewell shrubs and water features) which encourages wildlife and nature conservation, biodiversity and environmental education.” “A clean and well-maintained green space site that is accessible to all. Sites should have appropriate ancillary facilities (dog and litter bins etc), pathways and landscaping in the right places providing a safe secure site with a spacious outlook that enhances the appearance of the local environment and York provides a safe area for young people to meet. Larger sites should be suitable for informal play opportunities and should be enhanced to encourage the site to become a community focus, while smaller sites should at the least provide an important visual amenity function.” Amenity green spaces should meet the casual recreational needs of the immediate community. A creative approach to provision should be sought, with an emphasis on provision of varied opportunities. On larger sites, informal play opportunities Brighton should be considered, as well as providing a variety of planting and landscaping. Sites should be clean, secure and safe with adequate lighting and CCTV where appropriate, with a suitable maintenance regime. Essential features: Clean and well maintained Suitable soft landscaping Essential: Seating, well kept grass, clean/litter free Desirable: Amenity Greenspace No national standards Telford and Wrekin Designed to enhance passive security Footpaths, flowers/trees, litter bins Desirable features: Dog mess bins “Amenity green space should be free from dog fouling, vandalism, litter and anti-social behaviour. The layout and design should follow ‘safer by design’ Spelthorne principles and sites should be clean and well maintained with clearly defined boundaries, high quality facilities appropriate to their use and appropriate planting” “A safe, clean and well-maintained green space site with minimal litter, well- kept grass and vegetation. The site should be easily accessible and large Elmbridge enough to accommodate informal play. Sites should have appropriate ancillary accommodation (benches, litter bins etc) and landscaping that enhances the appearance of the local environment.”

“A safe, clean, litter-free and well-maintained greenspace with well-kept grass, flowers and shrubs. It should include clear, flat footpaths and should be large Epsom and Ewell enough to encourage informal play. Where appropriate the site should have appropriate ancillary accommodation.”

“A well designed clean site of sufficient size to provide a mix of well- maintained and imaginative formal equipment and an enriched play environment in a safe and convenient location. Equipped play spaces should be fun and exciting and should have clear boundaries with dog free areas and York include appropriate ancillary accommodation such as seating, litter bins and toilets in the locality of larger sites. Sites should also comply with appropriate FIT: (1) LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m national guidelines for design and safety and safeguard residential amenity of (60m in a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; neighbouring land users. The site should also be accessible to all”. LAPs typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity On sites where equipment is provided, there should be a range of different greenspace (2) LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area size types of well-maintained pieces of equipment in a safe, secure setting. The 400msq ; should be located 400 metres or 5 planning, layout and design of the site should follow industry best practice, minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 drawing on guidance from the NPFA, RoSPA, Play England and others. It is an aspiration that main sites feature seating, shaded areas, litter bins and metres in a straight line) Brighton Essential Features: have access to toilets and refreshments. The play area should also be free Clean, safe and well maintained at all times from dogs. Apply Fields in Trust (FIT) standards Sites should be well-maintained and easily accessible on foot and by cycle, and follow Disability Discrimination Act guidance. Provision for Children Desirable features: Maximise range of play opportunities Essential: good play equipment, litter bins, clean/litter free Desirable: well Telford and Wrekin Provision of ancillary facilities eg toilets, seating kept grass, good access, equipment maintenance Development of the play ranger service “Facilities for children and young people should be free from dog fouling, Suitable soft landscaping vandalism, litter and anti social behaviour. The layout and design should follow Spelthorne ‘safer by design’ principles and sites should be well maintained, appropriately planted and equipped to provide range of activities to suit varied interests and age groups.”

“A site providing an appropriate mix of well-maintained formal equipment/facilities and an enriched play environment to encourage informal recreation by children and young people. The sites should be in a safe and FIT: (2) LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area size Elmbridge secure location with good access to the site that includes clean and dog free 400msq ; should be located 400 metres or 5 areas with minimal litter and vandalism where possible. Ancillary facilities minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 such as shelters and seating should be provided where appropriate”. metres in a straight line) “A clean and litter free play area in safe and secure locations which includes Epsom and Ewell facilities for young people of a wide variety of ages. The area should be kept dog-free.”

Page K3 Other Local Authorities Standards (by PMP) Typology National Standards and/or Benchmarks LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD LA Name Local Standard Set

“A well designed high quality site that provides a meeting place for young people, encompassing the needs of all users with varied formal and informal equipment/space. The site should be located in a safe environment that is accessible to all, without compromising neighbouring land users. The focus York should be on providing a well-maintained, clean and litter free area with appropriate lighting and shelter, promoting a sense of community ownership. FIT: (1) LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m Facilities should be developed through extensive consultation with the local (60m in a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; community at all stages of the process” LAPs typically have no play equipment and On sites where equipment is provided, there should be a range of different therefore could be considered as amenity types of well-maintained pieces of equipment in a safe, secure setting. The greenspace (2) LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area size planning, layout and design of the site should follow industry best practice, 400msq ; should be located 400 metres or 5 drawing on guidance from the NPFA, RoSPA, Play England and others. minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 It is an aspiration that main sites feature seating, shaded areas, litter bins and Brighton Essential Features: metres in a straight line) have access to toilets and refreshments. The play area should also be free Clean, safe and well maintained at all times from dogs. Apply Fields in Trust (FIT) standards Sites should be well-maintained and easily accessible on foot and by cycle, Provision of seats and follow Disability Discrimination Act guidance. User consultation for all new provision Provision for Young People Essential: good play equipment, litter bins, clean/litter free Desirable: well Desirable features: Telford and Wrekin kept grass, good access, equipment maintenance Maximise range of opportunities Provision of ancillary facilities eg toilets “Facilities for children and young people should be free from dog fouling, Development of the play ranger service vandalism, litter and anti social behaviour. The layout and design should follow Spelthorne ‘safer by design’ principles and sites should be well maintained, appropriately planted and equipped to provide range of activities to suit varied interests and age groups.”

“A site providing an appropriate mix of well-maintained formal equipment/facilities and an enriched play environment to encourage informal recreation by children and young people. The sites should be in a safe and Elmbridge FIT: (2) LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area size secure location with good access to the site that includes clean and dog free 400msq ; should be located 400 metres or 5 areas with minimal litter and vandalism where possible. Ancillary facilities minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (240 such as shelters and seating should be provided where appropriate”. metres in a straight line) “A clean and litter free play area in safe and secure locations which includes Epsom and Ewell facilities for young people of a wide variety of ages. The area should be kept dog-free.”

“A well-planned, clean and litter free sports facility that sits in harmony with its surroundings. The site should be well maintained to an appropriate match play standard, with good grass coverage and well-drained quality surfaces. Appropriate ancillary facilities should be provided at sites with consideration York given to providing toilets, changing rooms, car parking, and meeting places. The site should be managed appropriately ensuring community safety and provide a local amenity that is close to people’s homes, encouraging residents to participate in physical activity”

Clean, litter-free sports facilities should be provided with appropriate, well- Essential features: Apply relevant NGB specifications New assessments by the Audit Commission as drained, well-maintained surfaces. Clean/ litter free and well maintained part of Comprehensive Performance Assessment Ancillary accommodation should include toilets, changing facilities, dog and Level surface/ good drainage assess the percentage of the population within Brighton litter bins and appropriate amenity and sports lighting. Outdoor Sports Facilities Changing facilities either a 20 minute drive (rural) or 20 minute walk to All sites should meet the minimum specifications of the appropriate National Car parking at least three facilities which have met a national Governing Body of sport and meet Disability Discrimination Act guidance. Toilets standard from Essential: well kept grass, toilets, good access Desirable: Clean/litter free, Telford and Wrekin parking facilities, changing facilities All outdoor sports facilities, including ancillary accommodation, should be Spelthorne free from dog fouling, vandalism, litter and anti social behaviour. The layout and design should follow ‘safer by design’ principles. Sites should be “All outdoor sports facilities should be well kept, where dog fouling, vandalism Elmbridge and litter are kept to a minimum, with level and well-drained good quality surfacesA clean, litter Where and appropriate dog-fouling sites freeshould sports providefacility, with good well quality maintained ancillary and drained surfaces and appropriate good quality ancillary accommodation Epsom and Ewell including toilets and car parking. On site security should be provided where possible” ‘A well-kept, well managed and secure site that encourages sustainable development, bio-diversity, healthy living and education with appropriate ancillary facilities (eg provision of water and toilets) to meet local needs, York clearly marked pathways and good quality soils. The site should be spacious providing appropriate access for all and should be promoted to ensure local community awareness”. Allotments should feature appropriate facilities including a well maintained water supply, good quality soil, car parking/access and secure fencing. The Council aspires to meet national guidance on the provision of toilets, dip Brighton tanks and storage space, and enable the provision of an allotment holders’ or members’ office and organic recycling by individual plot holders, as well as Essential Features: provide good disability access on key sites across the city. Clean/ litter free and well maintained Safe and secure Allotments No national standards Essential: toilets, security, good access Desirable: footpaths, clean/litter Telford and Wrekin free, maintenance Desirable features: “Allotments should be free from dog fouling, vandalism, litter and anti-social Toilets behaviour. Where appropriate, access pathways and signage should be Sustainable practises including the use of water Spelthorne clearly provided and well maintained”.

“A clean and well-kept site with minimal litter and which encourages biodiversity and sustainable, healthy living. The site should have appropriate Elmbridge ancillary facilities to meet local needs and clearly marked pathways to and across the site. Management of local sites should continue to involve the local community” “A well-kept, clean and litter free site with good quality soils that encourages sustainable development, biodiversity and education objectives. It should have Epsom and Ewell good site access and water supply, with appropriate ancillary facilities such as seating, parking and toilets if possible.” “A clean and well-maintained site providing long-term burial capacity, an area of quiet contemplation and a sanctuary for wildlife. Sites should have clear pathways, varied vegetation and landscaping and provide appropriate ancillary York accommodation (eg facilities for flowers litter bins and seating.) Access to sites should be enhanced by parking facilities and by public transport routes where possible, particularly in urban areas”

Sites should provide areas of quiet contemplation with the opportunity to enhance biodiversity by formulating a conservation management plan. Cemeteries should be well kept, with a variety of planting and trees to avoid monotony and attention given to the inspection, care and maintenance of all Brighton memorials including historic monuments. Ancillary facilities should include even and well-maintained paths and seating, Essential Features: in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act, together with water taps Well kept grass and litter bins Clean/litter free Flowers/trees Cemeteries / Churchyards No national standards Desirable features: Essential: Seating, footpaths, clean/litter free Desirable: Well kept grass, Telford and Wrekin Toilets flowers/trees, litter bins Nature/conservation/biodiversity Achieve Green Flag standards (cemeteries) “Cemeteries and churchyards should be free from dog fouling, vandalism, litter and anti social behaviour. Where appropriate, access pathways and signage Spelthorne should be clearly provided and well maintained.”

“A well-maintained, clean site with seating areas, clear pathways and varied vegetation and landscaping. It should provide a sanctuary for wildlife in areas Elmbridge devoid of greenspace and encompasses bio-diversity and meet the requirements of the Council’s Charter for the Bereaved.” “A well maintained, clean and litter free site with toilets, flowers, trees and Epsom and Ewell shrubs with vegetation and landscaping that encompasses bio-diversity. They should ideally have clear footpaths, seating, dog free areas and parking” “A clean and well-maintained site providing long-term burial capacity, an area of quiet contemplation and a sanctuary for wildlife. Sites should have clear pathways, varied vegetation and landscaping and provide appropriate ancillary York accommodation (eg facilities for flowers litter bins and seating.) Access to sites should be enhanced by parking facilities and by public transport routes where possible, particularly in urban areas” Essential Features: Brighton No Standard Set Footpaths Essential: Flowers/trees, nature features, footpaths Desirable: Good acces, Telford and Wrekin Clean/ litter free clean/litter free Nature/conservation/biodiversity “Green corridors should be free from dog fouling, vandalism, litter and anti Designed to enhance passive security Green Corridors No national standards social behaviour. The layout and design should follow ‘safer by design’ Sympathetic signage/ way markings Spelthorne principles. They should provide links between green spaces and from residential areas to green spaces.” Desirable Features: Routes suitable for shared use (pedestrian/cyclists) “Clean, well-maintained, safe and secure corridors with clear, level and well- drained pathways where appropriate, which are enclosed and reinforced by Elmbridge natural vegetation and well signposted. Green corridors should provide links which effectively connect major open spaces and provide ancillary facilities in appropriate places.” “A clean, litter free, level and well-drained pathway which links major open Epsom and Ewell spaces. It should include flowers, trees, shrubs and well kept grass.” York No Standard Set Brighton No Standard Set Essential: Information boards, good access, parking facilities Desirable: Essential Features: Telford and Wrekin Clean/litter free, seating, flowers/trees Clean/litter free and well maintained Civic Spaces No national standards Spelthorne No Standard Set Planted areas Elmbridge No Standard Set

Epsom and Ewell No Standard Set

Page K4 Setting Quantity Standards

Other Local Authorities Actuals and Standards Typology National Standards PMP Recommendation LOCAL QUANTITY STANDARD LA Name Local standard (ha per 1,000 pop)

York 0.18 to 0.18

Brighton 1.65 to 1.65

Telford and Wrekin 0.06 to 0.07 Parks & Gardens No national standards MAINTAIN MAINTAIN Spelthorne currently 0.04 - no standard set

Elmbridge 1.17 to 1.17

Epsom and Ewell 0.35 to 0.35

Natural England Standard recommends: • an accessible natural greenspace less than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home • statutory Local Nature Reserves at a minimum level of one hectare per thousand population • at least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of York 1.78 to 1.79 home; one accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home; and one accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home.

Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard recommends 1 ha of LNR per 1,000 population Brighton 1.12 to 1.12 MAINTAIN SLIGHT INCREASE

Natural & Semi- Telford and Wrekin 15.3 to 15.3 Natural Rethinking Open Space Report - Average of all LA applicable standards = 2 ha per 1,000 population - areas Spelthorne 2.16 to 2.16 that promote biodiversity and nature conservation Elmbridge 11.54 to 11.54

The Woodland Trust proposes the following accessibility standards for England: Accessible woodland • 10.18% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • 55.18% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km Inaccessible woodland (if opened to public) • Extra 26.08% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • Extra 26.74% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km Epsom and Ewell 12.23 to 11 The following provision is required to meet standards: • 59.44% of population require new woodland for access to 2ha+ within 500m (minimum additional provision of 164 hectares) • 2.31% of population require new woodland for access to 20ha+ within 4km (minimum additional provision of 20 hectares)

Rethinking Open Space Report - Average of all LA applicable standards = 2 ha per 1,000 population - areas York 1.05 to 1.07 that provide informal recreation and visual amenity or land provided for environmental or safety reasons

Brighton 0.56 to 0.58

Telford and Wrekin 1.17 to 1.17 NPFA - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population for 'playing space' consisting of 2 acres (ie 0.81 ha per 1,000 population) for childrens playing space - includes Spelthorne 1.46 to 1.46 Amenity areas designated for children and young people and SLIGHT INCREASE Greenspace casual or informal playing space within housing areas NPFA - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha INCREASE (urban) arbitary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure areas' or something similar that mat not be covered within the Elmbridge 1.81 to 1.81 NPFA standard. In almost all cases, this additional requirement are intended for residnetial areas and do not cover open spaces such as parks or allotments LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; LAPs typically have no Epsom and Ewell 2.09 to 2 play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity greenspace FIT - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population fo 'playing space' consisting of 2 acres (ie 0.81 ha per 1,000 population) for childrens playing space - York 0.04 to 0.07 includes areas designated for children and young people and casual or informal playing space within housing areas FIT - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha) arbitrary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure areas' or something similar that mat not be covered within the FIT Brighton 0.04 to 0.06 standard. In almost all cases, this additional requirement CHILDREN: MAINTAIN are intended for residential areas and do not cover open INCREASE (Epsom 0.34 to Provision for spaces such as parks or allotments YOUNG PEOPLE: INCREASE to 0.24 0.35 sites per 1,000 / Kettering Children & Young facilities per 1,000 population (currently 0.41 to 0.45 (children) and 0.02 People Telford and Wrekin 0.092 to 0.095 provision at 75% of this target) - 8 new to 0.25 (YP) sites per 1,000 facilities (1) LAPs - aged 4-6 ; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in a straight line) ; min area size 100msq ; LAPs typically Spelthorne 0.038 to 0.038 have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity greenspace (2) LEAPs - aged min 5 ; min area size 400msq ; should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time along Elmbridge 0.03 to 0.03 pedestrian routes (240 metres in a straight line)

Epsom and Ewell 0.03 to 0.35

FIT - 6 acre standard (2.43ha) per 1,000 population for 'playing space' consisting of 4 acres (ie 1.62 per 1,000 population) for outdoor sport - includes pitches, York 1.91 to 1.92 athletics tracks, bowling greens, tennis courts training areas and croquet lawns Brighton 0.27 to 0.29 FIT - in the past some LA's have added 1 acre (0.4ha) arbitrary to cover 'amenity areas' and 'leisure areas' or something similar that mat not be covered within the Outdoor Sports Telford and Wrekin 1.8 to 1.8 INCREASE (grass pitches - tie NPFA standard. In almost all cases, this additional INCREASE grass pitches Facilities requirement are intended for residential areas and do not in with PPS recommendations) cover open spaces such as parks or allotments

Spelthorne 2.37 to 2.37

Elmbridge 3.27 to 3.27

Epsom and Ewell 2.75 to 3

National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners - 20 allotment plots per 1,000 households (ie 20 York 0.28 to 0.28 allotments plots per 2,200 people (2.2 people per house) or 1 allotment plot per 200 people. 1969 Thorpe Report suggested 0.2 ha per 1,000 Brighton 0.24 to 0.25 population MAINTAIN (ensuring 100% Telford and Wrekin 0.06 to 0.07 Allotments capacity and qualitative) SLIGHT INCREASE (Maidenhead)

Spelthorne 0.125

Elmbridge 0.32 to 0.32

Epsom and Ewell 0.22 to 0.16

Page K5

APPENDIX L

QUALITY STANDARDS APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

Setting Quality Standards / Vision – Windsor and Maidenhead

Field Comment

National Standards and/or Benchmarks Details of any existing national standards for each typology usually provided by national organisations e.g. Green Flag criteria for parks produced by the Civic Trust

Existing Local Quality Standards There maybe some existing local standards that will need to be taken into account and used as a guidance benchmark when setting new local standards

Benchmarking against other authorities for Essential and desirable features of other authorities relating to the quality of their open satisfaction of quality space. York, Brighton and Telford & Wrekin have been selected for benchmarking purposes as based on the Office of National Statistic’s ‘Nearest Neighbour’ these local authorities have a high statistical similarity to Windsor and Maidenhead (taking in to account demographics, population splits, socio-economic status, geographical area, retail and residential composition etc.) Consultation (Household Survey - aspirations) Results from the household survey with regards to users of each typology in relation to their aspirations and needs and existing quality experiences

Consultation (other) Results from all the consultations undertaken with regards the quality issues for each typology

PMP Recommendation PMP recommendation of a local quality standard for discussion and approval by the client

Page L1 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Setting the Local Quality Standards – Explanation and Justification of the recommended approach

For each typology, the recommended quality standards have been derived directly from local consultations, where residents were asked to consider their opinions on the quality of sites in their local area and also to highlight the key features of a good quality site for each typology.

For each typology, these key features have been divided into those that are essential, and those that are desirable. National standards for provision and good practice examples from the rest of the country have also been taken into account as part of these recommendations.

These lists therefore set out the quality vision (as required by PPG17) which should be applied to all new sites and should inform the enhancement of existing sites.

For each typology, two lists are therefore provided. An example is set out below:

Essential Desirable Clean and litter free Toilets Provision of seats A range of equipment Provision of bins An information board Even footpaths

In order to relate the recommended quality vision to the site assessments, those priorities derived from consultation have been used to inform the percentage scores achieved during site assessments. For each type of open space, those elements that have emerged as being of particular priority to local residents during consultation are given a greater weighting in the site assessments. This weighting ensures that those areas considered to be of higher relative importance have a greater influence on the overall score achieved.

The key aspirations of local residents with regards the quality of open spaces have therefore been categorised into the four overarching categories considered within the site assessments, specifically:

• Cleanliness and maintenance • Vegetation • Ancillary accommodation • Security and safety.

Page L2 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS These classifications are set out below:

Cleanliness and maintenance Vegetation Ancillary accommodation Security and safety Well kept grass Flowers/Trees Changing facilities Good Site Access Clean and litter free Level Surface Car Parking Facilities On-site Security Dog free area Nature Features Cycle Parking Information Boards Litter Bins Water Features Environ Education Programs Dog mess bins Events Toilets Cafe Seating Picnic Area Dog Walking Facilities Facilities for the young Sports Footpaths Community activities

For each typology, the number of responses received indicating that each of the above features is considered important in addition to other comments made during consultations and national standards have been used to determine the relative importance of each of the four key areas.

Given that for each typology, respondents were able to select as many key features as they felt appropriate, the proportion of respondents prioritising each area is determined by calculating the total number of responses that could have been received and measuring this against the number of responses that were received.

The following example sets out the calculations using the above methodology, on the assumption that there were 100 respondents to the survey (who could all have ticked every box if they felt this was appropriate).

Page L3 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Site assessment classification Number of features Total Number of Possible contributing to this area Responses Cleanliness and maintenance 6 600 Vegetation 3 300 Ancillary accommodation 8 800 Security and safety 3 300

The response rate for each of the four key areas is therefore derived by calculating the questions ticked as a percentage of the total number of responses that could have been received. A fictitious example, building on the previous example, is set out below:

Site assessment Number of features Total Number of Responses Received Percentage classification contributing to this area Possible Responses Cleanliness and 6 600 400 66% maintenance Vegetation 3 300 25 8% Ancillary accommodation 8 800 400 50% Security and safety 3 300 280 93%

The percentage response rates above (informed by other consultations) can then be used to determine the relative importance of each component of quality. Using the example above, it can be seen that for this typology, security and safety are most important, cleanliness and maintenance is second and ancillary accommodation and vegetation are less important.

This relative importance will be reflected in the overall score of the site assessment through a weighting system whereby:

The score for the most valued element will be multiplied by four The score for the second most valued aspect will be multiplied by three The score for the third most valued aspect will be multiplied by two The score for the fourth element will be multiplied by one.

For each typology, all sites can therefore be measured against each other in order to determine which sites best meet public need.

This approach means that in line with PPG17, both the quality vision and the site assessment scores are directly correlated with the findings of the local consultation. The justification behind all of these standards is that they are directly reflective of local needs and the degree to which sites achieve the required standard can be measured using the findings of the site assessments.

Page L4 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Parishes

The parish questionnaire did not structure quality by using the typology, but by using the classifications as detailed above. Responses by parish are set out in the table below.

Category: Cleanliness and Maintenance Includes: Maintenance and management Absence of litter Provision of bins Absence of dog fouling

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good All categories very good apart from noise, which was marked as good Wraysbury Very good/good Very good apart from bins provision/dog fouling (good) & noise/vandalism (poor) Bisham Good All categories good except maintenance & management (very good) Sunninghill and Ascot Good/average Maintenance/noise/cleanliness good; litter/bins/vandalism average; dog fouling poor White Waltham Average Apart from maintenance (good) & dog fouling (poor) Horton Good/average Maintenance/litter/bins/cleanliness good; rest average Cookham Good Maintenance/noise/cleanliness very good; bins/dog fouling good; litter/vandalism poor Eton Average Vandalism good; litter/bins poor Bray Good/average Maintenance very good; bins/dogs/cleanliness good; vandalism poor; rest average Old Windsor Very good Noise good (aircraft) Datchet Very good Maintenance good

No major problems overall. Dog fouling is an issue in some areas Isolated problems with littering

Page L5 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Category: Security and Safety Includes: Lighting Equipment Boundaries Overall security/safety

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good All categories very good apart from lighting, which was marked as average Wraysbury Good/very good Lighting/boundaries good; equipment very good Bisham Good Boundaries & overall security good; other N/A Sunninghill and Ascot Average Except for equipment (good) White Waltham Good Except for equipment (good) Horton Good/average Boundaries/security good; others average Cookham Very good Apart from lighting (average) Eton Good But lighting poor Bray Very good Lighting good Old Windsor Very good Lighting average Datchet Very good Lighting good

No major problems Lighting was consistently less well marked than other areas

Category: Vegetation Includes: Planted areas Grass areas

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good Both planted areas and grass areas Wraysbury Very good Bisham Very good Sunninghill and Ascot Good

Page L6 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS White Waltham Good Horton Good Cookham Very good/good Grass very good Eton Average Bray Very good/good Grass very good Old Windsor Very good/good Grass very good Datchet Very good

No problems in this area identified

Category: Ancillary Accommodation Includes: Toilets Changing rooms Parking Pathways Information/signage

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good Pathways/information & signage good; parking/toilets average; changing rooms N/A Wraysbury Good/very good Parking/pathways/information good; toilets/changing rooms very good Bisham Good Pathways & information good; parking average Sunninghill and Ascot Average Apart from signage (good) White Waltham Average Apart from pathways (good) Horton N/A Apart from information (average) Cookham Average Pathways/information good; changing rooms average; parking poor; toilets very poor Eton Poor Pathways average; toilets N/A Bray Good Pathways very good; toilets/information average Old Windsor Very good Information average Datchet Good Information average

Page L7 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

Generally good The provision of quality information and signage is an issue Parking and toilet provision only average in some areas

Category: National Awards

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale N/A Wraysbury N/A Bisham N/A Sunninghill and Ascot N/A White Waltham N/A Horton N/A Cookham N/A Eton N/A Bray N/A Old Windsor N/A Datchet Very good Heavy involvement in Britain in Bloom

There was a low response to this category, perhaps flagging up a need for take-up of standards such as Green Pennant/Green Flag

Overall Quality Rating

Category: Overall Quality Average Score Comments Rating Sunningdale Very good More for teenagers; better toilets; & refreshment facilities suggested as improvements Wraysbury Good No quality concerns or suggestions Bisham Very good Improvements include playground equipment and additional seating Sunninghill and Ascot Good Need for more young people’s provision/improved sense of security/soccer equipment/tennis court resurfacing

Page L8 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS White Waltham Good No concerns or suggestions Horton Good Teen provision required Cookham Very good CCTV at Alfred Major Eton Average No concerns or suggestions Bray Good No concerns or suggestions Old Windsor Very good Better lighting Datchet Very good No concerns or suggestions

The need for young people’s provision was suggested by a number of parishes Other suggestions were more parochial

Page L9 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION PARKS AND GARDENS National Standards and/or GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Benchmarks Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management. RBWM Community Strategy 2007-13 Existing Local Quality

Standards and strategic One of the key aims of the Community Strategy is to improve the quality of the parks by reducing litter and context vandalism and achieving Green Flag status by improving the landscape and design of public open spaces Telford and Wrekin: 36% good/ York: 46% good/44% average Brighton: 69% good/27% average 34% average PMP Quality Vision: Benchmarking Clean and litter free with well kept grass, a variety of flowers, trees and shrubs. Ancillary facilities will include toilets and dog-poop scheme

The household survey reveals that the highest rated aspirations with regards parks and gardens in the Consultation Borough are: clean and litter free (74%), flowers/trees and shrubs (43%), well kept grass (40%), toilets (Household Survey – (40%), nature features (38%) and parking (33%). aspirations of those that rated parks and gardens as their Regarding the quality of parks and gardens, miss-use of site (21%) and dog fouling (19%) were considered most frequently used open the most common significant problems. Dog fouling (34%) and litter problems (33%) were viewed as the space – 42%) most common minor problems. Safety/age of equipment and poor maintenance were stated as no problem by of respondents (48% and 43% respectively). Results from the household survey show a split in opinion regarding the quality of parks and gardens. 64% of respondents feel the quality of this typology is good and 34% feel the quality is average. Only 2% of respondents feel that the quality of park and garden provision is poor. This is a relatively high score compared to other local authorities e.g. York: 46% good/ 44% average; Brighton: 69% good/ 27% average and Telford and Wrekin: 36% good/ 34% average. Consultation Household Survey - other Across the individual analysis areas results are consistent with the borough-wide findings, with the exception of analysis area 3 (the northern wards), with only 47% of respondents from this area identifying parks as good and with 49% of respondents suggesting this open space is average and 3% that it is poor. The highest level of satisfaction is portrayed in the rural southern wards, where 78% of residents feel the quality of parks and gardens is good.

Page L10 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS General comments regarding the quality of parks and gardens revolved around a lack of parking (particularly in Maidenhead), litter problems and the need for more bins, particularly to tackle dog fouling. It was also felt that not enough policing and enforcement of rules were carried out when it came to dog fouling and vandalism and graffiti in parks. Specific issues that were raised included damage caused by quad bikes at Ockwells Park and lack of maintenance and litter problems at Alexandra Gardens and Laggan Field. Graffiti was seen as a major problem at Punt Hill Park, which could be improved through better lighting. It was suggested that toilets need to be more available at most parks. Further to this, additional seating areas are required at Clewer Park. Internal Consultations

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead manage 53 parks and open spaces. One of the main concerns highlighted was that of anti-social behaviour. Consultation with internal officers identified specific issues regarding parks in the Borough. Oakland Grove Park has a lack of parking facilities (not adequate for the number of football teams that use the venue), and the tennis courts which are leased from the Council for a peppercorn rent by Maidenhead Tennis Club are regularly vandalised. There is also a degree of intimidation due to the parks proximity to the neighbouring housing estate. Punt Hill is a popular park although has limited parking available. The facilities at Dedworth Manor Open Space are not fully utilised. Home Park is a well used site offering a variety of activities including large scale events and a number of sports. The new Imperial Park, Windsor has been developed through S106 funding and provides a £90k play area, two junior pitches and parking for 42 cars.

Consultation (Other including The main aim of the Council is to achieve Green Flag status for six parks over the next two years (the parks IT Young People Survey) are Desborough, Oaken Grove, Braywick, Kidwells, Clewer Memorial Park, and Home Park). In addition to planted areas and improving maintenance there will also be a marketing focus with additional information distributed regarding the parks in the Borough and a new suite of signs to increase public awareness. A recent survey conducted by the Council identified 75% of residents being satisfied with park provision within the Borough. The aim is to increase this to 79% (by using part of the £3million of S106 money) in order to achieve LEA funding. The plan is to spend £34k per annum on the parks in areas of deprivation in order to achieve the Green Flag status. A proposal for the development of Town Moor is out for tender to make the land more suitable for formal sports.

The investment programme for parks is currently based on SPG guidance with no capital programme in place. The focus is on soft landscaping and play area provision. There has been improvements in reducing graffiti and vandalism over the last three years although quality standards are still low in outlying/rural areas.

Page L11 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS External Consultations

Although knowledge of parks and gardens within the Borough was limited with external consultees there was a general view that standards in relation to this typology were quite high.

Parish Councils

There may be some misunderstanding amongst the parishes as to what constitutes a park and garden site. However, it was generally felt that standards were adequate to good in this category.

Drop-In Consolations

There was a feeling that standards had generally improved over the last few years to a level which is quite high. People felt in particular that parks and gardens were generally clean and had low levels of litter, a marked improvement on the situation five years ago. Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Clean and well maintained Nature/biodiversity/conservation features Flowers/ trees and shrubs Parking on-site Well kept grass Achieve Green Flag standards

PMP Recommendation Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to parks, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 12% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 33% 4 Vegetation 31% 3 Ancillary accommodation 16% 2

Page L12 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management.

National Standards and/or Natural England highlights the need to conserve and protect the natural environment and promotes local Benchmarks community involvement and consultation. They also have a commitment to work with Local Authorities in developing Local Area Agreements (LAA) for improved community infrastructure to enhance access to high quality natural environments. Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic No local standard context Telford and Wrekin: 53% very York: 43% good/44% average Brighton: 50% good/27% average good and good/ 46% average and poor Benchmarking other Local PMP Quality Vision: Authorities satisfaction

A spacious site that encourages wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental education and awareness and also informal recreation where appropriate. Consultation Highest rated aspirations: Clean and litter free (66%), nature features (58%) and footpaths (39%). (Household Survey – aspirations of those that rated When asked about the quality of natural and semi-natural sites, 19% of residents indicated that they natural and semi-natural sites experience significant litter problems and 18% also felt that dog fouling was very problematic. Other areas as their most frequently used of concern were vandalism and graffiti, and the miss-use of the site with 41% and 35% respectively open space – 31%) deeming these issues wither significant or at least a minor issue. Natural and semi-natural open space is the most regularly used typology within Windsor and Maidenhead, with 68% of residents visiting sites more than once a month and only 6% (the lowest out of all typologies) never visiting this type of open space provision. Findings from the household survey indicate that there is an overall perception that the quality of natural Consultation Household and semi-natural areas is good (68%), 27% indicated that the quality is average and only 5% stated the Survey - other quality is poor. Across the individual analysis areas similar results are evident, with the lowest level of satisfaction in Windsor and Eton, where 7% of residents feel the quality of natural and semi-natural open space is average/poor. A commonly cited problem experienced by users of this typology was litter. The highest levels of satisfaction were in the southern wards with 78% of respondents indicating natural and semi natural areas are of good quality. The quality items that most residents cited as most satisfactory were

Page L13 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS parking and planted/grassed areas. The items that were deemed least satisfactory and should be addressed were toilets, provision of litter bins, seats and benches, cycle parking and dog related facilities (at least 15% of all respondents who use this typology most frequently indicated these items were unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory). Internal Consultations

Consultations revealed that Braywick Nature Centre offers good parking, is well kept and in a good locations (and well signposted). There are benefits that derive from natural and semi natural sites and there are currently six successful designated nature reserves across the Borough (five of which are managed by the Council). The importance of maintaining the 15 hectares of natural area at Braywick is a priority.

External Consultations

In so far as external consultees had any knowledge of this category of open space in the Borough, it was Consultation (Other including felt that standards were quite high. The National Trust felt that the standards of the three areas of common IT Young People Survey) that they maintain in the Borough were quite high.

Parish Councils

Parish councils felt that standards of quality were adequate for this typology.

Drop-In Consolations

Few people seemed to be aware of the existence of Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space, other than a general perception of countryside areas accessible to the public being in reasonable condition.

Page L14 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Clean and litter free Nature/Conservation/Biodiversity features Delineated footpaths Good site access (disabled)

Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to natural and semi natural areas, the relative importance of the key components is as follows: PMP Recommendation

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 10.5% 2 Cleanliness and maintenance 24% 3 Vegetation 35% 4 Ancillary accommodation 10.1% 1

Analysis suggests the improvement in quality of natural and semi-natural open space is considered to be more important than increasing its provision.

Page L15 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION AMENITY GREEN SPACE GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / National Standards and/or Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management Benchmarks

Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic No standard context Telford and Wrekin: 24% good/ York: 26% good/59% average Brighton: 26% good/58% average 42% average Benchmarking other Local PMP Quality Vision: Authorities satisfaction

An individual greens pace site that enhances the appearance of the local environment conveniently located close to housing that is easily accessible and is of reasonable size to accommodate informal play. Amenity green space is one of the least frequently used typologies in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Consultation Maidenhead and 35% of respondents to the household survey indicated that they never use this type of (Household Survey – open space. The highest rated aspirations of those who use amenity spaces were clean and litter free aspirations of those that rated (100%), and flowers and trees planted (43%). amenity green space sites as their most frequently used The most significant problems were dog fouling, miss-use of sites and litter problems. Vandalism and open space – 1.4%) graffiti was not seen as significant although 43% of respondents identified it as a minor problem. Consultation indicated that the quality of amenity areas is perceived to be good by 32%, average by 56%, and 13% as poor.

The lowest levels of satisfaction were in Maidenhead and the northern wards, with 14% of respondents in both analysis areas citing amenity areas to be of poor quality. The highest levels of satisfaction are in Consultation Household analysis area 4, the southern wards, with 48% of respondents indicating that they are satisfied with the Survey - other quality of amenity space in their locality.

The quality items that most residents cited as most satisfactory were seats and benches and pathways. The items that were deemed least satisfactory and should subsequently be addressed were lighting, general maintenance and management, planted and grassed areas, and a ranger/monitoring service. Internal Consultations Consultation (Other including

IT Young People Survey) It was suggested by officers that the Council may be adopting an easy option with their play strategy by

Page L16 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS locating play areas and MUGAs on all open spaces. It is important to keep some areas informal and natural.

External Consultations

It would be unwise to infer too much from the perceptions of external consultees, who did not know the Borough well enough to comment about smaller open spaces within the Borough boundary.

Parish Councils

The quality of grounds maintenance was generally perceived as high. However, there were some comments which need addressing in relation to the quality of provision. The issue of vandalism and graffiti was cited as a problem, with some more minor concerns about litter. Signage was considered to be only at best average, thus not presenting a welcome to visitors.

Drop-In Consolations

People were generally satisfied with quality standards, although there are still some concerns about litter, graffiti and vandalism, notwithstanding the fact that there seems to have been an improvement in this area in the last five years.

Page L17 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Clean and well maintained Dog mess bins Suitable soft landscaping Flowers/ trees and shrubs Designed to enhance passive security

PMP Recommendation Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to amenity green spaces, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 5% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 34% 4 Vegetation 32% 3 Ancillary accommodation 6% 2

Page L18 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION PLAY AREAS FOR CHILDREN Criteria set out by the Fields in Trust in relation to LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs provide some quality aspirations in terms of seating for adults, a varied range of equipment and meeting places for teenagers.

GREEN FLAG CRITERIA are also relevant to play areas and include Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management National Standards and/or Benchmarks CABE Space believes that the use of target hardening as a first response to anti-social behavior is resulting in the fortification of our urban environment, and highlights that there is a better solution: invest in place making and improving public spaces to prevent the onset and escalation of these problems. Evidence from CABE Space’s study shows that well designed, well maintained public spaces can contribute to reducing the incidence of vandalism and anti-social behavior, and result in long term cost savings.’ CABE Space Policy Note: preventing anti-social behavior in public spaces

Play Strategy 2007-10

The document highlights the need for children to be physically active, ideally for at least 60 minutes per day, in an environment that provides the opportunity to experience risk taking in play, without unacceptable danger. The experience should allow the individual to develop their problem-solving, social, language, Existing Local Quality planning, construction, creativity, co-ordination, and negotiation skills (without an adult necessarily present). Standards and strategic context Specific qualitative improvements outlined in the Action Plan include:

• appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 to champion, co-ordinate and lead on the play strategy

• improve play provision in identified localities

Benchmarking other Local Telford and Wrekin: 35% average/ York: 25% good/46% average Brighton: 37% good/45% average Authorities satisfaction 26% poor

Page L19 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS PMP Quality Vision:

A clean and litter free, well kept area with varied equipment for a range of age groups. 15% of respondents to the household survey use play areas for children most frequently of all typologies. However, it is important to note that the level of use of children’s play areas demonstrated through the household survey may not be representative of the actual level of use due to the age of the majority of respondents. Only a small percentage of people under the age of 16 completed the household survey, Consultation therefore it is particularly important to consider all other consultation. (Household Survey – aspirations of those that rated Of those people stating they do use children’s play areas more frequently than any other type of open play areas for children sites as space, their highest rated aspirations are clean and litter free (79%), suitable facilities for young people their most frequently used (62%) and toilets on site (51%). open space – 15%) Of those respondents who gave an opinion regarding the quality of children’s open space, safety and age of equipment, poor maintenance, and litter problems were viewed by most respondents as no problem. However, vandalism and graffiti (26%) and dog fouling (18%) were believed to be a significant problem experienced by users of this typology. 44% of respondents to the household survey identified the quality of children’s open space as both good and average. Across the individual analysis areas the majority of respondents regard the quality of children’s open space as average or good. The highest levels of discontent were in the rural northern analysis area (16% unsatisfied) and the highest level of satisfaction was in the southern wards analysis area (59% satisfied). This suggests that the quality of provision facilities across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is varying. Consultation Household

Survey - other Respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction with regard to play equipment, general maintenance and management, boundary definition, provision of bins for litter, pathways, and planted and grassed areas. Areas where respondents were least satisfied included the provision of toilets and seats and benches. Comments suggested that better equipment was required at Desborough; that there needs to be better general provision for disabled users and that further provision is required at Moor Park and Laggan Park.

Internal Consultations

Consultation (Other including Several new play areas have been introduced across Windsor and Maidenhead over the last two years, IT Young People Survey) including a site at Punt Hill that has attracted a large number of users. The facilities at Desborough Park have had limited investment and have subsequently deteriorated in quality (includes the changing rooms).

Page L20 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS There is an over reliance on small but frequently used play areas and the Council need to provide larger sites that offer a wide range of facilities.

External Consultations

Consultees not informed enough to provide an opinion

Parish Councils

Quality standards were felt to be a little below those for most other open spaces, although they are still perceived to be good.

School Survey

The majority of respondents indicated that the favourite activity to do with their free time was ‘hanging outdoor with friends’ (36%) and ‘playing sport’ (24%). 75% of respondents identified a specific place near their home that they could meet or play.

The main reasons for not using open spaces were ‘they’re not very good quality’ (15%), ‘things aren’t there that I want to use or do’ (10%), and ‘I’m not interested’ (10%). Play areas were the third most frequented typology (5%), behind parks (50%), and outdoor sport facilities (9%). 45% of respondents indicated that they visited their most popular site more than once an week and 27% visited the site once a week. The main reasons for using this site were ‘to meet friends’ (30%), for a kick about/play (19%), and ‘it’s just somewhere to go’ (19%). The features deemed most desirable at these sites were ‘its close to my house’ (31%), ‘it’s a good place to meet friends’ (25%) and ‘it’s free to use’ (19%). The least desirable features of these sites were ‘dog muck’ (21%), ‘the play facilities are boring’ (18%), and ‘it’s too dirty’ (15%).

52% of respondents suggested that they feel unsafe at certain open spaces. Key sites that were identified as being unsafe were in south Datchet and north towards Slough. It was the nature of people that congregate at these sites that was the main cause of concern so there is a need for greater on site supervision. It was suggested that safety could be improved by ‘travelling to sites with friends’ (23%), cameras/CCTVs (22%) and better lighting (22%).

Most popular sports facilities visited outside of school are football pitches (25%), tennis courts (19%), outside basketball courts (12%) and rugby pitches (8%).

Page L21 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Most popular sites were Datchet Recreation Ground, Upton Court Park, and Windsor Home Park. A large number of respondents identified their favourite sites being outside of the borough boundaries in Colnbrook, Langley and Slough (Maplin Park).

Drop-In Consolations

Quality standards were viewed as adequate; although it was felt that play equipment could be a little more imaginative. There seem to be some perceived problems relating to litter, vandalism and graffiti. Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Apply Fields in Trust (FIT) standards Maximise range of play opportunities for children, disabled users etc Clean and well maintained Provision of ancillary facilities eg toilets, seating Development of the play ranger service Suitable soft landscaping

Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to play areas for children, the relative importance of the key components is as follows: PMP Recommendation

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 5% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 32% 4 Vegetation 15% 2 Ancillary accommodation 18% 3

Analysis highlights the need for innovative and imaginative provision of facilities for children. Community involvement from children in the provision of play facilities was also considered to be particularly important.

Page L22 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION PROVISION FOR TEENAGERS AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Fields in Trust guidance relating to LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs provide some quality aspirations in terms of seating for adults, varied range of equipment and meeting places for teenagers.

GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management. National Standards and/or Benchmarks CABE Space believes that the use of target hardening as a first response to anti-social behavior is resulting in the fortification of our urban environment. Investment: invest in place making and improving public spaces should be used to prevent the onset and escalation of these problems. Evidence from CABE Space’s study shows that well designed, well maintained public spaces can contribute to reducing the incidence of vandalism and anti-social behavior, and result in long term cost savings.’ CABE Space Policy Note: preventing anti-social behavior in public spaces

Page L23 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Play Strategy 2007-10

The document highlights the need for children to be physically active, ideally for at least 60 minutes per day, in an environment that provides the opportunity to experience risk taking in play, without unacceptable danger. The experience should allow the individual to develop their problem-solving, social, language, planning, construction, creativity, co-ordination, and negotiation skills (without an adult necessarily present).

Specific qualitative improvements outlined in the Action Plan include: Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic • appointing a Play Ranger by January 2008 to champion, co-ordinate and lead on the play strategy context • improve play provision in identified localities by June

• improve the play areas at Desborough Park by April 2008

• installation of floodlights at Vansittart Skate Park by January 2008

• sessional community play rangers by July 2007.

York: 64% poor Brighton: 52% poor Telford and Wrekin: 39% poor Benchmarking other Local PMP Quality Vision: Authorities satisfaction A clean and litter free, well kept area with varied equipment for all ages including a shelter or 'hang out' area for teenagers.

A small minority of respondents to the household survey use teenage facilities most frequently of all Consultation typologies. However, it is important to note that the level of use demonstrated through the household (Household Survey – survey may not be representative of the actual level of use due to the age of the majority of respondents aspirations of those that rated (86% of respondents stated that they do not use teenage facilities). Only a small percentage of people teenage facilities as their most under the age of 16 completed the household survey, therefore it is important to consider all other frequently used open space – consultations across the Borough. 0.4%)

Overall, the quality of teenage facilities is rated average/ poor by 89% of respondents; however the majority Consultation Household of respondents (52%) indicate that the quality of provision for teenagers is poor. Survey - other Across the individual analysis areas, the modal response regarding the quality of teenage facilities was

Page L24 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS poor. Residents in Maidenhead portrayed the most dissatisfaction, with 56% of respondents stating the quality of facilities as poor. General comments echoed the perception of teenage open space as being of poor quality and there was a general perception of a lack of policing around teenage facilities, especially in areas such as Cookham. Other general comments identified Punt Hill as susceptible to vandalism and better lighting being required. The variety of provision was also deemed to be poor. The analysis area with the highest level of satisfaction was Windsor and Eton (17% citing provision as good).

Internal Consultations

Alexander Gardens has a privately owned skate park which has become a successful and well used facility. Another new skate park by Vansittart Road has recently been built and there are plans to install floodlighting. The facility is supervised and has CCTV in place. The site was provided by a working group and is locked at night to protect the equipment. New investment in Kidwells Park has provided a new skate park, children’s play area and netball/football/and tennis facilities within a multi use area. The new teenscenes in Windsor and Maidenhead, including the skate parks are seen as limited and there needs to be a larger, centralised facility to cater for residents aged 13-19.

External Consultations Consultation (Other including IT Young People Survey) No informed judgement possible.

Parish Councils

Parish councils felt provision to be good in this category, although not as good as for most other open spaces, which were considered to be very good in many cases.

Drop-In Consolations

There was a general feeling that better provision should be made for this age category, but that nevertheless, there were some problems of vandalism and graffiti.

Page L25 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Clean, safe and well maintained at all times Maximise range of play opportunities Apply FIT standards Provision of ancillary facilities eg toilets, seating Provision of seats Development of the play ranger service User consultation for all new provision

PMP Recommendation Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to facilities for young people, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 0% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 50% 4 Vegetation 13% 2 Ancillary accommodation 14% 3

Page L26 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management. National Standards and/or Benchmarks Fields in Trust – quality of provision could include gradients, ancillary accommodation, planting and community safety.

RBWM Community Strategy 2007-13

The Borough are actively promoting a healthy workforce by encouraging the promotion of participation in sports and recreational activities – the main focus of this is by ensuring good access to sites.

Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-1016:

S1 states that developments should contribute towards improving access to leisure facilities by promoting the use of footpaths and cycle ways.

RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003) Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic Policy GB1 – In regard to the green belt, PPG2 allows for the development of essential outdoor sport and context recreational facilities, which preserve the openness of the area – necessary infrastructure required to support an outdoor sports facility may have an adverse effect on the green belt and cause to proposal to be unviable.

RBWM Playing Pitch Strategy

There is currently an undersupply of pitches across the Borough. It recommends that all pitches should be protected within the LDF. Pitches should only be developed if they are proved through the Playing Pitch Strategy and PPG17 methodology that they do not provide a valuable local amenity

The Policy promotes the increase in availability of school pitches for community use.

Benchmarking other Local Telford and Wrekin: 23% good/ York: 23% good/50% average Brighton: 23% good/55% average Authorities satisfaction 39% average

Page L27 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS PMP Quality Vision:

A comprehensively well planned sports facility site that will provide an effective use for the community, with good quality surfaces and appropriate ancillary accommodation including changing accommodation and car parking.

Of those people indicating that they use this open space most frequently the highest rated aspirations were:

car parking facilities (70%), clean and litter free (65%), toilets (55%) and good sports facilities (50%). This Consultation highlights the importance of the ancillary accommodation as well as the quality of the actual facility. (Household Survey – aspirations of those that rated A significant proportion of residents have experienced minor problems in relation to vandalism and graffiti outdoor sports facility sites as (50%), and litter problems (45%). In contrast, miss-use of the site, poor maintenance and dog fouling were their most frequently used not considered problematic. The general consensus is that few significant problems exist with outdoor open space – 4%) sport facilities in the Borough.

Responses from the household survey show mixed opinions concerning the quality of outdoor sports facilities. 50% of respondents rate their quality as average, 19% poor and 30% good. This may be reflective of varying quality around the borough.

Consultation Household The individual analysis areas provide similar results with most of respondents in all areas considering the Survey - other quality of outdoor sports facilities to be average. The highest levels of dissatisfaction were in the northern wards (28% indicating poor quality) and the southern wards (21% indicating poor quality), demonstrating that there is a perception that needs to be addressed in the rural analysis areas.

General comments identified that a demand exists for sport pitches in Dedworth, a need to address flooding of pitches around the Thames Basin, and the need for designated off-road mountain biking areas to cater for the Windsor Great Park Off Road Mountain Bike Group. Internal Consultations

Consultation (Other including Boyn Hill Cricket is sighted as being a high quality facility. It is proposed that investment in the running IT Young people survey) track at Braywick is required. The athletic facilities at Eton (established in partnership with Slough Council)

are very good although would benefit from greater public exposure as they have the capacity for more

users. Windsor Boys School has a full size synthetic turf pitch (STP) and good multi-use outdoor space

including the cricket pitch and rowing facilities. The tennis courts and bowls green at Alexander Gardens are in need of additional investment.

Page L28 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

The sport pitches at Home Park are currently overused although it is important to maintain their formal sport focus.

External Consultations

Little knowledge of these facilities on which to make a judgement.

Parish Councils

These were considered good in terms of quality rather than very good.

Drop-In Consolations

Standards were felt to be adequate rather than good. There seems to be a problem with sports pitch surfaces being somewhat uneven in places, and possibly compacted from overuse.

Page L29 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Apply relevant NGB specifications Clean/ litter free and well maintained Level surface/ good drainage Changing facilities Car Parking Toilets

PMP Recommendation

Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to outdoor sports facilities, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 17% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 28% 4 Vegetation 18% 2 Ancillary accommodation 20% 3

Page L30 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION ALLOTMENTS

National Standards and/or GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Benchmarks Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management.

Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic No existing local quality standards. context Telford and Wrekin: 23% good/ York: 42% good/45% average Brighton: 26% good/55% average 42% average PMP Quality Vision: Benchmarking other Local Authorities satisfaction A site that encourages sustainable development, bio-diversity and healthy living objectives with appropriate ancillary facilities to meet local needs including individual allotment sheds and clearly marked pathways and allotment plots.

Only 2% of respondents to the household survey stated they use allotments most frequently of all open space in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. 86% of respondents also indicated they do not use an allotment. Consultation (Household Survey – Of those residents who do use an allotment, many people commented on how they enjoy the tranquillity of aspirations of those that rated the site and the social element of working on an allotment, but believe some small sites can be intimidating allotment sites as their most and if new sites are built they should be located more conveniently (possibly as additions to current parks frequently used open space – and gardens). 2%) Residents who currently use an allotment indicated that clean and litter free sites and availability of toilets were of particular importance to them.

The majority of respondents (53%) consider the quality of allotments to be average. 39% regard their quality as good and 9% poor. Consultation Household

Survey - other The individual analysis areas mirror the borough-wide results and the greatest dissatisfaction is located in the northern wards, where 19% of residents state the quality of allotments is poor. The highest levels of

Page L31 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS satisfaction are in Windsor and Eton where 53% of respondents identify the quality of their allotments as good. Internal Consultations

The allotments run by associations and parishes are generally well maintained. There is still the opportunity to better coordinate the supply of sites and address the large waiting lists in Maidenhead.

External Consultations Consultation (Other including IT Young people survey) Consultees did not have enough information to make an informed judgement.

Parish Councils

Standards were felt to be good. This may reflect the fact that allotment holders frequently have to wait for a plot to become available, so that those who do own a plot tend to be keen to keep them in good condition.

Drop-In Consolations

Given the limited nature of usage, people were generally unaware as to whether allotment sites maintained good standards of quality.

Page L32 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Clean/ litter free and well maintained Toilets Safe and secure Sustainable practices including the use of water

PMP Recommendation Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to allotments, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 15% 2 Cleanliness and maintenance 27% 4 Vegetation 25% 3 Ancillary accommodation 7% 1

Page L33 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION CIVIC SPACES

National Standards and/or NONE Benchmarks

Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic No existing local quality standards. context Consultation Of those respondents who stated they use civic spaces most frequently, their highest rated aspirations are (Household Survey – clean/ litter free areas with high quality planted areas. aspirations of those that rated civic spaces as their most Significant problems experienced by users were litter problems, vandalism and graffiti, poor maintenance, frequently used open space – miss-use of the site and dog fouling 0.2%) Consultation from the household survey indicates the majority of respondents (61%) view civic spaces to be of average quality. However, 23% rate this typology as good quality and 16% poor quality. Consultation Household Survey - other Across the individual analysis areas results are consistent and the area with the highest level of satisfaction is in Windsor and Eton, where 32% of respondents feel the quality of civic spaces is good. The lowest level of satisfaction is in analysis area 4 with 18% rating this typology as poor. Internal Consultations

Civic spaces are considered to be adequate.

External Consultations

Consultation (Other including No evidence forthcoming in this category. IT Young people survey) Parish Councils

No specific details provided by parish councils.

Drop-In Consolations

Most people professing an opinion were positive about the quality of Civic Space in Windsor and

Page L34 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Maidenhead, and felt that standards were high. Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Clean/litter free and well maintained Well cut grass Planted areas

Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to civic spaces, the relative PMP Recommendation importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 0% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 40% 4 Vegetation 25% 3 Ancillary accommodation 14% 2

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION CHURCHYARDS AND CEMETERIES

National Standards and/or NONE Benchmarks

Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic NONE context PMP Quality Vision:

Benchmarking A well-maintained, clean site with long-term burial capacity, provision of seating areas and varied vegetation that provides a sanctuary for wildlife in areas devoid of greenspace and one that encompasses bio-diversity. Consultation The highest rated aspirations of those people who use churchyards and cemeteries most frequently are: (Household Survey – well kept grass, clean and litter free, flowers and trees, and car parking facilities.

Page L35 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS aspirations of those that rated indoor sports facilities as their Factors considered problematic by users of this typology are vandalism and graffiti and miss-use of sites. most frequently used open Maintenance of the site was perceived as positive by the majority of respondents. space – 2%) 58% of respondents rate the quality of cemeteries and churchyards to be of average quality. However, a significant amount of respondents also rate their quality to be good (39%). Only 3% of respondents perceived church and cemeteries to be of poor quality.

Consultation Household Across the individual analysis areas similar results are portrayed, with the majority of residents in each Survey - other analysis area stating the quality of cemeteries and churchyards is average. The highest level of discontent was in Windsor and Eton (3.6% perceive sites as poor) although this is relatively low.

Specific references were made to the accessibility of toilets at sites and ensuring they were unlocked when the site is open. Internal Consultations

Cemeteries and churchyards are generally well maintained and offer a variety of amenity uses to the community, and there use should be promoted, especially in rural parishes.

External Consultations

Consultation (Other including No information available. IT Young people survey) Parish Councils

Standards were very good in this category, with no major quality problems.

Drop-In Consolations

As might be expected, knowledge relating to the quality of churchyards and cemeteries was limited, but what knowledge there was indicated that standards were high in the Borough.

Page L36 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Flowers/ trees and shrubs Parking Clean/ litter free and well maintained Well kept grass

PMP Recommendation Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to cemeteries and churchyards, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 10% 1 Cleanliness and maintenance 26% 3 Vegetation 30% 4 Ancillary accommodation 11% 2

Page L37 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD– SETTING QUALITY STANDARDS / VISION GREEN CORRIDORS GREEN FLAG CRITERIA - Welcoming Place / Healthy, Safe and Secure / Clean and Well-maintained / Sustainable / Conservation and Heritage / Community Involvement / Marketing / Management.

Countryside Agency (now a key partner in Natural England)- what the user should expect to find is i) a path National Standards and/or provided by the protection and reinforcement of existing vegetation; ii) ground not soft enough to allow a Benchmarks horse or cycle to sink into it; iii) a path on unvegetated natural surfaces.

Natural England, the Countryside Agency and the British Heart Foundation advocate providing a network of local health walks to promote the ‘Walking the Way to Health Initiative’, something that can easily be enhanced through the provision of quality green corridors and natural linkages with other open spaces. Existing Local Quality Standards and strategic No existing local quality standards. context PMP Quality Vision:

Benchmarking A quiet, safe and secure, well-signposted route that provides appropriate travelling surfaces and varied vegetation that links major open spaces together.

Of those respondents who stated they use green corridors most frequently, their highest rated aspirations Consultation are: clean and litter free (58%), natural features (50%) and good site access (42%). (Household Survey – aspirations of those that rated The most significant problems experienced by users of these sites were poor maintenance (17%), litter green corridors as their most problems (17%) and dog fouling (17%). Litter problems (67%) and vandalism and graffiti (58%) were seen frequently used open space – as by most people as minor problems. The category with most people sighting no ‘problem’ was with safety 2%) and age of equipment. Overall, 48% of respondents to the household survey stated that the quality of green corridors in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is average, with 34% regarding their quality as good and 18% as poor. Consultation Household Survey - other Similar results are shown In all individual analysis areas; the highest level of dissatisfied respondents is in analysis area 3, with 19% stating that green corridor quality is poor.

Within the general comments, residents expressed safety concerns as the main barrier to using this type of

Page L38 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS open space with the lack of additional lighting being the main issue. Internal Consultations There are reported issues with the miss-use of tow paths around Eton Bridge with visitors from outside the area bringing BBQs and bins not being used suitably. Several of the new signs in the area have been vandalised. It has been proposed that a specific BBQ area is required that have sufficient policing.

External Consultations

Consultation (Other including There was a low level of awareness about the state of Green Corridors in the Borough. IT Young People Survey) Parish Councils

There is little evidence of the provision of Green Corridors at a parish level.

Drop-In Consolations

Most people acknowledged the need for Green Corridors, but were unaware of their presence.

Page L39 APPENDIX L – QUALITY STANDARDS Local consultation, national guidance and best practice therefore suggest that the following features are essential and desirable to local residents:

Essential Desirable Footpaths Routes suitable for shared use (pedestrians/cyclists) Clean/ litter free Nature/ conservation/biodiversity features Designed to enhance passive security Sympathetic signage/ way marking PMP Recommendation

Detailed analysis of the local consultation suggests that with regards to green corridors, the relative importance of the key components is as follows:

Component of quality Proportion of possible total Weighting responses received Security and Safety 16% 2 Cleanliness and maintenance 20% 3 Vegetation 29% 4 Ancillary accommodation 7% 1

Page L40

APPENDIX M

ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Setting Accessibility Standards – Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council

Field Comment

Details of any existing national standards for each typology usually provided by national National Standards and/or Benchmarks organisations e.g. Natural England make recommendations of access for 'Natural Greenspace'

There maybe some existing local standards that will need to be taken into account and used as a Existing Local Accessibility Standards guidance benchmark when setting new local standards These are figures detailing other local standards set by PMP within other green space and open space projects and provide another comparison benchmark when setting local standards for other Local Authorities. York, Brighton and Telford and Wrekin have been selected as according to the Other Local Authorities Standards (set by Office of National Statistic’s ‘Nearest Neighbour’ these local authorities have a high statistical PMP) similarity to Windsor and Maidenhead (based on demographics, population splits, socio-economic status, geographical area, retail and residential composition etc.). Surrey Heath, Elmbridge, and Epsom and Ewell have been included as they are located geographically close to the RBWM. Some statistical information that will come from the household questionnaire - need to take the 75% Consultation (Household Survey - level as recommended by PPG 17 Companion Guide (ie from a list of responses - what is the time establish 75% threshold catchments) 75% are willing to travel)

PMP recommendation of a local standard for discussion and approval by the client - standard PMP Recommendation should be in time and/or distance

PMP Justification PMP reasoning and justification for the local standard that has been recommended

Client to approve local standard before analysis undertaken - any changes in standards at a later CLIENT APPROVAL date during the project will impact on re-doing calculations, analysis and report - the standards drive the analysis

Final Local Standard agreed and approved that will be stated in the report and used for analysis LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD purposes - standard should be in time and/or distance

Page M1 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Accessibility standards – assumptions

Walking All areas average of 3mph

Conversion (walking)

metres Time (mins) Miles metres Factor Reduction (straight line to be mapped) 5 0.25 400 40% 240 10 0.5 800 40% 480 15 0.75 1200 40% 720 20 1 1600 40% 960 25 1.25 2000 40% 1200 30 1.5 2400 40% 1440

Assumption National Guidelines reduce actual distances into straight line distances by a 40% reduction. This is to allow for the fact that routes to open spaces are not straight-line distances but more complex. The 40% reduction is based on robust research by the NPFA in numerous areas using a representative sample of pedestrian routes.

Page M2 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Parishes

Accessibility standards were assessed in two ways:

1. Accessibility assessment 2. Travel times in minutes dependant upon mode

The accessibility assessment for all parishes is reproduced below. Travel times were by typology, and are therefore included in each category for all parishes.

Accessibility Assessment

Category: General Includes: Entrance to all sites Availability of sites Value to user

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good Wraysbury Very good Bisham Very good Sunninghill and Ascot Average But value to user good White Waltham Very good/good Availability very good Horton Good Cookham Very good But entrances average Eton Average Bray Very good/good Opening times very good Old Windsor No response Datchet No response No problems here, although the issue of value relating to an “if charged” criterion probably does not apply, therefore value is high as open spaces are free at the point of use in the parishes.

Category: Distances and Catchment Areas

Page M3 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Includes: Provision (public transport) Distance from population (public transport) Provision (cycleways) Distance from population (cycling) Distance from population (walking)

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good All categories very good Wraysbury Good But provision of public transport and cycleways average Bisham N/A Apart from walking distance classed as “good” Sunninghill and Ascot Average Distance for cycling/walking good; provision of public transport/cycleways poor White Waltham Average Distance for cycling/walking good; distance from public transport poor; provision of public transport poor Horton Average But provision of public transport/cycleways very poor Cookham Good Distance of public transport/cycling very good; provision of public transport poor; provision of cycleways very poor Eton Good But Distance from public transport average; and provision very poor Bray Good Old Windsor No comment Datchet No Comment Issues relate to the provision of public transport and cycleways.

Page M4 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Category: Signage and Promotion Includes: Signage Information

Parish Average Score Comments Sunningdale Very good Wraysbury Good Bisham Good Sunninghill and Ascot Good White Waltham Good Horton Good Cookham Very good/average Information average Eton Average/poor Information poor Bray Good Old Windsor No comment Datchet No comment No major problems in this area identified

Overall Accessibility Rating

Category: Overall Quality Average Score Comments Rating Sunningdale Very good Wraysbury Good Public transport links to National Trust park at Ankerwyke poor Bisham Good Sunninghill and Ascot Average White Waltham Good Horton Good Cookham Very good Eton Average Bray Good Old Windsor No comments Datchet No comments No overriding concerns – seems to mirror earlier results on accessibility.

Page M5 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD COUNCIL – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS PARKS AND GARDENS Includes urban parks, formal gardens and country parks. Parks usually contain a variety of facilities, and Definition may have one of more of the other types of open space within them. Their primary purpose is informal recreation. National Standards and/or No national standards Benchmarks Supplementary Planning Guidance (1999)

In accordance with the National Playing Field Association an accessibility standard of 400m has been set as the maximum distance any resident should have to walk in order to access a form of open space Existing Local Accessibility

Standards RBWM Local Plan (Adopted 2003)

Policy T7 – Addresses the need to provide a network of desirable cycle routes throughout the Borough to allow easy access between open spaces Telford and Wrekin: 15 minute York: 20 minute walk time Brighton: 15 minutes walk time walk time (Urban), 20 minute Other Local Authorities Standards drive time (Rural) (by PMP) Epsom and Ewell: 14 minutes Spelthorne: 5 minute walk time Elmbridge: 10 minute walk time walk

Page M6 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY - CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS 42% of respondents to the household survey use parks and gardens more frequently than any other typology in Windsor and Maidenhead. Of these respondents, a majority (52%) walk to this type of open space, with 36% indicating they travel by car.

When asked how far they currently travel to use parks and gardens, travel times were split between three responses, between 5 and 10 minutes (36%), between 11 and 15 minutes (27%) and less than 5 minutes (22%).

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY - METHOD OF TRAVEL Results from the household survey indicate 71% of respondents expect to walk to parks and gardens and 25% favour driving. Across the individual analysis areas similar results are portrayed, with the majority of respondents in all areas stating walking as the preferred method of travel. However, in the rural northern analysis area a significantly higher proportion of residents (37%) indicate a preference to travel by car to access this type of open space. This indicates that there is an acceptance by residents in this rural area that parks may not be located in close proximity to their homes.

For those respondents who prefer to walk to parks and gardens a journey time of 5 – 10 minutes is expected (61%). When travelling by car, the majority of respondents (61%) also expected the journey to take 5 –10 minutes. Results across the analysis areas are consistent with the borough wide results. The two rural analysis areas have the highest proportion of resident users that walk to a park who expect a journey time of over 16 minutes (27% northern and 23% southern), suggesting poorer accessibility to parks and gardens within the rural areas of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

Borough wide results show that the 75th percentile of respondents are willing to travel for 15 minutes by foot to access this typology, with the modal response being 10 minutes. This 75% percentile figure is consistent across all of the analysis areas, with the exception of the rural northern wards (analysis area 3), where 20 minutes was recorded, indicating that respondents expect to have to walk further to reach Household Consultation parks and gardens.

For those who prefer to travel by car, the 75th percentile of respondents would be willing to travel for up to 15 minutes to access a park or garden in Windsor and Maidenhead, with the modal response rate being 10 minutes. Within the individual analysis areas differing results are evident. Respondents in both urban analysis areas, Maidenhead (area 1) and Windsor and Eton (area 2) have a relatively high propensity to travel further by car (75th percentile of 15 minutes and 20 minutes respectively) compared to analysis area 3, the northern wards (10 minutes) and analysis area 4, the southern wards (10 minutes).

There were 41 respondents who stated that parks and gardens is their most frequented typologyPage and M7 who currently access the sites by car but would actually expect to walk to the sites. Of these respondents 32% were from analysis area 1, Maidenhead, 24% from analysis area 2, Windsor and Eton, 24% from analysis area 3, the northern wards, and 20% from analysis area 4, the southern parishes. APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Internal Consultations

The consultation with officers highlighted that several parks are poorly located. It was felt that both Kidwells Park and Grenfell Park in Maidenhead had limited access due to dual carriageways and railway lines and that there insufficient open space networks to link these sites with the town centre.

External Consultations

There was a general view, insofar as external consultees felt that they had sufficient knowledge to comment, that accessibility to Parks and Gardens was good in the Borough.

Parish Councils Other Consultations

Provision was considered to be about right in this category, although there was some confusion as to what a park or garden meant in the context of a parish. Most spaces are amenity green spaces or recreation grounds, with access to the two towns cited as appropriate to reach a park or garden.

Drop-In Consolations

Most people felt that access to parks and gardens was good, particularly those living in the towns of Windsor and Maidenhead.

PMP Recommendation 10 minutes walk (urban) 10 minutes drive (rural)

Page M8 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Consultation illustrates an emphasis in favour of walking to local parks and gardens both in terms of current travel patterns and aspirations of local residents. The standard for urban areas is set at 10 minutes drive time to local parks and gardens, based on the 75% threshold of those respondents from the rural analysis of the Borough wide (as advocated in the PPG17 companion guide). While this still leaves gaps in provision across the borough it is important that open space opportunities are exploited where natural and semi natural and amenity green space can offer park features, especially in the rural north and south . Given that parks tend to be larger more strategic facilities offering a range of activities it would not be realistic to expect this type of facility within a shorter walking time and also within each village, therefore, a drive time of 10 minutes has been set for the rural areas, in light of the findings from the household survey. The 75% threshold for all those that prefer to drive across all analysis areas is 15 minutes. The PMP Justification standard is therefore aspirational and should realistically be achieved. Setting separate accessibility standards is reflective of the fact the current quantity of provision is deemed to be satisfactory. All those within the urban areas of Maidenhead and Windsor and Eton should be able to access a park within a 10 minute walk time. This is reflective of consultation findings and the 75th threshold. It is suggested that the Council should be pursuing improvements to the accessibility of the urban for rural residents (such as public transport networks or cycleways etc), offering an approach that facilitates the usage of these areas and increases their value to all residents. Setting a standard at this level will enable the Council to identify areas that do not have sufficient access to sites and explore the opportunities of investing in other typologies to provide park-style facilities. The standards will also be representative of resident’s propensity for travel to this typology and ensure that any relocation of current sites enhance the value of this open space.

Page M9 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD COUNCIL– SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS NATURAL AND SEMI NATURAL OPEN SPACE Includes publicly accessible woodlands, urban forestry, scrub, grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons, Definition meadows), wetlands and wastelands. Natural England’s Natural Green space Standard (ANGSt) recommends at least 2 ha of accessible natural green space per 1,000 people based on no-one living more than: 300m from nearest natural green space / 2km from a site of 20ha / 5km from a site of 100ha / 10km from a site of 500ha. Woodland Trust Access Standards recommend that no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size and that there should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km round-trip) of people’s homes

Natural England have a commitment to champion preventative health solutions in the natural environment and have adopted an objective of providing accessible natural space within 300 metres (or 5 minutes walk) of every home in England for exercise, relaxation and wellbeing. National Standards and/or http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/pdf/campaigns/Health_card.pdf Benchmarks The Woodland Trust proposes the following accessibility standards for England: Accessible woodland • 10.18% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • 55.18% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km Inaccessible woodland (if opened to public) • Extra 26.08% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • Extra 26.74% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km

Page M10 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

No existing local accessibility standards.

The Woodland Trust identifies the Borough as offering: • 5.89% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m • 60.15% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km Inaccessible woodland (if opened to public) Existing Local Accessibility • Extra 34.67% of the population with access to 2ha+ wood within 500m Standards • Extra 37.54% of the population with access to 20ha+ wood within 4km

The following provision is required to meet standards: • 59.44% of population require new woodland for access to 2ha+ within 500m (minimum additional provision of 164 hectares) • 2.31% of population require new woodland for access to 20ha+ within 4km (minimum additional provision of 20 hectares) Other Local Authorities Standards Telford and Wrekin: 10 minute walk York: 15 minute walk time Brighton: 15 minutes walk time (by PMP) time Spelthorne: 10 minute walk time Elmbridge: 10 minute walk time Epsom and Ewell: 19 minutes walk

Page M11 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS Natural and semi-natural open space is the second most popular typology in the Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor, with 31% of residents stating they use it more frequently than any other open space. Within this group of regular natural and semi natural open space users, walking is the most common mode of travel used to access sites (55%). Using the car is second with 34%. Travel times of current users were evenly distributed over three timeframes; 0-5 minutes (32%), 5-10 minutes (28%), and 10-15 minutes (25%).

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL Similar to the patterns exhibited by regular users, 66% of respondents expect to walk and 26% expect to travel by car to natural and semi-natural open space.

Of those who would expect to walk to a natural and semi natural open space, 56% would be willing to travel between 5-10 minutes. Of those respondents who would prefer to drive, 61% expect a journey to Household Consultation take between 5 and 10 minutes. All of these figures are consistent across all of the analysis areas.

It can be calculated that the 75th percentile of the total population would be willing to travel 15 minutes on foot to this type of open space (The modal response is a 10 minute walk time). Analysis of the four individual analysis areas shows identical results in terms of the 75% threshold and the modal response for walking. In terms of the 75th percentile for accessing the sites by car the time is 15 minutes for all areas accept analysis area 4, the southern wards, which is 10 minutes.

There were 51 respondents who stated that natural and semi natural is their most frequented typology and who currently access the sites by car but would actually expect to walk to the sites. Of these respondents 31% were from analysis area 1, Maidenhead, 18% from analysis area 2, Windsor and Eton, 27% from analysis area 3, the northern wards, and 11% from analysis area 4, the southern parishes. This identifies Maidenhead as the analysis area where people are most amenable to change from accessing natural and semi natural areas by car to walking and further strategies should identify ways of facilitating this.

Page M12 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Internal Consultations

It was deemed by officers as being vital that nature reserves were promoted although it is important that the biodiversity is protected. Access to other natural and semi-natural areas is poor in certain rural areas and requires further strategic planning of the public rights of way.

External Consultations

There was a general feeling that the residents of Windsor and Maidenhead had ready access to Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space. There were some comments indicating that linkages could be improved in rural areas (see Greenway comments) Other Consultations Parish Councils

Provision was felt to be about right, with access by car and on foot to large tracts of accessible Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space. It should be noted that there was little mention of accessible links by bicycle in rural areas.

Drop-In Consolations

Comments were flavoured by the fact that people felt that there was a great deal of accessible countryside available around the Borough, which made the need for absolute accessibility standards in this category less urgent. PMP Recommendation 15 minutes walk time

Page M13 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

When identifying preferred methods of transport, local consultation highlights the split in opinion regarding whether natural and semi natural sites should be accessed by walking or driving (26% of respondents would travel by car, whilst 66% of people stated that they would walk). To a certain extent, this will relate to the varying size and function of spaces within each locality. An assessment of the 75% threshold level Borough wide suggests that residents are willing to walk up to 15 minutes to a natural and semi natural open space. The modal response time was 10 minutes and although current usage patterns show 25% of residents currently travel between 10-15 minutes to access natural and semi natural sites.

A drive time standard would produce a significantly larger distance threshold than a walk time standard. PPG17 states that higher thresholds may be appropriate if there is no realistic possibility of sufficient new PMP Justification provision to allow lower thresholds to be achievable, but can result in levels of provision that are too low and may not meet some local needs. In the context of the local consultation findings regarding the quantity of provision (22% think that there is not enough as opposed to only 10% who think there is more than enough) and given the importance of facilitating everyday contact with nature, a standard based on a walk time is recommended as this will help to deliver a greater number of localised natural and semi natural spaces.

Of the respondents who identified natural and semi natural sites as their most frequented, 31% were from analysis area 1, Maidenhead, 18% from analysis area 2, Windsor and Eton, 27% from analysis area 3, the northern wards, and 11% from analysis area 4, the southern parishes. This identifies Maidenhead as the analysis area where people are most amenable to change from accessing natural and semi natural areas by car to walking and further strategies should identify ways of facilitating this.

Page M14 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS AMENITY GREEN SPACE Most commonly but not exclusively found in housing areas. Includes informal recreation green spaces Definition and village greens. National Standards and/or No national standards Benchmarks Existing Local Accessibility No existing local accessibility standards. Standards Other Local Authorities Standards Telford and Wrekin: 10 minute walk York: 5 minute walk time Brighton: 10 minutes walk time (by PMP) time Spelthorne: 5 minute walk time Elmbridge: 10 minute walk time Epsom and Ewell: 9 minutes walk

Page M15 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS A small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (1.4%), it is therefore difficult to produce sound analysis on current usage patterns based on the sample size provided, a more detailed analysis is given below in terms of expected mode of transport and travel time in relation to all respondents. Analysis of the regularity of use of amenity spaces indicates that amenity spaces are less frequently used than other typologies, with many having a wider landscape value rather than recreational use.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL When accessing amenity areas the majority of people would prefer to walk (72%), with 75% of these respondents stating a journey should take no longer than 10 minutes. The figures relating to preferred travel patterns and length of journey are similar in all areas.

Household Consultation Using the borough wide results, it can be calculated that the 75th percentile of the total population would travel 10 minutes on foot to amenity areas, with the most common travel time stated is 10 minutes walk- time. Analysis of the individual areas highlights the most common travel time (modal) by foot is 5 minutes in all areas except the southern wards (10 minutes), and Maidenhead residents are willing to travel the furthest on foot (75th percentile) for up to 15 minutes to access an amenity green space. For those residents who prefer to travel by car, borough wide results show 75% are prepared to travel for 10 minutes. However, across the individual analysis areas residents located in the northern wards (analysis area 3) are willing to travel the furthest by car for up to 15 minutes (75th percentile).

There were 5 respondents who stated amenity green space is their most frequented typology and who currently access the sites by car but would actually expect to walk to the sites. Of these respondents 60% were from analysis area 1, Maidenhead. This identifies Maidenhead as the analysis area where people are most amenable to change from accessing amenity green space areas by car to walking and further strategies should identify ways of facilitating this. Internal Consultations

Officers agreed that the Borough-wide target of providing all residents with access to informal open space within 400m of there house should be supported. Again ensuring safe access to these sites will be dependent on a complete network of paths and cycleways. Other Consultations

External Consultations

External consultees had insufficient knowledge of open space at this level in the Borough to make an informed comment.

Page M16 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Parish Councils

It was generally felt that accessibility to those spaces provided was adequate, with a walking time of a few minutes possible from within any village to its local open space. It should be noted that comments from Bray indicate that more space is needed, which would improve accessibility, in the Fifield and Oakley Green wards.

Drop-In Consolations

There were some concerns that accessibility may be compromised by continued development, particularly if planning conditions were not imposed on these developments to ensure that Amenity spaces were available within a few minutes walk of home. People were not prepared to walk long distances to reach this type of open space, but appreciated its value. PMP Recommendation 10 minutes walk time with an aspiration of achieving 5 minutes Given the large emphasis on walking rather than driving in terms of the expectations of respondents it is recommended that a walking standard is set. The expressed desire for local amenity green space throughout consultations supports the recommendation that a standard based on walking is most appropriate.

At a Borough wide level, the 75% threshold from the household survey of 10 minutes walk, which is the same as the modal response (10 minutes). A standard based on the 75% threshold level of a 10-minute walk time has been agreed, this has to be rationalised against the local nature of amenity green spaces and the aspiration of residents for these local open spaces through consultation. In the absence of other PMP Justification forms of open space, sport and recreation provision within close proximity of residents, the value of localised amenity green spaces is particularly important. This was particularly apparent during consultation with children and young people as great emphasis was placed on the importance of the provision of local open spaces. While identifying 10-minutes walk as a realistic standard borough-wide it was agreed that in certain localities a 5-minute walk time should be an aspiration.

An accessibility catchment of 10-minutes is similar to that of parks and will ensure all residents have local access to some type of open space, facilitating delivery of increased participation in informal sport and physical activity. The importance of local provision to break up the urban landscape should also not be underestimated.

Page M17 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS PLAY AREAS FOR CHILDREN Areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children below aged 12. While it is recognised that a wide variety of opportunities for children exist (including play schemes and open Definition spaces not specifically designed for this purpose), as per PPG17, this typology considers only those spaces specifically designed as equipped play facilities. Within this study, play provision for children includes only equipped play areas (ie. LEAPS and NEAPS) which are designed for children. Fields in Trust LAPs - aged 4-6; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in a straight line); min area size 100msq; LAPs typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity greenspace

National Standards and/or LEAPs - aged min 5; min area size 400msq; should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time Benchmarks along pedestrian routes (240 metres in a straight line)

NEAPs aged min 8; min area size 1000msq; should be located 1,000 metres or 15 minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (600 metres in a straight line) Play Strategy 2007-10

The National Childcare Strategy is promoting an initiative to open school premises up during out-of- school hours so the facilities, including play items can be used.

The RBWM Local Plan 1991-2006 stipulates a standard of 4.3ha per 1,000 population, to include 2.5ha of informal open spaces (which include equipped and unequipped children’s play spaces). The plan Existing Local Accessibility endorses the NFPA standard aiming to provide all residents with a play facility within 400m of their Standards homes.

Between 1996-2006 the Royal Borough has gained three open spaces, four open spaces and play areas, eighteen teenscenes, three play areas and teenscenes, and seven play areas. Within the same period one open space, one play area and teenscene and one separate play area has been lost.

The Action Plan identified the need for a Play ranger/officer to develop the school sports partnership to allow for ‘free play’ by September 2008 Other Local Authorities Standards Telford and Wrekin: 10 minute walk York: 10 minute walk time Brighton: 15 minutes walk time (by PMP) time Spelthorne: 5 minute walk time Elmbridge: 10 minute walk time Epsom and Ewell: 14 minutes walk

Page M18 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS A relatively small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (15%); this may be due to the fact that it is very specific to its function. When accessing this type of open space 65% of these respondents stated walking was their current method of travel.

In terms of length of journey, results showed an most people travelled 5-10 minutes (54%) and under 5 minutes (22%), thus displaying a that the majority of people who have identified play areas as their most frequented typology are not travelling further than 10 minutes. This may be influenced by the location of existing facilities and the function of this typology, which primarily is targeting a younger age group who may have a lower propensity for travelling for longer periods of time to reach sites.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL Similar to the patterns exhibited by regular users, responses from the household survey regarding preferred methods of travel to this type of open space highlighted that 86% of residents expected to walk. Of those that expect to walk 75% of people believed the journey should take 5-10 minutes.

Consideration of travel expectations across the analysis areas shows varied figures – the highest Household Consultation proportion of respondents who expect to walk to play areas was in Windsor and Eton where 93% of respondents stated walking was their preferred method of travel with 71% of these people suggesting a typical journey should take between 5-10 minutes. Maidenhead also has a high level of people expecting to walk to sites. The northern rural wards (analysis area 3) have the lowest proportion of people expecting to walk to play areas 69%. Accessibility issues to this typology within analysis area 3 should be investigated further in a green infrastructure study to ensure adequate safe routes are provided.

Using the borough wide results, it can be calculated that the 75th percentile of the total population would expect to travel 10 minutes on foot to children’s play and the most common travel time is 10 minutes walk time, indicating that there is a significant number of residents that believe the walk time should be no more than 10 minutes. The 75th percentile is an expected walk time of 10 minutes for all analysis areas with the exception of the northern wards who expect to travel 15 minutes. The perceptions of residents from this analysis area regarding walking need to feed into a green infrastructure study. By linking these findings with the open space audit it will be possible to recognise whether the perception is due to a shortfall in sites or poor accessibility and lack of resident awareness of locations. The 75th percentile figure for those that expect to walk to play areas and indicated that it was their most frequented type of open space is 10 minutes (modal figure is also 10 minutes) for analysis area 3 and 10 minutes (modal figure of 5 minutes) on a borough-wide level, with only 20% (analysis area 3) and 8%

Page M19 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

(borough-wide) of respondents indicating an expected time of over 10 minutes. This is a more realistic indicator as to an aspirational benchmark, particularly for this typology where the user group can be relatively defined.

There were 20 respondents who stated that play areas is their most frequented typology and who currently access the sites by car but would actually expect to walk to the sites. Of these respondents 40% were from analysis area 1, Maidenhead, 10% from analysis area 2, Windsor and Eton, 35% from analysis area 3, the northern wards, and 15% from analysis area 4, the southern parishes. This identifies Maidenhead as the analysis area where people are most amenable to change from accessing play areas by car to walking and further strategies should identify ways of facilitating this.

Page M20 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Internal Consultations

There is now target group consultation with residents before any play area is built. The aim of the Council is to ensure all residents are within 400metres of informal space which preferably has a children’s play area and within 800metres of a site with a teenscene.

External Consultations

Consultees had insufficient knowledge to comment on this category.

Parish Councils

Accessibility was generally quite good, although there are plans to build new facilities at Fifield and Oakley Green to meet people’s ability to walk to such facilities.

School Survey The main access issues were to the south and east edges of Datchet where respondents were indicating there was not direct usable open space that was suitable for meeting friends. 59% of respondents Other Consultations indicated that they would walk to their most frequented open space, 19% would take the car, and 13% cycle. When asked what method of transportation they would actually prefer to use in order to reach the site 44% suggested walking, 25% cycling and 19% walk. The significant feature from this data is that there are restrictions to people cycling to sites; maybe this ought to be addressed in the green infrastructure study. It takes most respondents under five minutes to reach their most frequented site (47%). 28% take five to 10 minutes, and 13% 10 to 15.

If a new site was introduced into the locality most respondents indicated that they would wish to travel 5 to 10 minutes (35%). 31% of respondents suggested travel time should be under five minutes and 26% suggesting 10 to 15 minutes.

Drop-In Consolations

There was some concern that the design of facilities for younger children, and particularly toddlers, needs consideration. Most people would wish to walk to these sites, especially those with toddlers, whose range of travel is limited. There were concerns about loss of accessibility to those living in new developments are these are constructed.

PMP Recommendation 10 minute walk time

Page M21 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

The majority of respondents to the household questionnaire indicate that they would expect to walk to a children’s play facility (86%). Furthermore, the distances parents are willing to let their children travel unaccompanied from their homes to play facilities has reduced as concerns over safety have grown. Facilities should therefore be in close proximity to the home. However, PPG17 suggests that distance thresholds should be reflective of the maximum distance that typical users can reasonably be expected to travel. The 75% threshold level for children using the responses from the household survey was a 10 minute (480 metre) walk time for all analysis areas with the exception of the northern wards (15 minutes). Furthermore the modal response was a 5 minute walk time (consistent across all of the analysis areas except the northern wards which was 10 minutes). This implies that while a 10 minute standard is consistent with PPG17 criteria the long term aspiration should be to provide provision within 5 minutes of residents’ homes.

PMP Justification Setting the standard in accordance with the 75% threshold level is advocated in PPG17. Moreover, a larger accessibility catchment provides greater flexibility in terms of striking a balance between qualitative and quantitative improvements in provision. Where a five minute catchment would place a greater requirement on new provision, local consultation also revealed the importance of high quality sites and not just new facilities. The Council should continually seek to promote measures designed to improve accessibility, such as better public transport or cycling routes.

A standard of 10 minutes (480 metre) walk time therefore meets user expectations and provides a realistic target for implementation. Furthermore, this local standard encompasses all types of provision for children, including the larger, more strategic sites that people could be expected to travel further to visit. The provision of local facilities meets with the aspirations of children and ensures that the use of these play facilities is maximized. It is important to consider the provision of play facilities in the context of amenity green spaces and other typologies providing more informal play opportunities for children.

Page M22 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS PROVISION FOR YOUNG PEOPLE Areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving young people aged 12 and above. While it is recognised that a wide variety of opportunities for young people exist (including youth clubs and open spaces not specifically designed for this purpose, as per PPG17, this typology considers only those spaces specifically designed for use by young people eg: Definition • teenage shelters • skateboard Parks • BMX tracks • Multi Use Games Areas. Fields in Trust LAPs - aged 4-6; 1 min walk or 100m (60m in a straight line); min area size 100msq; LAPs typically have no play equipment and therefore could be considered as amenity greenspace

National Standards and/or LEAPs - aged min 5; min area size 400msq; should be located 400 metres or 5 minutes walking time Benchmarks along pedestrian routes (240 metres in a straight line)

NEAPs aged min 8; min area size 1000msq; should be located 1,000 metres or 15 minutes walking time along pedestrian routes (600 metres in a straight line)

Page M23 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Play Strategy 2007-10

The National Childcare Strategy is promoting an initiative to open school premises up during out-of- school hours so the facilities, including play items can be used.

The RBWM Local Plan 1991-2006 stipulates a standard of 4.3ha per 1,000 population, to include 2.5ha of informal open spaces (which include equipped and unequipped children’s play spaces). The plan Existing Local Accessibility endorses the NFPA standard aiming to provide all residents with a play facility within 400m of their Standards homes.

The Action Plan identified the need for a Play ranger/officer to develop the school sports partnership to allow for ‘free play’ by September 2008 Other Local Authorities Standards Telford and Wrekin: 10 minute walk York: 15 minute walk time Brighton: 15 minutes walk time (by PMP) time Spelthorne: 5 minute walk time Elmbridge: 10 minute walk time Epsom and Ewell: 14 minutes walk

Page M24 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS The use of this type of open space is very specific to its function and the availability of the data collected on current usage through the household survey makes it difficult to assess given the small number of responses that indicated it was their most frequented typology (0.4%). The statistically robust evidence base generated by the household survey enables detailed analysis and interpretation of the expectations and aspirations of local residents.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL 70% of respondents stated that walking would be the preferred option when travelling to this type of open space. Of those respondents who would expect to walk to teenager facilities, the most commonly held expectation is that this journey should take 5-10 minutes (62%). When looking across the analysis areas, the figures relating to preferred travel patterns and length of journey are have a degree of Household Consultation variation. In the two analysis areas of Maidenhead and the northern wards only 64% of respondents would expect to walk to this typology with 19% and 28% respectively electing to use the car and in the northern wards. In Windsor and Eton (80%) and the southern wards (74%) a high proportion of respondents expect to walk to teenage facilities. The most common expected travel time across all analysis areas to walk to the sites is 5-10 minutes.

The findings of the household survey suggest that across Windsor and Maidenhead 75th percentile of the total population would travel 15 minutes on foot to access teenage facilities, however the modal response was slightly lower, calculated as a 10-minute walk time. The breakdown of individual areas shows comparable results in Windsor and Eton and the northern wards; however the 75% threshold was lower in the southern wards (10 minutes) and higher in Maidenhead (20 minutes). It will be important to assess the accessibility of teen facilities in Maidenhead to evaluate this higher expectancy figure.

Page M25 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Internal Consultations

The aim of the Council is to ensure all residents are within 400metres of informal space which preferably has a children’s play area and within 800metres of a site with a teenscene. It was a concern of officers that MUGAs were too readily being installed on informal land without any proper consultation with residents, especially in rural areas. It is proposed that larger, more centralised facilities will be more effective if suitable access routes can be provided.

External Consultations

Other Consultations Consultees had insufficient knowledge to comment on this category.

Parish Councils

There was some concern at a local level. New facilities have been provided in Old Windsor, and there is planned provision in two wards in Bray, which will improve accessibility.

Drop-In Consolations

There was a view expressed by a number of residents that more accessible facilities for teenagers may have the effect of reducing levels of vandalism and graffiti in the Borough.

10 minute walk time PMP Recommendation

Page M26 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

70% of people stated that walking is the preferred method of travel to a young person’s facility; therefore it is recommended that a walk time standard be adopted. A secondary point is that young people do not always have access to a motorised vehicle and consequently a walk time enables access for all ages and users. Provision of localised facilities meets the needs of young people as identified within internet survey. Location was a particularly important determinant of the level of use of a site.

While the 75% threshold level is 15 minutes, the modal response rate is 10 minutes. Given that the PMP Justification overriding issue emerging from consultations was a shortfall of provision for children and young people and the need for local facilities, it is recommended that the standard is set at 10 minutes in line with the modal response. In applying the local standards, consideration should be made for other open spaces that are used by young people, such as amenity green spaces, parks and outdoor sport facilities. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Play Strategy sets out the key features that will be provided as part of the provision of facilities for young people and it should be ensured that new facilities developed are of sufficient quality and appropriate for the young people they are designed for.

Page M27 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES Natural or artificial surfaces either publicly or privately owned used for sport and recreation. Includes school playing fields. These include:

• outdoor sports pitches • tennis and bowls Definition • golf courses • athletics • playing fields (including school playing fields) • water sports.

No national standards, although the Comprehensive Performance Assessment highlights “% of the population within 20 minutes of a range of 3 different sports facility types, one of which much be quality National Standards and/or assured” as one of their key performance indicators. Sport England’s December 2006 Choice and Benchmarks Opportunity Scores reveal the current figure as 31.68%, which is marginally below the national average of 32%. The surrounding local authorities are Wokingham (31%), Wycombe (28%), South Bucks (16%), Slough (36%), Runnymede (6%), Spelthorne (39%) and Surrey Heath (25%). Existing Local Accessibility No existing local accessibility standards. Standards York: 15-minute walk (720m) to local outdoor sports (grass Telford and Wrekin: 15 minute walk pitches, tennis and bowling time (grass pitches, tennis courts Other Local Authorities Standards greens) Brighton: 20 minutes walk time and bowling greens), 20 minute (by PMP) 20-minute drive (8km) to drive time (synthetic turf pitches, synthetic turf pitches and golf golf course and athletics track) courses

Spelthorne: 10 minute walk time Epsom and Ewell: 15-19 minutes Elmbridge: 15 minute walk time walk

Page M28 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS A relatively small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (4.1%). Of these frequent users 75% travel by car and only 10% walk to access these facilities. With regards to travel times, 75% of respondents stated a journey of under 10 minutes.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL Responses from the household survey regarding the preferred travel method for the different types of open space highlighted the variation between types of facilities. Results for all areas included:

Grass Pitches – Walk (54%), Car (39%) Synthetic Turf Pitches – Walk (34%), Car (55%) Tennis Courts – Walk (47%), Car (43%) Bowling Greens – Walk (31%), Car (58%) Golf Courses – Walk (21%), Car (76%)

Household Consultation This highlights how there are differing preferences in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead regarding the five types of outdoor sport facilities. More people expect to drive to access synthetic, bowling greens and golf courses, whereas more people prefer to walk to grass pitches and tennis courts. However, in terms of journey times the majority of respondents expected a journey to take 5 – 10 minutes by foot, bike or car to access each of the five facilities although most people expect the travel time to be 10-15 minutes by public transport.

Looking across the analysis areas, the travel expectations followed a similar pattern to the results given at a borough level, with only a few exceptions. In Maidenhead, the most respondents (48%) stated they would walk to grass pitches and take the car to tennis courts (48%) and in the northern wards most people take the car to tennis courts (64%).

For the three types of provision for which there was an overall preference for driving the 75% threshold level was a 15-minute drive time for synthetic turf pitches and bowling greens and a 20-minute drive time for golf courses.

Page M29 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

For grass pitches and tennis courts the 75th percentile of residents are prepared to walk for 15 minutes to access these facilities, with a modal response of 10 minutes. Respondents in analysis area 2 (Windsor and Eton) and analysis 3 (northern wards) consistently expected their travel times for walking to be higher than the other analysis areas for synthetic turf pitches, tennis courts, bowling greens and golf courses. Further investigation should identify if this perception emanates from poor accessibility routes to these sites

There were 12 respondents who stated that outdoor sport facilities is their most frequented typology and who currently access the sites by car but would actually expect to walk to the sites. Of these respondents 17% were from analysis area 1, Maidenhead, 17% from analysis area 2, Windsor and Eton, 33% from analysis area 3, the northern wards, and 33% from analysis area 4, the southern parishes. This identifies the two northern and southern wards as the analysis areas where people are most amenable to change from accessing natural and semi natural areas by car to walking and further strategies should identify ways of facilitating this.

Page M30 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

Internal Consultations

Officers sighted the dual use of more school sites should be promoted to increase availability of pitches. The new STP provision at Braywick and Windsor should increase the number of pitches although there is still the need to provide more junior pitches in urban areas that are easily accessible by young people without the need to drive.

External Consultations

An external consultee felt that the supply of football pitches could be greater, which would have the effect of improving accessibility for Borough residents. Most felt that they had insufficient local knowledge to Other Consultations comment on levels of accessibility.

Parish Councils

Outdoor sports facilities were felt to be “about right” in terms of provision. PC’s felt that it was appropriate for users to drive to facilities if there was insufficient supply at village level.

Drop-In Consolations

The general view was that most outdoor recreational facilities of this nature were readily accessible to residents. 15 minutes walk time (grass pitches, tennis courts - based on the use of school sites) and 15 PMP Recommendation minutes drive time (STPs, golf courses, bowls greens)

Page M31 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

There are several factors to consider in setting a standard for outdoor sports facilities. In particular, the range of facilities that lie within this typology makes it difficult to set a meaningful standard that can be applied across the board as per PPG17 requirements. For example, residents have significantly different expectations for synthetic turf pitches (to which they are willing to travel further) than they do for grass pitches (where there is a presumption of more localised provision).

Given the findings from the local consultation, it is suggested that two standards are set, one for grass pitches and tennis courts and a separate standard for synthetic turf pitches, bowling greens and golf courses. This reflects local expectations regarding driving and walking to outdoor sport facilities. The 75% threshold level for those who expect to walk to grass pitches and tennis courts is 15 minutes (720 metres). As a consequence a 15 minute (720 metre) walk time to these “local” outdoor sports facilities is considered an appropriate standard. It will ensure quantitative improvements whilst also focusing on improving the quality of existing provision. Furthermore, this 15 minute level is supported across most analysis areas. This is in line with incorporating sustainable transport choices, to account for the wide PMP Justification mix of facilities types within the standard to meet all expectations.

Respondents in analysis area 2 (Windsor and Eton) and analysis 3 (northern wards) consistently expected their travel times for walking to be higher than the other analysis areas for synthetic turf pitches, tennis courts, bowling greens and golf courses. Further investigation should identify if this perception emanates from poor accessibility routes to these sites.

The 75% threshold level for those who expect to drive to synthetic turf pitches and bowling greens was 15 minutes, with a 20-minute drive time for golf courses. Given the more specialist nature of these facilities (and the vast area that golf courses cover), alongside the fact they are usually built in strategic locations to incorporate local demand, a 15-minute drive time standard is recommended. The formal use of school facilities by the community after school hours will be particularly important if the recommended standards are to be delivered. Should community use of school sites not be increased, new provision and a higher quantity standard will required.

Page M32 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD COUNCIL – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS ALLOTMENTS Opportunities for those people who wish to do so to grow their own produce as part of the long-term Definitions promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion. May also include urban farms. This typology does not include private gardens. National Standards and/or No national standards Benchmarks Existing Local Accessibility No existing local accessibility standards. Standards Other Local Authorities Standards Telford and Wrekin: 15 minute walk York: 15 minute walk time Brighton: 15 minutes walk time (by PMP) time Spelthorne: No standard set Epsom and Ewell: 20-24 minutes Elmbridge: 10 minute walk time walk

Page M33 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS A relatively small percentage of respondents to the household survey stated that they use this type of open space most frequently (1.9%). Of these frequent users 33% travel by car and only 44% walk to access allotments. With regards to travel times, 78% of respondents stated a journey of under 5 minutes.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL Respondents to the household survey stated that walking (69%) would be the most popular travel method when visiting allotments, with 25% preferring to travel by car. Across both travel methods, the Household Consultation expected travel times are similar, with 63% of walkers and 83% of those who would travel by car suggesting a typical journey should take 5 – 10 minutes. Results from the individual analysis areas support the overall results, with analysis area 4, the southern wards having the highest level of respondents preferring to walk (82%) and analysis area 3, the northern wards having the highest level of respondents preferring to drive (32%).

Using the borough wide results, it can be calculated that the 75th percentile of the total population would travel 15 minutes on foot and 10 minutes by car to allotments. Individual travel times for each area remained constant with the exception of northern wards with a 12 minute walk time and Maidenhead with a 5 minute drive time. Internal Consultations Allotment management has been outsourced fully in Windsor. Other allotments run by the council are managed by the cemetery officer and an administrating member of staff. There is no capital spend from the Council but various arrangements are in place with public groups.

External Consultations Other Consultations There was insufficient knowledge of provision within the Borough for external consultees to comment on accessibility.

Parish Councils

Whilst accepting that levels of usage were quite high, which sometimes resulted in people having to

Page M34 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

travel outside of their immediate area to access an allotment, walking times of 10 – 15 minutes were appropriate and achievable in most parishes.

Drop-In Consolations

Most people felt that provision was “about right” but that levels should not be reduced, which would reduce accessibility to an unacceptable degree. PMP Recommendation 15 minute walk time The provision of allotments is very much a demand led typology and this should be reflected in the application of the accessibility and quantity standards. As such any deficiencies that are highlighted through the application of the study should be assessed further to indicate if there is genuine demand in that area. However, as a guide, a standard has been set at 15 minutes (720 metre) walk time. Although a challenging standard, this reflects the findings of the household survey as 46% of respondents (with an PMP Justification opinion) stated there are not enough allotments. Residents responding to the household survey also indicated that they would expect to walk to allotments and a walk time has therefore been used in line with living a healthy lifestyle and targets to reduce the reliance on private transport. Given the 75% threshold level is for a 15 minute (720 metre) walk, setting a standard at this level is in accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide. Individual travel times for each area remained constant with the exception of northern wards with a 12 minute walk time. By setting the standard at a 15 minute walk time; this will encompass the expectations of most users and potential users of this type of open space.

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD COUNCIL – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS CIVIC SPACES Definitions Hard surfaced areas located usually located within Town or city centres. National Standards and/or No national standards Benchmarks Existing Local Accessibility No existing local accessibility standards. Standards Other Local Authorities Standards York: There is no realistic Brighton: rough planning policy Telford and Wrekin: 15 minute walk (by PMP) requirement to set catchments and implementation time and (urban) and 15 minute

Page M35 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

for such an open space drive time (rural) typology as they cannot be easily influenced through planning policy and implementation and are very much opportunity-led rather than demand-led.

Page M36 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS Findings from the household surveys show that a minimal amount of respondents (0.2%) use civic spaces more than any other typology. It is therefore difficult to produce sound analysis on current usage patterns based on the sample size provided; a more detailed analysis is given below in terms of expected mode of transport and travel time.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL 59% of respondents stated that walking would be the preferred option when travelling to this type of open space. Travelling by car was second with 33%. Of those respondents who would expect to walk, 47% expect the journey to take between 5 - 10 minutes. To drive to this typology respondents expect a journey to also take 5 - 10 minutes (74%).

Across the individual analysis areas similar results are provided, with the exception of the northern wards analysis area, where 50% of residents indicated travelling by car as the preferred mode of travel (only Consultation 42% prefer to walk) suggesting residents have to travel significantly further to access a civic space in the northern wards and possibly a shortage of supply. In Windsor and Eton respondents indicated the highest expectation to walk for over 10 minutes to civic spaces (56%).

The findings of the household survey suggest that across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 75% of the total population would travel up to 20 minutes by foot to access civic spaces (with a modal response of 10 minutes). Maidenhead and Windsor and Eton mirror the borough wide response, however in the northern wards and southern wards residents expect the journey to be shorter (75th percentile indicating 15 minutes).

When travelling by car, 75% of residents in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are prepared to travel for 10 minutes to access this type of open space. Identical results are found in Maidenhead and the northern wards, however in Windsor and Eton (15 minutes) and the southern ward (20 minutes) residents are willing to travel for longer. Internal Consultations

Other Consultations Accessibility of civic spaces is believed to be adequate

Page M37 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

External Consultations

There was insufficient knowledge for external consultees to comment on this category.

Parish Councils

N/A

Drop-In Consolations

Residents and visitors alike felt that the civic spaces in Windsor and Maidenhead would be adequately accessed in line with the PMP recommendation for this category PMP Recommendation No standard to be set

WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD COUNCIL – SETTING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS CHURCHES AND CEMETERIES Definitions Hard surfaced areas located usually located within Town or city centres. National Standards and/or No national standards Benchmarks Existing Local Accessibility No existing local accessibility standards. Standards York: There is no realistic requirement to set catchments for such an open space typology as they cannot be Telford and Wrekin: 15 minute walk Other Local Authorities Standards Brighton: rough planning policy easily influenced through time and (urban) and 15 minute (by PMP) and implementation planning policy and drive time (rural) implementation and are very much opportunity-led rather than demand-led.

Page M38 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

CURRENT USAGE PATTERNS Findings from the household surveys show that a minimal amount of respondents (2%) use churches and cemeteries more than any other typology. It is therefore difficult to produce sound analysis on current usage patterns based on the sample size provided; a more detailed analysis is given below in terms of expected mode of transport and travel time.

PREFERRED MODE OF TRAVEL 58% of respondents stated that walking would be the preferred option when travelling to this type of open space. Travelling by car was second with 39%. Of those respondents who would expect to walk, 51% expect the journey to take under 10 minutes. To drive to this typology respondents expect a journey to take 5 - 10 minutes (73%).

Consultation The highest number of respondents that prefer to walk to churches and cemeteries is from analysis area 4, the southern wards (77%) and the lowest in analysis area 1, Maidenhead (44%) The highest expected time to reach this type of open space by foot (over 10 minutes) is in Windsor and Eton (60%) and Maidenhead (59%) and the lowest number of respondents expecting to walk over 10 minutes are from the southern wards (32%). While the southern wards has the highest number of respondents expecting to walk despite it taking the longest time, further investigation should identify whether this is due to higher levels of accessibility with respect to footpath networks.

The findings of the household survey suggest that across the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 75% of the total population would travel at least 20 minutes by foot to access churches and cemeteries (with a modal response of 10 minutes).

When travelling by car, 75% of residents in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are prepared to travel for 15 minutes to access this type of open space (with a modal response of 10 minutes). Internal Consultations

Other Consultations Accessibility is deemed to be adequate.

External Consultations

Page M39 APPENDIX M – ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

External consultees had insufficient information to comment.

Parish Councils

Most parishes felt that a few minutes walk time was acceptable for this type of facility.

Drop-In Consolations

There was no trend which deviated from a recommendation of approximately 15 minutes walk time in urban areas or 15 minutes drive time in rural areas PMP Recommendation No standard to be set

Page M40

APPENDIX N

ACCESSIBILITY MAPS