SD148 Accessible Natural Greenspace Study 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY FINAL REPORT MARCH 2012 Integrity, Innovation, Inspiration 1-2 Frecheville Court off Knowsley Street Bury BL9 0UF T 0161 764 7040 F 0161 764 7490 E [email protected] www.kkp.co.uk BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY CONTENTS Section Page Part 1: Introduction 1 Context 3 Part 2: Methodology 5 Part 3: Inception 7 Part 4: Assessment 9 Inventory of candidate sites 9 Inventory of natural sites 12 Inventory of accessible sites 12 Inventory of natural and accessible greenspace 14 Part 5: Analysis 16 Catchment zone mapping 17 Quality assessments 23 Part 6: Response 25 Meeting deficiencies 26 Improving quality 42 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY PART 1: INTRODUCTION This is the draft Natural Greenspace study for Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC). It presents and illustrates the findings of: A comprehensive assessment of the current level of provision of accessible natural greenspace across Bridgend County Borough. Data analysis and GIS mapping work. Recommendations for improving provision. This report incorporates the results of extensive research conducted in accordance with the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) ‘Providing Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities’ toolkit. The results of the project will be used to provide part of the evidence base for emerging local development plans (LDP) and in setting appropriate local targets for the provision of natural greenspace in accordance with Planning Policy Wales and Draft Technical Advice Note 16 ‘Sport, Recreation and Open Spaces’. The analysis provides an overall picture for Bridgend and also a more localised examination of issues by splitting the Borough into smaller areas (see overleaf for a map of the area covered and analysis areas used). 3-049-0708 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 1 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY Figure 1.1: Analysis areas adopted for Bridgend Blaengarw Nant-y-Moel Caerau NEATH PORT TALBOT Maesteg Pontycymmer CASTELL-NEDD PORT TALBOT East Ogmore Vale Maesteg West Llangeinor RHONDDA, CYNON, TAFF Blackmill RHONDDA, CYNON, TAF Llangynw yd Bettw s Aberkenfig Ynysaw dre Bryncethin Penprysg Bryncoch Cefn Cribw r Sarn Pyle Bridgend Pen-y-Fai Litchard Analysis Areas Coity Hendre Cef n Bridgend Pendre Felindre Llangew ydd and Glas Brynhyfryd Garw Valley Cornelly Morfa Brackla Llynfi Valley New castle Ogmore Valley Nottage Coychurch Pencoed New ton Low er Bryntirion, laleston Oldcastle Rest Bay Porthcaw l and Merthyr Maw r Pyle / Kenfig / Cornelly THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN BRO MORGANNWG Valleys Gatew ay Area Porthcaw l Porthcaw l West Central East Central 3-049-0708 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 2 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY 1.1: Context The CCW recognises the positive contribution that access to nature can have on the quality of life in urban areas. As well as providing important habitats for wildlife, having the opportunity to experience nature is beneficial to public health and well-being. ‘Providing Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A Practical Guide to Assessing the Resource and Implementing Local Standards for Provision in Wales’ was published, in 2006, by the CCW to promote the provision of natural places accessible to people in urban areas. The toolkit outlines implementation of an accessible natural greenspace standard (ANGSt) model, illustrated below, to help local authorities identify current levels of provision of accessible natural greenspace and where necessary to assist with the production of local standards and targets. ANGSt Model The CCW recommends that provision should be made up of at least 2 ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 population according to a system of tiers into which sites of different sizes fit: No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace; There should be at least one accessible 20 hectare site within 2km from home; There should be one accessible 100 hectare site within 5km; There should be one accessible 500 hectare site within 10km. Although it is expected that local authorities should aspire to meet the provisions set out by the above model, the toolkit recognises that this may not be appropriate in all urban contexts. Therefore, the model should be used to inform policy in conjunction with an understanding of the needs of the local community and the value of accessible natural greenspace to it. The standard is promoted as an aspirational target against which local priorities can be set and progress can be measured. Defining natural greenspace The CCW model recognises the difficulty in defining natural greenspace. The approach suggested by the toolkit proposes that greenspace may be considered as natural when it is predominantly covered (i.e. 50% coverage and over) by either one, or a mix, of the vegetation structures listed in the following box: Natural features of greenspace: Woodlands and woodlots with freely growing shrubbery or extensively managed grassland underneath. Trees and tree clumps with freely growing shrubbery or extensive grassland underneath. Freely growing scrub and dwarf shrubs (e.g. heathland). Rough grassland, semi-improved grassland, wild herbs and tall forbs. Rocks and bare soil where natural succession is allowed to freely occur (including bare soils in wasteland) Open water and wetlands with reeds, tall forbs, etc. Coasts that have natural features such as tidal flats, sand dunes or rocky shores. 3-049-0708 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 3 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY The definition provided by the toolkit leaves scope for interpretation and the above is not set out as the exclusive criteria for naturalness. Defining accessible greenspace Taking into account the many different factors that can contribute to accessing greenspaces, which varies from the purely visual to the right to enter and move around freely, the toolkit provides a hierarchy of accessibility. The level of access is divided into five categories as follows: Full Access : Entry to the site is possible without restriction. Conditional Access : A right of entry exists which is subject to or affected by one or more restrictions or conditions that may affect the quality of the natural experience enjoyed by the visitor. Proximate Access : There is no physical right of access but the site can be experienced from its boundary, where a close-up visual and aural experience of nature may be available. Remote Access : No physical right of access exists and the proximate experience is limited, but the site provides a valuable visual green resource to the community along a number of distinct sightlines and at a distance. No Access : No physical right of access exists and views of the site are largely obstructed. Full Access Conditional Access ACCESSIBLE Entrance fee Restricted opening hours Poor maintenance Persistent vandalism Footpath – only Tidal beach Other inhibiting factor Proximate Access ACCESSIBLE NOT Remote Access No Access The model specifies that in order to be considered sufficiently accessible, it must be possible to physically enter the site. Therefore, only sites classified as having either full or conditional access are deemed as accessible in the context of this study. 3-049-0708 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 4 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY PART 2: METHODOLOGY This study follows the four-stage approach to implementation of the ANGSt model, as set out by the CCW toolkit. The implementation process can be summarised as follows: Figure 2.1: The implementation process Stage 1. Decide scope and Inception identify sources of data Stage 2. Assessment: Inventory of candidate sites Exclude ‘non- natural’ sites Inventory of natural sites Exclude sites not accessible Inventory of accessible natural sites Sites not natural or accessible Stage 3. Analysis of Map catchments Provision Map of provision. Map of deficient areas. Plot deficient areas Determine potential for site enhancement Determine policy and management response Stage 4. Response & monitoring 3-049-0708 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 5 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY The four key stages of implementation as outlined in the toolkit are as follows: Stage 1: Inception – the planning phase in which the team is established, information sources are identified, resources area allocated, the scope of the project set and progress indicators determined. Stage 2: Assessment – in which data is gathered, local greenspace identified and its status established against the model, so that the accessible natural greenspace resource is known. Stage 3: Analysis – which consists of establishing the spatial pattern of accessible natural greenspace and its associated catchment zones, as well as identifying those areas currently lacking provision. Stage 4: Response – whereby priorities are set out for policy and management action to address issues arising from the analysis. 3-049-0708 Final report: Knight Kavanagh & Page 6 BRIDGEND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL ACCESSIBLE NATURAL GREENSPACE STUDY PART 3: INCEPTION The inception stage, as outlined by the CCW toolkit, is “the planning phase in which the team is established, information sources are identified, resources are allocated, the scope of the project set and progress indicators determined”. The first step saw establishment