Durham City Area Action Partnership
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 2 1.0 Sub Area Map 3 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 4 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 5 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. 6 • 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. 7 • 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) 8 • Clean, green environment (30 votes) • Improved employment