Open Space Study

Part 1: Open Space Audits and Local Standards

September 2013

Contents

Executive Summary...... 4

Section 1: Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Purpose of this Study ...... 7 1.2 Geographic, Social and Economic Context ...... 8 1.3 Demographic Profile of the Borough ...... 12 1.4 National Policy Context ...... 15 1.5 Related Studies and Guidance ...... 16 1.6 Typology of Open Space ...... 18 1.7 Methodology ...... 19

Section 2: Urban Parks and Gardens ...... 24 2.1 Urban Parks & Gardens Consultations ...... 25 2.2 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit- Quantity ...... 28 2.3 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit- Quality ...... 31 2.4 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit- Accessibility ...... 34 2.5 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit Summary ...... 36 2.6 Urban Parks & Gardens Local Standards ...... 37

Section 3: Accessible Natural Greenspace ...... 38 3.1 Accessible Natural Greenspace Consultations ...... 39 3.2 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit- Quantity ...... 41 3.3 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit- Quality ...... 50 3.4 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit- Accessibility ...... 53 3.5 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit Summary ...... 58 3.6 Accessible Natural Greenspace Benchmark Standards ...... 59 3.7 Accessible Natural Greenspace Local Standards ...... 60

Section 4: Outdoor Sports Facilities ...... 61 4.1 Outdoor Sports Facilities Consultations ...... 62 4.2 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit- Quantity ...... 66 4.3 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit- Quality ...... 93 4.4 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit- Accessibility ...... 98 4.5 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit Summary ...... 101 4.6 Outdoor Sports Facilities Benchmark Standards ...... 102 4.7 Outdoor Sports Facilities Local Standards ...... 102

Section 5: Amenity Greenspace ...... 103 5.1 Amenity Greenspace Consultations ...... 104 5.2 Amenity Greenspace Audit- Quantity ...... 109 5.3 Amenity Greenspace Audit- Quality ...... 111 5.4 Amenity Greenspace Audit- Accessibility ...... 111 5.5 Amenity Greenspace Audit Summary ...... 112 5.6 Amenity Greenspace Benchmark Standards ...... 112

5.7 Amenity Greenspace Local Standards ...... 113

Section 6: Children’s Playspace ...... 114 6.1 Children’s Playspace Consultations ...... 115 6.2 Children’s Playspace Audit- Quantity ...... 117 6.3 Children’s Playspace Audit- Quality ...... 125 6.4 Children’s Playspace Audit- Accessibility ...... 125 6.5 Children’s Playspace Audit Summary ...... 131 6.6 Children’s Playspace Benchmarks Standards ...... 132 6.7 Children’s Playspace Local Standards ...... 133

Section 7: Allotments ...... 134 7.1 Allotments Consultations ...... 135 7.2 Allotments Audit- Quantity ...... 137 7.3 Allotments Audit- Quality ...... 140 7.4 Allotments Audit- Accessibility ...... 143 7.5 Allotments Audit Summary ...... 143 7.6 Allotments Benchmark Standards ...... 145 7.7 Allotments Local Standards...... 147

Section 8: Churchyards and Cemeteries ...... 148 8.1 Churchyards and Cemeteries Audit- Quantity ...... 149

Section 9: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 150 9.1 Conclusions ...... 151 9.2 Recommendations ...... 155 9.3 Next Steps ...... 155

Appendix 1 ...... 156

This study forms part of the evidence base for Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan. The study informs the approach taken in the Core Strategy and provides a platform for the forthcoming Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan document. This document forms Part 1 of the Open Space Study, and has audited the quantity, quality and accessibility of various types of open space. The average quantity of open space across the borough is shown below.

Urban Accessible Outdoor Amenity Children’s Churchyards Allotments Total Parks & Natural Sports Greenspace Playspace & per 1,000 Space Gardens Greenspace Facilities per 1,000 per 1,000 Cemeteries pop (ha) per per per 1,000 per pop (ha) pop (ha) per 1,000 Ward 1,000 pop (ha) 1,000 pop (ha) per pop pop (ha) 1,000 (ha) pop (ha) 0.23 15.67 1.22 0.76 0.17 0.39 0.47 18.91

The report also sets the following locally derived standards for the provision of open space in relation to existing and future provision:

Urban Parks & Gardens Quantity: 0.4ha per 1,000 population in the urban area Quality: Strategic Parks – 80% quality, 73% value Middle Order Parks – 70% quality, 65% value Neighbourhood Parks – 71% quality, 55% value Litter and dog waste bins – one per 0.5ha or one per entrance. Seating and signage to be provided. Parks over 1ha to contain facilities for young people Accessibility: Straight line distances for residents in the urban area: 500m to a Neighbourhood Park 1km to a Middle Order Park 2km to a Strategic Park Wheelchair access to all parks and gardens

Accessible Natural Greenspace Quantity: 16ha accessible natural greenspace of any type, minimum size 1ha per 1,000 population Quality: 68% quality, 75% value Accessibility: site of over 1ha within 2km for all residents, where possible this should have wheelchair access

Outdoor Sports Facilities Quantity: 1.2ha formal outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf courses) per 1,000 population Quality: wheelchair access, changing facilities and a range of activities available. Floodlighting where a need is identified. Synthetic turf pitches to be included in new provision Accessibility: a catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius for each sport facility. Fully accessible by pedestrians and public transport, with a range of facilities available for those with mobility problems. Pedestrian crossings on main roads as required

Amenity Greenspace Quantity: 0.8ha informal amenity greenspace per 1,000 population Quality: all amenity greenspace to be located close to both residential development and employment sites. Seating to be provided where appropriate Accessibility: within the following straight line distances from dwellings/work-places: Sites up to 1ha – within 150m Sites 1-3ha – within 200m Sites 3-10ha – within 500m

Children’s Playspace Quantity: 0.2ha formal play space per 1,000 population. 30 children (0-14) per item of play equipment and 200 teenagers per teen facility. Separate teen facilities if there are none within 1km Quality: all play spaces to be safe and welcoming, with a range of play equipment (themed if possible). Junior play areas to be fenced in. Teen facilities to be separated from children’s Accessibility: straight line distances from dwellings: Junior (0-8yrs) – up to 100m Intermediate (6-12yrs) up to 300m Senior (8-14yrs) up to 600m Teen (14+yrs) up to 1km Full disabled access. Pedestrian crossings as required

Allotments Quantity: 7 allotment plots per 1,000 population, or 0.18ha per 1,000 population Quality: 80% quality, 75% value. Adequate water supply and composting bins should be provided. Secure boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities on site Accessibility: straight line distance to an allotment site of up to 900 metres for residents. Sites should have pedestrian, vehicular and disabled access, with adequate parking space

1.1 Purpose of this Study

1.1.1 This study forms part of the evidence base for Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan. The study informs the approach taken in the Core Strategy and provides a platform for the forthcoming Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan document. This document forms Part 1 of the Open Space Study, and contains audits of various open space types and sets local standards for the provision of open space in relation to existing and future provision. Part 2 of the study will be produced at a later stage and will use these audits and standards to set guidelines for the developer contributions towards open space provision that will be required in relation to new development.

1.1.2 The Great Yarmouth Parks & Open Spaces Strategy (2005) adopted the NPFA standard for combined forms of open space. This document progresses the borough’s standpoint by advancing locally derived standards for open space. However, it retains all other aspects of the strategy, including the 2005 document’s vision for open space in the borough as: ‘A network of easily accessible, safe, attractive and welcoming parks and open spaces which meet the needs of everyone and which contribute to the economic, social, environmental and educational wellbeing of people and places now and for future generations.’

1.1.3 A Leisure Strategy for Great Yarmouth (2006-2016) contained an audit of the borough’s leisure provision. This study goes some way to updating this audit, for outdoor sports facilities. It does not over-write any other aspect of the strategy.

1.1.4 The Great Yarmouth Play Strategy (2006-2012) audited play spaces in the borough. Again, this study updates the audit aspect, but does not replace any other elements of the strategy.

1.2 Geographic, Social and Economic Context

1.2.1 Located in the East of England, the Borough of Great Yarmouth is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the city of Norwich to the west and the coastal town of Lowestoft to the south. The town of Great Yarmouth is a well-established coastal tourist resort; with many other resorts along the borough’s 24 kilometres of coastline. The hinterland of the borough is rural and forms part of the protected Broads landscape and also includes part of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Winterton-on-Sea.

1.2.2 Great Yarmouth Borough covers over 17,000 hectares with a population in the region of 96,3001. The largest settlements are Great Yarmouth and Gorleston which combined form the third largest urban area in Norfolk. Adjoining Gorleston is Bradwell, which is the next largest settlement in the borough, and the rural areas of the borough are intermittently scattered with small and medium-sized settlements, the largest being Ormesby St Margaret. Population density is estimated to be 542 people per square km2.

1.2.3 Great Yarmouth is a principle centre for retail, services and employment, including port related activities. Gorleston is the secondary town in the borough and contains a well-functioning high street and is also a popular seaside resort. There are two sites of Enterprise Zone status within the borough, at Beacon Park, Gorleston and South Denes, Great Yarmouth providing opportunities to further strengthen the boroughs economy in terms of the energy sector.

1.2.4 Tourism is the other major contributor to the borough's economy, with over 4.4 million visitors (day trippers and staying) worth a total of over £492 million, in 20093. Visitors have been coming to Great Yarmouth since the late 1700s and the resort is now one of the most popular in the UK for day trips, weekend breaks and longer holidays. The resort features a pleasure beach, amusement arcades and summer shows, and there are several other seaside resorts along the borough’s coast.

1.2.5 In addition to seaside tourism, the borough attracts tourists for outdoor activities such as walking, sailing and bird-watching. The ‘Trinity Broads’ (Filby, Ormesby, and Rollesby) within the borough are popular for sailing. Martham Broad is a National Nature Reserve, Breydon Water is a Local Nature Reserve, and both are popular with bird-watchers and ramblers. The Thurne, Bure and Yare rivers run through the borough and are busy with river cruising craft in the summer. In 2008, the revenue from tourism across the entire Broads area was estimated to be nearly £414 million4.

1 Based on ONS population estimates, 2009 2 ONS Regional Data Table 1.2 3 Economic Impact of Tourism in Great Yarmouth 2009, East of England Tourism 4 A Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism in the Broads 2011-2015

1.2.6 Personal wealth can impact on the range of facilities that can be accessed, and the two most deprived areas in Norfolk are in the urban area of Great Yarmouth (Nelson Ward and Central & Northgate Ward). Nelson is the most deprived ward in Norfolk, and 19.1% of the entire borough’s population were income-deprived in 20105. 22.22% of the borough’s working-age residents claim benefits, compared to a Norfolk average of 14.48%6. Therefore, the accessibility of open space will be an important consideration throughout this report.

1.2.7 The annual income needed to buy an average home in the borough in 2009 was £29,6897 while the average gross annual income was £16,0388. In April 2010 just over 82% of the borough’s housing stock of 43,780 homes was privately-owned9, with 6,293 households (about 14.9% of all households) on council or housing association waiting lists10.

1.2.8 The Broads Authority has responsibility for the planning functions of the Broads area which accounts for about 37%11 of the total Great Yarmouth Borough area. The Broads are Britain's largest protected wetland, with the status of a national park. It presents an apparently natural landscape, despite being the result of historic human activity. While the Broads Authority area within the Borough of Great Yarmouth is included in the audit of open space, this study does not seek to impose standards in the Broads Authority area. Any additional open space in this area will have to be established in conjunction with the Broads Authority (there was no Open Space Study performed for the Broads Authority Core Strategy, adopted in 2007).

5 DIN note 4/11, Norfolk County Council 6 Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study, February 2011 7 CLG Live Table 582, Council of Mortgage Lenders Table MM11 8 ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009 (table 8.7a) 9 CLG Live Table 100 10 CLG Live Table 600 11 Broads Authority area within Great Yarmouth Borough= 6,650 ha; Great Yarmouth Borough total area = 18,218 ha

Fig. 1: Great Yarmouth Borough Wards

Fig. 2: The Broads Authority Executive Area within the Borough

1.3 Demographic Profile of the Borough

1.3.1 It is essential to consider the demographic profile of the borough, as key demographic features are known to influence the demand for open space. For example, particular sports and leisure activities attract certain age groups; cultural backgrounds may affect recreation choices. The key demographic features of the borough are outlined in this section.

1.3.2 The population of the borough is 96,27112. The largest settlements are Great Yarmouth and Gorleston with a combined population of 50,940 which is the third largest urban area in Norfolk. Adjoining Gorleston is Bradwell, which is the next largest settlement in the borough, with a population of 10,642 followed by Caister- on-Sea, a large village to the north of Great Yarmouth with a population of 8,782.

1.3.3 The rural areas of the borough are scattered with small and medium-sized settlements, the largest being Ormesby St Margaret with a population of 4,112.

1.3.4 The ethnic mix of the population reflects that of the rest of the county as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Ethnic Mix (Comparison between Great Yarmouth Borough and Norfolk)

% White % White % White % Mixed % Asian % Black % British Irish Other or Asian or Black Chinese/ British British Other Ethnic

Great Yarmouth Borough 90.86 0.62 2.91 1.14 2.7 1.14 0.62 Norfolk 90.64 0.60 3.09 1.15 2.29 0.91 1.35 Source: 2009 Mid-Year Estimates, ONS

1.3.5 The borough’s age distribution is also similar to the rest of the county, with an ageing population, approximately equal in gender distribution13. There is a concentration of younger people and families with children in the settlements of Great Yarmouth, Gorleston and Martham, with the 50+ population more concentrated in the rural parishes of Somerton and Winterton, while Caister-on- Sea and West Caister also have a significant retired population.

1.3.6 The combination of the demographic information set out in Table 1 and 2 suggests that there is a need for open space to suit the needs of families in the urban area and to suit the population over 50 in the rural areas.

12 2009 Mid-Year Estimates, ONS 13 2009 Mid-Year Estimates, ONS

Table 2: Distribution of Population, by Age and Gender

Parish Population % Aged % Aged % Aged % Aged % Aged % % 2009 0-15 16-24 25-49 50-64* 60+** Female Male Ashby with Oby 65 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24

Belton with 3,912 16.86 10.48 29.32 21.01 22.32 49.82 50.18 Browston

Bradwell 10,642 16.35 9.51 28.98 16.59 28.57 51.53 48.47 Burgh Castle 1264 11.81 10.19 27.6 21.76 28.65 49.48 50.52

Caister-on-Sea 8,782 13.17 9.33 26.68 17.54 33.28 51.75 48.25

Filby 760 12.83 11.51 27.99 21.77 25.89 50.31 49.69 Fleggburgh 940 13.97 10.28 30.17 21.26 24.32 50.53 49.47 Fritton and St 496 15.15 7.69 30.46 22.77 23.93 50.74 49.26 Olaves Great Yarmouth 50,940 19.1 12.05 32.72 14.84 21.3 51.18 48.82 (and Gorleston) Hemsby 3,419 13.22 9.92 27.23 19.74 29.89 51.16 48.84 Hopton-on-Sea 3,113 17.03 10.03 29.95 17.01 25.97 50.71 49.29

Martham 3,486 17.13 11.33 28.54 16.7 26.31 51.46 48.54 Mautby 374 15.43 8.71 32.94 20.6 22.32 50.82 49.18 Ormesby St 4,112 15.12 8.78 26.54 20.49 29.06 50.7 49.3 Margaret & Scratby

Ormesby St 295 17.4 9.42 28.97 18.77 25.44 51.6 48.4 Michael Repps with 392 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24 Bastwick

Rollesby 1,060 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24 Somerton 250 12.9 7.55 23.16 23.35 33.04 52.42 47.58 Stokesby with 314 15.43 8.71 32.94 20.6 22.32 50.82 49.18 Herringby

Thurne 133 14.68 7.22 25.41 21.65 31.05 48.76 51.24 West Caister 184 12.58 9.11 25.6 16.49 36.22 51.66 48.34

Winterton-on- 1,339 12.9 7.55 23.16 23.35 33.04 52.42 47.58 Sea Borough Total 96,271 17.21 10.89 30.47 16.64 24.79 51.13 48.87

*Females aged 50-59, Males aged 50-64 **Females aged 60+, Males aged 65+

Fig. 3: Distribution of Population, All Ages

1.4 National Policy Context

1.4.1 The production of this study followed guidance set out in Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002). At the time of publication, PPG17 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework; therefore for clarity both existing and current guidance has been referenced. The Framework retains the requirement from PPG17 to undertake assessments of the needs for open space and therefore the methodology of this study is considered to be compliant with the NPPF as it follows the requirements set out in paragraph 73.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

1.4.2 Paragraph 73 of the NPPF recognises the importance of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation, to the health and well-being of communities.

1.4.3 The Framework states that: ‘Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to -date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.’

1.4.4 Paragraph 76 of the NPPF introduces a new designation to protect local green areas of particular importance to local communities known as Local Green Spaces. The Local Green Space designation allows communities to identify and protect areas that are of value to the community through local and neighbourhood plans.

1.4.5 The NPPF sets out the principles for the Local Green Space designation and includes the criteria that green space will need to meet. These criteria state that the land must be local in character and reasonably close to the community, must not be extensive and must be demonstrably special i.e. for beauty, recreational value or wildlife. If appropriate, Local Green Space’s put forward by the community and supporting policies will be defined through the emerging Development Polices and Site Allocations Local Plan Document.

PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) and its Companion Guide: Assessing Needs and Opportunities (2002)

1.4.6 This provided the following guidance for assessing open space:

Local needs should be assessed, alongside an audit of open space and recreation facilities

The assessment can be used to set local standards for the minimum provision for open space, sport and recreation

Supply of open space, sport and recreation facilities should be assessed according to quantity, quality and accessibility

Planning policies should make provision for new facilities, to meet the needs of existing and new development

1.5 Related Studies and Guidance

1.5.1 Open space, recreation and sporting activities cover a wide range of interests and furthermore the provision of open space intersects with many sustainable development objectives. A number of studies and guidance relate to this Open Space Study.

Urban Green Nation: Building the Evidence Base (2010)

1.5.2 This study by CABE Space found that suburban areas generally have a larger quantity of parks and green space, while urban areas have more recreation grounds and sports pitches. The study also confirmed that deprived areas have far less green space than affluent ones. Almost 9 out of 10 people use green spaces, and they are highly valued. Investing in the quality of parks and green spaces is an important way to tackle inequalities in health and wellbeing and to improve residents’ perceptions of their area.

Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch Strategies (2003)

1.5.3 Sport England have produced a ‘best practice’ 8-stage model to guide the development of provision standards for sports pitches, which covers a range of sports. Following the model should produce standards which are tailored to the needs of the local population.

Planning for Play: Guidance on the Development and Implementation of a Local Play Strategy (2006)

1.5.4 The Children’s Play Council guidance on provision standards emphasises the importance of assessing the engagement and enjoyment aspects of play spaces, but acknowledges the difficulty of setting qualitative standards.

Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008)

1.5.5 Produced by Fields in Trust, the successor to the National Playing Fields Association, this guide updates and expands upon the previous landmark Six Acre

Standard, still widely used as a benchmark for open space and playing space provision. It advocates a minimum of 2.4ha recreational open space per 1,000 population, which is broken down into 0.8ha of children’s play space (both designated and informal) and 1.6ha of outdoor sports space (comprising pitches and other informal sports space) but acknowledges the different needs of rural and urban authorities. To ensure accessibility, the standard also includes a distribution factor, with desirable walking time/distance to different levels of play area, reflecting the ages of the children for whom the play areas are aimed.

Better Places to Play Through Planning (2009)

1.5.6 Play England highlights ways for planners and transport authorities to clarify the local need for and supply of play space. The document offers guidance on standards for quantity, quality and access for all, and advice on the implementation of such standards can be achieved through cross-agency dialogue and co- operation.

Nature Nearby (2010)

1.5.7 This guidance from Natural England elaborates on the implementation of the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, and advocates the use of the Green Flag quality standard for parks and other green spaces.

A Place to Grow (2010)

1.5.8 The Local Government Association and Department for Communities and Local Government have produced this guidance to supplement the previous good practice guide - Growing in the Community. It acknowledges that need for allotments is not static, and advocates a ‘hectares per household’ local provision standard.

1.6 Typology of Open Space

1.6.1 When defining the range of open space types to be included in the study, the starting point was PPG17 and its Companion Guide. However, the category Natural and Semi-Natural Urban Greenspace was substituted by the similar but more detailed definition used by Natural England for Accessible Natural Greenspace. This provided efficiency in meeting two evidence requirements with one document. These typologies are defined in Table 3.

Table 3: Typology of open spaces included in this study

Open Space types Purpose

Urban Parks and Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal Gardens recreation and community events.

Accessible Natural Areas with a predominant feeling of ‘naturalness’ Greenspace important for wildlife conservation, biodiversity, and environmental education and awareness, which are accessible to the public.

Outdoor Sports Facilities for participation in outdoor sports such as Facilities pitch and court sports, bowls, athletics or countryside and water sports.

Amenity Greenspace Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas.

Areas designed primarily for play and social Children’s Playspace interaction involving children and young people, such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard areas and teenage shelters.

Allotments Opportunities for those people who wish to do so to grow their own produce as part of the long term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion.

Cemeteries and Quiet contemplation and burial of the dead often Churchyards linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity.

1.7 Methodology

Process

1.7.1 The individual tasks undertaken to complete the assessment and develop standards of provision are summarised in Fig. 4.

Fig 4: Process used to undertake this study

Stage 1: Identification of local needs A review of existing policies and provision standards relating to open space, sport and recreation facilities Consolidation of previous consultations with communities and stakeholders consultation with parish councils

Stage 2: Audit of local provision Review of quantitative information held by Great Yarmouth Borough Council Exploration of alternative sources of information (e.g. Sport England’s Active Places website, Norfolk Churches Trust etc)

Desk-based identification of all known open space, sport and

recreation facilities with community use (including ‘extended

schools’)

Consultation of appropriate national agency regarding proposed

audit method

Setting thresholds for minimum size of space to be audited

Desk-based identification of users of each type of space

Qualitative assessments of representative sites visited Mapping the location and user catchment area of each space

Stage 3: Setting provision standards

Quantity standards set following site audits, consultation and

demand modelling Quality standards set following site audits and consultation findings Accessibility standards set following site audits, consultation findings and mapping catchment areas

Demography

1.7.2 All current population statistics in this study are 2009 ONS Population Estimates, and can be found on Norfolk Insight14. For population projections to 2026, 2006- based dwelling-led projections from the same source have been used.

1.7.3 Where the distribution of space was mapped alongside population, this was done at the lowest level at which population data was available; Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). These are small areas of relatively even size containing around 1,500 people. This was appropriate for the maps of, for example, football pitch location, showing the pitches alongside the density of football-playing aged population.

1.7.4 When space was calculated in relation to 1,000 head of population, this was done by ward to make analysis more meaningful in the urban, un-parished area of Great Yarmouth.

1.7.5 However, where population distribution was not necessary, the various types of space have been mapped by parish, to provide a familiar geography for readers.

Consultation

1.7.6 In order to avoid consultation fatigue and to improve efficiency, this study has drawn upon existing data from previous consultations about open space in the borough. Although some of the consultations would benefit from a refresh, the current constraints on public resources have precluded this option.

1.7.7 Previous consultations include borough and county-wide Citizen’s Panel surveys, national Sport England surveys, and bespoke surveys to support previous Great Yarmouth strategies and policy documents.

1.7.8 Assessing quality and value is difficult under most circumstances; further consultation would improve the qualitative aspects if this study is repeated.

1.7.9 Parish councils were consulted to establish local need for and quality of outdoor sports facilities and ancillary amenities such as changing rooms, car parking and floodlighting. Parish councils were also consulted to establish the quality of facilities on allotment sites.

Audit

1.7.10 It was appropriate for open space to be mapped by parish, as this is a familiar geography for most readers. It also allowed maps to synchronise with the results of the parish council consultations. However, assessment of the borough’s total open

14 www.norfolkinsight.org.uk

space provision was performed at ward level, to make analysis of the un-parished urban area of Great Yarmouth more meaningful.

1.7.11 For Outdoor Sports Facilities and Children’s Playspace, existing provision was mapped in tandem with the appropriate population age groups to assess the demand-supply relationship for those areas.

1.7.12 To supplement the audit of playing fields, schools participating in the extended schools programme, allowing public or community access, were identified. Extended schools and playing fields with sports pitches were included in the Outdoor Sports Facilities category, and those without pitches were incorporated into Amenity Grrenspace.

1.7.13 Defining Urban Parks & Gardens as distinct from Amenity Greenspace was at times difficult. Meadow Park and Middleton Gardens are examples of spaces which were considered to be on the periphery of the definition.

1.7.14 The quantity of Accessible Natural Greenspace was assessed in conjunction with advice from Natural England about which sites could be judged ‘accessible’. To assess the demand for Accessible Natural Greenspace, previous surveys of visitors to particular sites were used.

1.7.15 As Sport England acknowledge in Towards a Level Playing Field, establishing precisely how many pitches there are within the study area is difficult. However, best efforts have been made to identify pitches through a combination of the use of aerial photography, site visits and contact with parish councils, and has been as rigorous as possible.

1.7.16 Sports associations and clubs were contacted to model the demand for outdoor sports facilities. Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model (PPM) was then used to assess the adequacy of football, cricket, rugby and hockey capacity in the borough. For sports not covered by the PPM, Sport England’s Active People Survey 2010 was used to estimate the demand for various sports in the borough. The number of matches played in most sports has taken account only of programmed competitive play. Team practice sessions, informal games etc have not been factored into the calculations, other than for borough-managed tennis courts and bowls greens.

1.7.17 Amenity Greenspace is more fragmented than other types, and for this reason a minimum size threshold of 0.01ha was imposed. Sites smaller than this were not included in the quantity audit.

1.7.18 Children’s Playspace was audited for quantity according to the borough’s own categorization of the spaces as designed for Junior (0-8), Intermediate (6-12) and Senior (8-14) children, and teens.

1.7.19 Qualitative audits of Urban Parks and Gardens were made according to criteria established in the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy, 2005. This

allows some comparison with previous findings, although different auditing staff completed both surveys.

1.7.20 Qualitative audits of Accessible Natural Greenspace and Allotments were performed by the author according to bespoke criteria as identified in the relevant sections. Each criteria was allocated a total possible score, and the threshold for a ‘good’ score was consistent throughout the study for all quality and value audits of open space.

1.7.21 Qualitative audits were also performed by the author according to bespoke criteria as identified in the relevant section.

1.7.22 Qualitative audits of Outdoor Sports Facilities were performed remotely, by parish councils, due to the need for efficiency.

1.7.23 Children’s Playspace is regularly audited for quality and safety, and the results of the most current audits (at the time of writing) have been used for this study.

1.7.24 Quality audits had regard to PPG17’s suggested approach to assess the quality and value of a space as set out in Fig 5. For the purposes of this study, 55% was judged to be the minimum score for a site to be considered ‘high’ (quality or value).

Fig 5: Quality and value combinations

High quality/low value High quality/high value

Wherever possible the preferred policy Ideally all spaces and facilities should come approach to a space or facility in this into this category and the planning system category should be to enhance its value in should then seek to protect them terms of its present primary purpose. If this is not possible, the next best policy approach is to consider whether it might be of high value if converted to some other primary purpose. Only if this is also possible will it be acceptable to consider a change of use Low quality/low value Low quality/high value

Wherever possible, the policy approach to The policy approach to these spaces or these spaces or facilities should be to facilities should always be to enhance their enhance their quality provided it is quality and therefore the planning system possible also to enhance their value. If should seek to protect them this is not possible, for whatever reason, the space or facility may be ‘surplus to requirements’ in terms of its present primary purpose

Source: Assessing needs and opportunities: a companion guide to PPG17, DCLG (2002)

1.7.25 Accessibility was audited using GIS to establish the percentage of address points within catchment areas. The radii of these catchment areas was established with reference to the guidance received. For Outdoor Sports Facilities, the catchment radii were drawn for travel by car and by foot, according to advice received by Sport England. Accessible Natural Greenspace access was determined according to Natural England’s published catchment areas. Access to Children’s Playspace required some adaptation of the guidance in National Playing Field Associations’ (NPFA) Six Acre Standard to reflect the borough’s age group categories. Due to the lack of guidance in relation to the accessibility of Allotments, a suitable distance has been established based on the function of allotments as local facilities serving local catchment populations.

1.7.26 Standards were set according to the findings of the audits, having regard to any national benchmark standards, and taking into account local feedback from past consultations. The standards also take account of development viability issues and maintenance costs, to ensure future application of the standards is practicable.

2.1 Urban Parks & Gardens Consultations

2.1.1 The public consultation carried out in 2004, relating to the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2005) provided detailed responses to residents’ opinions. When asked what was most liked about the borough’s parks and open spaces the top five answers were: Overall landscape (156) Cleanliness (144) Accessibility (47) Children’s facilities (42) Peacefulness (36)

2.1.2 When asked what was least liked about the borough’s parks and open spaces the top five answers were: Anti-social behaviour (150) Litter (137) Drug and alcohol abuse (107) Dogs (104) Market place television (50)

2.1.3 Other criticisms included the lack of maintenance (particularly relating to grass cutting and play equipment), poor accessibility (parking facilities), poor enclosure facilities (lack of gates and resulting issues around safety of children), fears around safety (afraid of using spaces at night) and an overall shortage of provision.

2.1.4 When asked what residents’ would like to see in their parks and open spaces the five most popular responses were: More/better policing by rangers or wardens (123) More bins (including drug disposal units) (107) More facilities for children and young people (83) Stricter rules/monitoring of dogs (52) Quieter/more seats for relaxation (48)

2.1.5 Other responses included more toilets, more events, better lighting/security, more refreshment opportunities, more natural/biodiversity areas, water features, more flowers/trees and better quality grass and more sports areas.

2.1.6 The Place Survey 2008 surveyed residents’ satisfaction with parks and open spaces. Only 57.8% of those surveyed stated they were very or fairly satisfied with parks and open spaces in Great Yarmouth compared to a Norfolk average of 65.3%. However, the Citizens’ Panel Wave 16 in 2008 found that 67% of respondents were satisfied with the parks and open spaces of the borough.

2.1.7 Citizens’ Panel Wave 16 in 2008 and Wave 19 in 2010 asked residents’ in Great Yarmouth about their satisfaction with parks and open spaces. The result from 2010 showed that 65% of respondents were satisfied with parks and open spaces

compared with 15% who were dissatisfied and 20% who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

2.1.8 Later in 2010 the Citizens Panel Wave 20, asked residents to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of the parks and open spaces provided by Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Around three quarters (73%) of those providing a valid response were satisfied with parks and open spaces. In terms of specific aspects, satisfaction was highest in relation to accessibility (89%), the general maintenance (85%) and landscape quality (77%). Highest levels of dissatisfaction were seen in terms of dog fouling (50%) and the number and locations of litter bins (37%).

2.1.9 Respondents who live in a rural location were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (81%). In terms of ACORN (A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods)15, those in the category ‘hard-pressed’ were most likely to be satisfied (82%).

2.1.10 Older respondents were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (78% of those aged 55 – 64; 78% of those aged 65+), compared with younger age groups (18% of those aged 25-44 were dissatisfied overall).

Fig. 6: Satisfaction with the parks and open spaces (all Great Yarmouth respondents –valid responses only) 2010 responses

Accessibility 89% 8% 3%

General standard of maintenance of parks/open spaces 85% 7% 8%

Landscape quality 77% 12% 11%

General cleanliness 70% 10% 20%

Quality of facilities within the park 66% 17% 18%

Security and safety 61% 22% 16%

Community needs 58% 27% 15%

Number and location of litter bins 51% 12% 37%

Dog fouling 35% 15% 50%

Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 73% 15% 11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied

15 This provides a classification of the UK population into 5 categories based on demographic, social, population and consumer behaviour, ranging from ‘Wealthy Achievers’ to ‘Hard Pressed’.

2.1.11 Comparing the Citizens’ Panel results, between 2008 and late 2010 satisfaction has improved in all aspects but one (dog fouling). Improvements were particularly marked in terms of security and safety (from 44% in 2008 to 61% in 2010) and accessibility (77% in 2008 to 89% in 2010).

Table 4: Satisfaction with parks and open spaces in 2008 compared with 2010 (all Great Yarmouth respondents- valid responses only)

2008 2010 Accessibility 77% 89% (+12) General standard of maintenance of parks and open 83% 85% (+2) spaces Landscape quality 74% 77% (+3) General cleanliness 63% 70% (+7) Quality of facilities within the park 63% 66% (+3) Security and safety 44% 61% (+17) Community needs 52% 58% (+6) Number and location of litter bins 45% 51% (+6) Dog fouling 35% 35% ( - ) Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 67% 73% (+6) NB. Sample bases vary

Consultation summary

2.1.12 From the consultation results the key points to notes are: Overall satisfaction with parks is high Local satisfaction has improved in most aspects There are issues around anti-social behaviour and drug and alcohol abuse There is concern over the quantity of litter and lack of bins There are issues related to dogs fouling

2.2 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit – Quantity

2.2.1 Parks and Gardens were designated into three broad categories: Neighbourhood Parks – areas with limited or no facilities and relatively simple landscaping and planting, used predominantly by the immediate community Middle Order Parks – areas with typically a wider range of users, with better facilities than that of a Neighbourhood Park. These parks are typically utilised by more than one local community Strategic Parks – areas that people travel to from further afield to access a wide range of facilities, catering for a diverse range of people. Strategic Parks will have the largest range of facilities and clear thought will have been taken to their design and their use for both cultural and educational purposes

2.2.2 PPG17 recognises that some forms of open space provision will be found in exclusively rural areas while others will be found in a more urban setting. It also recognises that residents in rural areas cannot realistically expect to have the same level of access to the full range of different types of open space normally available to more densely populated urban areas.

2.2.3 Taking into account that parks and gardens are usually found only in urban areas, supply will be considered in relation to the population of those areas.

Image 1: Gorleston Pier Gardens

Fig. 7: Location of the Borough’s Parks and Gardens

Table 5: Size and Designation of Parks and Gardens

Park/Garden Size (ha) Designation St Georges Park 1.65 Strategic Park Gorleston Cliffs 10.75 Strategic Park Priory Gardens 1.02 Middle Order Park Waterways Garden 4.33 Middle Order Park Anchor Gardens 0.56 Neighbourhood Park Clock Gardens 0.25 Neighbourhood Park Gorleston Pool Garden 0.31 Neighbourhood Park Harbour Gardens 0.32 Neighbourhood Park Meadow Park 1.58 Neighbourhood Park Middleton Gardens 0.39 Neighbourhood Park South Beach Gardens 0.92 Neighbourhood Park

Table 6: Area of Parks and Gardens by Ward (Urban Area Only)

Ward Population Total Parks and Parks and Gardens Gardens (ha) per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 0 0 Central & Northgate 8,614 4.33 0.50 Claydon 7,451 0 0 Gorleston 5,421 10.75 1.98 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 Nelson 8,166 3.38 0.41 Southtown & Cobholm 5,314 0 0 St Andrews 4,800 3.63 0.76 Yarmouth North 4,471 0 0 Urban Total/Average 57,899 22.08 0.38

2.2.4 The total area of parks and gardens in the borough is just over 22 hectares. This means that across the borough there are 0.23ha of parks and gardens per 1,000 population, but 0.38ha per 1,000 population in the urban area of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston.

Image 2: Great Yarmouth Waterways Gardens

2.3 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit – Quality

2.3.1 A quality and value assessment was undertaken for the borough’s parks and gardens similar to that which was used for the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy, 2005. Parks and Gardens were assessed according to the criteria set out in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8: Criteria used to measure Quality and Value

Quality Landscape – How well designed is the park? How good are its features? How appropriate and attractive are the park’s boundaries? Facilities – How good are the parks facilities? How good is the park’s furniture? How well designed are the buildings? How good are the special features at enhancing the quality of the park? Maintenance – How well maintained are the buildings/furniture/ shrubberies/trees and woodland/bedding areas/grass/water features? How well managed is the park for its habitat/wildlife value? How clean is the area from litter/dog foul? Management – How appropriate is the level of management? How accessible are the park staff? How good is the information regarding events and activities? How much are the community involved in the park? Security – What is the sense of personal safety during the day/night? Is the level of use sufficient to ensure self-surveillance? What are the levels of vandalism or anti-social behaviour?

Value Access and circulation – How welcoming are the entrances? How well located are the entrances to the surrounding routes? Does the infrastructure meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)? How well do the signs communicate? Natural environment – How well is the area managed to maximise the benefit to wildlife? How well are the objectives for nature conservation communicated? How much evidence is there of sustainable management practices? Cultural heritage – How well are the historic structures/ landscapes conserved? How much is the park used for cultural activities? Health and education – How much is the park used for specific initiatives in relation to physical and mental health? What amount of sports and exercise facilities are there? How good is the interpretation material? How many tours or educational based activities are there? Meeting the needs of a wide range of visitors – children, the elderly, youth, diverse cultures, disabled, families, active pursuits, social activity

2.3.2 All sites were audited on the same day in June 2011. Each park or garden was evaluated for each criterion and given a score between 1 and 5. Where parks did not have certain criteria (e.g. a water feature) when calculating the overall percentage value the criteria was NOT included, it was however included in the overall quality or value score.

Table 7: Quality and Value of Parks and Gardens Park/Garden Quality Quality Value Value Score Percentage Score Percentage Anchor Gardens 68 62% 49 45% HIGH LOW Clock Gardens 56 53% 37 34% LOW LOW Gorleston Pool 71 65% 51 46% Garden HIGH LOW Harbour Gardens 40 42% 36 33% LOW LOW Meadow Park 71% 51% 50 HIGH 43 LOW Middleton Gardens 64% 36% 45 HIGH 27 LOW Priory Gardens 70 61% 50 43% HIGH LOW Waterways Garden 67 56% 42 37% HIGH LOW Gorleston Cliffs 74 64% 69 60% HIGH HIGH South Beach Gardens 83% 53% 54 HIGH 37 LOW St Georges Park 80 70% 73 63% HIGH HIGH Average 61 63% 47 46%

2.3.3 Overall, parks achieved a higher score for quality than they did for value. Parks and gardens achieved an overall percentage score of 63% in terms of quality and 46% in terms of value. Therefore in overall terms the parks and gardens in Great Yarmouth can be described as being of high quality but low value16.

2.3.4 Of the parks and gardens that did not fall into this particular category, two were of low quality and low value: Clock Gardens and Harbour Gardens (both Neighbourhood Parks) and two were of high quality and high value: Gorleston Cliffs and St. Georges Park (both Strategic Parks). This is perhaps not particularly surprising given their designations but does highlight the need to consider what a

16 Scores of under 55% were considered to be ‘low’ while scores over 55% were considered to be ‘high’

‘Neighbourhood Park’ can reasonably be expected to provide in terms of both quality and value.

2.3.5 In terms of overall quality only the management criteria fell into the low quality category. Parks with a particularly low score in this category were Waterways Gardens (35%), Harbour Gardens (40%) and Gorleston Pool Gardens (45%).

2.3.6 Parks which were considered to be of both low landscape and facility quality were Harbour Gardens (33% and 27% respectively), Clock Gardens (40% for both categories) and Anchor Gardens (53% and 50% respectively). This is primarily due to their smaller size and designation as ‘Neighbourhood Parks’. Those parks which were considered to be of low maintenance quality were Harbour Gardens (48%), Clock Gardens (51%) and Waterways Gardens (53%). Only Priory Gardens was considered to be of low security quality (35%) but this was primarily because of its very enclosed nature. The park is bounded by high walls and it was felt that this would be of safety concern if levels of passive surveillance were low.

2.3.7 In terms of overall value, all the categories, with the exception of access and circulation, were rated as low value. Categories with a particularly low value score included the natural environment (28%) and health and education (30%).

2.3.8 For access, Middleton Gardens scored very low, due to the lack of paths and poor entrance thresholds. No park or garden was considered of high natural environment value and only Gorleston Cliffs was considered to be of high health and education value and this was because of its wide variety of sports facilities. In terms of cultural heritage only Anchor Gardens and St Georges Park were considered to be of high value with Anchor Gardens being given a high value regarding conservation of the historic landscape. Regarding meeting the needs of different groups of people Clock Gardens and Waterways Gardens were judged to be of particularly low value. Neither were considered to be particularly user friendly for children and young people or the disabled; they were also not considered to be very attractive for active pursuits or social activity. Harbour Gardens and Priory Gardens did not score very highly in this category either.

Image 3: Priory Gardens, Gorleston

2.4 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit – Accessibility

2.4.1 Depending on the designation, the distance people would travel to a park or garden has been assumed based on the fact that most people walk to parks or gardens but may be prepared to travel further for a park of a strategic designation. This distance has been defined as: Neighbourhood parks – up to 500m Medium order parks – between 500m and 1km Strategic parks – up to 2km

2.4.2 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments.

Table 8: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of various park sizes

Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Park Size Population 20% 500m Neighbourhood 25% 1km Middle Order 55% 2km Strategic

2.4.3 Although a large proportion of the borough’s population do not live within the catchment area of the borough’s parks, most residents within the urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston are considered to be within an accessible distance of a park or garden. There are times when the road traffic causes an effective barrier to access, and there is a particular deficiency in the area of Bradwell which should ideally be provided for. Because of the coastal location of Great Yarmouth it is not unexpected that several of the town’s parks and gardens are located along the seafront but if growth is to occur in the Bradwell area in the future provision may need to be considered here.

Fig. 9: Catchment Areas for Parks and Gardens

2.5 Urban Parks & Gardens Audit Summary

2.5.1 Although borough-wide access is low, the urban area is well supplied with parks and gardens. There could be a need for new provision in Bradwell.

2.5.2 Value is considered to be a concern. Issues include the need to emphasise the benefits of parks to the natural environment, health and education and cultural heritage.

2.5.3 Some simple alterations could improve the overall quality of parks and gardens in the borough. For example:

Dual aspect seating particularly in Harbour Gardens and Anchor Gardens Better signage- applicable to all parks and gardens Good quality features and facilities maintained to a high standard More varied planting including more flowering plants to offer colour More frequent maintenance of street furniture

Image 4: St Georges park, Great Yarmouth

2.6 Urban Parks & Gardens Local Standards

2.6.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of urban parks and gardens which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.

Fig. 10: Urban Parks and Gardens Local Standards Quantity 0.4 hectares per 1,000 population in the urban area. Current provision almost meets these standards, and consultation results do not suggest that the quantity of open spaces is of particular concern to residents in the borough. Quality and Value Strategic Parks should achieve a quality score of 80% and a value score of 73% Middle Order Parks should achieve a quality score of 70% of and a value score of 65% Neighbourhood Parks should achieve a quality score of 71% and a value score of 55% Bins for litter and dog waste should be provided at the rate of at least one per 0.5 hectares or one per entrance, whichever is the greater.

In the larger parks (over 1 hectare) areas specifically designed for young people will be provided. Meeting the needs of different communities, particularly young people will be given greater consideration. Facilities will be located to maximise passive surveillance and limit anti-social behaviour. Appropriate waymarkers will provide directions in every park and garden. The quality targets are based on best performing parks (St George’s Park, Priory Gardens, Gorleston Pool Gardens) and value targets are considered to be appropriate for the size of park. Value is considered to be the primary area for improvement according to the audit. Improvements can be made to the natural environment and promoting health, education and culture through events in parks. However, consultation suggests that people are more concerned about issues relating to anti-social behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, dogs, litter, lack of facilities for young people. Passive surveillance affects the perception of security in parks and public perception could be addressed through improved communication of improvements made within the borough. Some existing features could be made more valuable, such as re- instating boats at the Waterways Gardens. Accessibility Straight line distances for residents in the urban area: 500m to a Neighbourhood Park 1km to a Middle Order Park 2km to a Strategic Park All parks and gardens should have wheelchair access. Current accessibility to parks is considered to be good within the urban area, other than in Bradwell. If development is to be focused in Bradwell a new park or garden should be provided in the area. Middleton Gardens does not have wheelchair access.

3.1 Accessible Natural Greenspace Consultations

3.1.1 Citizen’s panel wave 15, 2007 asked how frequently respondents visited the countryside, seaside, a park or nature reserve. For such a rural, coastal borough, it is unsurprising that 23% of Great Yarmouth residents did so once a week or more (the county average was 20%). This frequency was particularly high in Bradwell and the rural Flegg villages, with 33% of respondents visiting once a week or more.

Fig. 11: Frequency of Visiting Countryside, Seaside, Nature Reserve or ParkHow frequently, if at all, do you take part in: visiting the countryside, seaside, a park or nature reserve?

South Yarmouth Area

Rural Flegg Villages

North Yarmouth Area

Gorleston Area

Cobholm & Southtown Area

Caister and Coastal Villages

Bradwell Area

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not at all in the past 12 months Only done it once, for the first time this year About once this year, but not for the first time About once every 6 months About once every 2 to 3 months Once a month Once every 2 to 3 weeks Once a week or more Not stated

3.1.2 Visitor surveys were carried out for the Habitat Regulations Assessment in 2009. Visitor counts and questionnaires were conducted on one weekend day and one weekday in July 2008, on the north-western edge of North Denes dunes, and on a weekend day in January 2009 at Breydon Water. The surveys found that most visitors are:

Local Aged 45+ Employed Dog-walkers

And that most of them:

Arrived by car Stayed less than 1 hour Visit daily

3.1.3 Additionally, the Broads Authority 2010 visitor survey provides a picture of visitors to the Broads, and how they spend their time. Although the Broads extend beyond Great Yarmouth Borough, they are an important part of the natural environment within the borough, and the survey is therefore pertinent. The 2010 survey found that:

63% of Broads visitors are in socio-economic code ABC117 Around one quarter of parties are families, with older children likely to be present in water-based parties 50% of all land-based visitors were on a day visit from home Overwhelmingly, visitors would like the Broads to remain as natural as possible

3.1.4 Between the surveys of 2005 and 2010 there has been a reduction in visitor satisfaction with the Broads experience. Most importantly for this study, there has been a drop in satisfaction with:

Provision of waymarked paths Provision of cycle routes

Consultation summary

3.1.5 From the consultation the main points to notes are: Great Yarmouth residents frequently visit natural outdoor spaces Dog walking is a popular reason to visit Visits tend to be short, and car based Visitors value the naturalness of the Broads Waymarked paths and cycle routes need improvement

Image 5: Caister Beach

17 According to the National Readership Survey (NRS) social grading system.

3.2 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit - Quantity

3.2.1 37% of the borough’s land is covered by the Broads Authority area. The Broads consists of natural ‘meres’ (historically), man-made ‘broads’, rivers, marshes, mud flats and Breydon Water, which once was the delta to the river Yare. Although the Broads were originally man-made, the whole wetland area has an overwhelmingly natural appearance. There is also approximately 422ha of sandy beaches, and an abundance of public footpaths (the long-distance footpaths of Weavers’ Way, Wherryman’s Way and Angles’ Way also run through the borough). The borough therefore has a wealth of accessible natural space, and is a popular destination for walkers and bird-watchers.

3.2.2 The strict definition of accessible land would encompass only land upon which people are free to walk at will, unrestricted to footpaths. This could comprise land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, common land, beaches or land managed by the Woodland Trust, for example.

3.2.3 However, some natural parts of the borough benefit from densely located footpaths, and as such entire areas could be said to be accessible in a wider sense (for example, for ramblers and bird-watching). This type of ‘accessible land’ includes Martham Broad and Breydon Water (both navigable and with footpaths almost completely encircling them, and some marshes. Advice received from Natural England suggests that these sites could be included if the footpaths provide a level of access considered to make the site fully accessible.

3.2.4 According to guidance received from Natural England, bodies of water can be included if they are surrounded by accessible land. The nearly 993ha of the Broads system (excluding rivers and marshes) in the borough will not automatically contribute towards accessible natural greenspace for this study. However, Breydon Water and Martham Broad, which are almost entirely encircled by public footpaths and adjacent greenspace, are considered accessible in their entirety. The Trinity Broads are accessible by boat, but a lack of surrounding accessible greenspace or footpaths precludes them from this category. The 15 miles of beaches in the borough have been included.

3.2.5 This study will assess the quantity and quality of natural/semi-natural land, and will set standards based on this interpretation of Natural England’s definition of accessible natural greenspace.

3.2.6 There are many other sites which contain footpaths but access across the site is considered to be limited. Therefore, these sites will not be included in the audit, but to illustrate the full extent of public access, footpaths have been summarised and mapped (see Fig. 13).

3.2.7 To set the context for the study, within the borough there are many natural sites protected by the EU, or by national or local designations. These include the sites in

41 the Table 9. The area covered by these designations is illustrated on the map at Fig. 12.

Table 9: Designated Sites in Great Yarmouth Site SSSI SPA SAC Ramsar NNR LNR Common CWS AONB Belton  Common Brakehill  Sandpit Breydon     Water Brick Kiln  Coverts Burgh    Common Caister Beach  California  Coastal Strip Decoy Wood/South  Wood Dunham Carr  East of Martham  Broad Filby Broad   Fritton  Warren South Gypsies Green  Hall Farm Fen,    Hemsby Horse Common,  Fritton Howard’s  Common Kitchener Road  Cemetery Lacon Covert  Lily Broad   Martham      Broad North Denes   North Wood 

Site SSSI SPA SAC Ramsar NNR LNR Common CWS AONB Ormesby   Broad Ormesby St Michael  Staithe Parish Pit,  Fritton Pulk Hole  Reedham    Marshes Rollesby   Broad Rollesby  Staithe Stokesby  Common The Dell,  Fritton Thurne     Marshes Waveney  Forest West Coverts/Home  Broad Winterton     Dunes Winterton  PCC Land NB. Kitchener Road Cemetery is a County Wildlife Site, so has been included in this category rather than Cemeteries and Churchyards, as suggested by Natural England.

Image 6: Ormesby Broad

Fig. 12: Designated Natural Green (and Blue) Space

NB. Many of these sites have some form of public access through Public Rights of Way (PRoW).

Public Footpaths and Long-distance Footpaths

3.2.8 Access to the Broads landscape and other natural open space within the borough is facilitated by a network of Public Rights of Way (PRoW). The definitions of the PRoW types are:

Public Footpath: open only to walkers; may be waymarked with yellow arrows Public Bridleways: open to walkers, horse riders and cyclists; may be waymarked with blue arrows Restricted Byways: open to all non-motorised users including vehicles such as horse-drawn carts; may be waymarked with plum-coloured arrows Byways Open to All Traffic: can also be used by motorists, although most are inaccessible to all but off-road vehicles

3.2.9 There are almost 197km of PRoW in the borough, as categorised in Table 10. Guidance received from Natural England suggests that land can be considered accessible if it is crossed by public rights of way. However, some sites with theoretical accessibility are so unmanaged that they are not accessible in a practical sense. Those sites considered to be fully accessible natural spaces (where visitors have access across the site and are not restricted to use of the footpaths) are listed in Table 11.

Table 10: Categorisation of PRoW

Type of PRoW Total Length Footpath 165,979m Bridleway 18,340m Restricted Byway 10,658m Byway Open to All Traffic 1,882m

Image 7: Wherryman’s Way at Breydon Bridge

Fig. 13: Public Rights of Way

Table 11: Accessible Natural Greenspace Sites Site Description Size (ha) Belton Common County Wildlife Site, adjacent to golf course. 5.75 (part of) Privately owned but dog walkers allowed. Bradwell Community Small area of woodland, adjacent to Bradwell 1.01 Wood Playing Field, a Woodland Welcome wood Brakehill Sandpit Common Land adjacent to Fritton Lake 1.01 Breydon Water Extremely tidal Local Nature Reserve, navigable, 614.34 containing bird hide, footpath almost encircles it. Burgh Castle Wood A privately owned wood, which is open to the 1.18 public. Caister beach Including some common land. 14.03 Fritton Lake A ‘country park’ containing Fritton Lake and 243.14 woods. Entry charge applies. Gipsies Green Common Land adjacent to Bradwell Playing Field 0.52 Gorleston and Ranging from the urban to the more remote 20.12 Hopton beach Great Yarmouth Including North Denes containing colony of Little 122.17 beach Terns, terminating just north of outer harbour Herbert Barnes Park Semi-natural area wrapped around a sports field 15.07 and adjacent to Breydon Water Horse Common, Small patch of ‘wilderness’ tucked behind a 0.13 Fritton children’s play area. Kitchener Road County Wildlife Site providing nature in an urban 10.10 Cemetery setting Martham Broad and A National Nature Reserve and SSSI. Footpath 75.18 marsh almost encircles it. Newport and Partially adjacent to Hemsby holiday resort, but 51.37 Scratby Beach beach is visually shielded by sand dunes Ormesby St Michael A small patch of Common Land adjacent to the 0.13 Staithe Trinity Broads Parish Pit, Fritton Patch of Common Land on edge of settlement 0.92 Pulk Hole Common Land adjacent to Waveney Forest 0.15 Rollesby Staithe Common Land adjacent to the Trinity Broads 0.20 Shrublands Way Ex-allotment site, overgrown with brambles but 3.90 paths provide access from rec to Meadow Park St Mary’s Church, Ruins now overgrown but paths still intact, 0.45 East Somerton providing access Stokesby Common Common Land outside main settlement close to 0.23 the river The Dell, Fritton Common Land between Waveney Forest and 0.50 Fritton Lake Waveney Forest Privately owned wood open to public, contains a 117.39 County Wildlife Site Winterton beach Including SSSI, SPA and SAC designated area 209.19 Borough Total Accessible Natural Greenspace 1,508.18

NB The lake in Fritton Lake Country Park straddles the border with Waveney; the park’s entire size has been used to calculate catchment area, although the lake is effectively a barrier to access of the Waveney section. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 12: Accessible Natural Greenspace by Ward

Ward Population Total ANG (ha) ANG per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 1.01 0.15 Bradwell South & 6,796 15.66 2.30 Hopton Caister North 4,502 8.93 1.98 Caister South 4,464 29.48 6.60 Central & 8,614 644.13 74.78 Northgate Claydon 7,451 0 0 East Flegg 5,008 226.89 45.31 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.23 0.10 Gorleston 5,421 4.98 0.92 Lothingland 5,672 370.17 65.26 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 Nelson 8,166 27.81 3.41 Ormesby 4,407 30.22 6.86 Southtown & 5,314 15.07 2.84 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 3.90 0.81 West Flegg 5,135 75.38 14.68 Yarmouth North 4,471 54.69 12.23 Borough 96,271 1,508.55 15.67 Total/Average

3.2.10 The total accessible natural greenspace in the borough of over 1,500ha equates to around 0.02ha per person, or around 15.67ha per 1,000 population. Of this total, the only space in the borough designated as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is Breydon Water, at 614.34ha, equating to 6.38ha of LNR per 1,000 population. Of all these areas, there are three woods, totalling just under 120ha, equating to 1.2422ha of accessible woodland per 1,000 population.

3.2.11 Additionally, the marshes at Ashby (approx. 34ha) Mautby (approx 260ha) and just north of Breydon Water (approx 143ha) are ringed by PRoW and are therefore could also considered to be accessible. Natural England have suggested this type of accessibility could be included, which would take the total accessible natural greenspace in the borough to 1,945ha, or 20ha per 1,000 population.

3.2.12 Assessing the demand side of quantity, the majority of users of accessible natural greenspace tend to be walkers, dog-walkers and bird-watchers, although kite flying and family holiday activities are also very popular on the borough’s beaches.

3.2.13 The Great Yarmouth branch of The Ramblers organises on average of 3 or 4 walks per month, with around 20 people taking part in walks varying from 5 to 10 miles long. There are approximately 120 members of the branch.

3.2.14 Bird-watching is very popular in the borough, although visitor numbers are not available.

3.2.15 Visitor surveys carried out for the Habitat Regulations Assessment were conducted in July 2008 and involved visitor counts and questionnaires on one weekend day and one weekday on the north-western edge of North Denes dunes. Over both days, there were 120 groups, comprising 187 people and 141 dogs. Scaling these observations to 12 hour days, an estimated 98 people visit per day on weekdays and 183 at weekends.

3.2.16 Of the 120 groups observed, 45 of them (37.5%) were interviewed. Of those interviewed, 69% considered themselves to be local, 31% were tourists.

3.2.17 On a Saturday in January 2009, a survey of visitors to Breydon Water noted 77 walkers, dog walkers and birdwatchers. Of those interviewed (one person from each group on the northern shore) bird-watching was the most popular reason for being there, although there were 40 dogs accompanying the 77 people, so dog walking is also very popular at this site.

Image 8: Waveney Forest

3.3 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit - Quality

3.3.1 A quality and value assessment was undertaken for the borough’s accessible natural greenspace. Areas were assessed according to the criteria set out in Fig. 14.

Fig. 14: Criteria used to measure Quality and Value for Accessible Natural Greenspace

Quality

Paths – How well sign-posted are they? Are the surfaces in keeping

with the natural surroundings? Would they be passable in wet

conditions?

Flora – How verdant is the area? Is there wide biodiversity (trees,

marsh, meadow etc)?

Walls/fences – How well maintained are the boundaries? Bins – Are there sufficient bins to prevent litter? Seats – Is seating provided at all (could take natural forms such as fallen tree trunks)? Litter – Is the area free from litter? Dog fouling – Is this an issue? Vandalism – Is there evidence of graffiti etc? Aesthetics – Is the site attractive? Are there impressive vistas?

Value

Designation – Has the site been designated, either locally, nationally,

or internationally? How well are the objectives for nature

conservation communicated?

Pedestrian Access – How welcoming are the entrances? How well

located are the entrances to the surrounding routes? Would the site

be considered accessible for those with mobility problems? How well

do the signs communicate?

Social Potential – Is the site used for cultural or educational

activities? Is there potential for benefit to health initiatives?

Habitat Value – Does the site appear to offer a variety of habitats

(hedges, reed beds, trees)?

Safety – Does the site have good visibility? Would it be suitable for more vulnerable members of society?

3.3.2 Due to resource constraints, only areas larger than 2ha have been selected for quality audit from Table 11. Beaches north of Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour have been scored separately to reflect any differences caused by their hinterland context. Each site was scored according to quality and value criteria, as shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Quality and Value Scoring Criteria

Quality Value Item Score Item Score Paths 0-3 Designation Local = 3; Flora 0-3 National = 6; Walls/fences 0-3 International = 9 Bins 0-3 Pedestrian Access 0-3 Seats 0-3 Social Potential 0-3 Litter 0-3 Habitat Value 0-3 Dog fouling 0-3 Safety 0-3 Vandalism 0-3 Aesthetics 0-4

Image 9: Gorleston Beach

3.3.3 All sites were audited on the same day, in July 2011. Items which were not present at a site (e.g. seats) were scored N/A and removed from the total possible score, thus the quality score is not reduced due to the absence of a feature. Resultant scores are shown in Table 14. Scores of under 55% were considered to be ‘low’ while scores 55% and over were considered to be ‘high’.

3.3.4 Overall, the borough’s accessible natural greenspaces are of high quality and high value. Those scoring low for quality were Breydon Water and Waveney Forest, both of which scored badly for litter, dog fouling and vandalism and Caister Beach and Shrublands Way which scored badly for litter. A low value score at the site in Belton reflects the fact that the gate is locked although a sign suggests dog walkers are welcome, while access to Shrublands Way is also hindered by the overgrowth. Where sites do not have a designation, there is often increased social value, with close proximity to residential areas or holiday resorts.

Table 14: Results from the Quality and Value Audit of Sites

Site Quality Quality Value Value Score Percentage Score Percentage Belton Common 15 68% 7 33% (part of) HIGH LOW Breydon Water 6 27% 15 71% LOW HIGH Caister Beach 14 50% 9 75% LOW HIGH Fritton Lake 26 93% 11 92% HIGH HIGH Gorleston and 19 86% 9 75% Hopton Beach HIGH HIGH Gt Yarmouth 13 59% 19 90% Beach/North Denes HIGH HIGH Herbert Barnes Park 19 68% 9 75% HIGH HIGH Kitchener Road 22 88% 13 62% Cemetery HIGH HIGH Martham Broad 12 63% 15 71% HIGH HIGH Newport and 16 64% 9 75% Scratby Beach HIGH HIGH Shrublands Way 11 44% 4 33% LOW LOW Waveney Forest 11 44% 12 57% LOW HIGH Winterton Beach 17 68% 19 90% HIGH HIGH Borough Average 15 63% 12 69%

3.4 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit - Accessibility

3.4.1 From the Habitat Regulations Assessment survey in 2009, the audit of visitors to North Denes beach showed that 50% of visitors live within 2km, 67% live within 4km and 80% live within 8.5km.

3.4.2 Regarding wider accessibility, the undeveloped nature of this type of space is likely to cause accessibility problems for some sectors of society. For example, Breydon Water is an area run by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Their website advises: ‘This is a natural site with unimproved paths and trails - the access around this site may not be suitable for all visitors.’

3.4.3 The measure of accessibility recommended by Natural England sets travel distance thresholds which depend on the size of each space. The borough’s beaches are in two continuous strips, either side of the Outer Harbour and mouth of the river Yare. To the north, the beach runs continuously from the northern border at Winterton to the Outer Harbour (some 396.77ha of beach at mean high tide) and the total area of this continuous beach has been used to define the beach’s catchment area. Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments, as shown in Table 15. These catchment areas, or ‘buffer zones’ are shown in Figs. 15-18.

Table 15: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of various Accessible Natural Greenspace sizes

Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Accessible Natural Population Greenspace of Size 24% 300m Any 21% 300m 2ha+ 86% 2km 20ha+ 96% 5km 100ha+ 94% 10km 500ha+

3.4.4 It is clear that while there is good accessibility (at a longer range) to large areas of natural greenspace, some parts of the borough are lacking in small pockets of accessible natural greenspace. There is also reduced availability of accessible natural greenspace in the north of the borough. However, with a wide network of public rights of way (see Fig. 13) there may be no perception of such a shortage.

Fig. 15: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 2ha and above

Fig. 16: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 20ha and above

Fig. 17: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 100ha and above

Fig. 18: Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision, 500ha and above

3.5 Accessible Natural Greenspace Audit Summary

3.5.1 The borough has a predominantly rural feel, and there are many areas of natural space accessible to the public. Key natural assets include: Sandy beaches Bodies of inland water and rivers Marshland Woodland

3.5.2 Walking, bird-watching and dog-walking are popular activities in the borough. There are issues with litter, vandalism and dog fouling.

3.5.3 Overall, the borough’s accessible natural greenspaces are of high quality and high value. Most residents have access to large natural sites, but there are fewer small natural sites.

Image 10: North of Gorleston Recreation Ground, South of Meadow Park (ex allotment land)

3.6 Accessible Natural Greenspace - Benchmark Standards

3.6.1 Natural England produced the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, which state that everyone, wherever they live, should have accessible natural greenspace:

At least 2 ha in size, no more than 300 metres (5 mins walk) from home At least one accessible 20 ha site within 2 km of home One accessible 100 ha site within 5 km of home One accessible 500 ha site within 10 km of home A minimum of 1 ha of statutory Local Nature Reserve per 1,000 population

3.6.2 In addition, Woodland Trust’s Woodland Access Standards suggest a benchmark of:

Accessible woodland of minimum 2ha within 500m of home At least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 8km round trip of home

Image 11: Breydon Water from the North Bank

3.7 Accessible Natural Greenspace - Local Standards

3.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of accessible natural greenspace which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.

Fig. 19: Accessible Natural Greenspace Local Standards

Quantity 16ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 population across the borough. This could be heath, marsh or woodland and minimum size requirement is 1ha, as smaller pockets of natural space are valuable on a local level. Developments in the north west of the borough should address local shortages of accessible natural greenspace. There is current provision of 15.7ha (20 ha if marshes included) of accessible natural greenspace (including 1.24ha publicly accessible woodland) per 1,000 population. Therefore provision currently almost meets these standards, and as the quantity of public rights of way and beaches in the borough is so extensive, it is not felt that the borough is particularly deficient in this aspect. However, new developments would benefit from additional areas of ‘untamed’ fully accessible open space, particularly in the north west of the borough. Quality and Value Any site of accessible natural greenspace should achieve minimum scores of 68% for quality and 75% for value using this study’s scoring criteria. Targets are derived from existing scores for Winterton Beach (quality 68%) and Gorleston/Hopton Beach (value 75%). A high quality score is more achievable when litter and dog fouling are under control. A high value score to some extent depends on the habitat or social value of the space. Providing either picnic areas or bio-diverse habitats with educational interpretation boards for visitors would increase the social value of a space. Accessibility All residents should have accessible natural green space of over 1ha within 2km and where possible this should have wheelchair access. Current accessibility to natural greenspace is considered to be good for large sites (20ha and above) within the borough, with almost all residents falling within Natural England’s suggested catchment areas. However, in the 2 -19ha category, only 21% of the population currently lives within Natural England’s suggested catchment of 300m for accessible natural greenspace.

4.1 Outdoor Sports Facilities Consultations

4.1.1 The Norfolk Citizen’s Panel, Wave 15 in 2007 surveyed the frequency of taking part in and of watching sport/physical activity. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth, 44% of people surveyed had not watched a live sport event or activity at all in the previous 12 months (compared to 46% across Norfolk) and the borough claimed the highest percentage (10%) of Norfolk citizens who watched a live sports event or activity once a week or more (Norfolk average was 6%). Breaking this down geographically, a high proportion of respondents in Bradwell (21%) and south Yarmouth (20%) claimed to watch live sports on a weekly basis.

4.1.2 The proportion of the Great Yarmouth population who had not taken part in a sporting or physical activity at all in the previous year (43%) was broadly in line with the Norfolk average of 42%, but was particularly high (58%) in the Cobholm and Southtown area and higher still (67%) in the south Yarmouth area. The percentage of borough residents who had taken part in sports at least once a week (27%) was below the county average (32%) but in Bradwell the figure rose to 45%, in Gorleston it was 43% and in the rural Flegg villages it was 35%.

4.1.3 The Place Survey 2008 assessed borough residents’ satisfaction with sport/leisure facilities, finding that only 27.6% of respondents were very or fairly satisfied (it should be noted that there was a fairly low response rate of just 32% for this survey, the lowest of all districts in Norfolk).

4.1.4 The Norfolk Citizen’s Panel, Wave 19 in Great Yarmouth in 2010 found that only 45% of residents of the borough were satisfied with sport/leisure facilities. Those most likely to be dissatisfied with sport/leisure facilities were those with children in the household (44%) and those in the 25-44 age group (40%).

Fig. 20 Satisfaction with sport/leisure facilities (all respondents in Great Yarmouth who provided a valid response to Citizen’s Panel Wave 19)

Sport/leisure facilities 45% 26% 30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied

4.1.5 The annual Active People Survey (APS) is performed by Sport England to measure the sporting habits of adults in England. In 2010 it found that the percentage of all adults in the Borough of Great Yarmouth who participate in 30 minutes’ sport and active recreation at least 3 days per week is currently 20.3%18 compared to APS 1 when it was 17.6%. Despite the local increase, the current figures are still below the county average at 20.4% and the national average 22.1%19.

4.1.6 Breaking the above result down by gender and age groupings, it is the adult female population of the borough who are less active (15.1%) than the county average (18.3%) or national average (19%). The middle-aged population (aged 35-54) are slightly less active (22.2%) than the county average for that age group (25.1%). However, activity amongst the older population (over 55s) of the borough compares favourably (13.4%) to the county average (12.7%). Comparable figures by age bands are not available at national level.

4.1.7 Since the Active People Survey started (2005/6) the percentage of men who have participated in 30 minutes sport and active recreation at least 3 days per week has steadily increased from a starting point of 18.7% (APS 1) to 25.9% (APS 3/4 combined), whereas women’s participation has seen a decline from 16.6% (APS 1) to 15.1% (APS 3/4 combined). Thus the growth in the borough’s overall activity levels amongst adults is built on the increase in male participation over this period.

4.1.8 Active People Survey 4 (2009/10) data shows that fewer of the population of the borough spend at least one hour a week volunteering to support sport (3.9%) compared to the county average (5.5%) and the national average (4.5%).

4.1.9 The same survey found that:

Sport club membership amongst adults is lower in the borough (19.1%) than the county (21.3%) and the national population (23.9%) Satisfaction with local sports provision in the borough (61.9%) is below the county average (68.9%) and the national average (69%), and displays a different trend to the regional and national average (see Fig. 21) Adults receiving sports tuition in the borough (13.8%) is below the county average (16.9%) and the national average (17.5%) Adults in the borough taking part in organised sporting competition (11.4%) is lower than the county average (13.7%) and the national average (14.4%)

18 Figures based on APS3/4 survey Oct 08 and Oct 10. 19 Figure based on APS 4 survey Oct 09 and Oct 10.

Fig. 21: Satisfaction with Local Sports Provision, Great Yarmouth

KPI6 Satisfaction with Local Sports Provision

72 70 68 66 64 62

Satisfied 60 58 56 54

% Adult Population Very or Fairly Fairly or VeryPopulation Adult % 52 2005/6 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

Gt Yarmouth East of England England

Source: Sport England, Active People Survey 4, Key Performance Indicator 16, 2010

4.1.10 In May 2011, parish councils were consulted to establish local levels of satisfaction with provision of outdoor sport facilities. Most responses were positive, although a few changing rooms are reportedly in need of upgrading, and there was an acknowledged shortage of tennis courts and a need for improved access at some parish facilities (see page 88 for full details).

Consultation Summary

4.1.11 From the consultation, the main points to notes are:

Great Yarmouth residents watch live sports more but play sports less frequently than the Norfolk average- this is amplified in urban areas Women residents of the borough are less active than the county or national average Older residents are more active than the county average There is comparatively less satisfaction with sports provision in the borough than nationally Several parish facilities require improved changing amenities

4.2 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit – Quantity

4.2.1 The borough has approximately 111ha of playing fields which are largely used for sports activities (sports pitches are marked out within this total space, which includes clubhouses but excludes car park space) and approximately 6ha of sports courts and greens (for tennis, bowls, netball, basketball, etc). Depending on the context of the location, some multi-use games courts have been categorised as teen play areas, and therefore do not contribute to this Courts & Greens area. The distribution of outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf provision, as recommended by the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) within the borough is shown in Table 16 (where facilities overlap borders, the entire space has been allocated to just one parish).

Table 16: Capacity of Outdoor Sports Facilities by Parish

Area of Playing Fields* Area of Courts & Greens Parish (ha) (ha) Ashby with Oby 0 0 Belton with Browston 5.30 0.24 Bradwell 23.30 0.38 Burgh Castle 2.05 0 Caister-on-Sea 7.58 0.36 Filby 2.82 0.17 Fleggburgh 1.71 0.24 Fritton & St Olaves 0 0.09 Great Yarmouth 43.60 2.99 Hemsby 1.99 0.17 Hopton-on-Sea 1.98 0.39 Martham 10.40 0.38 Mautby 0 0.08 Ormesby St Margaret 4.05 0.18 Ormesby St Michael 0 0 Repps with Bastwick 1.37 0.14 Rollesby 2.77 0.11 Somerton 0 0 Stokesby with Herringby 0 0 Thurne 0 0 West Caister 0 0 Winterton-on-Sea 2.19 0.22 Borough Total 111.11 6.14 *Some schools open their grounds to local communities outside of school hours/terms under the extended schools programme. Sports pitches/courts at schools doing so are included within this section of the study (schools with no sports pitches but which open to the local community are covered under the Amenity Space section). Borough totals may not sum due to rounding.

4.2.2 It is clear that the most rural parishes are deficient in sports facilities, which closely follows the population distribution (see Fig. 3). However, in Burgh Castle the population is slightly denser and this could indicate a shortage of tennis courts or bowling greens. The supply of outdoor sports pitches, courts and greens has been mapped on the following pages.

Fig. 22: Playing Fields by Parish

Fig. 23: Courts and Greens by Parish

4.2.3 The quantity of outdoor sports provision per 1,000 population has been calculated by ward (where facilities overlap borders, the entire space has been allocated to the ward containing the majority of the facility).

Table 17: Area of Outdoor Sports Facilities by Ward

Ward Population Total Outdoor Outdoor Sports Sports Facilities Facilities per 1,000 (ha) pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 16.32 2.48 Bradwell South 6,796 9.74 1.43 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 0 Caister South 4,464 7.94 1.78 Central & 8,614 9.95 1.15 Northgate Claydon 7,451 10.11 1.36 East Flegg 5,008 4.56 0.91 Fleggburgh 2,388 5.02 2.10 Gorleston 5,421 5.88 1.09 Lothingland 5,672 7.68 1.35 Magdalen 7,086 8.20 1.16 Nelson 8,166 1.78 0.22 Ormesby 4,407 4.22 0.96 Southtown & 5,314 4.51 0.85 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 1.95 0.41 West Flegg 5,135 15.17 2.95 Yarmouth North 4,471 4.22 0.94 Borough Total/Average 96,271 117.25 1.22

4.2.4 The borough has a total of 1.22 ha of outdoor sports facilities per 1,000 population. The wards of Caister North, Nelson and St Andrews have relatively low provision while the residents of West Flegg, Bradwell North and Fleggburgh are well- provided with outdoor sports facilities.

4.2.5 For many sports, the supply of pitches, courts and greens has been mapped separately, with analysis of demand for each sport.

4.2.6 Demand and supply for pitch sports has been analysed by sport, using Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model where applicable to calculate pitch requirements for football, cricket, hockey and rugby union. Assumptions include:

All teams play a home game once in two weeks

Each pitch is capable of no more than 2 matches per week; mini football pitches have greater capacity Artificial pitches have been allocated to senior football, junior football and hockey uses within the model, each pitch counted once only There will be minimal increase in participation rates for football, otherwise only population-related increases in participants Borough-wide dwelling-derived population projections to 2026 retain the geographic distribution of 2009 ONS population estimates The adult/junior team ratio for all sports in 2026 will be the same as 2010/11 season Pitch demand has only been considered for programmed competitive play. Although the extent to which pitches have to accommodate training activity and informal use is an important factor, this has not formed part of the Playing Pitch Model calculations

Supply of Football Pitches

Table 18: Football Pitches by Parish Senior Parish Pitches Junior Pitches Mini Pitches Artificial Pitches Ashby with Oby 0 0 0 0 Belton with Browston 2 1 2 0 Bradwell 8 2 0 2 Burgh Castle 1 0 0 0 Caister-on-Sea 3 2 2 3 Filby 1 2 0 0 Fleggburgh 0 1 1 0 Fritton & St Olaves 0 0 0 0 Great Yarmouth 15 4 2 1 Hemsby 3 1 4 0 Hopton-on-Sea 1 1 0 0 Martham 6 2 4 0 Mautby 0 0 0 0 Ormesby St Margaret 2 2 0 0 Ormesby St Michael 0 0 0 0 Repps with Bastwick 1 1 0 0 Rollesby 1 0 0 0 Somerton 0 0 0 0 Stokesby with Herringby 0 0 0 0 Thurne 0 0 0 0 West Caister 0 0 0 0 Winterton-on-Sea 1 0 1 0 Borough Total 45 19 16 6

4.2.7 Football pitch provision is shown in Figs. 24-27, along with the distribution of the population considered by Sport England to be of football-playing age. The maps are followed by the results for football of the Sport England Playing Pitch Model.

Fig. 24: Senior Football Pitches and Population Aged 16-45

Fig. 25: Junior Football Pitches and Population Aged 10-15

Fig. 26: Mini Football Pitches and People Aged 6-9

Fig. 27: Artificial Pitches

NB Artificial pitches may be used for sports other than football.

Demand for Football Pitches

4.2.8 Information from the Football Association, updated by contact with individual clubs, suggests the following football teams were based in the borough for the 2010/11 season.

Table 19: Football Teams 2011

Men’s 11 Women’s Male Youth Female Mini Soccer Small Sided 11 Youth 59 1 63 9 48 42 NB this excludes one mini-soccer team whose base could not be identified, two ‘local’ senior soccer teams who play competitive matches in Norwich and 42 small-sided senior teams.

4.2.9 Temporal demand for games has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of football pitch provision within the borough and by ward. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:312 (people of the applicable age) with 3.2 teams per 1,000 active population (excluding mini-soccer and small-sided teams).

Table 20: Football Pitch Demand

Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches in 2011 Pitches in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 44.6 44.7 Saturday afternoon 33.8 34.2 Sunday morning 42.2 42.3 Sunday afternoon 37.7 38 Midweek 47 46.7 Junior Saturday morning 19.1 19.7 Saturday afternoon 17 17.9 Sunday morning 18.4 19.1 Sunday afternoon 2.9 6.5 Midweek 22 22 Mini Saturday morning 8.3 9.5 Soccer Saturday afternoon 11.2 12 Sunday morning 1.1 3.5 Sunday afternoon -1.8 1 Midweek 16 16

4.2.10 This would suggest that there is a need for careful scheduling of some matches, particularly for mini-soccer. However, supply of football pitches overall is more than adequate to meet demand now and in 2026.

4.2.11 Considering the population distribution alongside the location of pitches (as in figures 24, 25 and 26) Cobholm, Southtown, Hopton and parts of Martham are

more densely populated, but less well-provided, than other areas. See section 4.4 regarding accessibility of outdoor sports facilities.

Image 12: Fleggburgh Playing Field

Supply of Cricket Pitches

4.2.12 The borough has a total of 10 cricket pitches. The distribution is shown in Table 21 and this has been mapped in tandem with the distribution of population of cricket- playing age (Fig. 28).

Table 21: Cricket Pitches by Parish

Parish Pitches Belton with Browston 1 Caister-on-Sea 1 Gt Yarmouth 4 Hemsby 1 Martham 1 Rollesby 1 Winterton-on-Sea 1 Borough Total 10

Demand for Cricket Pitches

4.2.13 There are 7 cricket clubs in the borough, with a total of 28 teams as shown in Table 22. Temporal demand for games has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of cricket pitch provision within the borough and by ward. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:1,881 (people of the applicable age) with 0.5 teams per 1,000 active population.

Table 22: Cricket Teams 2011

Men’s Women’s Male Youth Female 11 11 Youth 18 1 9 0

Table 23: Cricket Pitch Demand

Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches in 2011 Pitches in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 10 10 Saturday afternoon 2.3 3.8 Sunday morning 10 10 Sunday afternoon 5.1 6 Midweek 9.3 9.5 Junior Saturday morning 10 10 Saturday afternoon 9.3 9.4 Sunday morning 10 10 Sunday afternoon 10 10 Midweek 4.4 4.9

4.2.14 Table 23 would suggest that there are adequate cricket pitches for the teams in the borough, both in 2011 and in 2026. However, it should be noted that the Playing Pitch Model could not take account of cricket matches lasting a full day, hence the apparent availability of all pitches on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

4.2.15 According to Fig. 28 some borough residents would have to travel a considerable distance if they wanted to play cricket regularly (see section 4.4 regarding accessibility of outdoor sports facilities).

Fig. 28: Cricket Pitches and People Aged 18-55

Demand for Rugby Pitches

4.2.17 The Lowestoft and Yarmouth Rugby Football Club have 3 senior and 6 junior teams, but are based at Gunton, outside the borough. There is just one rugby club (Broadland and Great Yarmouth Rugby Football Club) based in the borough, with a total of 5 teams as shown below.

Table 25: Rugby Teams 2011

Men’s Women’s Male Youth Female Youth 2 0 3 0

4.2.18 Temporal demand for games by this one club has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of rugby pitch provision within the borough and by ward. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:7,263 (people of the applicable age) with 0.1 teams per 1,000 active population (if taking account of all rugby players in the Lowestoft and Yarmouth RFC in addition, this would change to 1:2,594 and 0.4 respectively).

Table 26: Rugby Pitch Demand

Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches in 2011 Pitches in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 4.5 4.5 Saturday afternoon 4.5 4.5 Sunday morning 5 5 Sunday afternoon 5 5 Midweek 5 5 Junior Saturday morning 1 1 Saturday afternoon 1 1 Sunday morning 0 0.3 Sunday afternoon 0.5 0.7 Midweek 1 1

4.2.19 The results suggest that there are adequate rugby pitches for the teams in the borough, both in 2011 and in 2026. However, if the Lowestoft and Yarmouth RFC decided to base themselves in the borough, this would affect pitch availability, depending on where they were based and when they played matches.

4.2.20 According to Fig. 29 some borough residents would have to travel a considerable distance if they wanted to play rugby regularly, particularly those of rugby-playing age living around Hemsby (see section 4.4 regarding accessibility of outdoor sports facilities).

Fig. 29: Rugby Pitches and People Aged 18-55

Supply of Hockey Pitches

4.2.21 Hockey is usually played on artificial pitches, of which the borough has 6. However, artificial pitches are also used for other sports, notably for football practice. As football is the most popular team sport, artificial pitches have been mapped with the analysis of football pitches; they have also been mapped alongside the distribution of population of hockey-playing age below.

Table 27: Hockey Pitches by Parish Parish Pitches Bradwell 2 Caister-on-Sea 1 Great Yarmouth 3 Borough Total 6

Demand for Hockey Pitches

4.2.22 There are 2 hockey clubs in the borough, with a total of 4 teams. Temporal demand for games by these clubs has been input to the Playing Pitch Model to calculate the adequacy of hockey pitch provision within the borough and by ward. For the purposes of the model the borough’s 6 artificial pitches have been matched to adult and junior football, with just one pitch nominally allocated to hockey. It would suggest that the team generation rate is 1:10,021 (people of the applicable age) with 0.1 teams per 1,000 active population. As shown in Table 29, there are adequate hockey pitches for the teams in the borough, both in 2011 and in 2026.

Table 28: Hockey Teams 2011

Men’s Women’s Male Youth Female

Youth

1 2 0 1

Table 29: Hockey Pitch Demand Teams Game Times Shortfall/Surplus Shortfall/Surplus Pitches Pitches in 2011 in 2026 Senior Saturday morning 0 0.2 Saturday afternoon 0.5 0.6 Sunday morning 1 1 Sunday afternoon 1 1 Midweek 1 1 Junior Saturday morning 1 1 Saturday afternoon 0.5 0.6 Sunday morning 1 1 Sunday afternoon 1 1 Midweek 1 1

Fig. 30: Artificial Pitches and People Aged 16-45

Supply of Tennis Courts

4.2.23 The borough has a total of 31 tennis courts available for public use. The distribution of these courts is shown in Table 30 and Fig. 31.

Table 30: Location of Tennis Courts

Location Number Parish Browston Hall 2 Belton with Browston Ormiston Academy 4 Bradwell Broadland Sports Club 3 Fleggburgh Marine Parade, Gorleston 6 Great Yarmouth Southtown Common 1 Great Yarmouth Wellesley Recreation Ground 2 Great Yarmouth North Beach 4 Great Yarmouth Cliff Park High School 4 Great Yarmouth Hemsby Social Club 1 Hemsby Hopton (holiday park) 2 Hopton-on-Sea Flegg High School 2 Martham Borough Total 31

Demand for Tennis Courts

4.2.24 There are several ways to calculate the number of tennis players. At a national level, Sport England Active People Survey (2010) found that 1.04% of the 16+ adult population (437,500 people) participate in tennis on a regular basis (once a week or 4 days out of the previous 28 days) and that this figure is decreasing. 1.04% of the borough’s 16+ adult population would equate to 829 tennis players, if the national proportion of players applies.

4.2.25 Extracting local information from membership data supplied by Tennis East (part of the Lawn Tennis Association representing Norfolk) suggests that around 324 residents of Great Yarmouth Borough are signed up British Tennis Members. Not all regular tennis players would take out membership - nationally, the number of British Tennis Members account for around 73% of the national Sport England regular tennis player figure. If the same proportion applied to Great Yarmouth borough, it could be estimated that 444 of the borough’s residents play tennis regularly. If this is true, there appears to be a comparatively low level of tennis playing by residents of the borough.

4.2.26 The only evidence of distribution of tennis players is British Tennis Membership, shown below. There are concentrations of players in Bradwell South, Gorleston and Magdalen wards. The borough total equates to only 10 British Tennis Members per tennis court, although if there were 444 regular tennis players in the borough, the borough-wide average figure would be 14 players per court. If national frequency of tennis playing applies in the borough, 829 players would equate to 27 players

83 per court. These figures ignore casual players of the game who play less frequently. An estimate of tennis players residing in the borough is therefore likely to be between 324 (BTM members) and 829 (the national ratio). There will also be some demand from the tourists staying in or visiting Great Yarmouth in the summer season.

Fig. 31: Tennis Courts in the Borough

Table 31: Distribution of Tennis Courts and British Tennis Members

Ward Approximate British Tennis Courts British Tennis Tennis Members Members per Court Bradwell North 25 0 No courts Bradwell South 37 6 6 Caister North 8 0 No courts Caister South 9 0 No courts Central and 1 Northgate 8 6 Claydon 19 1 19 East Flegg 11 1 11 Fleggburgh 41 3 14 Gorleston 30 10 3 Lothingland 23 2 11 Magdalen 30 0 No courts Nelson 8 0 No courts Ormesby 17 0 No courts Southtown 7 0 No courts St. Andrews 23 0 No courts West Flegg 18 2 9 Yarmouth North 10 0 No courts Borough Total 324 31 10.4

4.2.27 Tennis games are affected by bad weather. For the purposes of calculating court capacity, it has been assumed that tennis can be played on only half the days of the year. Annual booking levels at borough-managed tennis courts during 2008 and 2010, and the rate of players per court per day (assuming 182 days of play) are shown in Table 32.

Table 32: Tennis Players Per Court (Borough-Maintained)

Facility Number 2008 2010 Players per Courts Bookings Bookings court/day North Beach 4 1,599 1,084 1-2 Marine Parade, Gorleston 6 2,285 1,632 1-2

4.2.28 The average of 1-2 players per court per day at borough-managed courts suggests that provision is adequate and there could be some spare capacity.

Supply of Bowling Greens

4.2.29 There are 24 bowling greens within the borough, the distribution of which are shown in Table 33 and Fig. 32.

Table 33: Location of Bowling Greens Location Number Parish Browston Hall 1 Belton with Browston Green Lane Bradwell 1 Bradwell King George V 1 Caister-on-Sea Filby 1 Filby Flegg 1 Fleggburgh Fritton 1 Fritton & St Olaves North Beach 2 Great Yarmouth North Drive 3 Great Yarmouth Marine Parade, Gorleston 2 Great Yarmouth PH on Caister Road 1 Great Yarmouth Wellesley Recreation Ground 1 Great Yarmouth Hemsby 1 Hemsby Hopton (holiday park) 1 Hopton-on-Sea St Margaret’s Church 1 Hopton-on-Sea Martham 1 Martham Runham Mautby 1 Mautby Ormesby St Margaret 1 Ormesby St Margaret Repps 1 Repps with Bastwick Rollesby 1 Rollesby Winterton 1 Winterton-on-Sea Borough Total 24 NB. In addition to these greens, there is a world-class (mostly indoor) bowling centre at Potters Leisure, Hopton, and several other indoor bowls facilities, not covered by this study.

Image 13: Bowling Green, Adjacent King George V Playing Field, Caister

Fig. 32: Bowling Greens in the Borough

Demand for Bowling Greens

4.2.30 Demand is difficult to separate from supply, as the clubs are based at the greens (there are multiple clubs based at Gorleston and North Drive). Individual club membership varies and therefore aggregate demand is difficult to quantify. The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 2.92% of the adult population (age 16+) plays bowls, and that this figure is decreasing. 2.92% of the borough’s 16+ adult population would equate to 2,327 bowls players, resulting in a borough-wide average of 97 bowls players per green. While this seems like a high figure, the sport is popular among the older age groups, and the borough has an aging population. The sport is also popular with some of the 4.4 million tourists who visit the borough each year.

4.2.31 Seven of the greens located in Great Yarmouth town are operated by the Borough Council. There has been an annual Festival of Bowls held at the Britannia Greens since 1945. It is considered to be the biggest four-week outdoors bowls 20 tournament in the UK, attracting over 1,500 entrants .

4.2.32 Outdoor bowls matches are affected by bad weather. For the purposes of calculating court capacity, it has been assumed that bowls can be played on only half the days of the year. Annual booking levels at borough-managed bowls greens during 2008 and 2010, and the rate of players per green per day (assuming 182 days of play) were:

Table 34: Bowls Players per Green (Borough-Maintained)

Facility Number 2008 2010 Players per Greens Bookings Bookings green/day North Drive 2 3,535 2,346 6-10 Britannia Bowls* 3 1,554 1,718 3 Marine Parade, Gorleston* 2 1,641 1,604 4-5 * includes club rinks, but excludes touring sides, club matches and the Festival of Bowls

4.2.33 If the local bowls player/court ratio is around 97 regular bowls players per green (see above) the average of 4-6 players per green per day at borough-managed facilities suggests that most regular players use other greens in the borough.

20 www.pitchcare.com

Supply of Golf and Pitch & Putt Courses

Table 35: Location of Golf and Pitch & Putt Courses Location Type Parish 9-Hole Golf and Pitch & Browston Hall Country Club Putt Belton with Browston Great Yarmouth & Caister 18-Hole Golf Caister-on-sea Bure Park Pitch & Putt Great Yarmouth Marine Parade Pitch & Putt Great Yarmouth Caldecott Hall 18-Hole Golf Fritton & St Olaves Hemsby Pitch & Putt Hemsby Gorleston 18-Hole Golf Hopton-on-sea Palms at Potters Pitch & Putt Hopton-on-sea

Demand for Golf and Pitch & Putt Courses

4.2.34 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 2.04% of the adult population (age 16+) participates in golf regularly and this is decreasing. In the borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 1,626 golfers, 203 golfers per facility.

Fig. 33: Golf Courses in the Borough

Supply of Basketball Courts

Table 36: Location of Basketball Courts

Basketball Courts Number Parish Green Lane 1 Bradwell Mill Lane 1 Bradwell Bell Lane 1 Belton with Browston Caister Playing Field 1 Caister-on-Sea King George V Field 1 Caister-on-Sea Diana Way 1 Caister-on-Sea Fleggburgh 1 Fleggburgh North Beach 2 Great Yarmouth Marine Parade, Gorleston 1 Great Yarmouth Peggotty Road 1 Great Yarmouth Gorleston Recreation Ground 1 Great Yarmouth Cobholm 1 Great Yarmouth Beacon Park 1 Great Yarmouth Wellesley Recreation Ground 1 Great Yarmouth Martham Recreation Ground 1 Martham Borough Total 16

NB. provision for basketball includes some Multi-use Games Areas, the areas of which have been included in the Children’s Playspace section of the study. While all basketball facilities are listed here, they do not all contribute to the overall area of courts and greens.

Demand for Basketball Courts

4.2.35 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 0.36% of the adult population (age 16+) plays basketball regularly and this is decreasing. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 287 basketball players, or 18 players per court. While there would appear to be an over-supply of basketball courts, many of these are on multi-use games areas, and double for use with other sports.

Supply of Netball Courts

Table 37: Location of Netball Courts

Netball Courts Number Parish Cliff Park High School 2 Great Yarmouth Martham Primary School 1 Martham Borough Total 3

Demand for Netball Courts

4.2.36 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 0.34% of the adult population (age 16+) plays netball regularly and this is one of the few sports in which participation is increasing. In the borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 271 netball players, or 90 players per court.

Supply of Outdoor Gyms/Athletics

Table 38: Location of Outdoor Gyms/Athletics Outdoor Gyms/Athletics: Parish

Adizone, Mill Lane PF Great Yarmouth

Trim Trail, Gorleston Great Yarmouth

Wellesley Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth

Demand for Outdoor Athletics/Gyms

4.2.37 The Sport England Active People Survey of 2010 states that nationally, 4.45% of the adult population (age 16+) participates in athletics regularly and this is one of the few sports in which participation is increasing. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth this would equate to 3,547 athletes, which seems very high.

Supply of Multi-Use Games Areas

4.2.38 In addition to the other sports facilities, there are multi-use games areas (including court markings for tennis, netball, basketball, 5-a-side football) at:

Beacon Park, Gorleston Diana Way, Caister-on-Sea Gorleston Recreation Ground Hopton Playing Field King George V Playing Field, Caister-on-Sea (floodlit) Marine Parade, Gorleston Martham Playing Field Mill Lane Recreation Ground, Bradwell Mill Road, Cobholm (floodlit) Southtown Common Wellesley Recreation Ground, Great Yarmouth

Demand for Multi-Use Games Areas

4.2.39 Although not exclusively for teenager use, teens are the principal users of these types of sites (see Children’s Playspace for teen population). It is believed that there is a substantial under-supply of teen facilities in the borough.

4.2.40 Additionally, the borough contains a horse racing track, speedway circuit, greyhound racing track and lots of opportunity for watersports on the rivers, broads and at the coast, although these facilities have not been assessed in this study as they are either largely spectator sports or are water-based.

Fig. 34: Other Outdoor Sports Facilities

4.3 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit – Quality

4.3.1 Due to resource constraints, a full qualitative audit of pitches, courts and greens has not been carried out for this study.

4.3.2 Pitch quality affects the number of games which can be accommodated, and for pitches run by Great Yarmouth Borough Council this is monitored on an on-going basis with matches rotated to preserve pitch quality. Many other pitches are run by parishes, who report pitches are in good quality generally.

4.3.3 Measures of quality for outdoor sports facilities include floodlighting and changing amenities. 25 of the borough’s publicly accessible playing fields include changing rooms (around 68%); 5 have floodlighting (around 14%). These are shown in Figs. 35/36.

Table 39: Location of Changing Facilities

Changing Rooms Located At: Parish New Road Playing Field Belton with Browston Mill Lane Playing Field Bradwell Green Lane Playing Field Bradwell Burgh Castle Playing Field Burgh Castle Caister Playing Field Caister-on-Sea King George V Playing Field Caister-on-Sea Caister High School Caister-on-Sea Filby Playing Field Filby Fleggburgh Playing Field Fleggburgh Fleggburgh Primary School Fleggburgh Wellesley Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Beaconsfield Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Southtown Common Great Yarmouth Gorleston Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Cobholm Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Magdalen Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Cliff Park High School Great Yarmouth Hemsby Recreation Ground Hemsby Hopton Playing Field Hopton Martham Recreation Ground Martham Ormesby St Margaret Playing Field Ormesby St Margaret Repps with Bastwick Playing Field Repps with Bastwick Rollesby Recreation Ground Rollesby Rollesby Cricket Club Rollesby Winterton Playing Field Winterton

Table 40: Location of Floodlighting

Facilities with Floodlighting Parish King George V Playing Field Caister-on-Sea Wellesley Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Magdalen Recreation Ground Great Yarmouth Cliff Park High School Great Yarmouth Martham Recreation Ground Martham

4.3.4 In May 2011 Parish councils were asked for their opinions on the quality of parish sporting facilities. The responses received regarding quality are summarised in Table 41.

Local opinion is that the changing rooms at Filby, Fritton and Burgh Castle are in poor condition

Belton, Burgh Castle and Fleggburgh expressed some demand for synthetic turf pitches (STP)

Belton, Fleggburgh and Hopton expressed demand for floodlighting (Hopton had sought planning permission at the time of the study)

Repps with Bastwick stated that a tennis court would be welcome (although demand for this has not been quantified)

Table 41: Parish Council Views on Quality of Outdoor Sports Facilities

Parish Pitch/Court/Green Quality of Quality of Other Comments Pitch Change /Court/Green Facility Belton Playing Field Fair Excellent Demand for STP and floodlighting Moorlands Primary Good School Bradwell Green Lane Playing Very good Good Field Green Lane Bowls Very good Green Mill Lane Recreation Good Good Ground Burgh Playing Field Fair Poor No courts/greens. Castle Demand for STP. Filby Playing Field Fair Poor Filby Primary School Fair Filby Bowling Green Good No tennis courts

Parish Pitch/Court/Green Quality of Quality of Other Comments Pitch/ Change Court/Green Facility Fleggburgh Playing Field Good Demand for STP and floodlighting Broadland Sports Good Club Flegg Bowling Green Good Fritton Fritton Institute Good Poor Bowling Green Hopton Playing Field Good Fair No need for STP. Planning permission sought for floodlighting. Holiday park Open for tennis/bowls tourists only St Margaret’s Church Good bowls Repps with Playing Field Good Fair Tennis court Bastwick would be welcome. No need for STP or floodlights. Bowls Club Good Rollesby Recreation Ground Good Good No need for STP or floodlighting. Cricket Club Good Bowls Club Good Winterton Playing Field Good Good No need for STP Bowling Green Good

Image 14: Basketball Courts, Fleggburgh

Fig. 35: Changing Amenities at Outdoor Sports Facilities

Fig. 36: Floodlights at Outdoor Sports Facilities

4.4 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit – Accessibility

4.4.1 Senior football teams often play home matches at a variety of pitches, as pitch quality and prior bookings require. However, for most other types of sport, the facilities serve a very local population.

4.4.2 Sport England was contacted regarding typical catchment areas for outdoor sports facilities. Their Facilities Planning Model was suggested as a proxy for outdoor sports facilities (although it was designed for indoor facilities such as swimming pools). The model uses travel times to define catchments, derived through national surveys, and finds that regardless of mode of transport, almost 90% of journeys to sports facilities are made within 20 minutes. Within this, between 58% and 66% of such journeys are made within 10 minutes. The latter has been mapped using walking speed of 4 miles per hour and driving speed of 48 miles per hour21 giving distance thresholds of 0.6 miles and 8 miles respectively. These have been converted to straight line radii of 0.5 miles and 7 miles to take some account of road layouts. The driving radius suggests coverage of the entire borough through 10 minute drive catchments (although this does not take account of barriers to access e.g. the river). Approximate walking catchments (disregarding barriers to access) for the borough’s pitches, courts and greens are illustrated in Fig. 37).

4.4.3 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments, as shown in Table 42. This show that there is very good accessibility to the borough’s outdoor sports facilities both on foot and by car.

Table 42: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of an Outdoor Sports Facility

Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Mode of Transport to Population Outdoor Sports Facility 91% 0.5 miles By foot 100% 7 miles By car

21 Dept for Transport Table TRA9906, 2009

Fig. 37 Catchment Radius of 0.5 Miles Applied to Outdoor Sports Facilities

4.4.4 The coastal parts of Hemsby and Scratby are not covered by walking catchments; these are largely tourist areas. Parts of Southtown, Cobholm and Bradwell are also just outside the theoretical walking catchments of local facilities, but (according to the Sport England Facilities Planning Model) all the facilities in question would still be considered accessible by foot to around 23% of the population. Therefore, the only parts of the borough considered to be without pedestrian access to outdoor sporting facilities are the most rural areas. However, it should be noted that coverage by sport facility varies across the borough. There could be scope for sport- specific facilities in some areas, and focused local consultation is recommended.

4.4.5 Parish councils were asked if local outdoor sports facilities were accessible for people with mobility problems/visual impairment, if they were well connected to the settlement for pedestrian access, if there was sufficient car parking and access by public transport. The responses are shown in Table 43.

Table 43: Parish Council Quality Feedback

Parish Comment Belton Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking but no public transport nearby Bradwell Good pedestrian and public transport access, adequate car parking. Burgh Castle Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby. Fleggburgh Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby. Fritton Accessible, well connected to settlement (path on one side of highway), car parking but more needed and no public transport nearby. Hopton Facilities well connected to settlement, with car parking and public transport nearby. Repps with Bastwick Facilities are accessible with help. Bowls green requires wheelchair access (changes to car park) electricity supply and WC facilities. Well connected to settlement, with car parking but poor public transport access. Rollesby Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby. Winterton Accessible, well connected to settlement, car parking and public transport nearby.

100

4.5 Outdoor Sports Facilities Audit - Summary

4.5.1 Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model suggests there is sufficient supply of pitches for football, cricket, rugby and hockey. Bookings at tennis and bowls facilities managed by the borough suggest there are sufficient of these facilities. The most rural parts of the borough are lacking in outdoor sports facilities. The urban wards of Caister North, Nelson and St Andrews have low ratio of sports provision per 1,000 population. The provision for individual pitch sports would seem to be adequate, both now and projecting population changes to 2026.

4.5.2 The quality of most pitches is adequate, but there are concerns over the quality of ancillary facilities such as changing rooms, car parking and floodlighting. Filby, Fritton and Burgh Castle require improved changing amenities. Belton, Burgh Castle and Fleggburgh may benefit from Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs). Belton, Fleggburgh and Hopton expressed demand for floodlighting. Repps with Bastwick stated that a tennis court would be welcome. 25 of the borough’s publicly accessible playing fields include changing rooms (around 68%); 5 have floodlighting (around 14%).

4.5.3 Most of the borough residents have pedestrian access to some form of outdoor sports space. The only parts of the borough considered to be without pedestrian access to outdoor sporting facilities are the most rural areas. Fritton needs additional car parking and public transport connections; the bowls green at Repps with Bastwick requires additional access for those with mobility issues.

Image 15: Playing Field at Broadland Rugby Club, Cobholm

101

4.6 Outdoor Sports Facilities Benchmark Standards

4.6.1 The NPFA’s ‘Six Acre Standard’ Standard is widely used as a benchmark and has previously been adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (see Parks & Open Space Strategy, 2005). It is expressed as hectares per 1,000 population, and proposes 1.6 ha of outdoor sports space per 1,000 people (excluding golf courses). Of this total, 1.2 ha should be playing pitches.

4.7 Outdoor Sports Facilities Local Standards

4.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of outdoor sports facilities which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.

Fig. 38: Outdoor Sports Facilities Local Standards

Quantity 1.2ha formal outdoor sports facilities (excluding golf courses) per 1,000 population, which can comprise sports pitches or tennis courts or bowling greens. Currently the average across the borough is 1.22ha outdoor sports space per 1,000 population but some wards/parishes do not meet this level. There may be local shortages of certain sports provision which should be addressed. Quality All outdoor sports facilities should be accessible, with changing facilities and a range of alternative activities available. Floodlighting should be provided where a need is identified. Synthetic turf pitches should be included in new provision. Currently pitches are well-maintained but ancillary facilities can be poor or non- existent. The changing facilities at Filby, Fritton and Burgh Castle are particularly in need of improvement. Accessibility Outdoor Sports Facilities should be considered accessible where they have a catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius. All sites should be fully accessible by pedestrians and public transport; there should be a range of facilities available for those with mobility problems. Pedestrian crossings should be provided on main roads as required. Currently much of the built-up part of the borough meets these standards. New development could provide valuable outdoor sports facilities, which, in the rural area, may require negotiation with the Broads Authority. Existing sites with deficient disabled access should be improved.

102

103

5.1 Amenity Greenspace Consultations

5.1.1 The Place Survey 2008 assessed residents’ satisfaction with parks & open spaces and the keeping of public land clear of litter and refuse. 55.4% of the residents of Great Yarmouth were very or fairly satisfied with the latter (county-wide this was 62.9%), while 57.8% of borough residents were very or fairly satisfied with parks and open spaces (65.3% across Norfolk).

5.1.2 Citizens Panels Wave 16 in 2008 and Wave 19 in 2010 surveyed Great Yarmouth borough residents’ satisfaction with elements of parks and grass-cutting. In 2008, overall, over two thirds of respondents (67%) were satisfied with the parks and open spaces service. The highest levels of satisfaction related to the general standard of maintenance, accessibility and landscape quality. Nearly three quarters (74%) were satisfied with landscape quality. The highest levels of dissatisfaction related to dog fouling (46%) and the number/location of litter bins (36%).

5.1.3 At that time (2008) satisfaction with the overall appearance of grass cutting was high, with 86% rating themselves as satisfied or very satisfied. 81% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied at the frequency of cutting, but fewer (60%) were very or fairly satisfied with the post-cutting clearance of cut grass and litter.

5.1.4 In 2010 the Citizens Panel (Wave 20) were asked again to rate their satisfaction with these aspects and satisfaction levels had risen. Around three quarters (73%) of those providing a valid response were satisfied with parks and open spaces. In terms of specific aspects, satisfaction was highest in relation to accessibility (89%), the general maintenance (85%) and landscape quality (77%). Highest levels of dissatisfaction were seen in terms of dog fouling (50%) and the number and locations of litter bins (37%).

5.1.5 Respondents who live in a rural location were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (81%). In terms of ACORN classification, those in the category ‘hard-pressed’ were most likely to be satisfied (82%).

5.1.6 Older respondents were more likely to be satisfied with parks and open spaces overall (78% of those aged 55 – 64; 78% of those aged 65+), compared with younger age groups (18% of those aged 25-44 were dissatisfied overall).

104

Fig. 39: Satisfaction With Elements Of Parks and Open Spaces 2010 (all valid responses)

Accessibility 89% 8% 3%

General standard of maintenance of parks/open spaces 85% 7% 8%

Landscape quality 77% 12% 11%

General cleanliness 70% 10% 20%

Quality of facilities within the park 66% 17% 18%

Security and safety 61% 22% 16%

Community needs 58% 27% 15%

Number and location of litter bins 51% 12% 37%

Dog fouling 35% 15% 50%

Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 73% 15% 11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied

105

5.1.7 In 2010, the Citizen’s Panel results for grass cutting showed that satisfaction levels were still high but had reduced. 82% of respondents rated themselves satisfied with the overall appearance of grass cutting. Around three quarters were satisfied with the level of disruption from grass cutting (77%) and with how frequently the grass was cut (74%). However, dissatisfaction rose in relation to the post-cutting clearance of cut grass and litter, with only 52% of respondents satisfied with these aspects.

5.1.8 33% of respondents in urban areas were dissatisfied with ‘what happens to the grass after it is cut’. Dissatisfaction with treatment of both the grass cuttings and litter was highest in:

Respondents aged 65+ Those in the ACORN category ‘comfortably off’ Home owners

5.1.9 Comparing the Citizens’ Panel results, between 2008 and late 2010 satisfaction with parks and open spaces has improved in all aspects but one (dog fouling). Improvements were particularly marked in terms of security and safety (from 44% in 2008 to 61% in 2010) and accessibility (77% in 2008 to 89% in 2010).

Table 44: Satisfaction with parks and open spaces in 2008 compared with 2010 (valid responses only)

2008 2010 Accessibility 77% 89% (+12) General standard of maintenance of parks and open spaces 83% 85 (+2) Landscape quality 74% 77% (+3) General cleanliness 63% 70% (+7) Quality of facilities within the park 63% 66% (+3) Security and safety 44% 61% (+17) Community needs 52% 58% (+6) Number and location of litter bins 45% 51% (+6) Dog fouling 35% 35% ( - ) Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces 67% 73% (+6) NB. Sample bases vary

106

Fig. 40: Satisfaction With Aspects of Grass Cutting Services in the Local Area – 2010 (valid responses)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall appearance of grass cutting

Level of disruption from grass cutting

How frequently the grass is cut

What happens to the grass after it is cut

Clearance of litter as part of cutting operation

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied

107

5.1.10 While overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces increased between 2008 and 2010; satisfaction with grass cutting decreased over the same period.

Table 45: Satisfaction With Grass Cutting Services in 2008 Compared With 2010 (valid responses only)

2008 2010 Overall appearance of grass cutting 86% 82% (-4) The level of disruption from grass cutting in your area 85% 77 (-8) How frequently the grass is cut 81% 74% (-7) What happens to the grass after it is cut 60% 52% (-8) Clearance of litter as part of cutting operation 60% 52% (-8) NB Sample bases vary

Consultation Summary

5.1.11 From the consultation, the key points to note are:

Overall satisfaction with parks and open spaces is 73% Satisfaction with parks and open spaces has increased Satisfaction with the overall appearance of grass cutting is 82% Satisfaction with grass cutting has decreased Most of the dissatisfaction around grass cutting derives from the clearance of cut grass and litter

Image 16: Village Green, Martham

108

5.2 Amenity Greenspace Audit - Quantity

5.2.1 Amenity greenspace consists of informal green space open to spontaneous use by the public but not maintained for a specific function. In order to maximise efficiency, it was decided to audit only sites over 0.01ha size. The sites included within this definition range from small-scale improvements to the setting of dwellings to large playing fields that could not be included in Outdoor Sports Facilities due to lack of pitches. The largest site categorised as amenity greenspace is Bure Park, which was considered to be more informal than its name suggests. The breakdown of amenity space by ward is shown in Table 46.

Table 46: Amenity Greenspace by Ward

Ward Population Total Amenity Amenity Greenspace (ha) Greenspace per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 5.66 0.86 Bradwell South 6,796 6.22 0.91 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 4.54 1.01 Caister South 4,464 0.39 0.09 Central & 8,614 2.26 0.26 Northgate Claydon 7,451 3.59 0.48 East Flegg 5,008 3.16 0.63 Fleggburgh 2,388 1.55 0.65 Gorleston 5,421 1.55 0.29 Lothingland 5,672 2.45 0.43 Magdalen 7,086 15.77 2.22 Nelson 8,166 1.61 0.20 Ormesby 4,407 4.73 1.07 Southtown & 5,314 1.47 0.28 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0.58 0.12 West Flegg 5,135 4.87 0.95 Yarmouth North 4,471 13.12 2.93 Borough Total/Average 96,271 73.52 0.76

5.2.2 The urban wards of Southtown & Cobholm, Yarmouth North and Magdalen are well supplied with amenity greenspace, contributing to the borough total of 0.76ha per 1,000 population. As amenity greenspace is often provided alongside development, it might be expected that rural wards would have less amenity greenspace. However, wards with the least amount of amenity space are Caister South, Central & Northgate, Gorleston and Nelson, which are also urban. The total amenity space (over 0.01ha) has been mapped across the borough by parish (see Fig. 41).

109

Fig. 41: Amenity Greenspace by Parish

110

5.3 Amenity Greenspace Audit – Quality

5.3.1 The amenity greenspace within the borough is maintained on a 3 weekly cycle. This comprises cutting the main grass areas, litter picking the site and reporting defects. Strimming and cutting to the site perimeter is also done on a 3 weekly basis. A full assessment of the quality and value of amenity greenspace has not been performed for this section due to the wide variation in the function of these spaces, which therefore cannot be analysed comparatively.

5.4 Amenity Greenspace Audit – Accessibility

5.4.1 By its nature, amenity greenspace is usually provided within built-up areas, close to housing and workplaces. It has been assumed that amenity space would have a smaller catchment than parks or natural greenspace, since it has fewer elements to attract people to it. The following shows a range of radii that have been used to assess how many people in the borough have access to amenity greenspace.

Table 47: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of a various Amenity Greenspace sizes

Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Amenity Greenspace Size Population 32% 100m 0.01 – 0.09ha 32% 150m 0.1ha – 0.99ha 5% 200m 1ha – 2.9ha 12% 500m 3ha – 10ha

5.4.2 Although very small patches of amenity greenspace have been excluded from this study, it would appear that few of the borough’s population are provided with amenity greenspace. Sites larger than 3ha are less important than smaller sites, since the demand for larger sites can be met by other forms of open space.

111

5.5 Amenity Greenspace Audit Summary

5.5.1 Some urban areas of the borough have the highest quantity of amenity greenspace, while other urban areas have the lowest quantity of amenity greenspace. Therefore there is no trend to be drawn from the distribution of amenity greenspace.

5.5.2 Amenity space is maintained on a 3-weekly cycle; including grass cutting, litter picking and reporting defects.

5.5.3 Only a minority of residents have appropriate access to amenity greenspace, which is surprising given that it is usually provided in built up areas, close to housing and workplaces. However small areas of amenity greenspace have not been considered in this study. Where there are shortages these should therefore be addressed, especially in areas where new development is likely to take place.

5.6 Amenity Greenspace Benchmark Standards

5.6.1 The NPFA’s ‘Six Acre Standard’ Standard is widely used as a benchmark and has previously been adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (see Parks & Open Space Strategy, 2005). It is expressed as hectares per 1,000 population, and proposes 1.6 ha of outdoor sports space per 1,000 people. Of this total, 0.55 hectares should be informal space.

112

5.7 Amenity Greenspace Local Standards

5.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in the provision of amenity greenspace which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.

Fig. 42: Amenity Greenspace Local Standards

Quantity 0.8ha informal amenity greenspace per 1,000 population. Currently the average across the borough is 0.76ha amenity greenspace per 1,000 population but some wards do not meet this level. There are local shortages of amenity greenspace provision which should be addressed, particularly if development occurs in Caister South, Central & Northgate, Gorleston and Nelson wards. Quality All amenity greenspace should be accessible, located close to both residential development and employment sites. Seating should be provided where possible and appropriate. Currently amenity greenspace is maintained on a 3-weekly cycle. Local satisfaction levels are high, but there are concerns over the disposal of grass cuttings and litter. Accessibility Amenity greenspace should be considered accessible by residents or workers within the following straight line distances: Sites up to 1ha within 150m Sites 1-3ha within 200m Sites 3-10ha within 500m. Currently a small percentage of the population live within the amenity greenspace catchments, although very small patches of amenity greenspace were excluded from the study. New development could provide valuable provision to residential/employment areas.

113

114

6.1 Children’s Playspace Consultations

6.1.1 The public consultation carried out in 2004 relating to the Great Yarmouth Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2005) identified Children’s Playgrounds/Somewhere for Children/Family Oriented as the 4th most popular response to “what do you particularly like about the borough’s parks and open spaces?”. In the same survey a small proportion of responses identified the poor state of play equipment as something not liked, and “more Children’s Play Facilities/Youth Facilities/Teenage Play” was the third most popular response to “what would you like to see in the borough’s parks and open spaces”.

6.1.2 In 2005 a further borough-wide consultation was undertaken specifically for the Great Yarmouth Play Strategy 2006 - 2012. It identified an aspiration among residents for a better standard of play and more improved opportunities for play for children of all ages. The key findings from this survey from an adult perspective were a lack of facilities at existing playgrounds, for young children (73% of respondents) and teenagers (62% of respondents). 69% of adults said there was not enough seating. Accessibility of play provision was much less cited as a problem, but 85% of adults said it was important to have a playground within walking distance.

6.1.3 This was echoed by children under 10, who cited “not enough to do”, “litter/dog poo” and “older children” respectively as the top three things they did not like about their local playgrounds, while 25% of children were worried about the distance from their home to the playground.

6.1.4 65.3% of young people aged 11-17 when asked if there were adequate facilities for teenagers answered “no” with those aged 14-17 being the most dissatisfied (64% of those aged 14-17 were either “unhappy” or “very unhappy” with the level of provision). The most popular facilities among young people were multi-use games areas, skate/BMX parks and outdoor fitness equipment. Two out of three young adults said it was important to have a playground within walking distance, but only 20% would walk for more than 10 minutes.

6.1.5 In 2008 a survey of over 2,000 children in the borough (the sample chosen to represent rural, urban black and minority ethnic, and children with disabilities) attempted to identify the real or perceived barriers preventing children from using playgrounds across the borough. The main barriers identified were weather, teenagers and their behaviour, and vandalism. 140 participants stated they would attend a playground more regularly if they lived closer (these comments applied equally to urban/rural respondents) and most of these comments came from children in the 7-11 age group. Some children (or parents of children) also cited a lack of fencing as a concern for safety. When asked what would make the playgrounds they use better, the overwhelming response was more, different or improved equipment, and others cited more football provision, or facilities for riding bikes.

115

6.1.6 This survey was followed up by another survey in 2010 about some of the borough’s initiatives to increase use of playgrounds, such as website content, leaflets, and programmes to tackle teenage behaviour and littering.

Fig. 43: Barriers to Playground Use (Great Yarmouth Play Survey, 2008)

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150

Number of comments of Number 100 50 0 Weather Teenagers Anti-social Dogs Safety Time behaviour by teenagers

Consultation Summary

6.1.7 From the consultation, the key points to note are:

Existing playspaces are valued and more are desired The borough’s playgrounds could be improved for both young children and teenagers Existing teen facilities are sparse, impacting on teenagers but also on younger children For younger and more vulnerable children, fencing around play areas is important for perceived safety (and to keep out dogs) The presence of teenagers can intimidate younger children Teenagers are not prepared to walk very far for facilities

116

6.2 Children’s Playspace Audit - Quantity

6.2.1 Defining the formal ‘areas of play’ has required an arbitrary decision over where the primary function of the space changes from play to active recreation or amenity (recreation grounds are a case in point). Therefore, many of the areas identified for play exclude large areas of adjacent open space which would be suitable for children and adults to use for informal recreation and play. This section should be read in conjunction with Outdoor Sports Facilities and Amenity Greenspace sections.

6.2.2 The play areas in the borough are defined according to age groupings of 0-8 years (Junior), 6-12 years (Intermediate) and 8-14 years (Senior). There has been an effort to ensure the needs of the widest range of local children have been catered for in the borough, and therefore even small play areas with just a few pieces of equipment often cater to a range of age groups. Play provision is therefore more adaptable as the local child population ages, but accordingly it has not been possible to classify the play areas according to the nationally recognised classification of Local Area of Play, Local Equipped Area of Play and Neighbourhood Area of Play.

6.2.3 Some play areas are restricted to use by residents of the immediate dwellings and their invited guests. These Housing Play Areas are identified separately in the following location maps.

6.2.4 Play provision has been mapped against the child population in Figs 44, 45, 46 and teen provision (including teen shelters, multi-use games areas (MUGA) and skate parks) is mapped at Fig. 47. It is clear from the maps that there is a concentration of play areas within Great Yarmouth town, and far fewer around the rest of the borough. This does reflect the distribution of children, although more play/teen facilities might be expected in:

Ormesby Martham Hopton

In Great Yarmouth town, there are concentrations of children of all age groups in:

Cobholm Runham Vauxhall Newtown Southtown South Denes

Throughout the borough there is a scarcity of teen facilities (15 locations between 4,744 children aged 14-17).

117

Fig. 44: Location of Junior Play Areas and Distribution of Children aged 0-8

118

Fig. 45: Location of Intermediate Play Areas and Distribution of Children aged 6-12

119

Fig. 46: Location of Senior Play Areas and Distribution of Children aged 8-14

120

Fig. 47: Location of Teen Facilities and Distribution of Children aged 14-17

121

6.2.5 Formal play areas cover a total of 16.5 hectares of equipped play space (plus a further 0.25 hectares of Housing Play Areas) with the smallest being just over 60 square metres. The average across the borough is approximately 0.17 ha per 1,000 population and the total play space (of both types) by ward is shown in Table 48:

Table 48: Area of Play Space by Ward

Ward Population Total Play Space Play Space per (ha) 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 1.59 0.24 Bradwell South 6,796 1.69 0.25 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 1.08 0.24 Caister South 4,464 0.16 0.04 Central & 8,614 0.71 0.08 Northgate Claydon 7,451 0.47 0.06 East Flegg 5,008 0.59 0.12 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.67 0.28 Gorleston 5,421 0.10 0.02 Lothingland 5,672 1.39 0.25 Magdalen 7,086 2.03 0.29 Nelson 8,166 0.96 0.12 Ormesby 4,407 0.52 0.12 Southtown & 5,314 1.33 0.25 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 2.23 0.47 West Flegg 5,135 0.74 0.14 Yarmouth North 4,471 0.49 0.11 Borough Total/Average 96,271 16.75 0.17

6.2.6 Some of these play areas are immediately adjacent to open space which has been classified as either Outdoor Sports Facilities or Amenity Greenspace, therefore this measure should be read in conjunction with those sections of the report. However, the wards with the least area categorised as formal play space (for all ages) are:

Gorleston Caister South Claydon Central & Northgate

6.2.7 The quantity of children’s play space has also been assessed according to the number of play areas per ward and number of items of play equipment per child (aged 0-14) by ward. It should be noted that this table cannot take account of play

122

area catchments which overlap ward boundaries, and therefore serve the children of more than one ward.

Table 49: Number of Play Areas and Play Equipment per Child by Ward

Ward Children 0 - Number of Equipment Children Per Ages 14 Play Areas Items Item Catered For Bradwell North 997 4 25 39.88 All ages Bradwell South and Hopton 1,049 8 61 17.20 All ages Caister North 567 2 12 47.25 All ages Caister South 515 3 13 39.62 All ages Central and Northgate 1,414 3 23 61.48 All ages Claydon 1,272 4 24 53.00 All ages East Flegg 596 4 29 20.55 All ages Fleggburgh 315 5 26 12.12 All ages Gorleston 887 1 4 221.75 Junior Lothingland 822 4 20 41.10 All ages Magdalen 1,201 5 35 34.31 All ages Nelson (Great Yarmouth) 1,600 18 61 26.23 All ages Ormesby 606 4 18 33.67 All ages Southtown and Cobholm 1,192 7 35 34.06 All ages St Andrews 918 7 26 35.31 All ages West Flegg 773 5 26 29.73 All ages Yarmouth North 706 3 30 23.53 All ages Borough Total/Average 15,430 87 468 32.97

6.2.8 On average across the borough, there are 177 children (aged up to 14) per play area. It can be seen that Gorleston has significantly more children per item of play equipment than other wards, and also that currently only the Junior age category (0-6) is catered for in the ward (although one play area in the adjacent ward of Magdalen is within range for some Gorleston children).

123

Table 50: Teenage Facilities per Ward

Ward Children 14-17 Number of Teen Teens Per Location Areas Bradwell North 307 1 307 Bradwell South and Hopton 282 2 141 Caister North 191 1 191 Caister South 226 1 226 Central and Northgate 392 0 0 Claydon 383 1 383 East Flegg 203 0 0 Fleggburgh 158 1 158 Gorleston 289 0 0 Lothingland 274 1 274 Magdalen 356 1 356 Nelson (Great Yarmouth) 387 4 96 Ormesby 243 0 0 Southtown and Cobholm 300 1 300 St Andrews 220 2 110 West Flegg 257 1 257 Yarmouth North 276 0 0 Borough Total 4,744 17 279.06

6.2.9 There is a comparative shortage of facilities for teenagers: 279 teens per area, compared to 177 children per area (page 115). Within the facilities that do exist, there is a proliferation of basketball courts. See Outdoor Sports Facilities section for comment on sport participation.

Image 17: Teen Shelter, Southtown Common, Gorleston

124

6.3 Children’s Playspace Audit – Quality

6.3.1 All borough play sites are regularly inspected for wear and tear, vandalism, litter and graffiti by Environmental Rangers on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis depending upon their assessed risk. Any required work is carried out by GYB Services. GYB Services also carry out operational inspections of the structural and engineering aspect of the play equipment quarterly. Annually, an external independent inspector provides a comprehensive inspection and risk assessment. Therefore as quality is regularly inspected, a further assessment has not been undertaken as part of this study.

6.3.2 Consultation shows the borough’s play areas are valued by local residents, although there is a widespread desire for improved equipment.

6.4 Children’s Playspace Audit – Accessibility

6.4.1 Accessibility for children with disabilities is assessed through annual inspections. In 2010, there were two sites with severely limited access for some: St Nicholas Recreation Ground and Gorleston Recreation Ground.

6.4.2 Distance thresholds to the formal play areas have been calculated with reference to The Children’s Play Council and NPFA thresholds, but having regard to the target age ranges the play areas were designed for. The age ranges and travel thresholds for each type of play area are:

Junior (ages 0-8) up to 100m straight line; Intermediate (ages 6-12) up to 300m straight line; Senior (ages 8-14) up to 600m straight line.

6.4.3 These distance thresholds have been mapped on the following pages for play areas of each age category, excluding Housing Play Areas which are for exclusive use of residents and therefore do not have a distance threshold.

6.4.4 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by these catchments. These catchment areas have been mapped on the following pages at Figs. 48, 49, & 50.

Table 51: Proportion of population in Great Yarmouth borough covered by catchments of Playspace

Percentage of Catchment Area Radius Playspace age Population 6.4% 100m Junior 42.6% 300m Intermediate 79.7% 600m Senior

125

Fig. 48: Catchment of 100m Radius for Junior Play Areas

126

Fig. 49: Catchment of 300m Radius for Intermediate Play Areas

127

Fig. 50: Catchment of 600m Radius for Senior Play Areas

128

6.4.5 Only a very small percentage of Great Yarmouth residents live within a walking catchment of Junior play spaces (although this excludes Housing Play Areas, as stated). Even for Intermediate and Senior play areas, there is a significant population outside the theoretical catchment areas.

6.4.6 There are localised shortages of play equipment in urban areas. Settlements where scrutiny of the catchments would suggest lack of accessible formal play provision are:

Martham Hemsby Scratby Great Yarmouth Newtown Parts of Gorleston Parts of Hopton

6.4.7 The formal play areas are concentrated around the main settlements as would be expected, leading to localised shortages in the rural areas of the borough, which should be addressed for any future developments in rural areas. However, the sparsely populated rural areas are not indicated for high levels of development in the future. Additionally, the number of children in rural areas is low (see figs. 44- 47) which makes the cost per user much higher, and also intensifies the isolation for the young people who live in these locations.

6.4.8 Importantly, as illustrated at Fig. 51, some of this need falls within the Broads Authority executive area (shown in blue) and there will be a need for co-operation on this subject between the two authorities for any development which falls under Broads Authority planning control.

Image 18: Play Area, King George V Playing Field, Caister

129

Fig. 51: The Broads Authority Executive Area in Relation to Play Area Catchments

130

6.5 Children’s Playspace Audit Summary

6.5.1 There is a very wide disparity of provision of play areas between wards. As might be expected, in rural areas children have less provision and will have to travel further to play facilities, and there are notable shortages (compared to child population) in the settlements of Ormesby, Martham and Hopton.

6.5.2 In the urban area there is a concentration of play areas, particularly those for children up to 8 years old. Apparent shortages in provision for all ages exist in Cobholm, Runham Vauxhall, Newtown, Southtown and the South Denes area.

6.5.3 Gorleston, Caister South, Claydon and Central & Northgate wards are those with the smallest area devoted to formal children’s play space and Gorleston also has significantly more children per item of play equipment than other wards, with only 0-8 age group catered for currently. Provision for teenagers generally in the borough is markedly less than for children aged 1-14.

6.5.4 Quality is assessed frequently and remedial work is ongoing. Residents value the play areas but would like to see improvements, including updated and themed equipment

6.5.5 Access to play areas is far better in the urban areas. Settlements where catchment mapping suggests poor access include parts of Martham, Hemsby, Scratby, Great Yarmouth (Newtown), Gorleston, Hopton. Access to play areas is poor in the rural areas, but much of the rural area comes under the Broads Authority planning control. Disabled access is poor at Gorleston and St Nicholas recreation grounds.

Image 19: Play Area, Fleggburgh (near Fleggburgh Village Hall)

131

6.6 Children’s Playspace Benchmark Standards

6.6.1 The NPFA’s ‘Six Acre’ Standard is widely used as a benchmark and in many areas is the adopted standard. It is expressed as hectares per 1,000 population and includes distribution elements to cover accessibility. The Six Acre Standard suggests 0.8 ha per 1,000 people for children’s play space, which includes designated areas with equipment and casual playing space within housing areas. The latter has not been measured in this category (see Amenity Greenspace and Outdoor Sports Facilities sections of the report). The recommended straight line distance from home to play space depends on the age of the child and the number of items of equipment in a Local Area of Play (very young children); Local Equipped Area of Play (early school age) and Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (older children). The NPFA distances recommended are set out in Table 49.

Table 49: NPFA distances recommended to play area types

Play Area Type Time Pedestrian Route Straight Line LAP 1 minute 100 metres 60 metres LEAP 5 minutes 400 metres 240 metres NEAP 15 minutes 1,000 metres 600 metres

Image 20: Play Area, Ormesby St Margaret Playing Field

132

6.7 Children’s Playspace Local Standards

6.7.1 The 2005 Parks and Open Spaces Strategy set standards for open space based on the NPFA benchmark, as set out in 6.6. National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in provision of play space which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.

Fig. 52: Children’s Playspace Local Standards

Quantity 0.2ha formal play space per 1,000 population, 30 children (0-14) per item of play equipment and 200 teenagers per teen facility. Separate teen facilities should be provided if there is none within 1km. Currently the average across the borough is 0.17ha formal play space per 1,000 population and 33 children per item of play equipment. There is a shortage of provision for teenagers, with 279 teens per facility across the borough. In some areas there is a need to adapt the provision to suit local age groups and in some areas the emphasis should be on updating existing equipment. Quality All play spaces should be safe and welcoming, with a range of play equipment and should be themed where possible to provide an original play experience. Play areas for young children should be fenced in and teen facilities should be separated from children’s play areas. Currently equipment is maintained for safety but some play spaces are showing signs of wear. There is an element of similarity between the styles of play areas, restricting the options for children who have a choice of sites to use. Some existing play spaces incorporate teen facilities. Accessibility Straight line distances from dwellings: Junior play areas (ages 0-8) up to 100m Intermediate play areas (6-12) up to 300m Senior play areas (8-14) up to 600m Teen facilities up to 1km All sites to be fully accessible to all children, regardless of disability, with pedestrian crossings for main roads as required. Currently only a very small percentage of the population live within the walking catchment for Junior play areas. The study has identified some settlements where there is a particular lack of play provision. New development could provide valuable play space provision, which in the rural area, may require negotiation with the Broads Authority. Existing play sites with deficient disabled access should be adapted.

133

Section 7

Allotments

134

7.1 Allotments Consultations

7.1.1 There is a small amount of evidence which relates to allotment provision and the general profiles of allotment users at both national and local levels. Primarily, two national allotment surveys were undertaken during the late 1990’s to provide evidence on the Government Paper ‘The Future of Allotments22’.

7.1.2 Some of the more general (national) findings of the 1998 survey are listed below:

A traditional image of an allotment user as an older, retired man Waning interest characterised by high plot vacancies and low waiting register Cultural differences – the north of England tended to have longer waiting lists than the south – suggesting more demand/interest Allotments of higher quality coincide with high occupancy rates (higher value) Conversely, poorly equipped/maintained allotments suffer from higher vacancy rates

7.1.3 The traditional allotment profile has begun to evolve in recent years, characterised by an awareness of healthier lifestyles, earlier retirement ages, a pro-organic movement and a growing popularity in gardening and cookery programmes. A survey conducted in 2009 concluded that the appeal of allotments has been widening and that single parents are the most likely group to want to rent or apply for an allotment - with one in three stating they were interested in a plot.23

7.1.4 Whilst not discounting this resurgence, the number of UK allotments remains relatively deflated at 200,000 compared to its peak at 1.4million plots during the Second World War.

7.1.5 To understand the local story, general information regarding allotment provision, quality, value and accessibility was gathered via questionnaires posted to the Great Yarmouth & Gorleston Allotment Association and Parish Councils.

7.1.6 The initial feedback from respondents concluded that up to two thirds (63%) perceived allotment provision to be ‘good’ in their area and the remaining third (36%) stated it as ‘excellent’. The adequacy of each allotment plot, in terms of size, function and practicality, was also predominantly perceived to be ‘good’ (63%) and ‘excellent’ (36%).

7.1.7 The survey did not provide details on the number of individual plots due to variations in plot areas. Traditionally the Saxon measurement of 10 ‘rods’ (equivalent to 250sqm) was considered to be the standard area, however over time, many plots have been subjected to sub division. For the purposes of this study, an average plot area will be assumed as 250sqm.

22 The Future of Allotments’, Select Committee on Environmental, Transport and Regional Affairs, 1998 23 LV (2009), ‘Brits Rediscover the Good Life’. Press Release, Liverpool Victoria, 2 June 2009, http://www.lv.com/media_centre/press_releases/brits-discover-good-life

135

7.1.8 The questionnaire also posed qualitative questions regarding on-site facilities and the general consensus was that on-site access to water was under provided and composting facilities and toilets were also under represented. Interestingly, respondents considered the general quality of allotments as being ‘good’ (80%) or ‘excellent’ (20%) – potentially suggesting that the actual provision of allotment may outweigh concerns of underprovided facilities.

7.1.9 The results of the survey also highlighted some criticism towards general security, which was regarded by 60% as being ‘poor’ or ‘fair’, and 40% of respondents were critical of the general ease of access within allotments.

Allotments Consultations Summary

7.1.10 From the consultation, the main points to note are:

Allotments are appealing to a wider age range of the population not just the retired population Overall satisfaction with allotments in the borough is high There are some perceived issues with allotment security and ease of accessibility Nearly half of all allotments do not provide basic amenities such as an adequate water supply

Image 21: Allotments, Cess Road, Martham

136

7.2 Allotments Audit – Quantity

7.2.1 The borough has approximately 45 hectares of allotment land which is predominantly located within the urban area of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston and the adjoining settlement of Bradwell. Allotment provision is more concentrated in the northern parishes than the southern with 11.68ha24 and 7.49ha respectively. The location and distribution of known allotments in the borough is shown in Fig. 53

7.2.2 The breakdown of allotment space per ward and per 1,000 people is illustrated in Table 50.

Table 50: Allotment space per ward and per 1,000 people

Ward Population Total Allotment Allotment Space Space (ha) (ha) per 1,000 people Bradwell North 6,576 2.57 0.39 Bradwell South 6,796 7.02 1.03 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 0 Caister South 4,464 3.19 0.71 Central & 8,614 6.91 0.80 Northgate Claydon 7,451 3.08 0.41 East Flegg 5,008 1.59 0.32 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.62 0.26 Gorleston 5,421 0 0 Lothingland 5,672 0.47 0.08 Magdalen 7,086 2.67 0.38 Nelson 8,166 0 0 Ormesby 4,407 1.43 0.32 Southtown & 5,314 7.26 1.37 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0 0 West Flegg 5,135 4.85 0.94 Yarmouth North 4,471 3.51 0.79 Borough Total/Average 96,271 45.17 0.47

24 The northern and southern totals exclude allotments provided in the Great Yarmouth urban area i.e. Bradwell North, Central & Northgate, Claydon, Gorleston, Magdalen, Nelson, Southtown & Cobholm, St Andrews and Yarmouth North wards

137

Fig. 53: Location of Allotment Sites in the Borough

138

7.2.3 The borough has on average 0.5ha of allotment space per 1,000 people. At ward level, Southtown and Cobholm have the largest proportion of allotment provision at 1.37ha per 1,000 people - however the overall provision within the urban area is 0.45ha per 1,000 people, which is on a par with the borough average.

7.2.4 Allotment provision is under-served in both Lothingland and Fleggburgh Wards, particularly in Lothingland where sole provision is constrained on a piece of land between the church, primary school and residential area in Belton.

7.2.5 Caister North ward, and the urban wards of Gorleston, Nelson and St Andrews, do not provide any allotment provision. It is conceivable that the over concentration of allotment provision within the urban area could meet the needs for these, and similarly, the large allotment along Fremantle Road in Caister could provide for the needs of Caister North too.

Image 22: Allotments, Yarmouth Road, Hemsby

139

7.3 Allotments Audit – Quality

7.3.1 An audit which quantified the quality and value of each allotment site was undertaken in April 2012 to identify how utilised provision was across the borough and to identify any potential weaknesses that could inhibit their use. The audit was undertaken in house and complimented the information that was obtained from the parish councils and allotment associations and were assessed according to the criteria as set out in Fig. 54.

7.3.2 Criteria points were marked out of 5 (5 being high) and a total value or quality score per allotment was marked out of a maximum of 30. Scores of under 55% were considered to be ‘low’ while scores 55% and over were considered to be ‘high’.

Fig. 54: Criteria for assessing the quality and value of allotments

Quality Demarcation/Fencing - Are the allotment plots adequately demarked? Is there appropriate fencing? Are there any boundary concerns between plots? Vandalism - Is there any evidence of graffiti? Break-ins, or arson attacks? Facilities - Does the allotment have a range of facilities in-situ i.e. an adequate water supply? Maintenance - Are the allotments/allotment plots maintained well? Is there any evidence of decline? Management - Is the allotment well managed? Is there a dedicated allotment officer? Is there a waiting list? Security - How well secured is the allotment? Does the allotment compound have adequate protection/security measures?

Value Vacancy - Are there significant vacancies on the allotment? What is the ratio of utilised/under-utilised allotment land? Social Potential - Does the allotment have wider ties with the community i.e. through schools or church groups? Safety - Is the allotment secure? Does the allotment feel safe? Do properties overlook the allotment aiding to surveillance? Visitor Accessibility- Is the allotment suitable/flexible for all allotment users? Accessibility and Circulation - How well connected is the allotment to the local highway network? Frequency of pathways? Is there adequate parking and/or ease of access onto the site? Habitat Value - Is there a breadth of biodiversity i.e. trees, shrubbery, hedgerows on the allotment which aid biodiversity and recreational benefits?

140

Table 50: Quality and Value of the borough’s allotments

Allotment Quality Quality Value Value % Score (out % Score (out of 30) of 30) Belton (Church Lane) 26 80% 20 66% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Beccles Road) 21 70% 21 70% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Cley Road) 26 86% 17 68% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Crab Lane) 21 70% 19* 76% HIGH HIGH Bradwell (Long Lane) 25 83% 21* 84% HIGH HIGH Caister (Fremantle Road) 25 83% 26 86% HIGH HIGH Caister (Ambrose Road) 22 73% 20 66% HIGH HIGH Filby (Thrigby Road) 21 70% 27 90% HIGH HIGH Fleggburgh (Town Road) 22 73% 22 73% HIGH HIGH Gorleston (Common Road) 25 83% 23 76% HIGH HIGH Gorleston (Woodfarm Lane) 24 80% 21* 84% HIGH HIGH Gorleston (Western Road) 21 70% 17* 68% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Marsh Road) 21 70% 18 60% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Lawn Avenue) 25 83% 21 70% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Queen Anne’s 16 53% 16 53% Road) LOW LOW Great Yarmouth (Runham Vauxhall) 28 93% 17 56% HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Off Northgate 23 76% 20 66% Street) HIGH HIGH Great Yarmouth (Fremantle Road) 25 83% 26 86% HIGH HIGH Hemsby (Yarmouth Road) 24 96% 18* 72%* HIGH HIGH Martham (Cess Road) 20 66% 18 60% HIGH HIGH Ormesby (Cromer Road) 24 80% 20 66% HIGH HIGH Repps with Bastwick (Church Road) 21 70% 16 53% HIGH LOW Repps with Bastwick (Low Road) 21 70% 17 56% HIGH HIGH Rollesby (Court Road) 20 66% 21 70% HIGH HIGH Winterton (Black Street) 21 70% 25 83% HIGH HIGH Borough Average 23 76% 20 70%

141

7.3.3 The results of the allotments audits suggest that the borough has a predominantly high quality and high value allotment offer. This could be reflective of a number of local circumstances – for example the borough’s ageing population which may engender a reliance upon allotments for its low impact recreational benefits.

7.3.4 The results of the audit did not suggest any differentiation between rural and urban allotments in terms of quality and value. Both areas were regarded as having allotments of high quality and value.

7.3.5 The highest scoring allotment for quality was an allotment along the Yarmouth Road in Hemsby. It scored 96% which is reflective of its recent opening, the breadth of its facilities and the careful planning, orientation and security of the allotment.

7.3.6 Allotments of highest value were located at Cley Road (86%); Long Lane, Bradwell and Woodfarm Lane, Gorleston (both scoring 83%). Their key strengths included their location which provided key open space amenity to the densely populated suburb, the ease of access onto and around the allotment; and, free and ample parking for allotment holders.

7.3.7 Only one allotment was audited as being both low quality and low value (52%). This allotment was located on the outskirts of the Great Yarmouth urban area, along Queen Anne’s Road and the contributing factors toward its low score included its lack of basic amenities, it was in poor condition and was adjacent to low grade wasteland which contributed towards some fly-tipping in the area. The lack of apparent interest in the allotment and likelihood of anti-social behaviour has contributed towards its declining state.

7.3.8 The audit only identified one other low scoring allotment. This was located along Low Road in Repps with Bastwick and was attributed with a low value score of 53% due to its particularly poor accessibility. The allotment is accessed off a minor road with no footpath and no car parking and is a particularly vulnerable environment for the elderly who are likely to be users of the allotment.

142

7.4 Allotments Audit – Accessibility

7.4.1 Based on the function of allotments as local facilities serving local catchment populations, in particular those with little garden space, it has been assumed that an acceptable distance to travel would be about 900 metres. This equates to roughly a 15 minute walk25 or a short car journey.

7.4.2 Address point data was used to establish the proportion of the population covered by this catchment. As shown in Table 51 the accessibility of allotments is fairly good, with nearly 70% of the population within a suitable walking distance from an allotment plot.

Table 51: Percentage of the population living within a 900m catchment from an allotment site Percentage of population Catchment area 67% 900m

7.4.3 Figure 55 illustrates the parts of the borough which are within the catchment area of an allotment. The map shows fairly good borough wide coverage, with over concentration in the urban areas. There are notable gaps in the catchments’ coverage, for example at Hopton-on-Sea, Fritton and St Olaves and part of Caister- on-Sea.

7.5 Allotments Audit Summary

7.5.1 The borough is fairly well provided for in terms of allotments, in both rural and urban areas. There are three urban wards which have no allotment provision; however many other urban wards have provision which is well above the borough average. The main rural area to be underserved is Lothingland.

7.5.2 The quality of allotment provision in the borough is generally very high. Only one site scored low for quality, and two scored low for value. Key issues which resulted in lower scores included a lack of car parking and basic amenities such as adequate water supply.

7.5.3 Accessibility of allotments is considered to be fairly good throughout the borough, both in rural and urban areas. There is an overconcentration of allotments in urban areas.

25 This is consistent with the walking speed used by Natural England as referenced in Section 3, equating to approx. 4 miles per hour

143

Fig 55: Allotment sites showing a catchment radius of 900m

144

7.6 Allotments – Benchmark Standards

7.6.1 Although there are no formal standards set for allotment provision, the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG)26 advocates an informal standard for allotment provision of 15 plots per 1,000 households.

7.6.2 By taking into consideration the average size of the UK household (2.3 persons27), the standard would recommend an approximate provision of 15 plots per 2,300 people.

7.6.3 To retrofit this standard to the circumstances in Great Yarmouth, one will need to consider: The total number of plots in the borough The total population

7.6.4 The allotment survey was unable to establish the total number of plots in the borough due to the lack of acquired information. However, it is possible to ascertain an estimation of plot numbers by calculating their gross area.

7.6.5 For the purposes of the study, the average allotment plot size has been considered as 250sqm (in line with the 10 ‘rod’ principle), therefore equating to the total (gross) area of the borough’s allotments (451,700sqm), the borough has approximately 1,807 allotment plots.

7.6.6 Taking into account the total population (96,271) and the standard set at 15 plots per 2,300 people, the borough is calculated as requiring 628 plots to maintain an adequate provision for the size of the population. In real terms, the borough has an over-supply of 1,179 plots equivalent to approximately 29.48ha.

7.6.7 This estimation does not take into account how allotment provision is spread at a local level. Table 52 calculates the number of expected plots per ward (as a benchmark) and illustrates where the borough has an under or oversupply of allotment plots.

26 The NSLAG is the recognised representative body for the allotment movement in the UK and is officially recognised by the Government. 27 ONS Population and Household Estimates for the United Kingdom, March 2011

145

Table 52: Total Allotment Plots per Ward

Ward Population Total Allotment plots Actual Plots Allotment (benchmark (surplus Space (ha) equivalent) /deficit)

Bradwell North 6,576 2.57 102.8 +59.9 Bradwell South 6,796 7.02 280.8 +236.5 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 0 -29.4 Caister South 4,464 3.19 127.6 +98.5 Central & 8,614 6.91 276.4 +220.3 Northgate Claydon 7,451 3.08 123.2 +74.6 East Flegg 5,008 1.59 63.6 +29.5 Fleggburgh 2,388 0.62 24.8 +7.9 Gorleston 5,421 0 0 -35.4 Lothingland 5,672 0.47 18.8 -18.2 Magdalen 7,086 2.67 106.8 +60.6 Nelson 8,166 0 0 -53.3 Ormesby 4,407 1.43 57.2 +28.5 Southtown & 5,314 7.26 290.4 +255.7 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0 0 -31.3 West Flegg 5,135 4.85 194 +160.5 Yarmouth 4,471 3.51 140.4 +111.2 North Borough Total 96,271 45.17 1,807 +1,179

7.6.8 As shown above, allotment provision is mostly lacking in Nelson ward, where statistically, there is a requirement for approximately 53 allotment plots. This is followed by similar demands of around 30-35 plots in Gorleston and St Andrews, and a demand of approximately 18 additional plots in Lothingland. There is significant surplus in the urban areas, which is expected, as traditionally allotments have been situated in inner urban areas as a way of providing a means to growing produce for those without access or means to an appropriate garden.

7.6.9 Given the ability of the urban areas to compensate due to the surplus of allotment land, it is not felt that there is a need for more allotments within the urban area. The main area in need is Lothingland, which could be considered for the future, especially if there was to be any housing development in this location.

146

7.7 Allotments Local Standards

7.7.1 National guidance promotes locally derived standards, based on local need and circumstances. In order to achieve an improvement in provision of allotments which is viable for new development, and also manageable to maintain, it is recommended that the following standards are achieved for new development within the borough.

Fig 55: Allotments Local Standards Quantity 15 allotment plots per 1,000 households (2,300 people) which is equivalent to approximately 7 allotment plots per 1,000 people, or 0.18ha per 1,000 residents. The borough has approximately 0.47ha per 1,000 residents – the equivalent of 1,807 allotment plots, or 1,179 plots over and above the calculated benchmark provision (of 656 plots) for the borough.

There is a minor allotment shortage in Lothingland (Belton), and should land become available adjacent to the allotment, provision should be made for an additional 0.45ha of allotment land to meet minimum requirements. Quality Allotments should achieve a quality score of 80% and a value score of 75%.

Adequate water supply and composting bins should be provided. Secure boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities. A number of allotment sites scored high marks for quality and value, the quality targets have been based on the upper end of the results to set a desirable yet achievable target. A number of parish councils suggested that there are currently no composting bins on allotments and that the water supply is not adequate, these improvements would further improve the quality and value of the sites. Some parish councils also suggested that allotments are not as secure as they could be, boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities would improve this. Accessibility Allotments should be considered accessible by residents where they are within a 900 metre straight line distance.

Sites should have both pedestrian and vehicular and disabled access, with adequate parking space. Currently, much of the built up part of the borough meets these standards. While walking is to be encouraged as the preferred method of access to allotments it is recognised that at certain times cars will be needed to transport equipment onto and off the site. Allotments function as local facilities and therefore an acceptable walking distance has been set, or a short car journey.

147

148

8.1 Churchyards and Cemeteries Audit – Quantity

8.1.1 This report will not attempt to set standards for churchyards and cemeteries, as it is felt that the primary function of these spaces should drive supply, quality and accessibility. However, as they also function as quiet open space suitable for contemplation, the quantity has been assessed and included in the overall audit of open space.

Table 54: Area of Churchyards* per Ward

Ward Population Churchyards* (ha) Churchyards* per 1,000 pop (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 0 0 Bradwell South 6,796 9.11 1.34 & Hopton Caister North 4,502 6.84 1.52 Caister South 4,464 0.97 0.22 Central & 8,614 3.08 0.36 Northgate Claydon 7,451 5.33 0.72 East Flegg 5,008 2.53 0.50 Fleggburgh 2,388 3.02 1.27 Gorleston 5,421 0 0 Lothingland 5,672 1.46 0.26 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 Nelson 8,166 0.14 0.02 Ormesby 4,407 0.72 0.16 Southtown & 5,314 0.19 0.04 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0.94 0.20 West Flegg 5,135 2.44 0.47 Yarmouth North 4,471 1.14 0.25 Borough Total/Average 96,271 37.91 0.39 * includes cemeteries, but excludes Kitchener Road Cemetery, which has been included under Accessible Natural Greenspace (see Section 3)

8.1.2 The borough has approximately 0.4 hectares of churchyard/cemetery space per 1,000 people, with the majority of provision in the rural wards (71%).

149

150

9.1 Conclusions

Quantity

9.1.1 The total figures for open space provision by ward are detailed in Appendix 1. This shows that the level of accessible natural greenspace provision is significantly higher than any other type of open space. There are nearly 16 ha of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 people which is of great benefit to borough residents.

9.1.2 For urban parks and gardens the provision almost meets the proposed standard, with the population in the urban areas having a good supply of urban parks and gardens.

9.1.3 The average quantity of outdoor sports facilities meets the proposed standard and for most types of sport there is sufficient supply. However, there are local variations and deficiencies in rural areas which have been identified in this study.

9.1.4 The average amenity greenspace is considered sufficient for the borough, but shortfalls occur in a number of urban wards. However, it could be argued that this shortfall is balanced out by these areas having better access to formal parks and gardens.

9.1.5 For children’s playspace the provision almost meets the proposed standard but the shortfall is mainly in the teen category with many more teenagers to each facility than the recommend level.

9.1.6 Overall the borough has a surplus of allotment provision. However there are localised shortages with insufficient provision in some rural and urban wards. There is an overconcentration of allotments in the urban area as a whole.

9.1.7 The quantity standards that have been set for each type of open space generally reflect the current position, indicating that on average the quantity of open space provision within the borough is sufficient. However, the need for further provision will be assessed in relation to the local area when considering the impact of new development.

Quality

9.1.8 The quality of the open space in the borough is generally very high. This means that for each open space type high standards have been set for quality and in many cases these are already being met.

9.1.9 Urban parks and gardens score highly for quality, but the lowest scores were in terms of value. Suggestions to improve value include enhancement to the natural environment of parks and promoting health, education and culture through parks. The Strategic Parks scored highly for both quality and value indicating that the larger parks which benefit a greater population are more attractive and are well maintained.

151

9.1.10 The quality and value of accessible natural greenspace is considered to be very good, with high overall averages for quality and value. Those spaces scoring low for quality were due to issues of litter, dog fouling and vandalism. Improvements should therefore be made in these areas, along with enhancement to the education and social value of the spaces which could include educational information boards or picnic benches.

9.1.11 In terms of sports facilities these are considered to be well maintained across the borough, but the issues lie with the ancillary facilities which require improvements, particularly changing rooms in some parishes as well as a need for enhanced facilities such as floodlighting and synthetic turf pitches.

9.1.12 While the quality of amenity greenspace was not formally assessed as part of this study, public consultation shows that satisfaction is generally high with these spaces, but there are concerns over the disposal of grass cuttings and litter.

9.1.13 Children’s playspace was not formally assessed for quality, as inspections are regularly carried out by the Council. However, from the public consultation, the main suggestions to improve the quality of the spaces were to provide a range of play equipment and for teen areas to be provided separately to increase the perceived safety of younger children.

9.1.14 The quality of allotment provision is also considered to be very high in the borough, with only a couple of sites receiving low scores. Key considerations to improve the quality of these sites include providing sufficient facilities such as an adequate water supply and sufficient access and parking.

Accessibility

9.1.15 The level of accessibility for open spaces varies according to open space type, but many fall short of benchmark standards. The local standards proposed therefore seek to increase the accessibility of open space in relation to new development.

9.1.16 Accessibility to urban parks and gardens is low across the whole borough, but is high for the urban area. By the very nature of these parks it would be unreasonable to assume the whole of the borough to have similar access to these parks as the urban area, therefore the proposed accessibility standards apply to the population of the urban area.

9.1.17 In terms of accessible natural greenspace, accessibility is considered to be very good within the borough, with most of the borough having access to the larger sites. The smaller sites are considered to be less accessible, with some areas in the north west of the borough lacking in accessibility. However, with extensive public rights of way links, it could be argued that there is no lack of accessibility.

9.1.18 The borough’s outdoor sports facilities are considered to be accessible, with most of the facilities’ catchment population within a 0.5 mile radius, and many are accessible by public transport.

152

9.1.19 Only a minority of residents have appropriate access to amenity greenspace, which is surprising given that it is usually provided in built up areas, close to housing and workplaces. However small areas of amenity greenspace have not been considered in this study.

9.1.20 Children’s playspace provision is provided throughout the borough but in terms of the recommended walking catchments to these play areas, the borough falls short for all ages, in particular to junior play space provision. There are localised shortages which have been identified in the study.

9.1.21 There is considered to be good accessibility to allotments, with a significant proportion of the population currently within the catchment recommended. There are some sites however where there is a need to improve the access and car parking provision.

Local Standards

9.1.22 Based on the public consultations and audits, local standards have been recommended for each open space type as follows:

153

Allotments Quantity: 7 allotment plots per 1,000 population, or 0.18ha per 1,000 population Quality: 80% quality, 75% value. Adequate water supply and composting bins should be provided. Secure boundary fencing and lockable storage facilities on site Accessibility: straight line distance to an allotment site of up to 900 metres for all residents. Sites should have pedestrian, vehicular and disabled access, with adequate parking space

154

9.2 Recommendations

9.2.1 Based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that: The standards in this report are adopted as a basis for assessing the current levels of surplus or deficiency in terms of the quality, quantity, and accessibility for the various open space types covered in this study.

Guidance is developed based on this study to establish the need for and extent of developer contributions in relation to new development in the borough.

Strategic and detailed policies are developed which reflect the key outcomes of this study. Policies should seek to protect the current level of provision, seeking improvements to the quality and accessibility of these spaces. Policies should also seek to secure the provision of additional open space in relation to new development, which link with the current network of open spaces in the borough.

9.3 Next Steps

9.3.1 Having established the different types of open space within the borough and assessed these according to their quantity, quality and accessibility, it is important that the Council maintain and enhance the existing open space and seek to increase the level of provision in the borough. In relation to new development, planning obligations can be sought to ensure that open space provision is enhanced and increased. Part 2 of the Open Space Study will build on the work carried out in this study, to set out the process for determining the level of developer contributions required towards open space provision in relation to new development.

155

Appendix 1 Total Area of Open Space per 1,000 Population per Ward Ward Population Urban Parks ANG per Outdoor Amenity Children’s Churchyards/ Allotment Total Open & Gardens 1,000 pop Sports Green Space Play Space Cemeteries Space per Space per Ward per 1,000 (ha) Facilities per per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 pop 1,000 pop per 1,000 pop pop (ha) 1,000 pop (ha) pop (ha) pop (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Bradwell North 6,576 0 0.15 2.48 0.86 0.24 0 0.39 4.27 Bradwell S & 6,796 0 2.30 1.43 0.91 0.25 1.34 1.03 7.26 Hopton Caister North 4,502 0 1.98 0 1.01 0.24 1.52 0 4.75 Caister South 4,464 0 6.60 1.78 0.09 0.04 0.22 0.71 9.44 Central & 8,614 0.50 74.78 1.15 0.26 0.08 0.36 0.80 77.93 Northgate Claydon 7,451 0 0 1.36 0.48 0.06 0.72 0.41 3.03 East Flegg 5,008 0 45.31 0.91 0.63 0.12 0.50 0.32 47.79 Fleggburgh 2,388 0 0.10 2.10 0.65 0.28 1.27 0.26 4.66 Gorleston 5,421 1.98 0.92 1.09 0.29 0.02 0 0 4.29 Lothingland 5,672 0 65.26 1.35 0.43 0.25 0.26 0.08 67.63 Magdalen 7,086 0 0 1.16 2.22 0.29 0 0.38 4.05 Nelson 8,166 0.41 3.41 0.22 0.20 0.12 0.02 0 4.38 Ormesby 4,407 0 6.86 0.96 1.07 0.12 0.16 0.32 9.49 Southtown & 5,314 0 2.84 0.85 0.28 0.25 0.04 1.37 5.63 Cobholm St Andrews 4,800 0.76 0.81 0.41 0.12 0.47 0.20 0 2.77 West Flegg 5,135 0 14.68 2.95 0.95 0.14 0.47 0.94 20.13 Yarmouth 4,471 0 12.23 0.94 2.93 0.11 0.25 0.79 17.25 North Borough Total/Average 96,271 0.23 15.67 1.22 0.76 0.17 0.39 0.47 18.91

156