Cheshire West and Open Space Assessment

A Final Report

January 2011

Contents Executive Summary

Section 1: Introduction 1

Section 2: Methodology 8

Section 3: Parks and Gardens 18

Section 4: Natural and Semi Natural Open Space 40

Section 5: Amenity Green Space 65

Section 6 – Provision for Children (12 and Under) 88

Section 7 – Provision for Young People 108

Section 8 – Allotments 130

Section 9 – Outdoor Sports Facilities 150

Section 10 – Cemeteries and Churchyards 186

Section 11 – Green Corridors 198

Section 12 –Civic Spaces 208

Section 13 – Summary and Planning Overview 214

Appendices

Appendix A – Assessment of Open Space Need – Consultation Report (June 2010)

Appendix B – Wider Benefits of Open Space

Appendix C – Site Assessment Matrix

Appendix D – Standards Setting Documents

Appendix E – National Policy Context

Appendix F – List of Sites

Appendix G – Maps

Appendix H – Summary of Data by Ward

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 5

1. Introduction

Introduction

01 This audit and assessment of open space, outdoor sport and recreation provision across Cheshire West and Chester has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) and its Companion Guide (September 2002) as well as the Best Practice Guidance for the preparation of open space strategies (CABE Space and Mayor of London May 2009).

The key aims and objectives of the assessment are to:

- provide an overview of existing open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester;

- recommend local standards of provision in terms of quality, quantity and accessibility;

- evaluate the adequacy of the existing provision (in terms of quality, quantity and accessibility) to meet both current and future demand; and

- consider the implications of the issues arising for local policy and to provide information to support the collection of contributions towards open space, sports facilities and play facilities.

This assessment will form an important component of the evidence base for the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF), including the Core Strategy, and will inform policies within future Development Plan Documents.

The study will also facilitate informed decision making with regards proactive strategy and policy for open spaces and will support the creation of specific service delivery plans and the emerging Green Space Strategy and Playing Pitch Strategy that are currently in progress.

The study draws upon the findings of the local needs assessment undertaken by pmpgenesis in January – May 2010. This document is set out in full in Appendix A. It has been prepared alongside the development of Playing Pitch Strategy, which covers issues relating to playing fields for football, cricket, rugby and hockey in more detail.

Why provide open space?

The Government strategy on the quality of place World Class Places (May 2009) sets a vision that all places are planned, designed and developed to provide everyone, including future generations, with a decent quality of life and fair chances. It sees green infrastructure as a core ingredient of this vision. This message and vision is consistent with a number of other cross- Government initiatives.

Reflecting this, the profile of open spaces, outdoor sport and recreation facilities is becoming increasingly high on the national stage and effective consideration of open spaces is therefore essential in the achievement of both national and local objectives. PPS12 (Local Spatial Planning 2008) reinforces the importance of spatial planning in creating strong and prosperous

Cheshire West and Chester Open Space 1 PPG17 Assessment

communities and the role of open space in the creation of such communities is highlighted in many of the current Planning Policy Statements and Guidance notes.

The Localism Bill (published December 2010) seeks to empower neighbourhood communities, and give them real power to shape the way that the areas in which they live develop. Open Space, outdoor sport and recreation facilities are central to community life and their profile is therefore likely to increase further.

Evidence collated by CABE Space (Urban Green Nation, Building the Evidence Base 2010) confirms the importance of parks and Open space has never been more open spaces to local residents, indicating important than it is today. In the face of that: new environmental, social and economic challenges, it is essential to • 9 out of 10 people use parks and green our quality of life, our health and well- spaces and value them; being and to ensuring a more sustainable future for all. Creation, protection and improvement of a high • satisfaction with local parks is linked to quality open space network should be satisfaction with the Council; at the heart of every authority’s vision for an area.’ • the provision of parks is worse in the Guide to the production of Open deprived areas in comparison to the Space Strategies (Mayor of London and affluent areas; CABE Space 2009)

• people from ethnic minority groups tend to have less local green space and it is of poorer quality; and

• the higher quality the space, the more likely it is to be used.

Recent research evaluating the impact of the provision of quality local green spaces on the health and wellbeing of people in deprived and ethnically diverse areas shows that good quality local green space is an effective way to tackle inequality. The research (set out in Community green: using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health, CABE Space July 2010) concludes that:

• green space is a public resource with a proven track record in improving people’s health, but too many local green spaces remain unused;

• people’s concerns about safety affect their use of local green space and vary by ethnicity;

• improving the quality of spaces will encourage more active use and exercise; and

• local people are best placed to know what they want from green space.

PPG17 emphasises that the value of open space is not just recreational. The strategic contribution that open spaces can make to the wider environment includes:

• defining the local landscape character and providing an appropriate context and setting for built development and infrastructure;

• helping to achieve a softer interface between urban and rural environments;

• emphasising the presence of particular natural features within the landscape such as river

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 2

valleys;

• supporting habitats and local wildlife;

• promoting and protecting biodiversity and habitat creation; and

• mitigating climate change and flood risk.

The benefits of open space are further outlined in Appendix B and are illustrated overleaf in Figure 1.1 (extracted directly from Consultation Summary Report, PMP Genesis).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 3

Figure 1.1 – Benefits of Open Space, Outdoor Sport and Recreation Provision

Creating community Defining local landscape cohesion character and providing Improving health and context for built development levels of physical activity and infrastructure through the provision of recreational opportunities

Achieve an interface between Preserving the rural and urban historic character of environments the environment Effective Provision of Open Space, Sport and Recreation facilities Emphasising Mitigating and maximising climate change the presence of and flood risk natural features

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 4

Cheshire West and Chester – the context

Cheshire West and Chester has a population of 327,500 (2006) and is the fourth largest unitary authority in the North West. The authority contains a mixture of both urban settlements, including Chester City, , and , and a large number of smaller rural villages. Nearly a third of the population live within wards that can be described as rural.

A large proportion of the authority (42%) falls within the North Cheshire Green Belt and residents benefit from access to the countryside as well as from open spaces within settlements. Open spaces are perceived to contribute significantly to the character of the area and the distinctiveness of the landscape of the Borough was highlighted as a key strength throughout the study process. Open spaces were perceived to be important not just to residents, but also to visitors to the area.

Long term population forecasts indicate that the population of Chester West and Chester is expected to increase by 9% (18,200) between 2008 and 2027 (Source: Cheshire West and Chester Council Population Forecasts, report published September 2009). Designation of West Cheshire as a Growth Point for the period 2007/08 – 2016/17 means that pressure on existing open spaces is likely to further increase and concurrently population growth is also likely to generate demand for new open space, outdoor sport and recreation facilities.

As well as experiencing population growth, the profile of residents in the Borough is also expected to change. The authority already has an ageing population and this is likely to be further exacerbated by 2027, with the number of people aged over 65 increasing by more than 50%. Projections indicate that up to 2017, the number of older people (aged 65+) will increase in every Area partnership Board in the Borough, with the largest increases in Northwich & Rural North (36%), Winsford & Rural East (35%) and Rural West (30%). The number of children is forecast to increase in Chester (5%) and Ellesmere Port (2%), remain stable in Northwich & Rural North and decrease in Winsford & Rural East (10%) and Rural West (19%).

The change in population profile will influence the types of open space that are required, and this may vary even within the Borough. While the area as a whole contains an ageing population, Ellesmere Port and Winsford have younger population profiles than the Borough average. Population profiles are more ageing in the western and eastern rural areas. The expected level of population growth and change therefore emphasises the importance of effective planning of open space.

Within Cheshire West and Chester, there is significant variation in the density of population, as well as in the population profile. Population density ranges substantially from 23.66 people per hectare in Chester City, to 1.33 people per hectare in the rural west. The role of open space in influencing quality of life, as well as the wider benefits these sites bring, means that it is important to ensure that residents in all parts of the Borough have access to appropriate space.

While there are pockets of high affluence, there are also pockets of deprivation. The Blacon and Overleigh wards of Chester are ranked in the 2% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in and 26 LSOAs are ranked in the 20% most deprived nationally. In these parts, local access to open spaces is likely to be of high importance. The character of the area has informed both the local needs assessment (Appendix A) and also the local standards and priorities set out in this document.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 5

Open Space in Cheshire West and Chester

The vision of the Sustainable Community Strategy, ‘Together We Aim High’ is that:

“by 2026 West Cheshire will be even more prosperous and attractive: a really great place to live, work, learn and visit. The borough will play a full role in the region and beyond, fulfilling our changing responsibilities and enabling our residents to benefit from the opportunities in the twenty first century”.

The many benefits that are derived from the provision of open space mean that effective planning and management of this resource will be essential if benefits are to be maximised and the goals of the sustainable community strategy are to be achieved.

As outlined on the previous pages, consultation undertaken during the local needs assessment highlights the importance of open space in defining the character of Cheshire West and Chester for both residents and visitors. The contribution open space makes towards wider corporate aims and objectives is also clear.

It is therefore essential that a strategic approach to provision is promoted to ensure that all partners are working to achieve a common goal.

The provision of a network of high quality, accessible open space can be achieved by:

• ensuring the quantity of open space is sufficient to meet local needs and expectations;

• ensuring that sites are accessible and functional and provide maximum benefit to the local community; and

• maximising the quality of open spaces in terms of both recreation and biodiversity. Green Space must be safe, accessible, attractive and of high quality.

Table 1.1 summarises the contributions that open space can make in the achievement of key priorities across Cheshire West and Chester. A full strategic review is included within the Assessment of Local Need (Appendix A).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 6

Table 1.1 – Contribution of Open Space towards key priorities across Cheshire West and Chester

Objectives for the future delivery of open space

Enhance the Ensure the quantity Maximise access quality of open of open space is and functionality spaces sufficient to meet existing open local needs spaces

Strategic Documents

Sustainable Community    Strategy Cheshire West and    Chester Corporate Plan Cheshire Children and    Young People’s Plan Cheshire West and    Chester Biodiversity Study Green Infrastructure Framework for North East    Wales, Chester and Wirral

Structure of the Report

The remainder of this report outlines the key findings of the assessment of open spaces and details some of the key areas for improvement, based on the above objectives. In order to maximise the coherence of the document, given the number of open spaces it includes, it is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – Methodology • Section 3 – Parks and Gardens • Section 4 – Natural and Semi Natural Open Space • Section 5 – Amenity Green Space • Section 6 – Provision for Children • Section 7 – Provision for Young People • Section 8 – Allotments • Section 9 – Outdoor Sports Facilities • Section 10 – Cemeteries and Churchyards • Section 11 – Green Corridors • Section 12 – Civic Spaces • Section 13 – Summary and Planning Implementation.

The report provides an evidence base for future decision making on open space, sport and recreation facilities across the Borough. It’s findings should not be considered in isolation.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 7

2.Methodology

Undertaking the study

02 As summarised in Section One, this study has been undertaken in accordance with PPG17 and its Companion Guide as well as the Best Practice Guide to the preparation of Open Space Strategies (CABE Space and Mayor of London 2009). PPG17 emphasises the importance of making decisions based on local needs and aspirations as opposed to following national trends and guidelines.

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

• understanding that local needs will vary according to socio-demographic and cultural characteristics;

• recognising that the provision of good quality and effective open space relies on effective planning but also on creative design, landscape management and maintenance;

• considering that delivering high quality and sustainable open spaces may depend much more on improving and enhancing existing open space rather than new provision; and

• taking into account that the value of open space will be greater when local needs are met. It is essential to consider the wider benefits that sites generate for people, wildlife and the environment.

Paragraph 7 states that “local authorities should use the information gained from their assessments of needs and opportunities to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities in their areas”. PPG17 sets out the belief that national standards are inappropriate as they do not take into account the demographics of an area, the specific needs of residents or the extent of built development.

This report outlines the provision of open space in Cheshire West and Chester, summarises the recommended local standards for the Borough and investigates the implications of these standards for current and future open spaces.

Definition of Open Space

The overall definition of open space within PPG17 is:

“all open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can also act as a visual amenity”.

PPG17 identifies 10 typologies including nine types of green space and one type of urban open space. It states that when preparing assessments of needs and audits of existing open space and outdoor sport and recreation facilities, local authorities should use these typologies, or variations of it. These typologies are based on the primary purpose of a site.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 8

Table 2.1 illustrates the typologies of open space used within the Cheshire West and Chester study and outlines the primary purpose of each type of open space.

Table 2.1 – Types of Open Space within Cheshire West and Chester

Typology Description and Examples Purpose

Parks and Includes urban parks, formal gardens. • informal recreation Gardens Examples include Castle Park - , • community events. Grosvenor Park – Chester and Whitby Park, Ellesmere Port Natural and Semi- Includes publicly accessible woodlands, • wildlife conservation, Natural nature reserves, urban forestry, scrub, • biodiversity Greenspaces grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons, • environmental education and meadows), wetlands, open and running awareness. water and wastelands. For the purposes of this assessment, country parks, such as Marbury Country Park, have also been considered under the heading of natural and semi natural open space. Amenity Most commonly but not exclusively found • informal activities close to Greenspace in housing areas. Includes informal home or work recreation green spaces. Sites above • enhancement of the 0.2ha have been considered. appearance of residential or other areas Provision for Areas designed primarily for play and • equipped play areas Children and social interaction involving children and • ball courts Young People young people. • outdoor basketball hoop areas • skateboard areas • teenage shelters and ‘hangouts’ • bmx tracks Outdoor Sports Natural or artificial surfaces either publicly • outdoor sports pitches Facilities or privately owned used for sport and • tennis and bowls recreation. Includes school playing fields. • golf courses • athletics • playing fields (including school playing fields) • water sports Allotments Opportunities for those people who wish to • growing vegetables and other do so to grow their own produce as part of root crops the long-term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion. May also N.B. does not include private include urban farms. gardens Cemeteries & Cemeteries and churchyards including • quiet contemplation Churchyards disused churchyards and other burial • burial of the dead grounds. • wildlife conservation • promotion of biodiversity

Includes towpaths along canals and • walking, cycling or horse riding Green Corridors riverbanks, cycleways, rights of way and • leisure purposes or travel disused railway lines. • opportunities for wildlife migration.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 9

It is important to note that although many sites are multifaceted, offering a range of facilities and different open space functions, sites have been classified by their primary purpose. Where there is a definitive facility within a larger site (for example a play area or sports pitch within a park) this site has been subdivided to ensure that the various opportunities offered are all considered.

Sites offering more than one type of recreational open space (for example parks containing natural areas) have been classified under their primary purpose. In order to ensure that the functions of each site are fully taken into account, consideration has however also been given to the characteristics and secondary functions of the spaces, particularly with regards natural and semi natural open space, play areas and outdoor sports facilities.

In order to maintain links with the Sub Regional Green Infrastructure Framework which is currently underway, where appropriate, sites have also been classified according to the green infrastructure typology into which they fall. Table 2.2 summarises the links between the PPG17 typologies and the green infrastructure typologies.

Table 2.2 – Links between PPG17 typologies and Green Infrastructure Typologies

Typology Green Infrastructure Typology

Parks and Gardens Parks and Gardens Natural and Semi-Natural • Grassland Heathland and Moorland or Greenspaces Scrubland • Coastal Habitat • Wetland • Woodland Amenity Greenspace General Amenity Space Provision for Children and Teenagers N/A Outdoor Sports Facilities Outdoor Sports Facility Allotments Allotment, community garden or urban farm Cemeteries & Churchyards Cemetery, Churchyard or burial ground Green Corridors N/A Civic Spaces N/A

PPG 17 – five step process

The PPG17 Companion Guide sets out a five-step process for undertaking a local assessment of open space and this process has been followed by Cheshire West and Chester Council.

The key stages that have been followed in the assessment of open spaces are therefore:

• Step 1 – identifying local needs • Step 2 – auditing local provision • Step 3 – setting provision standards • Step 4 – applying provision standards • Step 5 – developing strategy and informing policies.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 10

Further detail on the key tasks carried out at each stage is set out below.

Step 1 - identifying local needs

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

An assessment of local need was carried out by PMP Genesis (January to May 2010) and the key findings of this assessment have provided the baseline for the later stages of this assessment.

The full report summarising the assessment of local needs is provided in Appendix A. The key tasks included within this assessment were:

• desk based strategic review and policy evaluation; • household questionnaires; • internet survey for children and young people; • key stakeholders workshop; • discussion sessions for Council Members, Town and Parish Councils; • workshop sessions for local groups and user groups; • questionnaires for sports clubs, allotment holders and Friends of Parks groups; • one informal consultation with the general public; and • one-to-one consultations with Council officers and an online officer consultation survey.

Views were analysed at a Borough Wide level, and differences in views between residents living in urban and rural wards (defined later in Table 2.4) were also considered.

Step 2 - auditing local provision

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

• A detailed audit of provision of open space was carried out across Cheshire West and Chester by Neil Allen Associates. This audit built on the work that had already been undertaken in the three former authorities of Vale Royal, Ellesmere Port and and Chester City. The work undertaken therefore incorporated:

- amalgamation of existing data sources, ensuring consistency in approach and typology classification;

- meetings with Council Officers to update the audit. Updates were also informed by workshops with Members, Town and Parish Councillors undertaken as part of the Assessment of Local Needs (pmpgenesis); and

- review of other data sources including aerial photography and Council records.

As highlighted earlier, sites have been classified according to their primary purpose, although the secondary function of sites has also been considered where appropriate. All sites are recorded on a GIS layer, therefore providing a live record of existing provision, which can be

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 11

monitored and updated to reflect changes to the stock of provision.

Following desk based research, visits were carried out to each site to verify the typology and the existence of site, and to evaluate the quality of provision. Audits of quality are particularly important as they allow local authorities to identify potential for increased use through better design, management and maintenance.

Sites were evaluated against a matrix enabling comparisons between sites in the same typology and across typologies. The matrix was based on that used in the Chester City Council Open Space Assessment (Wardell Armstrong 2008) and sites were rated against the following attributes:

• Provision of equipment and facilities • Quality of equipment and facilities • Dog fouling • Litter and waste management • Personal security • Building and infrastructure maintenance • Signage • Equal access for all • Access to site.

The site assessment process resulted in an overall quality and accessibility score for each site in addition to ratings for each individual factor. These scores have been translated into percentage scores, enabling easy comparison. Percentage scores take into account only relevant criteria. For example where there is no signage, but this would not be expected at a site, it is not taken into account within the overall percentage score.

The site assessment sheets used are contained within Appendix C. All site assessments have been recorded in an Access database, which can be maintained and updated to reflect changes in the quality of provision. This database can be linked to the GIS.

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the audit, it must be noted that the omission of a site does not necessarily mean that it is not considered to be green space and that policies relating to green space are not applicable. Updating the audit will be an ongoing process and the audit will be constantly refined in response to changes in the open space stock of the Borough.

Step 3 – Setting provision standards

PPG17 states that open space standards should be set locally. It recommends that national standards should not be used to assess local circumstances and indicates that local authorities should use information gained from the assessment of needs and opportunities (stage 1) to set local standards for the provision of open space, sport and recreational facilities. In order to ensure that the recommended local standards are directly representative of local needs in Cheshire West and Chester, standards have therefore been derived directly from the findings of consultations as well as the analysis of existing provision.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 12

PPG17 recommends that local standards should include:

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

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

• accessibility (including distance thresholds and consideration of the cost of using a facility).

Standards were set during a workshop that was attended by representatives from a range of Council departments. Table 2.3 briefly summarises the process that was adopted.

Table 2.3 – The Standard Setting Process

Field Collected Definition Definition Open space definition. National standards Details of any existing national standards for each typology usually provided by national organisations e.g. ‘Fields in Trust’ (formally NPFA) for playing pitches. Local standards Any existing local standards that will need to be taken into account and used as guidance when setting new local standards.

Consultation Statistical information collected from the household survey. This is (household survey) one of the most important elements as it is directly representative of the local needs of residents. This information is supplemented by the findings of other qualitative consultations, to provide an overall view on the adequacy of provision. Existing Provision Analysis of the distribution of existing provision and the quality issues experienced.

Recommendation Recommendation of a local standard.

Justification Reasoning and justification for the local standard once it has been set.

Standards have been set as follows:

• Quantity standards – ha per 1000 population

• Quality standards – essential and desirable criteria to meet with local expectations.

• Accessibility standards – distance threshold, based on expectations as to the length of time that residents would expect to travel, and the mode of transport that they would expect to use.

For ease of application and to ensure that standards are representative across the whole Borough, wards have been split according to whether they are predominantly rural or urban and analysis has also been undertaken at ward level.

The ward boundaries used represent a snapshot in time, and are based upon the most up to date boundaries available at the commencement of the PPG17 Assessment (December 2009).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 13

Although these boundaries have changed towards the end of the process, this will not result in changes to the priorities established in this report. The use of these boundaries ensures that direct links to the consultation can be made.

Table 2.4 provides an overview of the wards used and their categorisation as rural or urban. These categories are indicative only, and it is acknowledged that many of the wards contain areas that are based rural and urban. Population estimates for the current time are based upon 2008 mid year estimates, the most up to date available at the time of production of this report.

Table 2.4 – Categorisation of Sites – Rural and Urban

Urban / Ward Population Rural R Abbey 12400 U Blacon 12900 R Boughton Heath and 13400 R Broxton 11500 U Central and Westminster 14600 U City 14000 R Eddisbury 11800 U Frodsham and 14200 R Gowy 13800 U Grange and Rossmore 14000 U Groves and Whitby 13000 U and Newton 11900 R Ledsham 11200 R Marbury 14100 R 14200 U Neston and Parkgate 14400 U Northwich East and Shakerley 13700 U Northwich West 17300 U Overleigh 14100 U Sutton and Manor 13300 U Upton 12400 R Weaver 12900 U Winsford North and East 16000 U Winsford South and West 14900 (Source Cheshire West and Chester Council 2008 mid year estimates).

Population projections are based on Cheshire West and Chester projections, (report produced September 2009 -produced at a Partnership Board level and then aggregated to ward level for the purposes of this study only as ward boundaries do not correlate exactly).

Area partnership population projections are available up to 2017 with the following increases across the Borough:

• Chester – 5% • Ellesmere Port – 10% • Northwich and Rural North – 6% • Rural West - -2% • Winsford and Rural East - 1%

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 14

For the purposes of this report, population projections up to 2017 have been used to estimate the likely shortfall and surpluses in each ward. These have been derived by applying the figures above, created at Area Partnership level, to the current population of each ward. Projections of likely provision per 1000 population and estimated surpluses and deficiencies should therefore be treated as indicative only and ward based figures will not tally exactly with borough wide figures due to issues with different boundaries. They do however represent a good indication of the likely patterns of growth across the Borough. All projections of the adequacy of open space assume that supply will not alter in the interim.

To provide further indication of the likely future demand, shortfalls and surpluses up to 2027 have been calculated using the Unitary Authority population forecasts (extracted from the September 2009 report). These are only available at Boroughwide level but are considered accurate at this level.

Full justifications for the recommended local standards, as well as the evidence base informing the development of these standards is provided in Appendix D. The standards set are summarised in each of the typology specific sections 3 – 11.

Stage 4 – Applying standards

The application of the local standards drives the key priorities for the future provision of open space, sport and recreation facilities. It is the application of standards that provides an understanding of the accessibility, quality and quantity of existing provision and sets the foundations for analysis of the spatial distribution of unmet need.

The standards are applied to both the existing situation, and also to the projected future situation (using predicted populations, as well as knowledge on the likely areas of housing growth).

Standards are applied using an accessibility led approach, meaning that accessibility is the primary determinant of the adequacy of provision. This is because in areas where provision is high, if sites are not accessible to residents, then local needs are not met, even though there may be large quantities of facilities within the ward. In areas where residents are able to access sites but provision falls below the recommended quantity standard, it may be that sites are smaller than may be expected and may have limited capacity to meet the needs of residents. It is therefore important that quantity standards are not applied in isolation, and that quality, quantity and accessibility are considered in the context of each other. The application of standards should be used to inform decision making.

Key issues considered as part of the application of standards include:

Accessibility

• Without good access, the provision of high quality open space is of limited public value. Given that accessibility standards are set in the form of distance thresholds (i.e. the maximum distance that typical users can reasonably be expected to travel to each type of provision using different modes of transport), application of these standards provides an understanding of the areas where residents do not have appropriate access to facilities. In contrast, where sites serve unique catchments (ie they are the only site accessible to residents in a particular area) then they may be particularly valuable.

• Accessibility is however twofold, and analysis of the qualitative information collected enables the identification of any site specific concerns relating to accessibility. This includes issues such as signage, cost and equal access for all. Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 15

Quantity

• Application of the quantity standards provides an understanding of the adequacy of existing provision for each type of open space in quantitative terms. It helps to establish areas suffering from a deficiency of provision of each type of open space. The application of quantity standards also provides a guide to developers as to the amount of open space that is expected in conjunction with new development. The application of quantity standards is also instrumental in determining the likely implications of new development.

Quality

• The aim of the quality assessment is to identify deficiencies in quality and to highlight key factors that need to be improved both within specific geographical areas, and across different types of open space. The quality standard provides a benchmark for current and future provision.

Where mapping is required to evaluate the adequacy of provision, the Borough has been subdivided into ten parts, to enable interrogation of site distribution at a detailed level. Where directly relevant to the text, maps are provided as links within the report. Mapping for all areas is contained within Appendix G of this report.

Step 5 - Strategy Framework and Planning Implementation

Application of the standards drives the identification of key priorities across Cheshire West and Chester. For each typology, this report highlights issues for further investigation including:

• geographical areas where existing provision should be protected, as it is of high value to local residents;

• areas where existing provision should be enhanced – where a site is low quality, it may still be of value to residents, particularly if it serves a unique catchment (ie where it is the only site that residents in a certain area are able to access);

• areas where existing provision should be relocated or redesignated (for example where there are surpluses of one type of space and shortfalls of another);

• areas where new provision should be considered;

• areas where sites may potentially become surplus to requirements; and

• opportunities to improve the management / maintenance of sites, or to change the focus of current provision.

The Best Practice Guidance (CABE Space and Mayor of London 2009) advocates a six stage approach to the preparation of an assessment of open spaces. This includes the development of a strategy and action plan as the final stage. To comply with this guidance, this evidence based will be used to develop the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy, which will set a delivery and improvement plan for open spaces in the Borough over the LDF period.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 16

The remainder of this report sets out the key issues by typology, summarising the:

• Strategic Context

• Assessment of Local Needs (extracted from report produced by pmpgenesis 2010)

• Audit of existing provision

• Recommended local standards

• Application of local standards

• Key priorities and recommendations.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 17

3. Parks and Gardens

Introduction

03 For the purposes of this study, parks and gardens have been considered to include only urban parks and formal gardens. These spaces provide a wide range and high standard of complimentary facilities of interest to visitors and may include facilities for children and young people and / or outdoor sports facilities as well as often being the venue for community events.

Examples of such facilities across the Borough include:

• Grosvenor Park, Chester

• Castle Park, Frodsham

• Whitby Park, Ellesmere Port.

More so than most other types of open space, parks often contain a variety of facilities and amenities (e.g. children’s play facilities, sport pitches and wildlife areas). For classification purposes, the different facilities within parks have been separated according to the PPG17 typology under which they most appropriately fall. Large green areas, footpaths, lakes and less dense woodland will provide the park area (total hectares) and the other facilities will be calculated separately under their own typology classification. This ensures that open space sites are not counted twice within this study.

The characteristics of country parks in Cheshire West and Chester mean that these types of space are more akin to natural open space and have therefore been considered within this categorisation. Linear routes, such as the Whitegate Way and Wirral Way are classified as green corridors in line with PPG17 definitions and are therefore also not included within the parks and gardens classification. The interrelationship between these spaces and formal parks will however be discussed later in this section.

The benefits of parks extend far wider than recreation. Parks provide a sense of place for the local community, help to address social inclusion issues within wider society and also provide structural and landscaping benefits. Furthermore, parks are often havens for wildlife and the promotion of biodiversity.

Urban Green Nation – Building the evidence base (Cabe Space 2010) concludes that:

• 9 out of 10 people use parks and green spaces and value them;

• satisfaction with local parks is linked to satisfaction with the Council;

• the provision of parks is worse in the deprived areas in comparison to the affluent areas;

• people from ethnic minority groups tend to have less local green space and it is of poorer quality; and

• the higher quality the space, the more likely it is to be used.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 18

The recently released Government White Paper (November 2010) recognises the widely researched links between green spaces, physical activity and good mental and physical health and people’s increased motivation to exercise if they live in an attractive environment. It seeks to protect green spaces and to launch physical activity initiatives in parks using more than £300 million of Lottery funding. This reflects the value of parks to the community and the importance of the effective planning and protection of such facilities.

According to the household survey, 3.3% of residents in Cheshire West and Chester visit parks daily and a further 15.2% visit them once per week or more. Only 28.3% never use formal parks. Perhaps reflecting the location of parks across the Borough (as well access to other types of open space), residents living in urban parts of the Borough visit parks more frequently than those in rural areas. While 25.4% of residents in the urban wards visit formal parks once per week or more, only 8.9% of those in rural wards do. 35% of residents in the rural wards never visit a formal park.

This section considers the provision of parks across Cheshire West and Chester, highlighting the key issues arising and providing an application of the recommended local standards. It sets the key priorities for the future delivery of parks to inform both the Local Development Framework and the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy. Analysis and the emerging priorities draw on the findings of the Local Needs Assessment (Appendix A).

Context

Quantity of parks

In total, there are 18 formal parks across Cheshire West and Chester, covering 74.15ha. Parks are amongst the largest sites in the Borough, with the average size being just over 4ha. This however disguises significant range in the size of these sites. Of particular note is the small size of parks within Chester City compared to the rest of the authority, with two parks being less than 0.1 ha in size (Leadworks Park and Francis Street Park, both situated in central Chester). The largest site (Griffiths Park in Northwich) is 18ha.

In addition to the 18 public parks, there are three private formal parks, which are accessible at a cost, specifically:

• Manor - Burton • Tirley Garth - (ad hoc access) • Ness Botanic Gardens – Ness.

Parks are located entirely within the urban wards of the Borough, as can be seen in Table 3.1. Provision in these areas equates to 0.35ha per 1000 population, this will decline by 2017.

Table 3.1 – Public parks in Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number of Total Range of Hectares per Future Hectares Sites Provision (ha) Provision 1000 per 1000 (ha) Population population (2017) (ha) (ha) Cheshire West and 18 74.15 0.08 – 0.23 0.21 Chester 18.41ha Rural Wards 0 0 0 N/a N/a Urban Wards 18 74.15 0.08 – 0.35 0.21 18.41ha

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 19

With regards the overall quantity of provision across the Borough, the local assessment of need (Appendix A) indicates that even though the distribution of parks is skewed to the urban areas, there are few differences in the overall opinion between those living in the rural parts of the Borough and those in more urban settlements. The household survey indicated that there is a strong perception that the quantity of parks is sufficient overall, and surprisingly given the distribution of provision, residents living in the urban wards are slightly more likely to think that provision is insufficient than those in rural areas. This suggests that expectations of local provision are higher in these areas.

Reasons given by residents who feel that provision is sufficient generally relate to the fact that they are able to access a park easily from their home. A lack of provision in close proximity to the home is the main reason given by those who suggest that there are not enough parks.

Other consultations generally support the views of the household survey respondents, with a higher proportion of respondents to the online survey and officer survey believing that parks are sufficient. Location of existing sites and a lack of functionality of current provision were the main causes of dissatisfaction. More children and young people believe that parks are required than are satisfied and some demand for additional parks was evident from community groups.

When examining provision at a ward level, it is clear that even within the urban areas, provision is inequitably distributed. There is a particular concentration of parks within City ward (in terms of number of sites) and the number of hectares per 1000 population is particularly high in Groves and Whitby Ward (influenced by the presence of Whitby Park) and Northwich East and Shakerley. Table 3.2 illustrates the distribution of parks across the urban wards of the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 20

Table 3.2 – Summary of parks in the urban wards of Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number of Total Range of Hectares per Future hectares Sites Provision Provision (ha) 1000 per 1000 (ha) Population (ha) Population ( 2017) (ha) Blacon 0 0.0000 0 0 0 Central and 0 0.0000 Westminster 0 0 0

City 0.559371 0.5320 6 7.82 0.08 – 5.87 Frodsham and 6.3 0.446492 0.4185 Helsby 1 6.3

Grange and 0 0 0.0000 Rossmore 0 0

Groves and 17.7 1.332831 1.2378 Whitby 2 0.47 – 17.2

Hoole and 6.54 0.540496 0.5234 Newton 2 2.07 – 4.47

Neston and 4.91 0.337457 0.3479 Parkgate 2 1.14 – 3.77

Northwich East 19.42 1.420629 1.3373 and Shackerley 2 1 – 18.42

Northwich West 4.66 0.27093 0.2541 1 4.66 Overleigh 6.80 0.48 0.4593 2 1.15 – 5.83 Sutton and Manor 0 0 0.0000 0 0 Upton 0 0 0.0000 0 0 Winsford North 0 0 0.0000 and East 0 0

Winsford South 0 0 0.0000 and West 0 0

NB figures may not sum exactly with Borough wide totals due to rounding

As can be seen, there is no provision in Winsford North and East and South and West, Central and Westminster, Blacon, Grange and Rossmore, Sutton and Manor and Upton wards. According to the household survey, residents in the two Winsford wards and in Blacon were particularly dissatisfied with the amount of provision in their local area.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 21

Quality of parks

Site visits reveal that overall, parks are the highest quality facility in the Borough, with an average quality score of 75% achieved. In particular, the quality of parks is notably higher than all other types of informal open space.

The minimum score was 44% and the highest score was 97.5%, meaning that as well as being of overall high quality, parks are consistently good quality facilities and the variation in the quality of provision is much less than for other types of open space.

The quality of parks in the Borough is supported by the award of 3 green flag awards. Green flag is the national benchmark of quality, and has been achieved at:

• Westminster Park, Chester;

• Whitby Park, Ellesmere Port; and

• Stanney Fields Park, Neston

The award has also been achieved at four natural and semi natural spaces (discussed in Section 4).

Castle Park, Frodsham, has this year also been the subject of over £3m investment, supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund, with improvement designed to enhance the overall quality and functionality of the park. This will further help to improve the overall quality of parks within the Borough.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the average quality scores achieved for each factor rated during site assessments. To take into account the fact that the matrix requires some factors to be scored out of five, and some out of six, all scores have been converted to percentages to enable comparison.

Figure 3.1 – Quality issues at parks and gardens

Quality Issues - Parks and Gardens

90 88 86 84 82 Average Score 80 78 Percentage 76 74 72 Provision Quality of Dog Litter Security Buildings of Equipment Fouling Equipment

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 22

Figure 3.1 demonstrates that the provision of equipment within parks is a particular area for improvement. Scores for the quality of equipment, buildings and perceived security are also lower than the other factors rated. In contrast, parks scored highly in terms of litter management and dog fouling, despite these being raised as issues by residents.

Analysis demonstrates that it is the quality of facilities within parks, rather than the parks themselves that are in need of improvement. Visits suggest that there is potential to improve the site functionality and to provide a greater range of facilities within parks. Opportunities to improve the overall appearance of the site were also identified at several sites in the Borough and the quality of footpaths was highlighted as a key issue.

Westminster Park (Chester) Vickers Way Park (Northwich) and Water Tower Gardens (Chester) all achieved scores of over 90%, highlighting the high quality of these facilities and their value to residents.

Supporting the findings of the site assessments, residents are positive about the quality of parks in the Borough and they are identified as one of the most highly valued types of space. 33% of household survey respondents, 41% of online survey respondents and 44% of officers rate them as good or very good. Consultations indicate that residents view the following to be particularly important in local parks:

• cleanliness and maintenance, including well kept grass, flowers trees and shrubs;

• dog and litter bins;

• toilets;

• appropriate footpaths;

• seating;

• facilities for children and young people;

• parking and a café; and

• appropriate security (such as park wardens).

Residents view dog fouling, vandalism and litter to be key issues.

In other consultations, the infrastructure within parks was highlighted as one of the main areas for improvement, and particularly at the Older Residents workshop, the need for toilets at larger sites was reinforced. A desire for Park Rangers was also highlighted through consultation, with many residents feeling that this is beneficial in terms of safety and security, as well as the other issues offered by such staff.

Access

Throughout the local needs assessment, access was highlighted as being one of the most frequently raised issues. In the urban areas, parks are expected to be found within walking distance from the home, while in the more rural parts, it is expected that these sites will be accessible by car / bike. The importance of ensuring that the facilities at the site reflect the modes of transport that will be used to get there was raised.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 23

Most sites parks contain bespoke signage, frequently accompanied by public art, and almost all sites are well signed from the main road. Signage at Alexandra Park (Hoole, Chester), Millfield Park (Neston) and Edgars Field (Chester) was however identified as being in need of improvement.

Site assessments reveal that parks are more accessible than most of the other types of open space and almost all offer equal access for all. All parks within Cheshire West and Chester contain a network of clearly defined footpaths, although some sites contain small inclines / gradients and steps in parts.

While on the whole the local needs assessment indicates that parks are highly accessible, inconsistency with parking charges was highlighted as a key issue across several Council venues (some of which fall under the natural and semi natural open spaces typology). Three parks also have entrance fees, meaning that access to these facilities is limited, and they do not fulfil the same function as other free to use parks.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities that consider:

• Accessibility – the distance that residents expect to travel to reach each type of open space (and the mode of transport that they would expect to use);

• Quantity – the amount of provision (in hectares) that would be expected for each type of open space per 1000 population; and

• Quality – the key features that are important to residents for each type of open space.

The recommended local standards for parks and gardens in Cheshire West and Chester have been derived from the local needs consultation and audit of provision and are summarised overleaf. Standards are derived using an accessibility led approach. Full justifications for the standards set are provided within Appendix D.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 24

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard Urban Wards – 15 minute walk time (720m) Rural Wards – 15 minute drive time

Justification The findings of the consultation demonstrate the while residents in the rural parts of the Borough expect to travel to reach a formal park, residents of the more urban areas expect to find these facilities local to their home.

Reflecting this, there is strong evidence that residents in the urban areas would expect to travel on foot to a park, and this is also supported by current user patterns. Consultation suggests that residents expect to travel between 10 minutes (most common answer and 75% level) and 14 – 15 minutes (average answer) to reach a park. Taking into account these expectations, a 15-minute walk time has been set. The implementation of a 15 minute walk time standard ensures that expectations that a park will be provided local to the home are met, but takes into account the expressed need to provide high quality sustainable facilities. Consultation demonstrates that both quality and location are key determinants of usage.

Given that residents in the more rural settlements acknowledge the need to travel, a drive time standard has been set. The average drive time was 15 minutes, although the most common response was higher at 20 minutes. A 15 minute drive time standard has therefore been set. The planning and management of such parks should take into account the travel patterns of residents in the more rural areas, and should ensure that where possible parks are accessible by public transport, and that access is facilitated through the provision of facilities such as car parking.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 25

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standard Current Provision – 0.35 ha per 1000 Recommended Local Standard – 0.37 ha per population 1000 population Justification In comparison with other types of open space, there are relatively strong satisfaction levels with the current amount of parks in both the rural and urban areas of Cheshire West and Chester. While the household survey demonstrated strong satisfaction overall, in some parts of the Borough, residents are dissatisfied, citing a lack of local provision. Application of the accessibility standard will enable the identification of areas that are deficient in parks.

Ensuring that all residents are within the appropriate distances of a park, a small number of new parks will be required. Reflecting this, the recommended quantity standard has been set marginally above the existing level of provision. This standard takes into account the amount of additional facilities required to deliver the accessibility standard, as well as the expectations of residents.

Reflecting the accessibility standard, which promotes the provision of local parks in the urban parts of the Borough only, the quantity standard will be applied to determine deficiencies only in the urban areas. The provision of parks is particularly important in light of the ageing population, and the need to provide alternative opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity.

Quality Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D)

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Toilets (at larger sites) Well kept grass Events/activities (particularly at larger sites) Flowers, trees and shrubs Park Wardens / CCTV security measures Clearly defined and well maintained Information boards footpaths Seating Lighting Dog and litter bins Car park and cycle storage facilities A range of facilities (ie provision for children, sports facilities) Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% or higher meets the recommended

quality criteria.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 26

Applying local provision standards

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

The application of standards drives the key priorities, and ensures that emphasis is placed upon meeting local needs.

Application of accessibility standards

The accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents in the urban wards are located within a 15 minute walk time (720m) of a park, and that residents in the rural areas are able to access a park within 15 minutes drive of their home.

Application of the standard demonstrates that all residents in the Borough have access to a formal park within the targeted maximum of a 15-minute drive time, meaning that the target of providing access to a park within this time frame for residents of all rural wards is met.

When evaluating access to parks in the urban area using the local standard of a 15 minute walk time (720m it can be seen that while the majority of residents in the urban wards are within this distance of a formal park, there are some residents, located primarily in Winsford and in East Ellesmere Port, who are outside of the recommended catchment area. Parks in Chester are predominantly located centrally, and as a consequence, some residents on the edge of the city in Upton and Blacon also live further than a 15 minute walk to a park. In all areas however, there are amenity spaces and recreation grounds which to an extent have similar functions.

The application of the local standard for parks in all parts of the Borough is illustrated on Maps provided in Appendix G.

There are several other sites classified under different typologies, which to an extent also fulfil the role of parks and gardens for local residents, particularly in areas where there is an absence of formal parks. . These include:

• The Whitegate Way - Winsford • The Wirral Way –Neston and Willaston • Marbury Country Park - Northwich • Caldy Valley Nature Park - Chester • Rivacre Valley Country Park – Ellesmere Port • Anderton Country Park – Northwich.

The Whitegate Way in particular, which passes through Winsford, to an extent alleviates some of the identified access issues.

Application of quality standards

The site assessments undertaken and the recommended quality standard provide a means of evaluating the adequacy of existing provision and the local standard sets a target score of 75% for parks and gardens.

The quality of parks is notably higher than all other types of informal open space. 68% of sites achieve the quality score and are categorised as good, while a further 18% achieve a score exceeding 57% (the score achieved if average ratings are gained for all factors) but not reaching 75%. Figure 3.2 illustrates this.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 27

Figure 3.2 – Proportion of sites achieving target quality score

Quality of parks and Gardens

10%

11% Improvement Required Average

Good 79%

Maps illustrating the quality of parks across the Borough are provided in Appendix G.

Application of quantity standards

Application of the quantity standard for parks across Cheshire West and Chester reinforces the issues raised through the accessibility standard, emphasising the key gaps in provision.

Boroughwide, there is a shortfall of 4.29 hectares against the quantity standard. When taking into account the projected population growth (but assuming that provision remains constant) shortfalls increase to circa 12 hectares. Wards with existing shortfalls continue to exhibit shortfalls and provision will be sufficient in all other areas. A table has not been provided below to exhibit this, as the standard is not applied in the rural areas and therefore all deficiencies are located in the urban areas.

Table 3.3 outlines the application of the quantity standard at a ward level, and also summarises the results of the consultation with regards to quantity of provision, thus providing an insight into the correlation between satisfaction and current levels of provision. The likely shortfalls and surpluses at a ward level by 2017, taking into account projected population growth are also recorded.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 28

Table 3.3 – Quantity of provision

Ward Public Views on Current Shortfall or Future Shortfall Quantity of Provision (ha) Surplus (ha) or Surplus (2017) provision (ha)

Blacon DISSATISFIED 0 -4.77 -5.01

Central and SATISFIED -5.40 -5.94 Westminster 0

City SATISFIED 7.82 2.64 2.38

Frodsham and SATISFIED 1.05 0.73 Helsby 6.3

Grange and SATISFIED -5.18 -5.70 Rossmore 0

Groves and SATISFIED 12.89 12.41 Whitby 17.7

Hoole and SATISFIED 2.14 1.92 Newton 6.54

Neston and SATISFIED -0.42 -0.31 Parkgate 4.91

Northwich East SATISFIED 14.35 14.05 and Shackerley 19.42

Northwich West SATISFIED 4.66 -1.74 -2.13

Overleigh SATISFIED 6.97 1.58 1.32

Sutton and SATISFIED -4.92 -5.41 Manor 0

Upton SATISFIED 0 -4.59 -4.82

Winsford North DISSATISFIED -5.92 -5.98 and East 0

Winsford South DISSATISFIED -5.51 -5.57 and West 0

NB figures may not sum exactly with Borough wide totals due to rounding

As demonstrated in Table 3.3, while there is a small shortfall overall, there are some key deficiencies, particularly in:

• Winsford North East and South West (supported by the lack of access to parks demonstrated by application of the accessibility standards);

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 29

• Grange and Rossmore and Sutton and Manor (located in East Ellesmere Port, an area of accessibility deficiency); and • Upton and Blacon – both situated on the edge of Chester and therefore residents therefore need to travel to reach the centrally located parks.

When considering the adequacy of provision up to 2027, population projections indicate that if no additional parks are provided, provision per 1000 population will decrease to 0.33 ha per 1000 in the urban area, generating a shortfall of almost 5 hectares.

Key priorities

Analysis of the audit, the assessment of local needs and the application of local standards highlights the following key issues relating to parks:

• There is overall satisfaction with the amount of parks across the Borough. Despite this, analysis of their distribution indicates that parks are relatively unevenly spread and all sites are located within the urban areas. Consultation however demonstrates that residents in rural settlements do not expect to find a park local to their home, and most residents are within the recommended 15 minute drivetime of such a site.

• The quality of parks and gardens is the • Ensure the quantity of highest of all types of open space in the open space is sufficient Borough, with an average quality score of to meet local needs and 75%, and 15 sites achieving the suggested expectations target quality score. Reflecting this, views on the quality of provision are positive. • Ensure that sites are Parks are seen as multi functional open accessible and spaces and a wide variety of facilities is functional and provide expected. The ongoing maintenance of maximum benefit to the the quality and range of facilities within local community parks was seen as a key priority, and few issues with existing sites were identified. • Maximise the quality of open spaces in terms of • Access was one of the most important both recreation and issues raised, and it was suggested that biodiversity. Green parks should be a central focus point of Space must be safe, the overall network of connected open accessible, attractive spaces. Improvements to the footpaths in and of high quality some sites were also identified as key issues.

The remainder of this section highlights the key priorities for the future delivery of formal parks, based on the above issues. The key priorities seek to deliver the basic objectives of PPG17 and are set out under the following headings:

• Protection • Qualitative Improvements • Access and linkages • New provision • Other issues.

Protection of existing parks and open spaces.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 30

The local plans of the three former authorities (Vale Royal, Chester and Ellesmere Port and Neston) place a strong emphasis on the protection of open space, and although there are few references to parks specifically, existing parks and gardens fall under the protection of several of these policies, as set out below in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 – Policies protecting parks in existing Local Plans

Former Policy Policy Text Authority Reference

Chester ENV 15 Strategic open space is identified on the Proposals Map. Development which would Borough adversely affect the character, quality or scale of these spaces will be refused.

Chester ENV17 Important areas of green space are identified on the Proposals Maps. Development within Borough these areas will not be permitted unless: • the development of the particular green space is required to meet the essential recreational or community needs of local people; • the development is for a small-scale structure and the recreation, landscape, wildlife and/or cultural value of the space will not be significantly adversely affected; and in addition: • appropriate alternative provision of green space of equivalent community benefit is made in the immediate local area; or • the development will facilitate an enhancement of the recreation facilities, landscape, wildlife and/or cultural value of the remainder of the space or an appropriate existing green space in the immediate local area.

Chester ENV48 Development adversely affecting the appearance, historic characteristics, integrity and Borough setting of historic parks and gardens and historic battlefields on the national register will be refused. New development should not fragment or erode these areas, and where development is considered acceptable in or on the perimeter of these areas, it should be discrete in its form, massing and visibility.

Vale Be15 In considering proposals which may affect those historic parks and gardens and their Royal settings, identified on the proposals maps, or any that may subsequently be added to the national register of parks and gardens of special historic interest in England, the borough council will have regard to the following:

i. the need to preserve the character and appearance of such historic parks and gardens;

ii. the need to prevent sub-division of historic parks and gardens; and

iii. the need to conserve features of architectural, archaeological and historic interest;

iv. the need to record such features. Vale Rt4 Existing formal and informal open spaces and recreational facilities shall be retained in Royal recreational or amenity use. Exceptions will only be allowed where:

v. there is, now and likely to continue to be, a surplus of that type of open space in the area, compared with council standards, and there is no demand, now or likely in the foreseeable future, in the area for open space or recreational facilities that could be met by the use of the site; and

vi. the loss of open space would not result in a material reduction in the quality of open space provision in the area; or

vii. an equivalent and suitably located facility or improved existing facility which would satisfy the needs of the community is provided without disrupting the availability of the service provided. The council will seek to secure the terms of this policy through the imposition of planning conditions or, where this is not feasible, by negotiating a

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 31

Former Policy Policy Text Authority Reference

planning agreement under section 106 of the planning act.

Ellesmere H3 Within existing urban areas on sites not allocated for any particular use on the Proposals Port Map, new housing development will be allowed provided it satisfies the following criteria:

viii. It does not result in loss of amenity space or other open space considered important for the locality.

ix. It makes best use of and retains valuable landscape features of the existing site.

x. It is of satisfactory layout, character, density, scale, design materials and landscaping.

xi. It does not result in overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy.

xii. It is not close to a use that could be detrimental to the amenity of occupants by virtue of the creation of noise, air pollution or odour.

Supporting the continued protection of parks, the value of formal parks to both residents and visitors was highlighted throughout the local needs assessment, and many consultees specifically referenced the importance of protecting parks across the Borough. Parks are one of the most frequently used types of open space in Cheshire West and Chester and are also viewed as focal point of the community, where many events take place. The abundance of facilities provided at parks is one of the key drivers of usage. National research provides further support for the protection of parks, highlighting the value of such sites in improving quality of life.

Application of the accessibility standards provides strong justification for the protection of parks across Cheshire West and Chester, with most sites serving unique catchment areas (ie they are the only sites serving particular residents) and all sites attracting high volumes of visitors. Several formal parks are amongst the 20 most frequented sites across Cheshire West and Chester.

The only parks with overlapping catchment areas are centrally located in Chester City Centre, however the retention of these parks is particularly valuable given their historic value (Roman Gardens for example contains a collection of Roman Stones, Roman Columns etc and educates both residents and visitors on the city’s heritage). These sites are also of particular importance from a tourism perspective and should therefore be retained.

Protection of Parks and Gardens

PG1 In recognition of their value to residents and tourists, LDF Policy should protect all parks from development.

Disposal and redesignation

Given the overall value placed on parks and gardens across Cheshire West and Chester, as well as the unique catchment that each site serves, there are no recommendations for the disposal of any parks or gardens and no evidence to suggest that any sites are not required.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 32

While there are no recommendations for the redesignation of any parks, the redesignation of some amenity spaces to form parks in order to address identified deficiencies in parks is discussed later in this section.

Quality enhancements

The quality of parks is higher than that of all other types of open space in the Borough, with the average score being 75% and only seven sites not achieving the quality score. Parks represent the focal point of the community, and the ongoing maintenance of all parks, along with the improvement of those sites not currently meeting the quality standard will ensure that they continue to be valued by local residents as well as attract visitors and tourists from further afield.

The Green Flag award programme recognises high quality green spaces and parks in England. Achievement of a Green Flag award can raise the profile of a park and increase the number of visitors to the site. Research undertaken by www.greenspace.org indicates that tourists make a special effort to visit award winning parks. The achievement of such an award also demonstrates best value, and can help lever external funding through improvement grants that award winners are eligible to apply for. The Green Flag criteria seek to promote best practice management principles, including community involvement, meeting with the localism agenda.

In addition to the findings of the site visits, the criteria for assessment provide an indication of key priorities for improvement of parks in the Borough. The key criteria are:

• A welcoming place – including signage and safe access for all. Site visits highlighted the gradient and surface of footpaths as being issues at some sites across Cheshire West and Chester, and this was also highlighted throughout consultations.

• Healthy, safe and secure – providing safe equipment, addressing dog fouling, appropriate provision of toilets etc The infrastructure within parks was highlighted as one of the main areas for improvement, and particularly at the Older Residents workshop, the need for toilets at larger sites was reinforced. A desire for Park Rangers was also highlighted through consultation, with many residents feeling that this is beneficial in terms of safety and security, as well as the other issues offered by such staff.

• Clean and well maintained – appropriate attention should be given to litter and vandalism management and the maintenance of the grounds. Cleanliness and maintenance was viewed as the most important element of a park throughout the local needs assessment, and is a key feature of the recommended local quality standard.

• Sustainability - Methods used in maintaining the park/green space and its facilities should be environmentally sound, relying on best practices. This may include recycling and minimising the use of pesticides. As well as using sustainable management practices, Friends Groups (discussed below) can play an important role in ensuring the long term sustainability of parks by providing invaluable volunteer support and increasing revenue at parks, by holding events at parks, for example.

• Conservation and heritage - Particular attention should be paid to the conservation and appropriate management of Natural features, buildings and structural features. Many consultees highlighted the importance of retaining the individual character of parks and building on the history of the area. This is particularly important in Chester, which has Roman Heritage, which defines the character of both the city, and the parks and open spaces within it.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 33

• Community involvement - the management of sites should actively involve members of the community, and the site should provide appropriate levels of recreational facilities for all sectors of the community. Community involvement and Partnership working emerged as one of the key features of the current successes in Cheshire West and Chester. The responses to the survey illustrate the added value that the Friends Groups have provided to specific sites. Many carry out regular maintenance (including litter picks etc.) and several groups are working towards the provision of new facilities within their parks. Although groups indicated that there is a shortage of volunteers and a reliance on people of retired age, these groups indicated that they see their relationship with local schools, the community and the Council as being central to the provision of a successful park. Several of the groups indicated that the activity of the friends group had significantly improved the value of the site to the local community. While funding was identified as an issue for some sites, many indicated that they had secured funding and were able to continue to improve their sites.

• Marketing - A marketing strategy should be in place, which is in practice and regularly reviewed. This should include good provision of information to users and the site should be promoted as a community resource.

• Management - A management plan or strategy should be in place to address all of the above criteria.

As well as functioning as a recreational resource, like most other types of open space, parks provide people with the opportunity to experience the natural environment and play an important role in protecting and enhancing biodiversity.

The Green Flag Principles

PG2 Embrace the principles of the green flag assessment criteria in the management of parks, and seek to achieve this standard at all parks in the Borough.

Of particular importance in the creation of successful parks and open spaces in Cheshire West and Chester is the role of volunteers and Friends Groups. It is essential that ongoing support is provided to these groups and that the creation of new groups is encouraged.

The role of park wardens was also emphasised by many members of the public.

In addition to the general principles set out above, the value of parks to the local community means that improvements should be considered where sites do not currently meet suggested targets.

Table 3.5 summarises the key areas for improvement in those sites not currently meeting the target quality score.

Table 3.5 – Identified issues for sites not meeting quality targets

Park Quality Issues Raised

Griffiths Park, Footpaths in need of improvement. Scope to improve the functionality of the park. Wear and tear and graffiti means park

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 34

Northwich is not as aesthetically pleasing as it could be. There is also evidence of dog fouling (and a need for more bins) and litter. The site was however being heavily used at the time of site visits.

Cathedral Gardens, Lack of lighting, surfacing in need of improvements –some Chester uneven paths and access routes.

Millfield Park, Neston Some vandalism and damage to surfaces. Dog fouling and litter management issues. The trim trail within the park was however identified as a positive feature.

Verdin Park, Attractive entrance let down by interior of park, which is strewn Northwich with litter and vandalism. There is also scope to improve the facilities and park infrastructure.

Enhancement of existing provision

PG 3 Support the improvement of parks across the Borough using the local standards as a guide, as well as the findings of site assessments, the issues identified in detailed management plans and the issues raised through consultation.

Access and linkages

Access within parks, as identified earlier, is of paramount importance, particularly if parks are to fulfil their primary purpose of bringing together members of different sectors of the community. Site assessments indicate that parks are more accessible than most other types of open space in Cheshire West and Chester. Despite some issues with topography and gradient in Verdin Park (Northwich), Grosvenor Park (Chester) and Roman Gardens (Chester), parks were considered to be accessible to all users. Signage is also an essential feature of a successful park, facilitating navigation both to and within the site. Signage at Alexandra Park (Hoole), Millfield Park (Neston) and Edgars Field (Chester) was identified as being in need of improvement.

Access Issues

PG 4 Ensure that parks are accessible to all residents, by providing appropriate pedestrian and cycle routes to and within the park and ensuring appropriate signage at all sites.

Good access to parks and gardens is as important as the provision of high quality sites, as without effective access routes, sites will be underused and consequently undervalued. While residents in the urban parts of the borough can expect to find a park local to their home, residents in more rural areas will need to travel to the larger settlements to reach a park.

Consultation undertaken as part of the local needs assessment reveals that access to parks is one of the key issues for older residents, who highlight the need to provide public transport links, as well as appropriate facilities (such as parking) for those who travel by car. For many residents, access to parks was as important as the overall quality of provision itself.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 35

Given the desire to promote sustainable modes of transport, and the central location of sites, where possible, parks should be situated on public transport routes. Parks should also contain facilities that will support the use of other modes of transport, such as cycle storage facilities and car parking. The local needs assessment indicates that residents feel strongly about the need to provide additional cycle tracks, which facilitate travel by means other than the car.

Access and Linkages

PG 5 Ensure that parks are situated on public transport and cycle routes, and provide appropriate amenities to encourage residents to use sustainable modes of transport (such as the provision of cycle storage racks).

Consultations reveal a strong view that parks should be a focal point within the overall network of connected open spaces and improving links within and between parks will be as important as improvements to the qualitative and quantitative elements of provision.

To encourage the provision of a sustainable network of open spaces, parks should be connected to residential areas, and to other open spaces by green links and green corridors. The interconnectivity of parks with residential areas and other green spaces will maximise the number of residents that are able to walk to their local facility and consequently increase the role that open space can play in delivering health objectives.

Access and Linkages

PG 6 Promote the development of a network of interconnected green space, which incorporate parks as the focal point (covered in Section 11).

New provision

Application of the quantity standard has revealed that there is currently a minor shortfall of formal parks across the Borough (circa 4 hectares, which will increase as the population grows), and this is reflected through the application of the accessibility standard, which demonstrates that there are some areas where residents are unable to access parks within the recommended distance threshold. This suggests that new provision will be required to address deficiencies. The local needs assessment demonstrates that parks have a key role to play in providing recreational opportunities for residents of all ages, and it will be important to provide an equitable distribution of such facilities across the Borough.

The key areas of deficiency according to the application of the accessibility and quantity standards are as follows:

• Winsford North East and South West; • Grange and Rossmore and Sutton and Manor; and • Upton and Blacon – both situated on the edge of Chester and therefore residents therefore need to travel to reach the centrally located parks.

The deficiencies in these areas were illustrated earlier in this section, and are also included within Appendix G.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 36

As parks are a higher order facility, the presence of amenity green space / natural open space does not negate the need for a park, but where there are larger amenity spaces, any opportunity to upgrade these sites to form community parks should be taken. The lack of access to parks in Upton is intensified, as there are also fewer amenity spaces here than in most other parts of the Borough.

New Provision

PG 7 Provide new parks by either designating new sites or upgrading existing amenity spaces in areas currently devoid of local access to parks, specifically: • Winsford • Ellesmere Port • Upton and Blacon. Building on examples of good practice in the Borough, such parks should be created in conjunction with a friends group made up of local residents.

As well as addressing existing deficiencies, it will be essential to ensure that deficiencies are not generated as the population grows and as new housing developments occur.

Where new developments are built, an accessibility led approach should be taken to determine whether new provision is required (on or off site) or whether contributions towards existing facilities are more appropriate. All new developments will however place additional pressure on existing sites, and contributions are therefore justified.

Provision in New Developments

PG 8 Ensure that policy requires new housing developments to contribute towards (or provide on site where they are large enough to be reasonably expected to do so) the provision of new, or enhancement of existing formal parks where possible and appropriate. Where the supply of formal parks in the surrounding area is sufficient, policy should ensure that contributions are required for qualitative improvements

Other issues

The local needs assessment highlighted the perceived function of parks as focal points of the community, and the role that these sites have in hosting events. Events were suggested by a variety of stakeholders as providing a key opportunity to encourage more residents to use the parks, and a means of raising awareness of the opportunities available. The use of events to increase usage would also support the achievement of one of the key green flag criteria outlined earlier in this section.

Several parks also contain a variety of different facilities and offer a range of opportunities. As well as providing facilities for both children and older residents, parks also contain more diverse opportunities, such as the Trim Trails (Millfield Park and Castle Park). These facilities should be incorporated into wider programmes to encourage use of parks and other open spaces. The achievement of this objective would be substantially connected by the creation of an effective

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 37

network of routes, linking local neighbourhoods with parks and other open spaces (Recommendation PG 6)

Promotion and Marketing

PG 9 Promote the role of parks and gardens as a focal point for the community, and ensure that programmes (such as health walks) maximise the role that parks in daily life.

Summary

In accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide, this section sets out a strategic framework for the future provision of parks across Cheshire West and Chester.

The local needs assessment demonstrated that there is overall satisfaction with the amount of parks across the Borough. Despite this, analysis of their distribution indicates that parks are relatively unevenly spread. Consultation however demonstrates that residents in rural settlements do not expect to find a park local to their home, and all residents are within the recommended 15 minute drivetime of such a site.

The quality of parks and gardens is the highest of all types of open space in the Borough, with an average quality score of 75%, and 68% of sites achieving the suggested quality target score. Reflecting this, views on the quality of provision are positive. Parks are seen as multi functional open spaces and a wide variety of facilities is expected. Maintaining and improving the quality of parks and gardens across the borough, was seen to be as, if not more important, than the provision of more parks. While on the whole, priorities lie around ongoing improvement and maintenance; there is also a need to consider the need for new parks in Winsford, East Ellesmere Port and the outer edge of Chester (Blacon and Upton).

The role that parks play in the wider network of open space across the borough was apparent, and residents view the linkages between parks and other types of open space as being central to the delivery of successful open spaces in the future.

The key priorities are summarised overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 38

Protection Enhancement

All parks should be protected. With Quality enhancements should take priority over new the exception of those in Chester, provision, with priority given to those sites not all serve unique catchments and achieving the target quality score. As well as the local are valuable to the population. In standard, the Green Flag principles, should be used Chester, the historic links of the sites, as a guide for the successful management of parks. as well as the role that these sites Ongoing support for local friends groups will be play in tourism of the city means particularly central to the achievement of a that their value is high. sustainable network of provision.

New Provision Redesignation

Due to the need to ensure that There are no recommendations for the redesignation residents are within the of parks. There may however be opportunities to recommended accessibility upgrade some amenity spaces In Winsford, Blacon, catchments, of a park, where Upton and Ellesmere Port to rectify deficiencies in possible, new parks should be parks. provided in:

• Winsford

• Ellesmere Port

• The periphery of Chester in Upton and Blacon

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 39

4. Natural and Semi Natural Open Space

Introduction and definition

04 According to PPG17, natural and semi natural open space space includes woodlands, urban forestry, scrubland, grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons and meadows), wetlands, nature reserves and wastelands. Open and running water are also considered to be natural and semi natural spaces. Natural open spaces are of particular benefit for conservation and biodiversity as well as environmental education and recreation.

For the purposes of this assessment, only sites of public value (ie publicly accessible) are included within the audit and standard setting. This includes sites in public or private ownership. The role of other, inaccessible sites which provide important resources for biodiversity and conservation is however considered within this assessment. The audit of sites has focused largely on sites within, or in close proximity to, settlement boundaries.

Country Parks fulfil a similar role to natural and semi natural open space, providing residents with a structured experience of the natural environment. Given the similarities between these types of open space, country parks are also considered within this section. The interrelationship between these sites and other types of open space will also be considered.

As well as stand alone sites, natural and semi natural open space is frequently found within other types of open space, such as parks, and in some instances there may be some sites classified as amenity green space or parks that have a secondary function as natural and semi natural open space, reinforcing the overlap between the different types of open space. To ensure that sites are counted only once, only sites where the primary function is natural open space are included within this section.

Supporting the natural open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester, there are a series of linear routes, built alongside canals / rivers / dismantled railways. These include the Wirral Way and the Whitegate Way. The linear nature of these routes means that they are classified as green corridors (and therefore considered within Section 11) however in parts these routes widen to provide areas of natural open space, and the routes themselves also enable residents to experience the natural environment. The interrelationship between these spaces and natural open spaces is considered within the application of local standards.

In line with PPG17, for the purposes of this audit of open space, farmland has been excluded from consideration.

Background

The rural nature of much of Cheshire West and Chester means that natural open space and the countryside is central to the character of the local area. Consultation demonstrated the importance of the natural environment in both the rural and urban areas. As a result, there are a wide variety of organisations with a role in the management, maintenance of improvement of natural and semi natural open space across the Borough, specifically:

• Cheshire West and Chester council provides a large proportion of the existing natural and semi natural space in the Borough;

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 40

• the Mersey Forest, a partnership between 7 local authorities (including Cheshire West and Chester), is one of the leading environmental regeneration initiatives in the North West. The partnership aims to transform the landscape through the planting of new woodland and habitats across the partnership area, providing long-term sustainable benefits for people, wildlife and the economy;

• the Cheshire Wildlife Trust highlights the variety of different landscapes currently located within Cheshire, which are home to a huge number of plants and animals, some common and some rare or endangered. The Trust seeks to protect the wildlife in both urban and rural habitats, and strives to enrichen the amount and quality of wildlife and ensure that sites are managed on sustainable principles;

• the Forestry Commission aims to ensure that forests can positively contribute to the nation’s needs, and to ensure the long term sustainability of the resource; and

• the Woodland Trust seeks to protect trees and wildlife, to increase the amount of woodland in Britain and to enhance the value of existing woodlands to local people.

Reflecting the importance of natural and semi natural open space in Cheshire, According the household survey, 13.4% of residents visit natural open space daily and a further 25.2% visit them once per week or more. This makes natural open space the most frequently visited type of open space in the Borough. High levels of use of these types of space are evident by residents of both rural and urban areas. The importance of such sites is further emphasised when considering the usage of green corridors, which have strong similarities and overlaps with natural open spaces, and are the second most popular type of space.

This section considers the provision of natural open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester, highlighting the key issues arising and providing a detailed application of the recommended local standards. It sets the key priorities for the future delivery of natural open spaces to inform both the Local Development Framework and the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy. Analysis draws on the findings of the Local Needs Assessment (Appendix A). Context

Quantity of natural open space

In total, there are almost 2000 hectares of natural and semi natural open space with full public access. Of this total provision, 14 sites are over 25ha in size, providing a total of 1518 hectares, over two thirds of the total amount of natural and semi natural open space. These sites are strategically important sites, and include;

• Dukes Drive (part owned by CW&C, part private) - Chester • Dutton Park Woods – • Newchurch Common - Whitegate • Primrose Wood – near • Weaver Parkway - Winsford • Country Park – Little Budworth • Frodsham Hill - Frodsham • Northwich Community Woodlands (including Carey Park and Neumann’s Flashes) - Northwich • – Delamere • Marbury Country Park – Northwich • Anderton Country Park - Northwich • Rivacre Valley Country Park – Ellesmere Port.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 41

Delamere Forest, by far the largest site, covering over 740 hectares, is a particularly important resource to the local area. The Forest provides a variety of recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors and contains an array of amenities including a visitors centre, cycle hire and “Go Ape” facility. The , a linear route linking Cheshire with Shropshire also passes through the forest. This site is managed by the Forestry Commission.

The size of the remaining sites totals just over 455 hectares. The distribution of these sites is summarised below in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 - Natural and semi natural open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester (sites 0.2 – 24.99ha only)

Area Number Total Range of Hectares per Hectares per of Sites Provision Provision (ha) 1000 1000 (ha) Population population (ha) (2017) (ha) Cheshire West 0.22 – and Chester 112 456.73 1.40 1.35 22.5ha

Rural Wards 0.35 – 21.5 60 282.22 2.45 2.42 ha Urban Wards 0.22 – 22.5a 52 174.517 0.83 0.79 ha

As seen above, there is an even spread between the rural and urban areas in terms of the number of natural and semi natural sites, however when compared against the number of people in the area, the amount of hectares per 1000 population is significantly higher in the urban wards than in the rural wards.

The variation in site size is evident in both rural and urban wards, with sites ranging from 0.2 – over 20 hectares.

Many of the publicly accessible sites are owned and managed by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust and are of high value for the landscapes and habitats that they provide, as well as their recreational function. These include:

• Dutton Park Farm – Woodland Trust / Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Owley Wood - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Moston Community Nature Reserve - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Hunters Wood (near Kingsley) - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Hatchmere - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Gowy Nature Reserve - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Poors Wood - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Pump House Wood - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Warburtons Wood (near Kingsley) - Cheshire Wildlife Trust • Harmers Wood – Friends of Harmers Wood • Wheeldon Copse – Woodland Trust • Frodsham Hill – Woodland Trust.

In addition, there are several National Trust countryside properties which are open countryside sites and accessible without a fee, including Helsby Hill and .

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 42

An additional 23 sites have been identified which offer some limited or restricted access to the public, or are currently used informally by residents (with no official right of access). The function of these sites will be considered as part of the application of local standards later in this section. Some of these sites are in public ownership, but are restricted due to the habitats that they offer. These sites are as follows:

• The Cockpitt, Upton, Chester • Booston Wood, North Road, Ellesmere Port • North Wood, North Road, Junction 7, Ellesmere Port • South Wood, Junction 8, Ellesmere Port, • Ince Marshes – Ince • Marchwiel Road NSN – Ellesmere Port • Hogshead Wood – near • Pettypool Wood – near Sandiway • Abbotsmoss Wood – Delamere Forest • Hall Wood – near Tarporley • Hornby's Rough – near Tarporley • Road One Pond - Winsford • Chester Road Greenspace - Chester • Hollands Lane NSN – Kelsall • Birch Moss - Carrington • Marbury Reedbed – Northwich • Platts – near • – Northwich • Gowy Meadows – near Chester • Frodsham Marshes – Frodsham • Dukes Meadow (part of site).

Several of these sites are owned and managed by the Wildlife Trust, providing habitats of particular value. Sites with restricted access managed by the Trust are Abbots Moss, Marbury Reedbed, Hockenhull Platts, Rudheath.

Many of these sites are only accessible by permit. (English Heritage Property) is accessible for a fee and therefore access is considered to be restricted.

With regards the overall quantity of provision across the Borough, the key messages arising from the assessment of local need (Appendix A) are as follows:

• Overall, residents are satisfied with the amount of natural and semi natural space, however, different perceptions are evident in the urban and rural wards. There is no decisive viewpoint emerging in the urban areas, however, nearly 70% of respondents in the rural wards state that provision is sufficient. This reflects the location of natural and semi natural open space in the Borough and the higher levels of provision in these parts. In both the urban and rural areas, many residents who suggested that provision is insufficient felt strongly about the need to protect existing spaces from development.

• Other consultations generally support the views of the household survey respondents that the quantity of provision is sufficient, although some varying views were raised. Again the importance of protection of this type of open space was highlighted, and it was felt that this was essential to maintain the character of the area. Reflecting this, some agencies highlighted the abundance of natural open space and the contribution that it makes to the overall landscape of the Borough as a key strength. The fear of losing such spaces is behind many of the comments suggesting that provision is insufficient. Quality and access to these types of space were also raised issues throughout the local needs assessment.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 43

• The local needs assessment highlights the value of country parks to local residents and records these sites as amongst the most frequently visited in the Borough.

When examining provision at a ward level, it can be seen that provision is substantially higher in the majority of rural wards than in the urban areas in terms of both the number of sites and the hectares provided per 1000 population. Table 4.2 summarises the distribution of spaces between 0.2ha and 24.99 hectares by ward, considering both provision at the current time and the likely levels of provision by 2017, assuming that no additional natural open space is created.

Table 4.2 – Summary of natural open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number Total Range of Hectares per Future Hectares of Sites Provision Provision (ha) 1000 per 1000 (ha) Population (ha) population (2017) (ha) Abbey 7 81.24 4.65 – 17.4 6.55 6.1808

Blacon 2 5.47 0.6 – 4.8 0.42 0.4038

Boughton Heath and 3 11.59 0.35 – 10.8 0.86 0.8237 Vicars Cross

Broxton 6 14.11 0.4 – 6.5 1.86 1.9015

Central and 6 10.49 0.7 – 2.4 0.72 0.6532 Westminster

City 2 3.34 0.6 – 2.7 0.24 0.23

Eddisbury 12 28.48 0.4 – 6.2 2.41 2.3897

Frodsham and Helsby 4 19.7 0.7 – 12.4 1.39 1.3088

Gowy 5 3.67 0.5 – 1.09 0.27 0.2714

Grange and 0 0 0.00 0.0000 Rossmore

Groves and Whitby 3 24.99 0.6 – 22 1.92 1.7476

Hoole and Newton 2 1.29 0.5 – 0.75 0.11 0.1032

Ledsham and 3 15.74 1.04–12.43 1.41 1.4340 Willaston

Marbury 7 36.45 0.5 – 11.37 2.59 2.5595

Mickle Trafford 4 35.11 0.35 – 21.5 2.47 2.5230

Neston and Parkgate 4 3.95 0.23 – 2.14 0.27 0.2799

Northwich East and 4 15.77 0.26 – 13.4 1.15 1.0859 Shackerley

Northwich West 10 44.82 0.21 –14.99 2.59 2.4441

Overleigh 5 15.4 0.31 – 7.35 1.09 1.0402

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 44

Area Number Total Range of Hectares per Future Hectares of Sites Provision Provision (ha) 1000 per 1000 (ha) Population (ha) population (2017) (ha) Sutton and Manor 4 6.57 0.23 – 3.74 0.49 0.4491

Upton 0 0 0.00 0.0000

Weaver 12 55.8 0.93– 10.75 4.33 4.0807

Winsford North and 4 17.47 0.23 –10.14 1.09 1.0811 East

Winsford South and 3 5.17 0.62 – 3.5 0.35 0.3435 West

NB figures may not sum exactly with Borough wide totals due to rounding

Provision is particularly low per 1000 population in Upton, Gowy, Hoole and Newton, City, Neston and Parkgate, Winsford South and West and Blacon and in most of these areas (with the exception of Neston and Parkgate), the only spaces provided are very small. There are no natural open spaces recorded in Upton or Grange and Rossmore.

Of particular interest, is that there is a direct correlation between satisfaction with the amount of natural open space (measured through the household survey) and the amount of space provided. Satisfaction increases significantly when provision exceeds 1ha per 1000 population.

The highest amounts of natural space are found in the Abbey, Weaver, Marbury and Mickle Trafford wards. Provision in Abbey (6.55 hectares per 1000) and Weaver (4.33 hectares per 1000 population) is particularly high. Unsurprisingly, all of these wards are classified as rural. Northwich West and Groves and Whitby contain the highest amounts of provision in the urban areas, although the household survey indicates that residents in Groves and Whitby are dissatisfied with the amount of space provided.

The Eddisbury and Weaver wards contain the highest number of natural and semi natural spaces and these sites are of varying size.

In order to ensure that this audit of open space links with the Green Infrastructure Framework that is currently underway across the Borough, sites falling within the natural and semi natural open space category have been further sub divided as follows:

• Grassland / moorland / heathland / scrubland

• Coastal habitat

• Wetland

• Woodland.

Reflecting the character of the Borough, the majority of spaces between 0.2 and 24.99 hectares fall into either Grassland / moorland / heathland / scrubland category, or are predominantly woodland. 52 sites totalling 238.83 hectares are considered to be woodland and 54 are predominantly grassland / heathland or scrubland (192 hectares). The remainder of the sites are wetland.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 45

7 of the restricted sites are grassland, 4 are wetland and the remainder are classified as woodland. A full list of all sites and their classifications is provided in Appendix F.

In addition to the sites of public value, there are many sites of high biodiversity / conservation value across the Borough, including:

European Protected Sites of Nature Conservation Importance include:

• Special Protection Areas – Dee Estuary and Mersey Estuary

• Special Areas of Conservation – River Dee and Bala Lake, Dee Estuary, West Midland Mosses; Oak Mere

• Ramsar sites – Dee Estuary; Mersey Estuary; Midland Meres and West Midland Mosses, Oakmere.

Sites of national importance:

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) – 28 sites, covering more than 5,119 hectares (including those partially within CWAC)

• Six Local nature Reserves (LNR)

Areas of local importance:

• Sites of Biological Importance (SBI) 286 sites, covering 4259ha

• 215 (Sites of Nature Conservation Value)

• Local areas of high landscape value – 8 areas of Special County Value (ASCV) plus local areas of high landscape value

• Habitats and species – 31 Cheshire Biodiversity Action Plan habitats (including 17 UK BAP priority habitats.

The location of SSSIs, as well as RSPB sites is illustrated on maps provided in Appendix G.

Quality of natural and semi natural open spaces

Site visits reveal that overall, natural and semi natural open spaces are amongst the lower quality sites in the borough, with an average score of 45%. The site assessments took into account the character of natural open space, and the expectations that such spaces will be maintained in a different manner to more formal spaces such as parks and amenity areas but consider the value of the space from a recreational perspective. The lower scores achieved may however be a reflection of the criteria against which sites are assessed, which include the facilities available on site, as well as the management and maintenance of the site. Natural and semi natural open spaces by definition are ‘wild’ and are therefore more likely to achieve lower quality scores.

Figure 4.1 overleaf illustrates the average quality scores achieved for each factor rated during site assessments. To take into account the fact that the matrix requires some factors to be scored out of five, and some out of six, all scores have been converted to percentages to enable comparison.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 46

Figure 4.1 – Quality Issues – Natural and Semi Natural Open Space

Quality Issues - Natural and Semi Natural Open Space

60% 50% 40% 30% Average Score 20% 10% 0% Litter Security Quality of Equipment Equipment Provision of Dog FoulingDog

Figure 4.1 demonstrates that dog fouling and security are particularly key issues for natural and semi natural space, with the dense undergrowth often generating a perception that the site is unsafe. The quality of equipment/ the space was the highest scoring feature.

Visits revealed that for many of the sites achieving lower quality scores, vegetation was overgrown, impeding pathways and routes through the site, and as well as dog fouling, some sites attracted significant litter problems. It was also identified that a large proportion of natural sites had little or no recreational function, and there were opportunities to increase usage through the provision of bins, benches etc. While some of the larger sites benefited from the provision of educational boards, there is scope to provide such facilities at more sites, providing an opportunity for residents to learn about the habitats and species in the area. As highlighted, while these issues were evident at the time of site visits, many of these are inherent in the characteristics of natural and semi natural open spaces. Many of the sites are located in areas of steep terrain and poor drainage.

The low average score however disguises significant variation in the quality of natural spaces and there are some examples of some very successful sites across the Borough. This is evident in the variation of the quality scores achieved (17% - 86%).

Scores achieved during site visits in the urban and rural areas are summarised in Table 4.3 overleaf. It demonstrates that the range of issues, and the variety in the quality of provision, is evident in both the rural and urban areas although the quality in the rural areas is just above average, and below in the urban areas.

It is notable that the quality of natural space in Boughton Heath and Vicars Cross (average score 74%) is significantly higher than in the remainder of the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 47

Table 4.3 – Quality of Natural and Semi Natural Open Spaces in Cheshire West and Chester

Range of Average Wards with high Wards with lower Quality Scores quality quality sites quality sites score (from ward average) Urban Frodsham and Central and 24% - 83% 41% Helsby, City, Westminster, Northwich East, Blacon Rural Boughton Heath, Abbey, Weaver, 17% - 86% 47% Mickle Trafford, Marbury Gowy Cheshire West Boughton Heath and Chester and Vicars Cross, Central and 17% - 86% 45% Frodsham and Westminster, Helsby

The quality scores achieved for each site, and the key issues arising during the assessment can be found in the site database.

Overall, despite site assessments revealing some quality issues, residents are largely positive about the quality of natural and semi natural open spaces. Reflecting the findings of site assessments however, some basic issues (particularly dog fouling and litter) were highlighted by large proportions of respondents. The maintenance of footpaths was the only issue that was mentioned by more than half of respondents. Over 50% of respondents to the household survey rated the quality of this type of open space as good or very good. Perceptions of quality are particularly high in the rural wards, where the quality of this type of provision is slightly higher.

Consultations indicate that residents value the natural features of these types of open space, highlighting that the following components are particularly important features of natural and semi natural spaces:

• clean and litter free (including free from dog fouling);

• appropriate footpaths; and

• natural features and trees.

Access

Consultation indicated that access to natural open spaces is one of the key issues for local residents. In part, this stems from the restricted access policies at some sites, and the fact that some sites are not accessible at all to local residents.

Site assessments do however reveal that there are some issues that restrict access to natural and semi natural open spaces and natural open spaces are less accessible than most other types of space. In most instances, these issues relate to vegetation impeding footpaths or access routes. There was also a lack of signage identified, and many sites are difficult to find. Again, this is partially due to the characteristics of natural open spaces, which are often in steep terrain and with poor drainage.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 48

As well as physical access to the site, access to some natural and semi natural spaces is restricted to the general public.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities that consider:

• accessibility – the distance that residents expect to travel to reach each type of open space (and the mode of transport that they would expect to use);

• quantity – the amount of provision (in hectares) that would be expected for each type of open space per 1000 population; and

• quality – the key features that are important to residents for each type of open space.

The recommended local standards for natural open spaces in Cheshire West and Chester have been derived from the local needs consultation (Appendix A) and audit of provision and are summarised below. Standards are based on an accessibility led approach. Full justifications for the standards set are provided within Appendix D.

It should be noted that Natural England promotes the use of the Angst standard, which recommends at least 2 hectares of accessible natural greenspace per 1,000 people based on no-one living more than: 300m from nearest natural greenspace / 2km from a site of 20 ha / 5km from a site of 100 ha / 10km from a site of 500 ha. The quantity standard is set at a standard lower than this level, as it builds on existing provision and seeks to ensure that the standard set is realistic and deliverable. The Angst Standard will however be used as a long term aspiration for the provision of natural and semi natural open spaces in the Borough.

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard 10 minute walk time (480m) Justification The findings of the consultation emphasise the importance of natural open space to residents (they are amongst the most frequently used sites) and are expected local to the home. As a result, there is a strong emphasis that such sites should be accessible on foot. It is also clear that natural open space is expected in both the urban and rural areas. The majority of current users of natural open space walk up to 10 minutes to reach a site. These patterns are reinforced by the findings of the household survey, which indicate that residents expect to find natural open space within c. 10 minutes of the home (mode and average). Reflecting this, a local standard of 10 minutes walk time has therefore been set. This standard is also in line with Woodland Trust and Natural England standards, and seeks to ensure access to a high level of quality natural open space for residents of Cheshire West and Chester.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 49

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standard Current Provision – 1.40 ha per 1000 Recommended Local Standard – 1.5 ha per 1000 population (sites between 0.2 and population. To be applied to new development only 24.99ha only) Justification Consultation suggests that the majority of residents are satisfied with the amount of natural open space that is provided, but feel that the protection of this space is important. The value of this type of open space to residents is particularly clear. Reflecting this, the recommended standard seeks to protect existing levels of provision, but to promote the creation of more natural and semi natural open space in parts of the Borough. To ensure that the suggested standard is realistic, sites over 25ha have been removed from calculations due to their tendency to skew figures. Such sites are considered to be strategic sites that benefit the whole Borough and it would therefore not be expected that these are replicated as a result of population growth. The recommended standard seeks to ensure that all residents are within a 10 minute walk of a high quality natural and semi natural space, taking into account the function of sites both in terms of the provision of a recreational resource but also habitat protection and biodiversity.

The standard should be treated as a minimum level of provision only. Sites located in areas containing higher levels of natural open space should not be considered surplus to requirements.

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Dog and litter bins

Clearly defined footpaths Parking (at larger sites) and cycle storage

Natural features and appropriately Seating managed vegetation

Trees Water features

Wildlife and conservation benefits Information boards

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% or higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 50

Applying local provision standards

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

The application of standards drives the key priorities, and ensures that emphasis is placed upon meeting local needs. Application of the standards takes into account only those sites considered within the natural and semi natural open space typology, and sites with restricted / no public access are considered separately (and excluded from quantity calculations).

Application of accessibility standards

The accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents are located within a 10 minute walk (480m) of a publicly accessible natural open space.

As highlighted previously, country parks offer many overlapping functions with natural and semi natural open spaces. Where residents are within a 10 minute walk of a country park, it is therefore assumed that additional natural open space is not required.

Although sites over 25ha have been excluded from the application of quantity standards, given the role that they play in providing both local recreational opportunities for those living in close proximity, and their functions as strategic sites to which people travel from further afield, they are included within the application of the accessibility standard.

The application of this standard reveals that there is an even distribution of accessible natural open space across both the urban and rural parts of the Borough. Despite the urban nature of some parts of Cheshire West and Chester, and the lower levels of provision in these areas, there are relatively few areas where residents are outside of the recommended 10-minute catchment area for natural open space. Even in the urban areas of the borough, most residents are within the appropriate distance threshold.

The key gaps in provision are in parts of Chester, to the west of Ellesmere Port, in Neston and Winsford. In these areas, it is however important to consider the role that green corridors play in meeting this deficiency. The Whitegate Way and Wirral Way cross parts of these areas of deficiency, and provide some access to natural open space for residents. There are also more rural settlements (for example in Malpas and ) where residents do not have access to a natural open space within the recommended catchment. In these settlements, access to the countryside may fulfil this function. The deficiencies however highlight the importance of creating areas of accessible natural space in these areas, and emphasise the need to ensure that this type of space is evident in both rural and urban areas. Public rights of way could be particularly important in these areas.

The application of the standard for natural and semi natural open space is illustrated in maps provided in Appendix G.

Application of quality standards

The site assessments undertaken and the recommended quality standard provide a means of evaluating the adequacy of existing provision. The local standard sets a target score of 75%.

Table 4.3 (earlier in this section) outlined the results of the quality assessment, and it was indicated that while the quality of natural space is consistent in the urban and rural areas, there is huge variation between the scores achieved by different sites.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 51

Figure 4.2 illustrates that when measured against this target score, the majority of sites require improvement in some way (75%). Only 1% of sites exceed the target 75% score. It must however be noted that this assessment considers sites from a recreational perspective only, and takes more limited account of the other roles of natural and semi natural space. The nature of the vegetation in natural and semi natural open space also means that these sites feel less secure than other areas, and are therefore more likely to achieve lower quality scores against the matrix.

Figure 4.2 – Proportion of sites achieving target quality score

Quality of Natural and Semi Natural Open Spaces

4% 21%

Improvement Required Average Good

75%

Reflecting the average quality score analysis, poorer sites are dispersed across the Borough, although there are clusters of poor sites in and around Northwich, and three of the four sites scoring over 75% are located within the Chester area.

Furthermore, it is evident that many of the very small sites achieve lower quality scores, particularly those in the more urban areas. Maps outlining the quality of natural and semi natural open space are provided in Appendix G.

Application of quantity standards

Application of the quantity standard for natural and semi natural open space provides an understanding of which areas of the Borough are deficient in this type of open space. Given that the standard is a minimum standard, no areas are considered to contain surplus natural and semi natural open space.

Table 4.4 overleaf summarises the application of the quantity standard at a ward level, and also considers the results of the consultation with regards to quantity of provision, thus providing an insight into the correlation between satisfaction and current levels of provision. It considers only those sites that are below 25 ha, as the other sites are considered to be strategic facilities. Facilities that are not accessible to the public are excluded.

It can be seen that on the whole, residents in areas below the minimum standard are dissatisfied, although those in Grange and Rossmore and Neston and Parkgate are satisfied despite falling quite significantly below the minimum expected level of natural space. None of the sites over 25ha are located within these areas.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 52

Table 4.4 – Quantity of Provision

Ward Current Above / Below Public Above / Below Provision (ha) the minimum satisfaction with Minimum standard (ha) quantity of Standard (2017) provision (ha) Abbey 81.24 62.64 SATISFIED 61.52

Blacon 5.47 -13.88 DISSATISFIED -14.85

Boughton Heath and Vicars 11.59 -8.51 SATISFIED -9.52 Cross

Broxton 14.11 -3.14 SATISFIED -2.18

Central and Westminster 10.49 -11.41 DISSATISFIED -13.60

City 3.34 -17.66 DISSATISFIED -18.71

Eddisbury 28.48 10.78 SATISFIED 10.60

Frodsham and Helsby 19.7 -1.60 SATISFIED -2.88

Gowy 3.67 -17.03 SATISFIED -16.62

Grange and Rossmore 0 -21.00 SATISFIED -23.10

Groves and Whitby 24.99 5.49 DISSATISFIED 3.54

Hoole and Newton 1.29 -16.56 DISSATISFIED -17.45

Ledsham and Willaston 15.74 -1.06 SATISFIED -0.72

Marbury 36.45 15.30 SATISFIED 15.09

Mickle Trafford 35.11 13.81 SATISFIED 14.24

Neston and Parkgate 3.95 -17.65 SATISFIED -17.22

Northwich East and 15.77 -4.78 SATISFIED -6.01 Shackerley

Northwich West 44.82 18.87 SATISFIED 17.31

Overleigh 15.4 -5.75 SATISFIED -6.81

Sutton and Manor 6.57 -13.38 DISSATISFIED -15.38

Upton 0 -18.60 DISSATISFIED -19.53

Weaver 55.8 36.45 SATISFIED 35.29

Winsford North and East 17.47 -6.53 SATISFIED -6.77

Winsford South and West 5.17 -17.18 DISSATISFIED -17.40

NB figures may not sum exactly with Borough wide totals due to rounding

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 53

The key deficiencies in quantitative terms are therefore located in:

• Neston and Parkgate (although residents in this area have access to the Wirral Way, a linear green corridor which fulfils many of the functions of a natural open space and may explain the reason that residents are satisfied); • Grange and Rossmore and Central and Westminster (natural open space is potentially more limited due to the urban nature of these areas); • Winsford South and West (although residents in this area have access to the Whitegate Way, a linear green corridor which fulfils many of the functions of a natural open space); and • Hoole and Newton, City and Upton – reflecting the more limited access in some parts of Chester.

Population growth up to 2017 will not generate shortfalls in any areas that currently meet the minimum standard however, provision per 1000 population will reduce. By 2027, the overall Borough wide provision will decrease to 1.33 ha per 1000 population (assuming that no more natural open space is provided). This will generate shortfalls against the quantity standard (1.5 ha per 1000 population) of circa 50 hectares.

Key priorities

Analysis of the audit, the assessment of local needs and the application of local standards highlights the following key issues relating to natural open space:

• Overall there are positive perceptions about the amount of natural open space. The majority of those who feel that provision is insufficient reference the fear of losing natural space to development, the role of these sites in conservation and the provision of habitats, or qualitative issues, rather than the need for additional sites. The recommended quantity standard seeks to protect the existing level of natural space, and to promote the development of new space where the opportunity arises, and particularly in line with new development.

• Location / proximity to the home is a key determinant of usage and residents expect to find natural open space in close proximity to the home. Application of the recommended accessibility standard, which seeks to ensure that all residents are able to access at least one piece of natural open space within a 10 minute walk of their home, demonstrates the such space is evenly distributed across Cheshire West and Chester, although there are a few areas where residents are outside of the recommended catchment of a space. Public Rights of Way provide important access routes to natural and semi natural open space.

• While on the whole, views on the quality of provision are positive, some residents also identified examples of particularly poor quality natural and semi natural open space. This is reflected in the quality assessments, which reveal that the quality of natural open space is lower than that of most other typologies. In particular, such spaces had a lack of recreational functionality, but most notably, seemed to attract litter, dog fouling and anti social behaviour. There are however examples of both high and low quality facilities.

• As well as natural and semi natural open spaces for recreational purposes, there are numerous sites of high value for the conservation and habitat benefits they offer.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 54

The remainder of this section summarises the issues relating to the provision of natural and semi natural open space, under the following headings:

• Protection • Qualitative Improvements • Access improvements • New provision.

Protection

The perceived loss of natural and semi natural open space was one of the main reasons given by those respondents to the household survey who stated that provision is insufficient, emphasising the importance of protecting this type of open space. Furthermore, as emphasised earlier in this section, natural and semi natural open spaces are valuable not just from a recreational perspective, but also in terms of conservation and biodiversity.

The protection of these sites will also be a key component of the strategy to reduce climate change and promote urban cooling. One of the six key aims of the emerging Green Infrastructure Framework for North East Wales, Cheshire and Wirral is to “ protect and enhance biodiversity and natural networks, providing opportunity for people to experience the natural environment” (TEP 2010).

Reflecting this, natural open space was believed to be central to the character of Cheshire West and Chester and retention of key strategic sites, as well of sites as local importance is therefore essential. Existing local plan policies in all of the three former local authorities seek to protect natural open space. In particular, policies ENV 3, ENV16, ENV17, ENV 26, ENV27 (Chester) NE3, NE6 (Vale Royal), ENV 3, ENV4, ENV 8 (Ellesmere Port and Neston) all protect natural open space, in particular those with specific designations reflecting their wildlife conservation properties.

The Woodland Trust indicates that 18.26% of residents of Cheshire West and Chester live within 500m of a woodland of 2ha or greater, placing the Borough 21st out of all local authorities for which measurements are available. While this means that access in Cheshire West and Chester is above national averages, it means that 80% of the population still have to travel further than the set target, emphasising the importance of both protecting existing woodland and striving to create more (discussed later in this section).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 55

Protection of existing provision

NSN 1 Given the clearly evidenced value of natural open space to both residents and wildlife, promote the protection of this type of open space through policy in the Local Development Framework. Protection should extend to sites of particular value, specifically:

• Sites of strategic importance (identified earlier in this section and including all country parks)

• Sites that are particularly important in terms of nature conservation and biodiversity

• Sites that receive high levels of usage from the general public

• Sites that are located on important routes within the green network

Policy should ensure that natural open spaces are only lost to development where specific criteria (set out in policy) can be met.

Disposal and redesignation

Although there are a few areas of overlapping catchments, the value of natural space is such that there are no recommendations for the disposal or redesignation of these spaces. Natural open spaces should form a key part of the open space network across the Borough and should provide corridors for both wildlife and humans. The ongoing Green Infrastructure Framework identifies a series of important corridors which should be protected and enhanced.

Where disposals are required to fund qualitative improvements, this should focus on areas containing clusters of poor quality sites.

Enhancement of existing provision

Consultation findings, as well as local site assessments, indicate that the quality of natural open space is one of the priority areas for improvement, and that improvements to the quality of existing spaces (from a recreational and user perspective) are as important as the provision of new sites. The average quality score is lower than for other types of open space, and many existing sites are lacking recreational function and purpose. Litter and dog fouling were identified as particular problems, as well as overgrown vegetation that impedes access.

Very few sites currently meet the 75% target quality score, and that there are clusters of poorer quality sites Boroughwide, but particularly in Ellesmere Port, Winsford and Northwich. The key areas for improvement at each site are contained in the site database.

While improvements to natural open spaces from a recreational perspective are important, there is a need to recognise that an appropriate balance between conservation and recreational interests is required. The relative balance will vary between sites. Improvements to sites should therefore be considered in the context of the open space, and should enhance the natural characteristics of the site.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 56

In particular, priority should be given to:

• strategic sites – in particular, some areas for improvement are identified for Stanney Woods LNR (particularly paths). This site is a key priority as it is does not reach the target quality score;

• sites that are high value but low quality – ie Sites that are serving unique catchments (ie they are the only site that residents can access) and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this category include Weaver Parkway, LAPA Fields, Lache (where it is suggested that the site could be transformed into a nature reserve), Blacon Nature Park (Blacon) and Leftwich Meadows; and

• areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. Examples include:

- Blacon – both sites considered poor – Blacon Nature Park and Shelley Road

- Central and Westminster Ward – only Old Ince Reservoir achieves a score of above 50%

- Abbey Ward –only one site achieves a score of above 50%

- Sites towards Winsford Town Centre, where there are clusters of lower quality areas

In areas where all residents are currently able to access a natural and semi natural space, and provision is above the quantity standard, improvements to quality should be prioritised over new spaces. Areas this is a particular priority given the poor quality of existing natural open spaces include Groves and Whitby, Marbury, Northwich West and Abbey.

In line with comments made above relating to the importance of balancing conservation and recreation, it will be important to retain the character of the existing spaces and ensure that they remain natural, but inviting to residents. The majority of improvements required relate to dog fouling / litter, however the opportunity to improve the functionality of some of the larger sites (creation of natural seating etc) was also identified.

The Green Flag award, discussed in Section 3 in detail in relation to parks and gardens, is also relevant for some larger natural and semi natural open spaces. The Green Flag award programme recognises high quality green spaces and parks in England. It seeks to promote best practice management and maintenance and the principles of this approach should be embraced in the maintenance and management of natural open spaces in the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 57

Enhancement of existing provision

NSN 2 Support the improvement of natural open spaces using the quality vision and site visits to identify issues of priority importance. Support may be either financial, or in kind, through guidance in applying for external funding or the provision of advice for example. Footpaths and clearly defined routes through sites were identified as key priorities. It should be recognised that an appropriate balance between conservation and recreational interests is required. The relative balance will vary between sites and improvements should be undertaken with this in mind.

Key priorities include:

• Strategic sites – in particular, some areas for improvement are identified for Stanney Woods LNR (particularly paths). This site is a key priority as it is does not reach the target quality score

• Sites that are high value but low quality – ie Sites that are serving unique catchments and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites that fit into this category include Weaver Parkway, LAPA Fields, Lache, Blacon Nature Park (Blacon) and Leftwich Meadows.

• Areas that contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. For many of these sites, the value is currently limited

• Areas which have more than sufficient space, but poor quality space – these include Groves and Whitby, Marbury, Northwich West and Abbey.

Sympathetic management techniques should be practiced at sites of importance for nature conservation and biodiversity, and information should be provided at these sites, raising public awareness of the management practices and the habitats that are provided.

Community involvement has proven to be a particularly successful means of generating high quality open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester. For natural open space specifically, Friends of Willaston Meadows and Tarvin Community Woodlands Trust have both been instrumental in the development and improvement of their respective sites, creating high quality environments for both visitors and wildlife. Ongoing encouragement and support for existing groups, as well as the formation of new community groups will be a key means of improving the overall quality of natural open space for both residents and wildlife. Volunteer and community management can also create a sense of ownership.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 58

Improve existing provision

NSN 3 Provide ongoing support to existing friends groups and encourage the development of new groups to support the improvement of natural and semi natural open spaces.

New provision

Consultation identified a high level of satisfaction with the current provision of both natural open space and country parks. The majority of those who feel that provision is insufficient reference the fear of losing natural space to development, the role of these sites in conservation and the provision of habitats, or qualitative issues, rather than the need for additional sites. Analysis of the distribution of the existing spaces however reveals that there are some parts of the Borough where residents are outside of the target distance for natural open space, and below the recommended local quantity standard, meaning that opportunities to create natural space in these areas should be prioritised where opportunities arise.

In some instances, it may be more appropriate to provide access to existing spaces that currently have restricted or no access, rather than create new space. The Woodland Trust Access standards reveal that 11.5% more residents would have access to a 2ha woodland within 500m of their home if access to an existing woodland was negotiated. The Woodland Trust also reveals that 70.3% of the population would require new woodland to Tarvin Community Woodlands Trust be planted in order to achieve the target, The Tarvin Community Woodland was meaning a total of 222 additional hectares of created on a piece of open space provided woodland. While this provides an indicative as part of the development of a new road target only, it provides support both for the bypassing the town. protection of existing spaces (discussed The Community of the village has dedicated earlier in this section) and the creation of new over 7000 hours of voluntary effort resulting in space where opportunities arise. Woodland an area of woodland that now contains planting based on these standards would several hundred newly planted oak and contribute towards not only recreation, but other native hardwood trees together with a growing selection of wild flowers, birds and would also have positive benefits for small animals. A footpath runs through the biodiversity. site, and a bridleway is adjacent. The site is of both recreational and biodiversity value Application of the local access standards and is a central point for the Tarvin community. The Trust continues to manage demonstrates that key priorities for new the site, and works in partnership with key provision include: stakeholders, including Tarvin PC and CW&C Council. This site has recently achieved a • Grange and Rossmore and Central and green flag award, commending the high Westminster wards (natural open space is quality provision, as well as the ongoing management and sustainability of the site. potentially more limited due to the urban nature of these areas); • Winsford South and West (although residents in this area have access to the Whitegate Way, a linear green corridor which fulfils many of the functions of a natural open space); and

• Hoole and Newton and Upton.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 59

New provision

NSN 4 Seek to address deficiencies in natural open space and seize opportunities to create new spaces, particularly in:

• Grange and Rossmore and Central and Westminster wards (natural open space is potentially more limited due to the urban nature of these areas) • Winsford South and West (although residents in this area have access to the Whitegate Way, a linear green corridor which fulfils many of the functions of a natural open space) • Hoole and Newton and Upton.

In some instances, improvements to the access of existing sites may be as important as the creation of new spaces.

The importance of maintaining the existing supply of natural open space and providing residents with access to these spaces means that the creation of natural open spaces should be considered as part of new housing developments. While existing policies within the local plans of the three former authorities do not require the provision of natural open space as part of new development, new policy should give consideration to the impact of new development on demand for natural open space, and local standards should be used to determine appropriate contributions, ensuring that residents of new dwellings have access to natural space (within the target distance threshold of 480m) and that the additional demand that new residents in the area will place on existing open spaces is considered.

Provision in new development

NSN 5 Ensure that policy requires contributions towards the creation of new natural and semi natural open space, or the improvement of existing open space as part of new development.

Connectivity

Consultations reveal a strong view that parks should be part of the overall network of connected open spaces. Larger strategic natural open spaces will also be key components of this network of open spaces, providing links for both humans, as well as creating corridors for the migration of wildlife. Even sites that are not accessible to humans may form key components of the connected open space network. Public Rights of Way provide important routes to natural open spaces.

The strategic Green Infrastructure Framework and biodiversity study, both of which are currently underway, set out the key corridors.

Access and Linkages

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 60

NSN 6 Promote the development of an interconnected network of open spaces for both residents and wildlife. This should include the creation of pedestrian routes and cyclepaths, and joined up green spaces.

Summary

In accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide, this section sets out a strategic framework for the future provision of natural and semi natural open spaces across Cheshire West and Chester.

The value of natural open spaces to residents both as recreational spaces, but also in defining the character of the Borough is clear, and there is a strong emphasis on the protection of these spaces from development. There is an even distribution of natural open spaces, and most residents have access to at least one site within the recommended distance threshold. The quality of sites from a recreational perspective is however varying, and there are some examples of sites which are overgrown and where access is impeded. Reflecting this, views on the quality of provision are varying, with residents identifying both high and low quality sites. Natural open space is however viewed as being important in both rural and urban areas.

As well as being of recreational value, the function of natural space from a biodiversity and conservation perspective is also clear. Enhancements to the quality of natural and semi natural open space should take into account the other functions of the site, and seek to balance biodiversity and recreation.

The key priorities are summarised overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 61

Protection Enhancement

Protection should extend to natural open spaces of: Support the improvement of natural open spaces using the quality vision and site visits to identify issues • strategic importance (such as Stanney Woods of priority importance. Support may be either LNR and Country Parks); financial, or in kind, through guidance in applying for external funding or the provision of advice for • sites that are particularly important in terms of example. Footpaths and clearly defined routes nature conservation and biodiversity; through sites were identified as key priorities.

• sites that receive high levels of usage from the Key priorities include: general public; and • strategic sites – in particular, some areas for • sites that are located on important routes improvement are identified for Stanney Woods within the green network LNR (particularly paths). This site is a key priority as it is does not reach the target quality score;

• sites that are high value but low quality – ie Sites that are serving unique catchments and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this category include Weaver Parkway, LAPA Fields, Lache, Blacon Nature Park (Blacon) and Leftwich Meadows;

• areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. For many of these sites, the value is currently limited; and

• areas which have more than sufficient space, but poor quality space – these include Groves and Whitby, Marbury, Northwich West and Abbey.

Sympathetic management techniques should be practiced at sites of importance for nature conservation and biodiversity, and information should be provided at these sites, raising public awareness of the management practices and the habitats that are provided.

Areas of particularly poor quality natural open space include;

• Blacon • Central and Westminster • Abbey Ward • Marbury • Weaver.

A full list of scores achieved and key issues at each site is provided in the site database.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 62

New Provision Redesignation

Seek to address deficiencies in natural open There are no recommendations for the disposal of any space and seize opportunities to create new natural and semi natural sites. spaces, particularly in:

• Grange and Rossmore and Central and Westminster wards (natural open space is potentially more limited due to the urban nature of these areas);

• Winsford South and West (although residents in this area have access to the Whitegate Way, a linear green corridor which fulfils many of the functions of a natural open space); and

• Hoole and Newton and Upton.

In some instances, improvements to the access of existing sites may be as important as the creation of new spaces.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 63

5. Amenity Green Space

Introduction and definition

05 Amenity green space is most commonly found in residential areas. It includes informal recreation spaces, green spaces and village greens in and around housing, which have a primary purpose of providing opportunities for informal activities close to home or work. Amenity green space is also often used for landscaping.

The function of this type of open space overlaps with many others, in particular parks and gardens and natural areas, and it can also provide informal opportunities for children’s play where there are no other facilities.

To ensure that spaces included within the assessment have or have scope to provide a recreational function, only sites over 0.2ha have been audited. 0.2ha is recommended as a sensible cut off point within PPG17 and is reflective of the situation on the ground in Cheshire West and Chester. In line with the PPG17 Companion Guide, for the purposes of this assessment, highway grass verges and space left over after planning (SLOAP) have been excluded from consideration.

Background

23.5% of respondents to the household survey visit amenity green space once per week or more. While this level of use is less frequent than that of other types of informal open space, it still demonstrates that these sites are a valuable resource. Amenity green space is particularly valuable in the urban parts of the Borough where 28.4% of respondents use this type of space weekly or more.

The local nature of amenity space was perceived to be particularly important by residents, and it was indicated that the provision of such spaces in close proximity to the home is essential. The local nature of the space is one of the main reasons why residents choose to use amenity space.

This section considers the provision of amenity green spaces across Cheshire West and Chester, highlighting the key issues arising and providing a detailed application of the recommended local standards. It sets the key priorities for the future delivery of amenity green spaces to inform both the Local Development Framework and the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy. Analysis draws on the findings of the Local Needs Assessment (Appendix A).

Context

Quantity of amenity green space

In total, there are 295 amenity green space sites of 0.2ha or above across the Borough, providing a total of 264.64 hectares of provision. The average size of a site is 0.9 ha, however the size of sites varies considerably, ranging from 0.2ha to 15.7ha. In addition, there are a considerable number of sites of below 0.2ha, which although excluded from consideration in this assessment, may provide important local amenities.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 64

Amenity green spaces are found in settlements of all sizes, and analysis of the distribution of such sites demonstrates that provision per 1000 population is equally spread between rural and urban areas, as summarised below in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 – Amenity green space across Cheshire West and Chester (sites above 0.2 ha only)

Area Number of Total Range of Hectares per Future Hectares Sites Provision Provision 1000 per 1000 (ha) (ha) Population population (ha) (2017) (ha) Cheshire West 295 264.643 0.2 – 15.79 0.81 0.78 and Chester Rural Wards 110 97.573 0.2 – 15.79 0.85 0.84 Urban Wards 185 167.07 0.2-10.63 0.79 0.75

There are only 5 sites above 5 hectares and with the exception of one site (Marbury Ward) all others are located within the urban areas. At the other end of the spectrum, there are 150 sites below of 0.5 hectares or below. These are distributed across the Borough, however it is clear that a larger proportion of these sites are situated within Northwich, Winsford and the central parts of Chester. While provision per 1000 population is even, the total amount of hectares of amenity space in the urban areas is significantly higher than in the rural parts of the borough.

Although provision is relatively evenly split between rural and urban areas when measuring the provision against the population, analysis of the distribution of these sites at a ward level indicates that provision is substantially higher in some parts of the Borough than in others. Table 5.2 overleaf summarises the provision of amenity space by ward at both the current time, and projecting forwards to 2017.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 65

Table 5.2 – Summary of amenity green spaces across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number Total Range of Hectares per Future Hectares of Sites Provision Provision 1000 Population per 1000 (ha) (ha) (ha) population (2017) ha Abbey 11 9.5 0.2-3.05 0.77 0.7228

Blacon 13 9.7 0.24 – 1.88 0.75 0.7161

Boughton Heath and 11 10.35 0.31-2.6 0.77 0.7356 Vicars Cross

Broxton 13 12.59 0.28 – 2.8 1.09 1.1171

Central and 13 16.76 0.22 – 4.29 1.15 1.0436 Westminster

City 9 4.4 0.21-1.3 0.31 0.2993

Eddisbury 12 4.44 0.22-0.85 0.38 0.3725

Frodsham and Helsby 8 7.07 0.29-1.63 0.50 0.4697

Gowy 10 13.25 0.29-4.44 0.96 0.9797

Grange and 6 3.92 0.36-1.43 0.28 0.2545 Rossmore

Groves and Whitby 9 5.22 0.28-1.25 0.40 0.3650

Hoole and Newton 3 2.21 0.29-1.05 0.19 0.1769

Ledsham and 10 3.91 0.20-0.97 0.35 0.3562 Willaston

Marbury 11 20.21 0.22-15.47 1.43 1.4152

Mickle Trafford 25 20.59 0.22-3.36 1.45 1.4753

Neston and Parkgate 5 13.81 0.53-10.63 0.96 0.9786

Northwich East and 17 12.39 0.2-2.9 0.90 0.8532 Shackerley

Northwich West 27 30.23 0.2-8.9 1.75 1.6485

Overleigh 12 9.16 0.2-2.23 0.65 0.6187

Sutton and Manor 9 6.96 0.2-3.4 0.52 0.4757

Upton 10 17.35 0.25-6.9 1.40 1.3326

Weaver 7 2.83 0.27-0.56 0.22 0.2070

Winsford North and 12 7.2 0.20-1.35 0.45 0.4455 East

Winsford South and 32 20.69 0.20-2.05 1.39 1.3748 West

NB figures may not sum exactly with Boroughwide figures due to rounding

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 66

Analysis of the amount of amenity green space per 1000 population indicates that provision is particularly low in Hoole and Newton, Weaver, Grange and Rossmore, City, Ledsham and Willaston and Eddisbury.

In contrast, Northwich West, Mickle Trafford, Marbury, and Winsford South and West all contain more than 1.4 hectares of amenity green space per 1000 population. It is clear from the wards that contain large and small amounts of amenity space that there is no pattern between the amount of space and the density of the settlement, or the geographical location of the settlement within the Borough. Analysis of the range of sizes in each area however reveals that the more urban areas of City, Hoole, Groves and Whitby and Winsford North and East all contain few large sites. Winsford South and West has the highest number of sites (32) and all of these are comparatively small.

Consultation findings

Reflecting the uneven distribution of sites across the Borough, views on the amount of amenity green space arising from the local needs assessment (Appendix A) are more divided than for other types of open space. While 44.2% think that provision is sufficient, 39.1% indicate that there is a requirement for more.

Despite analysis of the distribution of existing provision indicating that there are no clear disparities between the amount of amenity space in the rural and urban areas, there is a clear difference in views relating to the adequacy of provision. While almost 50% of residents in the rural areas think that there is sufficient amenity space, more people in the urban areas think that there is a need for more amenity space than are happy with the quantities provided. Residents in Winsford South and West, Winsford North and East, Upton and Sutton and Manor are more dissatisfied than any others, While residents in Upton do have lower provision (and also a lack of access to parks), residents in Winsford actually have access to more amenity space than most others (although there are no parks in the area, which may influence overall perceptions).

The majority of residents who state that provision is insufficient indicate that there is a lack of local green space, but some qualitative issues are also referenced. This suggests that views on quality may have an impact on perceptions of quantity.

Like the household survey, variations in opinion are also evident through other modes of consultation. Only marginally more respondents to both the online survey and the officers survey are dissatisfied than think that provision is sufficient. More children and young people however indicate that there is enough amenity space than suggest that there is a deficiency. Consistent with the household survey, the need for local open space is clearly referenced and the importance of protecting amenity spaces from development is also highlighted.

Quality of amenity green spaces

Site visits reveal that overall, with the exception of natural and semi natural spaces, amenity green spaces are the poorest quality sites in the borough, with an average score of 53%. This however disguises the significant range in the quality of provision, with sites achieving scores of between 17% and 95%, indicating that there are some very high quality sites, as well as poor quality provision.

Figure 5.1 overleaf illustrates the average quality scores achieved for each factor rated during site assessments. To take into account the fact that the matrix requires some factors to be scored out of five, and some out of six, all scores have been converted to percentages to enable comparison.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 67

Figure 5.1 – Quality issues of amenity green spaces

Quality Issues - Amenity Green Space

70

60

50

40

% Average Score 30

20

10

0 Provision of Quality of Dog Fouling Litter Security Equipment Equipment

As can be seen, site visits reveal that the quality of amenity spaces is let down by litter and dog fouling. Many amenity green spaces also seem to attract anti social behaviour, fly tipping etc.

In addition, as highlighted by the poor scores achieved for equipment, site visits reveal considerable scope to improve the functionality of amenity space. The majority of sites achieving high scores were well maintained with appropriate infrastructure (bins, benches etc). Where sites achieved lower ratings, the key issues identified were usually litter and dog fouling, and a lack of basic infrastructure.

Scores achieved during site visits in the urban and rural areas are summarised below in Table 5.3. It demonstrates that the range of issues, and the variety in the quality of provision, is evident in both the rural and urban areas.

Table 5.3 – Quality of amenity green spaces in Cheshire West and Chester

Range of Average Wards with Wards with lower quality sites Quality Scores quality score high quality % % sites Urban Upton, Northwich East and South, 17% - 86% 51% Overleigh, Blacon, Northwich West Hoole Rural Gowy, Boughton 26% - 95% 56% Eddisbury and Vicars Cross, Broxton Cheshire West 17%- 95% 53% Gowy, Northwich East and South, and Chester Boughton Blacon, Northwich West and Vicars Cross, Broxton

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 68

Given the local nature of amenity spaces, consideration has been given to the average quality of these sites by ward. Table 5.4 below outlines the average quality score on a ward-by-ward basis. It also highlights wards where more residents were satisfied with the quality of provision than dissatisfied.

While this provides an understanding of views and opinions, it is demonstrated that for amenity green space, there is little correlation between the average score and the views of residents. Analysis however indicates that in wards where residents are dissatisfied, there is a greater range in the variation of quality.

Table 5.4 - Quality of amenity green spaces in Cheshire West and Chester by ward

Ward Average Quality Score Public satisfaction with quality

Abbey 50% DISSATISFIED Blacon 48% SATISFIED Boughton Heath and 66% DISSATISFIED Vicars Cross Broxton 65% DISSATISFIED Central and Westminster 51% DISSATISFIED City 56% DISSATISFIED Eddisbury 48% SATISFIED Frodsham and Helsby 49% SATISFIED Gowy 66% DISSATISFIED Grange and Rossmore 53% DISSATISFIED Groves and Whitby 51% SATISFIED Hoole and Newton 58% DISSATISFIED Ledsham and Willaston 55% DISSATISFIED Marbury 52% SATISFIED Mickle Trafford 54% SATISFIED Neston and Parkgate 55% DISSATISFIED Northwich East and 42% SATISFIED Shackerley Northwich West 48% SATISFIED Overleigh 59% SATISFIED Sutton and Manor 54% DISSATISFIED Upton 60% SATISFIED Weaver 50% SATISFIED Winsford North and East 51% DISSATISFIED Winsford South and West 54% DISSATISFIED

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 69

The quality scores achieved for each site, and the key issues arising during the site assessments can be found in the site database.

Consultations

Reflecting the findings of site visits, residents are less positive about the overall quality of amenity space than most other typologies and reflecting the actual quality of provision, it is one of the most poorly rated types of open space in Cheshire West and Chester. Just 22.9% consider the quality of this type of space to be good or very good. 20.6% consider it to be poor or very poor. Like views on the quantity of provision, perceptions of the quality of provision are lower in the urban wards.

Like other types of open space, current users indicated that the main issue experienced at amenity green space is dog fouling. Litter problems, maintenance of seating and footpaths were also highlighted as issues. Significantly, personal safety was considered to be more of an issue at amenity green spaces than at any other type of informal open space.

The poorer perceptions of the quality of amenity green space are also reflected through other types of consultation. Negative perceptions were particularly apparent in the online survey, and a quarter of Council officers also considered the quality of provision to be poor. Children and young people also highlighted the need to improve the quality of amenity green spaces, and for external agencies, qualitative improvements are a key priority.

Cleanliness and maintenance and well kept grass were highlighted as the most important characteristics of a high quality site. Other components of a successful site are believed to include:

• a level surface;

• litter bins;

• flowers and trees;

• seating; and

• footpaths.

Access

The assessment of local needs highlights that amenity green spaces are expected in close proximity to the home and the vast majority of residents would expect to walk to an amenity space.

Site assessments reveal that on the whole, amenity spaces are amongst the more accessible types of open space, with level accesses and paths throughout. The key barriers to access identified were sloping sites and a lack of footpaths within the site. Many amenity spaces also benefit from being overlooked by housing, and from adjacent street lighting.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities that consider:

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 70

• accessibility – the distance that residents expect to travel to reach each type of open space (and the mode of transport that they would expect to use);

• quantity – the amount of provision (in hectares) that would be expected for each type of open space per 1000 population; and

• quality – the key features that are important to residents for each type of open space.

The recommended local standards for amenity green spaces in Cheshire West and Chester have been derived from the local needs consultation (Appendix A) and audit of provision and are summarised below. Standards are based on an accessibility led approach. Full justifications for the standards set are provided within Appendix D.

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard 10 minute walk time (480m) Justification The findings of the consultation demonstrate that amenity spaces are expected local to the home. As a result, there is a strong emphasis that such sites should be accessible on foot. It is also clear that such sites should be provided in all parts of the Borough.

In all areas, the average travel time expected is 9 minutes, and the most commonly expected time is 5 minutes. Views on quality and quantity of provision however indicate that the quality of amenity spaces is considered to be poorer than most other types of space, and that high quality facilities are essential if these sites are to be valued. In order to promote a strategic approach to the provision of high quality amenity space, a standard of 10 minutes walk time has been set. This standard takes into account the expectations of residents by promoting the provision of easily accessible, high quality space.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 71

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standard Current Provision – 0.8 ha per 1000 Recommended Local Standard – 0.81 ha per 1000

Justification There are varying views on the adequacy of existing amenity green spaces in both the rural and urban areas. The reasons behind these views vary between a lack of local provision and the quality of existing facilities.

The application of the accessibility standard highlights relatively few deficiencies in provision and there is a strong focus on the improvement of the quality of existing facilities, and enhancements to the functionality of these spaces.

Reflecting this, the recommended quantity standard has been set at the existing level of provision, as little additional amenity space is required to meet current need. This standard takes into account the small number of additional spaces required to deliver the accessibility standard, as well as the expectations of residents, but also recognises that there are some sites which serve overlapping catchments and are consequently of limited value and not required.

The local standard should be applied in conjunction with the accessibility standard, using minimum size criteria, to evaluate the need for amenity spaces in any given area. The standard has been calculated based upon amenity green spaces of 0.2 ha or above.

Quality Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Flowers and trees

Seating Footpaths

Level surface Lighting (where appropriate) / overlooked to aid perceptions of personal security

Litter and dog bins

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating or 75% of higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 72

Applying local provision standards

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

The application of standards drives the key priorities, and ensures that emphasis is placed upon meeting local needs.

Application of accessibility standards

The accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents are located within a 10 minute walk (480m) of an amenity green space. Application of this standard illustrates that almost all residents are within the appropriate catchment of a facility.

As highlighted earlier in this section, there are many overlaps in the function of amenity green space and parks and gardens. Where residents are within 480m of a formal park (the recommended catchment for amenity green space), as a higher order facility, the formal park negates the need for the provision of amenity green space.

The key shortfalls of amenity space are in:

• Central parts of Chester (but alleviated by parks) • Whitby Heath (but have access to a park) • East Tarvin • Delamere (but have access to the forest) • • Rudheath area of Northwich

The fact that there are so few deficiencies of amenity space suggests that in areas falling below the quantity standard, on the whole the average size of the amenity spaces are small, and may be of less function than in other wards rather than a total lack of provision.

Maps are provided illustrating this in Appendix G.

Application of quality standards

The site assessments undertaken and the recommended quality standard provide a means of evaluating the adequacy of existing provision. The local standard sets a target score of 75%.

As illustrated in Figure 5.2, and reflecting the average score for amenity green space over half of all sites are categorised as requiring improvement. Just under 10% of sites achieve the target quality score.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 73

Figure 5.2 – Proportion of amenity green spaces achieving the quality standard

Amenity Green Space - Quality Scores Achieved

9%

Improvement Required 28% Average

Good 63%

Analysis of the distribution of facilities indicates that while there are poorer facilities across the Borough, the higher quality facilities are located in clusters. Only the wards of Broxton, Gowy, Marbury and Winsford South and West have more than two sites considered to be good. There are clusters of poor quality facilities in Northwich, Winsford and Blacon. Much of this is related to the size of sites (particularly in Winsford where they are very small) as they have limited functionality and often attract litter and vandalism. The quality of amenity space and the location of these sites is outlined on maps in Appendix G.

Application of quantity standards

Application of the quantity standard for amenity green space provides an understanding of which areas of the Borough are deficient in this type of open space. As highlighted through the application of the accessibility standard, in many instances, there are large numbers of small size of sites instead of fewer large sites meaning that some areas fall below the quantity standard despite appearing to be well served for amenity space.

Table 5.5 overleaf summarises the application of the quantity standard at a ward level, and also summarises the results of the consultation with regards to quantity of provision, thus providing an insight into the correlation between satisfaction and current levels of provision.

Boroughwide, the standard has been set at the existing level of provision. When taking into account the projected population growth (but assuming that provision remains constant) there will be a small shortfall by 2017. Population change will not however generate shortfalls in provision in any ward where there are not already shortfalls. By 2027, provision will equate to circa 0.77 ha per 1000 population and shortfalls will be equivalent to –11 ha.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 74

Table 5.5 – Application of quantity standards

Ward Current Shortfall / Public Future Shortfall Provision (ha) Surplus (ha) satisfaction or Surplus with quantity (2017) (ha)

Abbey 9.5 -0.54 DISSATISFIED -1.15 Blacon 9.7 -0.75 SATISFIED -1.27 Boughton Heath and 10.35 -0.50 SATISFIED -1.05 Vicars Cross Broxton 12.59 3.28 SATISFIED 3.46 Central and Westminster 16.76 4.93 DISSATISFIED 3.75 City 4.4 -6.94 SATISFIED -7.51 Eddisbury 4.44 -5.12 SATISFIED -5.21 Frodsham and Helsby 7.07 -4.43 SATISFIED -5.12 Gowy 13.25 2.07 SATISFIED 2.30 Grange and Rossmore 3.92 -7.42 DISSATISFIED -8.55 Groves and Whitby 5.22 -5.31 DISSATISFIED -6.36 Hoole and Newton 2.21 -7.43 SATISFIED -7.91 Ledsham and Willaston 3.91 -5.16 SATISFIED -4.98 Marbury 20.21 8.73 SATISFIED 8.62 Mickle Trafford 20.59 9.03 SATISFIED 9.26 Neston and Parkgate 13.81 2.15 SATISFIED 2.38 Northwich East and 12.39 1.29 SATISFIED 0.63 Shackerley Northwich West 30.23 16.22 DISSATISFIED 15.38 Overleigh 9.16 -2.26 SATISFIED -2.83 Sutton and Manor 6.96 -3.81 DISSATISFIED -4.89 Upton 17.35 7.31 DISSATISFIED 6.80 Weaver 2.83 -7.62 SATISFIED -8.25 Winsford North and East 7.2 -5.76 DISSATISFIED -5.89 Winsford South and West 20.69 8.62 DISSATISFIED 8.50

NB figures may not sum exactly with Boroughwide figures due to rounding

The key deficiencies in quantitative terms are therefore located in:

• Grange and Rossmore; • Weaver; • Hoole and Newton; • City; and

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 75

• Winsford North and East.

Areas which exceed the quantity standard include Northwich West, Winsford South and West, Mickle Trafford and Marbury. Reflecting this, there are overlapping catchments in Northwich and Winsford, meaning that some spaces may be serve the same catchments and potentially be surplus to requirements.

While there are areas of overlapping catchments (above) many of the areas identified as deficient in provision in quantitative terms actually have a reasonable distribution of existing sites. This suggests that while all residents are able to access amenity space within the recommended distance threshold, sites are relatively small, and may be of more limited function than sites in other areas.

Like the quality of provision, there is not a consistent direct correlation between views on the quantity of space, and the amount actually provided. This suggests that there is an interrelationship between the quality of space and the perceived quantity. • Ensure the quantity of open space is sufficient Key priorities to meet local needs and expectations Analysis of the audit, the assessment of local needs and the application of local standards • Ensure that sites are highlights the following key issues relating to accessible and amenity space: functional and provide maximum benefit to the • There are split views on the amount of local community amenity green space across the Borough. While the quantities of provision are varying • Maximise the quality of between wards, most residents are able to open spaces in terms of access amenity green spaces. both recreation and biodiversity. Green • Residents expect local access to provision Space must be safe, and amenity spaces are of neighbourhood accessible, attractive significance only. Most residents are able to and of high quality access an amenity space, although for many, these spaces are small and relatively functionless.

• Building on this, for some, the value of amenity spaces is limited due to the quality of provision, although the wider benefits that these sites can offer (in addition to recreational values) such as adaptation to climate change and landscape benefits are recognised. Site visits support this issue, indicating that the overall quality of amenity spaces is amongst the lowest of all types of space.

The remainder of this section summarises the issues relating to the provision of amenity green space, under the following headings:

• Qualitative Improvements • Access improvements • New provision

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 76

Quality enhancements

Consultation findings, as well as local site assessments, indicate that the quality of amenity space is one of the priority areas for improvement, and as a result of the application of the accessibility standard, improvements to the quality of existing spaces is more important than the provision of new sites. The average quality score is lower than for all other types of open space except natural open spaces, and many existing sites are considered to lack function and purpose.

Site visits indicated that a lack of basic infrastructure, as well as litter and dog fouling at most sites, where the main issues for improvement. Supporting this, local residents, who largely believe that current provision is in need of improvement, suggested that the following are particularly important in the provision of good quality amenity space:

• a level surface

• litter bins

• flowers and trees

• seating

Very few sites currently meet the 75% target quality score, and there are clusters of poorer quality sites Boroughwide. Only 4 wards contain more than two sites that are considered to be of good quality.

Given the locality of amenity spaces, for many residents, these sites are the closest open spaces and it is essential to ensure that they are accessible to all sectors of the population. Site visits indicated that some sites are uneven and difficult to negotiate, and improving access should be a key component of improvements to sites moving forward.

While it is desirable to improve the quality and functionality of all sites not achieving the quality standard, it will be necessary to prioritise sites. It will be important to prioritise:

• sites that are high value but low quality – ie sites that are serving unique catchments and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this category include:

- School Lane Amenity Space (Elton)

- Jack Lane Amenity Space ()

- Gorsefield ()

• areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. Wards where particular quality issues have been identified include Northwich East and Shackerley, Blacon, Eddisbury and Northwich West. Additionally, almost all of the poorest scoring sites are situated in Blacon, Winsford and Northwich, meaning that there are high concentrations of poor facilities; and

• areas where the amount of amenity space is low, and amenity spaces are therefore more likely to be of importance to residents. Table 5.6 summarises the correlation between quantity and quality, and demonstrates that the quality of amenity space in Blacon and

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 77

Eddisbury in particular is low, and there are also high deficiencies of space. This means amenity space is likely to be important to residents and improvement is a priority. In particular, given the higher levels of deprivation in Blacon, the shortfalls in parks, and the resulting reliance on local open space, amenity space is of even greater significance in this area. Other areas where there are deficiencies and poorer quality spaces include Frodsham and Helsby, Weaver and Abbey.

Table 5.6 – Correlation between quantity and quality of amenity spaces

Ward Quality Shortfall / Surplus (Current)

Abbey 50% -0.54 Blacon 48% -0.75 Boughton Heath and Vicars Cross 66% -0.50 Broxton 65% 3.28 Central and Westminster 51% 4.93 City 56% -6.94 Eddisbury 48% -5.12 Frodsham and Helsby 49% -4.43 Gowy 66% 2.07 Grange and Rossmore 53% -7.42 Groves and Whitby 51% -5.31 Hoole and Newton 58% -7.43 Ledsham and Willaston 55% -5.16 Marbury 52% 8.73 Mickle Trafford 54% 9.03 Neston and Parkgate 55% 2.15 Northwich East and Shackerley 42% 1.29 Northwich West 48% 16.22 Overleigh 59% -2.26 Sutton and Manor 54% -3.81 Upton 60% 7.31 Weaver 50% -7.62 Winsford North and East 51% -5.76 Winsford South and West 54% 8.62

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 78

The site database provides details of the key issues and areas for improvement at each site. Opportunities to promote a strategic approach to the provision of amenity space in new development through the improvement of existing sites rather than the creation of new sites in areas already well served should also be taken. This will be discussed later in this section.

Enhancement of existing provision

AGS 1 Support the improvement of amenity green spaces across the Borough, using the quality vision to identify issues of priority importance. Support may be either financial, or in kind, through guidance in applying for external funding or the provision of advice for example.

Priority should be given to:

• Sites that are high value but low quality – ie sites that are serving unique catchments and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this category include:

­ School Lane Amenity Space (Elton) ­ Jack Lane Amenity Space (Davenham) ­ Gorsefield (Tattenhall)

• Areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. Wards where particular quality issues have been identified include Northwich East and Shackerley, Blacon, Eddisbury and Northwich West. Additionally, almost all of the poorest scoring sites are situated in Blacon, Winsford and Northwich, meaning that there are high concentrations of poor facilities

• Areas where the amount of amenity space is low, and amenity spaces are therefore more likely to be of importance to residents. Table 5.5 summarises the correlation between quantity and quality, and demonstrates that the quality of amenity space in Blacon and Eddisbury in particular is low, and there are also high deficiencies of space. This means amenity space is likely to be important to residents and improvement is a priority. In particular, given the higher levels of deprivation in Blacon, and the resulting reliance on local open space, amenity space is of even greater significance in this area.

Protection of amenity spaces

The value of amenity space to residents of Cheshire West and Chester is varied, although throughout consultation it is clear that access to functional local open space is important. 23.5% of respondents to the household survey visit amenity green space once per week or more. While this is less than other types of informal open space, this level of use demonstrates that these sites are a valuable resource. Amenity green space is particularly valuable in the urban parts of the Borough where 28.4% of respondents visit this type of space weekly or more. In areas where deprivation is higher, such as Overleigh and Blacon wards, local open space is of greater importance.

Like parks and natural open spaces, as well as providing a recreational function, amenity green spaces are particularly valuable from an environmental perspective. These spaces help to counteract flood risk and also promote urban cooling. The aesthetic / landscape value of such provision was also recognised frequently during consultation and these spaces are particularly valuable when located in areas of denser housing development. Amenity spaces are also

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 79 important in linking residential areas together and in creating green corridors that promote both active lifestyles and wildlife movement.

In some parts of the Borough however, amenity spaces are perhaps less valued than other types of space, largely due to the quality of the sites, and the limited function that they currently have, as well as in some areas, the abundance of space that is provided.

The local plans from the three former authorities all demonstrate a relatively strong theme of protection for designated green spaces, as summarised in Table 5.7 below.

Table 5.7 - Existing policies on amenity green space

Former Policy Policy Text Authority Reference

Chester ENV 15 Strategic open space is identified on the Proposals Map. Development which would Borough adversely affect the character, quality or scale of these spaces will be refused.

Chester ENV17 Important areas of green space are identified on the Proposals Maps. Development within Borough these areas will not be permitted unless:

• the development of the particular green space is required to meet the essential recreational or community needs of local people; and

• the development is for a small-scale structure and the recreation, landscape, wildlife and/or cultural value of the space will not be significantly adversely affected.

and in addition:

• appropriate alternative provision of green space of equivalent community benefit is made in the immediate local area; or

• the development will facilitate an enhancement of the recreation facilities, landscape, wildlife and/or cultural value of the remainder of the space or an appropriate existing green space in the immediate local area.

Chester ENV18 Proposals for development involving the loss of amenity space in residential areas will only Borough be permitted where:

• the loss of the space will not be detrimental to the quality of the street scene; and

• the loss of the space will not significantly exacerbate or create a shortfall in the availability of amenity land in the locality.

Vale Rt4 Existing formal and informal open spaces and recreational facilities shall be retained in Royal recreational or amenity use. Exceptions will only be allowed where:

i. there is, now and likely to continue to be, a surplus of that type of open space in the area, compared with council standards, and there is no demand, now or likely in the foreseeable future, in the area for open space or recreational facilities that could be met by the use of the site; and ii. (the loss of open space would not result in a material reduction in the quality of open space provision in the area; or iii. an equivalent and suitably located facility or improved existing facility which would satisfy the needs of the community is provided without disrupting the availability of the service provided. The council will seek to secure the terms of this policy through the imposition of planning conditions or, where this is not feasible, by negotiating a planning agreement under section 106 of the planning act.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 80

Former Policy Policy Text Authority Reference

Ellesmere H3 Within existing urban areas on sites not allocated for any particular use on the Proposals Port Map, new housing development will be allowed provided it satisfies the following criteria:

i. It does not result in loss of amenity space or other open space considered important for the locality. ii. It makes best use of and retains valuable landscape features of the existing site. iii. It is of satisfactory layout, character, density, scale, design materials and landscaping. iv. It does not result in overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy. v. It is not close to a use that could be detrimental to the amenity of occupants by virtue of the creation of noise, air pollution or odour.

Ellesmere REC 4 The development of amenity open space in residential areas, including the enclosure of Port public open space for private gardens, will not be permitted unless one of the following criteria apply:

i. the proximity of amenity land to a dwelling is causing a nuisance that it is not possible to solve in any other way.; and ii. a lack of off-street parking in older residential areas is causing problems such as vehicles blocking highways or parking on grassed areas.

The uneven distribution of amenity spaces, as well as the need to improve the quality of these spaces, means that protection of all sites is not required. Instead, valuable sites should be protected within the new Local Development Framework. Valuable sites include those serving unique catchments that would cause significant deficiencies if lost(regardless of their quality) and those of high quality, which are of particular benefit to local residents should be retained.

Examination of the application of local access standards demonstrates that spaces in the more rural settlements are particularly valuable, with most of these sites serving unique catchments, for example in Tarvin and Mickle Trafford. In contrast, the urban areas contain many more sites that are of potentially lower value to residents. This is explored further under the heading of disposal and redesignation.

Protection of Amenity Green Spaces

AGS 2 Policy should protect against the loss of valuable amenity spaces, by ensuring that planning permission that would result in the loss of:

• sites serving unique catchments (regardless of quality); or

• high quality spaces that are of value to local residents should not be granted, unless it can be proven that alternatives of higher community benefit will be provided.

Disposal and redesignation

As illustrated above under recommendation AGS2, there is a need to protect against the loss of valuable amenity spaces. Valuable sites are defined as those serving unique catchments (and are therefore important sites regardless of quality) and those spaces of high quality that are important to local residents.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 81

Application of the quantity standard reveals that there are surpluses of over 5 hectares in Northwich West, Mickle Trafford, Marbury, Winsford South and West and Upton.

Building on analysis above however, while the majority of spaces in rural settlements serve unique catchments, there are many examples of spaces in the more urban parts of Cheshire West and Chester which have overlapping catchments. In particular, West Northwich and South Winsford both contain several sites in close proximity to each other, and reflecting this, both wards also exceed the suggested quantity of provision. Furthermore, there are clusters of sites achieving very low quality scores, suggesting that they currently have limited functions. There are further examples of overlapping catchments across the Borough, in , Barnton, , Sandiway.

All clusters of poor quality facilities are illustrated on maps provided in Appendix G. There are also clusters of poor quality facilities in Blacon.

The presence of clusters of poor quality spaces demonstrates that there is scope to investigate the value of some existing amenity spaces further. Where the value of a site is considered to be limited, consideration should be given to the disposal of this site and the proceeds used to enhance the quality of a nearby site. This will be particularly important given that the quality of amenity spaces is lower than many other types of open space, and there are clusters of poor quality sites in all of the areas highlighted as containing overlapping catchments. Improvements should focus on sites which are serving the same catchment as the site to be lost. Before considering the disposal of an amenity green space site it will be important to contemplate alternative uses for the site. For example, although the site may not be valuable in its current form as an amenity green space for recreational purposes, there are identified shortfalls of other types of facility, for example allotments, and the site could be used to meet this deficiency. Winsford for example is identified as an area that is currently in need of additional allotments, as well as a local park.

Consideration of the need for the site to fulfil different functions prior to disposal is in line with recommendations in PPG17. As well as the recreational function of sites, PPG17 indicates that measures of value should take into account:

• levels of use of the site;

• the context (ie degree of accessibility); and

• the wider benefits – such as the role that the site plays in adapting to climate change, mitigating flood risk and also in the connectivity of the green network.

Redesignation and Disposal of Amenity Green Space

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 82

AGS 3 Consideration of the disposal of an amenity green space proven surplus to requirements should only be given if the site is not required for alternative use for either environmental or recreational purposes. Sites should only be considered for disposal where they are both poor quality, and located in an area where there are multiple amenity spaces, and the loss of the site will not result in any accessibility deficiencies.

Areas where disposal of amenity spaces (to improve the quality of nearby sites) should be investigated further include:

• Northwich; and • Winsford.

New provision

The recommended quantity standard across the Borough is set at the existing level of provision. This reflects an overall focus of improving the quality of amenity spaces, rather than creating new facilities.

When examining the need for amenity spaces at a local level however, it is clear that there are residents outside of the catchment of both amenity green spaces and parks (a higher order facility which negates the need for amenity spaces) as well as areas that are deficient in provision against the quantity standard.

There are also areas deficient in amenity green space when measured against the quantity standard, in particular Grange and Rossmore, Hoole and Newton, Weaver, City and Winsford North and East.

Areas where residents are outside of the catchment for amenity space include:

• parts of Chester (although particularly in the city centre, the presence of parks negates the demand for amenity space, and the commercial nature of the area means that demand is lower than in more residential parts);

• East Tarvin and Ashton (although there are no quantitative deficiencies in Gowy ward, suggesting that other settlements in the ward are particularly well supplied with amenity space);

• East Ellesmere Port ; and

• the Rudheath area of Northwich (oversupplies in both wards of Northwich, although there are issues with overlapping catchments, meaning that amenity space is poorly distributed). This area is also served with other types of space.

While the above areas are currently devoid of provision, with the exception of East Tarvin and Ashton, addressing these shortfalls is not priority, as the gaps in provision are met by other higher order facilities. As well as the creation of new areas of open space, opportunities to provide amenity green space may also arise as a result of:

• housing development (discussed later);

• temporary or permanent conversion of brownfield sites; and

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 83

• creation of links between schools and the community – opening up education assets for use by the community outside of curricular hours.

In some areas where deficiencies have been identified, or where population growth will increase demand for space, there may be limited opportunities to provide new amenity spaces due to the density of housing and / or the current design or layout of the estates. This is likely to include more central areas of Chester, as well as Winsford and Northwich.

In these parts, it may be necessary to consider innovative solutions such as green roofs, green walls and street trees. While these may not provide the same function as amenity spaces, as well as offering wider environmental benefits, they can create a sense of green in the local area. The creation of home zones can also provide an alternative to the provision of formal amenity spaces.

New Amenity Space

AGS 4 Provide new amenity spaces in areas where residents are outside of the catchment of existing amenity green space, specifically:

• East Tarvin and Ashton; and

• East Ellesmere Port.

Deficiencies are of particular importance where the quantity of provision is also below the recommended standards.

In areas where the structure of existing development means that the provision of new amenity space is not possible, consider the implementation of innovative solutions such as green roofs and green walls or the development of community use agreements with education sites.

Although the local standard is set at the existing level of provision (0.81 ha per 1000), population growth will mean that the level of amenity space across the borough will fall below the recommended minimum standards. It will therefore be important to ensure that contributions towards amenity green space are collected from new developments, and that spaces are provided either on site (where the development is of sufficient size to require a site large enough to be functional), or the quality of existing sites in the neighbourhood are improved where this is the more appropriate solution. The importance of providing new spaces as part of new development was highlighted during consultation and the reliance on local open space is also evident. New development may be located in areas outside of the catchment of existing spaces. New amenity green space will be required in new developments where either the amount of provision in the area is below the recommended standards, and / or residents in the new development will not be within the accessibility catchment of an existing amenity green space.

Amenity Green Space in New Development

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 84

AGS 5 Ensure that policy requires contributions towards amenity green space as part of new development in line with the standards set out in this report. Promote an accessibility led approach to determine levels of provision required as part of new development and ensure that a strategic approach is used to determine the most appropriate contributions. Where new provision is not required, policy should require contributions towards qualitative improvements. New amenity green space will be required in new developments where either the amount of provision in the area is below the recommended standards, and / or residents in the new development will not be within the accessibility catchment of an existing amenity green space.

Other issues

Amenity green space forms an important part of the green infrastructure network in Cheshire West and Chester and can play an important role in providing linkages to other larger open spaces, such as parks and natural open space. Improving footpaths, disabled access and ensuring safe routes to these spaces will support the creation of an overall joined up network of spaces.

Creating linkages

AGS 6 Promote the development of an interconnected network of open spaces for both residents and wildlife. This should include the creation of pedestrian routes and cyclepaths, and joined up green spaces. Ensure that any development or loss of amenity space does not impact upon connectivity.

Summary

This section sets out a strategic framework for the future provision of amenity green spaces across Cheshire West and Chester.

Although there are mixed views on the amount of amenity green spaces provided, the quality of provision is of significantly higher concern to residents the amount of spaces. This is supported by analysis of the existing provision, which demonstrates that while there are areas with an abundance of amenity green space, the majority of residents are able to access some amenity space. There is limited correlation between views on provision and the amount of space provided and it is clear that perceptions are impacted upon by both the quality and quantity of space.

Analysis of the quality of provision demonstrates that amenity spaces are amongst the poorest of typologies, with many considered to be lacking in function. Amenity spaces also attract litter, dog fouling and anti social behaviour. Cleanliness and maintenance was highlighted as the key priority for these sites. There are clusters of poor quality space in Northwich, Winsford and Blacon as well as some higher quality facilities.

Amenity space is important in providing local recreational opportunities for residents, particularly in areas where mobility is lower, but also helps in the creation of a network of linked open spaces. Amenity space can provide local links between residential areas and other green spaces and many of these spaces therefore remain important.

The key priorities are summarised overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 85

Protection Enhancement

Policy should protect against the loss of valuable Support the improvement of amenity green spaces across amenity spaces, by ensuring that planning the Borough, using the quality vision to identify issues of priority importance. Support may be either financial, or in permission that would result in the loss of: kind, through guidance in applying for external funding or the provision of advice for example. • sites serving unique catchments (regardless of quality); or Priority should be given to:

• high quality spaces that are of value to local • sites that are high value but low quality – ie sites that are serving unique catchments and are well used, but residents should not be granted, unless it can are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this be proven that alternatives of higher category include: community benefit will be provided. ­ School Lane Amenity Space (Elton)

­ Jack Lane Amenity Space (Davenham)

­ Gorse Field Tattenhall

• areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. Wards where particular quality issues have been identified include Northwich East and Shackerley, Blacon, Eddisbury and Northwich West. Additionally, almost all of the poorest scoring sites are situated in Blacon, Winsford and Northwich, meaning that there are high concentrations of poor facilities.

Areas where the amount of amenity space is low, and amenity spaces are therefore more likely to be of importance to residents. The quality of amenity space in Blacon and Eddisbury in particular is low, and there are also high deficiencies of space. This means amenity space is likely to be important to residents and improvement is a priority. In particular, given the higher levels of deprivation in Blacon, and the resulting reliance on local open space, amenity space is of even greater significance in this area.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 86

New Provision Redesignation

Provide new amenity spaces in areas currently Consideration of the disposal of an amenity green space devoid of amenity space, specifically: proven surplus to requirements should only be given if the site is not required for alternative use for either • East Tarvin and Ashton; and environmental or recreational purposes.

• East Ellesmere Port Areas where disposal of amenity spaces (to improve the quality of nearby sites) should be investigated further In areas where the structure of existing development include: means that the provision of new amenity space is not possible, consider the implementation of • Northwich; and innovative solutions such as green roofs and green walls or the development of community use • Winsford agreements with education facilities.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 87

6. Provision for Children (12 and under)

Introduction and definition

06 PPG17 states that the broad objective of provision for children and young people is to ensure that they have opportunities to interact with their peers and learn social and movement skills within their home environment.

This typology encompasses a vast range of outdoor provision, from small areas of green space with a single piece of equipment (similar to amenity green space) to large, multi purpose play areas. In line with PPG17, it considers equipped provision only. It is however recognised (and is evident from the survey for children and young people) that young people do value parks and other types of open space as much as they do specialist equipped facilities. The role of other play facilities, including indoor play centres and youth clubs, is also recognised.

PPG17 notes that categorising facilities under one heading often ignores the needs of older children. Each site and range of equipment has a different purpose and often serves a different age group and target audience. Provision of facilities for children does not necessarily negate the need for outdoor provision for young people and vice versa.

In light of the differences between provision for children and young people, this typology has been subdivided and facilities for children and young people have been analysed separately. The provision of facilities for young people across Cheshire West and Chester is discussed in Section 7.

Provision for children, discussed in this section, includes equipped play areas and adventure playgrounds that cater for children under 12. Toddlers play areas are also considered under this classification. These facilities are referred to as facilities for children throughout this report. Where a site contains equipment for both toddlers and children, this is classified as one site. It is recognised that there is a degree of overlap between facilities targeting different aged children, with many sites used by children under and over 12. The categories have therefore been subdivided for indicative purposes only.

Results carried out as part of the household survey reveal that only 20.9% of respondents visit play areas for children once per week or more. There are no significant differences between the frequency of use of these facilities in the urban and rural wards.

The population profile of respondents will however have influenced these recorded levels of use. The survey carried out with children and young people demonstrates the value that this age range place on play facilities, and also highlights the role that other open spaces have in the provision of more informal play.

This section considers the provision of facilities for children aged below 12, highlights the key issues arising and provides a detailed application of the recommended local standards. It sets the key priorities for the future delivery of play facilities for children to inform both the Local Development Framework, the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy and the development of a Cheshire West and Chester Play Strategy. Analysis draws on the findings of the Local Needs Assessment (Appendix A).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 88

Quantity of play provision across Cheshire West and Chester

Provision for children aged below 12

Over 18.6 hectares is dedicated to the provision of facilities for children across the Borough. CW&C Council are the largest provider of such facilities, but Parish and Town Councils play a particularly key role in the more rural areas of the Borough.

The size of play facilities ranges considerably from sites containing just one piece of equipment, to sites offering a wide range of play facilities.

Table 6.1 below summarises the distribution of the existing play facilities, illustrating that provision is equally spread between the urban and rural parts of the Borough when taking into account the amount of people living in each area. The number of facilities in the urban wards is however significantly higher.

Table 6.1 – Play areas for children under 12 across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number of Total Range of Hectares Future Hectares Sites Provision Provision (ha) per 1000 per 1000 (ha) Population population (2017) (ha) (ha) Cheshire West 217 18.64 0.0020 – 0.67 0.06 0.05 and Chester Rural Wards 85 6.82 0.0037 – 0.33 0.06 0.06 Urban Wards 132 11.82 0.0020 – 0.67 0.06 0.05 NB figures may not sum exactly due to rounding

The size of sites provided varies substantially, from 0.0020 – 0.67 ha. This variation is more apparent in the urban areas, where there are some much larger facilities provided. 29 of the above facilities contain less than three pieces of equipment. Of these, 13 are located in rural areas, and 16 are situated in the urban parts of the Borough.

Although analysis demonstrates that there is an even split in provision between the rural and urban areas, interrogation of the distribution of these sites at a ward level indicates that provision is substantially higher in some parts of the Borough than in others. Table 6.2 overleaf summarises the provision of play areas by ward and outlines the level of satisfaction of residents (extracted from the Local Needs Assessment (pmpgenesis 2010). The location of these facilities is illustrated in maps provided in Appendix G.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 89

Table 6.2 – Summary of play areas for children under 12 across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number Total Hectares per Public Future Hectares per of Sites Provision 1000 Satisfaction with 1000 population (ha) Population amount of (2017) (ha) (ha) facilities Abbey 6 0.72 0.06 SATISFIED 0.0548

Blacon 10 1.14 0.09 DISSATISFIED 0.0842

Boughton Heath 15 1.1 0.08 SATISFIED 0.0782 and Vicars Cross

Broxton 9 0.35 0.03 SATISFIED 0.0311 Central and 8 0.63 0.04 DISSATISFIED 0.0392 Westminster

City 13 0.33 0.02 DISSATISFIED 0.0224

Eddisbury 6 0.56 0.05 SATISFIED 0.0470 Frodsham and 8 0.72 0.05 DISSATISFIED 0.0478 Helsby

Gowy 9 0.48 0.03 SATISFIED 0.0355 Grange and 8 0.57 0.04 DISSATISFIED 0.0370 Rossmore

Groves and Whitby 4 0.92 0.07 DISSATISFIED 0.0643

Hoole and Newton 5 0.37 0.03 SATISFIED 0.0296 Ledsham and 8 0.6 0.05 DISSATISFIED 0.0547 Willaston

Marbury 13 1.36 0.10 DISSATISFIED 0.0955

Mickle Trafford 12 1.04 0.07 SATISFIED 0.0747 Neston and 6 0.37 0.03 SATISFIED 0.0262 Parkgate Northwich East and 14 1.52 0.11 DISSATISFIED 0.1047 Shackerley

Northwich West 15 1.04 0.06 DISSATISFIED 0.0567

Overleigh 9 0.94 0.07 SATISFIED 0.0635

Sutton and Manor 3 0.73 0.05 DISSATISFIED 0.0499

Upton 5 0.31 0.03 DISSATISFIED 0.0238

Weaver 7 0.62 0.05 SATISFIED 0.0453 Winsford North and 15 1.86 0.12 DISSATISFIED 0.1151 East Winsford South and 9 0.38 0.03 DISSATISFIED 0.0253 West

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 90

Analysis of the amount of land dedicated to play areas (and the number of facilities) per 1000 population indicates that provision is particularly low in City, Hoole and Newton, Upton, Winsford South and West and Broxton.

In contrast, provision exceeds 0.8 ha per 1000 population in Blacon, Marbury, Northwich East and Shackerley and Winsford North and East.

Consultation

Consultation demonstrates that views regarding the amount of children’s play areas are divided. 42.3% of respondents consider provision to be sufficient while 46.9% of respondents think that more are required. Residents in the urban area are however considerably more negative than those in the rural areas, with more residents suggesting that provision is insufficient than think that there are enough facilities. Views are particularly negative in Blacon, Sutton, Upton and in Northwich and Winsford – with the exception of Blacon (where provision is amongst the highest in the Borough), there are parts of all of these areas which are low in provision, meaning that views of residents correspond with the actual provision on the ground.

In contrast, more residents in the rural areas are satisfied with provision. While many comments made relate directly to the quantity of facilities, the poor quality and small size of existing facilities is also referenced, along with misuse of facilities by older children. This suggests that while in some areas there is a genuine lack of provision, in other areas qualitative issues may influence perceptions of quality.

Views to an extent link with the actual levels of provision, with residents in many of the areas with low levels of provision per 1000 population being less satisfied than those where there is more provision.

The lack of direct correlation however serves to demonstrate the overlap between the quality and quantity of provision.

Like the household survey, there is evidence of differing opinions through other modes of consultation. More than half of online respondents believe provision to be insufficient and additional demand was identified in the community group and Parish Council survey. While some shortfalls of provision were recognised by officers and external agencies, the quality of facilities was perceived to be a key issue, and it was suggested that there are not enough high quality facilities.

Quality of facilities for children aged below 12

Site visits reveal that the average score for children’s play areas is 67%. This means that play areas are of a higher average quality than many other types of open space. Analysis of the range of scores achieved however highlights the spectrum of facilities provided in the borough, with scores ranging from 24% to 100%. It is therefore clear that while there are some facilities of very high quality, many of which have recently been provided, there are some facilities that offer little play value or benefit to the community in their current form, as they are old and dated, or offer little equipment.

Figure 6.1 overleaf illustrates the average quality scores achieved for each factor rated during site assessments. To take into account the fact that the matrix requires some factors to be scored out of five, and some out of six, all scores have been converted to percentages to enable comparison. The figures below take into account all sites, including those with three or less pieces of equipment.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 91

Figure 6.1 – Quality issues at play areas for children below 12

Quality Issues - Provision for Children

80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% Provision of Quality of Equipment Litter Security Equipment

It is clear from site visits that while litter management is relatively effective at play areas, with most providing at least one bin and being fenced from the remainder of the site, the quality of the equipment and lack of variation in this equipment, and the perceived security of the site is much lower. The amount of equipment provided varied significantly, with some sites perceived as offering high play value, while others are poor. Although litter is not problematic at most sites, there remain some sites in the Borough with chronic litter problems.

Quality scores achieved during site visits in the urban and rural areas are summarised in Table 6.3 below. It demonstrates that the range of issues, and the variety in the quality of provision, is evident in both the rural and urban areas. Consultation demonstrated that there are no real differences in views on the quality of provision between residents in the rural and urban areas.

Table 6.3 – Quality of play areas for children below 12 in Cheshire West and Chester

Range of Average Wards with Wards with lower Quality quality high quality quality sites Scores % score % sites Urban Groves and Whitby, Overleigh, Frodsham and Helsby, 24-96% 65% City, Upton Northwich East and Shakerley Rural Eddisbury, Broxton, Abbey, 41-100% 69% Marbury Weaver Cheshire West and Overleigh, Groves and Whitby, 24-100% 65% Chester City, Upton Broxton

Given the local catchment of play areas, consideration has also been given to the quality of these sites by ward. Table 6.4 overleaf outlines the quality scores and range of scores on a ward- by-ward basis. It also highlights wards where more residents were satisfied with the quality of provision than dissatisfied. While the majority of residents with higher quality facilities are satisfied, in areas where the average quality score is low, some residents are satisfied with the quality of provision. The amount of facilities may impact on these decisions. It is also clear that in all areas where there are poor facilities, there are also high quality sites, meaning that views are likely to vary within a ward. There is a strong correlation between the range of quality scores and satisfaction – ie in areas where there are is a greater variety, residents are more likely to be dissatisfied. The quality scores achieved by each of these facilities is illustrated in maps provided in Appendix G.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 92

Table 6.4 - Quality of play areas for children below 12 in Cheshire West and Chester by ward

Average Quality Range of Quality Public satisfaction with Ward Score % Scores (%) quality

Abbey 59 42-76 DISSATISFIED Blacon 61 24-83 DISSATISFIED Boughton Heath and 71 48-89 SATISFIED Vicars Cross Broxton 55 56-89 SATISFIED Central and Westminster 68 55-86 DISSATISFIED City 75 62-86 DISSATISFIED Eddisbury 73 68-77 SATISFIED Frodsham and Helsby 56 40-80 SATISFIED Gowy 69 41-90 SATISFIED Grange and Rossmore 63 44-97 DISSATISFIED Groves and Whitby 56 41-86 SATISFIED Hoole and Newton 72 40-86 SATISFIED Ledsham and Willaston 65 49-83 DISSATISFIED Marbury 71 48-100 SATISFIED Mickle Trafford 66 54-91 SATISFIED Neston and Parkgate 63 46-80 SATISFIED Northwich East and 60 28-89 SATISFIED Shackerley Northwich West 60 44-82 DISSATISFIED Overleigh 75 57-85 SATISFIED Sutton and Manor 60 59-62 DISSATISFIED Upton 74 66-83 SATISFIED Weaver 59 49-93 SATISFIED Winsford North and East 67 49-86 DISSATISFIED Winsford South and West 64 27-87 DISSATISFIED

Table 6.4 above reveals that the spread of quality is evident across most wards, and there are no wards containing just high quality or just poor facilities.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 93

Consultations

For those that use children’s play areas more than any other type of open space, cleanliness and appropriate facilities are perceived to be the most important features. Toilets, a dog free area, flowers and trees, a picnic area and seating were also considered important.

Supporting the varying scores achieved, like the quantity of provision, the household survey revealed varied views on the quality of play facilities, with almost as many residents indicating that the quality of provision is poor as consider it to be good.

Participants in other consultations are less positive than those responding to the household survey, with more respondents to the online survey and officer survey considering provision to be poor than rating it average or good. The recent investment in play areas, and the good relationships with the local community were however highlighted as key strengths of provision across Cheshire West and Chester.

The quality scores achieved for each site, and the key issues arising during the assessment can be found in the site assessment database.

Access

The assessment of local needs highlights that facilities for children are expected to be in close proximity to the home. 89% of residents in Cheshire West and Chester would expect to find an appropriate site within walking distance of their home, and most would expect to reach a site within 10 minutes.

Site assessments reveal that on the whole, facilities for children are accessible to most residents, although in some instances, there are no pathways across the wider amenity space, making access more difficult.

Access links to the site were identified as a key priority, and signage was also considered to be in need of improvement at many sites.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities that consider:

• accessibility – the distance that residents expect to travel to reach each type of open space (and the mode of transport that they would expect to use);

• quantity – the amount of provision (in hectares) that would be expected for each type of open space per 1000 population; and

• quality – the key features that are important to residents for each type of open space.

The recommended local standards for facilities for children in Cheshire West and Chester have been derived from the local needs consultation (Appendix A) and audit of provision and are summarised overleaf. Standards are based on an accessibility led approach. Full justifications for the standards set are provided within Appendix D.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 94

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard 10 minute walk time (480m) from a facility containing at least 3 pieces of equipment

Justification The findings of the consultation demonstrate that play areas are expected local to the home. As a result, there is a strong emphasis that such sites should be accessible on foot (89% would expect to walk). It is also clear that such sites are expected in both rural and urban parts of the Borough.

In all areas, the average and most common responses are similar (9 and 10 minutes respectively). Views on quality and quantity of provision however indicate that the quality of play areas, and the provision of challenging facilities, is as important as the location of such sites. Residents are willing to travel further to reach higher quality facilities. In order to promote a strategic approach to the provision of play areas, and facilitate the provision of a range of high quality sites, a standard of 10 minutes walk time has been set. This standard takes into account the expectations of residents by promoting the provision of easily accessible, high quality space.

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standard No quantity standard set – accessibility led approach to be taken

Justification Consultation demonstrates real issues with the provision of facilities for children which spread across quality, quantity and accessibility. The importance of providing high quality, local facilities is clear. To ensure that future facility provision is both sustainable and deliverable, an accessibility led strategic approach is to be taken. In line with the accessibility standard, this approach focuses on the provision of a high quality play area within 10 minutes of every home.

The facility provided is to meet with the quality standard (including size and location guidelines) and should be developed through consultation.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 95

Quality Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D)

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

Essential Desirable

A variety of challenging and exciting Dog free area play facilities for a range of ages and mobility

Clean / litter free Seating

Well kept grass and safety surfacing Community involvement

Appropriate boundaries Appropriate location. Overlooked / natural surveillance.

Litter bins

Conformity with national guidance (including size) to be a minimum of LEAP size) and taking into account buffer zones, access and location

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% or higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Applying local provision standards

The application of the recommended quantity, quality and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of facilities for children and identifying areas where provision is insufficient, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, to meet local need.

The application of standards drives the key priorities, and ensures that emphasis is placed upon meeting local needs.

Application of accessibility standards

The accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents are located within a 10 minute walk (480m) of a play area containing a minimum of three pieces of play equipment. In the absence of a quantity standard, the accessibility standard will be the central point for decision-making.

Application of this standard highlights that the distribution of facilities across the Borough is even, with relatively few residents outside of the catchment area of a facility. The main gaps in provision for children aged under 12 include:

• East Helsby; • ; • Lache (Chester); • Molllington (Chester);

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 96

• (Chester); • Delamere; • Whitegate; • Sandiway; and • Cotebrook and .

These deficiencies are illustrated on the maps provided in Appendix G.

In addition to the above identified gaps in provision, there is evidence of overlapping catchments, where some play areas are serving similar residents. This is particularly apparent in Winsford and Northwich, and in some areas of Ellesmere Port.

Application of the quality standard

The site assessments undertaken and the recommended quality standard provide a means of evaluating the adequacy of existing provision. The local standard sets a target score of 75%.

Just over 75% of sites are classified as average or good, and circa a third of play areas meet the target quality score. This suggests that there are comparatively fewer poorer facilities than other typologies, although those facilities that are poor, achieve vary low scores, supporting the conclusion that there are significant variations in provision.

Figure 6.2 below illustrates the proportion of play areas for children aged below 12 achieving the quality standard.

Figure 6.2 – Proportion of play areas for children aged below 12 achieving the quality standard

Quality of Facilities for Children

25% 35% Improv ement Required Av era ge

Good

40%

Figure 6.1 (earlier in this section) outlined the key issues arising through assessments of quality. The variation in the quality of facilities in the Borough is clear (see Table 6.4 earlier in the section) with a significant range of quality scores achieved. This range is evident across the Borough, and there are poor and high quality facilities throughout.

Application of quantity standards

As explained previously in this section, in order to facilitate a strategic approach to the provision of play areas, no quantity standard has been set. Instead application of the accessibility standard will be used to determine areas of shortfall and surplus.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 97

To inform decision making, the Boroughwide average level of provision will however be used as a guide, enabling analysis of whether an area is above or below the average level of provision in the area.

Key Priorities

Analysis of the audit, the assessment of local needs and the application of local standards highlights the following key issues with regards the provision of play areas for children aged below 12 in Cheshire West and Chester:

• There are mixed views on the amount of facilities for children across Cheshire West and Chester, and provision for children emerged as one of the key issues during consultation. Application of the accessibility standard however demonstrates that the majority of residents have access to at least one facility for children, although there are some areas where new provision may be required. As well as areas of deficiency, there are some examples of play areas with overlapping catchments, and analysis suggests that views on the amount of • Ensure the quantity of provision are impacted upon by the perceived open space is sufficient quality of provision across the Borough. to meet local needs and expectations • The quality of facility provided is greatly varying, with examples of high quality and new facilities as • Ensure that sites are well as some poorer facilities. 29 play areas which accessible and contain 3 or fewer pieces of equipment have functional and provide been recorded – these facilities in particular offer maximum benefit to the limited play value to residents and at the time of local community site visits, many of these sites appear to attract little or no use. These facilities are distributed across the • Maximise the quality of borough and are not concentrated in one area; open spaces in terms of both recreation and • Residents expect to find facilities local to their biodiversity. Green home, and access to facilities is particularly Space must be safe, important. accessible, attractive and of high quality The remainder of this section highlights the key priorities for the future delivery of facilities for children under 12, based on the above issues. The key priorities seek to deliver the basic objectives of PPG17 and are set out under the following headings:

• Qualitative Improvements (including management and maintenance)

• Rationalisation and Decommissioning

• Access improvements

• New provision.

Qualitative improvements

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 98

Although the quantity of provision was identified as a key theme during consultation, it is clear that in many instances, views on the quantity of provision are impacted upon by opinions on the quality of facilities. Almost as many residents think that the quality of facilities is poor as consider it to be good.

This interpretation is supported by the application of accessibility standards and comments made during the consultation process, which demonstrate that the majority of residents in the Borough do have access to a facility within the recommended distance threshold. The suggestion is therefore that the facility perhaps is not of the quality that is required, and residents believe that there are not enough facilities of the desired quality. Areas where the provision of new facilities will need to take priority over the improvement of existing sites will be discussed later in this section.

Analysis of the range of scores achieved during site visits reveals that while the average score is higher than many other types of open space, the spectrum of facilities provided in the Borough is much wider, with scores ranging from 24% to 100%. Many of the poorer quality facilities are therefore very poor, and have little value in their current form. The level of public opinion, coupled with the even distribution of facilities that is evident, suggests that improvements to the quality of poorer quality facilities should be prioritised. Moss Farm Play Area, Northwich

In addition to improving the general cleanliness A play area has recently opened at Moss Farm Leisure Centre, Northwich. The play and maintenance of sites (identified as a key area has been designed as a natural play priority in surveys), consultation concludes that area using natural materials where possible. residents would like to see a greater variety of It includes a basket swing, large climbing provision, and more challenging equipment. The frame with slide and a climbing tree. Bark and sand have been used throughout and provision of challenging play opportunities is new footpaths have been created. supported in guidance developed by Play England, specifically in the recent publications The site has been developed through the Managing Risk in Play Provision and Design for Play Builder Scheme in partnership with Play. pupils from Winnington Park Community School and Hartford High School, who were (http://www.playengland.org.uk/resources/man involved in the planning of the project and aging-risk-in-play-provision-implementation- identification of the facilities to be used on guide). The guidance moves away from the site. It is hoped that the involvement of provision of traditional swings and slides and pupils from the outset will ensure that the facility reflects local aspirations and foster a encourages the development of more sense of community ownership and innovative opportunities, including natural play involvement. environments.

Adherence to this guidance is therefore likely to see a greater overlap and interrelationship between natural open spaces, informal open spaces such as parks and amenity green spaces and provision for children and young people in future years. It is likely that a successful approach to the provision of play will encompass both traditional facilities and newer challenging natural play environments. The Caldy Valley Nature Park is an example of a play facility in Cheshire West and Chester that seeks to integrate the natural environment with play facilities.

In order to improve the quality of facilities, quality scores, as well as independent play area inspections that are carried out annually, should be used to identify poor quality sites. Facilities that are of poorer quality and currently serve unique catchment areas (ie. provide the only accessible resource for local residents) should be prioritised. These include:

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 99

• Top Road Play Area, Frodsham • Brown Heath Recreation Ground, Waverton, Chester • Weaver Road Play Area, Moulton • Kelsall Recreation Ground Play Area, Kelsall.

Wards with a higher proportion of lower quality facilities should also be targeted, as these lower quality sites damage overall perceptions of provision. Such wards include:

• Blacon • Northwich East and Shakerley • Winsford South and West.

The site database contains a full list of sites and the scores achieved, as well as the key issues identified.

The majority of sites at large parks and recreation grounds achieve high scores. Many of these facilities serve as destination facilities for residents of the Borough, as well as local facilities for residents who live in close proximity to the park (and therefore in reality have a wider catchment area). Residents travel further to reach parks, and improvements at these sites where quality issues are identified should be prioritised. Such facilities include:

• Griffiths Park, Northwich • Blacon Poets Park • Play area at Verdin Park, Northwich • Play area at Grosvenor Park and Water Tower Gardens, Chester.

The local quality standard identifies the key features that are considered important in the creation of a local play area. Of particular priority is the involvement of the local community and there are several examples of where this has been successfully implemented across the Borough. Engagement with the local community at the outset and throughout the project has proven to increase ownership and respect for a facility and also helps to ensure that the facility embraces local needs and aspirations.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 100

Enhancing existing provision CHIL 1 Seek to upgrade traditional facilities with challenging and exciting play facilities for children and young people that encourage children to explore their boundaries and balance risk and safety. This may include the creation of natural play areas which link with the surrounding environment as well as equipped play facilities.

• key priorities include sites serving unique catchments such as Top Road Play Area, Frodsham, Brown Heath Recreation Ground, Weaver Road Play Area and Kelsall Recreation Ground Play Area; and

• sites at major venues (priorities include Blacon, Northwich and Chester).

Improvements to play areas should take into account the areas identified as being particularly important in the local standards, including cleanliness and maintenance, appropriate boundaries and provision of litterbins.

The standard also highlights the importance of ensuring that that the local community are involved and engaged with plans to improve existing play areas.

Rationalisation and decommissioning

Recommendation CHIL 1 above highlights the importance of prioritising qualitative improvements to existing facilities and emphasises the impact that poor quality facilities are having on the perception of facilities for children across the Borough. In order to facilitate improvements to existing facilities, as well as to promote the strategic distribution of play provision across the Borough, consideration should be given to the value of sites that offer limited play value and / or serve overlapping catchments.

Blacon,Northwich East and Shakerley and Winsford South and West all contain a series of lower scoring play facilities, and many more wards have several sites that are identified for improvement.

There are 29 facilities that have little or no play value in their current form due to the small number of pieces of equipment that they contain. There are also numerous other facilities where the quality is such that they have limited play value. Such facilities may be of limited value to the community. Cheshire West and Chester Council are already considering how best to maximise the investment into play facilities through a decommissioning policy, where sites are identified to be of low value.

Sites which should be considered further (determined by both site assessments and research work undertaken by the Council) include:

• Danefield Road Play Area, Northwich – currently vandalised and located in an area behind housing. Site needs significant improvement or disposal • Cleveland Way Play Area, Winsford – equipment currently missing, site requires improvement or disposal • Walker Street Play Area, Chester – equipment missing and poor quality site • Randle Meadow Play Area, Great Sutton – equipment missing • Stones Manor Lane Play Area, Hartford – contains only a swing • Long Meadow Play Area, Weaverham – equipment missing / removed • Rookery Rise Play Area, Winsford - equipment missing / removed • Townsend Road Play Area, - equipment missing / removed • Marlborough Avenue Play Area, Winsford – poor condition, only one piece of equipment • Rowan Rise Play Area, Barnton – very small site, no evidence of use

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 101

• Rother Drive, Ellesmere Port – limited play value • Elm Grove – Ellesmere Port – limited play value.

In addition to those identified above, there are several significant overlapping catchments, particularly in Northwich and Winsford and in Blacon and Newton (Chester). These are visible on Maps provided in Appendix G.

Of particular note on these maps are overlapping play areas in very close proximity in Kingsmead, Northwich and on Duchess Place, Chester and the Holkham, Vicars Cross.

Savings on revenue costs of maintaining such facilities should be put towards the improvement of other nearby facilities, in particular those identified above.

Rationalisation and Decommisioning CHIL 2 Rationalise facilities which serve overlapping catchments and / or have limited play value / value to the community. Ensure that any resulting revenue savings are reinvested into nearby play facilities, providing an overall improvement in the quality of resources available.

Priority areas include:

• Northwich (including Kingsmead) • Chester • Winsford.

Protection

Children’s play areas are highly valued local facilities and were one of the most frequently discussed typologies during consultations. 20.9% of household survey respondents visit these sites weekly (despite the age profile of these respondents) and 13% of young people suggest that this is their favourite type of site.

The application of the accessibility standard identifies the need for some additional play facilities in the Borough, although as highlighted above, there is also an opportunity to rationalise provision in some areas.

Where play areas serve unique catchments, and particularly where they also meet the target quality score, they provide a highly valuable resource and should be retained. Sites that are particularly valuable include:

• Village Playing Field - Dodleston • Sandy Lane Play Area - Chester • Maddocks Close Play Area – Farndon, Chester • Vickers Way Play Area - Northwich • Manor Avenue Play Area - Marston • King George V Field Play Area - Tarvin • Mickle Trafford Park, Springfields – Mickle Trafford • Hill Top Play Area, • Blackstairs Road Play area – Ellesmere Port • Stubbs Lane Play Area - Northwich • Wealstone Lane Play Area – Upton, Chester • Cuddington Play Area - Cuddington • Pullford Close Play Area - Northwich

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 102

The play facility at Cheshire Oaks was also highlighted as being particularly valuable during consultations, as it is covered and therefore provides play opportunities during rainy days.

Protection CHIL 3 Due to the value of facilities for children to the local community, retain all sites that serve unique catchments. Facilities should only be lost where it can be proven that there is no demand for a facility or that improvements to another site in the immediate catchment of the site will be of greater value to residents.

New provision

While as highlighted previously, the distribution of facilities across the Borough is good, application of the accessibility standard reveals that there are some areas where residents have to travel further than the recommended 10 minutes to reach a play area. Given that provision should be accessibility led, new facilities are therefore required in these areas.

The key gaps in provision, and the resulting needs for new provision are as follows:

• East Helsby • Little Stanney • Lache • Mollington • Christleton • Delamere • Whitegate • Sandiway • Cotebrook (this was also raised by the Parish Play Area, Clutton Primary School Council). Clutton Primary School contains a play area The need for additional children’s play areas containing adventure play equipment, donated by the PTA. The facility is located to was also identified in Tarporley and by the rear of the school grounds and is directly the Parish Councils. accessible from the school playground through a gate. An additional gate is In some areas, existing amenity spaces and provided leading on to the main road, parks may provide the opportunity to locate a which although locked during school hours, is unlocked during evenings and weekends, facility within the site, rather than providing new enabling the play facility to be used by local spaces. Maps illustrating the interrelationship children. Access to the school through the between amenity green space and facilities for other gate is closed off during these times. children are provided in Appendix G. They however demonstrate that in most of the areas The site is fully enclosed and contains a variety of play equipment. It is an excellent of deficiency, there are limited opportunities for example of how a facility can serve both the collocation of amenity space and facilities school pupils and the local community, for children. maximising resources.

School sites also offer an important opportunity to provide play facilities for the local community, and many schools already contain facilities for use by pupils during curricular hours only. Facilities at school sites, designed to ensure that they are accessible to the community as well as to pupils (without compromising school security) can offset deficiencies of community facilities and facilitate the provision of facilities in areas that would otherwise not have any.

New Provision

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 103

CHIL 4 Provide new facilities for children (drawing on the quality standards) in locations currently devoid of provision and where demand has been identified, specifically:

• Tarporley • Pulford • Cotebrook and Utkinton • East Helsby • Little Stanney • Mollington • Christleton • Delamere • Whitegate • Sandiway

New facilities may be provided in a traditional manner, or by seeking alternative approaches, such as the location of facilities at school sites.

In addition to providing new facilities to meet current need, it will be essential to ensure that new facilities are provided to accommodate the needs of new residents to the area. While consideration should be given to the impact of every new development, not all should require new on site provision.

The assessment of need highlighted the benefits of a strategic approach to play provision, and this will be particularly important if quality targets are to be achieved. Consultation revealed concerns about the number of play areas provided as part of new developments that have limited or no play value, and are in close proximity to other sites. This is also evidenced by the high number of facilities with three or fewer pieces of equipment, many of which are in close proximity to each other. The accessibility standard should therefore be used to determine whether and where new provision will be required, or if contributions towards improving the existing facility, in recognition of the additional demand that will be placed on it, would be more appropriate. This accessibility approach will ensure that facilities are only provided where they are really required, and prioritise quality over quantity. Policy should determine the minimum size of development that may be required to provide a play area on site (this is discussed further in S13).

Provision as part of new development CHIL 5 Ensure that policy requires contributions towards facilities for children as part of new development as appropriate. Promote an accessibility led approach to the determination of levels of provision required in order to ensure the strategic provision of facilities. Where the supply of facilities for children in the surrounding area is sufficient, policy should ensure that contributions are required for qualitative improvements. Where the supply of formal parks in the surrounding area is not sufficient, on site provision should be required, and policy should indicate the minimum size of development that may trigger on site play facilities. This can be justified as all new developments will impact on demand for play provision.

Increasing access to existing facilities

Consultation demonstrates that facilities are expected to be in close proximity to the home and that local opportunities for play are important to residents. The importance of providing a balance between quality and quantity of provision is also recognised however, and the local standards seek to provide a high quality facility within 10 minutes of every home.

Facilities that are not accessible to residents are of limited value and this is particularly true of facilities for children. The local nature of these sites means that access is expected on foot, as

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 104 reflected by the local standard. It is also essential to ensure that access issues for parents with young children are taken into account, such as the frequent requirement for pushchairs at these sites.

A network of appropriate footpaths and cycle paths should be provided between residential neighbourhoods, play facilities and other green spaces, ensuring safe and clear access routes for parents and children. This links with recommendations for other types of open space and was identified as one of the key priorities for improvement in facilities for children. The importance of appropriate signage and pathways was also highlighted. Signage was perceived to be in need of improvement at many sites.

Access Routes CHIL 6 Facilitate the development of the green infrastructure network between large residential neighbourhoods, play facilities and other green spaces.

Encourage the development of facilities on sites that are easily accessible by public transport.

Summary

In accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide, this section sets out a strategic framework for the future provision of facilities for children across the Borough.

Consultation demonstrates that there are mixed views on the amount of facilities for children across Cheshire West and Chester, and provision for children emerged as one of the key issues during the local needs assessment.

Application of the accessibility standard however demonstrates that the majority of residents have access to at least one facility for children, although there are some areas where new provision may be required. In addition, there are a series of play areas with overlapping catchments, many of which are poor quality or have limited play value. Analysis suggests that views on the amount of provision are impacted upon by the perceived quality of provision across the Borough and there are therefore both quality and quantity issues.

Reflecting this, a strategic approach has been taken to play facilities and no quantity standard has been set, instead, need for new provision should be determined using an accessibility led approach.

The quality of facility provided across the Borough is highly varying, with examples of very high quality and new facilities as well as some poorer sites. 29 play areas that contain 3 or fewer pieces of equipment have been recorded – these facilities in particular have limited play value. There are opportunities for disposal of some facilities in order to improve the quality of other facilities, and provide an overall improved level of provision to residents.

Residents expect to find facilities local to their home, and access to facilities is particularly important. Safe pedestrian routes were felt to be important if use of facilities was to be maximised, and these sites should be accessible from all residential areas.

The key priorities are summarised below:

Protection Enhancement

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 105

Protection should extend to play Seek to upgrade traditional facilities with challenging and exciting play facilities areas that serve unique catchment for children and young people that encourage children to explore their areas and to play facilities of high boundaries and balance risk and safety. This may include the creation of quality. natural play areas which link with the surrounding environment as well as equipped play facilities.

The majority of sites at large parks and recreation grounds achieve high scores. Many of these facilities serve as destination facilities for residents of the Borough, as well as local facilities for residents who live in close proximity to the park (and therefore in reality have a wider catchment area). Residents travel further to reach parks, and improvements at these sites where quality issues are identified should be prioritised. Such facilities include:

• Griffiths Park, Northwich • Blacon Poets Park • Play area at Verdin Park, Northwich • Play area at Grosvenor Park and Water Tower Gardens, Chester.

Other priorities include sites serving unique catchments such as Top Road Play Area, Frodsham, Brown Heath Recreation Ground, Weaver Road Play Area and Kelsall Recreation Ground Play Area

Sites at major venues (priorities include Blacon, Northwich and Chester) should also be prioritised.

Improvements to play areas should take into account the areas identified as being particularly important in the local standards, including cleanliness and maintenance, appropriate boundaries and provision of litterbins.

The standard also highlights the importance of ensuring that that the local community are involved and engaged with plans to improve existing play areas.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 106

New Provision Redesignation / Decomissioning

Provide new facilities for children There are large numbers of facilities which have limited or no play value in (drawing on the quality standards) the current form. The decommissioning of the following sites, all of which are in locations currently devoid of of limited play value (due to their quality), may provide opportunities to provision and where demand has improve the quality of remaining facilities: been identified, specifically: • Danefield Road Play Area, Northwich • Tarporley • Cleveland Way Play Area, Winsford • Pulford • Walker Street Play Area, Chester • Cotebrook and Utkinton • Randle Meadow Play Area, Great Sutton • East Helsby • Stones Manor Lane Play Area, Hartford • Little Stanney • Long Meadow Play Area – Weaverham • Mollington • Rookery Rise Play Area - Winsford • Christleton • Townsend Road Play Area –Lostock Gralam • Delamere • Marlborough Avenue Play Area - Winsford • Whitegate • Rowan Rise Play Area – Barnton • Sandiway • Elm Grove – Groves and Whitby • Rother Drive – Grange and Rossmore

Focus should be placed on Chester, Northwich and Winsford, where there are several overlapping catchments and a wide range of quality scores.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 107

7. Provision for Young People

Introduction and definition

07 PPG17 states that the broad objective of provision for children and young people is to ensure that they have opportunities to interact with their peers and learn social and movement skills within their home environment.

This typology encompasses a vast range of outdoor provision, from small areas of green space with a single piece of equipment (similar to amenity green space) to large, multi purpose play areas. In line with PPG17, it considers equipped provision only. It is however recognised (and is evident from the survey for children and young people) that young people do value parks and other types of open space as much as they do specialist equipped facilities. The role of other play facilities, including indoor play centres and youth clubs, is also recognised.

PPG17 notes that categorising facilities under one heading often ignores the needs of older children. Each site and range of equipment has a different purpose and often serves a different age group and target audience. Provision of play areas for children does not necessarily negate the need for outdoor facilities for young people and vice versa. Given this, provision for children and young people has been subdivided. This section considers provision for young people (aged above 12), while Section 6 evaluated the adequacy of facilities for children aged 12 and below. It is however recognised that there is a degree of overlap between facilities targeting different aged children, with many sites used by children under and over 12. The categories have therefore been subdivided for indicative purposes only.

In recognition of the significant variations in scale of facilities for young people, provision for young people has been subdivided into:

• Strategic Facilities

- Skate parks

- BMX tracks.

• Local Facilities

- Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs)

- Basketball courts

- Youth shelters

- Informal kickabout areas

- Play areas / adventure playgrounds targeting teenagers.

There is significant overlap between many of the above facilities and the outdoor sports categories (indeed many of the basketball posts in Cheshire West and Chester are funded by Sport England).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 108

This section considers the provision of facilities for young people and also evaluates the interrelationship between the specific facilities and the provision of informal open space (such as parks and amenity space). It highlights the key issues arising and provides a detailed application of the recommended local standards. It sets the key priorities for the future delivery of facilities for young people to inform the Local Development Framework, the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy and the development of a Cheshire West and Chester Play Strategy Analysis draws on the findings of the Local Needs Assessment (Appendix A).

Quantity of facilities for young people aged 13 and over across Cheshire West and Chester

Over 7 hectares is dedicated to the provision of facilities for young people across the Borough. CW&C Council are the largest provider of such facilities, owning and managing the majority of sites. Town Councils are also important providers.

Of the facilities provided, 19 are strategic facilities. These comprise:

• 4 BMX facilities; and • 15 Skate parks / facilities. Whitby Wheeled Sports Park, classified above as BMX, also provides for skate boarding.

Supporting these facilities, and providing opportunities for play at a local level are the following:

• 32 MUGAs • 30 Basketball hoops • 17 Shelters • 13 kickabout areas • 2 other (both adventure play).

Table 7.1 below summarises the distribution of facilities for young people. It is clear that there are more facilities for young people in the urban areas than in the more rural settlements. In particular, it is notable that almost all strategic sites are situated within the urban settlements, meaning that residents in rural parts have to travel to reach these facilities.

Table 7.1 – Facilities for young people (aged over 12) across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number of Number Total Hectares per Future Local Sites of Provision (ha) 1000 Hectares per Strategic Population 1000 Sites (ha) Population (2017) (ha) Cheshire West and 0.021 94 18 7.5 ha 0.023 Chester Rural Wards 31 3 1.77ha 0.02 0.03 Urban Wards 63 16 5.73 ha 0.03 0.02

As can be seen, provision per 1000 population in the urban areas is significantly above the levels found in the rural areas, and there are significantly more facilities in the urban areas. As a consequence, residents in the more rural parts are more likely to have to travel to reach facilities.

When analysing the distribution of facilities by ward, it can be seen that there are some parts of the Borough that benefit from significantly higher provision than others. This is summarised in Table 7.2 overleaf and illustrated on maps in Appendix G.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 109

Table 7.2 – Summary of facilities for young people (aged over 12) across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number Total Range of Hectares Public Future of Provision Provision per 1000 Satisfaction Hectares Facilities (ha) Population with quantity per 1000 (ha) population (2017) (Ha) Abbey 3 0.11 All Local 0.0089 DISSATISFIED 0.0084 Blacon 3 0.52 All Local 0.0403 DISSATISFIED 0.0384 Boughton 2 0.18 All Local 0.0134 DISSATISFIED 0.0128 Heath and Vicars Cross Broxton 1 0.032 Strategic 0.0028 DISSATISFIED 0.0028 Central and 10 0.56 1 Strategic, 9 0.0384 DISSATISFIED 0.0349 Westminster local City 4 0.18 1 strategic, 3 0.0129 DISSATISFIED 0.0122 local Eddisbury 5 0.2 All Local 0.0169 DISSATISFIED 0.0168 Frodsham 7 0.37 2 strategic, 5 0.0261 DISSATISFIED 0.0246 and Helsby local Gowy 5 0.36 All Local 0.0261 SATISFIED 0.0266 Grange and 7 0.2 All Local 0.0143 DISSATISFIED 0.0130 Rossmore Groves and 4 0.05 2 strategic, 2 0.0038 DISSATISFIED 0.0035 Whitby local Hoole and 6 0.86 2 strategic, 4 0.0723 DISSATISFIED 0.0688 Newton local Ledsham 2 0.19 All Local 0.0170 DISSATISFIED 0.0173 and Willaston Marbury 9 0.17 1 strategic, 8 0.0121 DISSATISFIED 0.0119 local Mickle 2 0.21 1 strategic, 1 0.0148 DISSATISFIED 0.0151 Trafford local Neston and 6 0.69 1 strategic, 5 0.0479 DISSATISFIED 0.0489 Parkgate local Northwich 3 0.56 1 strategic, 2 0.0409 DISSATISFIED 0.0386 East and local Shackerley Northwich 10 0.51 2 strategic, 8 0.0295 DISSATISFIED 0.0278 West local Overleigh 1 0.17 1 strategic 0.0117 DISSATISFIED 0.0112 Sutton and 2 0.06 All Local 0.0045 DISSATISFIED 0.0041 Manor Upton 2 0.17 All Local 0.0137 DISSATISFIED 0.0131 Weaver 4 0.31 All Local 0.0240 DISSATISFIED 0.0227 Winsford 9 0.34 1 strategic, 8 0.0213 DISSATISFIED 0.0210 North and local East Winsford 6 0.5 2 strategic, 1 0.0336 DISSATISFIED 0.0332 South and local West

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 110

As demonstrated above, all wards contain at least one facility. There are lower numbers of facilities in Broxton (although the one site is a strategic facility), Sutton and Manor, Upton and Boughton Heath. In contrast, 9 of the wards contain more than 5 facilities. All of these are urban wards, with the exception of Marbury. Provision in Winsford is particularly high, with both wards in this area containing more than five facilities. Analysis of the population profile of the Borough suggests that the distribution of 10 – 14 year olds is relatively even, however the proportion of the population falling into this age group in Winsford is higher than in other areas, meaning that effective provision of facilities for this age group is important. Despite high levels of provision in the area, consultation undertaken by the Council indicates that there is a perception that there remain shortfalls of provision. This may suggest that either the existing facilities are not of the type or quality required to meet local need, or that there are still residents who cannot access facilities.

Consultation

Although provision is unevenly balanced across the Borough, consultation demonstrates that there are high levels of dissatisfaction borough wide with only residents in Gowy happy with the amount of facilities provided. Gowy contains five sites, all local facilities, ranking it in the middle in terms of the amount of facilities provided. Indeed, dissatisfaction with the quantity of facilities for young people is higher than for any other type of open space in both the urban and rural areas. 62% of respondents to the household survey indicate that there are not enough facilities.

A direct lack of facilities was the main reason given for these responses. The other key issue raised was the number of young people who hang around the street as they have nothing to do.

The high level of dissatisfaction is evident in the findings of other consultations, with 82% of respondents to the online survey, 73% of officers and 64% of young people considering provision to be insufficient.

14% of young people indicated if they could have any facility it would be a teenage shelter, while 8% would like a skate park, 7% an indoor youth facility, 6% a MUGA and 6% a ball court. 2% would like planned and organised activities.

Quality of facilities for young people aged over 12

Like views on the amount of facilities, perceptions of the quality of facilities for teenagers are relatively negative. Nearly half of all respondents rate the quality of facilities as poor or very poor (45%) and less than 10% of respondents think that provision is good or very good. These views are consistent across both the rural and urban areas. Like the household survey, respondents to all other forms of consultation also have negative impressions about the quality of facilities for young people. Over half of respondents in all consultations view these sites to be poor quality.

Site visits reveal that the average score for facilities for young people is 61%, meaning that facilities for young people are of lower quality than some other types of open space. The range of scores achieved (28.5% to 87%) highlights the variations in the quality and type of provision. Despite the negativity with the quality of provision, the site assessment scores demonstrate that there are some good quality facilities in the Borough.

Quality scores achieved during site visits are summarised in Table 7.3. It demonstrates that the variety in the quality of provision is evident in both the rural and urban areas. Reflecting this, consultation demonstrated that there are no real differences in views on the quality of provision

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 111

between residents in the rural and urban areas. The quality scores achieved are illustrated in Appendix G.

Table 7.3 – Quality of facilities for young people (aged over 12) in Cheshire West and Chester

Range of Average Wards with Wards with lower Quality quality high quality quality sites Scores% score% sites Urban Central and Upton, Hoole, 28 – 87% 50% Westminster, Frodsham Overleigh and Helsby Rural Ledsham and Willaston, 42% - 85% 64% Weaver, Marbury Broxton Cheshire West and Central and Chester 28 – 87% 61% Upton, Marbury Westminster, Ledsham and Willaston

The average scores demonstrate that the overall quality of facilities in the rural areas is higher than in the urban areas. It is also clear that there is a significantly greater range in the quality of provision in the urban areas, with some higher quality facilities and some poor sites. There are few poor sites in the rural parts.

Given the local catchment of facilities for young people, consideration has also been given to the quality of these sites by ward. Table 7.4 overleaf outlines the quality scores and range of scores on a ward-by-ward basis. It also highlights wards where more residents were satisfied with the quality of provision than dissatisfied. Even in areas where the quality of provision is higher, more than half of all residents are dissatisfied with the quality of facilities provided.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 112

Table 7.4 - Quality of facilities for young people (aged over 12) in Cheshire West and Chester by ward

Ward Average Quality Range of Quality Public satisfaction with Score % Scores % quality

Abbey 62% 58-65% DISSATISFIED Blacon 61% 42-79% DISSATISFIED Boughton Heath and Vicars 65% 50-60% DISSATISFIED Cross Broxton 51% 51% DISSATISFIED Central and Westminster 50% 28-60% DISSATISFIED City 72% 65-82% DISSATISFIED Eddisbury 62% 51-77% DISSATISFIED Frodsham and Helsby 63% 50-77% DISSATISFIED Gowy 55% 42-77% DISSATISFIED Grange and Rossmore 57% 51-72% DISSATISFIED Groves and Whitby 64% 58-72% DISSATISFIED Hoole and Newton 76% 65-76% DISSATISFIED Ledsham and Willaston 49% 42-55% DISSATISFIED Marbury 76% 62-86% DISSATISFIED Mickle Trafford 63% 43-82% DISSATISFIED Neston and Parkgate 62% 54-69% DISSATISFIED Northwich East and 51% 39-65% DISSATISFIED Shackerley Northwich West 53% 41-68% DISSATISFIED Overleigh 80% 80% DISSATISFIED Sutton and Manor 53% 51-55% DISSATISFIED Upton 76% 73-80% DISSATISFIED Weaver 72% 54-72% DISSATISFIED Winsford North and East 63% 42-80% DISSATISFIED Winsford South and West 54% 37-68% DISSATISFIED

It can be seen that the average quality of facilities varies significantly between wards, with six wards achieving average scores of over 70% and demonstrating a more consistent quality of provision. In Central and Westminster, Northwich, Winsford and Mickle Trafford wards, there are particular examples of high and low quality facilities and the variation in provision is much greater. More residents in all wards are dissatisfied with the amount of provision than are satisfied.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 113

Figure 7.1 illustrates the average quality scores achieved for each factor rated during site assessments. To take into account the fact that the matrix requires some factors to be scored out of five, and some out of six, all scores have been converted to percentages to enable comparison.

Figure 7.1 – Quality issues at facilities for young people (aged over 12)

Quality Issues - Facilities for Young People

64 62 60 58

% Av erage Score 56 54 52 50

Prov ision of Quality of Litter Security Equipment Equipment

Site visits highlight that vandalism, litter and damage to the sites are some of the key problems, and most sites suffered from these issues to a greater or lesser extent. Consultations with current users of facilities for young people supported this, identifying vandalism, safety and age of equipment, litter and dog fouling as minor problems. The majority of sites achieving lower scores did so because of the litter and level of vandalism found. Glass was also found at several sites.

There are several sites containing a variety of facilities (for example skate park and BMX) and these provide particularly good local amenities – this is illustrated above by the high scores achieved for provision of equipment. Many of these sites however also suffered from the vandalism and litter problems identified above.

Consultation revealed that it was expected that facilities for young people would be clean and litter free, with well kept grass and parking. Facilities should also be appropriate to the age group. Linking the results of the site visits, which demonstrate significant litter and vandalism problems at these facilities, with the elements of provision that are important to residents provides insight into the reasons behind the levels of dissatisfaction with the quality of such facilities. Improvements to the basic appearance of sites, and reductions in levels of vandalism (as well as enhancements to the overall facilities) may increase resident satisfaction significantly.

The quality scores achieved for each site, and the key issues arising during the assessment can be found in the site database.

Access

The assessment of local needs highlights that like facilities for children, residents expect to find facilities for young people in close proximity to their home, with 68% of current users of facilities walking.

The survey for young people reveals that location is a key determinant of use, and that proximity to the home is important. 42% stated that they like these facilities because they are close to home. This indicates that local access to facilities is important for young people. It is expected

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 114

that at least one facility will be located within 15 minutes of the home, with the average travel time being 12 minutes.

There is however evidence to suggest that residents travel further to reach larger, strategic sites. Only 53% of users would expect a facility for teenagers within walking distance.

Site assessments reveal that on the whole, facilities for young people are accessible to most residents, although in some instances, there are no pathways across the wider amenity space, making access more difficult. There is also a need to make better links between the facilities and their surroundings, ensuring that they are accessible from all residential areas. Signage was also missing / been removed at some sites.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities that consider:

• accessibility – the distance that residents expect to travel to reach each type of open space (and the mode of transport that they would expect to use);

• quantity – the amount of provision (in hectares) that would be expected for each type of open space per 1000 population; and

• quality – the key features that are important to residents for each type of open space.

The recommended local standards for facilities for young people in Cheshire West and Chester have been derived from the local needs consultation (Appendix D) and audit of provision and are summarised overleaf. Standards are based on an accessibility led approach. Full justifications for the standards set are provided within Appendix D.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 115

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard 15 minute walk time (720m) to a local facility 15 minute drivetime to a strategic facility (skatepark or BMX track) Justification The findings of the consultation demonstrate that like play areas, residents expect to find facilities for young people close to the home. This was a key focus of the survey for children and young people as well as the household survey. There is a strong emphasis that young people should be able to access at least one site on foot. It is also clear that such sites are expected in both rural and urban parts of the Borough.

Analysis of consultation responses suggest that residents expect young people to travel slightly further than children (average of 12 minutes, although the most common response is 10 minutes). As well as access, the quality and type of provision were highlighted as issues. Larger facilities, such as BMX tracks and skate parks, emerged as being particularly popular.

In order to deliver a sustainable, but appropriate network for young people, two local standards have been set, reflecting the different types of facilities that are provided and the expectations and willingness to travel.

To take into account the views of residents that all young people should be able to access a local facility, a standard of 15 minutes walk time has been set. Within a 15 minute walk time, a basic facility such as a ball court / MUGA / teen shelter will be provided. This standard links with that set for parks, enabling the provision of such facilities within larger parks and open spaces.

Given that much of the consultation focused on a desire for larger facilities, such as BMX tracks and skateparks, it is recognised that such provision is also required. The size and scale of these facilities however means that to ensure that provision is sustainable, these facilities are associated with a larger travel time. To supplement the network of local facilities, a standard of a 15-minute drive time has therefore been set for larger sites.

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standard No quantity standard set – accessibility led approach to be taken

Justification Consultation demonstrates that residents feel more strongly about the need to improve facilities for young people than any other type of open space. Issues were raised relating to quality, quantity and accessibility. The importance of providing high quality, local facilities is clear. To ensure that future facility provision is both sustainable and deliverable and accessibility led strategic approach is to be taken. In line with the accessibility standard, this approach focuses on the provision of a local facility within 15 minutes of every home and access to a strategic facility (skatepark or BMX Track) within a 15 minute drive. The facility provided is to meet with the quality standard (including size and location guidelines) and should be developed through consultation.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 116

Quality Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

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

Essential Desirable

Accessible, challenging and exciting play Dog free area facilities catering for people with a range of mobilities that conform with national guidelines

Clean / litter free Community involvement

Well kept grass and safety surfacing Appropriate location – overlooked / natural surveillance

Appropriate boundaries

Litter bins

Seating

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% of higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Applying local provision standards

The application of the recommended quantity, quality and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of facilities for young people and identifying areas where provision is insufficient, in both quantitative and qualitative terms to meet local need.

The application of standards drives the key priorities, and ensures that emphasis is placed upon meeting the local needs of the young people.

Application of accessibility standards

The accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents are located within a 15 minute walk (720m) of a local facility for young people, as well as within a 15 minute drive of a strategic facility. In the absence of a quantity standard, the accessibility standard will be the central point for decision making.

Local facilities

When applying the standard for local facilities, strategic facilities have also been included, as where residents are located within 15 minutes walk of one of these sites, as a higher order facility, they negate the need for the provision of a local facility.

Despite the high levels of negativity relating to the adequacy of provision for young people, application of the local standard reveals an even distribution of facilities for young people, with a large proportion of the population falling within the recommended 15-minute walk time of a site.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 117

The larger residential areas outside of the catchment for a facility include:

• Willaston • Five Crosses area of Frodsham • Acton Bridge • Handbridge (Chester) • Christleton • West Blacon • Saltney / Lache • Malpas • Tarporley • Tattenhall (although there is an indoor skatepark in this area which costs to use) • Kelsall • Tarvin.

These gaps in provision can be seen on the maps in Appendix G.

Strategic facilities

Application of the standard for strategic facilities demonstrates that the majority of residents have access to at least one strategic facility within the target drivetime and some residents are able to reach two facilities, as there are two in close proximity to each other (for example Whitby Wheeled Sports Park, Frodsham Saltworks Farm and Mount Pleasant, Winsford).

The key settlements where residents are currently outside of the catchment area are:

• Tarporley • Kelsall • • Clutton • Malpas.

There is an indoor skatepark in Tattenhall that can be accessed within the distance threshold by many of these residents, however there is a fee attached to the use of this facility.

Maps illustrating the application of the standard for strategic facilities for young people can found in Appendix G.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 118

Application of quality standards

The site assessments undertaken and the recommended quality standard provide a means of evaluating the adequacy of existing provision. The local standard sets a target score of 75%.

18% of sites achieve the target quality score and are categorised as good, while conversely circa 46% are identified as in need of improvement. As highlighted previously in this section however, the main reason for sites achieving lower scores is due to the evidence of misuse, the litter, and vandalism, rather than the types of facility provided.

Figure 7.2 illustrates the proportion of facilities achieving the target quality score.

Figure 7.2 – Proportion of facilities for young people aged 12 and over achieving target quality score

Facilities for Young People - Percentage achiev ing target quality score

17%

Good 44% Av era ge

Improv ement 39%

Figure 7.1 (earlier in this section) outlines the key issues arising through assessments of quality. Consultation revealed that views on the amount and quality of facilities for young people are more negative than for any other typology in the Borough.

Application of quantity standards

No quantity standard has been set, instead application of the accessibility standard will be used to determine areas of shortfall and surplus. The Boroughwide average level of provision will however be used as a guide to inform decision making.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 119

Key Priorities

Analysis of the audit, the assessment of local needs and the application of local standards highlights the following key issues with regards the provision of facilities for young people across Cheshire West and Chester:

• Overall, there are more concerns relating to the quantity of facilities for teenagers than any other typology and there is a perception that both the quantity and quality of facilities is poor. It is clear • Ensure the quantity of however that views on the amount of facilities are open space is sufficient influenced by the quality of facilities, and by the to meet local needs and type of facilities that residents wish to see. expectations

• Despite the negativity which emerged during • Ensure that sites are consultation, application of the local standards accessible and demonstrates that while there are gaps in some functional and provide parts of the Borough, much of the Borough is well maximum benefit to the served with local facilities, although it is local community acknowledged that most residents have to travel further to reach a strategic facility. Residents • Maximise the quality of expect to find facilities in close proximity to their open spaces in terms of home. Some settlements have however been both recreation and identified where residents do not have access to biodiversity. Green local facilities. Space must be safe, accessible, attractive • Although the quality of facilities is lower than that and of high quality for children, like other types of open space, there are some examples of high quality facilities as well as poorer sites. Site visits highlight that vandalism, litter and damage to the sites are the key problems, and most sites suffered from these issues to a greater or lesser extent.

The remainder of this section highlights the key priorities for the future delivery of facilities for young people based on the above issues. The key priorities seek to deliver the basic objectives of PPG17 and are set out under the following headings:

• Qualitative Improvements (including management and maintenance)

• Rationalisation and Disposal

• Access improvements

• New provision

Qualitative improvements

Although the quantity of provision was identified as a key theme during consultation, it is clear that in many instances, views on the quantity of provision are impacted upon by opinions on the quality of facilities. The quality of provision for young people is viewed more negatively than the quality of any other type of open space. Less than 10% of respondents to the household survey perceive provision to be good or very good, while 45.2% rate facilities as poor or very poor. Residents in the urban wards are particularly negative.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 120

The extent of negativity that is evident means that qualitative improvements are a key priority. It is important to note however that evidence suggests that while residents are not happy with the quality of existing provision, they also believe that the type of facility provided does not meet their needs. This will be explored further later in this section.

The range of scores achieved (28.5% to 87%) highlights the variations in the quality and type of provision. Despite the negativity with the quality of provision, the site assessment scores demonstrate that there are some good quality facilities in the Borough. Facilities have been subdivided into local and strategic facilities and it is clear that on the whole, the strategic facilities are of higher quality. In order to improve public satisfaction, it will be essential to ensure that all facilities meet the recommended standards.

In addition to improving the general cleanliness and maintenance of sites (identified as a key priority for residents), residents highlight that there are issues with vandalism and graffiti, as well as the type of facilities provided. These issues were reflected through the site visits, and are the main reasons for some of the lower scores achieved during these visits.

In order to best meet demand and improve the satisfaction levels of residents, priorities for improvement should focus on:

• the strategic facilities (to ensure that all residents are able to access a high quality Greenfields Estate Facility - Winsford strategic facility); and The Greenfield project has created a natural • local facilities achieving low quality scores, ‘playscape’ on a derelict brownfield site in particularly where they serve unique the centre of the Greenfields estate in catchment areas. Winsford. The local residents have fully supported the project, which was led by Groundwork, and have been involved Almost all local sites within the rural areas, and throughout the process. A new residents the majority of sites in the urban areas serve group has been formed to look at further unique catchments. The site database provides improvements to the open space. The new area provides more organic play a full list of issues identified at sites across the opportunities, allowing children to become Borough, however sites that would particularly more physically active in this urban benefit from improvement include: environment. The site is the only youth facility on the estate, offering young people in the • area not only a provision they previously did Saxons Lane Youth Shelter, MUGA and not have but one of the most innovative Skatepark, Northwich – seats and shelter play spaces in Cheshire. Involvement of damaged and covered in graffiti, young people on the estate ensures that equipment damaged – this site however provision meets their needs and aspirations. offers potential to be a significant hub of activity for young people;

• Community Skatepark, Elton – this site is of high value as it serves a local community, but floodlights are not working and the site has extensive litter and alcohol bottles – the location of the site however offers significant potential;

• Farndon Skatepark – site with good potential, but let down by misuse and maintenance; and

• Recreation Ground – basketball post rusty and site appears to have limited function.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 121

As well as facilities serving unique catchments, many of the facilities within larger parks and recreation grounds also suffered from vandalism and graffiti, and other issues. Such sites included;

• Verdin Park, Northwich (MUGA) • Whitby Park, Ellesmere Port (Glass found in MUGA and in wheeled skatepark) • Mount Pleasant, Winsford – bins burnt out and litter surrounding site.

In addition to the sites highlighted above, potential was identified at many other venues to improve the range and quality of facilities available, or to better tailor the facilities to meet community need. This was reflected in consultation, with a clear view emerging that existing facilities are unsuitable and do not meet the needs of residents. At the time of site visits, it was clear that skateparks and BMX parks were particularly well used, but that local basketball facilities for example were less so.

Engagement with the local community at the outset and throughout refurbishment or creation of a new facility has proven to increase ownership and respect for a facility and also helps to ensure that the facility embraces local needs and aspirations. Given the issues with litter and vandalism, ownership of the facility will be central if any improvements are to be made and will also be important if facilities are to be best tailored to the needs of the population profile. There are several examples of where engagement has been instrumental in the success of a facility. The variety of responses received to consultation on the type of facility that would be preferred provides further impetus on the need to consult, with aspirations on the type of facility required varying significantly.

Enhancement of existing provision YP 1 Seek to upgrade traditional facilities with challenging and exciting for young people that meet the needs of the young people in the vicinity of the site.

Local facilities should provide shelter and seating for young people and be of high quality, ensuring that they are desirable to visit. Community engagement should form a key part of any programme of refurbishment for facilities for young people, as well as for new provision.

Improvements are required at facilities that are poor in quality but offer significant potential. Sites serving unique catchments are of particular priority and examples of such facilities include: Saxons Lane Youth Shelter, MUGA and Skatepark (Northwich)– seats and shelter damaged and covered in graffiti, equipment damaged:

• Community Skatepark, Elton – this site is of high value as it serves a local community, but floodlights are not working and the site has extensive litter and alcohol bottles – the location of the site offers significant potential

• Farndon Skatepark – site with good potential, but let down by misuse and maintenance

Improvements are also required at larger sites, such as Whitby Park, Verdin Park and Mount Pleasant. If improvements are to be made to any of these facilities, given that most of the issues relate to litter etc, community buy in will be essential.

Rationalisation and disposal

Consultation demonstrates that issues with the amount of facilities for young people and the quality of facilities are the overriding theme of consultation.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 122

Analysis of the distribution of local facilities suggests that there are relatively few overlapping catchments (ie facilities that could be removed without reducing access to facilities for some residents), although there are some areas where there are concentrations of facilities, specifically:

• Ellesmere Port • Northwich • Winsford • Hoole and Newton.

These clusters of facilities can be seen on maps provided in Appendix G.

Improvements to the quality of existing facilities (Recommendation YP1) are therefore of higher priority than the removal of sites. It may however be necessary in some instances to remove sites in order to improve others in the vicinity. Sites that currently have little function in their current form include:

• Wharfe Lane, Ellesmere Port – single basketball ring surrounded by broken bottles

• Forest Road, Winsford – Tarmac basketball stand covered in graffiti and glass and surrounded by overgrown vegetation

• Danefield Road, Northwich – site located behind housing with damaged equipment and evidence of fly tipping. Located in relatively close proximity to new skatepark.

Following the disposal of any sites, savings on revenue costs of maintaining such facilities should be put towards the improvement of other nearby facilities.

Rationalisation and Disposal YP 2 Consider the rationalisation of facilities which serve overlapping catchments and / or have limited play value. Ensure that any resulting revenue savings are reinvested into nearby play facilities, providing an overall improvement in the quality of resources available.

Areas for consideration include:

• Northwich, • Winsford • Ellesmere Port.

Protection

Facilities for young people are highly valued local facilities when they are perceived to be of the right quality and the right type of facility to meet local needs. Strategic facilities in particular are very popular both because of the wider catchments that they serve, and also the type of facility that they offer. All strategic facilities should be retained, even where their catchments overlap with other facilities, given the wide sphere of influence that they have. The existing strategic facilities are well distributed and provide the majority of residents within the Borough with access to at least one site within the recommended 15-minute catchment area.

Popular local sites should also be retained, even where they overlap with the catchments of strategic facilities. Where sites are not used but serve a unique catchment, the space should be retained and either improvements to the quality of the facility should be scheduled, or alternatively engagement should begin with the local community, and consideration given to providing a different type of facility to meet local needs where it is evident that the facility in its

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 123

current form does not. The high levels of dissatisfaction with the amount of existing facilities, and the demand for more facilities means that the retention of existing sites is important.

Protection YP 3 Due to the clear importance of providing appropriate facilities for young people to the local community, retain all sites that serve unique catchments (ie where they are the only facility that some residents can access), as well as all strategic facilities. Facilities should only be lost where it can be proven that there is no demand for the local facility or that improvements to another site in the immediate catchment of the site will be of greater value to residents.

Prior to losing a site, the reason for the current low value / poor quality of the site should be explored, and reprovision of a different type of facility should be considered prior to the overall loss of the space.

New provision

Dissatisfaction with the amount of facilities for young people is the highest of all types of open space in Cheshire West and Chester. Only 16.7% are satisfied with the quantity of existing provision while 62.3% think more facilities are required. These perceptions are very similar in both the rural and urban wards although levels of satisfaction are marginally higher in the rural areas. The amount of people who are dissatisfied means that addressing this need is one of the key priorities across the Borough.

While as highlighted previously, application of the accessibility standard reveals that the distribution of facilities across the Borough is perhaps better than expected given the overall level of dissatisfaction (and the conclusion that some dissatisfaction can be attributed to the quality and type of facilities), there remain some areas where residents are outside of the catchment of existing sites.

As highlighted previously, the key gaps for strategic facilities (skate parks and BMX tracks) are situated in:

• Tarporley • Kelsall • Duddon • Clutton • Malpas

The provision of a new facility in Tarporley, as the largest of the above settlements, would ensure that all residents in the Borough are able to access at least one strategic facility within the recommended drivetime. There are no existing strategic facilities within Eddisbury (the ward in which Tarporley is located) and only five local facilities.

While most residents are able to access strategic facilities given the catchments that they serve, there are more areas devoid of local facilities.

Almost every Parish attending the workshops undertaken as part of the consultation programme indicated that the provision of new facilities for young people is their top priority. In particular, even when taking into account the strategic facilities (which also act as local facilities for those within a 15 minute walk time) there are clear gaps of provision in:

• Willaston • Five Crosses area of Frodsham

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 124

• Acton Bridge • Handbridge (Chester) • Christleton • West Blacon • Saltney / Lache • Malpas • Tarporley • Tattenhall (although there is a skatepark in this area, with associated fees) • Kelsall • Tarvin.

In addition to the above, in Hartford, Ashton, Little Sutton and Mickle Trafford, grass kickabout areas are the only type of facility provided. This offers limited benefits only to young people and new facilities may also be required here.

Many of the areas devoid of provision contain parks and amenity spaces. Parks in particular provide a key opportunity to rectify deficiencies in the urban area, as local facilities are expected to be found within a 15-minute walk time of the home, the same catchment area as for parks. This means that once all residents are able to access a park, the provision of a facility for young people within each park would ensure that all residents in urban settlements also have access to local sites. For residents in more rural areas, it may be possible to locate a new facility on an amenity green space.

The maps in Appendix G demonstrate that there are amenity green spaces in Tattenhall, Tarporley, Tarvin, Kelsall and several in the Chester area which could be considered for the location of facilities for young people.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 125

New Provision YP 4 Provide new facilities for young people (drawing on the quality standards) in locations currently devoid of provision (or support other providers to do so). In urban areas, these facilities should be located within parks, to maximise the strategic distribution of sites: Strategic Facilities

• Tarporley

Local Facilities

• Willaston • Five Crosses area of Frodsham • Acton Bridge • Handbridge (Chester) • Christleton • West Blacon • Saltney / Lache • Malpas • Tattenhall (although there is a skatepark in this area, with associated fees) • Kelsall • Tarvin.

Support local Parish Councils in areas other than those identified above to provide new facilities where demand has been specifically identified.

In addition to providing new facilities to meet current need, it will be essential to ensure that new facilities are provided to accommodate the needs of new residents to the area. While existing local plan policies in the three former authorities request contributions towards facilities for children, provision for young people is not currently considered. Provision for young people should be required in addition to facilities for children, particularly given the extent of need that is evident across the Borough. While consideration should be given to the impact of every new development, not all should require new on site provision. The role that existing local and strategic facilities play in each location should be considered on a site by site basis.

The assessment of need highlighted the importance of a strategic approach to play provision, and this will be particularly important if quality targets are to be achieved. The accessibility standard should therefore be used to determine if new provision will be required, or whether contributions towards improving the existing facility, in recognition of the additional demand that will be placed on it, would be more appropriate.

Provision as part of new development YP 5 Ensure that policy requires contributions towards facilities for young people as part of new development as appropriate. Promote an accessibility led approach to the determination of levels of provision required in order to ensure the strategic provision of facilities and that contributions towards quality improvements are provided where they would meet needs more effectively than new facilities. Policy should state the minimum size of development that may trigger the need for on site facilities for young people.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 126

Increasing access to existing facilities

Consultation demonstrates that facilities are expected to be in close proximity to the home and that local opportunities for play are important to residents. While young people are able to travel slightly further to reach facilities, it is essential to ensure that they are able to do so safely and securely, and on foot or by cycle, in line with recommended access standards.

A network of appropriate footpaths and cycle paths should therefore be provided between residential neighbourhoods, play facilities and other green spaces, ensuring safe and clear access routes for young people. This links with recommendations for other types of open space and will more easily be achieved if facilities are located on parks.

In particular, links between public transport and strategic facilities for young people will be essential if these facilities are to be accessible to the wide catchment that they are intended. Strategic facilities should also be located on cycle routes, in order to promote travel to these sites using this mode.

Access Routes YP 5 Facilitate the development of the green infrastructure network between large residential neighbourhoods, facilities for young people and other green spaces.

Encourage the development of strategic facilities on sites that are easily accessible by public transport.

Summary

In accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide, this section sets out a strategic framework for the future provision of facilities for young people across the Borough. Facilities for young people have been subdivided into strategic facilities, specifically BMX and skate parks, and local facilities, which are taken to include MUGAs, adventure play, kickabout areas, basketball courts and teen shelters.

Overall, there are more concerns relating to the quantity of facilities for teenagers than any other typology and there is a perception that both the quantity and quality of facilities is poor. It is clear however that views on the amount of facilities are influenced by the quality of facilities, and by the type of facilities that residents wish to see.

Despite the negativity which emerged during consultation, application of the local accessibility standards demonstrates that while there are gaps in some parts of the Borough, much of the Borough is well served with local facilities, although it is acknowledged that most residents have to travel further to reach a strategic facility. Residents expect to find facilities in close proximity to their home. No quantity standards have been set, meaning that decision making should be accessibility led and that all residents should be within the appropriate distance threshold of both a strategic and local facility. As highlighted, quality of provision is a key issue for residents. Although the quality of facilities is lower than that for children, like other types of open space, there are some examples of high quality facilities as well as poorer sites. Site visits highlight that vandalism, litter and damage to the sites are the key problems, and most sites suffered from these issues to a greater or lesser extent. Moving forward, community involvement in the design and maintenance of facilities will be essential if these problems are to be avoided, and there are several examples in the Borough of where this has already been successful.

The key priorities are summarised overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 127

Protection Enhancement

Due to the clear importance of providing Seek to upgrade traditional facilities with challenging and exciting for appropriate facilities for young people to young people that meet the needs of the young people in the vicinity of the site. the local community, retain all sites that serve unique catchments, as well as all Local facilities should provide shelter and seating for young people strategic facilities. Facilities should only be and be of high quality, ensuring that they are desirable to visit. lost where it can be proven that there is no Community engagement should form a key part of any programme demand for the local facility or that of refurbishment for facilities for young people, as well as for new provision. improvements to another site in the immediate catchment of the site will be of Improvements are required at facilities that are poor in quality but greater value to residents. Prior to losing a offer significant potential, including: site, the reason for the current low value / poor quality of the site should be explored, • Saxons Lane Youth Shelter, MUGA and Skatepark – seats and and reprovision of a different type of facility shelter damaged and covered in graffiti, equipment damaged should be considered prior to the overall loss • of the facility. Community Skatepark, Elton – this site is of high value as it serves a local community, but floodlights are not working and the site has extensive litter and alcohol bottles – the location of the site offers significant potential

• Farndon Skatepark – site with good potential, but let down by misuse and maintenance

Improvements are also required at larger strategic sites, such as Whitby Park, Verdin Park and Mount Pleasant. If improvements are to be made to any of these facilities, given that most of the issues relate to litter etc, community but in will be essential.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 128

New Provision Redesignation / Disposal

Provide new facilities for young people Consider the rationalisation of facilities that serve overlapping (drawing on the quality standards) in catchments and / or have limited play value. Ensure that any locations currently devoid of provision. In resulting revenue savings are reinvested into nearby play facilities, urban areas, these facilities should be providing an overall improvement in the quality of resources located within parks, to maximise the available. strategic distribution of sites: Areas for consideration include: Strategic Facilities • Northwich, • Tarporley • Winsford • Ellesmere Port Local Facilities • Willaston • Five Crosses area of Frodsham • Acton Bridge • Handbridge (Chester) • Christleton • West Blacon • East Saltney • Malpas • Tattenhall (although there is a skatepark in this area, with associated fees) • Kelsall • Tarvin.

Support local Parish Councils in areas other than those identified above to provide new facilities where demand has been specifically identified.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 129

8. Allotments

Introduction and definition

08 Allotments are small parcels of land rented to individuals usually for the purpose of growing food crops. Allotments can be owned by a variety of owners including local authorities, Parish Councils and private landowners. The primary purpose of allotments is to provide opportunities for people to grow their own produce as part of the long-term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are responsible for national policy on allotments and consider allotments to be important in terms of bringing together all sections of the community, as well as providing opportunities for people to grow their own produce and promote health and wellbeing. Allotments are uniquely protected through the legislative and planning framework within the wider context of a firm national policy to improve the quality of urban green spaces.

As a consequence, the Borough, Town or Parish are duty bound by the law [Section 23 of the 1908 Allotments Act (as amended)] to provide allotments for their residents if they consider there to be demand. They must take into a consideration a representation in writing by any six registered parliamentary electors or rate payers.

Statutory allotment land is land of which the freehold or very long lease is vested in the allotments authority, and which was either originally purchased for allotments or subsequently appropriated for allotment use. The allotments Act (Section 8 1925) indicates that a local authority must seek permission from the Secretary of State before selling or changing the use of a 'statutory' site. The local authority must satisfy the Secretary of State that adequate provision has been made for allotment holders who are displaced by the sale of the site.

In addition to the provision of statutory allotments, some sites are temporary (currently dedicated to allotment use, but land is ultimately destined to be used for another purpose). The same regulations do not apply to these sites.

The recent upsurge in demand across Cheshire West and Chester for allotments has also led to the provision of ‘growing places’ which are areas informally used for community growing.

Like other open types of open space, allotments have a number of wider benefits, in addition to their primary purpose. These include:

• bringing together different cultural backgrounds and people of different ages;

• improving physical and mental health;

• providing a source of recreation; and

• making a wider contribution to the green and open space network.

This section considers the provision of formal allotment sites, but also takes into account the role that other ‘growing places’ do and could play in providing opportunities for residents across the

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 130 borough. It highlights the key issues arising and provides a detailed application of the recommended local standards. It sets the key priorities for the future delivery of allotments to inform both the Local Development Framework and the Cheshire West and Chester Green Space Strategy. Analysis draws on the findings of the Local Needs Assessment (Appendix A).

Quantity of allotments across Cheshire West and Chester

In total, there are 57 allotment sites across the Borough, providing a total of 38.86 hectares of provision. This equates to circa 1500 plots, assuming that each plot is of the standard accepted size.

Allotments are owned by a variety of providers, with the largest provider being Cheshire West and Chester Council, who own 14 sites in the Chester area, 17 in the Ellesmere Port Area and 1 in Northwich. Parish and Town Councils are the second largest provider of allotments, and they play a particularly important role in the provision of allotments in the former Vale Royal area, where CW&C Council only own one site.

The size of allotment sites varies considerably, ranging from 0.05ha ( Allotments) to 4.95ha (Hoole Allotments). The amount and type of facilities provided on site also varies significantly.

Table 8.1 summarises the distribution of the existing allotment sites, illustrating that provision is found in both the rural and urban parts of the Borough.

Table 8.1 – Allotments across Cheshire West and Chester

Number Total Range of Hectares Future Area of Sites Provision Provision per 1000 Hectares per (ha) (ha) Population 1000 (ha) Population (2017) (Ha) Cheshire West 0.11 57 38.853 0.12 and Chester Rural Wards 0.05 – 1.98 0.8 14 9.173 0.08 ha Urban Wards 43 29.68 0.05-4.95 0.14 0.13

As seen above, the amount of allotments is higher in the urban areas than in the rural wards, in terms of both provision per 1000 residents and also the total provision. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the higher density of housing in these parts, the size of sites is also significant larger in the urban wards.

Although provision is relatively evenly split between rural and urban areas, analysis of the distribution of these sites at a ward level indicates that provision is substantially higher in some parts of the Borough than in others. Table 8.2 overleaf summarises the provision of allotments by ward.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 131 Table 8.2 – Summary of allotments across Cheshire West and Chester

Number of Total Range of Hectares per 1000 Area Sites Provision (ha) Provision (ha) Population (ha) Abbey 1 0.23 0.22 0.02 Blacon 1 0.51 0.51 0.04 Boughton Heath and 2 2.45 0.46-1.99 0.18 Vicars Cross Broxton 2 0.46 0.19-0.27 0.04 Central and Westminster 7 2.75 0.06-0.98 0.19 City 4 5.16 0.5-3.3 0.37 Eddisbury 1 0.8 0.81 0.07 Frodsham and Helsby 5 0.81 0.05-0.27 0.06 Gowy 1 0.13 0.13 0.01 Grange and Rossmore 5 3.59 0.2-1.46 0.26 Groves and Whitby 0 0 0 0.00 Hoole and Newton 2 5.09 0.14-4.94 0.43 Ledsham and Willaston 3 2.88 0.70-1.19 0.26 Marbury 2 0.17 0.05-0.11 0.01 Mickle Trafford 2 2.05 0.35-1.70 0.14 Neston and Parkgate 4 1.56 0.13-0.83 0.11 Northwich East and 4 1.9 0.24-0.63 0.14 Shackerley Northwich West 2 1.49 0.30-0.18 0.09 Overleigh 3 2.3 0.11-1.21 0.16 Sutton and Manor 3 1.49 0.09-1.31 0.11 Upton 2 1.53 0.71-0.82 0.12 Weaver 0 0 0 0.00 Winsford North and East 1 1.5 1.5 0.09 Winsford South and West 0 0 0 0.00

NB figures may not add up to Boroughwide figure due to rounding

Analysis of the amount of land dedicated to allotments per 1000 population indicates that provision is particularly low in Winsford South and West, Groves and Whitby and Weaver (where there is no provision) and Gowy, Abbey, Marbury and Blacon.

In contrast, provision exceeds 0.2 ha per 1000 population in Hoole and Newton, City, Grange and Rossmore and Ledsham and Willaston Wards.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 132 Consultations

Consultation demonstrates strong dissatisfaction with the amount of allotments provided across the Borough, with the household survey revealing that residents in only 4 wards are satisfied with the overall quantity of facilities. Overall satisfaction does however correlate with the amount of provision, with three of the four wards where residents are satisfied being those with the highest levels of provision per 1000 population.

To an extent, the demand for allotments is dependent upon the character of the local area, and the type of housing provided however it is clear that there is strong demand across Cheshire West and Chester. Surprisingly, given that residents in the more urban areas are perhaps less likely to have large gardens due to the restrictions on space, residents in the urban wards are less concerned about the amount of allotments than those in rural areas. 27% of respondents in the urban wards indicated that they don’t currently have an allotment but would be interested in renting one. Interest was much higher in the rural wards, with 35.1% indicating that they would be interested in an allotment. Both statistics however demonstrate strong demand for additional allotments.

The shortage of allotments is also reflected in other consultations, with dissatisfaction evident in the online survey and community groups survey. 9 out of 11 allotment societies identified the quantity of allotments as an issue and waiting lists were noted on four allotment sites. External agencies and Parish Councils also identified the provision of areas for growing as a key priority. In all consultations, waiting lists and a lack of availability at current sites were highlighted as the main reasons behind opinions given.

Quality of allotments

Site visits reveal that the average score for an allotment site is 62%. This indicates that the overall quality of this type of open space is above some others, but suggests that there remain opportunities for improvement.

Analysis of the range of scores achieved supports this, with the highest quality site achieving a score of 92%, compared to the poorest score of 21%. The stock of allotments of allotments varied from sites that are largely overgrown with few plots cultivated, to sites that appear fully utilised and well tended, with water supplies, sheds, composting etc. Footpaths were identified as a key area for improvement, along with signage.

The site assessment matrix highlights that the key areas for improvement at allotment sites are the buildings and the quality of equipment on the site. Security at sites varies across the Borough.

Quality scores achieved during site visits in the urban and rural areas are summarised in Table 8.3 overleaf. It demonstrates that the range of issues, and the variety in the quality of provision, is evident in both the rural and urban areas. Quality in the rural areas is however higher than in the more urban parts.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 133 Table 8.3 – Quality of allotments in Cheshire West and Chester

Range of Average Wards with high Wards with lower quality Quality quality quality sites sites Scores % score % Urban 21%-87% 59% Overleigh, Northwich East, Central Upton and Westminster, Frodsham and Helsby Rural 43%-91% 69% Broxton, Marbury Boughton Heath and Vicars Cross Cheshire West and 21%-91% 61% Upton, Northwich East, Marbury Chester Overleigh, Broxton

Given the demand for the provision of local allotments, consideration has also been given to the quality of these sites by ward. Table 8.4 overleaf outlines the quality scores on a ward-by- ward basis. It also highlights wards where more residents were satisfied with the quality of provision than dissatisfied.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 134 Table 8.4 - Quality of allotments in Cheshire West and Chester by ward

Ward Average Quality Public satisfaction with quality Score % Abbey 65% DISSATISFIED Blacon 71% DISSATISFIED Boughton Heath and Vicars Cross 73% DISSATISFIED Broxton 83% DISSATISFIED Central and Westminster 53% SATISFIED City 62% SATISFIED Eddisbury 71% DISSATISFIED Frodsham and Helsby 55% DISSATISFIED Gowy 56% DISSATISFIED Grange and Rossmore 56% DISSATISFIED Groves and Whitby 0 DISSATISFIED Hoole and Newton 66% SATISFIED Ledsham and Willaston 68% DISSATISFIED Marbury 49.5% DISSATISFIED Mickle Trafford 73.5% SATISFIED Neston and Parkgate 62% SATISFIED Northwich East and Shackerley 49% DISSATISFIED Northwich West 59% DISSATISFIED Overleigh 83% SATISFIED Sutton and Manor 61% DISSATISFIED Upton 85% DISSATISFIED Weaver 0 DISSATISFIED Winsford North and East 65% DISSATISFIED Winsford South and West 0% DISSATISFIED

Table 8.4 suggests that there is some correlation between higher quality sites and satisfaction with the quality of provision, however satisfaction is also influenced by quantity.

The quality scores achieved for each site, and the key issues arising during the assessment can be found in Appendix E.

Consultation

The household survey revealed mixed views on the quality of allotments, reflecting the significant variation in the quality of existing provision across the Borough. Of those that did have an opinion, 17% rated the quality of allotments as average, 11% poor and 9% good. This suggests that the overall quality is varied. The quality of allotments in the rural wards is perceived to be lower in comparison to the urban wards. This is actually in contrast to the findings of site visits, which suggest that allotments in the more urban areas are of better quality.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 135 Like the household survey, other consultations portray mixed views on the quality of allotments, although views are generally more negative than those for many other types of open space.

In contrast, representatives of allotment societies indicated that sites were generally perceived to be well maintained and of good quality. However, security of sites was identified as a problem with a number of sites suffering from vandalism. Fencing, water supplies, paths and surfacing were also identified as issues.

Parking and toilet facilities were viewed as being particularly important to local residents. Clean and litter free, well kept grass, nature features and dog free areas were also viewed as essential. Dog fouling was highlighted as the main issue experienced by frequent users of allotments.

Access

The assessment of local needs highlights that allotments are perceived to be one of the less accessible types of open space, although this is largely due to the need to rent a plot (rather than just visit the site) and is influenced by the presence of waiting lists at the majority of venues.

Analysis of current user patterns with regards travel to allotments indicates that there is a split between those who would walk, and those that would travel by car. When questioned, the majority of residents however indicate that they expect local access to allotments and this view is common in both the urban and rural areas. Generally speaking, residents expect to find an allotment within 10 – 15 minutes of the home.

Site assessments reveal that uneven access routes are one of the key challenges at allotment sites. Many sites have either dirt or gravel tracks, and some are on steep inclines. Signage was also identified as an issue that should be prioritised for improvement.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities that consider:

• accessibility – the distance that residents expect to travel to reach each type of open space (and the mode of transport that they would expect to use);

• quantity – the amount of provision (in hectares) that would be expected for each type of open space per 1000 population; and

• quality – the key features that are important to residents for each type of open space.

The recommended local standards for allotments in Cheshire West and Chester have been derived from the local needs consultation (Appendix A) and audit of provision and are summarised below. Standards are based on an accessibility led approach. Full justifications for the standards set are provided within Appendix D.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 136 Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard 15 minute walk time (720m) Justification Analysis of current user patterns with regards travel to allotments indicates that there is a split between those who would walk, and those that would travel by car. When questioned, the majority of residents however indicate that they expect local access to allotments. A walk time standard has therefore been set.

With regards travel times, the household survey reveals that respondents would like an allotment circa 10 minutes from home (mode and mean). Analysis of the views of users however indicates that a walk time of up to 15 minutes is appropriate.

In order to promote a strategic approach to the provision of allotments, and facilitate the provision of a range of high quality sites, a standard of 15 minutes walk time has been set. This standard takes into account the expectations of residents by promoting the provision of easily accessible, high quality facilities. Allotments are expected in both urban and rural areas.

The standard does not necessarily relate directly to the provision of a formal allotment site, but to a location that is identified as an area for growing. This will be returned to within the application of standards.

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standard Current Provision – 0.12 hectares per Recommended Local Standard – 0.15 hectares per 1000 population 1000 population Justification There is clear evidence of demand for additional allotments across Cheshire West and Chester during consultations and there are also waiting lists of over 200 residents at existing sites. In light of the demand led nature of allotments, the inclusion of a standard for allotments should be treated as an indication of potential demand only.

In line with consultation findings and analysis of waiting lists, the local standard therefore represents an increase on the existing level of provision. The required increase takes into account the number of residents currently waiting for an allotment plot and the number of plots that would be required to meet this demand. This standard sets a baseline for future provision and represents a minimum standard.

Should demand for allotments continue to grow, further provision will be required above this minimum standard. Where the provision of formal allotment sites is not possible, temporary allotment sites, or the provision of alternative opportunities, such as growing spaces or alley gardens, will meet this demand.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 137 Quality Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

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

Essential Desirable

High quality boundaries Notice boards at site entrances

Clean, tidy and well maintained Toilets

Composting and litter bins Clearly defined access routes suitable for residents of all ages

Features enhancing safety and Accessible water supply security

Parking facilities at sites where residents have to travel by car to access them

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% or higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Applying local provision standards

The application of the recommended quantity, quality and accessibility standards is essential in understanding the existing distribution of allotments and identifying areas where provision is insufficient to meet local need. The application of standards drives the key priorities, and ensures that emphasis is placed upon meeting local needs.

The demand led nature of allotments however means that these standards should be treated as an indication only, as demand will fluctuate by location and across time and localised demand assessments should therefore inform the need for new and improved provision.

Application of accessibility standards

The accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents are located within a 15 minute walk (720m) of an allotment, or a growing place. Application of this standard highlights that there are some areas where residents are outside of the recommended catchment for provision.

In particular, there are gaps in access to allotments in:

• Acton Bridge • Weaverham • Upton • Christleton / Waverton • Tarvin (although a new allotment has recently been opened just outside the village, which to an extent serves residents in this settlement, although travel by car is required) • Cuddington and Sandiway • East Winsford, particularly Wharton

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 138 • Davenham / Moulton • Malpas

The remainder of residents in the larger settlements have access to at least one allotment (although these may be at capacity which is discussed later). Maps outlining the distribution of allotments across the Borough are provided in Appendix G.

Applying quality standards

The findings arising from site assessments and the recommended quality standard provide a means of evaluating the adequacy of existing provision. The local standard sets a target score of 75%.

Table 8.3 and 8.4 (earlier in this section) outlined the results of the quality assessment, and it was indicated that there is significant variation between sites, as well as some disparity between rural and urban areas.

Figure 8.1 below illustrates that when measured against this target score, the proportion of allotments requiring improvement according to the site assessment matrix is lower than many other typologies. Almost 60% of sites are rated as either good or average.

Figure 8.1 – Proportion of allotments achieving target quality score

Proportion of allotments achieving target quality score

21%

33% Improve Average Good

46%

It is clear that both poor and high quality allotments are dispersed across the Borough. The quality is particularly varying in Northwich and Chester. Maps outlining the quality of allotments are provided in Appendix G.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 139 Applying quantity standards

Application of the quantity standard for allotments provides an understanding of which areas of the Borough are deficient in this type of open space.

Table 8.5 below summarises the application of the quantity standard at a ward level, and also summarises the results of the consultation with regards to quantity of provision, thus providing an insight into the correlation between satisfaction and current levels of provision.

Boroughwide, there is a shortfall of 10.05 hectares against the quantity standard. When taking into account the projected population growth (but assuming that provision remains constant) shortfalls increase (10.36 by 2017 and 17.94 ha by 2027). Population growth will however not generate shortfalls in any ward where there are not already issues with the amount of provision.

Table 8.5 – Quantity of provision

Current Shortfall / Public satisfaction Future Shortfall / Ward Provision Surplus (ha) with amount Surplus (2017) (ha)

Abbey 0.23 -1.63 DISSATISFIED -1.74

Blacon 0.51 -1.43 DISSATISFIED -1.52

Boughton Heath and Vicars Cross 2.45 0.44 DISSATISFIED 0.34

Broxton 0.46 -1.27 DISSATISFIED -1.23

Central and Westminster 2.75 0.56 DISSATISFIED 0.34

City 5.16 3.06 SATISFIED 2.96

Eddisbury 0.8 -0.97 DISSATISFIED -0.99

Frodsham and Helsby 0.81 -1.32 DISSATISFIED -1.45

Gowy 0.13 -1.94 DISSATISFIED -1.90

Grange and Rossmore 3.59 1.49 SATISFIED 1.28

Groves and Whitby 0 -1.95 DISSATISFIED -2.15

Hoole and Newton 5.09 3.31 SATISFIED 3.22

Ledsham and Willaston 2.88 1.20 DISSATISFIED 1.23

Marbury 0.17 -1.95 DISSATISFIED -1.97

Mickle Trafford 2.05 -0.08 SATISFIED -0.04

Neston and Parkgate 1.56 -0.60 DISSATISFIED -0.56

Northwich East and Shackerley 1.9 -0.16 DISSATISFIED -0.28

Northwich West 1.49 -1.11 DISSATISFIED -1.26

Overleigh 2.3 0.19 DISSATISFIED 0.08

Sutton and Manor 1.49 -0.51 DISSATISFIED -0.70

Upton 1.53 -0.33 DISSATISFIED -0.42

Weaver 0 -1.94 DISSATISFIED -2.05

Winsford North and East 1.5 -0.90 DISSATISFIED -0.92

Winsford South and West 0 -2.24 DISSATISFIED -2.26

NB Deficiencies may not add up to the overall Borough wide figure due to rounding.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 140 The key deficiencies in quantitative terms are therefore located in:

• Winsford South and West, • Groves and Whitby, • Marbury, • Weaver, • Abbey, • Blacon, • Frodsham and Helsby, • Broxton • Northwich West.

Key priorities

Analysis of the audit, the assessment of local needs and the application of local standards highlights the following key issues with regards the provision of allotments across Cheshire West and Chester:

• The quantity of allotments is a key issue for residents. Recent increases in demand have seen waiting lists rise and there are now waiting lists across the Borough. There are particular • Ensure the quantity of deficiencies of allotments identified in Winsford open space is sufficient South and West and Groves and Rossmore to meet local needs and Wards. expectations • • Although quantity was highlighted as the main Ensure that sites are issue, some qualitative issues were identified. accessible and Site visits reveal that the overall quality of functional and provide allotments is inconsistent across the borough maximum benefit to the and there are some issues with security, and a local community requirement to improve facilities at some sites. • Maximise the quality of open spaces in terms of • Residents expect to find allotments in relatively both recreation and close proximity to their home. There is a biodiversity. Green relatively even distribution of allotments across Space must be safe, the Borough, although there are many residents accessible, attractive outside of the recommended distance and of high quality threshold for provision, particularly in Tarvin, Cuddington, Moulton / Davenham, Malpas and Winsford.

The remainder of this section highlights the key priorities for the future delivery of allotments, based on the above issues. The key priorities seek to deliver the basic objectives of PPG17 and are set out under the following headings:

• Protection • New provision • Quality Improvements • Access improvements.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 141 Protecting existing allotments

The quantity of allotments was highlighted as the main issue for improvement by allotment societies and was also the main issue arising across all modes of consultation. 82% of allotment societies responding to the local needs assessment indicated that the quantity of provision is an issue and several societies quoted waiting lists. Indeed, evidence suggests that waiting lists have been as high as 2000 residents. Furthermore, 27% of respondents in the urban wards indicated that they don’t currently have an allotment but would be interested in having one and interest was even higher in the rural wards. Coupled with the recent documented increases in interest for new allotments, this highlights the high and increasing demand for allotments across Cheshire West and Chester. Satisfaction with the amount of existing allotments is low, with residents in only four wards satisfied with the amount of provision that there is. This satisfaction is clearly related to the amount of provision, with 3 or the 4 wards with the highest satisfaction containing the highest amounts of provision.

The local plans from the three former authorities, in line with National Policy, have a strong theme of protection for allotments, specifically;

• RT5 (Vale Royal) - Proposals for the development of allotment sites as identified on the proposals map will not be allowed. Exceptions will be made where the existing allotments can be adequately replaced nearby;

• REC 5 (Ellesmere Port The development of allotments for other uses will not be allowed. Exceptions will only be considered where an alternative, suitable allotment colony can be provided on another site serving the same catchment as the original. The policy also states that ‘where a colony of allotments is proven to be uncultivated and with no demand for plots on it, its alternative use as recreational open space would be considered appropriate. In exceptional circumstances applications for its development for other uses may be allowed subject to an alternative, suitable piece of open space being provided on another site serving the same catchment’; and

• Chester – no policy relating specifically to allotments, but overall protection of allocated open spaces (Policy ENV15).

Given the high demand for allotments, and the identified need to continue to provide these sites, policy should continue to protect statutory allotments from development.

The unprecedented demand for allotments is likely to generate the need for additional allotment sites (discussed later in this section) across the Borough. As a result of uncertainties over whether current demand for allotments will be sustained in the longer term, formal protection should extend only to statutory sites, however policy should require temporary sites to be retained while demand is evident, or replaced should they be lost to development.

Protection of Allotments

ALL 1 Ensure that policy protects statutory allotments from development, and supports the retention of all existing sites that are in use.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 142 Disposal and redesignation

Given the level of use at existing sites, and their current value to residents, there are no recommendations for the disposal and / or redesignation of any allotments in Cheshire West and Chester. There are however currently some sites which are officially designated as allotments, or have previously fulfilled this role, but are no longer used in this capacity. Where possible, the restoration of these sites to meet current demand for allotments should be considered. There are two former allotment sites in Clayhill Green, Little Sutton, which fall under this definition as well as sites in James Street, Northwich, Christleton Drive, Ellesmere Port, Dolphin Crescent, Ellesmere Port and the former Rudheath Allotments (Rudheath, Northwich).

New provision

In light of the demand led nature of allotments, application of the quantity, quality and accessibility standards, which identifies potential areas where new allotments are provided, should be treated as a starting point only. Detailed research and monitoring of local demand should be undertaken prior to the development of new allotments. Consideration of existing waiting lists is a particularly useful indicator of latent demand as is approaches for new allotments from local residents.

At a local level, the assessment of need highlights significant waiting lists at some sites (including over 50 residents in Winsford, and 140 in Boughton Heath). As highlighted earlier, 27% of respondents in the urban wards indicated that they don’t currently have an allotment but would be interested in having one. Interest was much higher in the rural wards, with 35.1% indicating that they would be interested in an allotment. New allotments have recently been provided in Tattenhall and Tarvin, providing further evidence of the ongoing demand for these facilities. Consultations with all key stakeholders indicated that improvements to the amount of allotments provided are significantly more important than the quality of existing facilities.

Application of the quantity standard, which is derived from these findings, supports this, and demonstrates a current shortfall of almost 10 hectares across the Borough.

On the whole, application of the quantity standard supports the identified accessibility deficiencies, specifically:

• Quantitative deficiency in Winsford South and West – lack of access to allotments in Winsford

• Quantitative deficiency in Weaver – lack of access to allotments in Acton Bridge and Weaverham

• Quantitative deficiency in Abbey – lack of access to allotments in Cuddington, Sandiway, Davenham and Moulton

• Quantitative deficiency in Gowy – gaps in provision in Waverton, Christleton, Tarvin

• Broxton – lack of access to allotments in Malpas

• Blacon – limited provision of a relatively small size to serve all residents

• Groves and Whitby – reasonable access to allotments, but limited provision for the size of the population.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 143 In many of the above instances, consultation also identified shortfalls of allotments in these areas, reinforcing the application of the quantity and accessibility standards and highlighting that these areas are priority for improvement, specifically:

• Tarvin – there is a site just outside of the village, however this site is oversubscribed, and has restricted opening hours;

• Winsford – existing allotments are currently over subscribed, with more than 50 residents on the waiting lists;

• Davenham / Moulton – The Parish Council are currently seeking land to provide allotments; and

• Cuddington – residents have recently inquired about the provision of new allotments in the village.

In addition to the above areas, which, given the application of standards and the findings of local consultation, are priorities for new provision, shortfalls of allotments were also raised in the following areas:

• Helsby (already contains two sites but always waiting lists – there are also identified shortfalls against the quantity standard);

• Boughton Heath (140 residents on waiting list at existing site); and

• Tarporley (waiting lists at existing sites – there are also identified shortfalls against the quantity standard.

There are a variety of means of addressing these shortfalls. While new provision should be sourced where possible, in the short-term, consideration should also be given to a change in management practice to maximise the number of residents that can use an allotment. Some allotment societies have already started to implement different practices, including half plots and starter plots. These practices could be adopted at allotments across the Borough, regardless of ownership to ensure that as many residents as possible are given access to an allotment. In particular the following options should be considered:

• Provide half plots to ensure that the site can accommodate a higher number of residents

• Provide starter plots for residents who are new to allotment to gardening

• Ensure that residents have only one allotment plot at any one time

• Prioritise access for people living within the Cheshire West and Chester boundaries.

The assessment of local need suggested that the provision of smaller plots / community allotments is likely to increase the amount of people who are interested in allotments, by making plots more manageable, as well as providing more opportunities for residents to participate.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 144 Management of Allotments

ALL 2 Consider the implementation of management practices designed to maximise the number of residents that can be accommodated at each site, specifically:

• Provide half plots • Provide starter plots for residents new to allotment gardening • Restrict the number of plots that each resident is eligible to rent • Prioritise access for local residents.

In areas where there is no existing allotment sites (such as those identified earlier in this section) or where the amount of residents that can access a site is already maximised, new provision should be investigated. Temporary allotments may be effective in meeting short-term demand, and ensuring that land can be returned to its’ original function if interest in allotments is shortlived. There are many opportunities that currently exist across the Borough to meet this demand, including:

• identification of landowners willing to use their land to meet current demand for allotments (several landowners have approached the Council for this reason);

• conversion of other types of open space (for example there are some areas of surplus amenity space, particularly in Winsford) into allotments;

• allocation of allotments within school sites which can function as community allotments as well as educational tools for pupils, or the provision of community growing gardens within public parks and open spaces; and

• alternative means of providing allotments, such as the use of private gardens. GROFUN (born in Bristol 2006) sought to integrate gardens & people into a local-food growing community. It is a local initiative The Growing Places Scheme (recently launched linking up people who have an unused corner of their garden with local committed across the Borough) builds on some of the growers. The benefits for the garden owners opportunities identified above, and seeks to include a share of the produce, the pleasure provide allotment like growing spaces on of seeing a lovely developing vegetable Council land, in order to rectify short term plot, and the sense of community in being part of a sharing initiative. pressures to provide places to grow produce. Following the success of this scheme, and The Scheme also seeks to facilitate partnership the creation of food growing areas in approaches, whereby relationships are numerous gardens, GROFUN created a small developed between land owners (for example allotment site, where volunteers come to learn skills and share food, this was extended private houses, schools) and people who wish to to over double the size in early 2010. have an allotment. Previously private areas can therefore be used as allotments, helping to meet Supported by Awards for All, links have been the demand while simultaneously cultivating developed with schools and a scheme, ‘Learning by growing’ has been created. community relationships.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 145 New Provision

ALL 3 Provide new allotments or opportunities for growing in areas where there is expressed demand for provision through waiting lists, approaches to the Parish / Town, as well as in areas where there are no existing sites.. Priorities include:

• Tarvin • Winsford • Davenham / Moulton • Cuddington • Christleton / Waverton • Acton Bridge • Helsby • Boughton • Tarporley.

As well as considering the opportunity to provide temporary allotment sites, where land is not available, seek to embrace new ways of delivering opportunities for growing to meet these needs, including the creation of partnerships with schools and members of the local community. The targets for these schemes initially should be areas where provision is below minimum standards, or where there is significant expressed demand.

Given the identified need for new provision both now and as the population grows, it will be important to ensure that the LDF takes into account the need for new developments to contribute towards the provision of allotments, as well as towards the more traditional types of open space. New residents moving into areas where there is already unmet demand will exacerbate shortfalls further.

Provision from new development

ALL 4 Ensure new housing developments contribute to any increase in demand as necessary through the inclusion of appropriate policy in the Local Development Framework. It may be necessary to consider innovative solutions to the provision of allotments, for example the location of facilities at school sites. The impact of the new development should be ascertained by the application of the quantity standard.

Quality enhancements

Consultation findings indicate that the quality of allotments is perceived relatively positively by Allotment Associations. Despite this, site assessments highlighted a significant variance in the quality of provision.

Allotment associations indicate that the key issues at such sites include security of sites, with a number of sites suffering from vandalism. Fencing, water supplies, paths and surfacing were also identified as issues as by allotment societies as follows:

• vandalism (3); • funding (1); • water supply (4); • fencing (5); and • paths and surfacing (2).

In particular, where sites contain a water supply and are perceived to be safe and secure, they are more likely to be considered of good quality than allotments which do not have these facilities. The recommended quality vision, based upon local consultation, identifies cleanliness and maintenance, composting and recycling facilities and secure boundaries as essential

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 146 features of high quality allotments. Site visits revealed that footpaths and signage are also key areas for improvement.

Given the high levels of demand across the Borough for allotments, improvements to sites of poorer quality, and particularly where these sites serve unique catchments or provide the only resource for local residents. The majority of poorer quality sites are located within the urban areas, and are in close proximity to other sites. This may impact on the waiting lists for nearby sites, if residents are attracted to sites that are cleaner, well maintained and provide a better range of facilities.

The poorest quality sites include:

• Site ID 2125 – St Andrews Road Allotments – evidence that site is still used by at least one resident, although the site is largely overgrown and uncultivated. No facilities are provided on the site and there is therefore scope to increase the functionality significantly;

• Site ID 2166 – Stoke Road Allotments – similar to Two years ago Hoole Allotments and Gardeners above site, site largely overgrown and uncultivated Association (HAGA) began and currently contains no facilities. There is potential looking for funding to to improve the role of the site; purchase and install a composting toilet on their site - which has more than 200 • Site ID 97 - Sealand Cottage Allotments - site well plots. Following Funding from used by untidy, covered in tyres from nearby a variety of sources, a LandRover at time of site visit. Fewer facilities also composting toilet has provided than other sites and signage is also poor; recently been installed. The new toilet allows the allotments to diversify into a • Site ID 5032 – Great Budworth Allotments – range of other activities improvements to the footpaths, which are currently involving local groups and uneven were identified as a key priority; and charities and ensures that the site is accessible to all sectors of the population. The • Site 5001 – Hayes Drive Allotments, Barnton – the site composting toilet also is of poorer quality than many others and contains a provides a manageable variety of long grass and weeds, although there are solution, and fits in with the “green ethos” of the also some good facilities provided. The site serves a Allotment Gardners unique catchment area and improvements and is Association. therefore likely to be particularly valuable to residents. Appendix E, site assessments and scores, highlights the key areas for improvement at all sites in the Borough.

Enhancement of existing provision

ALL 5 Support the improvement of allotment sites across the Borough, using the quality vision to identify issues of priority importance. Support may be either financial, or in kind, through guidance in applying for external funding or the provision of advice for example.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 147 Other issues

As well as addressing the issues relating to the quantity of provision, and highlighting improvements to the quality of allotments across the Borough, the benefits of partnership working and community involvement across allotments was clear throughout the local needs assessment.

For allotment associations, the key positives of the current provision of allotments across the Borough were:

• the thriving associations which creates a community atmosphere; and

• the strong working relationship with the Council and good support, particularly following the Local Government Reorganisation.

The importance of establishing and maintaining good relationships was also raised by external agencies. The work of volunteers and the allotment associations has been instrumental in the achievement of many improvements to allotment sites in recent years.

Improving Partnership working and community links

ALL 6 Continue to develop partnerships between providers and users of allotments and establish a regular forum for knowledge sharing and partnership working.

Summary

In accordance with the PPG17 Companion Guide, this section sets out a strategic framework for the delivery of allotments across Cheshire West and Chester Council.

The key issues arising include:

• The quantity of allotments was the key issue highlighted across all consultations. Recent increases in demand have seen waiting lists rise and there are now waiting lists across the Borough. Increasing the amount of allotments available to residents and providing more opportunities to participate is therefore a key priority. There are deficiencies identified throughout the Borough. In some instances, changes to the management practices to maximise the number of residents who are able to use a site will be sufficient to increase capacity, while in other areas, new provision will be required. Given fluctuations in demand, these should be delivered through a combination of formal allotment sites (statutory and temporary) and more informal community growing areas.

• Although quantity was highlighted as the main issue, some qualitative issues were identified. Site visits reveal that the quality of allotments is lower than some other types of open space, and that the overall quality of allotments is inconsistent across the borough. Fencing, water supplies, paths and surfacing were identified as key issues.

• Residents expect to find allotments in relatively close proximity to their home. There is a relatively even distribution of allotments across the Borough, although there are many residents outside of the recommended distance threshold for provision.

• Partnership working between allotment holders and providers has been successful, and the established allotment associations are perceived to be effective and beneficial. There are examples of where such partnership working has been effective both in Cheshire West and Chester and as best practice examples nationally.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 148 The key priorities are summarised below:

Protection Enhancement

All Allotments across the Borough Support Allotment Associations / Providers to improve the should be protected, given the quality of sites achieving low quality scores, Quality importance of these facilities to improvements are of significantly lower priority than the residents and the existing demand for protection of existing sites and the provision of new sites. such sites. Formal protection should extend to statutory allotment sites Key priorities include fencing, water supplies, paths and only, allowing the creation of surfaces and a series of poorer quality sites have been temporary allotment sites to identified. accommodate fluctuations in demand.

New Provision Redesignation

Provide new allotments or Investigate the current role of sites in Clayhill Green, Little opportunities for growing in areas Sutton, James Street, Northwich, Christleton Drive, Ellesmere where there is expressed demand for Port and the former Rudheath Allotments (Rudheath, provision. Priorities include: Northwich) and consider returning them to allotments to meet current demand. • Tarvin

• Winsford • Davenham / Moulton • Cuddington • Christleton / Waverton • Acton Bridge • Helsby • Boughton • Tarporley.

As well as considering the opportunity to provide temporary allotment sites, where land is not available, seek to embrace new ways of delivering opportunities for growing to meet these needs, including the creation of partnerships with schools and members of the local community. The targets for these schemes initially should be areas where provision is below minimum standards, or where there is significant expressed demand.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 149

9. Outdoor Sports Facilities

Introduction and definition

Outdoor sports facilities are a wide ranging category of open space which includes both 09 natural and artificial surfaces for sport and recreation that are either publicly or privately owned. Facilities included within this category are:

• tennis courts; • bowling greens; • athletics tracks; • Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs); • natural turf playing pitches (including football, rugby, cricket and hockey); and • artificial grass pitches (AGP).

In addition to serving their primary purpose of providing opportunities for formal sport, outdoor sports facilities also often function as a recreational and amenity resource. This is particularly true of pitches, which often have a secondary function of dog walking and ‘kickabout’ areas.

This section outlines the key strategic context for participation in outdoor sports in Cheshire West and Chester (drawing upon the Assessment of Local Needs contained in Appendix A) and highlights the key issues arising, considering both the overall provision of outdoor sports facilities and the key issues by facility type.

Guidance set out in Towards a Level Playing Field (Sport England 2003) recommends the preparation of a detailed assessment of playing pitches, following a specific methodology. A playing pitch strategy following this guidance is currently being prepared across Cheshire West and Chester and will be complete by April 2011. Commentary in this section relating to grass pitches therefore provides an overview only, and the findings and key priorities set out in the Playing Pitch Strategy will supersede those in this document relating to grass pitches.

Context

Active People

The Active People Surveys (conducted first in 2005/06) is a widespread survey of adults aged 16 and over living in England. The Survey gathers data on the type, duration and intensity of participation in different types of sport and active recreation and enables analysis of performance against a series of indicators, specifically;

• Participation • Volunteering • Sports club membership • Amount of people receiving tuition from an instructor or coach

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 150

• Participation in competitive sport • Satisfaction with local facility provision.

The survey has been completed annually since the initial survey, and results are released quarterly on a rolling programme. The survey enables comparison with local and national benchmarks, as well as the evaluation of trends across Cheshire West and Chester over time.

The Active People Surveys were carried out using the boundaries of the three former authorities, specifically Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston and Vale Royal.

Table 9.1 overleaf summarises the results of Active People 1,2 and 3 and 4, highlighting that overall participation is above national and regional averages in all of the three former authority areas, but particularly high in Chester. Club membership, volunteering, and tuition is also higher than the national averages. This has stayed relatively consistent across the three surveys, with only none statistical significant fluctuations evident. Whilst for the most part satisfaction with the quality of facilities is also above the averages, it is clear that this is declining, with the exception of Chester, where AP4 demonstrates a slight increase in satisfaction (although this is not statistically significant).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 151

Table 9.1 – Active People Survey key data

Indicator Survey Cheshire West and Chester Chester Ellesmere Vale Port Royal Participation AP1 25.5 22.3 22.4 20.6 21& AP2 29.9 24.7 23.8 21.3 21.3% AP3 26.6 22.5 25.6 21.4 21.6% AP4 28.1 24.1 21.2 22.4 Volunteering AP1 5 5.5 6 4.6 4.7% AP2 7 7.2 4.3 5 4.9% AP3 3.3 5.7 6.7 4.8 4.7% AP4 6.2 5.5 9.1 4.8 4.5% Club membership. AP! 30.5 29.3 25.9 24.9 25.1% AP2 30.5 26.4 27.9 24.2 24.7% AP3 29.9 28.4 26.2 24.2 24.1% AP4 33.5 28.2 24.7 23.6 23.9% Tuition AP1 20.5 19.2 17.8 16.4 18% AP2 23.7 18.6 17.9 16.5 18.1% AP3 17.9 18.5 21.5 15.9 17.5% AP4 18.8 17.3 20.4 15.9 17.5% Competition AP1 18.4 16.9 17.4 14.5 15% AP2 19.6 17.9 19.3 14.5 14.6% AP3 16.9 14.6 19.1 14.2 14.4% AP4 22.7 14.1 20.2 14.5 14.4% Satisfaction AP1 70.7 73.3 67.2 70.1 69.5% AP2 73.3 69.2 62.8 66.5 66.6% AP3 67.2 69.8 69.8 68.1 68.4% AP4 70.9 69.6 68.7 68.9 69%

Reflecting the high levels of participation that are evident across the Borough in comparison to the national and regional averages, the Active People Diagnostic illustrates that when taking into account the amount of the demographics of the Borough, participation is above that that may be expected, specifically in:

• the former Chester area, participation is 2.25% above the level that could be anticipated; • the former Ellesmere Port, participation is 1.15% above the level that may be expected; and • participation in Vale Royal is also marginally above levels that might be expected (0.11%).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 152

Market segmentation

Building on research on the results of the Active People Survey, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's Taking Part survey and the Mosaic tool (Experian), Sport England has sub divided the population into nineteen segments.

These segments are used to evaluate and understand the attitudes and motivations of different sectors of the population – why they play sport and why they don’t.

Residents are classified according to their key characteristics and analysis of the dominant market segments provides an indication as to the type of facilities that may be required if certain groups are to become active. This helps to maximise the impact of facilities by ensuring that they are tailored to the needs and expectations of local residents.

Across Cheshire West and Chester, analysis of the market demonstrates that the three dominant market segments are:

• Tim - aged 25 - 35, professional and sporty, enjoys technical sports. Likely to have private gym membership, and compete in some sports;

• Philip – aged 45 – 55, married professional with older children, Most active type within this Peer Group, enjoys participating in a number of activities, including team sports, racquet games and technical sports; and

• Elsie and Arnold – 66+ retired singles or widowers. Characterised by low participation. Safety and company are important to this populations sector. These residents enjoy low impact exercise such as bowls and dancing.

The proportion of residents falling into each of the 19 segments is summarised in Figure 9.1 overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 153

Figure 9.1 – Market segmentation in Cheshire West and Chester (Sport England 2010)

Cheshire West and Chester Open Space Assessment 155

The dominant market segments suggest that overall, residents of Cheshire West and Chester have a good propensity to participate in sport and active recreation (as highlighted by existing participation rates). It also however provides evidence of the need to ensure that facilities for residents who prefer lower impact exercise are also available, given the high numbers of ‘Elsie and Arnolds’ and ‘Roger and Joys’.

While the dominant market segment overall is ‘Tim’, this disguises variations in the borough, which may impact upon the types of facilities required. This is summarised in Figure 9.2 overleaf which indicates that while much of the Borough is dominated by ‘Tims’, there are clusters of ‘Kev’ in the Ellesmere Port area, and group of Elsie and Arnold and Ralph and Phylis, particularly in some of the more rural parts of the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester Open Space Assessment 156

Figure 9.2 – Dominant market segments in Cheshire West and Chester

Cheshire West and Chester Open Space Assessment 157

Propensity to participate in specific sports will be discussed in the facility specific discussions later in this section.

Full descriptions of each market segment can be found at http://www.sportengland.org/research/market_segmentation.aspx

The remainder of this section will provide firstly an overview of the overall distribution of outdoor sports facilities across Cheshire West and Chester, and then consider the specific needs for each sport across the Borough.

Context

Quantity of outdoor sports facilities

Over 1774 hectares is dedicated to the provision of outdoor sports facilities across the Borough, made up of over 560 facilities. Facilities are owned and managed by a variety of providers including Cheshire West and Chester Council, Parish Councils, private or voluntary sports clubs and schools.

The location of circa a third of all facilities at schools, colleges and universities (and a further 14 independent school sites) emphasizes the importance of the education stock in the provision of outdoor sports facilities.

Given the nature of outdoor sports facilities, and the degree to which their sizes vary by function, outdoor sports facilities have been analysed by type. Table 9.2 summarises the amount of land dedicated to each type of sports facility across Cheshire West and Chester. The number of facilities provided on each site is discussed later in this section.

Table 9.2 – Outdoor sports facilities across Cheshire West and Chester

Golf AGP Bowls Other Tennis MUGA Course Grass Pitch Grass Area Cheshire West and 545 11.21 88.76 8.97 11.5 879.59 224.9 Chester

Rural Wards 186.69 3.54 51.74 4.39 4.91 609.76 157.07

Urban Wards 358.19 7.67 37.02 4.58 6.59 269.83 67.83

As can be seen above, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of land with a primary purpose of outdoor sports facilities is dedicated to golf and grass pitches. The amount of space for bowls and tennis is relatively small in comparison.

The multi use games areas that are included above are all situated at school sites, and have a primary purpose of sport. These are supplemented by the MUGAs provided for the general benefit of young people, in parks and recreation grounds, but which also offer sporting opportunities to residents.

Cheshire West and Chester Open Space Assessment 158

It can be seen that while the supply of grass pitches and synthetic facilities is higher in the more urban parts of the Borough, unsurprisingly, most of the golf courses are located in more rural areas. Bowling greens and tennis courts are relatively evenly distributed.

The other facilities are found largely in the rural areas. These constitute:

• Fishing grounds

• Sailing facilities

• Athletics tracks

• Polo clubs.

Consultation

Consultation demonstrated that overall, there is a general level of satisfaction with the current provision of outdoor sports facilities, with more respondents stating that the quantity of all types of facilities, except athletics tracks, is about right than those who feel that there are not enough. The greatest levels of satisfaction are shown with the provision of golf courses and grass pitches. Findings in the urban and rural areas are generally consistent with the overall response. This viewpoint is also reflected in the officers and online survey. The high participation in sports facilities was highlighted as a key strength of the Borough at the external agencies workshop.

Dissatisfaction with the provision of outdoor sports facilities is evident through the survey for young people however. Over half of young people suggested that there are not enough sports facilities in their local area (55%) and a further 9% suggested that there are none. This compares to 21% who said that there are enough and 7% who indicated that there are more than enough.

Interestingly when looking at the views of only those who select outdoor sports facilities as their favourite site, more young people think that the quantity of provision is sufficient than think there is a need for more. This may infer that the right type of facilities are not provided to capture the interest of these young people.

The views of sports clubs and users will be discussed later in this section, when considering specific facility types.

Quality of outdoor sports facilities

The quality of sports facilities ranged more than any other type of facility (site visit scores demonstrate scores of between 10% and 97%). There are some very high quality private sites, which provide a range of ancillary facilities and some much poorer provision. The quality of pitches in particular was varying, with many facilities doubling as recreation grounds and experiencing issues such as litter and dog fouling.

On the whole, the quality of artificial pitches and golf courses is high and there are also some high quality bowling greens. There are some poor quality tennis courts, as well as some good facilities, and the quality of athletics tracks is also varying.

Supporting the varying scores achieved, a difference in opinion regarding the quality of outdoor sports facilities is clear through the household survey. 27% rate the quality of facilities as average, 17% good and 15% poor. This suggests that there are both high quality and low quality facilities in the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 159

Average quality scores achieved for each type of facility are summarised below in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 – Quality of outdoor sports facilities in Cheshire West and Chester

Golf Pitch Bowls Tennis MUGA Course Synthetic Grass Pitch Grass Area Average Score 63% 82% N/A 74% 70% 79%

Range of Scores 20-94% 65-92% N/A 29 – 44-94% 77-97% 94%

It is clear that the variation in quality of grass pitches and tennis courts is significantly above the other facility types.

The key issues arising from the site assessments are summarised in Figure 9.3.

Figure 9.3 – Quality Issues of Outdoor Sports Facilities

Quality Issues - Outdoor Sports Facilities

Average Score

Provision of Quality of Dog Fouling Litter Security Buildings Equipment Equipment

Site visits reveal that dog fouling remains a key issue at outdoor sports facilities (public sites), and the quality of equipment at some sites is in need of improvement.

The quality of pitches in particular was varying, with many facilities doubling as recreation grounds and experiencing issues such as litter and dog fouling.

Reflecting the findings of site visits, current users indicated that the main issues experienced at outdoor sports facilities are dog fouling, litter and vandalism and graffiti, supporting the findings of site visits.

For those that visit outdoor sports facilities more than any other type of open space, cleanliness and maintenance was perceived to be significantly more important than other features. Parking facilities, toilets, and changing facilities were the next highest rated priorities.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 160

The quality scores achieved for each site, and the key issues arising during the assessment can be found in the site database.

Access

The assessment of local needs indicates that residents expect to find grass pitches within close proximity to the home, however, particularly in the more rural parts of the Borough, residents are willing to travel to more strategic facilities such as golf and synthetic pitches. There are mixed views as to the mode and length of travel that should be required to reach tennis courts and bowling greens, with some residents in urban areas believing that they should be accessible within walking distance of the home.

Site assessments reveal that on the whole, outdoor sports facilities are relatively accessible in terms of the gradient of the site and footpaths, although improvements to signage of some facilities are required.

Many of the facilities are however for use by Members only (this is particularly true for tennis, bowling and golf) although most sites do allow a degree of casual access.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally.

The recommended quantity, quality and access standards for each type of sport are set out overleaf. For quality, an overarching standard has been set to cover all outdoor sports facilities in the Borough. Individual standards specific to the sport in question have been set for accessibility and quantity.

The demand led nature of outdoor sports facilities means that the local standards should be treated as a starting point only, as demand will fluctuate according to participation trends and the population in question.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 161

Accessibility Standard Grass Pitches – 10 minutes walk time (basic grass pitch) and 10 minute drive time to a multi pitch site.

Synthetic Pitches - 20 minutes drive time

Bowling Greens - 10 minutes drive time.

Tennis Courts – 10 minutes drive time

Golf Course - 20 minutes drive time Justification Analysis of consultation findings suggests that while residents expect to find informal opportunities for sport in close proximity to the home, in general there is an expectation of travel to reach formal facilities suitable for competitive purposes.

In particular, there is strong evidence that golf courses and synthetic pitches are considered to be strategic facilities and residents expect to travel to these facilities. A drive time standard in line with expectations (mean and mode) has therefore been set.

For both tennis courts and bowling greens, there are split views, although more residents (particularly in urban areas) expect to walk to these sites than would drive. Analysis of the quantity of provision for both of these types of facility suggests that provision is sufficient, although particularly with regards tennis, there are issues relating to access to sites. The quality of facilities was also rated as important, and it was considered essential to balance quantity with quality. For these reasons, a drive time standard has been set for both tennis courts and bowling greens, although local access to provision will be targeted where possible and particularly considered when planning new facilities.

For grass pitches, in depth analysis of consultation findings suggests that residents would expect to find local access to pitches, with many suggesting that facilities should be found within 10 minutes of the home. Quality issues are however identified with playing pitches, and it is essential to balance quality and quantity. To promote this balance and in order to maximise access to facilities, two standards for grass pitches have therefore been set.

In recognition of the need for local access to pitches, a 10 minute walk time standard for access to a basic pitch / kickabout area has been set. Such facilities provide for local recreational opportunities. Residents should however expect to travel further (10 minute drive) to reach a larger multi pitch site with changing rooms.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 162

Quantity Standards (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Quantity Standards Current Provision Recommended Local Standard

Grass Pitches – to be set as part of CW&C Grass Pitches – to be set as part of CW&C PPS PPS Tennis Courts –0.45 courts per 1000 (indicative Tennis Courts –0.45 courts per 1000 standard only, localised assessment of demand should be undertaken) Bowling Greens –0.23 greens per 1000 Bowling Greens – 0.23 greens per 1000 Synthetic Turf Pitches - to be set as part of (indicative standard only, localised assessment CW&C PPS of demand should be undertaken)

Golf Course – no standard set Synthetic Turf Pitches - to be set as part of CW&C PPS

Golf Course – No standard set

Justification The recommended standards for outdoor sports facilities take into account the key issues arising from consultation, as well as analysis of current usage and participation patterns across the Borough.

For tennis, bowls and golf courses, consultation indicates that there are high levels of satisfaction with levels of existing provision, and that there are sufficient facilities within the Borough to accommodate the level of demand currently exhibited, as well as future increases in participation. Reflecting this, standards have been set at the existing levels of provision, promoting a focus on the quality of facilities.

A Playing Pitch Strategy is currently being prepared across Cheshire West and Chester in line with the guidance set out in Towards a Level Playing Field, a guide the preparation of Playing Pitch Strategies (Sport England). This strategy will examine the adequacy of pitch provision and synthetic turf pitches in detail and the findings will supersede the findings of this report, which provide an overview of provision. The Playing Pitch Strategy will include detailed calculations on local standards for grass pitches.

The recommended local standards should be used as an interim measure only, until superseded by that in the Playing Pitch Strategy. It seeks to protect existing facilities from development, and promote the provision of accessible and high quality facilities.

The overarching quality vision for outdoor sports facilities, derived from consultation and site visits undertaken as part of this assessment and the local assessment of need, is set out overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 163

Quality Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Appropriate specification for key users (designed in accordance with NGB guidance)

Effective maintenance and Changing facilities management

Parking facilities Toilets

Good site access Accessible pricing

Lighting and security measures

Ancillary provision – bar etc.

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% of higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Application of standards

As well as sport specific priorities, the application of local standards and the consultation programme carried out revealed a series of issues common to all sports, and relevant Borough Wide.

These are highlighted first, and then the application of standards specific to each sports facility is discussed in the sections that follow.

Facilitation

There are many different providers of outdoor sports facilities in across Cheshire West and Chester, including the Council, Parish/Town Council’s, private/voluntary sports clubs. Therefore in order to promote a co-ordinated approach to outdoor sports facility provision, it will be essential that the Council works in partnership with other providers and users. This will be particularly important in areas of existing deficiency, where key priorities might include the use of school facilities for community use.

Furthermore, consultees from a variety of sports indicated that relationships and communication between providers and clubs were improving, and that this dialogue had helped improve the quality of facilities, as a result of a shared understanding of the issues between parties. Much of this dialogue was attributed to the establishment of user forums.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 164

Other issues

OSF 1 Continue to support and establish user forums as a channel of communication between users of sports facilities and providers.

Protection

The local quantity standard for each sport has been set at or above the existing level of provision, reflecting the need to protect existing facilities and the value of existing sites. Almost all facilities are currently used and highly valued.

In light of the importance of outdoor sports facilities to residents, and their role in increasing physical activity and promoting a healthy lifestyle, it will be important to ensure that all sites are protected from development unless it can be proven that the site is surplus to demand, or that development of one site will result in improved facilities at a nearby site.

Paragraph 10 of PPG17 requires that before any open space can be lost to residential development, it must be demonstrated that it is surplus to requirements, not only in terms of its existing use, but also in respect of any other functions of open space that it can perform. Sport England planning guidance highlights this point and reinforces that this requirement should be considered prior to the recommended disposal of any site.

Sport England places an emphasis on the protection of playing pitches and it is their policy to object to any planning application that will result in the loss of a playing field unless it meets one of the five exceptions defined in ‘A Sporting Future For the Playing Fields of England’.

These principles should be incorporated through the provision of appropriate policies in the Local Development Framework (LDF).

Other Issues – Protection of Outdoor Sports facilities

OSF 2 Policy should protect against the loss of outdoor sports facilities, unless a series of criteria can be met, proving that the development will be of overall sporting benefit.

Other issues

In addition to giving consideration of the provision of formal sports facilities, the local needs consultation reinforces the role that informal parks and open spaces play in meeting the active recreation needs of residents of Cheshire West and Chester. For all organisations involved with sport and physical activity across the Borough, increasing participation is a key priority moving forward.

As well as facility-based requirements, consultation undertaken as part of the local needs assessment highlights the following issues:

• The need to improve pathways through clubs, and to build on the already successful school club links that have been developed.

• The importance of partnership working between the Council, volunteers, clubs and schools.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 165

• The role of events in successfully increasing participation in a variety of sports. The CSP indicated that they may seek to organise a series of mass participation events to promote sport and physical activity across Cheshire West and Chester.

Other Issues – Participation

OSF 3 Support initiatives to improve participation in sporting activity across the borough.

Sport specific priorities

In order to provide a meaningful overview of outdoor sports facilities in Cheshire West and Chester, the specific facilities are considered separately in the text that follows, using the application of standards as a basis for discussion specifically:

• tennis courts; • bowling greens; • athletics tracks; • natural turf playing pitches (including football, rugby, cricket and hockey); • artificial grass pitches; and • other specialist facilities.

Tennis courts

Context

The National Governing Body for tennis, the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) set out in their strategy that they seek to provide:

• access for everyone to well maintained high quality tennis facilities which are either free or pay as you play;

• a Clubmark accredited place to play within a 10 minute drive of the home;

• indoor courts within a 20 minute drive time of their home;

• a mini tennis (10 and under) performance programme within a 20 minute drive of their home (Performance Centres);

• a performance programme for 11 - 15 year olds within a 45 minute drive time of their home (High Performance Centre); and

• a limited number of internationally orientated programmes strategically spread for players 16+ with an international programme (International High Performance Centres).

At the Stakeholder Workshop, the LTA indicated that:

• tennis provision across Cheshire West and Chester is good;

• the improvement of the quality of tennis courts, and access to these facilities is the key priority, particularly with regards ensuring that provision caters for the casual user; and

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 166

• there are opportunities to increase the use of school facilities by the public outside of curricular hours.

Sport England market segmentation indicates that across the Borough, the characteristics of the population mean that between 2.1 and 5% of the population have the propensity to participate in tennis. This propensity is lower however in the Blacon, Great Sutton, Whitby and areas of the borough.

Current provision

There are 148 tennis courts across Cheshire West and Chester, located on 39 sites. Of these, 70 located at private clubs, and the remainder are on public or school sites. Circa 7 of the tennis courts on public sites are predominantly used by Clubs (Glen Aber Tennis Club, Westminster Park, Frodsham Tennis Club, Castle Park and Ellesmere Port Tennis Club, Whitby Park). Access for the casual user is much lower.

Almost all courts are either hard courts or synthetic facilities, although some sites have grass courts provided alongside other types of court. Knights Grange, Winsford is the only public facility to contain grass courts.

Supporting these facilities, there are a variety of MUGAs located at school sites. Although many of these are used by the school for tennis in the summer, they are largely inaccessible to members of the community at the current time.

Accessibility

Consultation revealed that access to tennis courts for members of the public is a key priority. The relocation of a number of tennis clubs to schools was identified as having worked well in increasing access to courts, both across Cheshire West and Chester and also within the wider north west region. Increasing access to school tennis courts was identified as a priority.

The recommended accessibility standard sets a target of ensuring that all residents are within a 10 minute drivetime of an accessible tennis courts. This accords with the standards set by the LTA.

Application of this standard demonstrates that almost all residents are able to access a tennis court within a ten minute drive from their home, with only residents in some very rural parts of the borough having to travel marginally further than 10 minutes. Access to these facilities are illustrated in Appendix G.

In addition to the supply of tennis courts, many schools contain MUGAs, which are often marked out as tennis courts during the summer months. Most of these facilities are however not accessible to local residents. Appendix G also provides illustration of the location of these facilities.

While all residents are able to access a site, there are only three clubs which are registered with Club Mark (Ellesmere Port City Tennis Club, Hartford Tennis Club and Neston CC Tennis Club) and therefore most residents have to travel further than 10 minutes if they wish to reach a club with a quality accreditation.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 167

Quantity

The recommended quantity standard builds on the application of the accessibility standard, which suggests that no more tennis courts are required to meet with the standard, and sets a standard to reflect the existing level of provision. Instead, priority should be given to improving the access to existing facilities at school sites, including MUGAs.

This is supported by the standard promoted by the LTA, which indicates that 2% of the population regularly play tennis and demand court usage. On the basis of assumptions about frequency of use, the LTA advocates provision of 1 court per 45 players.

When translating this to the population of Cheshire West and Chester, this suggests that only 145 courts are required (equivalent to the existing level). When measuring this against the adult population only, the number of courts required declines significantly.

Consultation undertaken as part of the local needs assessment concurs with these findings, with only one club (Hoole LTC) indicating that they are currently seeking new facilities. Hoole TC indicated that they are actively seeking to secure use of a public facility and the constraints of the existing facility impact upon the number of competitions that can be entered.

Quality

The LTA Facility Strategy indicates that priority should be given to:

• improving facilities at high quality places to play - enhancing facility provision at performance venues and Tennis Clubmark accredited places to play;

• Tennis in community settings – Beacon sites - supporting LA’s to bring back into use existing community tennis facilities and working with them to develop affordable quality tennis programmes; and

• sustainability – advising places to play to ring fence funding to ensure existing facilities can be upgraded or replaced when they get to the end of their life.

The quality of tennis courts ranges from 29% to 94%. The average score is 74%. This is however disguised by the tennis courts at Frodsham Leisure Centre, which are disused and in a poor state of repair.

Excluding Frodsham Leisure Centre, the quality of tennis facilities in the Borough is consistently high and all sites achieve a score of 58% or more. Only the following sites fall below the target score of 75%, specifically:

• Whitby Park Tennis Courts (Club Mark Club Play here)

• Hoole Tennis Club

• Johnson's Recreation Ground Tennis Courts

• Wharton Recreation Ground Tennis Courts

• Burton and Puddington Lawn Tennis Club

• Beech Tennis Club

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 168

• Over Recreation Ground Tennis Courts

• Denehurst Park Way Sports Area

• Great Budworth Tennis Courts

• Castle Park Tennis Court 1

• King George V Tennis Courts.

Even though the above sites achieve lower scores than other courts, almost all of the sites were considered to be of good quality, although they offer more basic facilities than found at sites in other parts of the Borough. In general, the key issues identified were:

• wearing courts (Whitby Park, Johnson’s Recreation Ground, Wharton, Puddington, Over Recreation Ground, Denehurst);

• a lack of facilities such as changing / pavilions and no floodlights; and

• damage to the nets / surface evident at the time of site visits.

The above demonstrates that while the quality of club sites is largely higher than that of public facilities, there are some club sites that are of lower standard than public facilities.

Sites considered to be of particularly good quality include Wealstone Lane Tennis Courts, Tattenhall Tennis Club, Chester Tennis Club, Vickers Way Tennis Courts, Glen Aber Tennis Club, Hartford Tennis Club and Cuddington and Sandiway Tennis Club. Knights Grange Tennis courts were the highest scoring public facility and this site was commended for the variety of courts available. It is clear that facilities at clubs are on the whole well maintained, and provide an abundance of facilities, including floodlights, club house and seating around the side of the court.

While improvements to the quality of courts were considered to be important, clubs highlighted that it is important to ensure that facilities remain affordable.

Future priorities

Analysis of current tennis provision therefore suggests that:

• quality improvements to the identified public facilities are important, particularly if casual use of facilities is to be increased; and

• demand for additional courts should be met by opening up facilities on school sites (these are likely to require improvements prior to use by the community) rather than new facilities. All residents are within the appropriate catchment of a facility currently, however no provision will be required if participation is to increase.

Analysis of current tennis players by Sport England helps to identify priority locations within the Borough. Figure 9.4 overleaf illustrates the location of existing players, highlighting areas where current participation is lower.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 169

Figure 9.4 – Participation in Tennis

It can be seen that participation is lower in Ellesmere Port, Upton, Lache, Blacon, Weaverham and the Wharton area of Winsford. While as highlighted earlier, residents in Ellesmere Port and Blacon have a lower propensity to participate in tennis, there are potentially other reasons why residents in Upton, Weaverham and Winsford are not participating, which may be related to facilities.

Improvements to tennis provision in these areas should therefore be prioritised, specifically in;

• Wharton, the existing courts were identified as being of poor quality, which may impact on their use and therefore overall participation;

• Upton – while there is a high quality facility (Wealstone Lane), there is limited casual access to this site; and in

• Weaverham – the nearest facilities are in Hartford, and there is limited public access to this site. Consideration could be given to providing public use of facilities at Weaverham High School.

Future priorities – Tennis

Priorities – Tennis

TENNIS Negotiate access to school sites containing tennis provision particularly in Upton and Weaverham to increase the amount of facilities available.

In particular, work with Hoole LTC to secure access to additional courts, and work alongside schools to improve school club links and develop partnerships between schools and clubs.

Provide support to maintain and improve the quality of tennis courts across the Borough, using the site visits and quality standards to inform required improvements. Wharton Tennis Courts are a particular priority, as are facilities used by current Club Mark sites which are identified as poor.

The facilities at Frodsham Leisure Centre have no role in their current format and the use of these sites should be investigated further.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 170

Bowling Greens

Context

There are 66 sites containing bowling greens. While 54 contain just one green, 11 have two or more greens. Five of the sites containing two or more bowling greens are situated within public parks, specifically Westminster Park, Alexandra Park, Water Tower Gardens, Wharton Recreation Ground (all 2 greens) and Whitby Park (3 greens). The remainder are club-based facilities.

The Sport England market segmentation indicates that 0.1 – 1% of the population of Cheshire West and Chester are likely to be interested in participating in bowls. This propensity to participate is the same in all areas of the Borough. Current participation is around 1%, which is the same as , but lower than the Wirral.

Accessibility

The local accessibility standard for bowling greens is set at a 10-minute drivetime. Application of this standard suggests that most residents are within the recommended distance threshold of a bowling green and there are no clear deficiencies. The assessment of local need did not highlight any areas of the Borough where residents believe there are deficiencies in bowling greens. Maps illustrating the application of this standard are provided in Appendix G.

Quantity

Feedback received throughout the assessment of local needs indicated that there are perceived to be sufficient bowling greens. Feedback from bowling clubs was also positive, with all responding clubs rating the amount of provision as average or above, and half of responding clubs currently seeking to gain new members.

Furthermore, all clubs indicated that improving the quality of existing facilities, and increasing access to existing sites was of higher priority than the creation of new facilities.

This concurs with the application of the accessibility standard, which demonstrates that there are sufficient greens to provide all residents with appropriate access to a facility. In recognition of this, the quantity standard is therefore set at the existing level of provision.

Quality

The quality of bowling greens ranges from 44% to 94% indicating that while there are some high quality sites, there are also some areas for improvement. The overall average quality of bowling greens was amongst the lowest of all types of outdoor sports facilities, however this disguises the presence of some very high quality facilities. There are 30 sites falling below the target quality score, 10 of which achieved scores of between 70 and 75%, indicating that improvement is not a priority.

Consultation reveals generally positive views about the quality of bowling greens, with only one club indicating that their facilities are poor. While the quality of facilities was perceived to have declined in recent years, it was suggested that an improvement has been seen and that clubs are optimistic about the future provision.

Clubs identified the key priorities as:

• playing surface;

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 171

• maintenance; and

• changing and ancillary provision.

Site visits reveal that the majority of bowling greens have a good level of facilities and provide access to shelter and / or a pavilion. Many sites are also floodlit, and large numbers of sites offer pavilions and a social scene as well as sporting activity. There was evidence of a lot of care and dedication in the management and maintenance of some club facilities, with an abundance of flowerpots surrounding many of the greens.

For those sites that are rated more poorly, the main issue is wear and tear, and the maintenance of the green. Almost all sites achieving lower quality scores were perceived to have patchy grass on the green in places and / or to have more limited facilities than others. Some issues with vandalism were also identified. The sites achieving the lowest quality scores include:

• the Groves Bowling Green;

• the Red Lion Bowling Club;

• Waverton Bowling Green; and

• the Woodland Hotel Bowling Green.

In addition, Knights Grange Bowling Green was highlighted as appearing to be unused and consultation confirms that there is no club currently based at the site.

Key priorities

Analysis of the provision of bowling greens in Cheshire West and Chester therefore suggests that ongoing improvements to the quality of existing provision should be prioritised over the provision of more sites. Key priorities include maintenance, changing provision and the playing surface. The majority of sites achieving poorer scores demonstrated wear and tear to the playing surface.

Most clubs indicated that they currently have capacity, and half are actively seeking to attract new members. Improvements to the level of access to facilities will therefore be essential if this is to be achieved. Sport England analysis in Figure 9.5 indicates that while the overall propensity to participate in bowls is the same across the Borough, there are some areas where participation is currently lower.

Figure 9.5 – Current participation in Bowling

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 172

Efforts to attract new players should therefore be focused in the following areas in the short term:

• Winsford • Farndon • Waverton • Hartford • Mickle Trafford • Ellesmere Port • Malpas.

Priorities – Bowling

BOWLING Focus on maintaining and improving the quality of existing provision, focusing on those sites which currently fall below the target quality score.

With the exception of the bowling green at Knights Grange which is not currently used, all bowling greens contained within this audit of provision are currently used and are therefore valuable.

Priority should be given to improving access to existing facilities, and attracting new members to bowls clubs, particularly in the following areas;

• Farndon • Waverton • Hartford • Mickle Trafford • Ellesmere Port • Malpas.

Natural Turf Playing Pitches

There are currently 258 sites containing natural turf playing fields across Cheshire West and Chester. Of these, 152 are school sites and the remainder are public, private and Parish Council pitches.

These pitches provide facilities for the following sports:

• Football • Cricket • Rugby Union • Rugby league.

Some of these sites, primarily at school sites, double up as rounders and athletics facilities in the summer. Many of the smaller primary schools do not mark their pitches out for a specific sport, instead retaining the field as a multi functional grassed area. Early drafts of the Playing Pitch Strategy reveal that some of the pitches included as grass pitches within this PPG17 assessment are not functioning as formal playing fields at the current time. For the purposes of this assessment, these sites are retained within this document as playing pitches, however the Playing Pitch Strategy should be viewed as providing the definitive view on playing fields in the Borough. Pitches that are currently not receiving any formal use include Ince Playing Fields,

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 173

Phoenix Tower Playing Field, Chapel Lane Playing Pitches, Cherry Grove Recreation Ground, Farndon Recreation Ground, Works Lane Playing Field, Linnards Lane Playing Field, Birches Lane Playing Pitch, Chapel Lane Recreation area, Manley Village Playing Field, Nursery Road Recreation Ground, Whitley Playing Field, Pennine Way Playing Field,Verdin Exchange, Wharton Recreation Ground, Greville Drive Playing Field and West Cheshire College Campus.

All residents have access to a local pitch within the recommended distance threshold, although some residents have to travel further to reach multi pitch venues.

The local needs assessment outlined the following key issues relating to pitch sports across Cheshire West and Chester:

• 43% of football clubs indicated membership was increasing;

• key issues highlighted by clubs were a lack of internal funding (71%), lack of training facilities (64%), access to training facilities (57%) and lack of appropriate match facilities (50%);

• 79% of football clubs indicated that pitch quality has deteriorated in recent years. The main issues were drainage, dog fouling and changing. Only 36% of clubs however would pay more if it went directly towards improving the quality of facilities. If pitches were to be improved, the top three priorities were pitch surface, drainage and changing facilities;

• the overall quality and quantity of cricket facilities was perceived to be good, although no clubs using public cricket grounds responded. Clubs displayed an intention to increase participation in the sport through links with schools etc, which may have a knock on impact for facilities in future years; and

• the only rugby club responding indicated that they currently experience issues with internal and external funding, lease of club land and access to training facilities. Current match facilities however meet league requirements. Participation has increased recently, and facilities are of average quality with the exception of pitch drainage that is poor. The club is seeking to increase its membership further over the coming seasons. Improvements to the quality of facilities were identified as being of greater priority than the provision of additional pitches.

The Playing Pitch Strategy, which is currently being prepared in line with the Towards a Level Playing Field methodology, will explore the adequacy of pitch provision in detail and will set local quantity standards and identify key priorities for pitch provision. It will also build upon the consultation carried out above.

In the interim period, all playing pitches should be protected from development. In line with Sport England Playing Field Policy, playing fields should only be lost to development if one of Sport England’s exception criteria apply, specifically:

• an assessment of current and future needs has demonstrated that there is an excess of playing field provision in the catchment, and the site has no special significance to the interests of sport;

• the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field or playing fields, and does not affect the quantity or quality of pitches or adversely affect their use;

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 174

• the proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of or inability to make use of any playing pitch;

• lost playing fields would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of development; and

• the proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields.

Pitch Sports

Playing Pitches. Use the key findings of the CW&C Playing Pitch Strategy to inform decision making on pitch provision across the Borough.

Artificial Grass Pitches

Across Cheshire West and Chester, there are 16 full size artificial grass pitches (AGP). Of these, 10 are located at school sites, 7 of which are situated on sites operating formal dual use of their facilities, but the remainder all provide club use of their facilities. All but one of the facilities is sand based. Only the pitch at Vauxhall Motors is 3g.

The largest venue is Cheshire County Council Sports Ground (Upton High School) which provides two sand based pitches, both of which are floodlit.

There is also an AGP at Chester University, although this has limited or no access for the general public.

Three sites are run by clubs, specifically:

• Deeside Rambers HC

• Vauxhall Motors (3g pitch)

• Neston Cricket Club

There are three smaller size synthetic facilities and a range of Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs), based at school sites, that also provide opportunities for sport.

Analysis of the distribution of Artificial Grass Pitches across Cheshire West and Chester illustrates that most residents are within the catchment of at least one AGP. Only residents in the Malpas area of the borough have to travel further than 20 minutes.

The quality of some artificial pitches, particularly those at school sites was highlighted as poor by consultees during the assessment of local needs. Site visits reveal that synthetic facilities (excluding school sites, which were not visited) are of good quality. An issue with the pitch at Frodsham Leisure Centre collecting water in the corner was however evident at the time of site visits. The importance of maintaining a sinking fund to ensure the ongoing sustainability of these facilities was also highlighted.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 175

Consultation undertaken as part of the local needs assessment highlighted few issues with regards the provision of AGPs across Cheshire West and Chester, although it was indicated that there are difficulties in accessing pitches outside of Chester and that the costs of facility hire can be prohibitive. The Leisure Stock review (KKP 2010) identifies the opportunity to provide additional AGPs at Christleton High and in Hartford, and also indicates that the use of one site as a five a side facility should be considered.

The Playing Pitch Strategy, which is currently being prepared in line with the Towards a Level Playing Field methodology, will explore the adequacy of AGP pitch provision in detail and identify the need for any additional facilities, drawing upon the Facility Planning Model (Sport England) for AGPs.

APGS

Artificial Grass Use the key findings of the CW&C Playing Pitch Strategy to inform Pitches decision making on AGPs across the Borough. Support providers in the establishment of sinking funds to maximise the long term sustainability of these facilities.

Athletics

Context

There is one synthetic athletics track in the Borough, located at Stanney Oaks Leisure Centre in Ellesmere Port. This facility is home to West Cheshire Athletics Club, which was formed in 1998 by the joining of Chester and Ellesmere Port Athletics Clubs and contains six lanes. The club caters for aspiring athletes in both Chester and Ellesmere Port.

There are also cinder tracks at Hartford High School (6 lanes) Knights Grange Sports Complex (6 lanes) and St Nicholas Catholic High School (7 lanes). Of these, only the facility at Knights Grange is available for community use, the others operate a private use only policy.

There is a grass track marked out in Castle Park, Frodsham, which is used by clubs (Frodsham Harriers). In addition, many schools mark out temporary grass tracks during the summer months, however these are of no current value to community athletics.

External Stakeholder Consultation emphasises the good opportunities that for athletics that are present in Cheshire West and Chester. In addition to the formal synthetic and cinder tracks, Marbury Country Park was identified as a site that is regularly used for outdoor events. This site has also hosted a number of regional events and Northern Athletics are looking at hosting an event at the park. It was stated that there is potential for this site to be used for more sporting activities, as well as other sites in the Borough.

Accessibility

The distribution of the athletics tracks is illustrated in Appendix G. The20 minute catchment set as part of the local standards is in line with that recommended within the UKA Facilities Strategy, which recommends that residents should expect to find one outdoor synthetic track (6 or 8 lanes) per 250,000 within 20minutes drive (45 minutes in rural areas).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 176

It is clear that within Cheshire West and Chester, the Ellesmere Port and Chester area is well served by the synthetic facility at Stanney Oaks Leisure Centre, however there is a gap in provision to the east of the Borough, in Northwich and Winsford.

Despite this, when considering provision outside of the Borough, the tracks at Victoria Park () and Cumberland Athletics Track () are accessible within the recommended 20 minute drivetime to the vast majority of residents who are outside of the catchment for the facilities within Cheshire West and Chester. Clubs indicate that they are unable to secure training slots at sites outside of the Borough.

Quantity

According to Active Places Power, supply and demand of athletics facilities is above the national and regional averages in the former Vale Royal and Ellesmere Port authorities as follows:

• England – 0.05 lanes per 1000

• North West – 0.5 lanes per 1000

• Ellesmere Port – 0.07 lanes per 1000

• Vale Royal – 0.16 lanes per 1000

• Chester - -0 lanes per 1000.

The above comparisons take into account permanent grass tracks, as well as synthetic and cinder tracks. When combining the three authorities together, it can be seen that provision remains above the regional and national averages, at 0.08 lanes per 1000 population.

While this suggests that provision is above average, it disguises the fact that only one of these facilities is synthetic.

Athletics Facilities, Planning and Delivery (2007 –2012), the Facility Strategy for UK Athletics, identifies Winsford as a priority location for a new 6 – 8 lane outdoor track. Consultation undertaken as part of the local needs assessment indicates that the County Athletics Association also support the provision of a new athletics track in Winsford. Population wise however, the amount of residents in Cheshire West and Chester is insufficient to require two tracks, based on UK Athletics Standards. The presence of nearby sites (in Crewe and Warrington) would further raise question marks over the sustainability of an additional facility.

The quantity of athletics facilities was however one of the most contentious issues in the online survey (where a high proportion of athletes have responded) but is also apparent to a much lesser degree in the household survey. Athletics is the only facility in the household survey where provision is perceived to be insufficient. Further analysis of consultation responses demonstrates that it is the amount of synthetic surfaces that is perceived to be insufficient.

As part of the local needs assessment, two of four responding athletics clubs indicated that access to athletics facilities was poor (both located in the east of the Borough) and that new provision is required. Vale Royal Athletics Club currently trains on the cinder track at Knights Grange (which has poor drainage and no changing or toilets available) and suggests that they need synthetic facilities to further club development, as they are unable to secure access to

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 177

any other facilities in the area. Helsby BICC Running Club also have no access to synthetic or indoor provision.

Quality

The quality of the existing synthetic athletics facility is good, and this is supported by the Club, who indicate that the quality of provision is high. The key priorities for improvement at this track are the:

• provision of spectator seating;

• Clubhouse; and

• indoor training opportunities.

The sustainability of this track was however identified as a key concern. Stanney High School (where Stanney Oaks Track is based) is being relocated to a new academy site in 2012 and it was stated that that the track is unsustainable as a stand alone site. In order to maintain the level of provision in this area, consideration as to the future of this facility is required.

The quality of the cinder track used by Vale Royal Athletics Club is much lower, and the club highlight that they are unable to access toilet and changing facilities during training time (although there is a portakabin on site). The track is also unsuitable for competition and has no spectator seating. Site visits also reveal evidence of graffiti and misuse.

While at the time of the local needs assessment, Frodsham Harriers indicated that the quality of provision is good, complaints have been made about the recently refurbished Castle Park, and the adequacy of provision at this site, with particular regards to the location of facilities for training in field events.

Key priorities – Athletics

The provision of facilities for athletics emerged as one of the key areas of discussion during the local needs assessment and the lack of an additional synthetic facility to the east of the borough was highlighted as a key issue.

There is an identified need to investigate opportunities to improve the quality of the facility at Knights Grange, either by upgrading this to a synthetic facility, or by improving the quality of the existing site and rectifying the current quality issues, to ensure that the facility is able to meet club needs. Given the location of nearby synthetic facilities, a detailed sustainability assessment will be required to evaluate the implications of providing an additional site.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 178

Athletics

Athletics Investigate the potential and sustainability of upgrading the existing cinder track at Knights Grange to provide for the Vale Royal Athletics Club, given the difficulties in securing access to other synthetic venues, and the gap in access to synthetic facilities.

If the track was to be upgraded to a full synthetic facility, to maximise the function of this track, the playing pitch in the middle of the track would also need to be relocated to enable the use of the facility for field events, otherwise competition would be restricted.

Golf

There are 21, 18 hole golf courses in Cheshire West and Chester. With the exception of Knights Grange Golf Course and Ellesmere Port Golf Course, which are municipal facilities, all are club based facilities offering a membership policy.

Carden Park Hotel (Chester) and Portal Hotel (Tarporley) are the largest venues for golf in the Borough, both providing two 18 hole golf courses, as well as associated hotel accommodation.

Almost all clubs offer a public play and play facility, but these opportunities are restricted and require advanced booking. There are other 18 hole golf courses in close proximity to the Borough, in Pulford (Darlands Golf Course – 9 hole) and Sealand Road, Wales.

In addition to the above facilities, there are driving ranges at:

• Antrobus Golf Course

• Vickers Cross Golf Course

• Carden Park Hotel

• Hartford Golf Club.

Westminster Park contains a put par 3 course.

There is also a dedicated golf driving range in Bridge Trafford, on the edge of Chester (Sandfield Golf Driving Range) and in Tarporley (Eaton Hill Golf Driving Range) as well as several facilities falling just outside of Cheshire West and Chester Boundaries at Sutton Fields Golf Driving Range (just in Halton), Fore Golf, Bannel Golf Range and Chester Golf Centre and Driving Range, all falling within Flintshire. While outside of the Cheshire West and Chester boundaries boundaries, their proximity to the Borough means that these facilities also serve residents of Cheshire West and Chester.

Sport England Market Segmentation indicates that the propensity to participate in golf is even across the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 179

Accessibility

Application of the accessibility standard (a 20 minute drivetime) indicates that all residents are able to access a golf course within the recommended 20-minute drivetime. This is illustrated on maps in Appendix G.

Accessibility was however highlighted as the key issue in relation to golf courses throughout the consultation process for the local needs assessment. While it can be seen that golf courses are equitably distributed across the Borough, the majority of these courses are membership based and access to the general public is limited. In particular, residents in the further south of the Borough have to travel substantial distances to reach a golf course which offers informal public access. At a 20-minute drivetime, the standard relies not just on access by roads, but also effective access by public transport. Access to golf courses for those families who do not have a car was perceived to be an important area for improvement.

Further enhancing the importance of improvements of access to golf courses, diversification of the range of participants in golf, as well as attempts to increase levels of participation across the Borough were identified as targets by both clubs and external stakeholders. The achievement of this goal will be dependent upon appropriate access to facilities, as well as effective promotion and advertising. It was indicated that as well as increasing the overall numbers that played golf, it was necessary to broaden the appeal of the sport to different sectors of the population and ensure that residents from all walks of life were able to participate.

Ellesmere Port Golf Centre has a junior section that is very successful. This has made golf affordable and increased demand for golf amongst young people and was highlighted as an example of good practice that could be replicated in other parts of the Borough.

Quality

Site visits reveal that the quality of golf courses is consistently high across the Borough, and all courses offer a range of ancillary facilities including pavilions, changing facilities and bars. The high quality of golf courses was also supported through consultation.

The average score achieved during site visits is 75%, meaning that the average score is above the target quality score. The range of scores achieved is 70% - 97, which is a smaller range than for any other facility type highlighting the consistent quality of these facilities as well as their overall high quality. The only issues identified related to general wear and tear, and the opportunity to improve some clubhouses, it was highlighted that there is scope to continue to improve the range of facilities provided.

Quantity

According to Active Places Power, the supply of golf courses is significantly above the national and regional averages in the former Vale Royal and Chester authorities, although below average in Ellesmere Port, specifically;

• England – 0.68 holes per 1000

• North West – 0.67 holes per 1000

• Ellesmere Port – 0.22 holes per 1000

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 180

• Vale Royal – 1.77 holes 1000

• Chester – 1.75 holes per 1000.

When combining the three former authorities, provision remains significantly above the national and regional averages.

Consultation undertaken as part of the local needs assessment suggests that the current quantity of golf courses is sufficient to meet local needs. Application of the local standard indicates that there are no existing quantitative deficiencies.

Key priorities

The local needs assessment highlighted that increasing participation at existing sites was perceived to be important, reinforcing that additional facilities are not required. Indeed, consultation with some external stakeholders highlighted opportunities to provide complementary activities at golf courses, for example, the provision of angling opportunities within the overall site, to improve the range of facilities provided and the amount of people that may be interested in participating.

Analysis of current participation patterns demonstrate that participation is even across the Borough. The importance of attracting new players is however highlighted and it is important that casual opportunities to participate are offered, as well as private members clubs. There are public facilities in both Ellesmere Port and Winsford, however two of the most deprived areas of Cheshire West and Chester (Blacon and Overleigh wards) do not have local access to these facilities. The creation of pay and play opportunities to participate at golf courses in Chester should therefore be considered a key priority.

Golf

Golf Improvements to the accessibility of existing provision (in terms of both access for a wider range of residents, and physical access to facilities by public transport) should be prioritised over qualitative improvements or the provision of new facilities. Pay and play access in Chester is a particular priority.

All golf courses are currently valuable community resources, however opportunities to diversify the use of golf courses, whilst also maintaining their existing function, should be considered.

Other sports

Polo

In addition, there are two polo clubs in Cheshire West and Chester. The Cheshire Polo Club, situated in Little Budworth, has five polo grounds with associated facilities. Competitive polo is played predominantly during the summer months.

The club has over 80 playing members and provides opportunities for both senior and junior players. The existing facilities are specialist polo facilities, and are managed by the club, with the help of sponsorship from a range of local businesses. The Chester Racecourse Polo Club is open to all standards of ability, and offers lessons and coaching, as well as competitive sport. The club

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 181

seeks to provide an excellent standard of facilities and regularly organises high profile tournaments.

Croquet

Chester Croquet Club is the only club within the Borough Council area, and is expanding significantly. It now has over 60 members and caters for a variety of standards from beginner, to elite level.

The club currently plays at Westminster Park in Chester, where it has 4 croquet lawns for the dedicated use of the club. The club raises the existing facilities as the key area for improvement in the coming years, indicating that the current quality of facilities means that elite level of players are moving to Bowdon Croquet Club (Trafford) due to the higher quality of facility. The club identifies the key issues relating to the facility as:

• Maintenance;

• playing surface;

• partnership and communication; and

• reducing the overuse.

A new pavilion has recently been provided which offers good facilities for the use of the club.

Water Sports

The Rivers Weaver and Dee ensure that Cheshire West and Chester contains opportunities for a variety of watersports, including:

• Queens Park Rowing Club ( The Riverside Centre in Queens Park);

• Royal Chester Rowing Club (the River Dee);

• Grosvenor Rowing club (the River Dee);

• Northwich Rowing Club (the , off the Crescent in Northwich);

• Weaver Sailing Club (near Frodsham);

• Budworth Sailing Club (near Northwich);

• Winsford Flash Sailing Club (Winsford Flashes);

• Chester Sailing and Canoe Club (the River Dee); and

• Manley Mere Sail Sports (Manley Mere – this is a private facility but is accessible to the public).

The location of these facilities is determined by the presence of the natural resources to accommodate such activities. As such, while there an abundance of opportunities in Chester and the former Vale Royal area (Northwich, Winsford, Frodsham as well as facilities just over the

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 182

border into Halton), there is a lack of opportunity to participate in Ellesmere Port and residents are required to travel.

Issues raised as part of the local needs assessment with regards specific facilities include:

• the Riverside Centre in Queens Park is very basic and there is no comfortable area for indoor coaching/training/or socialising. Participation is increasing and the lack of facilities, as well as the prohibitive cost of hire is a barrier to club development;

• there are difficulties in accessing competition venues for several clubs in Chester. The Royal Chester Rowing Club are looking to relocate as the facilities are small and ageing; and

• Northwich Rowing Club has significant issues with the maintenance of their facility and the length of the remaining lease on the facilities.

Fishing

There are 14 fishing lakes distributed across Cheshire West and Chester, as well as the Rivers Dee and Weaver, which also contain designated fishing spots. Facilities are relatively evenly distributed across the Borough, although their location is dependent upon the natural resources. All residents are located within a 20-minute drivetime catchment of a facility.

Consultations undertaken indicated that several clubs struggle to access appropriate facilities for training and matches. Furthermore, the cost of many of the private fisheries was highlighted as prohibitive. It was suggested by one club that a lack of facilities is inhibited by junior development.

Other sports:

The local needs assessment also identified demand for:

• a specific facility for archery (located in Chester) with good access and storage facilities;

• dedicated American Football Facilities and training facilities (to be investigated further as part of the CW&C Playing Pitch Strategy; and

• a closed circuit / BMX cycling track for use by a British Cycling Club mark Club (Chester). The BMX track at Westminster Park (recorded as facilities for young people) also functions as a sports facility fulfils some of this need.

Other Sports

Other Sports Continue to support the development of clubs providing opportunities to participate in minority sports and promote the opportunities available to residents. Planning Policy should facilitate the development of facilities for these clubs.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 183

Summary

Outdoor sports facilities are a wide ranging category of open space which includes both natural and artificial surfaces for sport and recreation. Facilities can be owned and managed by councils, sports associations, schools and individual sports clubs, with the primary purpose of participation in outdoor sports. Examples include:

• playing pitches;

• athletics tracks;

• bowling greens; and

• tennis courts.

The ongoing Playing Pitch Strategy, which is being developed in line with Towards a Level Playing Field, will evaluate the adequacy of pitch provision in detail and will supersede any issues raised within this assessment. Detailed requirements for synthetic turf pitches will also be considered within this document.

This PPG17 assessment sets local standards for the remainder of outdoor sports facilities and the key issues arising from the application of these standards are as follows:

• Tennis Courts – The majority residents have access to a tennis court within the recommended catchment, however, there is a lack of public access to facilities, with many courts being located on school sites. Demand for more publicly accessible tennis courts should be assessed and agreements to access facilities on school sites should be considered. There are also opportunities to improve the quality of existing courts and particular priority should be given to improving quality and access to facilities in Winsford, Upton and Ellesmere Port.

• Bowling Greens – The current quantity of bowling greens is sufficient to meet demand and the quality of existing provision is good. Particular priority should be given to improving access to facilities for residents in Farndon, Waverton, Hartford, Mickle Trafford, Ellesmere Port and Malpas.

• Athletics Tracks – athletics is one of the biggest issues in the Borough at the current time. While there is a good facility to the west of the Borough (although the long term sustainability of the venue is in question) there are no synthetic tracks to the east, although the majority of residents are within the recommended catchment of a nearby facility, and the club has been unable to secure an alternative venue for training or matches. The need for a new facility is supported in the National Athletics Strategy and by the County Athletics Association.

• Golf Courses – The amount of golf courses is adequate to meet demand and nearly all residents have access to a site within or in close proximity to the Borough. The quality of existing provision is also high, although access to most courses is restricted and there are limited opportunities for some residents without access to a car to access such facilities. There is need however to increase pay and play access and casual use of facilities, particularly in Chester.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 184

• Other sports – issues have been identified with the provision of other sports, including the need to improve access to water sport facilities and to provide specific venues for minority sports.

The key priorities are summarised below:

Protection Enhancement

All sports facilities, unless it can be • Quality improvements should be prioritised at proven that there is no demand for tennis Courts (several public sites and Club Mark a facility. With few exceptions, all Sites identified for improvement in Wharton, sports facilities in the Borough are Upton, Hoole and Weaverham) currently used and are therefore valuable to the community. • The quality of the existing athletic track at Knights Grange Sports Complex is in need of improvement Efforts should be made to increase access to existing facilities • Improved facilities at rowing bases in Chester (particularly golf in Chester and bowling in Farndon, Waverton, • Improving and maintaining the quality of bowling Hartford, Mickle Trafford, Ellesmere greens is more important than the provision of Port and Malpas) and to promote new facilities. opportunities to residents.

New Provision Redesignation

• Investigation into need for The tennis courts at Frodsham Leisure Centre have no further archery Facilities role in their current form.

• Analysis of demand for BMX / Closed circuit cycling in Chester

• New tennis courts – to be delivered by improving access to existing school sites or partnerships between clubs and public sites. New facility required for Hoole LTC

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 185

10. Cemeteries and Churchyards

Introduction

10 This typology encompasses both churchyards contained within the walled boundary of a church and cemeteries outside the confines of a church. Cemeteries include private burial grounds, local authority burial grounds and closed churchyards. Although the primary purpose of this type of open space is burial of the dead, rest and relaxation and quiet contemplation, these sites frequently have considerable value for the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity.

Some churchyards contain areas of unimproved grasslands and various other habitats. They can also provide a sanctuary for wildlife in urban areas and often offer historic value in the more rural landscapes.

Cheshire West and Chester is a Burial Authority by virtue of S214 (1) of the Local Government Act. There is no statutory duty to create new cemeteries or extensions of existing cemeteries, but burial authorities are under a duty to maintain their existing cemeteries and also to dispose of those who die in the area where other funeral arrangements have not been made. The Council operates it’s cemeteries under the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 (LACO). This order requires the Council to maintain records of all burials in cemeteries and to prevent loss or damage to these records.

Several Parish and Town Councils in Cheshire West and Chester also provide and maintain burial grounds within their Parishes.

This section sets out the context, and the key issues arising from consultation relating to cemeteries and churchyards in Cheshire West and Chester.

Quantity

The total amount of land dedicated to cemeteries and churchyards across Cheshire West and Chester is 70.96 hectares. Blacon Crematorium is the largest site in the Borough, and at over 10 hectares it is more than double the size of any other facility. Overpool Cemetery and Northwich Cemetery are the largest cemeteries in Cheshire West and Chester.

Cheshire West and Chester Council is responsible for the management of the following cemeteries:

• Blacon Cemetery, Chester

• Neston Cemetery, Neston

• Overpool Cemetery, Ellesmere Port

• Overleigh Cemetery, Handbridge, Chester

• Wharton Cemetery, Winsford.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 186

The Council is also responsible for the maintenance of several closed churchyards across the Borough, specifically:

• Neston Parish Church, Neston

• Holy Ascention, Upton

• Grove Chapel,

• St John the Baptist, Hartford

• St John the Evangelist, Winsford

• St Mary the Virgin, Weaverham

• Christ Church, Wharton / Barnton

• St Lawrence, Frodsham

• St Pauls, Helsby.

In addition to those cemeteries managed by Cheshire West and Chester Council, most Parish Councils are also responsible for the management of at least one cemetery.

As well as cemeteries in the Borough, Chester Crematorium, located on Blacon Avenue, provides a cremation service. This site serves all residents in the Borough although it is known that some residents in the south of the Borough prefer to travel to Crewe. This crematorium dates from the 1960's and therefore by 2012 has to be legally mercury abated.

Table 10.1 summarises the amount of space dedicated to cemeteries and churchyards across the Borough.

Table 10.1 – Cemeteries and churchyards across Cheshire West and Chester

Area Number of Number of Total Provision Hectares per 1000 Churchyards Cemeteries Population

Cheshire West and Chester 32 52 70.96 0.22

Rural Wards 24 32 45.78 0.22

Urban Wards 8 20 25.18 0.22

It can be seen that provision is very evenly distributed across the rural and urban wards. The larger cemeteries, all owned and managed by CW&C Council are located predominantly within the urban areas of the Borough. Smaller cemeteries are provided within the towns and in some villages.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 187

The distribution of cemeteries and churchyards by ward is set out in Table 10.2. Where a churchyard contains gravestones as well as functioning as a churchyard, for the purposes of Table 10.2 it is classified as a cemetery.

Provision is particularly high in Broxton, Gowy, Marbury and Mickle Trafford, and most wards contain at least one cemetery.

Table 10.2 – Cemeteries and churchyards across Cheshire West and Chester by ward

Area Number of Total Provision Range of Provision Sites Abbey 1 1.05 1 cemetery Blacon 1 11.76 1 cemetery Boughton Heath and 6 2.10 4 cemetery Vicars Cross Broxton 9 5.09 4 cemetery, 5 churchyard Central and Westminster 2 1 1 cemetery, 1 churchyard City 2 0.59 2 churchyard Eddisbury 5 1.64 3 cemetery, 2 churchyard Frodsham and Helsby 4 2.66 2 cemetery, 2 churchyard Gowy 11 3.89 5 cemetery, 6 churchyard Grange and Rossmore 2 5.76 2 cemetery Groves and Whitby 0 0 Hoole and Newton 0 0 Ledsham and Willaston 2 1.08 2 cemetery Marbury 7 3.42 4 cemetery, 3 churchyard Mickle Trafford 11 4.04 4 cemetery, 7 churchyard Neston and Parkgate 2 2.24 2 cemetery Northwich East and 5 7.03 5 cemetery Shackerley Northwich West 1 0.29 1 cemetery Overleigh 2 9.03 2 cemetery Sutton and Manor 1 0.18 1 cemetery Upton 1 0.49 1 cemetery Weaver 6 2.84 5 cemetery, 1 churchyard Winsford North and East 1 1.21 1 cemetery Winsford South and West 3 4.72 3 cemetery

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 188

Quality

Site visits reveal that the average score for cemeteries and churchyards is 64%. The range of scores varies from 38% to 88%, demonstrating that there is a wide spectrum of quality.

The issues identified through site visits are summarised in Figure 10.1 below.

Figure 10.1 – Quality issues at cemeteries and churchyards

Quality Issues - Cemeteries and Churchyards

100% 80% 60%

40% Av erage Score 20% 0%

Litter Security Buildings Quality of Equipment Equipment

Provision of Dog FoulingDog

Sites achieving high scores were generally perceived to be well maintained, peaceful and to contain appropriate seating and clear footpaths. Many of these sites also offer water, recycling bins etc also and litter management was effective at most sites, as demonstrated in Figure 9.1. Buildings were also perceived to be well maintained

For sites scoring lower, the key issues were dog fouling, insufficient maintenance or the need to improve cleanliness and maintenance, a lack of seating, falling seating and for some sites, evidence of misuse. Young people were riding bicycles through Wharton Cemetery for example at the time of site visits, which was ruining the appearance of the area, as well as the tranquillity that is expected at such sites.

Analysis of the scores achieved demonstrates that the quality of provision is higher in the rural areas than it is in the more urban parts, with an average score of 65% compared to 61%.

Full site assessment scores are provided in the site database.

Consultations

The consultation programme revealed that the quality of cemeteries and churchyards is viewed relatively positively. Over half (50.6%) of respondents to the household survey consider the quality to be average or better, and of the remainder, 40.3% don’t have an opinion. Respondents in the rural wards were on the whole more positive about the quality of provision than those in the urban areas, supporting the findings of the site visits, which demonstrate that facilities in the more rural settlements are better maintained. Officers held similar views with regards the quality of cemeteries and churchyards and it was felt that the inconsistency of the maintenance was a key issue. Of particular note, the dedication and diligence that many Parish

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 189

Councils put into the management and maintenance of their cemeteries and churchyards was commended.

The maintenance of cemeteries and churchyards was highlighted by residents as being the most important feature of high quality cemeteries and churchyards. Residents indicated the cleanliness, well kept grass, flowers trees and shrubs, on site security and seating were their key priorities. Issues with dog fouling, vandalism, litter and maintenance were highlighted. Improving the maintenance at sites scoring poorly will therefore be a key priority moving forwards.

Accessibility

Access to local cemeteries was highlighted as being particularly important during the consultation programme. Residents believed that they should have local facilities, rather than travel to larger sites. This was also supported by Council officers, who have direct experience of this trend and indicate that the number of requests for local burials is high.

Site visits reveal that access to many of the cemeteries and churchyards in the Borough is good, with clearly defined footpaths and signage evident. Many of the sites achieving lower scores received these however due to restrictions on access caused by uneven footpaths, or in some instances, steps at one or more access points.

While residents expect local access to cemeteries, the importance of ensuring that sites are on appropriate transport links was highlighted at the older residents workshop, as well as by council officers.

Setting standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities. Unlike other types of open space however, the Companion Guide indicates that standards should only be set for quality. This is explained further under the headings of Quantity Standards, Quality Standards and Access Standards.

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard No standard set Justification PPG17 indicates that there is no realistic requirement to set catchments for cemeteries and churchyards.

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

The PPG17 Companion Guide Annex A states: "many historic churchyards provide important places for quiet contemplation, especially in busy urban areas, and often support biodiversity and interesting geological features. As such many can also be viewed as amenity greenspaces. Unfortunately, many are also run-down and therefore it may be desirable to enhance them. As churchyards can only exist where there is a church, the only form of provision standard which will be required is a qualitative one."

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 190

For cemeteries the PPG17 Companion Guide Annex A states: "every individual cemetery has a finite capacity and therefore there is steady need for more of them. Indeed, many areas face a shortage of ground for burials. The need for graves, for all religious faiths, can be calculated from population estimates, coupled with details of the average proportion of deaths which result in a burial, and converted into a quantitative population-based provision standard. Whilst it is therefore not appropriate to consider a provision standard for churchyards, the future need for cemeteries and burial space should be evaluated. A standard for the future provision of cemeteries has therefore been considered.

Although it is possible to provide an indication of the likely future land use requirements, accurately predicting current and future death rates is difficult, particularly in light of changing burial patterns as well as the evolving population profile, and uncertainties about the amount and location of growth expected in the Borough.

It is important, however, to ensure that the long term burial needs of the population are taken into account as part of future planning in the LDF. The amount of burial space can be determined based on death rates and burial/cremation preferences, rather than the application of a quantity standard per se.

The indicative analysis of the projected future requirements for burial space across Cheshire West and Chester for the period to 2027 has therefore been informed by a series of assumptions around current and future populations, mortality rate trends, and the proportion of people being buried rather than cremated.

The key assumptions are:

• a base point of 3050 deaths per annum across the Borough (based on 2009 actual, according to Neighbourhood Statistics);

• 25% of deaths result in burial, compared to 75% cremations, based on England & Wales average (Cremation Society of Great Britain); and

• a burial plot size of 7ft x 3ft.

On this basis, 763 burial plots will be required across the Borough each year, amounting to a total of 12,200 over the LDF period. This equates to 2.34 hectares of open space.

This calculation does not, however, account for use of current burial plots for multiple interments. Burial plots are typically sold on an assumed lease of 50-99 years. It also assumes that the death rates remain constant. Current estimates are that death rate is declining by 0.04% per annum, meaning that this estimate may overestimate the amount of land required.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 191

Quantity Standard N/a N/a

Justification Justification

Based on the following key assumptions, 3.42 hectares of burial space will be required in Cheshire West and Chester up to 2027:

• a base point of 3050 deaths per annum (based on 2009 actual, according to Neighbourhood Statistics);

• 25% of deaths will result in burial, compared to 75% cremations, based on England & Wales average (Cremation Society of Great Britain); and

• a burial plot size of 7ft x 3ft.

This calculation does not, however, account for use of current burial plots for multiple interments. Burial plots are typically sold on an assumed lease of 50-99 years. It also assumes that the death rates remain constant. Current estimates are that death rate is declining by 0.04% per annum.

Quality Standard

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Dog and litter bins

Clearly defined footpaths Parking and cycle storage

Well kept and appropriately Seating managed grass and vegetation

On site security

Wildlife and conservation benefits

Based on the above criteria, and interpretation of the site assessment matrix, it is suggested that a site achieving a rating of 75% of higher meets the recommended quality criteria.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 192

Applying local provision standards

Given that it is not appropriate to set any local accessibility standards it is also not appropriate to identify areas of deficiency or need through the application of standards.

Appendix G however provides an understanding of the location of existing cemeteries and churchyards, and clearly demonstrates that most residents are within close proximity to at least one site.

Key priorities

The remainder of this section therefore considers the key priorities relating to cemeteries and churchyards under the following headings

• Quality enhancements

• Protection of existing provision

• Increasing provision

• Redesignation and disposal

• Improving access

Qualitative enhancements

The consultation programme demonstrates that the quality of cemeteries and churchyards is particularly important to local residents. Above all, the cleanliness and maintenance of a site is key to the perceived value of the site, and the inconsistency of maintenance was raised by both officers and residents in the Borough as being a key concern. The range of site assessment scores provides further evidence to support the overall inconsistency of provision. Almost all sites achieving poor scores did so as a result of issues with maintenance.

Figure 10.2 overleaf illustrates the scores achieved by cemeteries and churchyards and demonstrates that while the majority of sites can be considered average, there are some sites where improvement is required. As well as basic maintenance improvements, consultations demonstrated the importance of improving access routes to and within cemeteries and churchyards, ensuring that they are accessible for all.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 193

Figure 10.2 – Quality of Cemeteries and Churchyards

Quality of Cemeteries and Churchyards

16% 28% Improv ement Required Av era ge Good

56%

Sites achieving poorer quality scores which should be prioritised for improvement include:

• St Bartholomews Church - Graveyard considered haphazard although site is reasonably well maintained. Site contains slippy and uneven paths;

• Mickle Trafford Methodist Church Graveyard - Site sloping and with no clear paths. Grass was long at the time of site visit and site would benefit from a higher degree of maintenance;

• Overleigh Cemetery North - Part of the cemetery considered to be neglected, although site is described as a historic cemetery offering significant landscape character;

• St Andrew's Church - Site not considered welcoming and no seating provided. The graveyard has a haphazard appearance;

• St John the Baptist - Site would benefit from an improved standard of grounds maintenance;

• St Laurences Cemetery and Churchyard - Site is well maintained and historic in places, but other parts of the site appear unmaintained and subject to misuse;

• Christ Church Cemetery - Churchyard surrounded by derelict church. The gravestones are surrounded by grass which is becoming overgrown; and

• Wharton Cemetery - Evidence of misuse at the time of site visit, although the remainder of the cemetery is of high quality.

It was also highlighted during the consultation process that staff at Cheshire West and Chester Council owned sites have specialised training in dealing with the bereaved, improving the overall on site experience to residents using these cemeteries.

The quality of cemeteries and churchyards from a user perspective should be balanced with biodiversity and the creation of habitats. Cemeteries and churchyards can play an important

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 194

role in promoting biodiversity and habitat creation as well as providing resource for quite contemplation.

Enhancement of existing provision

CC 1 Seek to improve the value of cemeteries and churchyards across the Borough through the improvement of sites achieving lower quality scores in line with the quality standard, and the standardisation of maintenance. Maintenance regimes should take into account the nature conservation value of cemeteries, and ensure that maintenance regimes are built on this.

Taking the lead of the Cheshire West and Chester Cemeteries and Churchyards maintenance team and the empathetic service that is provided, support should be provided to all staff providing on site maintenance at cemeteries and churchyards on dealing with the bereaved.

New provision

The reactive nature of planning to meet future burial requirements was identified as one of the key areas for improvement by council officers during the consultation programme. Additionally, many local residents expressed concern over local burial spaces reaching their capacity.

It is apparent that existing cemeteries have a finite capacity and that new provision will therefore be required when sites become full. The application of the quantity standard for cemeteries will enable the projection of future burial needs and will therefore enable the analysis of the adequacy of existing provision. It is important that requirements for new provision are planned in sufficient time and that a proactive, rather than reactive approach is taken.

Analysis of current Cheshire West and Chester Council provision indicates that:

• there are currently plans to extend Blacon Cemetery and this will ensure that capacity is sufficient up to 2030. The extension will be carried out in a phased approach;

• Overpool Cemetery – is a large site in Ellesmere Port and this has recently been extended to ensure that capacity is sufficient to 2035;

• Neston – this cemetery is 50 – 75% full but there area no plans to extend it. It is anticipated that the site will be sufficient to meet demand for 15 – 20 years;

• Wharton Cemetery, Winsford – this is a small cemetery that has sufficient space for burials over the next 10 – 15 years; and

• Overleigh Cemetery, Handbridge – is not open for new graves, and there are no plans at the current time to extend this site.

The above clearly indicates that assuming that current burial trends continue, there is just sufficient space for burials over the duration of this Local Development Framework, however new provision should be considered towards the end of this period, in order to ensure that this continues. This need is emphasised by reports that several Parish Councils are at or nearing burial capacity, meaning that there might be increased reliance on Council provision in future years if

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 195

new local sites are not provided. The consultation programme revealed that Helsby Parish in particular has run out of burial space. A new graveyard has recently been opened in Tarporley.

In addition to reviewing the need for burial space overall, consideration should be given to the requirements of specific religions etc with regards how to use this space. No evidence of significant demand for woodland burials has arisen at the current time, however there have been specific requests for burial space for people of Muslim religion at Blacon Cemetery. Future planning of use of space within the cemetery should take into account the population profile, and likely implications of this for burial requirements.

New Provision

CC 2 The Council should take a proactive approach to burial space and keep under review the opportunities for the reuse, expansion or acquisition of suitable land to ensure the continued and sustainable provision of cemeteries. The Local Development Framework should facilitate the provision of additional burial space where it is required and should protect existing space.

Redesignation and disposal

There are no recommendations for the redesignation or disposal of any cemeteries or churchyards. Once full, cemeteries should continue to be managed as closed churchyards.

Enhancing access routes

In addition to maintaining and improving the quality of cemeteries and churchyards, access to existing facilities will be important if the usage of existing facilities is to be maximised. Consultation highlights the importance of connecting cemeteries with transport links, particularly as local burial space becomes more limited and residents may be required to travel. Effective public transport routes, and the provision of green linkages to and from residential areas to cemeteries and churchyards is therefore a key priority.

Access Routes

CC 3 Ensure that cemeteries and churchyards are accessible by a variety of footpaths and cyclepaths, as well as by public transport.

Summary

Cemeteries and churchyards are important natural resources in Cheshire West and Chester, offering both recreational and conservation benefits. Residents highlight the importance of high quality provision, and effective maintenance regimes resulting in a clean and well maintained site were identified as the most important feature. Improvements to the consistency of provision and specifically to the maintenance are highlighted as a key priority.

Given the nature of cemeteries and churchyards, local standards for accessibility have not been set. The importance of proactive planning for new requirements however is emphasised and identified as a key area for improvement across the Borough. This should include

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 196 proactively considering the capacity to meet future burial need, as well as evaluating the adequacy of provision to meet current need in terms of both number of burial spaces and the types of plot required.

In addition to offering a functional value, many cemeteries and churchyards have wider benefits including heritage, cultural and landscape values.

The key priorities for the future delivery of cemeteries and churchyards across Cheshire West and Chester therefore include:

Protection Enhancement

Protection should extend to all Quality enhancements are identified as a key priority. cemeteries and churchyards. Once Improvements should focus on poorer quality sites full, graveyards should be and should drive consistency between spaces maintained as closed churchyards maintained by different providers.

New Provision Redesignation

While there is no immediate There are no recommendations for the redesignation requirement for new provision to of disposal of any cemeteries or churchyards. meet current capacity, new space should be allocated over the LDF period to accommodate future demand. Capacity of existing sites should be reviewed regularly.

Consideration should also be given to the demand for new types of burial (such as woodland / different religions).

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 197

11. Green Corridors

Introduction

11 This open space type includes towpaths along canals and riverbanks, cycleways, rights of way and disused railway lines. Green corridors are linear routes with a primary purpose of providing opportunities for walking, cycling and horse riding, whether for leisure purposes or travel. They facilitate links between open spaces and local residential areas and encourage sustainable travel. As well as supporting people movement, green corridors also promote wildlife movement and as a consequence are of particular significance for biodiversity and conservation. Green corridors may be used by walkers, cyclists or people on horseback, carriage drivers and recreational off road motor vehicles.

PPG17 Annex A states that “the need for green corridors arises from the need to promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport, such as walking and cycling within urban areas”. PPG17 also suggests that planning authorities should take opportunities to use established linear routes as green corridors, and supplement them by proposals to “plug-in” access to them from as wide an area as possible.

Green corridors are particularly important routes in Cheshire West and Chester, with 40.3% of residents using these routes weekly, making them the second most popular type of open space after natural and semi natural spaces. As well as providing sustainable transport routes, in the parts of the Borough where significant green corridors are located, these routes fulfil the function of natural and semi natural spaces and even to an extent take on a role similar to parks. As well as providing recreational and conservation benefits, developing the green corridor network can also facilitate the:

• use of sustainable modes of travel;

• improved access to other green spaces;

• increased usage levels of existing sites (by providing safe routes to reach the site); and

• larger catchment areas for existing sites.

The new draft Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2012) identifies two priorities directly related to green corridors, specifically;

• encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport; and

• supporting and promoting more active forms of transport especially cycling and walking.

The provision of an effective network of corridors will be essential if the above goals are to be achieved.

This section outlines the context and key issues arising from the assessment of green corridors.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 198

Current position

Quantity

There are circa 1287 kilometres of rights of way in the Cheshire West and Chester area. These routes are recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way in the form of footpaths and bridleways.

Supporting the Public Rights of Way Network, there are several particularly important corridors (many of which are also Public Rights of Way). These include:

• Weaver Way (Frodsham to Audlem in Shropshire, the route goes alongside the River Weaver and links with the Whitegate Way);

• Wirral Way (based on the former Hooton to West Kirby Railway Line);

• Whitegate Way (Winsford to Cuddington);

• The Sandstone Trail (between Frodsham and Whitchurch in Shropshire, the route has recently been extended. It includes parts of Delamere Forest);

• Dukes Drive (local route in Chester);

• Shropshire Union canal Towpath (links Waverton and Ellesmere Port);

• Butter Hill (Millenium Cycle Route 56) – links Chester and Neston;

• the River Dee Riverside Walk (alongside River Dee);

• Chester Greenway (Millenium Cycle Route 5) – a recent extension now links Mickle Trafford to Chester City. National Route 5 travels from Chester, to Northwich via ;

• National Cycle Route 45 (to Chester from Whitchurch in Shropshire);

• the Cheshire Cycleway (Regional Route 70) is a 176 mile circular journey through some of Cheshire's finest scenery from Chester to Chester via Neston, Acton Bridge, , Forest, Shavington and Malpas and can be ridden in both directions;

• Regional Route 75 runs between Winsford and continues south to Market Drayton and Newport in Shropshire;

• Regional Route 89 – links Chester with Hawarden, alongside the River Dee;

• Trent Canal Towpaths; and

• Delamere Loop.

Analysis of the distribution of these key routes, as well as the Public Rights of Way, demonstrates that:

• provision is comparatively lower (in length) with the Ellesmere Port and Willaston area than in other parts of the Borough. Chester has a particularly high concentration of routes, although access into Chester from Ellesmere Port is limited;

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 199

• there are far more routes dedicated to the needs of those on foot, than for cyclists or horseriders, although recent developments, including the Chester Greenway, have improved the amount of routes available to cyclists;

• many routes suffer from severance due to the presence of major transport corridors, including the M56 and M53, as well as several A roads, such as the A45, A55 and A51; and

• there are gaps in the network in Oakmere (extending to Delamere Forest) and to the north and west of Northwich. There are also gaps in the Hills area, although recently permissive horse riding routes have been provided.

Consultation undertaken focused largely on the quality of existing provision, however the following emerged with regards the amount of corridors:

• Several Parish Councils attending workshops indicated that they are currently researching / planning additional footpaths around their village. Circular routes between nearby settlements in particular are required. The importance of creating links between settlements was also highlighted.

• 56% of respondents to the household survey think that the overall amount of green corridors is sufficient; however 34% think that more are required, with lower levels of satisfaction found in the urban parts of the Borough. The majority of comments raised by residents who felt more facilities are needed focused on the need to provide additional cycle routes.

Quality of green corridors

Due to the nature of green corridors, site visits were not carried out to these sites. Consultation however focused largely on the quality of green corridors, revealing that:

• maintenance of green corridors is a key issue - there is a need to continue to improve the maintenance of key routes and all Public Rights of Way. Maintenance was raised as an issue throughout the consultation programme and the need for increased signage in some areas was raised;

• clean and litter free, flowers and trees and nature features, appropriate footpaths with a level surface and litter bins were highlighted as some of the key priorities for green corridors by residents; and

• it was also suggested that the provision of litter and dog bins at popular entrance / exit routes would be beneficial. The importance of ensuring that footpaths are even was raised as being particularly important.

Access

Green corridors, by their nature, provide access routes for local residents, and are instrumental in linking residential areas with other settlements and the nearby countryside, as well as connecting green spaces together. Residents with localised access to green corridors are likely to use these amenities for recreation. Access issues were however raised repeatedly during consultation programmes, with the following issues emerging:

• There is a need to reduce the number of stiles used on footpaths. Where stock control is required, kissing gates should be used. This would ensure that routes are more accessible in general, but particularly for older people and residents with physical disabilities.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 200

• Paths with uneven footpaths need to be even and clearly defined to ensure they are accessible to all sectors of the population. This was raised as a key issue by the Local Access Forum and has been referenced throughout this report in relation to different types of open space.

• There is a need to ensure an appropriate balance between routes used for walking and cycling. There is evidence that there are conflicts of use between pedestrians and cyclists.

Setting Local Standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities. Unlike other types of open space however, the Companion Guide indicates that standards should only be set for quality. This is explained further under the headings of Quantity Standards, Quality Standards and Access Standards.

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard No standard set Justification No accessibility standard set due to the characteristics of this typology. This is in line with guidance in the PPG17 Companion Guide.

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

PPG17 indicates that the need for Green Corridors arises from the need to promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling within urban areas. This means that there is no sensible way of stating a provision standard, just as there is no way of having a standard for the proportion of land in an area which it will be desirable to allocate for roads”.

Annex A goes on to state that “Instead, planning policies should promote the use of green corridors to link housing areas to the Sustrans national cycle network, town and city centres, places of employment and community facilities such as schools, shops, community centres and sports facilities. In this sense green corridors are demand-led.

Quantity Standard N/a N/a

Justification No quantity standard set due to the characteristics of this typology. This is in line with guidance in the PPG17 Companion Guide. Cheshire West and Chester Council will however encourage the use established linear routes, such as disused railway lines, roads or canal and river banks, as green corridors, and supplement them by proposals to ‘plug in’ access to them from as wide an area as possible”.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 201

Quality Standard

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Dog and litter bins at entrance / exit points

Clearly defined footpaths Parking and cycle storage

Flowers, trees and natural features Seating

Clear signage

Applying local provision standards

As provision standards have not been set for accessibility and quantity, there is no opportunity to apply these standards.

The linear nature of green corridors means that these routes have not been assessed as part of the site visit programme. The quality of existing provision has therefore not been measured against the quality standard.

Key priorities

The aim is to provide an integrated network of high quality green corridors which link spaces together and provide opportunities for informal recreation and alternative means of transport. This issue has also been central to priorities set out in Sections 3-9.

The remainder of this section therefore considers the key priorities relating to green corridors under the following headings

• Quality enhancements

• Protection of existing provision

• Increasing provision

• Redesignation and disposal

• Improving access.

Qualitative improvements

Improvements to the quality of existing corridors will be essential if the current high levels of usage are to be maintained and increased. In particular, improvements to the maintenance of green corridors were highlighted as important, as well as several features relating to access to corridors, including the maintenance of footpaths and the reduction in the number of stiles.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 202

These issues were also priorities of the Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan, which also set out the need to provide facilities such as car parking, toilets and rest areas to increase usage.

Respondents to the household survey indicated that cleanliness and maintenance, improved footpaths and the retention of natural features were key priorities for them. The creation of green corridors should take into account the function of these sites as wildlife corridors and for conservation, as well as need from a recreational perspective. Improvements to corridors should also include creating and enhancing biodiversity assets on the routes, and improvements should have regard to biodiversity conservation (in line with The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006).

Enhancement of existing provision

GC 1 Drive a programme of improvements to enhance the quality of green corridors for recreational use, focusing in particular on the strategic corridors, and then on corridors providing important links. Improvements should link with the quality vision and the key issues set out earlier in this section.

Protection of existing corridors

Aside from natural open space, green corridors are the most frequently used type of open space in Cheshire West and Chester. This type of open space was identified as important in linking open spaces and settlements and residents and key stakeholders highlighted the need to maximise the opportunities provided by the green infrastructure network, particularly making the most of natural assets such as the River Corridors. Improving the linkages between and within open spaces is perceived to be as important as the creation of new open spaces and improvement of existing sites by many residents.

As well as providing recreational benefits, green corridors are central to the achievement of other objectives of the Community Strategy and integrated transport plans. As a consequence, the impact of any proposed development on the network of green corridors should be considered.

Protection of existing corridors

GC 2 Seek to protect green corridors through policy in the Local Development Framework that ensures that development does not negatively impact on existing routes. Policy should also promote the improvement of existing provision.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 203

New provision

As well as qualitative improvements, the assessment highlights the need for additional green corridors, both to fill gaps in the existing network and to meet the specific needs of residents. This need links with the key priorities of the Local Transport Plan that seeks to:

• improve local linkages to the National and Regional Cycle Network including completion of the Sustrans Connect 2 project 9 (Riversdale Bridge and Associated Footpath and Cycle improvements);

• make use of the planning process to secure appropriate improvements and facilities for cyclists especially where new developments require a travel plan;

• investigate opportunities to improve cycle access to central Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford from surrounding rural towns;

• promote the tourism and leisure benefits of cycling;

• take steps to ensure that cyclists abide with highway regulations and promote a more considerate approach to cycling on multi-user paths; and

• promote the development of footpath networks using canals, the Public Rights of Way network and other "green corridors".

Of particular priority are:

• maximisation of routes alongside natural assets such as rivers and disused railways, such as the Whitegate Way;

• provision of circular routes for recreational walking;

• creation of cycleways to improve access to the larger settlements from the smaller villages and towns – in particular, new routes should be provided to enhance access to Ellesmere Port, Northwich, Winsford and Chester from small settlements;

• creation of safe access routes between settlements – for example a route between Cuddington and Delamere Park is identified as a particular priority on a Parish level. Other known areas where improvements are needed include and Lostock, Christelton, Mollington, Elleston, Winnington, Northwich, Weaverham and Barnton; and

• the provision of new rights of way in areas where provision is more limited, including Northwich, South Chester, Ellesmere Port and Willaston, Peckforton and the surrounding areas.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 204

Of particular importance, is the role that green corridors can play in linking residential areas, and linking settlements and green spaces together.

New Provision

GC 3 Seek to provide new corridors to enhance access routes by:

• maximising routes alongside natural assets such as rivers and disused railways, such as the Whitegate Way; • providing circular routes for recreational walking; • creating cycleways to improve access to the larger settlements from the smaller villages and towns – in particular, new routes should be provided to enhance access to Ellesmere Port, Northwich, Winsford and Chester from small settlements; • creating of safe access routes between settlements – a route between Cuddington and Delamere Park is identified as a particular priority on a Parish level. Other known areas where improvements are needed include Wincham and Lostock, Christelton, Mollington, Elleston, Winnington, Northwich, Weaverham and Barnton; • providing new rights of way in areas where provision is more limited, including Northwich, Ellesmere Port and Willaston and the surrounding areas; and • creating links between open spaces, placing parks and other large spaces at the centre of the overall network.

The provision of new, or improvement of existing green corridors should not be delivered solely through proactive projects. In addition to providing new facilities to meet current need, it will be essential to ensure that new corridors are provided to accommodate the needs of new residents and to effectively link new developments with existing and new facilities. Throughout the assessment of local need, the requirement for a strategic approach has been highlighted and the importance of green corridors and linkages is recognised.

In some instances, the provision of green corridors (or contributions towards existing corridors) may be of higher strategic importance than the provision of on site facilities such as amenity spaces. The local assessment demonstrates that green corridors are the second most frequently used type of space in the borough, and the ongoing provision of these types of space is therefore particularly important.

Provision as part of new development GC 4 Ensure that policy promotes the development of clear green linkages within new housing developments and also allows for contributions towards existing routes.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 205

Redesignation and disposal

There are no recommendations for the redesignation or disposal of any green corridors.

Improving access

As well as improving access to specific corridors (for example through improvements to the quality of surfacing on footpaths, discussed earlier in this section) it is important to ensure that corridors are accessible to residents who do not live in the immediate vicinity of major routes, through links with more minor footpaths / bridleways, or through connection with the public transport network. This emphasises the importance of connectivity between routes, as well as the provision of individual corridors and was also a key priority of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan. Severance caused by major transport routes is identified as a key issue for the public rights of way network across Cheshire.

Improving Access GC 5 Maximise access to green corridors by linking such opportunities with the public transport network, as well as ensuring that corridors are interlinked, by reducing severance and providing safer crossings.

Summary

Green corridors provide opportunities close to peoples’ homes for informal recreation, particularly walking and cycling, as part of every day activities, for example, travel to work or shops. Residents expect to find walking and cycling opportunities in close proximity to the home and the use of such routes promotes physical activity and reduces the reliance upon unsustainable modes of transport.

Consultation indicates that they are well used and are a key priority for residents. There are some key gaps in the Borough however, including the Ellesmere Port and Neston area and connections into the larger settlements for cyclists are also limited. Consultations reveal that residents believe that increasing the amount of public rights of way is important, and that new footpaths, cycleways and bridleways are required In particular, residents value the benefits offered by circular routes.

While there are some gaps in the existing network, improvement to the maintenance of existing facilities was highlighted as a key priority, as well as improvement to issues affecting access to these routes, such as the evenness of footpaths and the use of stiles.

The key priorities for green corridors are summarised overleaf.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 206

Protection Enhancement

Protection should extend to all green Quality enhancements are identified as particularly corridor routes across the Borough. The important. Improvements should focus on the maintenance impact of development on existing of existing routes, and on issues relating to access (such as routes should be evaluated as part of the evenness of footpaths and stiles). new development

New Provision Redesignation

There are some gaps in the existing There are no recommendations for the redesignation or network and clear gaps identified, disposal of any green corridors. particularly in the Ellesmere Port area as well as in Northwich. There is also a need to provide additional cycle routes across the borough leading into the larger settlements of Chester, Northwich and Winsford, as well as Ellesmere Port.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 207

12. Civic Spaces

Introduction

12 Civic spaces include civic and market squares and other hard surfaced community areas designed for pedestrians. The primary purpose of civic spaces is the provision of a setting for civic buildings, public demonstrations and community events. Civic spaces often define the character of the urban

The PPG 17 Companion Guide, Annex A states that:

“…the purpose of civic spaces, mainly in town and city centres, is to provide a setting for civic buildings, opportunities for open air markets, demonstrations and civic events. They are normally provided on an opportunistic and urban design led basis. Accordingly it is for planning authorities to promote urban design frameworks for their town and city centre areas”.

Civic spaces are particularly important in defining the character of the local area and across Cheshire West and Chester, are currently subject to many improvement and regeneration plans, including:

• Chester Renaissance - The Chester Renaissance programme will see new developments and city centre improvements from now to 2015. The first phase of work will see improvements to the Cathedral Quarter including the creation of a new square, and improved links to the public realm in other parts of the city. Improvements are also taking place to public realm throughout the city including the Castle and Riverfront area and the Northgate area;

• Northwich Vision – the vision sets out a regeneration programme for the town of Northwich, which will include the creation of a new leisure destination area (Barons Quay), improvements to the Market Area, which are likely to include the creation of a public square and the creation of a visitor destination at the Marina;

• Winsford Town Centre Regeneration – improvements to the existing town centre, including the creation of a public services area; and

• Ellesmere Port Area Action Plan – an Area Action Plan, currently being prepared, sets out the priorities for the future of Ellesmere Port Town Centre and involves significant regeneration and improvement to existing amenities.

Current provision

Civic Spaces are primarily located in town and city centres. Such spaces in Cheshire West and Chester include:

• Chester Cross (Chester)

• Abbey Square (Chester)

• Chester Town Hall Square (Chester)

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 208

• Addelshaw Tower (Chester)

• Roman Amphitheatre (Chester)

• The Groves (Chester)

• Chester City Walls (Chester)

• Eastgate (Chester)

• Northwich Memorial Hall Square (Northwich)

• Northwich Town Centre Pedestrian Area

• Civic Way, Ellesmere Port

• The Cross, Neston

• Winsford Cross

• Northwich Town Centre.

The quality of civic spaces has not been assessed as part of this assessment. Consultation undertaken as part of the local needs (pmpgenesis 2010, appendix A) reveals that:

• overall, respondents are satisfied with the quantity of civic space in Cheshire West and Chester, with 49% of residents to the household survey suggesting that there is sufficient provision. Few issues were raised with the quality of provision, with over half of respondents indicating that civic spaces are average or above. It was highlighted that the cleanliness of the area, provision of toilets and appropriate parking are the key priorities. Seating was also suggested as being important by a third of respondents. Like many other types of open space, the key issues identified were dog fouling and litter. Residents attending the older people’s workshop session highlighted problems with uneven surfaces (specifically relating to Northwich Town Centre and Chester);

• unlike most other types of open space and outdoor sports facilities in the Borough, many residents travel from distance to access civic spaces, perhaps reflecting their locations predominantly in town centres. There is therefore a reliance on the car, although a higher proportion of users rely on public transport than for many other types of open space; and

• the importance of ensuring that civic spaces serve residents of all ages was highlighted at the young people’s workshop.

Setting local standards

As highlighted in previous sections, national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, and standards are therefore best set locally. PPG17 indicates that local authorities should set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities. Unlike other types of open space however, the Companion Guide indicates that standards should only be set for quality. This is explained further under the headings of Quantity Standards, Quality Standards and Access Standards.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 209

Accessibility Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

Accessibility Standard No standard set Justification No accessibility standard set due to the characteristics of this typology. This is in line with guidance in the PPG17 Companion Guide. PPG17 states that there is no realistic requirement to set catchments for such a typology as the provision of civic spaces will not be appropriate in every environment.

Quantity Standard (Full justifications provided in Appendix D).

PPG17 suggests that it is not realistic to set a quantity standard for civic spaces in light of their specialist nature and no provision standard has therefore been set. PPG17 however adds that it is desirable for planning authorities to promote urban design frameworks for their town and city centres and the design and planning of new neighbourhoods across the Borough should therefore take into account the demand for new civic spaces from local residents as well as from visitors to wider catchments and ensure that such spaces are incorporated within master plans.

Quantity Standard N/a N/a

Justification No quantity standard set due to the characteristics of this typology. This is in line with guidance in the PPG17 Companion Guide.

Cheshire West and Chester Council will however encourage the inclusion of civic spaces within urban design frameworks and masterplans.

Quality Standard

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

Essential Desirable

Clean and litter free Dog and litter bins at entrance / exit points

Clearly defined and even footpaths Parking and cycle storage

Flowers, trees and natural features Seating

Clear signage Public Transport Links

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 210

Applying local provision standards

As provision standards have not been set for accessibility and quantity, there is no opportunity to apply these standards.

Key priorities

Civic spaces are particularly important to residents of the Borough. Many spaces, particularly those in Chester, are also used extensively by tourists and visitors to the area.

The remainder of this section therefore considers the key priorities relating to civic spaces under the following headings

• Quality enhancements

• Protection of existing provision

• Increasing provision

• Redesignation and disposal

• Improving access

Quality enhancements

Consultation suggests that the quality and functionality of civic spaces is as important as the quantity of spaces in the Borough. Many of the regeneration plans for the existing town and city centres seek to improve both the quality and the amount of public spaces. The household survey and specific workshops undertaken highlight key priorities of local residents, including the need to provide safe and even routes through spaces and the importance of seating.

Improve existing provision

CIV 1 Seek to enhance the quality of civic spaces across Cheshire West and Chester in line with the recommended quality standard. Focus also on increasing the functionality of existing public open space in the city centre as well as routes through sites and providing seating to aid enjoyment of the area.

In addition to ensuring that sites are functional from a recreational perspective, the prospect of climate change means that there is a need to tailor civic spaces to reduce the risk of flood risk and protect against urban cooling.

Improve existing provision

CIV 2 Ensure that the design of civic spaces takes into account the need to promote urban cooling and reduce floodrisk.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 211

Protection of existing provision

The importance of protecting public civic spaces was also emphasised throughout consultation. Residents indicated that public civic spaces were a valuable part of the city and consultation demonstrates clear evidence of high levels of use of these spaces. Particularly in Chester, many of the civic spaces are a key part of the Roman Heritage of the City.

Protect existing provision

CIV 3 Seek to retain all civic spaces.

Increasing provision

The amount of civic spaces in Cheshire West and Chester did not arise as a key issue during consultation, and the majority of residents are satisfied with the amount of existing facilities. Regeneration plans in many of the main urban centres of the Borough however include the potential to provide further civic spaces for the benefit of the public, and to more effectively link existing spaces together.

Protect existing provision

CIV 4 Ensure that the provision of civic spaces is explored within Masterplans and Area Action Plans for the main town centres across the Borough.

Redesignation

There are no recommendations for the redesignation or disposal of any civic spaces. Disposal of Facilities

Increasing access

No standards have been set for accessibility; however access was raised as one of the key issues in relation to civic space, particularly with regards the surfacing of paths and the need to effectively link civic spaces with public transport routes. There is a greater reliance on public transport to access civic spaces in the Borough than for any other type of open space.

Enhance access to existing spaces

CIV 5 Seek to improve access both to and within existing sites by ensuring that sites are accessible to all user groups, and maximising public transport links to civic spaces.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 212

Summary

Civic spaces are central to the character of many of the larger towns in the Borough, and are particularly important in Chester, where many sites are of high historical and heritage value. Consultation reinforces this, demonstrating the importance of these sites to residents and indicating that they are used regularly.

On the whole, residents are satisfied with the amount of civic spaces although opportunities to improve the quality of existing facilities are identified. It was considered particularly important to consider the needs of all potential user groups when planning and designing civic spaces. A quality standard has been set to guide improvements to existing civic spaces and as a benchmark for new areas of civic space and the maintenance of existing areas across the Borough.

The key priorities for the future delivery of civic spaces across Cheshire West and Chester therefore include:

Protection Enhancement

Protection should extend to all civic Quality enhancements are identified as a key priority. spaces Improvements should focus on improving the functionality of existing sites and providing seating. Sites should be accessible to all sectors of the population.

New Provision Redesignation

Opportunities for new provision should There are no recommendations for the redesignation or be considered within Masterplans and disposal of any civic spaces. Area Action Plans.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 213

13. Summary and Planning Overview

Introduction

13 This audit and assessment of open space has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the latest Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) and its Companion Guide and has involved the following:

Step 1 – Assessment of local needs and opportunities (pmpgenesis 2010) Step 2 – Audit of Existing Provision Step 3 – Setting Local Standards Step 4 – Application of Local Standards

This section summarises the key priorities arising from the study and provides a strategic framework for the future delivery of open space and the creation of planning policy. The recommendations set out in this report do not constitute formal policies, but provide an evidence base to inform future decision-making, policy formulation and strategy development across Cheshire West and Chester.

Background

Open space is of paramount importance in Cheshire West and Chester and the array and variation of space available is perceived to be the one of the defining features of the Borough.

There is wide variety of benefits arising from the effective provision of open space, including:

• promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion; • enhancing health and well being; • promoting more sustainable development; • defining the local landscape character and providing an appropriate context and setting for built development and infrastructure; • helping to achieve a softer interface between urban and rural environments; • emphasising the presence of particular natural features within the landscape such as river valleys; • supporting habitats and local wildlife; • promoting and protecting biodiversity and habitat creation; and • mitigating climate change and flood risk.

In line with PPG17, the key findings of this assessment should be used to ensure the delivery of the open spaces of an appropriate quality and in the right place.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 214

Open space in Cheshire West and Chester

There is a wide variety of open space in Cheshire West and Chester and open space is significant in shaping the character of the area. Maps provided in Appendix G illustrate the full distribution of open spaces.

Figure 13.1 overleaf summarises the amount of space dedicated to each type of open space in Cheshire West and Chester. It demonstrates that the amount of space dedicated to outdoor sports facilities is higher than any other types of space, and that natural and semi natural open space is the second most common type of space.

As outlined in Section 2 (page 15) wards have been categorised as urban or rural for indicative purposes only, according to the primary nature of the ward. It is however recognised that the majority of wards in the Borough include both urban and rural areas.

Golf courses are excluded from Figure 13.1 due to their tendency to skew figures. When taking into account golf courses, the amount of outdoor sports facilities in the rural areas is above that in the more urban parts of the Borough.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 215

Figure 13.1 – Distribution of open space across Cheshire West and Chester

Open Space in Cheshire West and Chester

600

500

400 Urban Hectares

300 Rural

200

100

0 Type of Open Space Parks and Natural and Semi Amenity Green Facilities for Facilities for Outdoor Sports Allotments Cemeteries and Gardens Natural Open Space Children Young People Facilities Churchyards Space

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 216

Figure 13.2 below summarises the quality of open space across Cheshire West and Chester by typology.

Figure 13.2 – Quality of open space across Cheshire West and Chester by typology

Average Quality Score by Typology

80 60 40 Average 20 Quality % 0

Green Space Amenity

People Provision Gardens for Youngfor Parks and Parks Allotments Typology

Figure 13.1 however disguises the range in the quality of provision. This is summarised below in Table 13.1. For each typology, the target quality score is 75%.

Table 13.1 – Range of quality scores

Typology Minimum Score Maximum Score

Parks and Gardens 44 97.5

Natural and Semi Natural Open Space 17 95

Amenity Green Space 17 95

Provision for Children 24 100

Provision for Young People 28.5 87

Outdoor Sports Facilities 10 97

Allotments 21 92

Table 13.1 demonstrates that there are significant variations in the quality of facilities, with examples of high and low quality sites in all typologies. There are particular variations in the quality of sports facilities, natural and semi natural open space and amenity green space.

Appendix H summarises the provision by ward, outlining the shortfalls and surpluses and the average quality score for each typology. It also provides an indication as to the level of public satisfaction in each ward. The quality of each open space site is also mapped in Appendix G by settlement.

The analysis of the audit of provision, along with the local needs assessment enable the development of local standards. Local standards were set at a workshop, and take into

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 217 account the issues arising from assessment of local need and the audit of existing provision. Table 13.2 overleaf summarises the standards that have been set.

The application of local standards drive the key findings and priorities that are set out in this report.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 218

Table 13.2 – Local standards by typology

Type of Open Accessibility Quantity Quality Space Parks and 15 minutes walk (720m) 0.37 ha per 1000 population. Essential: Clean and litter free, Well kept grass, Flowers, trees and shrubs, Gardens – Urban Parks expected to be located in Clearly defined and well maintained footpaths, Seating, Dog and litter bins, 15 minutes drive - Rural urban area only. A range of facilities (ie provision for children, sports facilities)

Desirable: Toilets (at larger sites), Events/activities (particularly at larger sites), Park Wardens / CCTV security measures, Information boards, Lighting, Car park and cycle storage facilities.

Natural Open 10 minute walk (480m) 1.5 ha per 1000 population Essential: Clean and litter free, Clearly defined footpaths, Natural features Space and appropriately managed vegetation, Trees, Wildlife and conservation benefits

Desirable: Dog and litter bins, Parking (at larger sites) and cycle storage, Seating, Water features, Information boards.

Amenity Green 10 minute walk (480m) 0.81 ha per 1000 population Essential; Clean and litter free, Seating, Level surface, Litter and dog bins Space Desirable: Flowers and trees, Footpaths, Lighting (where appropriate) / overlooked to aid perceptions of personal security

Provision for 10 minute walk time No standard set. Provision to be Essential: A variety of challenging and exciting play facilities for a range of Children (aged (480m) accessibility led. ages, Clean / litter free, Well kept grass and safety surfacing, Appropriate below 12) boundaries,

Litter bins, Conformity with national guidance including size (to be a minimum of LEAP size) buffer zones and location.

Provision for 15 minute walk time No standard set. Provision to be Essential: Challenging and exciting play facilities, Clean / litter free, Well kept Young People (720m) accessibility led. grass and safety surfacing, Appropriate boundaries, Litter bins, Seating. (aged above Desirable: Dog free area, community involvement, Appropriate location –

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 219

Type of Open Accessibility Quantity Quality Space 12) Access to a strategic overlooked / natural surveillance. facility within a 15 minute drivetime.

Allotments 15 minute walk time 0.15 ha per 1000 population Essential: High quality boundaries, Clean, tidy and well maintained, (720m) Composting and litter bins,

Features enhancing safety and security

Desirable: Notice boards at site entrances, Toilets, Clearly defined access routes suitable for residents of all ages, accessible water supply, Parking facilities at sites where residents have to travel by car to access them

Outdoor Sports Grass Pitches – 10 Grass pitches and synthetic turf Essential: Clean and litter free, Effective maintenance and management, Facilities minutes walk time pitches: provision – protection of Parking facilities, Good site access. (basic grass pitch) and existing provision. Standard to be Desirable: Appropriate specification for key users (designed in accordance 10-minute drive time to superseded by standard set in with NGB guidance), Changing facilities, Toilets, Accessible pricing, Lighting a multi pitch site. Playing Pitch Strategy (2011). and security measures, Ancillary provision – bar etc.

Synthetic Pitches - 20 Tennis Courts –0.45 courts per minutes drive time 1000 Bowling Greens - 10 Bowling Greens –0.23 greens per minutes drive time. 1000 Tennis Courts – 10 Golf Courses – no standard set. minutes drive time Golf Course - 20 minutes drive time

Cemeteries No standard set in line 2.34 hectares of burial space will Essential - Clean and litter free, dog and litter bins, clearly defined footpaths, and with PPG17 guidance be required in Cheshire West and parking and cycle storage Churchyards

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 220

Type of Open Accessibility Quantity Quality Space Chester up to 2026: Desirable - Well kept and appropriately managed grass and vegetation, seating, on site security, wildlife and conservation benefits.

Green No standard set in line No standard set in line with Essential - Clean and litter free, Dog and litter bins at entrance / exit points, Corridors with PPG17 guidance PPG17 guidance Clearly defined footpaths, Parking and cycle storage

Desirable - Flowers, trees and natural features, seating, clear signage

Clear signage

Civic Spaces No standard set in line No standard set in line with Essential – clean and litter free, clearly defined and even footpaths, flowers, with PPG17 guidance PPG17 guidance trees and natural features, clear footpaths

Desirable – dog and litter bins, parking and cycle storage, seating, public transport links.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 221

Policy and strategy implications and framework

The Local Development Framework (LDF) will in time replace the saved policies within the existing Local Plans, which were produced by the former authorities of Chester City Council, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council and Vale Royal Borough Council, and the Cheshire County Council Structure Plan. They will also replace the minerals and waste plans that contain policies on landscape and the natural environment.

The Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents (DPDs) will over time supersede the saved policies of both the Structure and Local Plans. The Council’s Local Development Framework will include extensive consultation about the role and future development of the Borough and the LDF will play a central role in the future delivery of open space, sport and recreation facilities across Cheshire West and Chester by:

• protecting valuable areas of open space from development; • facilitating the provision of new open spaces and the enhancement of existing spaces where appropriate; and • guiding the provision of open spaces within new development.

This study provides a starting point for future proactive and reactive action to open space, sport and recreation facilities. This section therefore draws together the key issues highlighted in each of the typology specific sections. The framework for action summarising the following:

• general overarching issues / principals; • key priorities by each type of open space and implications for policy; and • priorities by settlement.

General overarching issues and principals

Several issues relating generally to open spaces across the Borough were highlighted during the course of the local needs assessment as well as during the standard setting process. In order to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of open space, the following issues, common to all types of open space should be considered as part of a future delivery strategy, in both the Local Development Framework and other more specific strategies:

• There is a need to ensure that open spaces and sport and recreation facilities are designed and managed in such a way that is sustainable and to facilitate ongoing and continuous improvement. This is particularly important in some of the more rural settlements, where a higher number of facilities are required to provide localised access for residents.

• The importance of creating a joined up approach to parks and open spaces and built facilities for leisure was highlighted by a range of Council officers. It was suggested that there is a need to ensure that the services provided are integrated and interlinked. There are particular opportunities to provide a joint approach, for example where health walks start and finish in the local leisure centre (therefore using the facilities) and explore parks and other open spaces.

• Reflecting this, partnership working was considered central to the long term sustainability of the open space, sport and recreation service. There are many examples of good practice across Cheshire West and Chester and it will be essential to build on the current culture of knowledge sharing and partnership working to ensure that such facilities and spaces can be replicated and that interested parties can learn from the experience of others. The Winsford Greenfield Estate Project has been identified as an example of particularly good practice. A coordinated approach to the provision of open space, sport and recreation

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 222

facilities by all providers, including the Council, Town and Parish Councils, schools and voluntary and private groups (where in some instances the Council will act as facilitator) will maximise the effectiveness of the open space, sport and recreation facility network.

• A strategy to maximise the use of resources in order to provide more and improved facilities in some of the rural settlements is essential. Community use of school facilities provides an important opportunity to ensure that residents have localised access to facilities. Diversification of school facilities (for example use of some areas of playing fields to accommodate allotments or natural areas) provides a means of reducing deficiencies and would significantly improve access to localised open space for residents of and visitors to the Borough.

• The rural nature of many parts of the Borough means that some residents are required to travel long distances to access public open space. Effective public transport and a comprehensive network of transport routes are therefore instrumental in the delivery of effective open spaces.

• Consultation revealed a lack of awareness of the opportunities available amongst residents. Promotion of parks, open spaces, sports facilities and linear routes is essential to maximise use of existing facilities and to promote healthy and active lifestyles.

• The location of spaces (and the proximity to the home) is a key determinant of usage of sites in Cheshire West and Chester. Community groups in particular highlighted the importance of the creation of a network of linked spaces, rather than individual sites. It was suggested that residential areas should be linked to existing green spaces and other amenities by green linkages and that green spaces should be interlinked to create an overall network of space. Linkages should include footpaths and cycleways.

• There will be significant growth in the population of the Borough over the Local Development Framework period. It will be essential to ensure that the impact of this growth is taken into account when planning open space, sport and recreation provision.

Priorities and implications by type of open space

The key priorities arising from the application of the recommended standards, as well as the assessment of local need and their implications for future policy are summarised by typology in Table 13.3 overleaf. Full background can be found in Sections 3 – 11.

The key issues arising should inform a distinct policy within the core strategy (either specifically relating to sport and open space or within a community infrastructure policy) that considers both need and sustainable development. This should be expanded upon in other documents, such as Supplementary Planning Documents or Development Plan Documents.

The LDF should consider:

• the need to ensure consistency across the Borough; • the importance of considering the needs of future populations as well as the adequacy of current provision; • the requirement for specific guidance to inform new development; • the importance of considering quality and access issues as well as the amount of provision required; • the need to incorporate local standards, rather than rely on national levels of provision; • the importance of monitoring and review.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 223

For ease of reference, priorities have been subdivided into the following headings:

• Protect • Enhance • New Provision • Other Key issues.

The identified priorities are reflective of current need, but also take into account the implications of population growth and change over the LDF period.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 224

Table 13.3 – Priorities by type of open space

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

Parks and Gardens The local needs assessment demonstrated that there is Protect overall satisfaction with the amount of parks across the All parks should be protected. With the exception of those in Chester, all Borough. Despite this, analysis of their distribution indicates serve unique catchments and are valuable to the population. In Chester, that parks are relatively unevenly spread. Consultation the historic links of the sites, as well as the role that these sites play in however demonstrates that residents in rural settlements do tourism of the city means that their value is high. not expect to find a park local to their home, and all Enhance residents are within the recommended 15 minute drivetime Quality enhancements should take priority over new provision, with priority of such a site. given to those sites not achieving the target quality score. As well as the

local standard, the Green Flag principles should be used as a guide for the The quality of parks and gardens is the highest of all types successful management of parks. Ongoing support for local friends groups of open space in the Borough, with an average quality will be particularly central to the achievement of a sustainable network of score of 75%, and 68% of sites achieving the suggested provision. quality target score. Reflecting this, views on the quality of provision are positive. Parks are seen as multi functional The following parks are identified as a priority: open spaces and a wide variety of facilities is expected. • Griffiths Park, Northwich Maintaining and improving the quality of parks and • Cathedral Gardens, Chester gardens across the borough, was seen to be as, if not more • Millfield Park, Neston important, than the provision of more parks. While on the • Verdin Park, Northwich. whole, priorities lie around ongoing improvement and New Provision maintenance, there is also a need to consider the need for Due to the need to ensure that residents are within the recommended new parks in Winsford, Ellesmere Port and the outer edge accessibility catchments, of a park, where possible, new parks should be of Chester. provided in:

• Winsford The role that parks play in the wider network of open space • Ellesmere Port across the borough was apparent, and residents view the • The periphery of Chester in Upton and Blacon linkages between parks and other types of open space as being central to the delivery of successful open spaces in Redesignation the future. There are no recommendations for the redesignation of parks Other Key Issues Parks should be a key component of the network of interconnected open

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 225

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

spaces and should be accessible by green links, including safe pedestrian routes and cycleways.

Natural and Semi Natural The value of natural open spaces to residents both as Protect Open Space recreational spaces, but also in defining the character of Protection should extend to natural open spaces of: the Borough is clear, and there is a strong emphasis on the • Strategic importance (such as Stanney Woods LNR, Ellesmere Port, protection of these spaces from development. There is an and Country Parks) even distribution of natural open spaces, and most • Sites that are particularly important in terms of nature conservation residents have access to at least one site within the and biodiversity • Sites that receive high levels of usage from the general public recommended distance threshold. The quality of sites from • Sites that are located on important routes within the green network a recreational perspective is however varying, and there are some examples of sites which are overgrown and Enhance where access is impeded. Reflecting this, views on the Support the improvement of natural open spaces using the quality vision quality of provision are varying, with residents identifying and site visits to identify issues of priority importance. Support may be both high and low quality sites. Natural open space is either financial, or in kind, through guidance in applying for external however viewed as being important in both rural and funding or the provision of advice for example. Footpaths and clearly urban areas. defined routes through sites were identified as key priorities. It should be recognised that an appropriate balance between conservation and As well as being of recreational value, the function of recreational interests is required. The relative balance will vary between natural space from a biodiversity and conservation sites and improvements should be undertaken with this in mind. perspective is also clear. Enhancements to the quality of Key priorities include: natural and semi natural open space should take into account the other functions of the site, and seek to • strategic sites – in particular, some areas for improvement are identified for Stanney Woods LNR, Ellesmere Port (particularly paths). balance biodiversity and recreation. This site is a key priority as it is does not reach the target quality score;

• sites that are high value but low quality – ie Sites that are serving unique catchments and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this category include Weaver Parkway, LAPA Fields, Lache, Blacon Nature Park (Blacon) and Leftwich Meadows; • areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. For many of these sites, the value is currently limited; and • wards which have more than sufficient space, but poor quality space

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 226

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

– these include Groves and Whitby, Marbury, Northwich West and Abbey.

Sympathetic management techniques should be practiced at sites of importance for nature conservation and biodiversity, and information should be provided at these sites, raising public awareness of the management practices and the habitats that are provided.

Areas of particularly poor quality natural open space include;

• Blacon • Central and Westminster • Abbey Ward • Marbury • Weaver.

A full list of scores achieved and key issues at each site is provided in Appendix E.

New Provision Seek to address deficiencies in natural open space and seize opportunities to create new spaces, particularly in:

• Grange and Rossmore and Central and Westminster wards (natural open space is potentially more limited due to the urban nature of these areas) • Winsford South and West (although residents in this area have access to the Whitegate Way, a linear green corridor which fulfils many of the functions of a natural open space) • Hoole and Newton and Upton.

In some instances, improvements to the access of existing sites may be as important as the creation of new spaces.

Redesignation and Disposal There are no recommendations for the disposal of any natural and semi

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 227

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

natural sites

Amenity Green Space Although there are mixed views on the amount of amenity Protect green spaces provided, the quality of provision is of Policy should protect against the loss of valuable amenity spaces, by significantly higher concern to residents the amount of spaces. This is supported by analysis of the existing ensuring that planning permission that would result in the loss of: provision, which demonstrates that while there are areas • sites serving unique catchments (regardless of quality); or with an abundance of amenity green space, the majority of residents are able to access some amenity space. There • high quality spaces that are of value to local residents should not be is limited correlation between views on provision and the granted, unless it can be proven that alternatives of higher amount of space provided and it is clear that perceptions community benefit will be provided. are impacted upon by both the quality and quantity of space. Enhance Support the improvement of amenity green spaces across the Borough, Analysis of the quality of provision demonstrates that using the quality vision to identify issues of priority importance. Support amenity spaces are amongst the poorest of typologies, may be either financial, or in kind, through guidance in applying for with many considered to be lacking in function. Amenity external funding or the provision of advice for example. spaces also attract litter, dog fouling and anti social behaviour. Cleanliness and maintenance was highlighted Priority should be given to: as the key priority for these sites. There are clusters of poor quality space in Northwich, Winsford and Blacon as well as • Sites that are high value but low quality – ie sites that are serving some higher quality facilities. unique catchments and are well used, but are of overall poor quality. Sites which fit into this category include: Amenity space is important in providing local recreational - School Lane Amenity Space (Elton) opportunities for residents, particularly in areas where mobility is lower, but also helps in the creation of a network - Jack Lane Amenity Space (Davenham) of linked open spaces. Amenity space can provide local Gorse Field (Tattenhall) links between residential areas and other green spaces - and many of these spaces therefore remain important. • Areas which contain clusters of poor quality provision, with limited sites of higher quality. Wards where particular quality issues have been identified include Northwich East and Shackerley, Blacon, Eddisbury and Northwich West. Additionally, almost all of the poorest scoring sites are situated in Blacon, Winsford and Northwich, meaning that there are high concentrations of poor facilities

Areas where the amount of amenity space is low and amenity spaces are therefore more likely to be of importance to residents. The quality of amenity space in Blacon and Eddisbury in particular is low, and there are also high deficiencies of space. This means amenity space is likely to be

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 228

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

important to residents and improvement is a priority. In particular, given the higher levels of deprivation in Blacon, and the resulting reliance on local open space, amenity space is of even greater significance in this area.

Redesignation Consideration of the disposal of an amenity green space proven surplus to requirements should only be given if the site is not required for alternative use for either environmental or recreational purposes. Sites should only be considered for disposal where they are both poor quality, and located in an area where there are multiple amenity spaces, and the loss of the site will not result in any accessibility deficiencies.

Areas where disposal of amenity spaces (to improve the quality of nearby sites) should be investigated further include:

• Northwich • Winsford

New Provision Provide new amenity spaces in areas where residents are outside of the appropriate catchment for amenity space, specifically:

• East Tarvin • Ashton Hayes • East Ellesmere Port

In areas where the structure of existing development means that the provision of new amenity space is not possible, consider the implementation of innovative solutions such as green roofs and green walls or the development of community use agreements with education facilities. New amenity green space will be required in new developments where either the amount of provision in the area is below the recommended standards, and / or residents in the new development will not be within the accessibility catchment of an existing amenity green space.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 229

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

Provision for Children Consultation demonstrates that there are mixed views on Protect (aged below 12) the amount of facilities for children across Cheshire West Protection should extend to play areas that serve unique catchment areas and Chester, and provision for children emerged as one of and to play facilities of high quality. the key issues during the local needs assessment. Enhance

Seek to upgrade traditional facilities with challenging and exciting play Application of the accessibility standard however facilities for children and young people that encourage children to demonstrates that the majority of residents have access to explore their boundaries and balance risk and safety. This may include the at least one facility for children, although there are some creation of natural play areas which link with the surrounding environment areas where new provision may be required. In addition, as well as equipped play facilities. there are a series of play areas with overlapping catchments, many of which are poor quality or have The majority of sites at large parks and recreation grounds achieve high limited play value. Analysis suggests that views on the scores. Many of these facilities serve as destination facilities for residents of amount of provision are impacted upon by the perceived the Borough, as well as local facilities for residents who live in close quality of provision across the Borough and there are proximity to the park (and therefore in reality have a wider catchment therefore both quality and quantity issues. area). Residents travel further to reach parks, and improvements at these sites where quality issues are identified should be prioritised. Such facilities Reflecting this, a strategic approach has been taken to include: play facilities and no quantity standard has been set, • Griffiths Park, Northwich instead, need for new provision should be determined • using an accessibility led approach. Blacon Poets Park • Play area at Verdin Park, Northwich • Play area at Grosvenor Park and Water Tower Gardens, Chester. The quality of facility provided across the Borough is highly varying, with examples of very high quality and new Other priorities include sites serving unique catchments such as Top Road facilities as well as some poorer sites. 29 play areas that Play Area, Frodsham, Brown Heath Recreation Ground, Weaver Road Play contain 3 or fewer pieces of equipment have been Area and Kelsall Recreation Ground Play Area recorded – these facilities in particular have limited play Sites at major venues (priorities include Blacon, Northwich and Chester) value. There are opportunities for disposal of some facilities should also be prioritised. in order to improve the quality of other facilities, and provide an overall improved level of provision to residents. Improvements to play areas should take into account the areas identified as being particularly important in the local standards, including cleanliness and maintenance, appropriate boundaries and provision of litterbins.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 230

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

Residents expect to find facilities local to their home, and The standard also highlights the importance of ensuring that that the local access to facilities is particularly important. Safe pedestrian community are involved and engaged with plans to improve existing play routes were felt to be important if use of facilities was to be areas. maximised, and these sites should be accessible from all New Provision residential areas. Provide new facilities for children (drawing on the quality standards) in

locations where residents are outside of the catchment of existing facilities and where demand has been identified, specifically:

• Tarporley • Pulford • Cotebrook and Utkinton • East Helsby • Little Stanney • Mollington • Christleton • Delamere • Whitegate • Sandiway

Redesignation and Decommissioning There are large numbers of facilities that have limited or no play value in the current form. The decommisioning of the following sites, all of which are already of limited play value, may provide opportunities to improve the quality of remaining facilities:

• Danefield Road Play Area, Northwich • Cleveland Way Play Area, Winsford • Walker Street Play Area,Chester • Randle Meadow Play Area, Great Sutton • Stones Manor Lane Play Area, Hartford • Long Meadow Play Area – Weaverham • Rookery Rise Play Area - Winsford • Townsend Road Play Area –Lostock Gralam • Marlborough Avenue Play Area - Winsford • Rowan Rise Play Area – Barnton • Rother Drive – Ellesmere Port • Elm Grove – Ellesmere Port.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 231

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

Focus should be placed on Chester, Northwich and Winsford, where there are several overlapping catchments and a wide range of quality scores.

Provision for Young Overall, there are more concerns relating to the quantity of Protect People (aged above 12) facilities for teenagers than any other typology and there is Due to the clear importance of providing appropriate facilities for young a perception that both the quantity and quality of facilities people to the local community, retain all sites that serve unique is poor. It is clear however that views on the amount of catchments, as well as all strategic facilities. Facilities should only be lost facilities are influenced by the quality of facilities, and by where it can be proven that there is no demand for the local facility or the type of facilities that residents wish to see. that improvements to another site in the immediate catchment of the site will be of greater value to residents. Prior to losing a site, the reason for the Despite the negativity which emerged during consultation, current low value / poor quality of the site should be explored, and application of the local accessibility standards reprovision of a different type of facility should be considered prior to the demonstrates that while there are gaps in some parts of overall loss of the facility. the Borough, much of the Borough is well served with local Enhance facilities, although it is acknowledged that most residents Seek to upgrade traditional facilities with challenging and exciting for have to travel further to reach a strategic facility. Residents young people that meet the needs of the young people in the vicinity of expect to find facilities in close proximity to their home. No the site. quantity standards have been set, meaning that decision making should be accessibility led. Local facilities should provide shelter and seating for young people and be of high quality, ensuring that they are desirable to visit. Community As highlighted, quality of provision is a key issue for engagement should form a key part of any programme of refurbishment residents. Although the quality of facilities is lower than that for facilities for young people, as well as for new provision. for children, like other types of open space, there are some Improvements are required at facilities that are poor in quality but offer examples of high quality facilities as well as poorer sites. Site significant potential, including: visits highlight that vandalism, litter and damage to the sites are the key problems, and most sites suffered from these • Saxons Lane Youth Shelter, MUGA and Skatepark – seats and shelter issues to a greater or lesser extent. Moving forward, damaged and covered in graffiti, equipment damaged community involvement in the design and maintenance of • Community Skatepark, Elton – this site is of high value as it serves a facilities will be essential if these problems are to be local community, but floodlights are not working and the site has extensive litter and alcohol bottles – the location of the site offers avoided, and there are several examples in the Borough of significant potential where this has already been successful. • Farndon Skatepark – site with good potential, but let down by misuse and maintenance

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 232

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

Improvement is also required at larger strategic sites, such as Whitby Park, Verdin Park and Mount Pleasant. If improvements are to be made to any of these facilities, given that most of the issues relate to litter etc, community but in will be essential.

New Provision Provide new facilities for young people (drawing on the quality standards) in locations currently devoid of provision. In urban areas, these facilities should be located within parks, to maximise the strategic distribution of sites:

Strategic Facilities • Tarporley

Local Facilities • Willaston • Five Crosses area of Frodsham • Acton Bridge • Handbridge (Chester) • Christleton • West Blacon • East Saltney • Malpas • Tattenhall (although there is a skatepark in this area, with associated fees) • Kelsall • Tarvin.

Support local Parish Councils in areas other than those identified above to provide new facilities where demand has been specifically identified.

Rationalisation and Disposal Consider the rationalisation of facilities that serve overlapping catchments and / or have limited play value. Ensure that any resulting revenue savings are reinvested into nearby play facilities, providing an overall improvement in the quality of resources available.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 233

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

Areas for consideration include:

• Northwich • Winsford • Ellesmere Port Allotments • The quantity of allotments was the key issue Protect highlighted across all consultations. Recent increases All Allotments across the Borough should be protected, given the in demand have seen waiting lists rise and there are now waiting lists across the Borough. Increasing the importance of these facilities to residents and the existing demand for amount of allotments available to residents and such sites. Formal protection should extend to statutory allotment sites only, providing more opportunities to participate is allowing the creation of temporary allotment sites to accommodate therefore a key priority. There are deficiencies fluctuations in demand. Retain all sites that are in use. identified throughout the Borough. In some instances, changes to the management practices to maximise Enhance the number of residents who are able to use a site Support Allotment Associations / Providers to improve the quality of sites will be sufficient to increase capacity, while in other achieving low quality scores, Quality improvements are of significantly areas, new provision will be required. Given fluctations in demand, these should be delivered lower priority than the protection of existing sites and the provision of new through a combination of formal allotment sites sites. (statutory and temporary) and more informal community growing areas. Key priorities include fencing, water supplies, paths and surfaces and a series of poorer quality sites have been identified. • Although quantity was highlighted as the main issue, some qualitative issues were identified. Site visits New Provision reveal that the quality of allotments is lower than Provide new allotments or opportunities for growing in areas where there is some other types of open space, and that the expressed demand for provision through waiting lists, approaches to the overall quality of allotments is inconsistent across the Parish / Town, as well as in areas where there are no existing sites. Priorities borough. Fencing, water supplies, paths and include: surfacing were identified as key issues. • Tarvin • Residents expect to find allotments in relatively close • Winsford proximity to their home. There is a relatively even • Davenham / Moulton distribution of allotments across the Borough, • Cuddington although there are many residents outside of the • Christleton / Waverton recommended distance threshold for provision • Acton Bridge • Helsby • Partnership working between allotment holders and • Boughton providers has been successful, and the established • Tarporley. allotment associations are perceived to be effective and beneficial. There are examples of where such

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 234

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

partnership working has been effective both in As well as considering the opportunity to provide temporary allotment Cheshire West and Chester and as best practice sites, where land is not available, seek to embrace new ways of delivering examples nationally. opportunities for growing to meet these needs, including the creation of partnerships with schools and members of the local community. The targets for these schemes initially should be areas where provision is below minimum standards, or where there is significant expressed demand.

Redesignation and Disposal Investigate the current role of sites in Clayhill Green, Little Sutton, James Street, Northwich, Christleton Drive, Ellesmere Port and the former Rudheath Allotments (Rudheath, Northwich) and consider returning to allotments to meet current demand.

Outdoor Sports Facilities Outdoor sports facilities are a wide ranging category of Protect open space which includes both natural and artificial All sports facilities, unless it can be proven that there is no demand for a surfaces for sport and recreation. Facilities can be owned and managed by councils, sports associations, schools and facility. With few exceptions, all sports facilities in the Borough are currently individual sports clubs, with the primary purpose of used and are therefore valuable to the community. participation in outdoor sports. Examples include: Efforts should be made to increase access to existing facilities (particularly • playing pitches; golf in Chester and bowling in Farndon, Waverton, Hartford, Mickle Trafford, Ellesmere Port and Malpas) and to promote opportunities to • athletics tracks; residents.

Enhance • bowling greens; and • Quality improvements should be prioritised at tennis Courts (several public sites and Club Mark Sites identified for improvement) • tennis courts. • The quality of the existing athletic track at Knights Grange Sports The ongoing Playing Pitch Strategy, which is being Complex is in need of improvement developed in line with Towards a Level Playing Field, will • Improved facilities at rowing bases in Chester and Northwich evaluate the adequacy of pitch provision in detail and will supersede any issues raised within this assessment. Detailed • Improving and maintaining the quality of bowling greens is more requirements for synthetic turf pitches will also be important than the provision of new facilities considered within this document. New Provision • Consider demand for additional archery facilities in Chester This PPG17 assessment sets local standards for the remainder of outdoor sports facilities and the key issues

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 235

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

arising from the application of these standards are as • Review demand for BMX / Closed circuit cycling in Chester follows: New tennis courts – to be delivered by improving access to existing school • Tennis Courts – The majority residents have access to sites or partnerships between clubs and public sites. New facility required a tennis court within the recommended catchment, for Hoole LTC. however, there is a lack of public access to facilities, with many courts being located on school sites. Redesignation Demand for more publicly accessible tennis courts The tennis courts at Frodsham Leisure Centre have no role in their current should be assessed and agreements to access form. facilities on school sites should be considered. There are also opportunities to improve the quality of existing courts and particular priority should be given to improving quality and access to facilities in Winsford, Upton and Ellesmere Port.

• Bowling Greens – The current quantity of bowling greens is sufficient to meet demand and the quality of existing provision is good. Particular priority should be given to improving access to facilities for residents in Farndon, Waverton, Hartford, Mickle Trafford, Ellesmere Port and Malpas

• Athletics Tracks – athletics is one of the biggest issues in the Borough at the current time. While there is a good facility to the west of the Borough (although the long term sustainability of the venue is in question) there are no synthetic tracks to the east, although the majority of residents are within the recommended catchment of a nearby facility, and the club has been unable to secure an alternative venue for training or matches. The need for a new facility is supported in the National Athletics Strategy and by the County Athletics Association

• Golf Courses – The amount of golf courses is adequate to meet demand and nearly all residents have access to a site within or in close proximity to the Borough. The quality of existing provision is also high, although access to most courses is restricted

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 236

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

and there are limited opportunities for some residents without access to a car to access such facilities. There is need however to increase pay and play access and casual use of facilities, particularly in Chester

• Other sports – issues have been identified with the provision of other sports, including the need to improve access to water sport facilities and to provide specific venues for minority sports.

Cemeteries and Cemeteries and churchyards are important natural Protect Churchyards resources in Cheshire West and Chester, offering both Protection should extend to all cemeteries and churchyards. Once full, recreational and conservation benefits. Residents highlight the importance of high quality provision, and effective graveyards should be maintained as closed churchyards maintenance regimes resulting in a clean and well Enhance maintained site were identified as the most important feature. Improvements to the consistency of provision and Quality enhancements are identified as a key priority. Improvements specifically to the maintenance are highlighted as a key should focus on poorer quality sites and should drive consistency between priority. spaces maintained by different providers.

Given the nature of cemeteries and churchyards, local New Provision standards for accessibility have not been set. The While there is no immediate requirement for new provision to meet current importance of proactive planning for new requirements capacity, new space should be allocated over the LDF period to however is emphasised and identified as a key area for accommodate future demand. Capacity of existing sites should be improvement across the Borough. This should include proactively considering the capacity to meet future burial reviewed regularly. Consideration should also be given to the demand for need, as well as evaluating the adequacy of provision to new types of burial (such as woodland / different religions). meet current need in terms of both number of burial spaces and the types of plot required. Redesignation There are no recommendations for the redesignation of disposal of any In addition to offering a functional value, many cemeteries cemeteries or churchyards. and churchyards have wider benefits including heritage, cultural and landscape values.

Green Corridors Green corridors provide opportunities close to peoples’ Protect homes for informal recreation, particularly walking and Protection should extend to all green corridor routes across the Borough. cycling, as part of every day activities, for example, travel to work or shops. Residents expect to find walking and The impact of development on existing routes should be evaluated as part cycling opportunities in close proximity to the home and of new development

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 237

Types of Open Space Priority Recommendations and Policy Implications

the use of such routes promotes physical activity and Enhance reduces the reliance upon unsustainable modes of Quality enhancements are identified as particularly important. transport. Improvements should focus on the maintenance of existing routes, and on Consultation indicates that they are well used and are a issues relating to access (such as the evenness of footpaths and stiles). key priority for residents. There are some key gaps in the New Provision Borough however, including the Ellesmere Port and Neston area and connections into the larger settlements for There are some gaps in the existing network and clear gaps identified, cyclists are also limited. Consultations reveal that residents particularly in the Ellesmere Port area as well as in Northwich. There is also believe that increasing the amount of public rights of way a need to provide additional cycle routes across the borough leading into is important, and that new footpaths, cycleways and the larger settlements of Chester, Northwich and Winsford, as well as bridleways are required In particular, residents value the Ellesmere Port. benefits offered by circular routes. Redesignation While there are some gaps in the existing network, There are no recommendations for the redesignation or disposal of any improvement to the maintenance of existing facilities was highlighted as a key priority, as well as improvement to green corridors. issues affecting access to these routes, such as the evenness of footpaths and the use of stiles. Civic Spaces Civic spaces are central to the character of many of the Protection larger towns in the Borough, and are particularly important Protection should extend to all civic spaces in Chester, where many sites are of high historical and heritage value. Consultation reinforces this, demonstrating Enhancement the importance of these sites to residents and indicating Quality enhancements are identified as a key priority. Improvements that they are used regularly. On the whole, residents are satisfied with the amount of should focus on improving the functionality of existing sites and providing civic spaces although opportunities to improve the quality seating. Sites should be accessible to all sectors of the population. of existing facilities are identified. It was considered particularly important to consider the needs of all potential New Provision user groups when planning and designing civic spaces. A Opportunities for new provision should be considered within Masterplans quality standard has been set to guide improvements to and Area Action Plans. existing civic spaces and as a benchmark for new areas of civic space and the maintenance of existing areas across Redesignation the Borough. There are no recommendations for the redesignation or disposal of any civic spaces.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 238

Development Management Decisions

In addition to informing the creation of new policy within the Local Development Framework for both the protection of open spaces and site allocations, the standards and key findings of this report can also be used as a basis for decision making in a Development Management context.

Specifically, standards can be used to:

• quantify the amount of provision required from new development and the costs associated with this if on site provision is not required; and

• evaluate the need for specific open spaces.

Policy should promote a strategic approach to provision resulting from new development and should incorporate a degree of flexibility, giving consideration to both the viability of the development and the context of open space provision in the local area. It should draw upon the recommended local standards and set out the requirements for development, ensuring that it is necessary to provide open space to accommodate the additional impact of the development and not to rectify existing deficiencies. Quantity standards should not be applied in isolation from accessibility standards – new provision may still be required in areas that are above the minimum standards in quantitative terms.

Determining the amount of provision required from new development

Most new development creates demand for open space. The cumulative effect of a series of developments without consideration of the need for any open space provision would be to fail to provide for these new demands and to exacerbate any existing deficiencies. It is important, therefore, that open space requirements are taken into account at an early stage in the design process and provided in conjunction with new development. It is necessary and reasonable to request provision of both formal and informal public open space from residential and commercial development that is likely to generate increased demand for and use of such infrastructure.

Decisions on the amount and type of open space to be provided as part of new development should give consideration to:

• Quantity Standards – to evaluate the capacity of the existing spaces to accommodate demand from the new residents, and to determine the demand for new provision that is generated from the development.

• Accessibility standards – to determine whether residents are already within the catchment of an existing space and whether new provision is required – these standards are particularly important, as it is the application of the accessibility standards that facilitate a strategic approach to provision.

• Quality Standards – to understand if there is a need for qualitative improvements at existing sites, and to inform the quality of open space expected as part of new development. Quality standards should also inform calculations with regards the level of maintenance that is required to sustain the site at an appropriate standard.

Application of the local quantity standards will determine the amount of additional demand that will be generated by the new development. For example, a development providing 1000

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 239

new residents will generate demand for 2 hectares of provision if the local standard is 2 hectares per 1000 population.

While policy can and should provide clear guidelines, it is essential that each development is considered on a case by case basis, to ensure that the strategic approach is maintained and that an appropriate balance between quality, quantity and access of open space is achieved. In some areas for example, enhancing access routes to existing open spaces will be of greater priority than the provision of new spaces. The development management process should therefore involve interactive discussion between all parties concerned.

The following commentary outlines some of the key issues that should be taken into account when setting policy for open space in new developments. This information should be used and expanded to form an SPD or to inform a Developer Obligations DPD.

Is the development required to provide open space, sport and recreation facilities?

Policy should clearly state the type of developments from which contributions are expected. Current practice suggests the following to be appropriate:

• most new dwellings are expected to contribute, including flats and conversions to residential use. Replacement dwellings, extensions etc do not generate the need for open space contributions as they do not increase demand;

• while most developments will be expected to contribute, contributions may not be required towards all types of space from all types of housing. For example the developer of housing for the elderly may not be required to contribute towards the provision of play areas; and

• the usual approach to affordable housing is to require the same level of contributions, unless this would make the development unviable.

The review of existing policy on open space across Cheshire West and Chester suggested that the following should also be reconsidered:

• the number of developments required to “trigger” the need to contribute towards open space (there are current inconsistencies in approach across the Borough, and requesting contributions from every dwelling is producing high administrative demands). Each development will however impact upon the existing stock of facilities and contributions should be required from developments with the minimum number of dwellings that is administratively possible; and

• the potential to require contributions towards open space from employment / commercial developments. This is a particularly significant issue in Ellesmere Port, where there are high stocks of employment land. South Northamptonshire, London Borough of Camden and Windsor and Maidenhead authorities all currently require contributions from employment. Commercial developments put pressure on existing recreational facilities at lunchtime and after work, particularly where employees do not live in close proximity to their place of work. Where people commute further than the accessibility thresholds for each type of open space, they are therefore placing extra pressures on spaces in the area.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 240

How much open space is required from the new development?

The local quantity standards should be used to determine the amount of each type of open space that is required from the new development. This ensures that the developer is required only to contribute in line with the impact of the development, and that the open space in the vicinity of the site is not taken into account at this stage.

This study sets local standards for:

• Parks – 0.37 ha per 1000 population

• Natural and Semi natural open spaces – 1.5 ha per 1000 population

• Amenity Green Space - 0.81 ha per 1000 population

• Allotments – 0.15

• Outdoor Sports Facilities (split into facility type) – to be updated following completion of Playing Pitch Strategy

No quantity standards for children and young people have been set. Instead, an accessibility led approach should be used. This will be returned to later in this section. Current policy in the Borough does not require contributions towards all of the above types of open space. New policy within the LDF should consider requesting all types of open space, and given the importance of linkages to residents in the borough, should also be sufficiently flexible to enable the development of green corridors as an alternative / addition to the above forms of space.

The recommended local standards, along with the occupancy rates and density of the development should be used to determine the amount of provision required. To facilitate this, local standards can be translated into a figure per 1 person.

Calculation to Number of new X Open Space Need be performed residents in the development

Data Required Occupancy of new x Local Quantity Standard (to be applied for dwellings x number of each type of open space). dwellings

An example is provided, using the recommended quantity standards set in this study. This approach is indicative only, and as highlighted previously, issues should be considered on a site by site basis. The use of prescriptive formulae should be considered as a starting point for negotiation.

The example assumes a development of 100 houses, with an occupancy rate of 2.3 people per dwelling. As highlighted previously, policy should clearly state which types of open space will be required from new developments and the local standards that will be applied. The narrow breadth of open spaces currently requested was highlighted as a key issue with current policy across the three areas. Where occupancy rate for a specific scheme is not known (for example at outline planning permission stage), a Borough wide average should be used.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 241

Table 13.4 – Calculating the impact of a new development

Type of Open Number of new Local Local Standard Open Space Space residents Standard (ha per person (ha) Requirement for new per 1000) Calculated by development (ha) (Occupancy of new determining (local (Local standard per dwellings x number standard / 1000) person x number of of dwellings) people in development)

Parks 230 0.37 0.00037 0.0851

Natural 230 1.5 0.00150 0.345 Open Space

Amenity 230 0.8 0.00080 0.184 Green Space

Allotments 230 0.15 0.00015 0.0345

Determining if new provision / on site provision should be considered

Minimum size criteria can be used to determine whether the provision of on site open space should be considered. Where the demand generated from the new development falls below the recommended minimum size threshold, provision is not required on site, as the resulting site is likely to be too small to be of genuine benefit to residents.

Suggested minimum sizes (based on national good practice as well as local consultation) are set out in Table 13.5. For example purposes, Table 13.6 overleaf applies these minimum sizes to the development of 100 houses and identifies whether for this development, it is appropriate to consider the provision of any open space on site.

Table 13.5 – Requirement for on site provision

Type of Open Space Recommended Demand On site provision minimum size Generated by considered? (ha) new development (100 houses at 2.3 houses per dwelling)

Parks and Gardens 0.4 0.0851 No

Natural Open Space 0.2 0.345 Yes

Amenity Green Space 0.1 0.184 Yes

Allotments 0.05 0.0345 No

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 242

As illustrated above, based on the local quantity standards, it is therefore possible to calculate the development size thresholds for which on site provision should be considered. In the example above, because the requirement for natural open space and amenity green space generated by the development is above the minimum requirement, provision on site should be discussed. For parks and gardens and allotments, no on site provision may be recommended, however contributions will be required towards the improvement of nearby off site provision.

The application of standards in this manner should be treated as a guide only, and each site should be treated on a case by case basis.

Table 13.6 provides a summary for indicative purposes of the amount of residents a development would need to generate before requiring on site provision. For the purposes of this table, an average occupancy of 2.3 has been used.

Table 13.6 – Thresholds for on site development

Type of Open Recommended Local Quantity Number of Approximate Space minimum size Standard (ha people required Number of (ha) per 1000) to generate Dwellings minimum size? (Minimum size / quantity standard) Parks and 0.4 0.37 1081 462 Gardens Natural Open 0.2 1.5 133 57 Space

Amenity Green 0.1 0.8 125 52 Space

Allotments 0.05 0.15 333 142

Where a type of open space is provided on site, policy should require the developer to demonstrate that the space will be appropriately managed and maintained or a commuted maintenance sum should be collected. Full details of expectations should be included within policy / guidance. The open spaces provided should meet with the recommended quality criteria and policy should provide clear definitive guidelines as to the type and quality of provision expected (during on the quality standards set in this document). This was identified as a key weakness of existing policy in the Borough and is therefore essential in future policy formulation.

Where sites are not large enough to meet the basic criteria for on site provision, contributions towards off site provision should be made (guided by the quality standards set out in this report). This approach can be tailored to meet the needs of the authority. It may for example that requirements for amenity space and natural space are added together, meaning that on site provision is more likely to be required.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 243

Promoting a strategic approach – on site provision

While it is essential that policy sets out specific guidance for on / off site provision, it is important that a strategic approach to open space is taken and that consideration is given as to whether on site provision is required, or whether existing facilities have the capacity to meet the needs of residents in the new development. Even where sites fall above the threshold for on site open space, in some instances, it may be more appropriate for improvements to the quality and infrastructure of surrounding open spaces to be made, or the development of other opportunities (such as the creation of green linkages). Flexibility will therefore be essential.

Following determination of whether on site provision is to be considered, the accessibility standards should be used to determine whether residents in the new development will already be within the appropriate catchment of a new site. If for example there is a park within the recommended 15-minute walk time of the catchment, it may be that a decision is taken that another site will not be required on the development site and instead contributions towards qualitative improvements (or an extension) of the existing site will be needed. The quantity standard should be used to evaluate the capacity of existing sites and inform judgement as to whether there is already sufficient open space in the area.

Provision for children and young people

For children and young people’s facilities, in order to promote a strategic approach to provision, no quantity standard has been set and instead determination of whether new facilities are required will be accessibility led.

To avoid the provision of small play areas with limited play value, it is recommended that only developments exceeding 50 dwellings will be required to consider the need to provide on site play space. Policy should set out costs associated with contributing towards existing play areas for developments of less than this size.

For developments exceeding 50 dwellings, where a new development is within a 10 or 15 minute walk respectively of an existing facility, contributions towards the enhancement of this facility rather than the provision of a new site should be required.

Where the new development does not fall within the recommended 10 or 15 minute distance threshold of a new development, on site provision should be provided.

As with other types of open space, the quality standard will set out the standard that is to be expected of each facility. Where a new facility is required on site to meet with the accessibility standard, this should be provided in line with the quality standard and standard specifications.

For all types of open space, where the quality of nearby sites meets local standards and the quantity of provision is already sufficient to meet both current and future need, new provision (or improvements to existing facilities) will not be required.

Determining the levels of contribution required

The local quantity standards should be used to determine the levels of contribution (cost) required per person where provision is not expected on site. These should be clearly set out to ensure that developers have access to these figures prior to the submission of planning applications. Policy should enable the annual updating and monitoring of these figures to ensure that they continue to reflect local markets. Costs should be derived by multiplying the

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 244

provision rate per person (ha) by the cost per ha – they are therefore derived directly from the local standards.

Policy should clearly state how and where contributions will be spent.

In summary, policy should consider:

• the type of space required that will be requested; • the types of space each type of dwelling (and employment development) should contribute towards; • the trigger point for contributions (no. of dwellings); • how the need for on / off site provision will be evaluated and the standards and parameters that will be used. This include the establishment of minimum size criteria; • the costs associated with off site provision; and • how and where contributions will be spent.

The above method can be used to either determine individual contributions, or to compile standard tariff charges, for example following the Community Infastructure (CIL) Levy process, which will be applicable to all developments.

The impact of localism

The Localism Bill (published in December 2010) makes new provisions for neighbourhood planning, which would create a radical new element in the planning system in England. Through these provisions, local community groups (where designated as neighbourhood forums) and Parish Councils will be empowered to bring forward proposals for a development plan for their neighbourhood area or for an order granting planning permission(s) in that area. This will provide neighbourhood communities with the power to shape the way that the areas in which they live develop and grow, and also provides for community organisations to bring forward site specific development proposals through a Community Right to Build Order. In this instance, the benefits or receipts from the development will be directly retained by the local community.

Neighbourhood planning will be additional to – and not a replacement for – the existing planning system in England. However, following enactment of the Localism Bill, it may be that development plan documents are strongly informed by neighbourhood planning initiatives within their areas. These requirements may impact on the role of developer contributions and the processes described above.

Evaluating individual sites

As well as evaluating the need for new provision within new developments, the local standards can also be used to guide decision making on whether sites are surplus to requirements or could better fulfil another function. Such decisions are essential if open space provision is to remain sustainable over the LDF period.

To determine the value of a specific site, quantity, access and quality standards should be applied first in isolation and then together as follows:

• Quantity standards - can be applied to any area where the population is known for example wards, Parishes, Super Output areas. For the area in question, the current provision per 1000 population should be compared with the expected provision (measured by the local standard) to determine whether there is a shortfall or surplus. Areas falling below the

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 245

minimum standard are considered to be deficient in quantity terms, (although this alone does not mean that the space is valuable).

• Accessibility standards – enable the identification of areas where residents are outside of the catchment for existing provision and can therefore be considered deficient.

• Quality standards – enable the identification of sites that do not meet the recommended quality standards.

Examination of the application of the above standards, as well as the interrelatinship between the three types of standard will provide an understanding of the impact of the disposal of a site. Scenarios that may be arise include:

• in the event of quantitative shortfalls and gaps in accessibility when the site is removed, it is likely that the site is valuable as a green space;

• in areas where there are high levels of provision in quantitative terms, but removal of the site means that residents do not have access to the appropriate types of open space, the site should be retained as green space. This is because the application of the accessibility standard (ensuring that all residents are within the appropriate catchment of each type of open space) takes priority over the quantity standard;

• if there are no gaps in accessibility, but the quantity of provision is below the minimum standard, it is likely that the area is served a series of small sites. It will therefore be important to evaluate the current role of the site, as if a larger site, may be valuable despite sharing catchments with other sites. Qualitative improvements to the site would maximise the capacity of the site to meet the needs of residents, or alternatively, the loss of the site in question may increase the importance of improving the quality and functionality of nearby facilities; and

• in areas where residents are within the appropriate catchment, and the quantity of facilities is above the minimum standard, qualitative improvements to nearby sites may be of higher priority than the retention of the existing green space.

Summary

The open space audit and assessment provides an important part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework, guiding the formulation and implementation of planning policies. This relates to both the protection and enhancement of existing open space and the framework for developing planning obligations.

As well as providing an overall evidence base, the local standards set enable the assessment of the value of sites on a site by site basis, enabling locally informed decision making. This will be essential for both proactive and reactive planning across the Borough.

As well as forming a key part of the evidence base for the Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework, the study will also guide the development of proactive strategies such as a Green Space Strategy, the Play Strategy and a Playing Pitch Strategy.

Cheshire West and Chester PPG17 Assessment 246