Durham City Area Action Partnership

County Durham Open Space, Sport and Recreation Needs Assessment

Area Profile: Durham City Area Action Partnership

CONTENTS

Page (s)

1.0 Sub Area Map 3

2.0 Description of Sub Area 4

3.0 Local consultation findings 5 - 10

4.0 Quantity of provision 11 - 12

5.0 Access to facilities 13 - 18

6.0 Quality of facilities 19 - 20

7.0 Analysis and Recomendations 21 - 22

1.0 Sub Area Map

2.0 Description of Durham City Area Action Partnership

Population 54,512

Location & Demographics

Durham City Area Action Partnership (AAP) comprises the City of Durham with its UNESCO World Heritage site cathedral and castle, University and surrounding villages. The city is based around the River Wear which meanders through an incised valley as it flows north and with steeply wooded banks on the peninsula creating a picturesque setting that is enjoyed by many thousands of visitors every year. Main transport arteries include the A1(M) and London-Newcastle railway with an important station and, arguably, the finest view in the country.

The city centre has a retail heart around the historic market place and the cobbled, narrow streets add to its distinctiveness. In the Millennium square, the Gala Theatre, Clayport Library and many restaurant/pubs have extended the cultural and night time economy. Beyond the city centre, the area is rural, being a mixture of farms, woods and natural land-use. Mining was very influential in the development of some villages such as Witton Gilbert, Bearpark and Sherburn and since their demise they have undergone degrees of economic decline. Newton Hall, to the North East of the city, was once classed as the largest housing estate in Europe. Major out of town shopping centres are found at the Arnison in the North and Dragonville to the East.

The AAP area contains the following town and parish councils; Pittington, Pity Me, Shadforth, Sherburn, Shincliffe, Witton Gilbert, West Rainton, Framwellgate Moor, Belmont and Bearpark.

The area of Durham City contains the following parishes: Sherburn Hill, Carrville, Bearpark, Framwellgate Moor, West Rainton, Gilesgate Moor, West Rainton, Gilesgate Moor, Hallgarth, Leamside, Byers Garth, Shadforth, Durham, Shincliffe, Littletown, Sherburn, Pity Me, Witton Gilbert, Pittington, Ludworth

3.0 Local Consultation Findings

The following is a summary the main local findings of relevance from local consultations which are described in full in the Needs Assessment Report (Appendix 1 to the Main Report).

3.1 Detailed comments from web survey

Postcode Comment DH1 2AW Improved maintenance of public rights of way on Belmont Scrambles DH1 2QE Local shop that you can walk to-to avoid hypermarkets for papers, milk, bread and stamps DH1 4EB An accessible community hall. Better maintenance of the footpaths and bridleways DH1 5HP Outdoor gym (similar to ‘Excersites’ in Australia) DH1 5PX More cycle tracks DH1 5QZ More attention to removal of dog excrement from local recreation grounds and nature reserves. DH7 9TN Safe places for young children to learn to ride a bike, away from roads and with a softer surface if they fall, most cycle paths and bridlepaths are rough to fall on and can cause quite painful abrasive DH1 5YP Ice skating DH1 3TD Permanent Croquet Lawn dH1 4HP Longer "circular" walks linking existing paths and bridleways, say distances of 7 - 12 miles around Pittington/Haswell/Belmont/Sherburn as this is an underused and unappreciated part of the County. DH1 5YS More infrastructure to lock bikes securely. There is no point in me cycling to a facility whether it be a shop, play area or community centre if I find bikes aren't allowed in when I get there. DH6 1BE Ice skating rink DH6 1NL Cinema, we travel miles to get a choice of what to see. Surely Durham's students would benefit. Indoor tennis centre would be great or an ice rink. DH7 6RN Cycleways away from roads DH1 5PN Climbing boulders DH1 1XF Public Tennis Courts DH1 2BH Areas regularly cleared of litter DH1 2BH Better cycle network provision DH1 3HN An enclosed Park, Picnic Area, Improved children's play areas, Sensory garden. PUBLIC (not university) games fields for football etc. Public toilets

DH1 5PT Completion of Necklace Park continuous footpath along River Wear from Durham to Finchale DH1 5QA Tennis courts DH1 5XP Better lighting to footpaths etc DH1 5YW Improved pedestrian links to the countryside

3.2 Best Value Survey by Action Area Partnerships

The results of the 2006/7 Best Value User Satisfaction Surveys for parks and open spaces in each of the districts have been disaggregated to AAP level as shown below.

Significant AAP % Very/fairly satisfied Rest of County Difference Bishop Auckland and Shildon 54.4 59.1 No Chester le Street 63.8 57.8 Yes Consett 59.0 58.5 No Crook Willington and Tow Law 56.6 58.6 No Durham City 59.6 57.9 No Easington 51.9 60.9 Yes East Durham rural corridor 62.3 58.3 No Ferryhill and Chilton 54.0 58.9 No Mid Durham rural west 59.3 58.5 No Newton Aycliffe 72.6 59.6 Yes Spennymoor 74.3 58.1 Yes Stanley 42.4 59.6 Yes Teesdale 65.6 58.4 Yes Weardale 71.0 58.5 Yes

3.3 Summary of Relevant Findings from the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study

A theme running throughout the consultation was a desire to see defined areas protected and improvements to existing provision. There was a general agreement that facilities for young children were inadequate both in terms of their quality and distribution. A wide range of views were secured and the following key points identified: • The most important priority was that open spaces should be safe and secure for those using them.

• Residents placed enormous value on open space as a measure of the quality of the local environment • Where open spaces were under threat local groups were prepared to fight to protect them. • Higher quality existing provision over new areas was a priority • Facilities for young children needed to be improved. • Community Partnerships in conjunction with the Parish and District Councils working together could make real improvements to the quality of open space provision Opening access to school facilities would improve the range of open space opportunities. • Improved levels of maintenance were required across most areas of provision to address issues such as vandalism, litter and dog fouling. • The high value placed on the network of footpaths for informal recreation and linking rural communities.

3.4 Summary of Relevant Findings from the Play Strategy

3.4.1 Main Conclusions

• Children prefer to play outside, unsupervised with their friends. • They value open space and play areas but they have concerns about the quality and range of the current fixed play equipment and the limited age range it caters for. • Play areas need to be more exciting and cater for all age groups. • There is a feeling that parks and play areas should be better cleaned and maintained (issues with broken glass, litter, dog fouling, vandalism and graffiti). • Children and Young People prefer local provision within easy reach of their homes. Transport is an issue for some of the more isolated communities. • The recent development at Coxhoe is cited as a good example of what children and young people would like to see. • Younger children feel intimidated by older youths who either ‘hang about’ the play areas drinking or play football etc. Also teenagers tend to monopolise the BMX and skatepark areas so younger children don’t feel they are able to use these facilities. • Older children don’t tend to want the younger children hanging around. They also just want somewhere to ‘hang out’ with their friends. • There is a fear of traffic around housing estates. • There are issues with cars parked in streets and on the pavement which prevents opportunities for play.

• Complaints from neighbours when they play ‘around the doors’ is an issue as are ‘No Ball Games’ signs on open spaces. • Children and young people value open space areas for playing football / cricket etc near to their homes but would like to see better quality facilities provided for such activities within parks. • There was some experience of police harassment and lack of tolerance by adults generally.

3.4.2 Consultation with Parents and Carers

The Play Partnership carried out a consultation exercise with parents and carers during May 2007. Some key findings from parents and carers were that:

• They have a fear of stranger danger / children’s personal safety and therefore many prefer supervised play opportunities. • They would welcome seeing more imaginative, safer, better maintained playgrounds within easy walking distance of their homes. • There is a perception that Durham is poorly equipped with outdoor play areas i.e. limited play areas with very limited and unimaginative equipment. • Litter (bottles / cans) and dog fouling was cited as a reason for not allowing their children to use open space / park areas. • Fear of intimidation and bullying of younger children by older children was also cited as a reason for not allowing their children to go to the park. • They value the organised, local, supervised activities especially during the summer holidays and would like to see more after-school clubs and activities at local community centres (especially for the younger children).

3.5 Town Council Survey findings of Relevance

Not applicable

3.6 Action Area Partnership Board Members Survey (main priorities identified)

• Activities for young people (63 votes) • City centre development (49 votes) • Increased support to community voluntary groups (45 votes)

• Clean, green environment (30 votes) • Improved employment opportunities (27 votes) • Promoting heritage, culture and tourism (19 votes) • Transport improvements (17 votes) • Affordable housing (15 votes) • Traffic and highways (13 votes) • Level of crime (11 votes)

3.7 Main consultation findings from the Playing Pitch Study

For football the key issues highlighted through consultation were: • better training facilities/pitches • often low quality changing facilities • dog fouling • vandalism • lack of a central venue for mini soccer • a generally adequate level of provision in terms of adult pitch supply

For cricket the key issues highlighted through consultation were: • better practice facilities • better quality wickets • improved changing and other ancillary facilities • dog fouling and vandalism on some sites • need to promote junior participation

For hockey the key issues highlighted through consultation were: • lack of pitch provision (at the time) • likely increased demand in future years

For Rugby the key issues highlighted through consultation were:

• the lack of public rugby pitches restricting development of the game, particularly the lack of floodlighting which does not allow coaching to take place after school hours during the winter months • little rugby is played in Secondary Schools. The poor playing surface and lack of changing facilities on school sites would give a negative initial experience for young people and would not encourage them to stay in the game.

4.0 Quantity of provision

The table below shows provision against the County Durham standards for the AAP. The existing provision of open space is shown on the map on the following page. Further maps showing provision for each ward within the AAP are available and are held in a separate appendix. An analysis of findings are made in section 7.

Supply of open space (hectares)

Parks & Outdoor Amenity Semi-Natural WARD Gardens Sport Space Play Space Open Space Green Space Allotments Durham City (Total) -36.76 3.13 1.12 7.09 -13.09 -30.13 Shadforth and Sherburn -4.96 0.53 3.39 5.96 -4.96 10.44 Pittington and West Rainton -3.84 1.04 1.01 6.3 -3.84 -3.57 Neville's Cross -3.06 0.25 -0.59 -1.49 6.06 -3.06 Elvet 4.72 -5.05 -0.82 -1.65 -5.05 -5.05 Bearpark and Witton Gilbert -4.41 3.73 0.55 3.05 -4.41 -3.12 Framwellgate Moor -5.47 1.01 0 0.69 23.38 -5.95 Shincliffe -1.72 -1.23 -0.04 -0.71 -1.72 -1.72 Carrville and Gilesgate Moor -5.26 10.83 -0.16 -1.73 -5.26 -4.07 Crossgate and Framwelgate 0.04 -1.93 -0.39 -2.75 2.18 -1.83 Pelaw and Gilesgate -2.51 1.38 -0.43 -1.42 -4.96 -3.08 Belmont -3.69 0.23 -0.13 -2.71 -3.69 -3.69 St. Nicholas -3.36 -3.36 -0.67 0.51 -3.36 -3.36 Newton Hall South -3.93 -2.63 -0.75 1.33 16.83 -2.78 Newton Hall North -3.16 -3.16 -0.27 1.15 -1.12 -3.16

5.0 Access to open space

The following maps show the existing provision and access to different types of open space across the County. Further analysis has been made using the GIS toolkit developed as part of this study, which allows access to be analysed at a more local level (e.g. ward). The following maps have been used to ‘flag up’ access issues, and the ward maps should be used to determine issues. An analysis of findings are made in section 7.

6.0 Quality of open space

The quality of open space within this AAP varies as much as it does across the whole County, and therefore the recommendations and observations made in part 1 of the study report should be referred to. A number of specific observations follow.

• There is considerable provision of sports facilities through education providers (e.g. Durham University). These are generally of high quality, and do have some access to the community. • A number of amenity spaces in this area have been subject to a project to create wildflower meadows, increasing biodiversity and landscape character away from ‘mown grass’. Our observations that this has had a positive impact and could be considered in many other locations across the County. • A number of amenity spaces have also been improved with planting, trees, shrubs and floral features. • This AAP includes a number of areas with high levels of deprivation, and the open spaces in some of these areas have suffered high levels of vandalism. • There are a number of formal parks within the urban areas of this AAP which are of good quality and have the potential to become green flag parks if an effective management plan can be developed and implemented (e.g. Wharton Park). • There are a number of play areas that require significant improvement. There are also several which have enjoyed recent investment. • There are a number of good sports facilities within the area

Play area in need of improvement Improved facility Improved amenity space

Creation of Wildflower Meadows Potential green flag park? Good quality University sports facility

7.0 Analysis and Recommendations

This section includes an analysis of the main issues related to quality, quantity and access to open space within the Durham City AAP. It should be considered in context with the wider findings of the study, outlined in part 1 of the report. The analysis and recommendations are considered by typology.

Allotments

• There is an under supply of allotments across the AAP, with only one ward having sufficient provision. • A number of the wards within this AAP do not meet the access standard for allotments. • As expected, the quality of existing provision varies greatly. • It is recommended that additional allotments are required within this AAP.

Amenity Open Space

• Overall, there is a sufficient supply of amenity open space across the AAP, however, 7 of the 14 wards have an under supply, suggesting there are local deficiencies in provision. • Access to amenity open space is generally good with all the major settlements meeting the standard. • Quality varies greatly from some very poor areas of grass in some of the more deprived areas, to some good examples where wildflower meadows have been created.

Parks & Gardens

• Overall, there is an under supply of parks and gardens across the AAP, with only 2 wards meeting the minimum standard. • Access to facilities is also poor, with few areas meeting the recommended standard. • Those parks that do exist are of good quality and may have potential to achieve green flag status with the implementation of an effective management plan. • The lack of provision to parks and gardens is to some extent met by provision of outdoor sport space in some areas – see below.

Outdoor Sport Space

• Overall there is sufficient quantity of outdoor sport space within the AAP. However, there is localised under provision, with 5 wards falling below the standard. Four wards have an under supply of both sport space and parks & gardens (Shincliffe, St. Nicolas, Newton Hall South and Newton Hall North). These areas should be the priority for seeking new provision. • Access to sport space generally meets the required standard, there are some and local gaps (e.g. central Durham), however, this has good access to many of the university sports facilities. • Quality of provision is generally good, particularly education facilities.

Play Space

• Overall, there is sufficient provision of play space within the AAP. There are, however, local deficiencies with 6 wards falling below the standard, suggesting there is a requirement for additional provision in key areas. • Access to play space is generally good, with only a few local deficiencies. • The quality of play areas varies greatly, with some having enjoyed recent investment, and some in need of total refurbishment or replacement. • The priority for play in this AAP is to improve existing provision, and it is suggested that localised shortfalls in quantity could be met through increasing the size and quality of existing facilities. • There may be need for new facilities where development occurs, particularly where there is an existing shortfall in quantity and access.

Semi-natural greenspace

• Overall, this AAP has an under provision of semi-natural greenspace, with only two wards meeting the minimum standard. • Access to semi-natural greenspace also falls below the minimum standard in many parts of the area. • A project has been established in this area to create wildflower meadows in areas of amenity space, and this should be considered further, in light of the shortfall in the area.