KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL
OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
MARCH 2020
Quality assurance Name Date Report origination AL / CD June 2019 Quality control CMF June 2019 Client comments Sept/Nov/Dec 2019. Feb 2020 Revised version Feb/March 2020 Agreed sign off March 2020
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Contents
PART 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Report structure ...... 2 1.2 National context ...... 3 1.3 Local context ...... 5
PART 2: METHODOLOGY ...... 12 2.1 Analysis area ...... 12 2.2 Auditing local provision (supply) ...... 14 2.3 Open space standards ...... 15 2.4 Population data ...... 15 2.5 Consultation: Identifying local need (demand) ...... 16 2.6 Quality and value ...... 16 2.7 Quality and value thresholds ...... 19 2.8 Accessibility catchments...... 20
PART 3: SUMMARY OF SITE VISITS ...... 22 3.1 Overview ...... 22 3.2 Quality ...... 22 3.3 Value ...... 23
PART 4: PARKS AND GARDENS ...... 25 4.1 Introduction ...... 25 4.2 Current provision ...... 25 4.3 Accessibility...... 27 4.4 Quality ...... 30 4.5 Value ...... 32 4.6 Summary ...... 33
PART 5: NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL GREENSPACE ...... 34 5.1 Introduction ...... 34 5.2 Current provision ...... 34 5.3 Accessibility...... 36 5.4 Quality ...... 44 5.5 Value ...... 45 5.6 Summary ...... 46
PART 6: AMENITY GREENSPACE ...... 47 6.1 Introduction ...... 47 6.2 Current provision ...... 47 6.3 Accessibility...... 47 6.4 Quality ...... 53 6.5 Value ...... 55 6.6 Summary ...... 55
March 2020 Assessment Report
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 7: PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ...... 56 7.1 Introduction ...... 56 7.2 Current provision ...... 56 7.3 Accessibility...... 57 7.4 Quality ...... 62 7.5 Value ...... 65 7.6 Summary ...... 66
PART 8: ALLOTMENTS ...... 67 8.1 Introduction ...... 67 8.2 Current provision ...... 67 8.3 Accessibility...... 67 8.4 Quality ...... 70 8.5 Value ...... 72 8.6 Summary ...... 73
PART 9: CEMETERIES/CHURCHYARDS...... 74 9.1 Introduction ...... 74 9.2 Current provision ...... 74 9.3 Accessibility...... 74 9.4 Quality ...... 79 9.5 Value ...... 80 9.6 Summary ...... 80
PART 10: CIVIC SPACE...... 81 10.1 Introduction ...... 81 10.2 Current provision ...... 81 10.3 Accessibility ...... 81 10.4 Quality ...... 83 10.5 Value ...... 84 10.6 Summary ...... 85
PART 11: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 86
PART 12: ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES AND MATRIX ...... 111
March 2020 Assessment Report
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Glossary
KBC Kettering Borough Council MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government DDA Disability Discrimination Act DPD Development Plan Document FIT Fields in Trust FOG Friends of Group GIS Geographical Information Systems KKP Knight, Kavanagh and Page LDF Local Development Framework LNR Local Nature Reserve MUGA Multi-use Games Area (an enclosed area with a hard surface for variety of informal play) NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NSALG National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners ONS Office of National Statistics OSNA Open Space Needs Assessment PPG Planning Practice Guidance PPS Playing Pitch Strategy SFS Sports Facilities Strategy SOA Super Output Areas SPD Supplementary Planning Document SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest
March 2020 Assessment Report
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
Kettering Borough Council (KBC) commissioned Knight Kavanagh & Page Ltd (KKP) to deliver an Open Space Audit and Needs Assessment for the authority. This document is part of a wider series of inter-related strategies for sport and recreation that also includes a Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and Sports Facilities Strategy. The inter-relationship between the strategies must be noted as some sports covered by the PPS also use indoor facilities for matches/training or use open space areas for informal use. Similarly, there may be forms of open space which feature a playing pitch or sporting facility.
This document is the Open Space Audit and Needs Assessment Report. It focuses on reporting the findings of the research, consultation, site assessments, data analysis and GIS mapping that underpin the study. It provides detail regarding what provision exists in the area, its condition, distribution and overall quality.
The Open Space Standards Paper (separate to this assessment report) gives direction on the future provision of accessible, high quality, sustainable provision for open spaces in Kettering Borough. It will help to inform the priorities for open space provision as part of future population distribution and planned growth.
The purpose of an Open Space Study is to recognise the role of open space provision as a resource to the Borough of Kettering. Open spaces contribute to the health, well-being, cultural heritage, landscape, education, climate change mitigation, biodiversity and movement for people and wildlife. The impact of climate change is a recognised concern. One which open space provision has the ability to help contribute towards tackling through measures such as tree planting, landscaping, re-wilding and creation of wild areas etc. It is therefore vital for local authorities to know what provision currently exists and what the priorities and requirements are for the future
In order for planning policies to be ‘sound’ local authorities are required to carry out a robust assessment of need for open space, sport and recreation facilities. We advocate that the methodology to undertake such assessments should still be informed by best practice including the Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) Companion Guidance; Assessing Needs and Opportunities*’ published in September 2002.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has replaced PPG17. However, assessment of open space facilities is still normally carried out in accordance with the Companion Guidance to PPG17 as it still remains the only national best practice guidance on the conduct of an open space assessment.
Under paragraph 96 of the NPPF, it is set out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. Specific needs and quantitative and qualitative deficiencies and surpluses in local areas should also be identified. This information should be used to inform what provision is required in an area.
This assessment was commissioned as a key part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. In order for such planning documents and policies to be ‘sound’ local authorities are required to carry out a robust assessment of need for open space, sport and recreation facilities.
* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-needs-and-opportunities-a-companion- guide-to-planning-policy-guidance-17 March 2020 Assessment Report 1
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In accordance with best practice recommendations, a size threshold of 0.2 hectares has been applied to the inclusion of some typologies within the study. This means that, in general, sites that fall below this threshold were not audited unless identified as being significant. The table below details the open space typologies included within the study:
Table 1.1: Open space typology examples and definitions
Typology Primary purpose Parks and gardens Urban parks, country parks and formal gardens, open to the general public. Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events. Natural and semi- Woodlands, scrubland, orchards, grasslands (e.g. meadows and natural greenspaces non-amenity grassland), wetlands and river corridors, nature reserves and brownfield land. Supports wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental education and awareness. Amenity greenspace Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas. Provision for children Areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving and young people children and young people, such as equipped play areas, MUGAs, skateboard areas and teenage shelters. Allotments Opportunities to grow own produce. Added benefits include the long term promotion of sustainable living, health and social
Greenspaces Greenspaces inclusion. Cemeteries, disused Private burial grounds, local authority burial grounds and churchyards and disused churchyards. Provides burial space but is considered to other burial grounds provide a place of quiet contemplation and is often linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity. Civic space Including civic and market squares and other hard surfaced community areas designed for pedestrians. Provides a setting for civic buildings, public demonstrations and community events Green Infrastructure A network of multifunctional urban and rural which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities and wildlife.
1.1 Report structure
Open spaces
This report considers the supply and demand issues for open space provision across Kettering Borough. Each part contains relevant typology specific data. Further description of the methodology used can be found in Part 2. The report as a whole covers the predominant issues for all open spaces as defined in best practice guidance:
Part 3: General open space summary Part 4: Parks and gardens Part 5: Natural/ semi-natural greenspace Part 6: Amenity greenspace Part 7: Provision for children/ young people Part 8: Allotments Part 9: Cemeteries/churchyards Part 10: Civic spaces Part 11: Green Infrastructure
March 2020 Assessment Report 2
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Outdoor Sports Facilities
The provision of formal outdoor sports is contained within the associated Playing Pitch and the Sports Facilities Strategies. The amount and quality of such provision is not included in the total figures for open space as a different methodology in line with national guidance is prescribed.
1.2 National context
National Planning Policy Framework (2019), (MHCLG)
The National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019) (NPPF) sets out the planning policies for England. It details how these are expected to be applied to the planning system and provides a framework to produce distinct local and neighbourhood plans, reflecting the needs and priorities of local communities.
It states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (paragraphs 7-9). It establishes that the planning system needs to focus on three themes of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. A presumption in favour of sustainable development is a key aspect for any plan-making and decision-taking processes. In relation to plan-making the NPPF sets out that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs.
Paragraph 96 of the NPPF establishes that access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for health and well-being. It states that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. Specific needs and quantitative and qualitative deficiencies and surpluses in local areas should also be identified. This information should be used to inform what provision is required in an area.
As a prerequisite paragraph 97 of the NPPF states existing open space, sports and recreation sites, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
An assessment has been undertaken, which has clearly shown the site to be surplus to requirements; or The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.
National Planning Practice Guidance (MHCLG)
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is a web-based resource which brings together planning guidance on various topics into one place. It was launched in March 2014 and adds further context to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is intended that the two documents should be read together.
The guidance determines that open space should be taken into account in planning for new development and considering proposals that may affect existing open space. It is for local planning authorities to assess the need for open space and opportunities for new provision in their areas. In carrying out this work, they should have regard to the duty to cooperate where open space serves a wider area.
March 2020 Assessment Report 3
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The guidance goes on to state that authorities and developers may refer to Sport England guidance on how to assess need for sport and recreational facilities.
Everybody Active, Every Day (2014), Public Health England
In October 2014 Public Health England (PHE) produced a plan to tackle low activity levels across the country. Along with making the case for physical activity, the plan identifies four areas where measures need to be taken at a national and local level:
Active society: creating a social movement. Shifting social norms so that physical activity becomes a routine part of daily life. Moving professionals: activating networks of expertise. Making every contact with the health sector count to push the ‘active’ message and to deliver the message through other sectors including education, sports and leisure, transport and planning. Active environments: creating the right spaces. Making available and accessible appropriate environments that encourage people to be active every day. Moving at scale: scaling up interventions that make us active. Maximising existing assets that enable communities to be active.
Open space provision has an important role in working towards these measures. There is a need to ensure accessible facilities that can help meet the physical activity needs of everyone including the physically and mentally disabled and those with learning difficulties and debilitating diseases.
Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play Beyond the Six Acre Standard (2015), Fields in Trust
As part of its protection work, Fields in Trust (FiT) offers guidance on open space provision and design. This is to ensure that the provision of outdoor sport, play and informal open space is of a sufficient size to enable effective use; is located in an accessible location and in close proximity to dwellings; and of a quality to maintain longevity and to encourage its continued use.
Beyond the Six Acre Standard sets out a range of benchmark guidelines on quantity, quality and accessibility for open space and equipped play. It also offers some recommendations to minimum site sizes. These are considered as part of the review of provision standards in the Open Space Standards Paper.
Planning for Sport Guidance (2019), Sport England
Sets out how the planning system can help provide opportunities for everyone to be physically active. It highlights the vital role planning systems play in shaping environments (including open spaces) which offer opportunities to take part in sport and physical activity. To help with this, the guidance sets out 12 planning-for-sport principles to be embraced.
March 2020 Assessment Report 4
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 1.2: 12 planning for sport principles
Recognise and give weight to the benefits of sport and physical activity Undertake, maintain and apply robust and up-to-date assessment of need and strategies for sport and physical activity provision, and base policies, decisions Overarching and guidance upon them Plan, design and maintain buildings, developments, facilities, land and environments that enable people to lead active lifestyles Protect and promote existing sport and physical activity provision and ensure new development does not prejudice its use Protect Ensure long-term viable management and maintenance of new and existing sport and physical activity provision Support improvements to existing sport and physical activity provision where they are needed Enhance Encourage and secure wider community use of existing and new sport and physical activity provision Support new provision, including allocating new sites for sport and physical activity which meets identified needs Ensure a positive approach to meeting the needs generated by new development for sport and physical activity provision Provide sport and physical activity provision which is fit for purpose and well Provide designed Plan positively for sport and physical activity provision in designated landscapes and the green belt Proactively address any amenity issues arising from sport and physical activity developments
Summary of the national context
Policies set out within the NPPF state that local and neighbourhood plans should both reflect needs and priorities within a local community and be based on robust and current assessments of open space, sport and recreational facilities. Engaging residents to take up and retain a minimum or better level of physical literacy and activity is a high priority for national government. For many people, sport and recreational activities have a key role to play in facilitating physical activity. Therefore, ensuring that open space creates an active environment with opportunities and good accessibility is important. In line with national policy recommendations, this report makes an assessment of open space provision and need across Kettering Borough from which recommendations and policy will be formulated.
1.3 Local context
North Northamptonshire – Unitary Authority
The Government has agreed to create two new unitary councils in Northamptonshire to provide all local government services in the county. This will come into being on 1 April 2021 when Northamptonshire’s current eight councils will cease to exist.
The new North Northamptonshire unitary authority will cover the administrative areas of Corby, East Northamptonshire, Kettering and Wellingborough. A new unitary authority for West Northamptonshire will cover the areas of Daventry, Northampton and South Northamptonshire. Services currently provided by Northamptonshire County Council and the districts and boroughs will be delivered by the two new authorities.
March 2020 Assessment Report 5
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The creation of the two unitary authorities is seen as an opportunity to develop and transform services to deliver what residents, visitors and businesses need across the county, with a modern approach that provides good value for money.
North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031
The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (adopted July 2016) is the strategic Part 1 Local Plan for Kettering, Corby, East Northamptonshire and Wellingborough. This has been prepared by the North Northamptonshire Joint Committee and outlines the vision and outcomes for the four local authorities. Part 2 will provide detailed planning policies to deliver the objectives outlined in the Strategy.
The vision is to ensure that North Northamptonshire will be widely recognised as a safe, healthy, affordable and attractive area for residents and visitors, and an excellent place for business to invest in. In addition, the area will be a showpiece for modern green living and well managed sustainable development which will take advantage of a strategic transport network to be a nationally important growth area.
The Strategy also highlights a summary vision for Kettering Borough. This summary vision states that by 2031 Kettering will be the largest retail centre in North Northamptonshire and its vibrant town centre, regarded for being characterful, distinctive and fun, will provide a focus for its surrounding market towns and villages. The town will be the focus for healthcare and will lead the way in renewable energy investment to strengthen the green economy. Its business community will capitalise on its excellent connectivity, including its position on the Trans-European (E24 route) A14 and on the electrified Midland Mainline rail route.
To achieve the overarching and local vision, the Strategy aims to deliver following ten outcomes successfully:
Empowered and proactive communities Adapt to future climate change Distinctive environments that enhance and respect local character and enhance biodiversity. Excellent services and facilities easily accessed by local communities and businesses. A sustainable balance between local jobs and workers and a more diverse economy. Transformed connectivity. More walkable places and an excellent choice of ways to travel. Vibrant, well connected towns and a productive countryside. Stronger, more self-reliant towns with thriving centres. Enhanced quality of life for all residents.
To help local communities and businesses access excellent services and facilities (which includes sports facilities), policy seven in the Strategy will resist the loss of any community services and facilities, including leisure facilities, unless an appropriate alternative is provided or evidence is presented that the facility is no longer required and suitable alternative uses have been considered.
Any alternative provision should be of equal or better quality and be located in an appropriate and, where feasible, sustainable location.
March 2020 Assessment Report 6
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Specific Part 2 Local Plan (2011-2031)
The Council has started preparing its Site Specific Part 2 Local Plan (SSP2) for Kettering Borough. This will be specific to the Borough of Kettering and is due to be adopted in December 2020. The document will cover the whole of Kettering Borough with the exception of issues addressed in the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS), the Area Action Plan for Kettering Town Centre (2011) and the Broughton Neighbourhood Plan (2018).
The SSP2 will allocate non-strategic land for housing and employment and it identifies potential locations for retail, leisure and community facilities. It will contain policies relating to the principle growth town of Kettering and the market towns of Rothwell, Desborough and Burton Latimer and the 27 villages of varying scale and character. These will be supported by policies covering topics such as Open Space, Local Green Space, Green Infrastructure and Settlement Boundaries.
Physical Activity and Sport Framework (2018 – 2021), Northamptonshire Sport
Northamptonshire Sport is committed to ensuring that sport, physical activity and recreation across Northamptonshire is both safe and inclusive.
March 2020 Assessment Report 7
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Outcomes
Northamptonshire Sport aims to increase levels of physical activity and participation in sport across the county and plays a key role in supporting the implementation of framework. Northamptonshire Sport will:
Co-ordinate the implementation of the work of partners to develop local action plans (shaped by strategies and tactics) to deliver against the objectives of this framework. Bring investment into area to support delivery of the framework and local action plans. Be the physical activity behaviour insight hub, sharing existing and commissioning new insight and interpreting what this means for the implementation of the framework. Lead behaviour change learning and practices to help partners focus on this as a definition of success. Support partners to grow and develop their workforce in line with the new challenges laid out in this framework.
Supporting Northamptonshire to Flourish: Northamptonshire’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2016-2020
This is the latest strategy which aims to improve the health and wellbeing of all people in Northamptonshire. The overall objective is to reduce health inequalities by enabling people to help themselves. The strategy lists four key priorities with targets associated for each priority. The importance of having accessible, good quality indoor and built sports facilities with suitable activities will assist in achieving all four key priorities.
Table 1.3: Northamptonshire’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy Priorities
Priorities Priority Targets More children are breastfed, and for longer. More children achieve a higher level of development in the prime Giving every child the areas of learning. best start. Fewer children gain weight during primary education. Fewer young people self-harm and misuse drugs and alcohol. More children and young people have positive mental wellbeing. More people maintaining a healthy weight. Fewer people smoking, drinking and misusing drugs Taking responsibility More people in control of their lives and their health, reflected in and making informed improved mental wellbeing. choices. Fewer people experiencing long term mental ill health. Increase in healthier, stronger and more resilient families. Reductions in delayed transfers of care. Promoting Fewer people re-admitted to hospital following discharge. independence and More people remaining independent and supported to participate quality of life for older in community -based activities. adults. Fewer people experience social isolation and loneliness. Improved access to leisure spaces, recreational facilities and community assets that promote health and wellbeing. Fewer people are living in poverty. Creating an Reduction in unemployment and fewer young people are not in environment for all education, employment or training (NEET’s). people to flourish. Decrease in demand for social housing. More people feel safe in community & reduce domestic abuse Community resilience increases.
March 2020 Assessment Report 8
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
North Northamptonshire GI Delivery Plan (2014), NNJPDU
The document provides a summary to the green infrastructure projects planned and underway in North Northamptonshire. It identifies the need for significant investment to provide a net gain in green infrastructure and to improve existing provision. The successful delivery of the plan is highlighted as leading to improved:
Biodiversity Habitat connectivity Tourism and green business opportunities Walking and cycling links between key locations Community engagement with green infrastructure Improved quality of life More attractive places in which to live, work and invest
It has been produced to aide planners when discussing green infrastructure with developers. It is also intended to help prioritise green infrastructure projects and funding sources.
Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan for Kettering Borough (2018), RNRP
The Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan (GIDP) for Kettering Borough builds on the work of the North Northamptonshire GI Delivery Plan. It identifies the Green Infrastructure Network (GIN) at a Borough level which supports and enhances the network at a sub-regional and local level.
The aim of the GIDP is to identify opportunities to develop the GIN within the Borough by:
Improving access Increasing quality Increasing quantity Improving the biodiversity which also support with providing habitats Creation of strong networks for both humans and animals Ensuring new developments contribute to the GIN
The plan identifies opportunities to enhance existing and new green infrastructure and sets out projects of benefit, delivery partners, estimated costs and diagrams.
Kettering Open Space Needs Assessment (2007), PMP
The open space study from 2007 set out standards around quantity, accessibility and quality. The present study will replace the 2007 study and act as an evidence base to support the Part 2 Local Plan for Kettering (2019-2031).
As part of the Quality standard from the 2007 study a vision for each type of open space was set out. These are provided below as they provide a useful visual description.
March 2020 Assessment Report 9
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 1.4: Visual description from 2007 quality standards
Typology Quality standard vision Parks and "A welcoming, clean and litter free site providing a one-stop community facility gardens with a wide range of leisure, recreational and enriched play opportunities for all ages. Parks and gardens should be well maintained, providing varied vegetation, clear pathways, appropriate lighting and ancillary accommodation (including seating and litter bins) and well-signed to and within the site. Sites should have a written management plan and measures should be taken to address identified issues at these sites.” Natural and ‘A clean, well vegetated, litter free site with clear pathways and natural features semi-natural that encourages wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental awareness. Management of local sites should involve the community/stakeholder if at all possible and there should be a clear focus on maintaining and increasing the conservation and biodiversity value of these sites and ensuring public access where appropriate. Sites should have a written management plan and measures should be taken to address identified issues at these sites.’ Amenity “A clean and well-maintained greenspace site. Sites should have appropriate greenspace ancillary accommodation (dog and litter bins etc), pathways and landscaping in the right places providing a spacious outlook and overall enhancing the appearance of the local environment. Larger sites should be suitable for informal play opportunities and should be enhanced to encourage the site to become a community focus. Smaller sites should adopt a design led approach to discourage inappropriate informal play” Provision for A site providing a mix of well-maintained formal equipment and enriched play children environment in a safe a secure convenient location overlooked by housing and footpaths or located within a larger park facility. The site should have clear boundaries; be clean; be litter, dog, vandalism and graffiti free; and be lit. Sites should also comply with appropriate national guidelines for design and safety" Provision for “A site providing a robust yet imaginative play environment for older children in a young safe and secure location, with clear separation from younger children facilities, people that promotes a sense of ownership. The site should include clean, litter and dog free areas for more informal play and areas of shelter (with seating) and where appropriate sites should be well lit. Sites should also comply with appropriate national guidelines for design and safety” Allotments “A clean, secure and well-kept site that encourages sustainable development, bio-diversity, healthy living and education objectives with appropriate ancillary facilities (e.g. litter bins and water supply) to meet local needs, well kept grass and good quality soils. The site should be spacious providing appropriate access and clear boundaries and conform to current best practice and local policy for allotment management. Green “A clean, well-maintained, safe and secure corridor with clear pathways, linking corridors major open spaces together and enhancing natural features. Corridors should provide ancillary facilities such as bins, seating and lighting in appropriate places and signage.” Cemeteries “A clean and well-maintained site providing long-term burial capacity, an area of and quiet contemplation and a sanctuary for wildlife. Sites should have clear pathways churchyards and varied vegetation and landscaping and provide appropriate ancillary accommodation (e.g. facilities for flowers litter bins and seating.) Access to sites should be enhanced by parking facilities and by public transport routes, particularly in urban areas” Civic spaces “A clean, well-maintained, safe and secure site, with generally hard landscaping but may accommodate soft areas. Sites should be adequately designed and maintained in order to serve a particular civic function. Ancillary accommodation, including toilets, lighting and CCTV should be provided where appropriate.”
March 2020 Assessment Report 10
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Open Space Supplementary Planning Document (2008), Kettering Borough Council
This document used the Open Space Needs Assessment (2007) to sets out the Council’s approach to securing open space associated with new residential development, and the mechanism for securing financial contributions for improving and maintaining open space.
The aims set out in the document are to:
Retain, improve and create access for all to open space, sport and recreation facilities, including through the enhancement of links between urban open spaces and the countryside and the sustainable management of these facilities. Integrate spatial and transport policies and locate new open space, sport and recreation development where it is accessible to a range of transport modes, whilst ensuring sensitive design that reflects landscape character and the built environment. Reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour; Increase leisure opportunities for people of all ages; Deliver a wide range of high quality, sustainable open space that is fit for purpose; results in a net gain in biodiversity / green infrastructure throughout the Borough; and contributes to flood risk management. Provide an appropriate balance between the provision of new open space and the enhancement of existing open space, so that the needs and aspirations of existing and futures communities are met.
March 2020 Assessment Report 11
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 2: METHODOLOGY
This section details the methodology undertaken as part of the study. The key stages are:
2.1 - Analysis areas 2.2 - Auditing local provision 2.3 - Quality and value 2.4 - Quality and value thresholds 2.5 - Identifying local need 2.6 - Accessibility standards
2.1 Analysis area
The study area will comprise the whole of Kettering Borough. In order to address supply and demand on a more localised level, as well as addressing the urban/rural divide within the Borough, three analysis areas have been applied:
Kettering & Burton Latimer Desborough & Rothwell Rural
Figure 2.1 overleaf shows the Borough broken down into these analysis areas in tandem with population density. Population will be considered in more detail below.
March 2020 Assessment Report 12
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2.1: Map of Kettering Borough including analysis areas
March 2020 Assessment Report 13
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2.2 Auditing local provision (supply)
The KKP Field Research Team undertook the site audit for this study between February and March 2019. Open space sites (including provision for children and young people) are identified, mapped and assessed to evaluate site value and quality. Only sites publicly accessible are included (i.e. private sites or land, which people cannot access, are not included). Each site is classified based on its primary open space purpose, so that each type of space is counted only once. The audit, and the report, analyse the following typologies in accordance with the Companion Guidance to PPG17.
1. Parks and gardens 2. Natural and semi-natural greenspace 3. Amenity greenspace 4. Provision for children and young people 5. Allotments 6. Cemeteries/churchyards 7. Civic spaces
Green Infrastructure Network
The green infrastructure network (GIN) comprises a network of multifunctional greenspace set within and contributing to a high-quality natural and built environment. It is an essential requirement for the enhancement of quality of life, for existing and future generations, and an integral element in the delivery of ‘liveability’ for sustainable communities. Its provision, and importantly, its connectivity is relevant at every level from county wide rural landscapes down to a local level within larger urban as well as small rural settlements.
Part 11 of this document will show the relationship of the Borough’s open spaces in the context of the county wide and local level GIN.
Site size threshold
In accordance with recommendations from the Companion Guidance to PPG17, a size threshold of 0.2 hectares is applied to the inclusion of some typologies within the study. It is recognised that spaces smaller than 0.2 hectares can provide amenity to local neighbourhoods and stepping-stones for wildlife. However, they are often too small to provide any meaningful leisure and recreational opportunities to warrant a full site assessment. They will therefore be assessed on a site by site basis should a request for development be made upon such a site in the future. It should be noted that sites below the threshold i.e. those that are identified through consultation as being of significance and play space for children and young people are included in the audit process.
Database development
All information relating to open spaces is collated in the project open space database (supplied as an Excel electronic file). All sites identified and assessed as part of the audit are recorded within the database. The database details for each site are as follows:
March 2020 Assessment Report 14
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Data held on open spaces database (summary) KKP reference number (used for mapping) Site name Ownership (if known) Management (if known) Typology Size (hectares) Site visit data
Sites are primarily identified by KKP in the audit using official site names, where possible, and/or secondly using road names and locations.
2.3 Open space standards
To identify specific needs and quantitative and qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space in a local area, the Open Space Standards Paper sets and applies provision standards focusing on Quality, Quantity and Accessibility.
Quality Ability to measure the need for enhancement of existing facilities. Aimed at identifying high quality provision for benchmarking and low quality provision for targeting as part of an improvement programme. The Quality Standard is based on the audit assessment scores. Quantity Are there enough spaces in the right places? Aimed at helping to establish areas of surplus and deficiency and, where appropriate, to understand the potential for alternative uses. Accessibility Distance thresholds aimed at improving accessibility factors (e.g. so people can find and get to open spaces without undue reliance on using a car) and helping to identify potential areas with gaps in provision.
The existing local Standards established by the OSNA (2007) are also tested through this study (set out within the Open Space Standards Paper) to determine if they are still fit for purpose. Several sources of information are examined to accomplish this including:
Population data Consultation results Analysis of the audit and assessment
2.4 Population data
In terms of population, ONS Mid-Year population estimates identifies Kettering Borough as having a population of 100,252.
Table 2.1: Population by analysis area
Analysis area Population* Desborough and Rothwell 22,752 Kettering & Burton Latimer 73,276 Rural 4,224 Total 100,252
Source: ONS 2017Mid-Year population estimates for England March 2020 Assessment Report 15
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Borough is a growth area with a population that is due to increase significantly. This means the demand on open space will also increase. It is therefore important to set appropriate standards and use them to protect and enhance existing provision and to help inform the creation of new spaces.
2.5 Consultation: Identifying local need (demand)
Consultation to identify local need for open space provision has been carried out through a combination of face-to-face meetings, surveys and telephone interviews. It has been conducted with key local authority officers and parish councils. Parish councils which responded to consultation are:
Ashley Parish Council Brampton Ash Parish Council Braybrooke Parish Council Broughton Parish Council Cranford Parish Council Geddington Parish Council Great Cansley Parish Council Harrington Parish Council Rushton Parish Council Stoke Albany Parish Council Wilbarston Parish Council
In addition, the Hanwood Park Residents Association and South West Kettering (Headlands Community) Neighbourhood Forum were consulted.
People who live, work and visit the Borough were invited to respond to an on-line consultation seeking their views on the quality and accessibility of open spaces as well as investigating how often they visit open space and their favourite places to visit. The survey ran from March to May 2019.
Respondents were asked to provide their post code as part of the survey. This meant they could be linked to specific authority area and provided an indication of how far people will travel to get to their favourite spaces. Overall there were 144 individual responses to the survey of which seven did not provide a postcode. A total of 89% of respondents had Kettering Borough post codes.
The findings from each consultation have been analysed and interpreted. The results have been used to support the results of the assessment.
2.6 Quality and value
The quality of the Borough’s open spaces has been assessed through site visits. The Quality Standards will be founded on this information and, as set out earlier, with consideration to the existing local quality visions found in the 2007 OSNA. Developed through consultation, the quality visions reflect the aspirations of local residents. They guide the improvement of existing open spaces as well as the development of new provision.
Through the assessment process each type of open space receives separate quality and value scores. This allows for the application of a high and low quality/value matrix to further help determine prioritisation of investment and to identify sites that may be surplus within and to a particular open space typology.
March 2020 Assessment Report 16
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Quality and value are fundamentally different and can be unrelated. For example, a site of high quality may be inaccessible and, thus, be of little value; whereas a rundown (poor quality) site may be the only one in an area and thus be immensely valuable. As a result, quality and value are also treated separately in terms of scoring.
Analysis of quality
Data collated from site visits is initially based upon criteria derived from the Green Flag Award scheme (a national standard for parks and green spaces in England and Wales, operated by Keep Britain Tidy). This is utilised to calculate a quality score for each site visited. Scores in the database are presented as percentage figures. The quality criteria used for the open space assessments carried out for all open space typologies are summarised in the following table.
Quality criteria for open space site visit (score) Physical access, e.g. public transport links, directional signposts, Personal security, e.g. site is overlooked, natural surveillance Access-social, e.g. appropriate minimum entrance widths Parking, e.g. availability, specific, disabled parking Information signage, e.g. presence of up to date site information, notice boards Equipment and facilities, e.g. assessment of both adequacy and maintenance of provision such as seats, benches, bins, toilets Location value, e.g. proximity of housing, other greenspace Site problems, e.g. presence of vandalism, graffiti Healthy, safe and secure, e.g. fencing, gates, staff on site Maintenance and cleanliness, e.g. condition of general landscape & features Groups that the site meets the needs of, e.g. elderly, young people Site potential
For the provision for children and young people, criteria are also built around Green Flag. It is a non-technical visual assessment of the whole site, including general equipment and surface quality/appearance plus an assessment of, for example, bench and bin provision.
This differs, for example, from an independent Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RosPA) review, which is a more technical assessment of equipment in terms of play and risk assessment grade.
Analysis of value
Site visit data plus desk based research is calculated to provide value scores for each site identified. Value is defined in Companion Guidance to PPG17 in relation to the following three issues:
Context of the site i.e. its accessibility, scarcity value and historic value. Level and type of use. The wider benefits it generates for people, biodiversity and the wider environment.
In addition, the NPPF refers to attributes to value such as beauty and attractiveness of a site, its recreational value, historic and cultural value and its tranquillity and richness of wildlife.
March 2020 Assessment Report 17
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The value criteria set for audit assessment is derived from:
Value criteria for open space site visits (score) Level of use (observations only), e.g., evidence of different user types (e.g. dog walkers, joggers, children) throughout day, located near school and/or community facility Context of site in relation to other open spaces Structural and landscape benefits, e.g., well located, high quality defining the identity/ area Ecological benefits, e.g., supports/promotes biodiversity and wildlife habitats Educational benefits, e.g., provides learning opportunities on nature/historic landscapes Social inclusion and health benefits, e.g., promotes civic pride, community ownership and a sense of belonging; helping to promote well-being Cultural and heritage benefits, e.g., historic elements/links (e.g. listed building, statues) and high profile symbols of local area Amenity benefits and a sense of place, e.g., attractive places that are safe and well maintained; helping to create specific neighbourhoods and landmarks Economic benefits, e.g., enhances property values, promotes economic activity and attracts people from near and far
Children’s and young people play provision is scored for value as part of the audit assessment. Value, in particular is recognised in terms of size of sites and the range of equipment it hosts. For instance, a small site with only one or two items is likely to be of a lower value than a site with a variety of equipment catering for wider age ranges.
Ecosystem Services
Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework recognises the wider benefits of ecosystem services, which were set out in Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s biodiversity and ecosystems services (2012). Ecosystem services can be described as the multiple benefits gained by people from the natural environment.
This study has undertaken an initial assessment of the ecosystem services provided at each open space during the site visits. A rapid scoring system was used to record likely service provision within the recognised ecosystem service categories (see below). The findings are set out in Part 12.
The ecosystem service benefits have been assessed under the recognised categories of:
Provisioning services - value of the site for food/fuel/water/timber etc. Regulatory services - value of the site in relation to air quality/climate control/water regulation/pollination Cultural services - value of the site for heritage/social/aesthetics/spiritual/ religious/health/play Supporting services - value of site for primary production/nutrient cycling/water recycling/habitat provision
The findings have been displayed as a range of low to high yields for each open space typology. This helps to identify which open spaces which make a significant contribution towards the delivery of ecosystem services thereby increasing the value placed upon those spaces. Low yield spaces, where appropriate, provide an opportunity for management / action plans to target enhancements by increasing the provision of ecosystem services for that space thereby increasing its multifunctionality and consequently its value
March 2020 Assessment Report 18
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
It should be emphasised that whilst the designation of high yield does not preclude development, any development in these areas would require full justification, strong mitigation and careful design appropriate for the location in question.
2.7 Quality and value thresholds
To determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by Companion Guidance to PPG17); the results of the site assessments are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The primary aim of applying a threshold is to identify sites where investment and/or improvements are required. It can also be used to set an aspirational quality standard to be achieved at some point in the future and to inform decisions around the need to further protect sites from future development (particularly when applied with its respective value score in a matrix format).
The most recognised national benchmark for measuring the quality of parks and open spaces is the 66% pass rate for the Green Flag Award. This scheme recognises and rewards well managed parks and open spaces. Although this open space study uses a similar assessment criteria to that of the Green Flag Award scheme it is inappropriate to use the Green Flag benchmark pass for every open space as they are not all designed or expected to perform to the same exceptionally high standard.
For example, a park would be expected to feature a greater variety of ancillary facilities (seating, bins, play equipment) and manicured landscaping and planting, etc in contrast to an amenity greenspace serving a smaller catchment and less people.
Furthermore, a different scoring mechanism is used in this study to that of the Green Flag scheme (albeit the criteria for this study is derived from the Green Flag scheme). For each open space typology, a different set and / or weighting for each criterion of quality is used. This is to better reflect the different roles, uses and functions of each open space type. Consequently, a different quality threshold level is set for each open space typology.
Quality thresholds in this study are individual to each open space typology. They are based on the average quality score arising from the site assessments and set using KKPs professional judgment and experience from delivering similar studies. The score is to help distinguish between higher and lower quality sites, it is a minimum expectation as opposed to an absolute goal. This works as an effective method to reflect the variability in quality at a local level for different types of provision. It allows the Council more flexibility in directing funds towards sites for enhancements which is useful if funds are geographically constrained with respect to individual developments.
Reason and flexibility are needed when evaluating sites close to the average score / threshold. The review of a quality threshold is just one step for this process, a site should also be evaluated against the Quality Standard Vision for that space type (Table 1.4), the value assessment and local knowledge.
For value, there is no national guidance on the setting of thresholds. The 20% threshold is derived from KKP’s experience and knowledge in assessing the perceived value of sites.
March 2020 Assessment Report 19
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A high value site is one deemed to be well used and offering visual, social, physical and mental health benefits. Value is also a more subjective measure than assessing the physical quality of provision. Therefore, a conservative threshold of 20% is set across all typologies. Whilst 20% may initially seem low - it is a relative score. One designed to reflect those sites that meet more than one aspect of the criteria used for assessing value (as detailed earlier). If a site meets more than one criterion for value it will score greater than 20%. Consequently, it is deemed to be of higher value.
Table 2.2: Quality and value thresholds by typology
Typology Quality threshold Value threshold Parks and gardens 60% 20% Natural and semi-natural greenspace 50% 20% Amenity greenspace 50% 20% Provision for children and young people 60% 20% Allotments 55% 20% Cemeteries/churchyards 50% 20% Civic spaces 50% 20%
2.8 Accessibility catchments
Accessibility catchments can be used as a tool to identify deficiencies of open space in a local community. This is achieved by applying them to create a distance catchment. The Assessment Report displays the results of the distances respondents to the community survey would be willing to travel in order to access each type of open space.
The accompanying Standards Paper reviews these accessibility catchments in order to set accessibility standards. This is decided through an assessment of available information including: the Fields in Trust (FiT) guidance, the KBC consultation and by an examination of the Accessibility Standards set for the Borough’s neighbouring authorities namely Corby, Wellingborough and East Northamptonshire District Councils.
Walking Distances
It is worth noting that since the development of the Council’s 2007 accessibility standards the recognised approach of measuring distance and walk time has changed. The 2007 approach is based on a ‘straight-line distance’ of 480m. It uses a time / distance factoring to derive a walking time of 10 minutes to account for the fact that people do not walk in straight lines. The FiT guidance advises against this method preferring instead to recommend a ‘true’ distance from dwellings of 710m, around a 9-minute walk. This is the approach that will be used in this study.
There is an element of subjectivity resulting in time / distance variations. This is to be expected given that people walk at different speeds depending on a number of factors including height, age, levels of fitness and physical barriers on route. Therefore, there will be an element of ‘best fit’ to determine the accessibility standard for Kettering Borough.
The following accessibility distances are recorded from the community survey in relation to how far individuals are willing to travel, and my what mode of transport is used, to access different types of open space provision.
March 2020 Assessment Report 20
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 2.3: Accessibility distance catchments from survey respondents
Open space type Mode of transport Approximate time equivalent Parks Walking 12.5 minutes Natural/semi-natural Car 30 minutes Amenity Walking 10 minutes Civic space Walking 15 minutes Green corridors Walking 15 minutes Play 0-8 years 12.5 minutes Walk 9+ Year 15 minutes
Accessibility guidance from FiT provides suggested catchment standards for parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural greenspace, amenity greenspace and provision for children and young people. These are set out in Table 2.4. The accompanying Standards Paper reviews these as part of setting appropriate accessibility standards.
Table 2.4: FiT accessibility guidelines
Open space type Walking guideline Approximate time equivalent Parks & Gardens 710m 9 minute Amenity Greenspace 480m 6 minute Natural & Semi-natural Greenspace 720m 9 minute LAP 100m 1 minute LEAP 400m 5 minute Play areas & informal sports facilities NEAP 1,000m 12 ½ minute Other provision 700m 9 minute (e.g. MUGA, Skate park)
FiT do not set accessibility catchments/standards for allotments or churchyards / cemeteries. Churchyards and cemeteries are unique in their function; making new provision occurs only in exceptional circumstances based on evidence beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to set an accessibility standard as this report can have no impact on provision.
Allotments provide opportunities for people to grow their own produce. They encourage physical activity, improve mental health and provide a sense of well-being thereby contributing to the quality of life. Making way for the delivery of a new allotment is not without its challenges given the land take involved. However, it can be planned for where there is justification.
It is worth noting in Table 2.3 that, with the exception of access to natural / semi-natural spaces, all accessibility catchments are based on a walk time ranging between five to 15 minutes. However, KBC consultees do suggest a half hour drive time to natural / semi- natural spaces. This may be based on a preference of visiting better quality natural / semi natural spaces located further from an individual’s home. This will be explored further in the setting of accessibility standards within the Standards Paper.
March 2020 Assessment Report 21
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 3: SUMMARY OF SITE VISITS
This section describes trends from the quality and value ratings for each typology.
3.1 Overview
Within Kettering Borough there is a total of 286 (accessible) sites equating to around 1,047 hectares of open space. The largest contributor to provision is natural/semi-natural greenspace (784 hectares); accounting for 75%.
Table 3.1: Overview of open space provision
Open space typology Number of sites Total amount (hectares)* Allotments 23 36 Amenity greenspace 73 92 Cemeteries/churchyards 42 28 Civic spaces 11 1 Natural & semi-natural greenspace 50† 784 Park and gardens 20 99 Provision for children & young people 67 7 TOTAL 286 1,047
3.2 Quality
The methodology for assessing quality is set out in Part 2 (Methodology). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for open spaces across the Borough.
Table 3.2: Quality scores for all open space typologies
Typology Threshold Scores No. of sites Lowest Average Highest Low High score score score Allotments 55% 41% 58% 69% 7 15 Amenity greenspace 50% 29% 52% 80% 29 38 Cemeteries/churchyards 50% 31% 53% 82% 10 32 Civic spaces 50% 38% 54% 68% 3 8 Provision for children & 60% 21% 50% 94% 18 35 young people Natural & semi-natural 50% 23% 53% 78% 17 33 greenspace Park and gardens 60% 47% 59% 98% 13 7 TOTAL 97 168
Generally, the quality of open spaces is good across all typologies. This is reflected in over half (63%) of sites scoring above their set threshold for quality.
* Rounded to the nearest whole number † There are an additional 49 sites that are deemed inaccessible equating to 767 hectares. Therefore, overall, there are 99 sites (1,551 hectares) March 2020 Assessment Report 22
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Proportionally, churchyards and cemeteries score well for quality with 76% of sites rating above the threshold for quality. This is followed by civic spaces, with 73% of provision scoring above the quality threshold. Allotments, natural/semi-natural and provision for children and young people also have a greater proportion of sites scoring highly.
The typologies proportionally scoring lowest on quality are amenity greenspace and parks and gardens. These typologies have 57% and 35% scoring above the threshold respectively. However, this does not always mean sites under the threshold are poor or demonstrate significant quality issues. Parks and gardens have a particularly high threshold due to the benchmark of the Green Flag Award, which is designed to be met by flagship park sites.
This is supported by the resident’s survey, revealing that the majority of respondents are content with the quality of parks and open space provision in the Borough (5% very satisfied; 51% quite satisfied). Less than a quarter (23%) report they are dissatisfied with the quality. 21% recorded no opinion.
3.3 Value
The methodology for assessing value is set out in Part 2 (Methodology). The table below summarises the results of the value assessment for open spaces across the Borough.
Table 3.3: Value scores for all open space typologies
Typology Threshold Scores No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20%
Allotments 41% 46% 71% 0 22 Amenity greenspace 20% 34% 58% 0 67 Cemeteries/churchyards 28% 40% 56% 0 42 Civic spaces 25% 47% 65% 0 11 Provision for children & 20% 16% 44% 69% 0 53 young people Natural & semi-natural 25% 42% 68% 0 50 greenspace Park and gardens 26% 50% 80% 0 20 TOTAL 0 265
All sites are assessed as being above the threshold for value, reflecting the role and importance of open space provision to local communities and environments.
March 2020 Assessment Report 23
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A high value site is considered to be one that is well used by the local community, well maintained (with a balance for conservation), provides a safe environment and has features of interest; for example, good quality play equipment and landscaping. Sites that provide for a cross section of users and have a multi-functional use are considered a higher value than those offering limited functions and viewed as unattractive.
3.4 Summary
General summary Within Kettering Borough there is a total of 286 sites equating to 1,047 hectares of open space. The largest contributor to provision is natural/semi-natural greenspace (784 hectares); accounting for 75%. There is generally a good level of quality across all open space sites. This is reflected in over half (63%) of sites scoring above their set threshold for quality. Proportionally, churchyards and cemeteries score well for quality with 76% of sites rating above the quality threshold. This is followed by civic spaces, with 73% of provision scoring above the quality threshold. The typologies proportionally scoring lowest on quality are amenity and parks and gardens. These typologies have just 57% and 35% scoring above the threshold respectively. However, this does not always mean sites under the threshold are poor or demonstrate significant quality issues. All sites are assessed as being above the threshold for value, reflecting the role and importance of open space provision to local communities and environments.
March 2020 Assessment Report 24
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 4: PARKS AND GARDENS
4.1 Introduction
Parks and Gardens Vision Statement A welcoming, clean and litter free site providing a one-stop community facility with a wide range of leisure, recreational and enriched play opportunities for all ages. Parks and gardens should be well maintained, providing varied vegetation, clear pathways, appropriate lighting and ancillary accommodation (including seating and litter bins) and well-signed to and within the site. Sites should have a written management plan and measures should be taken to address identified issues at these sites.
This typology often covers urban parks and formal gardens (including designed landscapes), which provide accessible high-quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events. Country park sites may also provide opportunities and functions often associated with parks and as such, are included within this section.
4.2 Current provision
There are 20 sites classified as parks and gardens across the Borough, the equivalent of over 100 hectares (see Table 4.1). No site size threshold has been applied and, as such, all sites have been included within the typology.
Table 4.1: Current park provision in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Parks and gardens Number of Total hectares Current provision sites (ha per 1,000 population) Desborough & Rothwell 4 34.52 1.52 Kettering & Burton Latimer 16 65.95 0.90 Rural - - - Overall 20 100.48 1.00
For parks and gardens the Borough has a current provision level of 1.00 hectares per 1,000 head of population . The largest site and therefore the biggest contributor to this provision is Wicksteed Park (49.70 ha). The next largest site in this typology is Desborough Greenspace (28.94 ha), located in the Desborough & Rothwell Analysis Area.
Aside from being classified in the park and gardens typology, Wicksteed Park is considered to offer a dual use and purpose. It is also considered to contribute to natural and semi- natural greenspace provision, containing many features and providing opportunities associated with such forms of provision.
To ensure no double counting of sites it is only included (in terms of quantity) in the parks and gardens typology. However, the site is also recognised in the natural and semi-natural greenspace section.
March 2020 Assessment Report 25
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Fields In Trust (FIT) suggests 0.80 hectares per 1,000 population as a guideline quantity standard. Table 4.1 shows that overall, the Borough is sufficient on this basis. This is also the case when considering each analysis area separately, with the Desborough & Rothwell Analysis Area (1.52 ha per 1,000 population) and the Kettering & Burton Latimer Analysis Area (0.90 ha per 1,000 population) both above the FIT figure. The Rural Analysis Area currently has no provision of this type.
In the subsequent Standards Paper, a local quantity standard for Kettering Borough will be explored in relation to parks and gardens provision.
Parks and gardens for the Borough are categorised to reflect their role and function. The sub-categories are Strategic Park, Premier Park, Neighbourhood Park and Community Garden. The definitions of these are displayed below.
Function and features of each space Kettering Borough Parks
Strategic Park
Offers a range of formal and informal sport, leisure, ID 18: Wicksteed Park recreation, educational and play opportunities and activities ID: 51 Desborough Provides an event space capable of attracting audiences Greenspace from the wider region ID 419: Meadow Road Park Provides an identity and a sense of place to the locality Is strategically important to other public bodies e.g. Health, Sport Provides ecological stability for local wildlife Directly relate to the green infrastructure network Is a heritage asset Plays a strategic role in town centre development Contribute to the local economy
Premier Park
Offer a range of formal and informal sport, leisure, ID: 17 Rockingham Road recreation, educational and play opportunities and activities Pleasure Park Provides an event space attracting audiences locally with the potential to draw from across the Borough Provides an identity and a sense of place to the locality Is strategically important to surrounding communities and volunteer groups Provides ecological stability for local wildlife Is a stepping stone within the green infrastructure network
Neighbourhood Park
Usually offer a range of informal and sometimes formal ID: 5 Manor Park sport, leisure, recreation, and play opportunities ID: 19 Mill Road Park Provide valuable open space that serves as a social focus ID: 314 Millennium Park point within a neighbourhood ID: 446 Grays Field Provides an identity and a sense of place to the immediate ID: 381 Highfield Road Park community ID: 456 The Weekly Glebe Provides ecological stability for local wildlife Playing Fields Is a stepping stone within the green infrastructure network ID: 87 Spring Rise Park Has the potential to become Premier Park with the right ID: 8 Grafton Street Park management and investment ID: 6 The Paddocks ID: 15 Rothwell Recreation Ground
March 2020 Assessment Report 26
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Community Garden
Offers a tranquil environment providing a place for peace ID: 1 Lower Street Memorial and quiet reflection Gardens Coordinated and often formal planting arrangements ID: 10 Garden of Rest Provides an identity and a sense of place to the immediate ID: 11 Manor House Gardens community ID: 12 Jubilee Gardens South Provides ecological stability for local wildlife ID: 13 Jubilee Gardens North Is a stepping stone within the green infrastructure network ID: 16 Municipal Offices Gardens
4.3 Accessibility
Consultation and findings from the Residents Survey found that most respondents would expect to travel between 10 minutes on foot (31%) and a 15 minute on foot (31%) to access park provision. For the purpose of mapping, a 15 minute walk time has been applied to parks recognised as having strategic and premier role with a 10 minute walk time applied to all other parks. This will be reviewed as part of the setting of accessibility standards within the accompanying Standards Paper.
Figure 5.1 shows the catchments applied to parks and gardens to help inform where deficiencies in provision may be located.
March 2020 Assessment Report 27
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 4.1: Parks and gardens mapped with 15 -minute (strategic/premier sites) and 10 minute walk (neighbourhood / community garden)
March 2020 Assessment Report 28
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 4.2: Key to sites mapped
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Lower Street Memorial 1 Desborough & Rothwell 0.10 55.1% 58.2% Gardens (P&G) 5 Manor Park Desborough & Rothwell 2.14 48.9% 58.2% The Paddocks Churchill 6 Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.22 62.1% 42.7% Way 8 Grafton Street Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.37 61.6% 53.6% 10 Garden of Rest Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.17 51.8% 26.4% 11 Manor House Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.35 70.9% 60.9% 12 Jubilee Gardens South Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.06 51.2% 38.2% 13 Jubilee Gardens North Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.17 51.5% 40.0% Rothwell Recreation 15 Desborough & Rothwell 2.68 57.8% 49.1% Ground 16 Municipal Offices Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.31 68.8% 31.8% Rockingham Road 17 Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.64 75.7% 70.9% Pleasure Park 18 Wicksteed Park Kettering & Burton Latimer 40.79 97.5% 80.0% 19 Mill Road Park Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.50 57.8% 47.3% 51 Desborough Greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 28.93 76.1% 70.0% Spring Rise Park (Top 87 Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.28 55.6% 50.9% Park), Springfield Road 314 Millennium Park Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.33 42.6% 39.1% 381 Highfield Road Park Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.41 52.4% 37.3% 419 Meadow Road Park Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.29 46.5% 48.2% 446 Grays Field Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.91 46.2% 40.0% The Weekly Glebe Playing 456 Kettering & Burton Latimer 4.25 47.7% 54.5% Fields
Catchment mapping shows that the majority of areas of higher population density are covered by the walk time catchments applied. However, some small gaps are noted to the east of Kettering Town, to the outskirts of Burton Latimer and to settlement of Mawsley in the Desborough & Rothwell Analysis Area.
The gaps identified are met by other forms of open space provision such as amenity, which can provide similar recreation opportunities. These are explored further in the Standards Paper.
Management
Of the 20 park and garden sites across the Borough, 13 are owned and managed by the Council. Wicksteed Charitable Trust manages Wicksteed Park.
March 2020 Assessment Report 29
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
4.4 Quality
To determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by the Companion Guidance); scores from site assessments are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for parks. A threshold of 60% is applied to segregate high from low quality parkland. Further explanation of how the quality scores and thresholds are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 4.3: Quality ratings for parks
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <60% >60% Desborough & Rothwell 49% 59% 76% 3 1 Kettering & Burton Latimer 43% 57% 98% 10 6 Rural - - - - - Overall 43% 59% 98% 13 7
Of the 20 park and garden sites in the Borough, 35% score above the threshold. As seen in the table above, there is a significant difference in quality between the highest scoring site (Wicksteed Park) and the lowest scoring site (Millennium Park).
The lowest scoring sites for quality within the Borough are listed below:
Millennium Park (43%) Grays Field (46%) Meadow Road Park (47%) The Weekly Glebe Playing Fields (48%)
These sites lack ancillary features such as seating. Meadow Road Park has fewer ancillary facilities and basic features such as picnic tables and signage. Furthermore, whilst the site does have pathways, these do not run through the whole site, access for some individuals could be challenging. Consultation with council offers highlights that the bottom section of this site is prone to flooding, which impacts on the site’s drainage.
The site does not suffer any significant quality or maintenance issues and with enhancements has potential to become a key site, especially given its proximity to Kettering town centre. KBC has already identified the site as requiring improvement and is looking to invest in the site to provide the following (subject to change through public consultation):
An extensive all new children's play area covering ages 0-13 which will be split into a toddler areas and junior play area A fitness zone including outdoor gym equipment A hard-standing area for the opportunity for temporary concessions to sell refreshments Extensive landscaping and planting New pathways and built features New seating Improved signage to the park in the Town Centre Entrance feature Planting and improvements to the top of Meadow Road Sports pitch for informal games
March 2020 Assessment Report 30
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Other low scoring sites include Manor Park which is noted through the site visit as having lower levels of overall maintenance, with provision such as bins and benches not being as well kept in comparison to other sites. There are toilets; however, these are inaccessible.
The majority of sites scoring below the threshold for quality are smaller sites, with fewer features; however, they do not have any significant quality issues. For example, Lower Street Memorial Gardens (P&G) (55%), Garden of Rest (52%), Jubilee Gardens South (51%) and Jubilee Gardens North (52%).
The criteria used to assess parks and gardens is intended to be high, reflecting the Green Flag Award assessment, as previously mentioned. As such, not all park and garden sites would be expected to score above the threshold set for such a prestigious award. It is more likely for the flagship ‘destination’ sites within an area to score 60% or above.
It should be noted that several sites do only score marginally below the threshold. These include Rothwell Recreation Ground and Mill Road Park, both scoring 58% for quality.
Sites assessed as being of particularly high quality and as such, rate well above the threshold are Wicksteed Park (98%) and Rockingham Road Pleasure Park (76%) and Desborough greenspace (76%). Wicksteed Park is a privately owned destination site in the area, which is accessed by both residents and visitors to the Borough. It has a wide range of features, attractions and activities and is maintained to a very high standard. With the right management plan and community involvement, this site has potential to be a Green Flag site. Desborough Greenspace has the additional benefit of gym equipment along a one-kilometre fitness trail. Council officers aspire to further improve this site in a number of ways, including providing opportunities for natural play, installing more seating and picnic benches near the balancing pond, installing interpretation boards and making a feature of the old railway track.
Grafton Street Recreation Ground, scoring 62% for quality is another site to mention. This site is considered a key site to the Council and in the last few years has undergone a redesign. It now offers a number of areas including a play area (which will be further discussed in the play section), a fitness equipment area, a family and informal sport area and a dog agility area.
Green Flag
The Green Flag Award scheme is licensed and managed by Keep Britain Tidy. It provides national standards for parks and greenspaces across England and Wales. Public service agreements identified by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) highlight the importance placed on Green Flag status as an indicator of high quality. This in turn impacts upon the way parks and gardens are managed and maintained.
A survey by improvement charity GreenSpace highlights that parks with a Green Flag Award provide more satisfaction to members of the public compared to those without it. Its survey of 16,000 park users found that more than 90% of Green Flag Award park visitors were very satisfied or satisfied with their chosen site, compared to 65% of visitors to non- Green Flag parks.
To gain the award sites must be maintained to a high standard. Currently there is one park site in Kettering Borough, with Green Flag Award status; Rockingham Road Pleasure Park. In addition to this Green Patch, a community allotment site in the Borough also has Green Flag Award status. This will be further discussed in the allotment section of the report.
March 2020 Assessment Report 31
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Rockingham Road Pleasure Park is a well maintained, historic park with lots to offer including fitness equipment and a range of play equipment. The site has ample seating, lighting for dark evenings, disability friendly pathways and informative signage.
4.5 Value
To determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance); the scores from the site assessments have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the value assessment for parks. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of how the value scores are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 4.4: Value scores for parks
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20% Desborough & Rothwell 49% 59% 70% - 4 Kettering & Burton Latimer 26% 48% 80% - 16 Rural - - - - 0 Overall 26% 50% 80% - 20
All park and garden sites rate above the threshold for value. The highest scoring sites for value are Wicksteed Park (80%), Rockingham Road Pleasure Park (71%) and Desborough Greenspace (70%).
All three of these sites have both cultural and heritage value. Furthermore, Wicksteed Park and Rockingham Road Pleasure Park have significant benefits to health and wellbeing. For example, the latter has a BMX pump track, play provision, exercise equipment and mini golf. In addition, alongside Manor House Gardens, these sites provide economic value through attraction of visitors to the area, as well as revenue generation through on-site attractions and amenities.
The above sites also provide education opportunities, as do several other park and gardens sites including Mill Road Park. Examples of educational opportunities includes signage depicting a sites history, art galleries and forest schools. The latter being at Mill Road Park.
All park and garden sites provide opportunities for a wide range of users and demonstrate the high social inclusion, health benefits and sense of place that parks can offer.
One of the key aspects of the value placed on parks provision is their ability to function as a multipurpose form of open space provision. Parks provide opportunities for local communities and individuals to socialise and undertake a range of different activities, such as exercise, dog walking and taking children to the play area.
Furthermore, parks sites can have ecological value, providing habitats for a variety of wildlife. This is evidenced by 81% of the park and garden sites in the Borough being observed as having high to medium ecological value.
March 2020 Assessment Report 32
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
All this considered, parks and gardens are regularly recognised as being heavily integrated into people’s everyday lives. This is demonstrated by 64% of the sites being observed as having very high levels of use at time of site visit and this form of open space provision being identified through the resident’s survey as the most visited form of open space provision.
4.6 Summary
Parks and gardens 20 sites are classified as parks and gardens equating to over 100 hectares. Catchment mapping shows the majority of higher population density areas are covered by the walk times applied. However, some small gaps are noted to the east of Kettering, the outskirts of Burton Latimer and to the settlement of Mawsley. The gaps identified around the Borough are likely to be met by other forms of open space provision such as amenity, which can provide similar recreation opportunities. Of the 20 park and garden sites across the Borough, 35% score above the quality threshold. Rockingham Road Pleasure Park is the only park site with Green Flag Award status. All park and garden sites rate above the threshold for value. The highest scoring sites for value are Wicksteed Park, Rockingham Road Pleasure Park and Desborough Greenspace scoring 80%, 71% and 70% respectively.
March 2020 Assessment Report 33
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 5: NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL GREENSPACE
5.1 Introduction
Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace Vision Statement A clean, well vegetated, litter free site with clear pathways and natural features that encourages wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental awareness. Management of local sites should involve the community/stakeholder if at all possible and there should be a clear focus on maintaining and increasing the conservation and biodiversity value of these sites and ensuring public access where appropriate. Sites should have a written management plan and measures should be taken to address identified issues at these sites
The natural and semi-natural greenspace typology can include woodland (coniferous, deciduous, mixed) and scrub, grassland (e.g. down-land, meadow), heath or moor, wetlands (e.g. marsh, fen), wastelands (including disturbed ground), and bare rock habitats (e.g. quarries) and commons. Such sites are often associated with providing wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental education and awareness.
5.2 Current provision
In total, there are 50 accessible natural and semi-natural greenspace sites in Kettering Borough, equating to over 784 hectares. There are a further 49 sites which are inaccessible. With these sites included, the total hectarage of natural and semi-natural greenspace increases to over 1,551 hectares.
These totals do not include all provision in the area as a site size threshold of 0.2 hectares has been applied. Sites smaller than this are likely to be of less or only limited recreational value to residents. However, they may still make a wider contribution to local areas, in relation to community viability, quality of life and health and wellbeing. Furthermore, they provide ‘stepping stones’ for flora and fauna enabling freedom of movement for wildlife across the Borough
It is important to recognise that other open spaces such as parks and amenity greenspace often provide opportunities and activities associated with natural and semi-natural greenspace. For example, sites such as Wicksteed Park and Deeble Road South AGS are considered to offer a dual use and purpose. Both sites are observed as offering greater biodiversity and habitats due to the presence of trees and water features.
Table 5.1 below shows quantity standards based on accessible natural and semi-natural greenspace. Table 5.2 shows quantity standards based on all forms of provision.
Table 5.1: Current accessible natural and semi-natural greenspace in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Natural and semi-natural greenspace Number Total hectares Current provision (ha) (ha per 1,000 population) Desborough & Rothwell 10 31.13 1.37 Kettering & Burton Latimer 29 341.37 4.66 Rural 10 411.75 97.48 Overall 50 784.25 7.82
March 2020 Assessment Report 34
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 5.2: Current natural and semi-natural greenspace (including inaccessible sites)
Analysis area Natural and semi-natural greenspace Number Size (ha) Current provision (ha per 1,000 population) Desborough & Rothwell 18 49.82 2.19 Kettering & Burton Latimer 47 628.28 8.57 Rural 34 873.56 206.81 Overall 99 1,551.66 15.48
Fields In Trust (FIT) suggests 1.80 hectares per 1,000 population as a guideline quantity standard. When taking into account all natural and semi-natural provision within the Borough, there is an overall provision of 15.48 hectares per 1,000 head of population. Considering only accessible natural and semi-natural greenspace provision, the Borough has a current provision of 7.82 hectares per 1,000 head of population which exceeds the FIT guidelines. The Rural Analysis Area has the most natural and semi-natural provision with a total of 412 hectares. This makes up 52% of the accessible provision in Kettering Borough.
The two largest accessible open space sites are Geddington Chase and Grafton Park Wood. These sites are 237 and 120 hectares respectively. The former makes up 30% of the overall accessible provision in the Borough.
In the subsequent standards paper, a local standard for Kettering Borough will be set in relation to natural provision.
Designations
Within Kettering Borough there are a number of important wildlife sites including 66 Local Wildlife Sites with a further 101 Potential Wildlife Sites awaiting assessment updates. There are also 11 pocket parks which are owned, maintained and used by the local community for recreation, the protection of wildlife and to provide access to the countryside.
In terms of national designations, there is one Local Nature Reserve (LNR); Tailby Meadow, at a size of 4.93 hectares.
There are also 8 sites in the Borough designated as sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI):
Southfield Farm Marsh (forms part of Site ID 541) River Ise & Meadows (forms part of Site ID 79) Pipewell Woods (Site ID 46) Alderwood & Meadow (not mapped) Stoke & Bowd Lane (not mapped, partial public access) Geddington Chase (forms part of Site ID 147) Birch Spinney & Mawsley Marshes (not mapped, no public access) Cranford St John (Site ID 153)
March 2020 Assessment Report 35
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5.3 Accessibility
Natural England's Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) provides a set of benchmarks for ensuring access to places near to where people live. They recommend that people living in towns and cities should have:
An accessible natural greenspace of at least two hectares in size, no more than 300 metres (five minute walk) from home. At least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home. One accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home. One accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home. One hectare of statutory Local Nature Reserves per thousand population.
On this basis, a population such as Kettering Borough (100,252*) is recommended to have approximately 100 hectares of LNR. Currently a total of just 4.93 hectares is identified, therefore falling short of the recommended amount.
On this basis, investigation into sites which could be designated as LNRs could be undertaken. The Wildlife Site Survey for North Northamptonshire, published by the Wildlife Trust in 2006, highlighted a number of potential wildlife sites, which could be considered for LNR status.
The ANGSt Standard suggests that natural and semi-natural sites over two hectares in size should be accessible to everyone in the area from home within 300m (a five-minute walk) and within a two kilometre walk for sites over 20 hectares.
Consultation and findings from the Residents Survey found that most respondents would expect to travel 30 minutes by car to access natural and semi-natural provision.
For the purpose of catchment mapping, both the ANGSt standard and a 30-minute drive time, based on resident survey responses, have been applied. Figure 5.1 shows catchment mapping with the ANGSt standard applied and Figure 5.2 shows catchment mapping with a 30-minute drive time applied to help inform where deficiencies in provision may be located. This will be reviewed as part of the setting of accessibility standards within the accompanying Standards Paper.
* Source: ONS 2017Mid-Year population estimates for England March 2020 Assessment Report 36
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 5.1: Natural and semi-natural greenspace mapped with ANGSt standards applied
March 2020 Assessment Report 37
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 5.2: Natural and semi-natural greenspace mapped with 30-minute drive time catchment applied
March 2020 Assessment Report 38
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 5.2: Key to sites mapped*
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Beech Close NSN & Millennium Desborough & 2 0.49 71.9% 68.2% Green, Desborough Rothwell Kettering & Burton 20 Deeble Road South NSN 8.98 60.0% 38.2% Latimer Disused Quarry North of 21 Rural 2.47 Newton 22 Rushton Pocket Park Rural 0.29 73.3% 59.1% Kettering & Burton 23 Cransley Wood, Great Cransley 14.92 49.2% 36.4% Latimer Brampton Hill Highway 24 Rural 0.13 Verge/AGS Land at back of St Giles Desborough & 25 0.74 41.7% 31.8% Church, Desborough Rothwell Buckwell Close NSN, Desborough & 26 0.27 31.7% 25.5% Desborough Rothwell Kettering & Burton 27 Cranford Hall NSN 1.32 Latimer Kettering & Burton 28 The Rectory Plantation 1.18 50.0% 37.3% Latimer Kettering & Burton 29 Pendle Avenue NSN 2.15 30.0% 25.5% Latimer Kettering & Burton 30 Union Street NSN 0.32 44.2% 28.2% Latimer Kettering & Burton 31 Cranford Pocket Park 0.27 47.5% 45.5% Latimer Desborough & 32 Rothwell Pocket Park 1.45 57.5% 59.1% Rothwell Kettering & Burton 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park 3.52 78.1% 47.3% Latimer Kettering & Burton 35 Polwell Lane NSN 0.63 38.3% 31.8% Latimer Kettering & Burton 36 Barton Seagrave Pocket Park 2.67 51.7% 48.2% Latimer Kettering & Burton 37 The Shrubbery Spinney 0.47 Latimer Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Kettering & Burton 38 0.94 75.0% 45.5% Park Latimer Broughton Pocket Park - Kettering & Burton 39 0.55 60.0% 51.8% Parsons Spinney Latimer Kettering & Burton 40 The Grange Pocket Park 1.84 54.4% 52.7% Latimer Kettering General Hospital Kettering & Burton 41 0.53 75.3% 64.5% Pocket Park Latimer
* Sites with blank scores are deemed inaccessible/private March 2020 Assessment Report 39
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Kettering & Burton 42 North West Kettering NSN 3.12 Latimer Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Desborough & 43 5.78 62.2% 51.8% Park Rothwell Kettering & Burton 44 Three Corner Spinney 0.32 Latimer 45 Broughton Woods Rural 52.48 46 Pipewell Woods (SSSI) Rural 85.04 22.5% 39.1% 47 Disused Airfield Rural 129.82 Stoke Albany War Memorial 48 Rural 0.31 63.9% 53.6% and Stoke Albany Pocket Valley Walk, Land off Deeble Kettering & Burton 49 Road (near Christ The King 7.66 58.9% 36.4% Latimer Church) Desborough & 50 Tailby Meadow 4.93 54.2% 40.9% Rothwell North Kettering Business Park 52 Rural 21.10 72.2% 42.7% (Southern Site) North Kettering Business Park 53 Rural 29.45 51.7% 33.6% (Northern Site) Bracher's Wood, Kettering Desborough & 54 0.51 37.5% 32.7% Road, Rothwell Rothwell Burton Latimer Meadows, off Kettering & Burton 55 2.14 60.0% 33.6% Virginia Crescent Latimer Mawsley NGS, Off Loddington Desborough & 57 2.78 53.3% 30.9% Way, Mawsley Rothwell Land South of Weekley Wood Kettering & Burton 58 10.98 55.8% 33.6% Lane, Kettering Latimer Jibwood NGS, Land off School Desborough & 59 2.09 56.7% 31.8% Road, Mawsley Rothwell Kettering & Burton 60 Wicksteed Park South Lake 5.34 62.5% 44.5% Latimer Kettering & Burton 61 Coppicemoor Spinney 5.65 Latimer Kettering & Burton 62 Southfield Farm Marsh 2.77 45.8% 57.3% Latimer Kettering & Burton 63 Wicksteed Watermeadows 3.29 67.5% 54.5% Latimer Kettering & Burton 64 Castle Field 6.62 65.8% 47.3% Latimer Kettering & Burton 66 Ise Marsh, Wicksteed 10.26 72.5% 47.3% Latimer Kettering & Burton 67 Burton Latimer Meadows 5.78 38.3% 25.5% Latimer Kettering & Burton 69 Cransley Reservoir 26.14 Latimer
March 2020 Assessment Report 40
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Desborough & 70 Loddington Verge 0.12 Rothwell 71 Geddington Wood Rural 14.25 Kettering & Burton 74 Weekley Hall Wood & Quarry 97.40 56.9% 38.2% Latimer 75 Mill Farm Meadow Rural 3.41 35.8% 35.5% Kettering & Burton 76 Cherry Hall Plantation 6.03 50.0% 40.9% Latimer 77 Grange Road Spinney Rural 13.00 79 Barford Meadows (part SSSI) Rural 23.18 57.5% 50.0% Kettering & Burton 80 Highcroft Farm Meadow 1.41 Latimer Kettering & Burton 82 Broughton Green Lane 2.82 25.0% 30.9% Latimer Desborough & 84 Harrington Pool 1.15 Rothwell Desborough & 91 Mawsley Wood 5.23 28.3% 30.0% Rothwell Desborough & 92 Loddington Coppice 1.92 Rothwell 93 Rushton Park Woodland Rural 2.77 Desborough & 95 Shotwell Mill Meadows 6.89 57.5% 44.5% Rothwell 97 Rushton Grange Meadow Rural 2.30 Desborough & 98 Rothwell Gullet 1.55 Rothwell Desborough & 102 Rothwell Meadow 2.00 Rothwell 103 New Wood Rural 7.78 106 Whitegates Carr Rural 1.12 109 Storefield Wood Corner & Pond Rural 0.33 Desborough & 110 West Lodge Quarry 5.41 Rothwell 111 Gaultney Wood Rural 14.87 116 The Cedars Rural 1.70 Desborough & 118 11-Acre Spinney 6.55 Rothwell Rushton Grange West 123 Rural 5.47 Meadows 124 Storefield Wood Grassland Rural 3.38 125 Askershaw Wood Rural 51.73 Kettering & Burton 128 Northampton Road 1.22 53.6% 27.3% Latimer 129 Goodman's Spinney Rural 4.70 130 Brampton Wood Rural 53.13 March 2020 Assessment Report 41
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score 131 Dingley Wood Rural 8.45 35.0% 35.5% 132 Hermitage Wood Rural 24.20 133 Walter Wood Rural 8.24 135 South Wood Rural 53.53 Kettering & Burton 136 New Lake 0.64 Latimer Kettering & Burton 138 New Lake Meadow 1.18 Latimer 139 Oakley Bushes Rural 3.81 36.7% 30.0% 140 Newton Field Rural 4.99 141 Newton Old Pit Grassland Rural 0.68 Kettering & Burton 142 Grafton Park Wood 120.52 50.8% 37.3% Latimer Kettering & Burton 143 Duck End Quarry 15.04 Latimer Kettering & Burton 144 Old Head Wood 182.68 Latimer Kettering & Burton 145 Sandy Spinney Quarry 16.46 Latimer Kettering & Burton 146 Thorny Coppice 3.52 Latimer 147 Geddington Chase (part SSSI) Rural 236.71 64.4% 40.9% 149 Sart Wood Rural 8.73 Kettering & Burton 151 Cranford Wood 20.32 Latimer Kettering & Burton 152 Quarry End, Cranford 0.67 Latimer Kettering & Burton 153 Cranford St John (SSSI) 2.47 Latimer Kettering & Burton 154 South East Quarry, Cranford 2.49 Latimer Kettering & Burton 155 Kirtley Coppice 3.02 Latimer Kettering & Burton 207 SW Kettering NSN 4.74 41.7% 21.8% Latimer Southfield Farm Marsh (part Kettering & Burton 541 15.32 74.2% 37.3% SSSI) Latimer
Based on ANGSt, Figure 5.1 demonstrates gaps in natural and semi-natural greenspace provision in the Kettering & Burton Latimer Analysis Area. This is attributed to most of the natural and semi-natural sites within the areas of higher population density being smaller sites and as such, having a smaller catchment.
Figure 5.2 shows that there are no catchment gaps within Kettering Borough based on a 30-minute drive time.
March 2020 Assessment Report 42
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Management
Kettering Borough Council owns 15 natural and semi-natural sites. It manages all of these sites with the exception of Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Park, which is currently leased to Desborough Town Council. These sites are displayed in Table 5.3 below.
The ownership and management of other sites varies between a range of organisations including Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust, Wicksteed Trust and the Buccleuch Estate.
Table 5.3: Natural and semi natural sites owned by KBC
Site ID Site Name 20 Deeble Road South NSN 30 Union Street NSN 32 Rothwell Pocket Park 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park 35 Polwell Lane NSN 36 Barton Seagrave Pocket Park 37 The Shrubbery Spinney 38 Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park 39 Broughton Pocket Park - Parsons Spinney 40 The Grange Pocket Park 43 Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Park 49 Valley Walk, Land off Deeble Road (near Christ The King Church) 50 Tailby Meadow 57 Mawsley NGS, Off Loddington Way, Mawsley 128 Northampton Road AGS
March 2020 Assessment Report 43
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5.4 Quality
To determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) scores from the site assessments are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for natural and semi-natural greenspace. A threshold of 50% is applied to divide high from low quality. Further explanation of how the quality scores are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Only the 50 accessible sites receive a quality and value score.
Table 5.3: Quality ratings for assessed natural and semi-natural greenspace
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <50% >50% Desborough & Rothwell 28% 50% 72% 4 7 Kettering & Burton Latimer 25% 55% 78% 9 20 Rural 23% 51% 73% 4 6 Overall 23% 53% 78% 17 33
In some instances natural and semi-natural sites can be intentionally without ancillary facilities in order to reduce misuse/inappropriate behaviour whilst encouraging greater conservation.
Of natural and semi-natural sites assessed, a total of 33 sites (66%) in the Borough rate above the threshold set for quality. There are 17 sites to score below the quality threshold, with the lowest scoring sites being:
Pipewell Woods SSSI (23%) Broughton Green Lane (25%) Mawsley Wood (28%) Pendle Avenue NSN (30%) Buckwell Close NSN, Desborough (32%)
All sites scoring below the threshold for quality tend to be devoid of basic ancillary features such as benches and bins; however, as previously mentioned, this can be due to their purpose as a habitat and even some higher scoring sites lack such features. Most of these sites are also noted to have a lack of signage. This could be beneficial to sites of this typology, potentially providing information about wildlife and plant life for visitors. This being said, there may be a desire to reduce footfall at some sites as part of conservation efforts.
Six of the sites scoring below the threshold are identified as having lower levels of maintenance and cleanliness; Powell Lane NSN, Buckwell Close NSN, Pipewell Woods, Pendle Avenue NSN, Broughton Green Lane and Union Street NSN. For example, Polwell Lane NSN is reported to have issues with litter and Union Street NSN is noted as being overgrown and again, having significant amounts of litter. Despite Pipewell Woods being a SSSI, it scores lower for quality due to maintenance, overgrown paths and part of the site being private.
March 2020 Assessment Report 44
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Union Street NSN is not currently fully accessible but sits between other open spaces sites. Consultation with Council officers suggests that sites such as this could be considered as opportunities for extending and improving the green infrastructure network.
The highest scoring natural and semi-natural sites in Kettering Borough are:
Burton Latimer Pocket Park (78%) Kettering General Hospital Pocket Park (75%) Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park (75%)
These sites, alongside other high scoring sites, have the added benefit of ancillary features such as benches, picnic tables, informative signage, litter bins and dog bins. The sites are also observed as having good disabled access, with well-maintained pathways and reasonable to good levels of personal security.
5.5 Value
To determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) scores from site assessments have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the value assessment for natural and semi-natural greenspace. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of how the value scores are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Only the accessible sites receive a quality and value score.
Table 5.4: Value scores for natural and semi-natural greenspace
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20% Desborough & Rothwell 25% 41% 68% 0 11 Kettering & Burton Latimer 25% 40% 65% 0 29 Rural 30% 42% 59% 0 10 Overall 25% 41% 68% 0 50
All natural and semi-natural sites across the Borough score above the threshold for value. All sites have high ecological value, contributing to flora and fauna, as well as providing habitats for local wildlife.
As well as ecological value, these sites provide benefits to the health and wellbeing of residents and those visiting from further afield. This is a result of the exercise opportunities they provide; for example, through walking and biking trails. Furthermore, they break up the urban form creating peaceful space to relax and reflect. The high levels of natural features also support with improving air quality, particularly in built up areas.
Natural and semi-natural greenspaces were identified by survey respondents as the second most visited form of open space within Kettering Borough.
March 2020 Assessment Report 45
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The highest scoring natural and semi-natural sites for value within the Borough are:
Beech Close NSN & Millennium Green, Desborough (68%) Kettering Pocket Park (65%)
These sites also offer education value through interpretation boards and planting sessions through community involvement. This is the case at other pocket parks in the area too, such as Desborough Pocket Park, where there lots of activities take place including adventure days for children. This further emphasises the key role natural and semi-natural sites can play within communities.
In addition, there are other sites within this typology offering educational value, particularly SSSI sites such as Southfield Farm Marsh, River Ise and Meadows (part of the Barford Meadows site) and Pipewell Woods. Such sites may attract visitors to the area who have an interest in the natural environment.
Sites such as Wicksteed Watermeadows and Beech Close NSN & Millennium Green also have cultural and heritage value. For example, Wicksteed Watermeadows is a grassland site which was historically flooded and drained in order to provide an important role in agriculture for 300 years. This site is now managed by the Wildlife Trust.
Natural and semi-natural greenspaces are also a key contributor to the green infrastructure network. This will be further explored in the green infrastructure network section.
5.6 Summary
Natural and semi-natural greenspace summary In total, there are 50 accessible natural and semi-natural greenspace sites across Kettering Borough, equating to over 784 hectares. There are also 49 sites which are inaccessible. With these sites included, the total hectarage of natural provision increases to over 1,551 hectares. Based on ANGSt standards there are gaps in natural and semi-natural greenspace provision in the Kettering & Burton Latimer Analysis Area. This is attributed to most sites within the higher population density area being smaller in size. There are no catchment gaps within Kettering Borough based on a 30-minute drive time. Of natural and semi-natural sites assessed, a total of 33 sites (66%) in the Borough rate above the threshold set for quality.17 sites score below the quality threshold. There is one local nature reserve Local Nature Reserve (LNR); Tailby Meadow, at a size of 4.93 hectares. There are also eight SSSI sites across the Borough. All natural and semi-natural sites in Kettering score above the threshold for value. The above demonstrates the added benefit natural and semi-natural greenspaces can provide especially in terms of contributing to flora and fauna, providing habitats and breaking up the urban form. Larger sites also provide a good recreational offer.
March 2020 Assessment Report 46
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 6: AMENITY GREENSPACE
6.1 Introduction
Amenity Greenspace Vision Statement A clean and well-maintained greenspace site. Sites should have appropriate ancillary accommodation (dog and litter bins etc), pathways and landscaping in the right places providing a spacious outlook and overall enhancing the appearance of the local environment. Larger sites should be suitable for informal play opportunities and should be enhanced to encourage the site to become a community focus. Smaller sites should adopt a design led approach to discourage inappropriate informal play
Amenity Green Space is defined as sites offering opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas. It includes informal recreation spaces, housing s, village greens and other incidental space.
6.2 Current provision
There are 73 amenity greenspace sites in Kettering Borough equating to over 92 hectares of provision. Sites are most often found within areas of housing and function as informal recreation space or along highways providing a visual amenity. A number of recreation grounds and playing fields are also classified as amenity greenspace.
Table 6.1: Distribution of amenity greenspace sites in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Amenity greenspace Number Total hectares Current provision (ha) (ha per 1,000 population) Desborough & Rothwell 20 21.92 0.96 Kettering & Burton Latimer 47 58.91 0.80 Rural 6 11.36 2.69 Overall 73 92.19 0.92
This typology has a broad range of purposes and as such varies significantly in size. For example, Woodcock Street, Burton Latimer at 0.15 hectares acts as a visual amenity within a road network. In contrast Deeble Road South AGS, at over 10 hectares, is a large recreation ground with a wide range of recreational and sport opportunities.
Fields In Trust (FIT) suggests 0.60 hectares per 1,000 population as a guideline quantity standard. Table 6.1 shows that overall, the Borough is sufficient on this basis. This is also the case for all analysis areas. In the subsequent standards paper, a local standard for Kettering Borough will be set in relation to amenity greenspace provision.
6.3 Accessibility
Consultation and findings from the Residents Survey found that most respondents would expect to travel 10 minutes on foot (33%) to access amenity provision.
March 2020 Assessment Report 47
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
To recognise the role of different amenity sites (due to the variety in such provision), a sub- level classification has been utilised. This is in order to better reflect provision with a more strategic role and those with a more localised function. Sites considered as strategic forms of provision (‘premier’ sites) are larger in size and have a greater level of ancillary facilities. Consequently, they are considered to attract people from a wider area. Other forms of amenity greenspace are referred to as ‘neighbourhood’ sites.
For the purpose of mapping, a 10 minute walk time has been applied for premier sites and a six minute walk for neighbourhood sites (based on FiT guidelines). Figure 6.1 shows the catchments applied to amenity greenspace provision to help inform where deficiencies in provision may be located. This will be reviewed as part of the setting of accessibility standards within the accompanying Standards Paper.
March 2020 Assessment Report 48
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 6.1: Amenity greenspaces with 10 minute walk (premier sites) and 6 minute walk (neighbourhood sites)
March 2020 Assessment Report 49
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 6.2: Key to sites mapped*
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Desborough & 4 Blythe Close 2.24 57.0% 40.0% Rothwell Kettering & 34 Glade Close AGS 0.38 57.3% 31.0% Burton Latimer Desborough Leisure Centre, Desborough & 56 2.20 80.2% 41.0% Ironwood Avenue Rothwell Kettering & 65 North West Kettering AGS 0.47 58.7% 35.0% Burton Latimer AGS around the Museum, Desborough & 72 1.16 52.1% 30.0% Harrington Rothwell Desborough & 81 Neuville Way AGS, Desborough 0.83 51.8% 27.0% Rothwell 83 The Meadows, Geddington Rural 0.86 52.8% 30.0% Kettering & 85 Lake off Thurston Drive 4.13 45.5% 29.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 86 Slade Crescent AGS 0.27 44.6% 26.0% Burton Latimer Desborough & 88 Connoly Drive AGS 0.47 45.5% 30.0% Rothwell Desborough & 89 Nelson Drive AGS 0.22 52.1% 24.0% Rothwell Desborough & 90 Sharman Way AGS 0.28 34.7% 27.0% Rothwell Kettering & 94 The Green, Cranford 0.40 50.7% 31.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 96 The Crescent AGS, Burton Latimer 0.42 46.3% 30.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 100 Cleveland Avenue AGS 0.20 53.7% 20.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 101 Cleveland Avenue AGS 1.09 62.8% 35.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 107 Dalby Close AGS 0.50 48.8% 30.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 108 Malham Drive AGS 0.81 62.8% 45.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 112 Longfellow Drive AGS 0.26 35.5% 29.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 113 Longfellow Drive AGS 0.45 41.3% 35.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 117 Community Centre AGS 0.33 60.3% 37.0% Burton Latimer
* Sites with blank scores have not been assessed due to late inclusion
March 2020 Assessment Report 50
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Kettering & 119 Stamford Road AGS 0.76 43.0% 28.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 121 Alice Gardens AGS 0.26 50.7% 28.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 127 Kettering Sports Ground 0.41 64.1% 30.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 148 Windmill Avenue AGS 0.63 55.4% 39.0% Burton Latimer Desborough & 157 Harrington Road AGS, Loddington 0.25 47.1% 36.0% Rothwell Kettering & 158 Cornfield Way AGS 1.36 52.1% 41.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 162 St Nicholas' Close AGS 0.56 45.5% 25.0% Burton Latimer Community Centre AGS (Ise Kettering & 163 0.67 47.1% 30.0% Lodge) Burton Latimer Kettering & 168 Gleneagles Close AGS 0.23 42.2% 20.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 172 Creighton Crescent 0.30 42.6% 25.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 178 St Botolph's Road AGS 0.30 39.7% 26.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 181 Hanover Close AGS 0.35 50.4% 49.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 185 Delamere Drive AGS 0.57 65.8% 46.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 196 Off Haweswater Road 0.27 43.0% 23.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 209 Harwood Drive AGS 0.27 47.9% 30.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 210 Deeble Road South AGS 10.80 62.3% 47.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 211 Merrivale Footpath 0.66 40.5% 29.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 212 Ise Valley AGS 7.92 44.6% 39.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 213 Welbeck Court 0.41 43.4% 29.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 214 Barton Road NSN 0.28 29.3% 22.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 220 Cranford Road, Burton Latimer 0.61 33.5% 20.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 221 Woodcock Street, Burton Latimer 0.17 48.2% 30.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 223 Yateley Drive, Barton Seagrave 0.46 55.7% 45.0% Burton Latimer
March 2020 Assessment Report 51
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Kettering & 225 Charlotte Place, Kettering 1.02 41.3% 34.0% Burton Latimer Desborough & 228 Well Lane, Rothwell 0.22 44.6% 27.0% Rothwell Kettering & 240 Dearlove Road, Burton Latimer 0.72 47.9% 37.0% Burton Latimer Burdock Way, Cranesbill Close and Desborough & 251 Ironwood Avenue (Land adjacent), 0.36 47.5% 27.0% Rothwell Desborough Kettering & 259 Snetterton Close, Burton Latimer 0.71 54.6% 41.0% Burton Latimer Desborough & 260 Loddington Way, Mawsley 1.30 62.0% 35.0% Rothwell Desborough & 267 The Green, Mawsley 0.20 46.3% 28.0% Rothwell Loddington Way, Fox Coverts, Desborough & 276 Warren End, and Birch Spinney 0.61 51.2% 30.0% Rothwell (Land adjacent), Mawsley Browns Close and Loddington Way Desborough & 283 0.27 51.7% 30.0% (Land adjacent), Mawsley Rothwell Desborough Rushton Road YPC, Desborough & 301 0.25 53.4% 29.0% Desborough Rothwell Kettering & 359 Charlotte Place Kick about area 0.19 58.4% 39.0% Burton Latimer Desborough & 361 Loddington OSF 1.72 Rothwell Wilbarston School playing fields, 362 Rural 0.47 Wilbarston 365 Middle Lane Recreation Ground Rural 0.72 51.8% 48.0% Desborough & 394 Greening Road 0.50 56.9% 38.0% Rothwell Former Desborough Leisure Centre Desborough & 398 2.88 Playing Fields Rothwell Carlton Road Playing Fields, 399 Rural 2.62 Wilbarston Kettering & 402 Pytchley Playing Field 1.09 56.8% 47.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 405 King George V Recreation Ground 0.50 77.1% 47.0% Burton Latimer Northampton Road Recreation Kettering & 422 2.06 53.7% 49.0% Ground Burton Latimer Kettering & 431 Broughton Recreation Ground 2.39 62.0% 51.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 432 Gate Lane Recreation Ground 0.69 67.2% 37.0% Burton Latimer Weekley Glebe Road amenity Kettering & 451 6.21 greenspace Burton Latimer
March 2020 Assessment Report 52
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Recreational Ground, The Green, Desborough & 454 4.16 58.7% 41.0% Mawsley Rothwell Desborough & 540 Desborough Recreation Ground 3.04 69.1% 55.0% Rothwell Kettering & 543 Hall Meadow Park AGS 2.31 68.3% 43.0% Burton Latimer 546 Geddington Recreation Ground Rural 1.21 66.1% 35.0% 547 Main Street AGS, Ashley Rural 2.25
Mapping demonstrates a good distribution of amenity greenspace provision across the Borough, with all areas of higher population density being served by a form of amenity provision within a ten-minute walk time catchment.
This being said, views from the online survey and consultation with Hanwood Park Residents Association suggests that new estates within Kettering Town tend to feature lots of smaller green areas as opposed to larger spaces; with the latter being viewed as providing greater recreational offer and opportunities for community events.
Consultation with Ashley Parish Council highlights that although existing open space is of a good quality, it is perceived that there is an insufficient amount of greenspace in the Parish to meet the residents’ needs. However, there are plans to develop new open spaces.
Responses from the resident’s survey suggests individuals residing within Desborough believe access to amenity greenspace could be improved.
6.4 Quality
To determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by the Companion Guidance); the scores from site assessments have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for amenity greenspaces. A threshold of 50% is applied to divide high from low quality. Further explanation of how the quality scores and thresholds are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 6.3: Quality ratings for amenity greenspaces
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <50% >50% Desborough & Rothwell 35% 53% 80% 6 12 Kettering & Burton Latimer 29% 51% 77% 23 23 Rural 52% 57% 66% 0 3 Overall 29% 52% 80% 29 38
The general quality of amenity greenspaces in the Borough is high, with a 50% threshold being set for quality. A total of 57% of amenity greenspace sites across the Borough rate above the threshold for quality.
March 2020 Assessment Report 53
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The highest scoring sites for quality are:
Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Avenue (80%) King George IV Recreation Ground (77%) Desborough Recreation Ground (69%) Hall Meadow Park AGS (68%) Great Lane Recreation Ground (67%)
All five of these sites are observed as having high standards of maintenance and cleanliness, resulting in a good overall appearance. In addition, they provide good levels of user security, including lighting at King George IV Recreation Ground and Desborough Leisure Centre. Both these sites, as well as Great Lane Recreation Ground also provide parking.
Furthermore, the sites have bins to prevent excessive littering and pathways suitable for various users. Three of the sites; Desborough Leisure Centre, Desborough Recreation Ground and Hall Meadow Park AGS, have ample seating. The latter also has picnic tables.
Desborough Leisure Centre, scoring the highest for quality also has toilets available when the Leisure Centre is open. This site has a good recreational offer including play provision, a skate park and pump track, all of which are well maintained.
It is possible to play ball games at all the high scoring sites, with Great Lane Recreation Ground and Desborough Leisure Centre having football goals. Larger amenity greenspace sites often lend themselves to sporting opportunities such as football. These sporting opportunities as well as other added features on site, such as good quality play areas, provide increased reasons for people to visit such provision.
The two lowest scoring amenity greenspace sites for quality in Kettering Borough are:
Barton Road (29%) Cranford Road, Burton Latimer (34%)
Both these sites lack any ancillary features and formal pathways. The majority of sites scoring below the threshold are smaller sites and are therefore observed as being fairly basic, small pockets of grass. However, despite having little recreational use and fewer ancillary facilities, it is important to recognise they provide a visual amenity and help to break up the urban form.
Two sites; Cranford Road, Burton Latimer and Woodcock Street/Slipton Road Balancing Pond, Burton Latimer, have specific issues relating to general cleanliness and maintenance. This impacts on their overall appearance and attractiveness. Part of the latter site is observed as having issues with drainage, as well as being overgrown.
These other sites are also noted as having a lower standard of general appearance perceived to be relating to overall maintenance:
The Crescent AGS, Burton Latimer Longfellow Drive AGS Cornfield Way AGS Walsingham Avenue AGS Pytchley Playing Field Hanover Close AGS Sharman Way AGs Lilford Place Gardens Hilly Hollies
March 2020 Assessment Report 54
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6.5 Value
To determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) site assessments scores are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of the value scoring and thresholds can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 6.4: Value ratings for amenity greenspace
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20% Desborough & Rothwell 24% 33% 47% 0 18 Kettering & Burton Latimer 20% 34% 58% 0 46 Rural 30% 39% 51% 0 3 Overall 20% 34% 58% 0 67
All amenity greenspace sites score above the threshold for value. Some of the highest scoring sites for value in Kettering Borough are King George IV Recreation Ground (58%) and Gate Lane Recreation Ground (58%). These sites are recognised for the accessible, good quality recreational opportunities they offer (such as sports and play provision) for a wide range of users.
Amenity greenspace should be recognised for its multi-purpose function, offering opportunities for a variety of leisure and recreational activities. It can often accommodate informal recreational activity such as casual play and dog walking. Many sites in the Borough offer a dual function and are amenity resources for residents as well as being visually pleasing.
These attributes add to the quality, accessibility and visibility of amenity greenspace. Combined with the presence of facilities (e.g. benches, landscaping and trees) this means that the better quality sites are likely to be more respected and valued by the local community. The online survey highlights that amenity greenspace is the third most visited type of open space (50.4%).
6.6 Summary
Amenity greenspace summary There are 73 amenity greenspace sites in Kettering Borough equating to over 92 hectares. The Borough is sufficient against the FIT quantity standard of 0.60 hectares per 1,000 head of population. This is also the case for all individual analysis areas. Mapping of a ten-minute walk time catchment demonstrates a good distribution of amenity greenspace provision across Kettering Borough, with all areas of higher population density being served by a form of provision. A total of 57% of amenity sites across the Borough rate above the threshold for quality. The majority of sites scoring below the threshold are smaller sites and are observed as being fairly basic, small pockets of provision. In addition to its multifunctional role, amenity greenspace makes a valuable contribution to visual aesthetics for communities – hence all sites rate above the value threshold.
March 2020 Assessment Report 55
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 7: PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
7.1 Introduction
Provision for Children Vision Statement A site providing a mix of well-maintained formal equipment and enriched play environment in a safe a secure convenient location overlooked by housing and footpaths or located within a larger park facility. The site should have clear boundaries; be clean; be litter, dog, vandalism and graffiti free; and be lit. Sites should also comply with appropriate national guidelines for design and safety
Provision for Young People Vision Statement A site providing a robust yet imaginative play environment for older children in a safe and secure location, with clear separation from younger children facilities, that promotes a sense of ownership. The site should include clean, litter and dog free areas for more informal play and areas of shelter (with seating) and where appropriate sites should be well lit. Sites should also comply with appropriate national guidelines for design and safety
Provision for children and young people includes areas designated primarily for play and social interaction such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard areas and teenage shelters.
Provision for children is deemed to be sites consisting of formal equipped play facilities typically associated with play areas. This is usually perceived to be for children under 12 years of age. Provision for young people can include equipped sites that provide more robust equipment catering to older age ranges incorporating facilities such as skate parks, BMX, basketball courts, youth shelters and MUGAs.
7.2 Current provision
A total of 67 play locations are identified in Kettering Borough as provision for children and young people. This combines to create a total of more than seven hectares. No site size threshold has been applied and as such all provision is identified and included within the audit.
Table 7.1: Distribution of provision for children and young people in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Provision for children and young people Number Total hectares Current provision (ha) (ha per 1,000 population) Desborough & Rothwell 14 0.96 0.04 Kettering & Burton Latimer 46 5.33 0.07 Rural 7 1.03 0.24 Overall 67 7.33 0.07
Locations with multiple forms of play provision, such as formal play equipment, MUGAs and skate parks, have been combined into one play site for the purposes of this analysis. This is due to these sites sharing ancillary features as a result to their close proximity. On this basis, there are 53 play sites which receive a quality and value score.
Play areas can be classified in the following ways to identify their effective target audience utilising Fields In Trust (FIT) guidance.
March 2020 Assessment Report 56
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FIT provides widely endorsed guidance on the minimum standards for play space.
LAP - a Local Area of Play. Usually small landscaped areas designed for young children. Equipment is normally age group specific to reduce unintended users. LEAP - a Local Equipped Area of Play. Designed for unsupervised play and a wider age range of users; often containing a wider range of equipment types. NEAP - a Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play. Cater for all age groups. Such sites may contain MUGA, skate parks, youth shelters, adventure play equipment and are often included within large park sites.
However, Kettering Borough Council are looking to move away from these classifications and apply the classifications of 0-8 years and 9+ years. The amount of provision in each of these classifications can be seen in Table 7.2 below. Some play sites contain equipment falling into both categories.
Table 7.2: Distribution of provision for children by classification
Analysis Area Provision for children and young people 0-8 years 9+ years Both Total Desborough & Rothwell 1 5 5 11 Kettering & Burton Latimer 9 8 19 36 Rural - 1 5 6 Overall 10 14 29 53
Most play sites (55%) have both forms of play provision catering for 0-8 years and 9+ years.
7.3 Accessibility
Accessibility guidance from Fields in Trust (FIT), suggests between a 100m (or 1-minute walk time) up to a 1,000m (or 12.5-minute walk time).
Table 7.3: Accessibility guidelines from Fields in Trust (FIT) for play provision
Form of play provision Walking guideline Approximate time equivalent LAP 100m 1 minute LEAP 400m 5 minute Provision for children NEAP 1,000m 12 ½ minute and young people Other provision 700m 9 minute (e.g. MUGA, Skate park)
Consultation and findings from the resident’s survey found that most respondents would expect to travel between ten minutes (29%) and 15 minutes (33%) to access provision for 0-8-year olds. As such, a 10-minute catchment has been applied to this form of play provision.
Respondents to the resident’s survey suggest they would be willing to travel up to 15 minutes on foot for provision catering for 9+ years. Therefore, this travel time has been applied for sites catering for 9+ years, as well as those sites which have provision for both 0-8 years and 9+ years.
March 2020 Assessment Report 57
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 7.1 shows the catchments applied to provision for children and young people to help inform where deficiencies in provision may be located. This will be reviewed as part of the setting of accessibility standards within the accompanying Standards Paper.
Table 7.3: Accessibility guidelines based on resident’s survey responses
Form of play provision Time willing to travel (on foot) 0-8 years 10 minutes Provision for children 9+ years 15 minutes and young people Both 15 minutes
March 2020 Assessment Report 58
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 7.1: Provision for children and young people with walk times mapped against analysis area
March 2020 Assessment Report 59
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 7.4: Key to sites mapped
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Desborough & 4.1 Play Area Blythe Close 0.06 81.3% 43.6% Rothwell Grafton Street Park Children's Play Kettering & 8.1 0.03 85.4% 49.1% Area Burton Latimer Desborough & 15.1 Well Lane Recreation Ground MUGA 0.02 38.3% 36.4% Rothwell Rockingham Road Pleasure Park Play Kettering & 17.1 0.22 84.1% 69.1% Area Burton Latimer Kettering & 87.1 Springfield Road Playground 0.03 76.3% 50.9% Burton Latimer Kettering & 117.1 Crescent Community Centre Play Area 0.04 Burton Latimer Kettering & 293 Mill Road Play Area - Children's Play 0.19 67.9% 52.7% Burton Latimer 295 Main Street Play Area Rural 0.11 86.6% 54.5% Desborough & 296 Loddington YPC, Loddington 0.06 80.4% 54.5% Rothwell 297 Carlton Road Playground, Wilbarson Rural 0.13 75.1% 54.5% Kettering & 298 Podmore Way CYP, Broughton 0.06 56.1% 49.1% Burton Latimer Loddington Road Play Area, Great Kettering & 299 0.04 78.2% 50.9% Cransley Burton Latimer Desborough Rushton Road YPC Play Desborough & 301.1 0.14 69.2% 45.5% Area Rothwell 302 Playground within Geddington OSF Rural 0.03 57.9% 54.5% Hall Meadow Park - Children's Play Kettering & 303 0.04 86.6% 47.3% Equipment Burton Latimer Desborough & 308 Spring Gardens Play Area 0.04 81.0% 49.1% Rothwell The Paddocks Churchill Way Play Kettering & 311 0.16 47.0% 41.8% Area Burton Latimer Kettering & 318 Gray's Field Play Area 0.11 78.8% 52.7% Burton Latimer Kettering & 319 Play Area "Ise Valley Toddlers" 0.21 80.1% 45.5% Burton Latimer Kettering & 320 Junior Play Area "Ise Valley" 0.03 56.4% 41.8% Burton Latimer Kettering & 321 The Square Play Area 0.06 75.7% 54.5% Burton Latimer Dunkirk Avenue Play Area. Desborough & 322 0.23 84.7% 60.0% Desborough Rothwell North Park Recreation ground play Kettering & 323 0.05 60.7% 41.8% area Burton Latimer 324 Rushton Road Play Area Rural 0.51 87.2% 58.2%
March 2020 Assessment Report 60
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Kettering & 326 Play Area, Bellway Close, Kettering 0.09 75.7% 49.1% Burton Latimer Bird Street and Woodford Road (Land Kettering & 330 0.21 45.8% 54.5% adjacent), Burton Latimer Burton Latimer Playground, Malham Drive, Burton Kettering & 331 0.04 68.8% 54.5% Latimer Burton Latimer Playground, Yateley Drive, Burton Kettering & 332 0.04 86.0% 56.4% Latimer Burton Latimer Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Desborough & 333 0.04 82.2% 45.5% Avenue Rothwell Kettering & 334 Mill Road Park* 0.01 64.5% 45.5% Burton Latimer Hall Meadow Park - Skate Ramp Off Kettering & 337 0.01 37.4% 40.0% Thurston Drive Burton Latimer Kettering & 339 Wicksteed Park Playground 1.06 94.4% 69.1% Burton Latimer Kettering & 341 Brambleside Play Area 2 0.25 71.7% 47.3% Burton Latimer Kettering & 344 Skate Park KBC 0.15 89.7% 58.2% Burton Latimer Skate Ramp - Well Lane Recreation Desborough & 345 0.01 47.4% 58.2% Ground Rothwell 353 Middle Lane BMX Track, Stoke Albany Rural 0.13 47.7% 45.5% Kettering & 359.1 Charlotte Place Play Area 0.14 63.9% 60.0% Burton Latimer Stoke Albany Recreation Ground Play 365.1 Rural 0.12 81.3% 45.5% Area Kettering & 381.1 Highfield Road Parks 0.02 65.4% 50.9% Burton Latimer Desborough & 394.1 Rothwell Play Area 0.07 81.9% 56.4% Rothwell Kettering & 402.1 Pytchley Playing Field Playground 0.28 37.4% 52.7% Burton Latimer Kettering & 405.1 King George V Rec Play Area 0.15 75.1% 50.9% Burton Latimer Kettering & 427 Carey Street OSF 0.20 45.8% 49.1% Burton Latimer Broughton High St Recreation Ground Kettering & 431.1 0.03 37.1% 43.6% - Children Burton Latimer Cycle track, Playing Fields, Gate Lane, Kettering & 432.1 0.21 49.8% 47.3% Broughton Burton Latimer Kettering & 432.4 Play Area, Broughton 0.13 39.9% 43.6% Burton Latimer Kettering & 438 Grantown Close Football area 0.19 40.2% 38.2% Burton Latimer
* Note the basketball area has been removed and will be replaced with two 5-a-side football goals March 2020 Assessment Report 61
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Desborough & 454.2 Mawsley Play Area, Hawthorn Avenue 0.06 82.2% 43.6% Rothwell Kettering & 542 Chapel Close / Manor Road play area 0.03 62.6% 49.1% Burton Latimer Kettering & 259.1 Snetterton Close play area 0.14 52.0% 30.9% Burton Latimer Kettering & 325.1 Pennine Way play area 0.01 67.3% 25.5% Burton Latimer
There is a good spread of provision across the Borough. All areas with a greater population density are within walking distance of a form of play provision. There are some small gaps noted to the east of the settlement of Kettering.
Broughton Parish Council has stated there is a lack of play facilities for older children in the Broughton area. The Broughton Village Hall Association is undertaking considerable redevelopment to provide additional facilities.
Hanwood Park Residents Association also state there is a lack of play provision for all age groups. At present, play provision is reported to be around a 30 minute walk from the bottom end of the new Hanwood Park housing development.
Furthermore, South West Kettering (Headlands Community) refers to comments from recent consultation with its residents regarding how they would like the neighbourhood to look by 2031. Comments point to a perceived lack of children’s play facilities within the area.
7.4 Quality
In order to determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by the Companion Guide); the scores from the site assessments have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for play provision for children and young people. A threshold of 60% is applied to divide high from low quality. Further explanation of the quality scoring and thresholds can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
The quality assessment of play sites does not include a detailed technical risk assessment of equipment. For an informed report on the condition of play equipment the Council’s own inspection reports should be sought.
March 2020 Assessment Report 62
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 7.5: Quality ratings for provision for children and young people
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <60% >60% Desborough & Rothwell 38% 72% 85% 2 9 Kettering & Burton Latimer 37% 65% 94% 14 22 Rural 48% 73% 87% 2 4 Overall 37% 50% 94% 18 35
Quality of provision is generally good across the Borough with two thirds (66%) of sites rating above the threshold. There are however 18 sites rating below the threshold.
There is a significant spread between the highest and lowest scoring sites, with Broughton High St Recreation Ground scoring 37% and Wicksteed Park Playground scoring 94%.
The low score for Broughton High St Recreation Ground reflects its perceived lower levels of maintenance, scoring low for general site appearance and surface quality. The site is noted as looking tired and appears to have low levels of usage. Furthermore, the site has a lack of equipment.
In contrast, Wicksteed Park Playground rates the highest due to its range and excellent condition of play equipment. It also benefits from additional features such as seating, bins, signage, fencing and car parking.
Other sites to receive particularly high ratings for quality include:
Skate Park KBC (90%) Desborough Road Play Area (87%) Hall Meadow Park - Children's Play Equipment (87%) Main Street Play Area (87%) Playground, Yateley Drive, Burton Latimer (86%)
These play areas have a good range of well-maintained equipment and ancillary features including benches, bins and signage. Skate Park KBC also has lighting to allow for use later into the evenings during the winter months.
A number of sites are reported to have lower levels of cleanliness and maintenance. Two notable sites are The Paddocks Churchill Way Play Area and Podmore Way CYP, Broughton. Both are reported as being very dated, with the equipment showing signs of wear and tear. The equipment at Podmore Way CYP, Broughton, is described as being limited. Furthermore, rust is highlighted on a number of pieces of equipment.
The lowest scoring sites are:
Broughton High St Recreation Ground Children (37%) Pytchley Playing Field Playground (37%) Hall Meadow Park - Skate Ramp Off Thurston Drive (37%)
March 2020 Assessment Report 63
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
These lower scoring sites do not score as well for overall appearance and quality of equipment. The exception is Hall Meadow Park which scores reasonably well; however, it lacks some basic ancillary features namely bins, benches and signage.
Several sites are observed as having dated equipment. These include:
The Paddocks Churchill Way Play Area Pytchley Playing Field Playground Podmore Way CYP, Broughton North Park Recreation ground play area Charlotte Place Play Area Junior Play Area "Ise Valley" Highfield Road Playground
Responses from the resident’s survey highlights the view that play provision at Junior Play Area "Ise Valley" requires an upgrade.
Several sites have evidence of vandalism, including graffiti on the play equipment and signage:
Mawsley Youth Area, The Green, Mawsley Junior Play Area "Ise Valley" Carey Street OSF Playground, Malham Drive, Burton Latimer
There are 24 play sites in Kettering Borough noted as having no boundary fencing in place. Play England recently highlighted that removing play boundary fencing can be beneficial, with play areas without fences stimulating greater activity and interaction between equipment and the surrounding environment*.
It states while fencing may help alleviate the risk of dog fouling, conversely a fence might also exacerbate it due to dog owners using it as secure area to exercise their dogs. Furthermore, fencing may make parents feel their children are safer; however, fencing can create the paradox of an overly safe environment, which lacks appropriate and beneficial learning and development opportunities.
As such, restricted capital budgets could be potentially be better spent on more and challenging play equipment. Responses from the resident survey do however highlight that fencing is seen as being important safety feature at play sites.
A lack of fencing does not see a sites quality impacted, with Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Avenue (82%) scoring well above the threshold. This can help children learn to regulate their exploratory play for themselves and not be confined in one space.
* http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/172644/managing-risk-in-play-provision.pdf March 2020 Assessment Report 64
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
7.5 Value
To determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) site assessment scores are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table overleaf summarises the results of the value assessment for children and young people. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of the value scoring and thresholds can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 7.6: Value ratings for provision for children and young people
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20% Desborough & Rothwell 36% 49% 60% 0 11 Kettering & Burton Latimer 25% 49% 69% 0 36 Rural 45% 52% 58% 0 6 Overall 25% 44% 69% 0 53
All play provision in the Borough is rated as being above the threshold for value. This demonstrates the role play provision provides in allowing children to play but also the contribution sites make in terms of giving children and young people safe places to learn, to socialise with others and in creating aesthetically pleasing local environments.
Sites scoring particularly high for value tend to reflect the size and amount/range and standard of equipment present on site. Some of the highest scoring sites are:
Wicksteed Park Playground (69%) Rockingham Road Pleasure Park Play Area (69%) Dunkirk Avenue Play Area, Desborough (60%) Charlotte Place Play Area (60%) Rushton Play Area (58%) Skate Park KBC (58%)
Diverse equipment to cater for a range of ages is also essential. More specifically, provision such as skate park facilities and MUGAs are highly valued forms of play. Sites containing such forms of provision tend to rate higher for value.
It is important to mention that KBC highlight that youth shelters are encouraging a high level of anti-social behaviour where they are located. Therefore, the Council are reviewing their policy with respect to their provision and maintenance. It is possible these will be removed as a facility in the future. For example, the youth shelter at Highfield Road Park Playground is planned to be removed.
It is also important to recognise the benefits of play in terms of healthy, active lifestyles, social inclusion and interaction between children plus its developmental and educational value. The importance of play and of children’s rights to play in their local communities is essential.
March 2020 Assessment Report 65
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
7.6 Summary
Provision for children and young people summary A total of 67 play locations are identified in Kettering Borough as provision for children and young people. This combines to create a total of more than seven hectares. Provision with multiple forms of play equipment are combined to one site with a quality and value score. This is due to these sharing ancillary features as a result of their close proximity. On this basis, there are 53 play sites which are classified and receive a quality and value score. Play areas in the Borough fall into the classifications of 0-8 years or 9+ years. The majority (56%) of play sites have forms of play provision that fit into both 0-8 years and 9+ years. There is a good spread of provision across the Borough. All areas with a greater population density are within walking distance of a form of play provision. There are some small gaps noted to the east of the settlement of Kettering and west of the settlement of Desborough. Quality of provision is generally good across Kettering Borough with two thirds (66%) assessed as above the threshold. There are however 18 sites rating below the threshold. All play provision in the Borough rates above the threshold for value; reflecting the social, healthy and developmental benefits provision can provide.
March 2020 Assessment Report 66
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 8: ALLOTMENTS
8.1 Introduction
Allotments Vision Statement A clean, secure and well-kept site that encourages sustainable development, bio-diversity, healthy living and education objectives with appropriate ancillary facilities (e.g. litter bins and water supply) to meet local needs, well-kept grass and good quality soils. The site should be spacious providing appropriate access and clear boundaries and conform to current best practice and local policy for allotment management
The allotments typology provides opportunities for people who wish to grow their own produce as part of the long-term promotion of sustainability, health and social interaction.
8.2 Current provision
There are 23 sites classified as allotments in Kettering Borough, equating to over 36 hectares. No site size threshold has been applied to allotments and as such all provision is identified and included within the audit.
Table 8.1: Distribution of allotment sites in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Allotments Number of sites Total hectares Current provision (ha) (Ha per 1,000 population) Desborough & Rothwell 4 4.84 0.21 Kettering & Burton Latimer 15 30.10 0.41 Rural 4 1.22 0.28 Overall 23 36.16 0.36
The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) suggests a national standard of 20 allotments per 1,000 households (20 per 2,000 people based on two people per house or one per 100 people). This equates to 0.25 hectares per 1,000 populations based on an average plot-size of 250 square metres (0.025 hectares per plot).
The Borough, as a whole, based on its current population (100,252) meets the NSALG standard. Using this suggested standard, the minimum amount of allotment provision for the Borough is 25 hectares. Existing provision of 36.16 hectares therefore meets this guideline.
8.3 Accessibility
Provision for this typology is generally based on demand; however, survey responses suggest residents of Kettering Borough would be willing to travel 15 minutes by car to access allotment provision. Figure 8.1 shows allotments mapped with this catchment applied. This will be reviewed as part of the setting of accessibility standards within the accompanying Standards Paper.
March 2020 Assessment Report 67
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 8.1: Allotments mapped with a 15-minute drive time catchment applied
March 2020 Assessment Report 68
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 8.2: Key to sites mapped
Site Site name Analysis Area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Kettering & 463 Burton Latimer Allotment 1.80 62.9% 43.8% Burton Latimer Allotment Gardens, Stamford Road, Kettering & 464 1.64 63.7% 44.8% Weekley Burton Latimer Desborough & 466 Desborough Allotments, Desborough 1.36 58.1% 42.9% Rothwell Kettering & 467 Grafton Underwood Allotments 0.55 58.9% 47.6% Burton Latimer 468 Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington Rural 0.35 46.0% 47.6% Kettering & 469 Whitehorse Drive Allotments 2.92 48.4% 44.8% Burton Latimer Desborough & 470 Shotwell Mill Lane Allotments 0.38 58.1% 44.8% Rothwell Desborough & 471 Rushton Road Allotments north 1.25 58.1% 44.8% Rothwell Kettering & 472 Pytchley Allotment 2.05 62.9% 43.8% Burton Latimer Kettering & 473 Railway View Allotments 1.12 50.8% 44.8% Burton Latimer Kettering & 474 Windmill Avenue Allotments South 0.62 62.9% 42.9% Burton Latimer Kettering & 475 Broughton Allotments North 5.38 62.1% 50.5% Burton Latimer Kettering & 476 Margaret Road Allotments 4.87 59.7% 46.7% Burton Latimer Kettering & 477 St Botolph's Road Allotments 1.51 64.5% 44.8% Burton Latimer Kettering & 478 Short Lane Allotments 0.25 61.3% 48.6% Burton Latimer Kettering & 479 Northfield Avenue Allotments 1.73 45.2% 41.0% Burton Latimer The Green Patch Allotments, Valley Kettering & 480 0.72 69.4% 71.4% Walk, Kettering Burton Latimer Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, Kettering & 481 3.92 60.5% 43.8% Kettering Burton Latimer Brachers Field Allotments, Edinburgh Desborough & 482 1.85 54.8% 44.8% Close, Rothwell Rothwell Burton Latimer Allotments, Finedon Kettering & 483 1.02 66.9% 42.9% Road, Burton Latimer Burton Latimer Rushton Allotments, Desborough 484 Rural 0.11 41.1% 47.6% Road, Rushton Allotment Gardens, Middle Lane, 485 Rural 0.13 54.0% 48.6% Stoke Albany 545 Church Street Allotments* Rural 0.62
* Site does not receive a quality of value score due to late inclusion March 2020 Assessment Report 69
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mapping demonstrates a good distribution of allotments across Kettering Borough, with it being well served based on a 15-minute drive time catchment. However, given that waiting lists do exist across Kettering Borough, this would suggest that current supply does not meet the demand. Furthermore, Great Cransley Parish Council highlights that residents would like allotment provision in the area.
Management
The Council does not manage any allotment sites. All allotment sites are managed and operated by either allotment associations or parish councils.
All allotment associations and parish councils were contacted to obtain information on plot number and waiting lists; however, not all were responsive to consultation requests. The number of plots and waiting lists at sites (where known) can be seen in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: Plot numbers and waiting lists where known
Name of site Number of Number on Site ID plots waiting list Number not specified but 474 Windmill Avenue Allotments South 23 approx. a six month wait 466 Desborough Allotments, Desborough 80 10 481 Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, Kettering 130 20 475 Broughton Allotments North Not specified - 468 Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington 21 3 484 Rushton Allotments, Desborough Road 8 - 485 Allotment Gardens, Middle Lane, Stoke Albany 5 - 471 Rushton Road Allotments north 2 - 545 Church Street Allotments, Wilbarston 21 -
Where known, there is currently a waiting list at four allotment sites. The largest waiting list is at Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, where there are currently 20 people on the waiting list. In contrast, Church Street Allotments, Wilbarston Allotment Association reports that it currently has two and a half vacant plots.
To help meet demand and reduce the waiting time for plots – it is suggested that when any new plots become available, they are split into half or quarter plots.
8.4 Quality
To determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) the site assessment scores have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for allotments. A threshold of 55% is applied to divide high from low quality. Further explanation of how the quality scores and thresholds are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
March 2020 Assessment Report 70
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 8.4: Quality ratings for allotments
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <55% >55% Desborough & Rothwell 55% 57% 58% 1 3 Kettering & Burton Latimer 45% 60% 69% 3 12 Rural 41% 47% 54% 3 0 Overall 41% 58% 69% 7 15
Church Street Allotments, Wilbarston does not receive a quality or value score due to late inclusion; however, the Allotment Association reports that the site is of good overall quality with a fresh water supply on site. It does report issues with limited parking available.
The majority of sites assessed for quality rate above the threshold (68%), suggesting a high standard of allotment provision in the Borough. The highest rating sites are:
The Green Patch Allotments, Valley Walk, Kettering (69%) Burton Latimer Allotments, Finedon Road, Burton Latimer (67%)
The Green Patch Allotments is identified as being accessible to all, as well as being maintained to a high standard and having a fresh water supply. It has sufficient boundary fencing, which also prevents illegal use. Furthermore, it contains a number of ancillary features such as seating, signage, litter bins, toilets and shelter for users, all of which are well kept.
Burton Latimer Allotments, Finedon Road, Burton Latimer receives a high quality score for quality due to being well maintained with wide pathways. It does lack some of the features present at The Green Patch Allotments such as seating and toilets; however, it does have shelter, signage and a fresh water supply.
Other high scoring allotments sites are St Botolph's Road Allotments (64%) and Allotment Gardens, Stamford Road, Weekley (64%). In contrast, some of the lowest scoring allotment sites are:
Rushton Allotments, Desborough Road, Rushton (41%) Northfield Avenue Allotments (45%) Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington (46%)
Rushton Road Allotments, Desborough Road is noted as having lower levels of maintenance, this includes maintenance of the pathways which are of a poor quality. These findings are reflective of views of Rushton Parish Council, reporting the site to be of poor quality in its survey response.
Two sites Brachers Field Allotments, Edinburgh Close, Rothwell and Allotment Gardens, Middle Lane, Stoke Albany score only marginally below the quality threshold, with a score of 55% and 54% respectively. Therefore, with some minor improvements, could score above the set threshold.
The Council has now put guidelines in place which is intended to establish a minimum standard for the development of all new allotment field developments within the Borough and as a benchmark for existing provision. March 2020 Assessment Report 71
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The guidelines have been developed from policies of The National Allotment Association, accessibility standards for public open spaces and parks and wider spatial planning standards:
A clean and well-kept site with good quality soils which encourages sustainable development, biodiversity, healthy living and education objectives. Provision for onsite water collection and storage, with an ideal to make the site as self- sufficient for water as is reasonably practicable. Clearly marked pathways through the site which should be easily accessible – main pedestrian pathways should be accessible to those with mobility restrictions, wherever possible. Where appropriate, plots should be available for people with mobility restrictions (disabled/ elderly) such as raised beds – a new site should include this provision. Where possible a central hub (office/storage facility) with power and to include a first aid station. New allotment site provision should include mains electricity. Off Grid renewable generation and storage should be strongly considered for new sites. Appropriate lighting and security, with perimeter fencing and lighting to communal areas. Signage for the site detailing the address of the site with and OS reference for emergency services. Signage should include information of management contacts Management policies should ideally include health & safety policy (with onsite risk assessment), safeguarding policy for vulnerable people, waste policy, bio-diversity policy based on reduction of chemical use
Based on the above, the majority of sites are noted as having good to reasonable levels of personal security, allowing users to feel safe and encouraging more use.
Sites which require attention to maintenance are:
Rushton Allotments, Desborough Road, Rushton Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington Whitehorse Drive Allotments Northfield Avenue Allotments Railway View Allotments
Sites which could have improvements made to allow for better disabled access are:
Brachers Field Allotments, Edinburgh Close, Rothwell Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington St Botolph's Road Allotments Northfield Avenue Allotments Rushton Allotments, Desborough Road, Rushton
8.5 Value
In order to determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) site assessments scores have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of how the value scores and thresholds are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
March 2020 Assessment Report 72
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 8.5: Value ratings for allotments
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20% Desborough & Rothwell 43% 44% 45% 0 4 Kettering & Burton Latimer 41% 47% 71% 0 15 Rural 48% 48% 49% 0 3 Overall 41% 46% 71% 0 22
All allotment sites in the Borough are assessed as high value. This is a reflection of the associated social inclusion and health benefits, amenity value and the sense of place offered by such forms of provision.
The highest scoring site for value is The Green Patch Allotments, Valley Walk, Kettering (71%). This is unsurprising given that it is community focused allotment site, hosting a range of volunteer days, children's clubs, education sessions and family events. The impact this site has on local people’s lives is evidenced in over 100 adults and children visiting every week.
The value of allotments is further demonstrated by the existence of waiting lists identified at sites (where known) signalling demand for provision.
8.6 Summary
Allotments summary There are 23 allotment sites in Kettering Borough, equating to over 36 hectares. Kettering Borough, as a whole, based on its current population (100,252) meets the NSALG standard. Using the suggested standard, the minimum amount of provision for the Borough is 25 hectares. Existing provision of 36.16 hectares therefore meets this guideline. Mapping demonstrates a good distribution of allotments across Kettering Borough, with the Borough being well served based on a 15-minute drive time catchment (applied based on resident survey responses). However, given that waiting lists do exist within the Borough, this would suggest that current supply does not meet the demand. Where known, there is currently a waiting list at four allotment sites. The largest waiting list is at Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, where there are currently 20 people on the list. In contrast, Church Street Allotments, Wilbarston Allotment Association reports that it currently has two and a half vacant plots. Great Cransley Parish Council highlight residents would like allotment provision in the area. The majority of sites assessed for quality rate above the threshold (68%), suggesting a high standard of allotment provision in the Kettering Borough. All allotments are assessed as high value reflecting the associated social inclusion and health benefits, their amenity value and the sense of place offered by provision.
March 2020 Assessment Report 73
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 9: CEMETERIES/CHURCHYARDS
9.1 Introduction
Cemeteries and Churchyards Vision Statement A clean, secure and well-kept site that encourages sustainable development, bio-diversity, healthy living and education objectives with appropriate ancillary facilities (e.g. litter bins and water supply) to meet local needs, well-kept grass and good quality soils. The site should be spacious providing appropriate access and clear boundaries and conform to current best practice and local policy for allotment management
Cemeteries and churchyards include areas for quiet contemplation and burial of the dead. Sites can often be linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity.
9.2 Current provision
There are 42 sites classified as cemeteries/churchyards, equating to over 28 hectares of provision in Kettering Borough. No site size threshold has been applied and as such all identified provision is included within the audit.
Table 9.1: Distribution of cemeteries in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Number of sites Total hectares (ha) Desborough & Rothwell 8 7.09 Kettering & Burton Latimer 23 17.91 Rural 11 3.12 Overall 42 28.12
The largest contributor to burial provision is London Road Cemetery (5.80 hectares).
9.3 Accessibility
No accessibility standard is set for this typology and there is no realistic requirement to set such standards. Provision should be based on burial demand. Burial capacity of the cemeteries managed by the Council can be seen in table 9.2 below.
Table 9.2: Remaining burial capacity in Kettering Borough
Site ID Site Number of Number of years available plots remaining* 526 Rothwell Road Crematory and Cemetery 3,095 49 520 London Road Cemetery Closed Closed 522 Broughton cemetery 496 141 522 Broughton cemetery 374 49 496 St Andrews Church, Great Cransley 100 14.3 500 Desborough Cemetery, Desborough 103 10 511 Pytchley Cemetery 176 44 505 Rothwell Cemetery 345 32 Total 4,689 339.3
* Burial space / average new burials per year over 5 years. Source: KBC (2019) March 2020 Assessment Report 74
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
As can be seen in the table above, the Borough has just over 339 years of burial capacity remaining, with a total of 4,689 available plots. Figure 9.1 shows cemeteries and churchyards mapped against analysis areas.
March 2020 Assessment Report 75
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 9.1: Cemetery sites mapped against analysis area
March 2020 Assessment Report 76
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 9.3: Key to sites mapped
Site Site name Analysis Area Size (ha) Quality Value ID score score St Botolph's Church, Stoke 486 Rural 0.29 52.8% 40.0% Albany Kettering & 487 St Marys Church Weekley 0.42 41.8% 40.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 488 St Edmunds Church, Warkton 0.29 56.1% 46.0% Burton Latimer 489 St Mary's Church Ashley Rural 0.29 58.6% 39.0% 490 St Peter's Church, Little Oakley Rural 0.13 27.7% 38.0% 491 All Saints Church, Dingley Rural 0.15 37.9% 49.0% St Peter and Paul's Church, Desborough & 492 0.66 56.2% 40.0% Harrington Rothwell 493 All Saints Church, Braybrooke Rural 0.41 52.2% 42.0% Desborough & 494 St Leonard's Church, Loddington 0.34 53.4% 40.0% Rothwell 495 All Saints Church, Wilbarston Rural 0.40 46.6% 39.0% St Andrews Church, Great Kettering & 496 0.18 55.5% 40.0% Cransley Burton Latimer 497 St Mary's Church Brampton Ash Rural 0.20 50.9% 41.0% 498 All Saints Church, Rushton Rural 0.36 52.2% 44.0% Anglican Church of St Giles, Desborough & 499 0.44 53.4% 36.0% Desborough Rothwell Desborough Cemetery, Desborough & 500 2.35 66.9% 55.0% Desborough Rothwell St James Church, Grafton Kettering & 501 0.23 51.9% 40.0% Underwood Burton Latimer 502 St Mary Magdalen Church Rural 0.41 55.9% 40.0% St Faith's Church (Newton Field 503 Rural 0.16 54.0% 47.0% Centre) Desborough & 504 St Bernadettes Church, Rothwell 0.22 54.6% 38.0% Rothwell Desborough & 505 Rothwell Cemetery 2.37 66.9% 47.0% Rothwell Holy Trinity Churchyard, Desborough & 506 0.61 59.0% 37.0% Rothwell Rothwell Burton Latimer Cemetery (far Kettering & 507 1.36 58.6% 40.0% end) Burton Latimer Kettering & 508 St Johns Church, Cranford 0.35 58.4% 40.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 509 St Andrews Church, Cranford 0.25 55.6% 40.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 510 All Saints Church, Pytchley 0.26 52.8% 42.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 511 Pytchley Cemetery 0.11 37.3% 36.0% Burton Latimer March 2020 Assessment Report 77
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Site name Analysis Area Size (ha) Quality Value ID score score Kettering & 512 Pythcley Cemetery 2 0.20 59.9% 41.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 513 St Marys Church Burton Latimer 0.38 50.7% 41.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 514 Burton Latimer Cemetery 0.22 36.0% 29.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 515 All Saints Church Kettering 0.13 54.0% 35.0% Burton Latimer London Road United Reformed Kettering & 517 0.08 50.5% 32.0% Church Burton Latimer St Michael and All Angels Kettering & 518 0.13 49.3% 56.0% Church Burton Latimer Kettering & 519 St Marys Chuch Kettering 0.12 50.9% 33.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 520 London Road Cemetery 5.80 60.9% 37.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 521 All Saints Church, Thorpe Malsor 0.22 49.7% 35.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 522 Broughton cemetery 0.83 49.4% 41.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 523 St Botolph's Church 0.32 60.0% 43.0% Burton Latimer St Mary's Church Weston by 524 Rural 0.33 55.9% 40.0% Holland Kettering & 525 Church of Latter Day Saints 5.35 58.4% 36.0% Burton Latimer Rothwell Road Crematory and Kettering & 526 0.11 82.0% 29.0% Cemetery Burton Latimer Desborough & 527 All Saints Church, Orton 0.40 32.3% 28.0% Rothwell Kettering & 528 St Peter and St Pauls Church 0.29 38.5% 36.0% Burton Latimer Kettering & 529 St Andrew's Church, Broughton 0.29 55.7% 40.0% Burton Latimer
In terms of provision, mapping demonstrates a fairly even distribution across the area. As noted earlier, the need for additional cemetery provision should be driven by the requirement for burial demand and capacity.
March 2020 Assessment Report 78
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
9.4 Quality
To determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) site assessments scores are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for cemeteries. A threshold of 50% is applied to divide high from low quality. Further explanation of how the quality scores and threshold are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 9.4: Quality ratings for cemeteries
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <50% >50% Desborough & Rothwell 32% 55% 67% 1 7 Kettering & Burton Latimer 36% 53% 82% 6 17 Rural 31% 50% 59% 3 8 Overall 31% 53% 82% 10 32
The majority of cemeteries and churchyards in Kettering Borough (76%) rate above the threshold set for quality, suggesting a reasonably high standard of quality for this form of open space provision within the area.
Rothwell Road Crematory and Cemetery is the highest scoring site for quality with a score of 82%. It is observed that this cemetery is very well-maintained with attractive landscaping and well-kept graves. This site also has excellent, wide paths, allowing for wheelchair access; and an abundant supply of benches, as well as the added benefit of car parking and garden of remembrance.
Desborough Cemetery and Rothwell Cemetery both receive the second highest quality score for this typology (67%). This can be attributed to again, a good overall standard of maintenance and cleanliness making it a pleasant environment in which to remember loved ones. Furthermore, these sites have similar features as Rothwell Road Crematory and Cemetery, making it a place where people can spend time and reflect.
The lowest scoring sites, rating below the quality threshold are:
St Peter's Church, Little Oakley (32%) All Saints Church, Orton (32%) Burton Latimer Cemetery (36%)
The latter two sites score lower for personal security and have no available seating. St Peters Church, Little Oakley is noted as having a bench which is poorly maintained, as well as having loose gravestones which are unmaintained.
There are 18 sites observed as containing loose headstones; however, all these sites except one; London Road Cemetery, score well for overall site maintenance.
March 2020 Assessment Report 79
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
9.5 Value
To determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) site assessment scores are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the value assessment for cemeteries. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of how the value scores and threshold are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 9.5: Value ratings for cemeteries
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <20% >20% Desborough & Rothwell 29% 40% 55% 0 8 Kettering & Burton Latimer 28% 39% 56% 0 23 Rural 38% 42% 49% 0 11 Overall 28% 40% 56% 0 42
All cemeteries and churchyards are assessed as being of high value, reflecting their role within communities. The cultural/heritage value of sites and the sense of place they provide to and for local people is acknowledged in the site assessment visits.
Cemeteries and churchyards should be viewed as important natural resources, offering both practical and conservation benefits. As well as providing burial space, cemeteries and churchyards can often offer important low impact recreational benefits to the local area (e.g. habitat provision, wildlife watching).
9.6 Summary
Cemeteries summary There are 42 cemeteries/churchyard sites, equating to over 28 hectares of provision. In terms of provision, mapping demonstrates a fairly even distribution across the area; however, the need for additional cemetery provision should be driven by the requirement for burial demand and capacity. There is circa 399 years of burial capacity remaining in the Borough. The majority of cemeteries and churchyards in the Borough (76%) rate above the quality threshold, suggesting a reasonably high standard of quality for provision within the area. All cemeteries are assessed as high value across the Borough, reflecting their role within communities, as well as their cultural/heritage role and conservation benefits.
March 2020 Assessment Report 80
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 10: CIVIC SPACE
10.1 Introduction
Civic Space Vision Statement A clean, well-maintained, safe and secure site, with generally hard landscaping but may accommodate soft areas. Sites should be adequately designed and maintained in order to serve a particular civic function. Ancillary accommodation, including toilets, lighting and CCTV should be provided where appropriate.
The civic space typology includes civic and market squares and other hard surfaced areas designed for pedestrians, providing a setting for civic buildings, public demonstrations and community events.
10.2 Current provision
There are eleven civic space sites, equating to less than one hectare of provision, identified in Kettering Borough. In addition, there are likely to be other informal pedestrian areas, streets or squares which may be viewed as providing similar roles and functions as civic space.
Table 10.1: Distribution of civic spaces in Kettering Borough
Analysis area Civic space Number of sites Total hectares (ha) Desborough & Rothwell 5 0.25 Kettering & Burton Latimer 5 0.53 Rural 1 0.003 Overall 11 0.78
Civic space provision is identified in all three analysis areas; however, the majority of the provision is split between Desborough & Rothwell and Kettering & Burton Latimer. The Rural Analysis Area has a small civic space site, totalling 0.003 hectares in size.
The largest site is Market Place in Kettering Town Centre at 0.2 hectares (Kettering & Burton Latimer Analysis Area).
Other sites and areas will function in a secondary role similar to civic space provision. For example, park sites such as Municipal Offices Gardens provide uses associated with civic spaces - including local community events and services. For the purposes of this report such sites have not been classified as civic space provision due to their more prominent primary function and use.
10.3 Accessibility
Consultation and findings from the Residents Survey found that most respondents would expect to travel 15 minutes on foot (28%) to access civic space provision. Figure 10.1 shows this catchment applied to civic space provision to help inform where deficiencies in provision may be located. This will be reviewed as part of the setting of accessibility standards within the accompanying Standards Paper.
March 2020 Assessment Report 81
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 10.1: Civic mapped with a 15-minute walk time catchment applied
March 2020 Assessment Report 82
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 10.2: Summary of sites
Site Site name Analysis area Size Quality Value ID (ha) score score Diana Memorial Rose 3 Gardens Memorial, Desborough & Rothwell 0.03 49.8% 25.0% Desborough 7 Churchill Way Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.18 63.4% 47.0% 531 Queen Eleanor Cross Rural 0.003 37.7% 59.0% 532 Bridge Street Civic Space Desborough & Rothwell 0.05 61.6% 64.0% 533 Horsemarket Open Space Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.11 57.4% 55.0% 534 The Clock Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.03 51.7% 38.0% 535 Market Place Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.20 68.5% 65.0% Alfred East Memorial 536 Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.01 60.3% 47.0% Gardens 537 Desborough Civic Space Desborough & Rothwell 0.07 51.6% 41.0% Havelock Street/Station Road 538 Desborough & Rothwell 0.05 50.9% 31.0% Corner, Desborough 539 War Memorial Desborough & Rothwell 0.05 42.9% 46.0%
When considering the purpose of civic spaces of providing space for public demonstrations and community events, they are likely located in areas of higher population density, where people may congregate. When observing Figure 10.1, there is a generally good distribution of civic spaces across the areas of higher population density. There are some gaps in the Kettering & Burton Latimer Analysis Area. These are likely; however, to be being met by other sites such as the previously mentioned Municipal Offices Gardens, which is defined as a park and garden site but could also act as a civic space.
Rather than looking to provide new standalone provision of this type, the focus may be towards providing areas within existing sites, which could be used for community events and gatherings.
10.4 Quality
In order to determine whether sites are high or low quality (as recommended by guidance); the scores from the site assessments have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the quality assessment for civic spaces. A threshold of 50% is applied to divide high from low quality. Further explanation of how the quality scores and thresholds are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
March 2020 Assessment Report 83
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 10.3: Quality ratings for civic spaces
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <50% >50%
Desborough & Rothwell 43% 51% 62% 2 3 Kettering & Burton Latimer 52% 60% 68% 0 5 Rural 38% 38% 38% 1 0 Overall 38% 54% 68% 3 8
Eight out of the 11 civic spaces rate above the threshold set. The highest scoring sites are Market Place (69%) and Churchill Way Gardens (63%).
These sites are observed as being well maintained with seating, bins to maintain cleanliness, good quality surfaces and lighting to increase user security. Market Place is noted as having an attractive design and is surrounded by bars and restaurants.
Diana Memorial Rose Gardens, Desborough does score below the threshold for quality; however, this is only marginal, receiving a score of (49.8%). As such, it could be considered as scoring on the threshold and should be appraised for potential enhancements.
Queen Eleanor Cross and War Memorial receive scores of 43% and 38% respectively. Queen Eleanor Cross has no ancillary features and is in the centre of a road network. As such, it also has no pathways making it less accessible and more of a visual feature. The War Memorial is reported as requiring improvements to overall maintenance.
10.5 Value
To determine whether sites are high or low value (as recommended by the Companion Guidance) site assessment scores have been colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The table below summarises the results of the value assessment for civic spaces. A threshold of 20% is applied to divide high from low value. Further explanation of how the value scores and thresholds are derived can be found in Part 2 (Methodology).
Table 10.4: Value ratings for civic spaces
Analysis area Scores (%) No. of sites Lowest Average Highest score score score <50% >50% Desborough & Rothwell 25% 41% 64% 0 5 Kettering & Burton Latimer 38% 50% 65% 0 5 Rural 59% 59% 59% 0 1 Overall 25% 47% 65% 0 11
All 11 civic spaces are rated as being of high value, reflecting their role as an important function to the local communities and areas.
Market Place and Bridge Street Civic Space receive the highest value scores, with 65% and 64% respectively. March 2020 Assessment Report 84
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Market Place provides a space for a number of events, including cultural events and play events for children. As such, this site offers educational and cultural value. Furthermore, given its central location in Kettering town centre, it is not only used for formalised events but also as a space for people to socialise. Given the events held in the Market Place and the surrounding café and restaurants this site is considered to provide an economic benefit to the Town. Bridge Street Civic Space provides similar opportunities with markets taking place at the site.
10.6 Summary
Civic space summary There are 11 civic spaces in Kettering Borough equating to less than one hectare. Other forms of provision in the area (e.g. parks and gardens) also provide localised opportunities associated with the function of civic space. Eight out of the 11 civic spaces rate above the threshold set. The highest scoring sites are Market Place (69%) and Churchill Way Gardens (63%). All 11 civic spaces are rated as being of high value, reflecting their role as an important function to the local communities and areas. Sites are recognised as providing an important social, economic and amenity roles to local communities and the areas they serve.
March 2020 Assessment Report 85
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 11: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines Green Infrastructure (GI) as network of multi-functional green space urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. It is an essential requirement for the enhancement of quality of life, for existing and future generations, and an integral element in the delivery of ‘liveability’ for sustainable communities. Its provision, and importantly, its connectivity is relevant at every level from county wide rural landscapes down to a local level within larger urban as well as small rural settlements.
Paragraph 114 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities (LPA) should set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and GI. Planning Practice Guidance provides more detail on what this might mean in practice for LPAs.
The unique geography and historic development of Kettering has provided a legacy of green and blue infrastructure across the Borough that hosts places and open spaces for people and wildlife to benefit from. Historic parks like Wicksteed and Boughton House offer unique and memorable experiences for visitors. Natural and semi natural landscapes like Desborough Green Space and Burton Latimer Pocket Park provide a haven of habitats for wildlife. Natural corridors like Slade Brook and Valley Walk along the River Ise enable sustainable movement and are visually attractive.
The Borough’s amenity green spaces nestle in a framework of places where people live and work; they bring about place identity and create a sense of community. Allotments like Windmill Avenue promote healthy lifestyles and improve mental well-being, play areas like Meadow Road and teen facilities such as the Ise Skate Park provide active recreational opportunities for children and young people. Other places and open spaces are available for quiet reflection and contemplation like the grounds of London Road Cemetery.
North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2016)
The green infrastructure network (GIN) across Kettering Borough, is part of the wider GIN for North Northamptonshire. Policy 19 of the JCS identifies the Sub-regional, and Local Green Infrastructure Corridors for North Northamptonshire. It sets out the strategic approach to the delivery of these corridors.
Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2018)
These Sub-Regional and Local Green Infrastructure Corridors provide the strategic framework for the County. To ascertain green infrastructure on a local level Kettering Borough Council commissioned the development of the Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2018) (GIDP) for the Borough*. This document identifies seven new Borough Level GI Corridors, which support and enhance the Sub Regional and Local Corridors. Table 11.1 identifies the green infrastructure corridors that relate to Kettering Borough. The corridors are mapped in to show their relationship with the Borough’s settlements in Figure 11.1 and with regard to population density in Figure 11.2 overleaf.
* file:///C:/Users/al/Downloads/GIDP_Reduced%20(2).pdf March 2020 Assessment Report 86
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 11.1: Green infrastructure corridors for Kettering Borough
Sub Regional Local Corridors Borough Level Corridors Corridors
2: Ise Valley 8: Sywell Reservoir - Broughton a: Macmillan Way to North West Kettering
3: Jurassic Way 10a: Rothwell (Triangular Lodge) – b: Ise Valley to Macmillan Way Wicksteed Park
10b: Wicksteed Park - Thrapston c: North Kettering
11: Top Lodge - Desborough d: Slade Brook
12a: Macmillan Way e: Kettering to Pytchley
12b: Stoke Albany – Little Oakley f: Broughton to Pytchley
13a: Boughton Park – Titchmarsh Wood g: Barton Seagrave to Burton Latimer
14a: Geddington - Stanion
20: Wellend Valley
March 2020 Assessment Report 87
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.1: GIN in Kettering Borough mapped against settlements
March 2020 Assessment Report 88
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.2: GIN in Kettering Borough mapped against population density
March 2020 Assessment Report 89
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Refining the GI corridors at a Borough scale make it possible to understand how Kettering’s GI functions at the local level. The Borough corridors, in tandem with the sub-regional and local corridors, provide a focus for investment to ensure the overall function and quality of the green infrastructure network for Kettering Borough is a justified outlay. The GIDP uses the Local Level Corridors to identify opportunities to develop the GIN across the Borough by:
Improving access Increasing quality Increasing quantity Improving the biodiversity which also support with providing habitats Creation of strong networks for both humans and animals Ensuring new developments contribute to the GIN
A number of project opportunities have been identified in the GIDP. These are illustrated in Figure 11.3. The key to this map is set out below in Table 11.2. The list of project opportunities is not exhaustive. As these are delivered more will be identified to continue a programme of continuous improvement
Table 11.2: Key to GIDP projects
Map Id Site 0 Desborough Meissen Way Open Space 1 Glendon Lake 2 Ise Valley Country Park 3 Desborough Ise Valley Park 5 Slade Brook Urban Corridor 6 North Kettering Country Park 7 Wicksteed Park to South Field Farm 8 Burton Latimer Park Improvements and Links 9 Burton Latimer Football Ground 11 Rothwell Gullet Nature Reserve 14 Broughton Community Orchard 15 Broughton Pocket Park 16 Cotswold Avenue Park Improvements 17 Harvest Close Drainage Improvements 18 Desborough North Greenspace
All open space typologies are assets within GIN, therefore, quality improvements, as well as exploring ways to better connect open spaces, would support the aims set out in the GIDP. Figure 11.4 illustrates how the Borough’s open spaces relate to the GIN.
Funding sources and opportunities for project delivery to enhance the GIN may vary depending on several factors e.g. the source of funding, the location of development the priority of the Council. To prioritise opportunities to enhance the GIN all the Borough’s open spaces that are located on or directly adjacent to the Borough Level, Local and Sub- Regional corridors have been mapped in Figures 11.5, 11.6 and 11.7 respectively (see below). The key to these figures is also shown in Table 11.3.
March 2020 Assessment Report 90
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.3: Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan (GIDP) Projects on Green Infrastructure Corridors
March 2020 Assessment Report 91
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.4: Open space sites which sit on the green infrastructure network
March 2020 Assessment Report 92
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.5: Accessible green spaces on or adjacent to borough corridors
March 2020 Assessment Report 93
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.6: Accessible green spaces on or adjacent to local corridors
March 2020 Assessment Report 94
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 11.7: Accessible green spaces on or adjacent to sub-regional corridors
March 2020 Assessment Report 95
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 11.3: Key to Figures 11.5, 11.6 and 11.7
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 1 Lower Street Memorial Gardens Parks and Gardens Desborough & Rothwell 0.1041 Yes 2 Beech Close NSN & Millennium Green Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 0.4808 Yes 3 Dianna Memorial Rose Gardens Memoria Civic Spaces Desborough & Rothwell 0.0295 Yes 4 Rothwell Recreation Ground Parks and Gardens Desborough & Rothwell 2.2419 4.1 Play Area Blythe Close Childrens play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0551 5 Manor Park Parks and Gardens Desborough & Rothwell 2.1338 Yes 6 The Paddocks Churchill Way Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2246 7 Churchill Way Gardens Civic Spaces Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1763 8 Grafton Street Recreation Ground Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.3672 Yes 8.1 Grafton Street Park Children's Play Area Childrens play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0294 8.2 Garfton Street Recreation Playground Childrens play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1052 10 Garden of Rest Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1719 11 Manor House Gardens Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3529 12 Jubilee Gardens South Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0600 13 Jubilee Gardens North Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1659 15 Well Lane Recreation Ground Parks and Gardens Desborough & Rothwell 2.6766 Yes 15.1 Well Lane Recreation Ground MUGA Childrens play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0248 Yes 16 Municipal Offices Gardens Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3057 17 Rockingham Road Park Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.6352 17.1 Rockingham Road Pleasure Park Play Area Childrens play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2174
March 2020 Assessment Report 96
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region Rockingham Road Pleasure Park - Young Childrens play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 17.2 0.1237 People 18 Wicksteed Park Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 41.2569 Yes 19 Mill Road Park Parks and Gardens Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4958 20 Deeble Road South NSN Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 8.9777 Yes 22 Rushton Pocket Park Semi / Natural Rural 0.2869 Yes 23 Cransley Wood, Great Cransley Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 14.9241 Land at back of St Giles Church, Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 25 0.7415 Yes Desborough 26 Buckwell Close NSN, Desborough Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 0.2671 Yes 28 The Rectory Plantation Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.1768 29 Pendle Avenue NSN Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.1524 30 Union Street NSN Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3167 Yes 31 Cranford Pocket Park Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2717 32 Rothwell Pocket Park Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 1.4471 Yes 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 3.5193 Yes 34 Glade Close AGSa Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3825 35 Polwell Lane NSN Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6285 Yes 36 Barton Seagrave Pocket Park Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.6654 38 Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.9419 Yes 39 Broughton Pocket Park - Parsons Spinney Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5444 Yes 40 The Grange Pocket Park Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.8424 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 97
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 41 Kettering General Hospital Pocket Park Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5324 43 Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Park Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 5.7814 Yes 46 Pipewell Woods Semi / Natural Rural 85.0377 Yes Stoke Albany War Memorial & Stoke Albany Semi / Natural Rural 48 0.389 Yes Pocket 49 Valley Walk, Land off Deeble Road Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 7.6586 Yes 50 Land South of Broadlands Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 4.9274 Yes 51 Desborough Greenspace Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 28.9365 Yes North Kettering Business Park (Southern Semi / Natural Rural 52 21.1038 Yes Site) North Kettering Business Park (Northern Semi / Natural Rural 53 29.4549 Yes Yes Site) 54 Bracher's Wood, Kettering Road Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 0.5089 55 Burton Latimer Meadows Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.1378 Yes Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 56 2.2025 Yes Avenue 57 Mawsley NGS Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 2.7835 Land South of Weekley Wood Lane, Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 58 10.9818 Yes Kettering 59 Jibwood NGS Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 2.0855 60 Wicksteed Park South Lake Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 5.3371 Yes 62 Southfield Farm Marsh Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.7691 Yes 63 Wicksteed Watermeadows Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 3.2889 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 98
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 64 Castle Field Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 6.6232 Yes 65 North West Kettering AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4706 66 Ise Marsh, Wicksteed Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 10.2590 Yes 67 Burton Latimer Meadows Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 5.7752 Yes 72 AGS around the Museum Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 1.1643 74 Weekley Hall Wood & Quarry Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 97.4034 Yes Yes 75 Mill Farm Meadow Semi / Natural Rural 3.4112 Yes 76 Cherry Hall Plantation Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 6.0307 79 Barford Meadows Semi / Natural Rural 23.1810 Yes Yes 81 Neville Way AGS Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.8271 Yes 82 Broughton Green Lane Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.8216 Yes 83 The Meadows, Geddington Amenity greenspace Rural 0.8618 Yes Yes 85 Lake off Thurston Drive Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 4.1282 Yes 86 Slade Crescent AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2725 87 Spring Rise Park Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.2788 87.1 Springfield Road Playground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0331 87.2 Multi Use Games Area Springfield Road Childrens play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0738 88 Connoly Drive AGS Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.4722 89 Nelson Drive AGS Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2206 90 Sharman Way AGS Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2785 91 Mawsley Wood Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 5.2257 94 The Green, Cranford Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4012
March 2020 Assessment Report 99
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 95 Shotwell Mill Meadows Semi / Natural Desborough & Rothwell 6.8768 Yes 96 The Crescent AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4223 100 Cleveland Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2031 101 Cleveland Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.0886 107 Dalby Close AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5015 Yes 108 Malham Drive AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.8059 Yes 112 Longfellow Drive AGS A Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2557 113 Longfellow Drive AGS B Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4540 117 Community Centre AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3291 119 Stamford Road AGS B Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.7552 121 Alice Gardens AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2608 127 Kettering Sports Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4101 Yes 128 Northampton Road AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.2158 131 Dingley Wood Semi / Natural Rural 8.4494 Yes 139 Oakley Bushes Semi / Natural Rural 3.8058 Yes 142 Grafton Park Wood Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 120.5191 Yes 147 Geddington Chase Semi / Natural Rural 236.7096 Yes 148 Windmill Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6288 157 Harrington Road AGS Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2545 158 Cornfield Way AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.3578 162 St Nicholas' Close AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5591 Yes 163 Community Centre AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6662 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 100
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 168 Gleneagles Close AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2332 Yes 172 Creighton Crescent Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3012 Yes 178 St Botolph's Road AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3027 Yes 181 Hanover Close AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3547 Yes 185 Delamere Drive AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5712 Yes 196 Off Haweswater Road Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2706 207 SW Kettering NSN Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 4.7394 Yes 209 Harwood Drive AGS A Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2734 210 Debble Road South AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 10.7974 Yes 211 Merrivale Footpath Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6580 212 Ise Valley AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 7.9198 Yes 213 Welbeck Court Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4074 Yes 214 Barton Road NSN Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2817 220 Cranford Road Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6081 221 Woodcock Street Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1681 223 Yateley Drive Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4613 Yes 225 Charlotte Place Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.0161 Yes 228 Well Lane, Rothwell Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2201 240 Dearlove Road Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.7174 Yes Burdock Way, Cranesbill Close and Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 251 0.3617 Yes Ironwood Avenue (Land adjacent) 259 Snetterton Close Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.7124
March 2020 Assessment Report 101
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 260 Loddington Way Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 1.3023 267 The Green Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2018 Loddington Way, Fox Coverts, Warren End, Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 276 0.6131 and Birch Spinney 283 Browns Close and Loddington Way Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2679 293 Mill Road Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1897 295 Main Street Play Area Children’s play areas Rural 0.1133 296 Loddington YPC Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0602 Yes 297 Carlton Road Playground Children’s play areas Rural 0.1267 Yes 298 Podmore Way CYP Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0584 299 Loddington Road Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0440 301 Desborough Rushton Road YPC Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 0.2524 Yes 301.1 Desborough Rushton Road YPC Play Area Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.1389 Yes 302 Playground within Geddington OSF Children’s play areas Rural 0.0276 303 Hall Meadow Park Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0412 308 Spring Gardens Play Area Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0415 Yes 311 The Paddocks Churchill Way Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1551 314 Brambleside AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3229 318 Gray's Field Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1145 Yes 319 Play Area "Ise Valley Toddlers" Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2077 Yes 320 Junior Play Area "Ise Valley" Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0323 Yes 321 The Square Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0579
March 2020 Assessment Report 102
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 322 Dunkirk Avenue Play Area Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.2346 Yes 323 North Park Recreation Ground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0481 324 Desborough Road Play Area Children’s play areas Rural 0.5053 Yes 325 Pennine Way AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1937 325.1 Pennine Way AGS Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0027 326 Play Area, Bellway Close Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0911 330 Bird Street and Woodford Road Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2121 331 Playground, Malham Drive Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0417 332 Playground, Yateley Drive Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0449 Yes 333 Playground, Desborough Leisure Centre Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0436 Yes 334 Mill Road Park basketball Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0131 Loddington Playing Fields Skate Board Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 335 0.0323 Yes Ramp 336 Skate Park, Desborough Leisure Centre Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.1562 Yes Hall Meadow Park - Skate Ramp Off Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 337 0.0142 Thurston Drive 339 Wicksteed Park Playground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.0589 Yes 341 Brambleside Play Area 2 Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2533 344 Skate Park KBC Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1515 Yes 345 Skate Ramp - Well Lane Recreation Ground Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0056 Yes 353 Middle Lane BMX Track Children’s play areas Rural 0.1309 Yes 359 Charlotte Place Kick about area Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.7159 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 103
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 359.1 Charlotte Place Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1354 Yes 359.2 Charlotte Place basketball area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0414 Yes 359.3 Charlotte Place basketball BMX Track Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0484 Yes 365 Middle Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Rural 0.4951 Yes 365.1 Stoke Albany Recreation Ground Play Area Children’s play areas Rural 0.1152 Yes 365.2 Middle Lane Recreation Ground MUGA Children’s play areas Rural 0.0145 Yes 381 Highfield Road Park Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.4137 381.1 Highfield Road Park play Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0192 381.2 Highfield Road Park Playground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0919 394 Greening Road Play Area Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 1.0900 Yes 394.1 Rothwell Play Area Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0651 402 Pytchley Playing Field Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5013 402.1 Pytchley Playing Field Playground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2774 405 King George IV Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.0575 405.1 King George V Rec Play Area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1499 405.2 King George V Recreation Ground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0653 416 North Park Playing Fields Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.7857 419 Meadow Road Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.2845 Yes 422 Northampton Road Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.3885 427 Carey Street OSF Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2045 431 Broughton Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6931 431.1 Broughton High St Recreation Ground Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0308
March 2020 Assessment Report 104
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 432 Great Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 4.1595 432.1 Cycle track, Playing Fields, Gate Lane Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2136 Skating Equipment, Playing Fields, Gate Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 432.2 0.0124 Lane 432.3 Basketball Court, Broughton Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0586 432.4 Play Area, Broughton Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1312 438 Grantown Close OSF Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1891 Yes 446 Grays Field Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.9111 Yes 446.1 Grays Field MUGA Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0461 Yes 454 Recreational Ground, The Green Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 3.0423 454.1 Mawsley Youth Area, The Green Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0909 454.2 Mawsley Play Area Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0569 456 North Park Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 4.2531 463 Burton Latimer Allotment Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.8034 464 Allotment Gardens, Stamford Road Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.6406 Yes 466 Desborough Allotments Allotments Desborough & Rothwell 1.3585 467 Grafton Underwood Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.5450 468 Allotments, Grafton Road Allotments Rural 0.3549 469 Whitehorse Drive Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.9213 470 Shotwell Mill Lane Allotments Allotments Desborough & Rothwell 0.3827 471 Rushton Road Allotments north Allotments Desborough & Rothwell 1.2475 472 Pytchley Allotment Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 2.0504 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 105
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 473 Railway View Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.1212 Yes 474 Windmill Avenue Allotments South Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.6162 475 Broughton Allotments North Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 5.3788 Yes 476 Margaret Road Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 4.8754 Yes 477 St Botolph's Road Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.5127 Yes 478 Short Lane Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.4817 479 Northfield Avenue Allotments Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.7295 Yes 480 The Green Patch Allotments, Valley Walk Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.7170 481 Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, Kettering Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 3.9238 482 Brachers Field Allotments, Edinburgh Close Allotments Desborough & Rothwell 1.8493 483 Burton Latimer Allotments, Finedon Road Allotments Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.0200 484 Rushton Allotments Allotments Rural 0.1142 Yes Allotment Gardens, Middle Lane, Stoke Allotments Rural 485 0.1293 Yes Albany 486 St Botolph's Church Cemeteries Rural 0.2859 Yes 487 St Marys Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4181 Yes 488 St Edmunds Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2906 Yes 489 St Mary's Church Cemeteries Rural 0.2891 490 St Peter's Church Cemeteries Rural 0.1309 Yes 491 All Saints Church, Dingley Cemeteries Rural 0.1454 492 St Peter and Paul's Church, Harrington Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 0.6567 Yes 493 All Saints Church, Braybrooke Cemeteries Rural 0.4071 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 106
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 494 St Leonard's Church, Loddington Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 0.3368 Yes 495 All Saints Church, Wilbarston Cemeteries Rural 0.3975 Yes 496 St Andrews Church, Great Cransley Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1752 497 St Mary's Church Cemeteries Rural 0.2039 498 All Saints Church, Rushton Cemeteries Rural 0.3588 Yes 499 Anglican Church of St Giles, Desborough Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 0.4352 Yes 500 Desborough Cemetery Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 2.3464 Yes 501 St James Church, Grafton Underwood Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2277 502 St Mary Magdalen Church Cemeteries Rural 0.4106 503 St Faith's Church (Newton Field Centre) Cemeteries Rural 0.1619 Yes 504 St Bernadettes Church Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 0.2207 505 Rothwell Cemetery Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 2.3666 Yes 506 Holy Trinity Churchyard Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 0.6139 Yes 507 Burton Latimer Cemetery Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.3603 508 St Johns Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3487 509 St Andrews Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2507 510 All Saints Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2639 511 Pytchley Cemetery Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1058 512 Pythcley Cemetery 2 Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1968 Yes 513 St Marys Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3813 Yes 514 Burton Latimer Cemetery Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2176 Yes 515 All Saints Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1307
March 2020 Assessment Report 107
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 517 London Road United Reformed Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0761 518 St Michael and All Angels Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1272 519 St Marys Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1191 520 London Road Cemetery Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 5.8037 521 All Saints Church, Thorpe Malsor Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2232 522 Broughton cemetery Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.8333 523 St Botolph's Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.3200 Yes 524 St Mary's Church Cemeteries Rural 0.3272 526 Rothwell Road Crematory and Cemetery Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 5.3503 Yes 527 All Saints Church Cemeteries Desborough & Rothwell 0.1105 Yes 528 St Peter and St Pauls Chuch Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.4015 529 St Andrew's Church Cemeteries Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.2854 531 Queen Eleanor Cross Civic Spaces Rural 0.0029 532 Bridge Street Civic Space Civic Spaces Desborough & Rothwell 0.0500 Yes 533 Horsemarket Open Space Civic Spaces Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1748 534 The Clock Civic Spaces Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0284 535 Market Place Civic Spaces Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.1994 536 Alfred East Memorial Gardens Civic Spaces Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0106 High Street, Desborough Civic Space, Civic Spaces Desborough & Rothwell 537 0.0681 Yes Desborough 538 Havelock Street/Station Road Corner Civic Spaces Desborough & Rothwell 0.0482 Yes 539 War Memorial Civic Spaces Desborough & Rothwell 0.0543 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 108
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Site Within / partially within GIN Site Typology Analysis Area Ha ID Borough Local Sub-region 540 Desborough Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Desborough & Rothwell 2.3087 Yes 540.1 Desborough Recreation Ground basketball Children’s play areas Desborough & Rothwell 0.0088 Yes 541 Southfield Farm Marsh Semi / Natural Kettering & Burton Latimer 15.3202 Yes 542 Chapel Close / Manor Road play area Children’s play areas Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.0274 Yes 543 Hall Meadow Park AGS Amenity greenspace Kettering & Burton Latimer 1.6769 545 Church Street Allotments Allotments Rural 0.6232 Yes
March 2020 Assessment Report 109
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The maps and associated key tables above provide a pragmatic approach to identifying project opportunities, they make it easier to identify what could be done in the first instance to enhance green infrastructure at the local level. These sites may also have the potential to provide better connectivity between open space sites and areas. As projects are identified, developed and delivered new projects will be identified to pursue a continued development and investment program that will secure a net gain in GI for Kettering Borough.
March 2020 Assessment Report 110
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PART 12: ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES AND MATRIX
Ecosystem services can be described as the multiple benefits gained by people from the natural environment. The ‘ecosystems approach’, has been developing as a branch of science and policy since the late 1980s. In 2005 the UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was published. This assessed the consequences of ecosystem change on human well-being. The findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal and basis for action to conserve and use ecosystems and their services sustainably. The MA classified ecosystem services into four categories:
Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems, including food, fibre, fuel, medicines and fresh water. Regulatory services: benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, water purification, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination, natural hazard regulation. Cultural services: non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through recreation, reflection, cognitive development, aesthetic experiences and spiritual enrichment. Supporting services: The services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services including soil formation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling and water cycling.
The MA findings strongly advocated the ecosystem approach as a basis for more sustainable policy formulation. Although it is early days for policy makers when it comes to adopting an ecosystems approach, the emerging body of evidence suggests that ecosystem services demonstrate the value of biodiversity as a source for multiple societal benefits. Therefore the maintenance or enhancement of ecosystems is a vital component in the future wellbeing of society.
Given the multi-functional attributes of Green Infrastructure (GI), which includes open spaces, sport and recreational provision as assets, there is clearly an alignment between the development and delivery of GI assets and the provision of ecosystem services. This is an important point. It means that GI is not simply an ‘environmental issue’ anymore; it has become an economic driver and therefore has an economic value attached. The ecosystems approach is compatible with economic valuation methods, helping to bring ecosystems into decision-making processes. Ecosystem valuation will provide a constructive aid to decision-making in the future, and could inform viability assessments undertaken for new development proposals.
In order to have a strategic approach to the development and delivery of GI assets, and to the identification of priority investment areas, there is an opportunity in the future to apply an ecosystems methodology. This would enable planners and developers to recognise the economic value and impact of GI, which would in turn help in the determination of funds to support the development, management and maintenance of GI over the short, medium and long term.
This table (overleaf) has been used to assess the Borough’s open spaces. It is intended as a quick tick box approach, for example, when considering Provisioning Services, an allotment will obviously provide food and ornamental services; a park may provide ornamental services but an amenity might not contribute to either provisioning service.
March 2020 Assessment Report 111
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
It could however contribute to Cultural Services via the social and health elements but little else; a park will do both these things and possibly more. A churchyard will provide spiritual and / or religious experiences (Cultural) but so could a community garden or memorial garden.
Table 12.1: Matrix example:
Ecosystem Service Provided? Service Category
Food Provisioning Ornamental e.g. flowers, trees
Air quality
Climate regulation e.g. helping control local Regulatory temperature or reducing greenhouse gases Water regulation e.g. helping to mitigate flooding
Pollination
Heritage
Social e.g. promotes recreation and / or tourism
Cultural Aesthetic value
Spiritual and / or faith centred
Health and well-being
Primary production
Nutrient cycling Supporting Water recycling
Habitat provision
Most of the Ecosystem Service Categories are self-explanatory. However, definitions for some of the more complex categories are set out below:
Primary production typically occurs through photosynthesis; sunlight is energy and photosynthesis is the process plants use to take the energy from sunlight and use it to convert carbon dioxide and water into food. Nutrient cycling describes how nutrients move between plants, people, animals, bacteria, the air and soil Water cycling describes the continuous circulation of the earth’s water moving from the air onto land (precipitation), through the ground and back into the air (evaporation) and round again
March 2020 Assessment Report 112
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The tables below set out the findings of the ecosystem services assessment for the Borough’s open spaces. These are displayed as range of yields within each open space typology. It is a first level assessment that could be developed further as part of a management plan for individual spaces. The ranges are as follows:
High yield Medium-high yield Medium-low yield Low yield
This is presented by typology with a brief analysis to help support the initial assessment.
Parks
This shows the important contribution parks make to ecosystem services with the majority providing a high yield of services. Theoretically all parks could reach a high yield as all should be performing strongly in terms of regulatory, cultural and supporting services
Only the delivery of provisioning services might cause an issue given the nature of this service i.e. the products people can obtain through ecosystem services such as food, fuel and timber. The opportunity does exist in terms of fallen trees or with the potential to providing fruit and vegetables. Such initiatives would need to be assessed as appropriate on a park by park basis. Where plans, programmes and projects come forward to enhance, manage and maintain parkland they should seek to foster methods that would enhance the ecosystem productivity
Table 12.2: Ecosystem services yield for parks
ID Site name Typology Yield 18 Wicksteed Park Parks and Gardens 17 Rockingham Road Pleasure Park Parks and Gardens 51 Desborough Greenspace Parks and Gardens 381 Highfield Road Park Parks and Gardens 8 Grafton Street Parks and Gardens 87 Spring Rise Park (Top Park), Springfield Road Parks and Gardens 13 Jubilee Gardens North Parks and Gardens 416 North Park Playing Fields Parks and Gardens 5 Manor Park Parks and Gardens 12 Jubilee Gardens South Parks and Gardens 19 Mill Road Park Parks and Gardens 9 Westfield Gardens Parks and Gardens 419 Meadow Road Park Parks and Gardens 456 The Weekly Glebe Playing Fields Parks and Gardens 446 Grays Field Parks and Gardens 1 Lower Street Memorial Gardens (P&G) Parks and Gardens 15 Rothwell Recreation Ground Parks and Gardens 6 The Paddocks Churchill Way Parks and Gardens 16 Municipal Offices Gardens Parks and Gardens 10 Garden of Rest Parks and Gardens
March 2020 Assessment Report 113
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ID Site name Typology Yield 11 Manor House Gardens Parks and Gardens 314 Millennium Park Parks and Gardens
Natural greenspace
There is a greater variability in the provision of ecosystems services within the natural spaces of the Borough than shown in that of parkland. This is likely to be because there are more natural spaces than parklands and the management may not be responsive to fostering a productive ecosystem service output. Where plans, programmes and projects come forward to enhance, manage and maintain these natural spaces they should seek to foster methods that would enhance the ecosystem productivity.
Table 12.3: Ecosystem services yield for natural greenspace
ID Site name Typology Yield 20 Deeble Road South NSN Semi / Natural greenspaces 66 Ise Marsh, Wicksteed Semi / Natural greenspaces 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 38 Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces Valley Walk, Land off Deeble Road (near Christ 49 Semi / Natural greenspaces The King Church) 40 The Grange Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 541 Southfield Farm Marsh Semi / Natural greenspaces 74 Weekley Hall Wood & Quarry Semi / Natural greenspaces 32 Rothwell Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 79 Barford Meadows Semi / Natural greenspaces 95 Shotwell Mill Meadows Semi / Natural greenspaces 52 North Kettering Business Park (Southern Site) Semi / Natural greenspaces 53 North Kettering Business Park (Northern Site) Semi / Natural greenspaces 76 Cherry Hall Plantation Semi / Natural greenspaces 147 Geddington Chase Semi / Natural greenspaces 63 Wicksteed Watermeadows Semi / Natural greenspaces 46 Pipewell Woods Semi / Natural greenspaces 142 Grafton Park Wood Semi / Natural greenspaces 43 Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 50 Tailby Meadow Local Nature Reserve Semi / Natural greenspaces 36 Barton Seagrave Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 41 Kettering General Hospital Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 64 Castle Field Semi / Natural greenspaces 62 Southfield Farm Marsh Semi / Natural greenspaces 131 Dingley Wood Semi / Natural greenspaces 22 Rushton Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 23 Cransley Wood, Great Cransley Semi / Natural greenspaces 57 Mawsley NGS, Off Loddington Way, Mawsley Semi / Natural greenspaces
March 2020 Assessment Report 114
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ID Site name Typology Yield 60 Wicksteed Park South Lake Semi / Natural greenspaces Stoke Albany War Memorial and Stoke Albany 48 Semi / Natural greenspaces Pocket 58 Land South of Weekley Wood Lane, Kettering Semi / Natural greenspaces 39 Broughton Pocket Park - Parsons Spinney Semi / Natural greenspaces 25 Land at back of St Giles Church, Desborough Semi / Natural greenspaces 75 Mill Farm Meadow Semi / Natural greenspaces 54 Bracher's Wood, Kettering Road, Rothwell Semi / Natural greenspaces 59 Jibwood NGS, Land off School Road, Mawsley Semi / Natural greenspaces 67 Burton Latimer Meadows Semi / Natural greenspaces 31 Cranford Pocket Park Semi / Natural greenspaces 35 Polwell Lane NSN Semi / Natural greenspaces 26 Buckwell Close NSN, Desborough Semi / Natural greenspaces 29 Pendle Avenue NSN Semi / Natural greenspaces 28 The Rectory Plantation Semi / Natural greenspaces 55 Burton Latimer Meadows, off Virginia Crescent Semi / Natural greenspaces 2 Beech Close NSN & Millenium Green, Desborough Semi / Natural greenspaces 128 Northampton Road AGS Semi / Natural greenspaces 139 Oakley Bushes Semi / Natural greenspaces 82 Broughton Green Lane Semi / Natural greenspaces 30 Union Street NSN Semi / Natural greenspaces 91 Mawsley Wood Semi / Natural greenspaces
Amenity greenspace
There is a greater variability in the provision of ecosystems services within the amenity spaces of the Borough than shown for parkland or natural sites. This is likely to be because there are more amenity spaces (of a smaller size) and the management may not be responsive to fostering a productive ecosystem service output. Where plans, programmes and projects come forward to enhance, manage and maintain these amenity spaces they should seek to foster methods that would enhance the ecosystem productivity.
Table 12.4: Ecosystem services yield for amenity greenspace
ID Site name Typology Yield 210 Deeble Road South AGS Amenity greenspace 85 Lake off Thurston Drive Amenity greenspace 422 Northampton Road Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 540 Desborough Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 101 Cleveland Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace 225 Charlotte Place, Kettering Amenity greenspace 212 Ise Valley AGS Amenity greenspace 4 Blythe Close Amenity greenspace 158 Cornfield Way AGS Amenity greenspace
March 2020 Assessment Report 115
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ID Site name Typology Yield 405 King George IV Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 432 Gate Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Loddington Way, Fox Coverts, Warren End, and 276 Amenity greenspace Birch Spinney (Land adjacent), Mawsley 260 Loddington Way, Mawsley Amenity greenspace 268 Scholars Row, Mawsley Amenity greenspace 454 Recreational Ground, The Green, Mawsley Amenity greenspace 89 Nelson Drive AGS Amenity greenspace 81 Neuville Way AGS, Desborough Amenity greenspace 83 The Meadows, Geddington Amenity greenspace 214 Barton Road NSN Amenity greenspace 56 Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Avenue Amenity greenspace 122 Marion Square AGS Amenity greenspace 543 Hall Meadow Park AGS Amenity greenspace 546 Geddington Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 34 Glade Close AGS Amenity greenspace 96 The Crescent AGS, Burton Latimer Amenity greenspace 220 Cranford Road, Burton Latimer Amenity greenspace 221 Woodcock Street, Burton Latimer Amenity greenspace 222 Slipton Road Balancing Pond, Burton Latimer Amenity greenspace 259 Snetterton Close, Burton Latimer Amenity greenspace 240 Dearlove Road, Burton Latimer Amenity greenspace 402 Pytchley Playing Field Amenity greenspace 431 Broughton Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Browns Close and Loddington Way (Land 283 Amenity greenspace adjacent), Mawsley 267 The Green, Mawsley Amenity greenspace 157 Harrington Road AGS, Loddington Amenity greenspace 394 Greening Road Play Area Amenity greenspace 228 Well Lane, Rothwell Amenity greenspace 90 Sharman Way AGS Amenity greenspace 88 Connoly Drive AGS Amenity greenspace 68 Main Street AGS, Harrington Amenity greenspace 72 AGS around the Museum, Harrington Amenity greenspace 301 Desborough Rushton Road YPC, Desborough Amenity greenspace 99 Copelands Road AGS, Desborough Amenity greenspace 78 Havelock Junior School AGS, Desborough Amenity greenspace Burdock Way, Cranesbill Close and Ironwood 251 Amenity greenspace Avenue (Land adjacent), Desborough Buxton Drive and Matlock Way (Land adjacent), 253 Amenity greenspace Desborough 365 Middle Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 94 The Green, Cranford Amenity greenspace 223 Yateley Drive, Barton Seagrave Amenity greenspace
March 2020 Assessment Report 116
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ID Site name Typology Yield 196 Off Haweswater Road Amenity greenspace 211 Merrivale Footpath Amenity greenspace 207 SW Kettering Amenity greenspace 86 Slade Crescent AGS Amenity greenspace 127 Kettering Sports Ground Amenity greenspace 126 Hilly Hollies Amenity greenspace 209 Harwood Drive AGS A Amenity greenspace 107 Dalby Close AGS Amenity greenspace 104 Bramshill Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace 105 Ettrick Close AGS Amenity greenspace 108 Malham Drive AGS Amenity greenspace 100 Cleveland Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace 115 Regal Drive AGS Amenity greenspace 114 Longfellow Drive AGS C Amenity greenspace 113 Longfellow Drive AGS B Amenity greenspace 112 Longfellow Drive AGS A Amenity greenspace 119 Stamford Road AGS B Amenity greenspace 120 Grange Methodist Church Amenity greenspace 121 Alice Gardens AGS Amenity greenspace 117 Community Centre AGS Amenity greenspace 65 North West Kettering AGS D Amenity greenspace 359 Charlotte Place Kick about area Amenity greenspace 137 Avenue Terrace AGS Amenity greenspace 172 Creighton Crescent Amenity greenspace 178 St Botolph's Road AGS Amenity greenspace 182 Walsingham Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace 181 Hanover Close AGS Amenity greenspace 213 Welbeck Court Amenity greenspace 168 Gleneagles Close AGS Amenity greenspace 171 St Johns Road AGS North Amenity greenspace 163 Community Centre AGS Amenity greenspace 162 St Nicholas' Close AGS Amenity greenspace 150 Linden Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace 134 Lilford Place Gardens Amenity greenspace 148 Windmill Avenue AGS Amenity greenspace 185 Delamere Drive AGS Amenity greenspace 325 Pennine Way AGS Amenity greenspace
March 2020 Assessment Report 117
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Allotments
There is a lower yield consistency in the provision of ecosystems services within the allotments of the Borough. This is likely to be because there are more physical limitations such as size, structured format in comparison to other types of provision which may not be responsive to fostering a productive ecosystem service output. Where plans, programmes and projects come forward to enhance, manage and maintain these spaces they should seek to foster methods that would enhance the ecosystem productivity.
Table 12.5: Ecosystem services yield for allotments
ID Site name Typology Yield 466 Desborough Allotments, Desborough Allotments The Green Patch Allotments, Valley Walk, 480 Allotments Kettering 463 Burton Latimer Allotment Allotments Burton Latimer Allotments, Finedon Road, Burton 483 Allotments Latimer 472 Pytchley Allotment Allotments 484 Rushton Allotments, Desborough Road, Rushton Allotments 471 Rushton Road Allotments north Allotments 470 Shotwell Mill Lane Allotments Allotments Brachers Field Allotments, Edinburgh Close, 482 Allotments Rothwell 478 Short Lane Allotments Allotments 475 Broughton Allotments North Allotments 485 Allotment Gardens, Middle Lane, Stoke Albany Allotments 468 Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington Allotments 467 Grafton Underwood Allotments Allotments 476 Margaret Road Allotments Allotments 481 Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, Kettering Allotments 464 Allotment Gardens, Stamford Road, Weekley Allotments 477 St Botolph's Road Allotments Allotments 469 Whitehorse Drive Allotments Allotments 474 Windmill Avenue Allotments South Allotments 479 Northfield Avenue Allotments Allotments 473 Railway View Allotments Allotments
March 2020 Assessment Report 118
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Cemeteries
There is some variation in the yield levels of ecosystems services within the cemeteries of the Borough. This may be due to management not being responsive to fostering a productive ecosystem service output at some sites. However, a handful of sites do show higher yield levels. Where plans, programmes and projects come forward to enhance, manage and maintain these spaces they should seek to foster methods that would enhance the ecosystem productivity.
Table 12.6: Ecosystem services yield for cemeteries
ID Site name Typology Yield 500 Desborough Cemetery, Desborough Cemeteries 520 London Road Cemetery Cemeteries 505 Rothwell Cemetery Cemeteries 507 Burton Latimer Cemetery (far end) Cemeteries 492 St Peter and Paul's Church, Harrington Cemeteries 526 Rothwell Road Crematory and Cemetery Cemeteries 491 All Saints Church, Dingley Cemeteries 514 Burton Latimer Cemetery Cemeteries 512 Pythcley Cemetery 2 Cemeteries 510 All Saints Church Cemeteries 511 Pytchley Cemtery Cemeteries 523 St Botolph's Church Cemeteries 498 All Saints Church, Rushton Cemeteries 499 Anglican Church of St Giles, Desborough Cemeteries 504 St Bernadettes Church Cemeteries 506 Holy Trinity Churchyard Cemeteries 527 All Saints Church Cemeteries 494 St Leonard's Church, Loddington Cemeteries 521 All Saints Church, Thorpe Malsor Cemeteries 496 St Andrews Church, Great Cransley Cemeteries 529 St Andrew's Church Cemeteries 522 Broughton cemetery Cemeteries 495 All Saints Church, Wilbarston Cemeteries 486 St Botolph's Church Cemeteries 497 St Mary's Church Brampton Ash Cemeteries 524 St Mary's Church Weston by Holland Cemeteries 489 St Mary's Church Ashley Cemeteries 493 All Saints Church, Braybrooke Cemeteries 503 St Faith's Church (Newton Field Centre) Cemeteries 502 St Mary Magdalen Church Cemeteries 508 St Johns Church Cemeteries 509 St Andrews Church Cemeteries 501 St James Church, Grafton Underwood Cemeteries
March 2020 Assessment Report 119
KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE AUDIT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ID Site name Typology Yield 488 St Edmunds Church Cemeteries 519 St Marys Chuch Kettering Cemeteries 515 All Saints Church Cemeteries 513 St Marys Church Burton Latimer Cemeteries 525 Church of Latter Day Saints Cemeteries 518 St Michael and All Angels Church Cemeteries 517 London Road United Reformed Church Cemeteries 528 St Peter and St Pauls Church Cemeteries 490 St Peter's Church Cemeteries 487 St Marys Church Cemeteries
Civic space
There is a lower yield consistency in the provision of ecosystems services within the civic spaces of the Borough. This is likely to be because there are more physical limitations such as surface types, size, structured format in comparison to other types of provision which may not be responsive to fostering a productive ecosystem service output. Where plans, programmes and projects come forward to enhance, manage and maintain these spaces they should seek to foster methods that would enhance the ecosystem productivity.
Table 12.7: Ecosystem services yield for civic space
ID Site name Typology Yield 536 Alfred East Memorial Gardens Civic spaces Diana Memorial Rose Gardens Memorial, 3 Civic spaces Desborough 7 Churchill Way Gardens Civic spaces 537 Desborough Civic Space Civic spaces 538 Havelock Street/Station Road Corner, Desborough Civic spaces 532 Bridge Street Civic Space Civic spaces 539 War Memorial Civic spaces 531 Queen Eleanor Cross Civic spaces 535 Market Place Civic spaces 534 The Clock Civic spaces 533 Horsemarket Open Space Civic spaces
The conclusion from this exercise identifies sites of high yield in ecosystem service provision. It should be emphasised that whilst the designation of high yield does not preclude development, any development in these areas would require full justification, strong mitigation and careful design appropriate for the location in question.
Where it can be demonstrated that the provision of ecosystem services within an open space can be improved; objectives to achieve this should be included in the management and / or action plan for that space.
March 2020 Assessment Report 120