Further Analyses of Women’s Institute Survey of Village Greens of England, 1990

Karl Crowther BSc, CEnv, MIEEM

Defra Project Ref: WC0808

Report Date: July 2012 1

Contents Contents ...... 2

1. Summary ...... 6

2. Background and introduction ...... 10

3. Aims and objectives of the research ...... 12

4. Section I: Design of possible character context assessment methodologies for greens (Objective 3)...... 15

4.1 Methods ...... 15

4.2 Results ...... 15

4.3 Rationale for design of possible character context methodologies ...... 15

4.4 Method 1: Scoring of characteristics based on probability of occurrence ...... 16

4.5 Method 1: The assessment procedure ...... 18

4.6 Method 2: ‘Hierarchy’-based approach ...... 18

4.7 Method 3: Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) Model ...... 20

5. Section II: Experimental application of candidate character context assessment methodologies (Objective 4)...... 23

5.1 Methods ...... 23

5.2 Results ...... 23

5.2.1 Method 1: Scoring of characters based on probability of occurrence ...... 23

5.2.2 Method 2 - ‘Hierarchy’-based approach ...... 24

5.2.3 Method 3- Landscape Character Assessment Model ...... 25

5.2.4 Summary findings of the three approaches ...... 27

5.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 27

5.3.1 Method 1 - Scoring of characters based on probability of occurrence ...... 27

5.3.2 Method 2 - ‘Hierarchy’-based approach ...... 28

5.3.3 Method 3 - Landscape Character Assessment Model ...... 30

5.3.4 Overall conclusion for all three methods ...... 30

6. Section III: Evaluation of the ‘preferred method’ using the ‘extended sample’ of 250 registered sites (Objective 5)...... 32

2

6.1 Methods ...... 32

6.2 Results ...... 33

6.3 Interpretation of the outcome ...... 35

7. Section IV: Assessment of a sample of non-registered sites using the ‘preferred method’ (Objective 7) and comparison with outcome for Extended Sample (Objective 8)...... 41

7.1 Methods ...... 41

7.2 Results ...... 41

7.3 What can be inferred about the non-registered sites? ...... 43

8. Towards an overall conclusion on character context assessment ...... 45

9. Acknowledgements ...... 47

10. References and Bibliography ...... 48

11. Appendices ...... 49

Appendix A: Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites ...... 50

1. Methods ...... 50

2. Results (Appendix A: Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites) ...... 52

2.1 Sampling an additional 40 sites ...... 52

2.2 Reasons for not selecting sites ...... 54

2.3 Comparison of results from Precursor Project and Extended Sample ...... 54

3. Discussion and Conclusions (Appendix A: Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites) ...... 70

Appendix A1: Proposed additional sampling following Precursor Project to enhance geographic coverage ...... 74

Appendix B: Non-registered WI Survey sites – Sampling, and scanning of documents attached to records ...... 76

1. Sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites ...... 76

1.1 Methods ...... 76

1.2 Results – sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites ...... 77

1.2.1 Full and Partial records……………………………………………………………..………………………………..77

1.2.2 The results for the 91 non-registered sites………………………………………………………………...78

1.3 Discussion and Conclusions – Sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites ...... 95 3

2. Appendix B: Scanning of documents, photographs etc...... 96

2.1 Methods ...... 96

2.2 Results ...... 96

Appendix B1: WI National Survey of Town and Village Greens, 1990 – number of completed forms and the occurrence and sampling of non-registered sites ...... 97

Annexes ...... 107

Annex 1: Method 1 - Derivation of scores for certain characteristics…………………………………………..….108

Annex 2: Method 3 - Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) Model…………………………………………...109

2.1 Method 3: Potential character description (Section 4.7 of main report) ...... 109

2.2 Method 3: Suggested recording sheet (Paragraph 4.7.4 of main report) ...... 111

2.3 Method 3: LCA Model - A potential further refinement (adopting ‘Local Character’ considerations) ...... 112

Annex 3: Method 3 - Results of trial assessment (‘raw data’ – Paragraph 5.2.3.1 of main report) .... 117

3.1 Findings of the assessment under each ‘feature grouping’ ...... 117

3.1.1 Ownership characteristics ...... 117

3.1.2 Physical characteristics ...... 117

3.1.3 Activities and features indicative of public use...... 117

3.1.4 Land use and management ...... 117

3.1.5 Historical context ...... 117

Annex 4: Statistical analysis of data for evaluation of ‘preferred method’ using Extended Sample of 250 registered sites (Section 6.2 of main report) ...... 119

4.1 Logarithmic transformation of sampling data for ‘preferred’ Method 1 ...... 119

4.2 ‘Preferred’ Method 1- are the untransformed data normally distributed? ...... 120

4.3 Are the data skewed? ...... 122

Annex 5: Preferred Method 1 - Summary details of sites scoring less than a threshold value of 800 in the assessment (Section 6.3 of main report) ...... 124

Annex 6: Comparison of statistical parameters for Extended Sample and non-registered data sets (Section 7.2 of main report) ...... 129

6.1 Logarithmic transformation of data ...... 129

6.2 Are the data skewed? ...... 132

4

Annex 7: Summary details for non-registered sites (Section 7.3 of main report)...... 133

7.1 Non-registered sites: Summary details of sites scoring less than a threshold value of 650 in the assessment (Paragraph 7.3.4 of main report) ...... 133

7.2 Non-registered sites: Summary details of sites scoring more than 650 but less than 800 in the assessment (Paragraph 7.3.5 of main report) ...... 135

5

1. Summary 1.1 Defra is currently considering the concept of a ‘character test’ to which applications to register new town and village greens would need to adhere. The idea is that new greens would conform to a specified physical character such as, for example open (in aspect), unenclosed and uncultivated.

1.2 To inform the development of that policy, Defra sought to understand the characteristics shared by existing greens. Arguably the authoritative dataset on greens is the 1990 National Survey of Town and Village Greens - a joint venture between Aberystwyth University, the Countryside Commission and the National Federation of Women’s Institute (“the WI Survey”). Participating WI members were asked to complete a standard survey form which included requests for information such as: activities taking place, physical features present, appearance and wildlife, management activities, problems and conflicts, history and local customs.

1.3 In 2010 Defra commissioned a study (‘Precursor Project’) of a sample of 210 registered greens reported within the WI survey (Crowther, 2011). The objective was to investigate whether those greens shared physical characteristics, and if so, what they were. The assessment made use of the WI Survey records in conjunction with a range of on-line resources (primarily Google Earth Street View) and was successful in identifying a number of common characteristics amongst the examined sites.

1.4 In 2011 a follow-up study was commissioned to build on the work of the Precursor Project. The primary objective was to develop a ‘character context assessment’ that would then be tested against a sample of sites from within the WI dataset. The purpose is to provide a rigorous method to investigate whether, in considering applications to register new greens, a candidate site would conform to the character of the sample of greens investigated in the Precursor Project. It is not envisaged that such an assessment would replace judgement of whether any proposed new site should be registered; it would merely inform the making of such judgement.

1.5 The objectives of the research were as follows:

 To enhance the representative geographical spread of the data by sampling a further 40 registered, WI Survey sites using the Precursor Project methodology.

 To examine whether this ‘Extended Sample’ of 250 sites necessitated any changes to the list of characteristics found in the Precursor Project.

 To explore options from a brief survey of comparable tests undertaken in other fields to design a range of possible character context assessment methodologies for greens.

 To apply experimentally a suite of candidate character context assessment methodologies to develop a statistically robust and defendable system to distinguish greens.

 To then evaluate the use of a proposed character context assessment methodology (i.e. a single ‘preferred method’) using the Extended Sample of 250 registered sites.

 As far as the content of the WI Survey forms would allow, an assessment of non-registered WI Survey sites using the Precursor Project methodology.

6

 To subsequently use the ‘preferred method’ to perform the character context assessment upon those non-registered greens that could be fully assessed under the Precursor Project methodology.

 To then compare and evaluate the significance of any differences in the results of character context assessments performed on the registered and non-registered sites.

 To scan (as far as copyright would allow), any documents, maps and photographs appended to non-registered sites included within the WI Survey, as these are unlikely to have been documented elsewhere.

1.6 Overall the findings for the Extended Sample of 250 registered, WI Survey sites were broadly the same as for the original Precursor Project sample of 210 sites. Only very minor amendments were made to the data for use in the evaluation of potential character context methodologies.

1.7 In all three approaches were identified, each based on the expression of a suite of the examined characteristics that were considered as being especially indicative of greens (i.e. ‘features indicative of public use or benefit’):

 Method 1 - involves allocating a score to each characteristic found to be present, equalling its observed probability of occurrence across the Extended Sample of 250 WI Survey sites. Most characteristics provided ‘positive’ scores - the potential maximum being 1359, whilst a smaller suite of characteristics generated ‘negative’ values - the potential maximum being 22. The two scores were then combined to give an overall total.  Method 2 - saw the various indicator characteristics grouped into three different levels of significance: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. If the Primary criteria were satisfied, then the site was considered as having the ‘character of a green’, and the assessment would continue no further. If a site failed to satisfy the Primary criteria, the Secondary criteria would come into play, and so on, proceeding to the third level if necessary.  Method 3 - was developed from current ideas and thinking on landscape character assessment (LCA). This involved using the results from the Extended Sample of 250 sites to prepare a standard definition of the ‘character of a green’ and then making an informed judgement as to whether a candidate site met with the definition.

1.8 The outcome was that all three methods could be made to function as a character assessment. However, Method 1 was chosen in favour of the others because it was found to be the only one of the three which satisfied the criteria of being “statistically robust and defendable”. It had the added advantage of being the most straightforward to perform and provided a simple, numerical expression of the outcome.

1.9 In testing Method 1 against the Extended Sample of 250 registered sites, the observed maximum score was 1352 and the minimum score was 356. The curve of the resulting sampling distribution did not conform to statistical normality and in fact was found to be ‘moderately negatively skewed’. This was most likely due to there being a defined potential maximum score (1359) that could be obtained. Analysis of the statistics and a detailed examination of those sites with lowest score values at this stage suggested that a threshold score of 650 might be used as a cut-off for deciding whether or not a site could be regarded as having the ‘character of a green’. In statistical terms this would be expressed as follows: 7

 There is more than a 97.5% probability that a site scoring more than 650 had the ‘character of a green’ (based on the sample data).  There is less than a 2.5% probability that a site scoring less than 650 had the ‘character of a green’, or alternatively:  There is more than a 97.5% probability that a site scoring below 650 did not have the ‘character of a green’.

1.10 A total of 91 non-registered WI Survey sites were found to be suitable for ‘full’ analysis using the Precursor Project methodology. In comparing the outcome with the Extended Sample of 250 registered WI Survey sites, overall it was found that the two data sets had broadly similar results. The non-registered sites were found to contain many examples of what could be regarded as ‘traditional village greens’. The most obvious difference between the two data sets was that non-registered examples tended to be ‘more recent’ in origin.

1.11 In assessing these 91 non-registered WI Survey sites against the ‘preferred’ Method 1, the highest score obtained was 1270 (as compared with 1352 for the Extended Sample), whilst the lowest was 281 (as compared with 356 for the Extended Sample). A total of five sites were found to have score values below the threshold value of 650.

1.12 Further consideration was then given to how the character context assessment outcomes should be interpreted. It was perceived that the initial suggestion of adopting a simple threshold score of 650 might be too simplistic. It seemed reasonable also to propose that the degree of confidence in the interpretation of the outcome should take account of how far above or below this threshold an observed score actually was.

1.13 Based on a further examination of the statistics, the following system of ‘graded’ thresholds for the interpretation character context assessment is proposed:

Score below 350 – site ‘highly unlikely’ to have the ‘character of a green’. Statistically there is less than a 0.25% probability that it does (or more than a 99.75% probability that it does not).

Score 350-650 – site ‘unlikely’ to have the ‘character of a green’ (though potentially it might). Statistically there less than a probability of between 0.25% and 2.5% that it does (or more than a probability of between 99.75% and 97.5% that it does not).

Score above 650 but below 800 – site ‘likely’ to have the ‘character of a green’ (though potentially it might not). Statistically there is a probability of between 97.5% and 92.6% that this is the case (and also between a 2.5% and 7.4% probability it is not).

Score above 800 – site ‘highly likely’ to have the ‘character of a green’. Statistically there is a probability of more than 92.6% that it does (or less than 7.4% that it does not).

1.14 A total of 87 of the 91 non-registered sites were found to have additional documentation attached. In the order of 197 individual documents were actually scanned (this figure is a ‘best guess’ estimate due to overlap of content between categories listed, and some duplication). Figures for the different categories of information are as follows:

- Sketch map/plan/OS maps - 87 sites (95.6%) – 126 files scanned.

- Additional documents – 6 sites (6.6%) – 8 files scanned. 8

- Photographs/transparencies etc. – 19 sites (20.9%) – 63 files scanned.

9

2. Background and introduction 2.1 A National Survey of Town and Village Greens took place in 1990 - a joint venture between Professor John Aitchison of Aberystwyth University, the Countryside Commission and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (“the WI Survey”). It set out to investigate the character of village greens and included requests for information on: activities taking place, physical features present, appearance and wildlife, management activities, problems and conflicts, history and local customs.

2.2 Then in 2011, using a sample of 210 sites from the WI Survey (all registered under the 1965 Commons Registration Act) Defra decided to commission a more in-depth assessment of the character of greens. This was undertaken using the original paper records in combination with a range of on-line resources - primarily Google Earth and the Street View facility (Crowther, 2011). The research (hereafter referred to as the ‘Precursor Project’) was successful in highlighting a number of characteristics shared by the examined sites (as outlined in Section 5.6 of that report). Key features include:

 The vast majority of greens were found to be less than one hectare in size.  Most greens were recorded as being owned by either a community or parish council (63%).  The most popular recreational activities noted were ‘informal recreation’ of some sort and dog-walking (50% and 47% respectively).  Most greens were found to be mown grassland (93%), usually with trees (probability 87%).  A high proportion of greens had seats/litter bins (74% and 62% respectively).  The presence of ‘historic feature(s)’ was relatively unlikely (25% of sites), though when present they were likely to be highly indicative of the site being a green.  A majority of greens had at least one of: church, public house, or other non-residential building associated with it (64%).  Buildings on the green itself were rare (though could be present, and might take the form of historic features).  It was likely that a green would lie at an intersection of roads (72%).  The vast majority of greens were uncultivated (99.5%).  A majority were unenclosed (84%), though some unenclosed greens did occur (16%).  The vast majority of greens were wholly unoccupied (99%).  In the majority of cases, there was a clear, unobstructed view across the green (96%).  A majority of greens will have existed as such since before 1900 AD (91%).

2.3 It was subsequently decided to extend this research to develop a ‘character context assessment’ for village greens, and this forms the basis of the work being reported here. The purpose is to provide a rigorous and defendable method to investigate whether, for applications to register new greens, a candidate site would conform to the character of the sample of greens investigated in the Precursor Project1. The essential emphasis is that it should be an assessment of similarity with a sample of sites taken from the WI Survey of 1990 and nothing else.

1 For the purposes of the research being undertaken here, the Precursor Project sample of 210 sites has in fact been increased to 250, for reasons that will be explained a little later on. 10

2.4 It is not envisaged that such an assessment would replace judgement of whether any proposed new site should be registered; it would merely inform the making of such judgement.

11

3. Aims and objectives of the research 3.1 The objectives were as follows:

1. To enhance the representative geographical spread of the data by sampling a further 40, registered, WI Survey sites using the Precursor Project methodology. 2. To examine whether the resulting Extended Sample of 250 sites indicated any changes to the list of characteristics found in the Precursor Project. 3. To explore options from a brief survey of comparable tests undertaken in other fields to design a range of possible character context assessment methodologies for greens. 4. To apply experimentally a suite of candidate character context assessment methodologies to develop a statistically robust and defendable system to distinguish greens. This would be achieved by testing against a sub-sample of 50 sites drawn from the Extended Sample. On the results of this, a single ‘preferred method’ would be selected. 5. To then evaluate the ‘preferred method’ against the full, Extended Sample of 250 registered sites. 6. As far as the content of the forms would allow, an assessment of 153 (approx.) non- registered WI Survey sites using the Precursor Project methodology. 7. To subsequently use the ‘preferred method’ to perform the character context assessment upon those non-registered greens that could be fully assessed under the Precursor Project methodology. 8. To then compare and evaluate the significance of any differences in the results of character context assessments performed on the Extended Sample (i.e. registered) and these non- registered sites. 9. To scan (as far as copyright would allow), any documents, maps and photographs appended to non-registered sites included within the WI Survey. 10. To prepare and submit final report.

3.2 In designing a methodology for assessing the character context of a new green, the most logical place to start would be to ask the question: to what extent does each of the 210 sites that were sampled under the Precursor Project satisfy the common characteristics summarised in paragraph 2.2 above (and identified more fully in Section 5.6 of the Precursor Project report)? In practical terms a number of challenges would need to be addressed if such an approach were to be adopted, such as:

 Firstly, sites varied individually in the number of criteria they satisfied, so when considering an individual site, would a ‘threshold’ value of ‘positive’ responses need to be established? – and how might this be achieved?  Secondly, it can be seen from the list of features highlighted in paragraph 2.2 above that the probability of a particular feature being present (or absent) is variable. Indeed, whilst some features do indeed occur on a high proportion of sites, others occur typically at lower frequency (for example, historic features) – but are highly indicative of land available to the public when present. This poses the question, how would individual characters be weighted, relative to their probability of occurrence?  Thirdly, is it the case that certain combinations of features are preferentially associated with sites, rather than just individual features in isolation?

12

 Finally, there may be other features that were recorded, but not actually mentioned in Section 5.6 of the Precursor Project report, that might also merit inclusion as characters that could help to identify potential greens.

3.3 To develop an approach more fully it was considered desirable to examine whether there were analogous character tests used in other disciplines that could be used as a ‘model’ (i.e. Objective 3 above). The aim was to put forward a number of different approaches that could be evaluated with a view to establishing a ‘preferred method’ which could then be trialled against the full sample of 210 registered sites.

3.4 Whilst logical to assess potential approaches against these ‘known’ sites, some counties in the Precursor Project had limited geographical representation. For example, a total of ten counties had only one record included (the full list forms Appendix 3 of the Precursor Project report). Admittedly this was primarily because there were few sites with records in these counties, but nonetheless it was felt that greater confidence could be gained from the outcome if additional records for counties with fewer than say, four sites sampled were included. This is especially so for the ‘combined’ county of Hereford and Worcester, which it was felt would benefit from a fuller representation of sites from the two individual counties.

3.5 Therefore it was suggested (Objective 1 above) that a small amount of additional sampling be undertaken – i.e. a further 40 sites, hence giving an overall ‘Extended Sample’ of 250. This would be done in such a way that all the county/geographic area units in existence at the time of the WI Survey would have a minimum of four sites sampled (or all suitable sites where the total was fewer than four). Sampling would again be along a ‘semi-randomised’ method as previously adopted. Naturally, percentage figures in the list of shared characteristics (as illustrated in paragraph 2.2 above and outlined fully in Section 5.6 of Precursor Project report) would need updating (i.e. Objective 2 above) to reflect the Extended Sample before they could be incorporated into any of the proposed character context assessment methodologies.

3.6 A secondary objective of the research concerns records for a number of unregistered sites that were made during WI Survey. Respondents were actively encouraged to include records for unregistered sites that were ‘thought of and used as greens by local people’. During the course of the Precursor Project a total of 88 such records had been identified. However, a subsequent analysis of all the records suggested there were around 153 such sites recorded in the WI Survey (around 7% of the total) – see Appendix B1 for full details.

3.7 As highlighted in the Precursor Project report, the WI Survey may be the only place where these sites have ever been reported and, as such, they were considered deserving of more detailed documentation. It was therefore proposed that, as far as possible2, these 153 (approx.) sites should be assessed in the same way the 210 registered examples (i.e. Objective 6 above). As well as usefully documenting the existence of these non-registered sites, those that could be fully assessed against all the same criteria as the Extended Sample of 250

2As with the Precursor Project, not all sites would be capable of full assessment against all the criteria. For example, only 115 of these ‘unregistered’ sites had any form of map available and are therefore very likely to be of indeterminable location and boundary, meaning that they could not be examined ‘on the ground’ using on-line imagery. 13

registered sites could then be used to compare character context assessment results by the ‘preferred method’ for a sample of both registered and non-registered WI Survey sites.

3.8 Given the potential ‘interest’ of these non-registered sites, it was also proposed that any additional documents, maps and photographs etc. appended to them would be electronically scanned (as far as copyright would allow). This forms Objective 9 above.

A note on the structure of this report 3.9 It can be seen from the above that a considerable amount of work was involved. In an attempt to keep the main report (i.e. the character context assessment element) to a realistic size, various ‘secondary’ objectives have been reported within two separate appendices, as follows:

Appendix A

 Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites to form the Extended Sample (Objective 1 above).

 An examination of whether this additional sampling necessitated any changes to characteristics identified in the Precursor Project (Objective 2 above).

Appendix B

 Sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites (Objective 6 above).

 Scanning of documents, photographs etc. for non-registered WI Survey sites (Objective 9 above).

3.10 Several further elements have been presented as a series of Annexes (detailed in the text where appropriate).

3.11 Even with the above measures, the report is still a lengthy one and it is felt that because of that the best approach would be to split the remaining objectives into several distinct sections (I to IV). This better reflects the sequence in which the work was undertaken and will be more logically and easily followed by the reader in consequence.

14

4. Section I: Design of possible character context assessment methodologies for greens (Objective 3).

4.1 Methods 4.1.1 Based on the initial thoughts outlined above, several potential approaches were drafted. An extensive search was made on the Internet to look for ‘comparable tests used in other disciplines’ and/or anything else that might help to inform the development of these ideas. After further refinement the proposed methodologies were then circulated to a number of individuals with particular expertise or interests seeking their advice, comment and feedback. From this process the various approaches were eventually refined to a state where they could be assessed in practice on a sub-sample of registered sites.

4.2 Results 4.2.1 The Internet search did not reveal any ‘comparable tests used in other disciplines’. Potentially relevant information came under several headings:

4.2.2 "Presence or absence statistics". A Google search of this topic revealed several pieces of work primarily to do with population and habitat modelling in ecology. None of the information found was considered relevant to the objectives of the research being pursued here.

4.2.3 “Character Testing”. Here, a Google search brought up only issues concerning Psychological testing. Again this was not relevant to the present circumstances.

4.2.4 “Landscape Character and Historic Landscape Character assessment”. Following consultation with several individuals working in this field, both directly and indirectly, there do seem to be similarities of approach here and this was perhaps the main discipline that influenced some of the ideas that went into developing the various candidate character context assessment methodologies.

4.2.5 More specifically, consultation with Natural England’s Head of Profession, Landscape helped to inform one of the proposed methods (see Option 3 below). A large body of information on the subject was also found on-line.

4.2.6 Consultation with other ‘interested parties’ provided a certain amount of positive feedback which was used to further refine the process of developing various candidate methods.

4.3 Rationale for design of possible character context methodologies 4.3.1 The discipline of landscape characterisation seeks to interpret landscape partly as a product of consistent human activity and management, not just a scene. A similar approach has been adopted here – i.e. that any character context assessment for greens should focus not just on appearance, but also on evidence of public/community use and management (i.e. ‘Land serving public benefit’).

15

4.3.2 Land serving public benefit would be more likely to:

 Be open (without subdivisions of the land).  Be unenclosed (except for safety, protection etc.).  Have publicly owned and maintained facilities (e.g. litter bins, seats, [bus] shelters, telephones, play areas).  Have public notices (e.g. signposts, signs, notice boards).  Have commemorative features (e.g. memorials, monuments, pumps/stocks/crosses etc.).  Have a name indicative of public land (e.g. the green, recreation ground etc.).  Have commemorative events (e.g. Maypole dancing, fairs, November 5th bonfire, open air religious services - e.g. Remembrance).  In many cases, have a long continuity of use (and evidence of such).  The land is used for public benefit (rather than for private benefit).  Appearance is equally important (as indicator of human activity) and includes: settlement pattern, grassland, unobstructed views, Presence of road junction.

4.3.3 One difficulty associated with taking this approach is that certain of the above features were either not specifically noted on the WI survey forms or not investigated as part of the Precursor Project or Extended Sample. For example this included: what the management was aimed at, who was funding this management (public or private?), presence of internal divisions, intent of any enclosure (it was only noted whether this represented a ‘barrier to access’). Indeed some parameters might need additional, local enquiries to be made. With these thoughts (and potential ways of addressing these constraints) in mind, three potential methodologies were developed, as follows:

4.4 Method 1: Scoring of characteristics based on probability of occurrence 4.4.1 This method seeks to assign each site a score based on the probability of occurrence of a suite of characteristics considered to be indicative of greens, as determined from the extended sample of 250 sites. The list is as follows3:

 Mown grassland (94%)  Scattered trees present (87%)  Seats present (74%)  Litter bins present (62%)  Shelter present (16%)4  Telephone Kiosk present (22%)

3 Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number 4 Mainly recorded as bus shelters. May also include certain ‘commemorative’ features, such as butter or market crosses (with a covered roof). It has been assumed that village hall and ‘pavilions’ – presumably for sports, are not included (as their primary, intended function is not for the purpose of seeking shelter from adverse weather).

16

 Children’s play facilities present (14%)  Public notice or interpretation board, including ‘village sign’ (26%)  Commemorative Trees (7%)  Other commemorative features (35%) – e.g. Village sign, war memorial, flag pole, beacon, Maypole, well, pump, stocks, mounting block, stone/butter/market cross. Note that some might also be classed as ‘historic features’.  Commemorative names – e.g. containing any of the words ‘green’, ‘recreation ground/allotment’, ‘war memorial’, ‘market place’. The name in itself is not necessarily a reliable indicator, what is more important is that the name is taken in conjunction with historical evidence.  Commemorative events (52%) – e.g. Maypole and Morris Dancing, Circus, Annual/Church Fete, Barbecue, Bonfire night celebrations, various open air religious and other services (including Remembrance Day and carol singing), Easter/Good Friday/Palm Sunday processions.  The land is used for public benefit (97%)  At road junction (72%)  At least of one of public house, church, village hall or other non-residential building (67%)  Domestic residences arranged around and facing onto the green (62%)  Uncultivated (100%)  Internally unenclosed from roads crossing or adjacent to the site (84%)  Open without subdivisions (99%)  Unoccupied (99%)  Unobstructed view (in part, at least) (96%)  Continuity of use – in existence before: 1900AD (90%), or if not, pre-1950 (4%), or post-1950 (6%)

4.4.2 In addition to the above ‘positive’ indicators that the land was a green, there are also those features associated with private ownership and management - i.e. indications that it was less likely to be a green:

 Land with boundary feature (e.g. wall, fence, hedge) alongside roads crossing or passing adjacent to the site (16%)

 Internally fenced (1%)

 Wholly cultivated (as in the growing of crops) - (1%)

 Private occupation for private gain, over a part of the site at least (in the sense that this denies use of the land for public benefit) - (4%)

4.4.3 It can be seen from the above that a high proportion of characteristics have been adopted directly from the list of criteria outlined in Section 3 of Appendix A. However, certain other characteristics had to be derived though a reassessment of the raw data, as outlined in Annex 1.

17

4.5 Method 1: The assessment procedure 4.5.1 From the above listed criteria, the ‘assessment’ would be to sum for each candidate site, the percentage value as a whole number for each of the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ characteristics occurring, to give an overall score. Using the above figures the maximum possible ‘positive’ score would be 1354, and the maximum possible ‘negative’ score would be 22. Clearly, very few sites would attain the maximum 1354 value and the actual score obtained would need to be compared with a ‘benchmark’ figure.

4.5.2 It was proposed that this threshold would initially be established by working out a mean, expected value by performing the test on a ‘sub-set’ (e.g. n = 50) of the Extended Sample - i.e. Objective 4 of the research. If it was subsequently decided that this approach should be adopted as the ‘preferred’ method, the threshold value could then be further refined following testing of the full, Extended Sample of 250 registered sites (Objective 5).

4.5.3 To summarise, in Method 1, for each candidate site the presence of a number of characteristics is looked for. A score is allocated to each one present, this being the frequency of occurrence, as a whole number, of that characteristic across the Extended Sample of 250 sites. The resulting overall score is then compared with a threshold value, this being derived through a statistical analysis of the results from the Extended Sample of 250 sites.

4.6 Method 2: ‘Hierarchy’-based approach 4.6.1 The second approach attempts to rank the various potential characteristics at three different levels of significance as indicators: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary, as defined below. If the Primary criteria are satisfied, then the site can be considered as having the ‘character of a green’, and the assessment would continue no further. If a site failed to satisfy the Primary criteria, the Secondary criteria could come into play, and so on, proceeding to the third level if necessary. In detail, the proposal would be as follows:

Primary criteria 4.6.2 Clearly these are the features that one would expect the majority of greens to exhibit.

4.6.3 Included here is the requirement that greens would almost always meet all of the criteria that define land as being ‘waste of the manor’. In other words, they should be unoccupied, uncultivated and unenclosed, without any partitioning of the land (there are minor exceptions to this, primarily with respect to enclosure, which are explained more fully in what follows). In addition, a site would be likely to be viewed as a green if there was strong evidence of historical continuity.

4.6.4 The precise criteria would be as follows:

 (1) - Uncultivated. The majority of sites will be uncultivated (99.5%). Occasionally there may be features such as small, planted flower beds, and exceptionally these may be more extensive. Based on what was observed during the sampling, overall, less than 50% of the area should be ‘cultivated’. It would be very exceptional for a green to be entirely cultivated (there was only one example of this in the entire Extended Sample, and even then, only took the form of evidence of a field being ploughed in the past). 18

 (2) - Unenclosed from roads crossing or passing adjacent to the site (84%). Sites fenced from roads crossing or alongside them can still be greens, though in general, greens are most likely to be unfenced from associated roads. Fencing for safety and/or protection can be ignored. Where there are posts and chains surrounding a site, a judgement will need to be made in each case as to whether these pose a ‘barrier to access’ (e.g. some are of very light construction and could easily be stepped-over, whereas others appear much more robust and might represent a genuine barrier to pedestrians).  (3) - Open without subdivisions (99%). It will be extremely unusual for a green to have internal sub-divisions.  (4) - Unoccupied (99%). Features such as children’s swings, tennis courts, pavilions etc. occupying typically less than 10% of the area can be ignored for this purpose. This recognises that such features can be present as a minor proportion of the site, but beyond that, might represent a form of occupation. Again, a judgement would need to be made in each circumstance.  (5) - In existence before 1900 AD (91%). Indicates a long continuity of use as a green. For example, this might include evidence from Ordnance Survey mapping (e.g. that the site had physically existed as part of the surrounding settlement, or had a long-used name suggestive of public use). Evidence of a long continuity might also be derived from the documented history of the site.

4.6.5 It can be seen from the above that a total of five Primary criteria are listed, with individual probabilities of occurrence between 84-99%. In fact the mean probability is 94.5% and this proportion of five works out (to the nearest whole number) as five. Thus one might expect that for most sites, all five of the Primary criteria would be satisfied. If this was the case, then the site would be considered as having the ‘character of a green’, and the assessment need continue no further.

4.6.6 Should four or fewer of the Primary criteria be met, the site might still be a green and to investigate this, the secondary criteria would then need to be examined.

4.6.7 Note that should the site be found to be cultivated, occupied and enclosed, it would almost certainly be considered as not having the ‘character of a green’ and again the assessment need continue no further.

Secondary criteria 4.6.8 These are features encountered frequently on greens, but not quite so ‘fundamentally’ indicative as the Primary Criteria. Thus for a candidate site there would be a relatively high probability of such features occurring. From the list in paragraph 4.1.1 this might include the following:

 Land used for public benefit (97%)  Mown grassland (94%)  Scattered trees present (87%)  Seats present (74%)  Litter bins present (62%)  At road junction (72%)  At least of one of public house, church, village hall or other non-residential building (67%) 19

 Domestic residences arranged around and facing onto the green (62%)  Unobstructed view (96%)

4.6.9 Thus a total of nine Secondary criteria are listed, with individual probabilities of occurrence between 62-97%. The mean probability is 79% and this proportion of nine works out (to the nearest whole number) as seven.

4.6.10 Therefore, one might expect on average, that seven out of the nine Secondary criteria would be met. If this was the case then the site would be considered as having the ‘character of a green’ and the assessment need continue no further. However, should only six or fewer of the Secondary criteria be met, the Tertiary criteria would then need to be examined.

Tertiary criteria 4.6.11 These are characteristics equally important as indicators, albeit occurring somewhat less- frequently. From the list provided in paragraph 4.4.1 these are as follows:

 Shelter present (16%) - mainly as bus shelter  Telephone Kiosk present (22%)  Children’s play facilities present (14%)  Notice or interpretation board (18%)  Commemorative trees (7%)  Other commemorative features (35%)  Commemorative events (52%)

4.6.12 Thus a total of seven Tertiary criteria are listed, with individual probabilities of occurrence between 7-52%. This gives a mean probability of 23.4% and this proportion of seven works out (to the nearest whole number) as two.

4.6.13 Therefore if the Tertiary criteria needed to be taken into account, one might expect on average, that two out of the seven Tertiary criteria would be met. If this was the case, the site would be considered as having the ‘character of a green’. However, should only one, or none of the Tertiary criteria be met, the site would be considered unlikely to be a green.

4.7 Method 3: Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) Model5 4.7.1 The Guidance on Landscape Character Assessment (Swanwick, 2002) outlines a two stage process. The first is to systematically identify and describe areas of similar character, each having a suite of unique attributes. This can be done at different geographical scales according to requirements. The second stage is to use the various character types identified to inform judgement or decision making processes.

4.7.2 In the context of greens, the first stage would be represented by the formulation of just the one national character definition of ‘village green’ based on the attributes of the Extended Sample. A candidate site could then be examined to see how closely it matched the ‘national’

5 Following input from Natural England’s Head of Landscape Character, further refinements of the approach outlined here can be proposed (See Annex 2). 20

character description. Such a character description might be prepared under the following subject headings:

 Ownership and rights  Physical characteristics - Extent - Shape - Habitat types/features - Built structures - View across site - Geographical relationships (e.g. position in settlement, road junction etc.)  Activities and features indicative of use for public benefit - Activities - Publicly owned and maintained facilities (e.g. seats, litter bins, telephones etc.) - Public notices (e.g. signposts, signs, notice boards) - Commemorative features (e.g. memorials, monuments, pumps/stocks/crosses etc.), some of which might also be regarded as ‘historic’. - Commemorative events (e.g. Maypole dancing, Fairs, November 5th bonfire)  Land use and management - Types of management (e.g. mowing of grassland) - Types of manager - Cultivation - Enclosure (both external and internal boundaries) - Occupation of land  Historical context - Time depth characteristics/continuity of use - Historical features - Historic customs

4.7.3 Thus a description of the character of village greens would be prepared under the various headings, against which a ‘candidate’ site could be assessed. Based on information available from the Extended Sample an initial attempt at this is presented in Annex 2.

4.7.4 Having prepared the character definition the next stage would be to record which of the above features (under paragraph 4.7.3/Annex 2) an unknown site possessed (‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer to each question). This could be done in two columns, one for those features considered as being indicative of greens, and a second for those considered as non-indicative (see table in Annex 2).

4.7.5 Having considered and then recorded the responses in relation to the character definitions, one would then compare the relative number of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ indications. By weighing up the outcome an overall conclusion would then be made as to whether the site can be considered as having the ‘character of a green’, perhaps supported by a brief statement as to how this conclusion has been reached.

21

4.7.6 The outcome of the above process was that three candidate methods were formulated to a level where they could proceed to the next stage of trial testing against a sub-sample of 50 sites selected systematically from the 250 WI Survey records that made up the Extended Sample (i.e. Objective 4).

22

5. Section II: Experimental application of candidate character context assessment methodologies (Objective 4).

5.1 Methods

5.1.1 From the Extended Sample, a sub-sample of 50 sites was identified (i.e. every 5th record) which would be used to assess the three candidate methodologies. For each method an Excel worksheet was configured to record the outcome. For example, for Method 1 which is a ‘scoring’ system, the sites were laid out as columns so that the ‘auto sum’ facility could be used to work out the overall score for each site. In contrast, for Methods 2 and 3 it was found more convenient to have the sites in rows and enter a ‘1’ in the appropriate column where each of the listed characteristics was found to be present.

5.1.2 The actual assessments were performed by ‘tabbing’ between the appropriate pair of Excel workbooks, entering the responses for each ‘question’ in turn as required. Obviously if the assessment was being performed ‘for real’, each site would be considered individually in turn, answering all questions for that site before proceeding to the next. It was simply more logical and time-effective in this case to do it in a way that reflected how the original data were tabulated.

5.1.3 In Method 2, the Primary criteria were grouped first with all 50 sites being given this preliminary assessment. A column at the end was provided to record whether or not each site had passed the Primary criteria. Only those that did not, then proceeded to the next stage of being assessed against the Secondary criteria, with those sites that did not meet these being subsequently tested against the Tertiary criteria.

5.1.4 Clearly this ‘tabbing’ approach was potentially prone to transcription error, so the data on the recording sheets was carefully checked to try and ensure that responses had all been entered correctly.

5.2 Results

5.2.1 Method 1: Scoring of characters based on probability of occurrence 5.2.1.1 Of the 50 sites assessed, as compared with the maximum possible score of 1355 and taking into account ‘negative’ indicators, the observed maximum score was 1317 (sub-sample No 29/Study code LEIC003) and the lowest was 512 (sub-sample No 5/Study code CAMB003). After this there was quite a considerable gap before the next, highest score of 833 was reached (sub-sample No 21/Study code HANT006).

5.2.1.2 The results can be realised graphically in Figure 1 where they have been split into size classes and plotted as a histogram.

23

Figure 1: Method 1 score counts plotted into size-classes

14 12 10 8

6 No in size class 4 2 0 401- 601- 801- 1001- 1201- 500 700 900 1100 1300

5.2.1.3 Figure 1 indeed confirms the extent to which the score of 512 lies beyond the spread of the remaining observations and in statistical terms might represent an ‘outlier’ (i.e. an infrequent, atypical observation - see later). The observed mean score was 1100.16 (which would become 1112.16 if the ‘outlier’ of 512 was removed).

5.2.1.4 Theoretically one might have assumed the data would be normally distributed. However, in fact there is a tentative suggestion that it could be slightly bimodal. This would suggest the sample came from two separate populations, although there is no obvious reason as to why this should be the case. The curve also has the appearance of being skewed to the left. This is most likely to be the effect of there being a fixed, maximum value creating a ‘cut-off’ at the right hand side of the curve.

5.2.2 Method 2 - ‘Hierarchy’-based approach 5.2.2.1 A total of 40 sites ‘passed’ the Primary criteria (i.e. met all five requirements and therefore could be considered at this stage as having the ‘character of a green’). Of the remaining 10 sites, one met only two criteria (undivided internally and pre-1900). This was Sub-sample No 5/Study code CAMB003, which was found to be cultivated, occupied and enclosed. Under this method, it would therefore be considered as most unlikely to be a green.

5.2.2.2 One site (Sub-sample 39/Study code OXF006 – The Recreation Ground, Standlake) satisfied three Primary criteria (i.e. failed on account of being ‘enclosed’ and post-1900 origin). Under the ‘rules’, this and the remaining eight sites, which met four out of the five Primary criteria, could all proceed to assessment against the Secondary criteria (in fact, out of interest, the above ‘failed’ site – Sub-sample No 5, was also included at this stage as well).

5.2.2.3 Of these eight sites that met only four of the Primary criteria, five did so because they were ‘enclosed’, three because they were post-1900 in origin, and one because it was occupied. The decision to classify this last site (Sub-sample No 35/Study Code NYORK006 – The Square, Grassington) as ‘occupied’ is perhaps one for further debate. It is a cobbled ex market place in the centre of the village (thus clearly a site with a strong historical ‘pedigree’), that is nonetheless now primarily used as a car park – thus preventing other potential uses of the site (i.e. this use has been considered as representing a form of occupation). 24

5.2.2.4 In due course the relevant nine sites (plus Sub-sample No 5) were then assessed against the Secondary criteria. Excluding sub-sample No 5 (which failed in any case), a total of seven sites met the Secondary criteria, which at this stage could be considered as having the ‘character of a green’ (site NYORK006 was not amongst their number).

5.2.2.5 This left just two ‘failed’ sites (including Sub-sample No 5) that then went on to be assessed against the Tertiary criteria. Both (along with Sub-sample No 5) also ‘failed’ against the Tertiary criteria. These were: sub-samples No 21/Study code HANT006, and No 41/Study code SOM003. In fact, only one of the three sites actually had any of the required Tertiary characteristics at all.

5.2.3 Method 3- Landscape Character Assessment Model 5.2.3.1 The ‘raw data’ from the assessment are presented in Annex 3.

5.2.3.2 Were the assessment being performed ‘for real’, the separate grouping of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ characteristics on a paper worksheet would probably add an obvious initial visual indication as to what the outcome was likely to be. In the absence of this, having for convenience undertaken the assessment in spreadsheet format, to assist interpretation of the outcome, for each site ‘summary statements’ were prepared under each of the different feature groupings as follows (Table 1 below):

Table 1: Suggested format of ‘summary statements’ for the various feature groupings – Method 3

Feature grouping Suggested summary statement on outcome of assessment (i.e. Interpretation)

Ownership characteristics Statement was to whether the site was publicly owned or not Physical characteristics The number of the potential characteristics found to occur (maximum = 9) Activities and features of public use Whether or not there was adequate evidence of public use Land use and management Whether or not any ‘negative indications’ were encountered Historical context Date profile of site and occurrence of historic features and commemorative events

5.2.3.3 From this summary, for each site a brief interpretation statement could then be made – either that the findings were considered to be consistent with the site having the ‘character of a green’ or if not, what the reasons for this were. An example of how this worked in practice (for Sub-sample No 1) is detailed Table 2 below:

25

Table 2: Example interpretation of outcomes for Sub-sample No 1 – Method 3

Feature grouping Interpretation (Sub-sample No 1)

Ownership characteristics Publicly owned No of indicative physical characteristics (max = 9) 7 Activities and features indicative of public use Adequate evidence of use Land use and management No negative indications, note fenced site Historical context Pre-1900 site Interpretation statement Consistent with criteria

5.2.3.4 In performing the above assessment, all but two sites were considered as having the ‘character of a green’. The two ‘failed’ sites were: Sub-sample No 5/Study code CAMB003 and Sub-sample No 41/Study code SOM003. In both cases this was because there were neither any recorded recreational activities, nor any other features indicative of public use. The full summary data for these two sites are outlined Table 3 below:

Table 3: Interpretations of outcome for sub-samples Nos. 5 and 41 – Method 3

Feature grouping Interpretation Sub-sample No 5 Sub-sample No 41 Ownership characteristics Publicly owned Publicly owned No of indicative physical 5 6 Activitiescharacteristics and features (max = 9) No recreation recorded, no No recreation recorded indicative of public use indicative features Land use and management Whole site cultivated, privately No negative indications, but note occupied (by farmer). Fenced site. barrier to access. Result does not reflect the fact that there is no management aimed at public use of the site. Historical context Pre-1900 site Pre-1900 site Interpretation statement Doubt over this site – an area of No recreation or other indications land given historically to the of public use. Does not appear village, but not now used. consistent with having the Rented to farmer. No recreation ‘character of a green’. or other indications of public use.

5.2.3.5 One further finding of note relates to the listed ‘Physical characteristics’ (remembering that a total of nine such characteristics were included in the assessment). Amongst the 48 sites considered to have the ‘character of a green’ (i.e. excluding the above two examples) there was a degree of variation in the representation of these physical characteristics. The lowest number recorded from these sites was five, and this occurred in a total of four cases.

26

5.2.4 Summary findings of the three approaches 5.2.4.1 The outcome of the three candidate methods, in terms of sites that did not appear to fit the criteria, is summarised in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Summary findings of the three candidate methods

Method Outcome

Method 1 Lowest score of 512 – sub-sample No 5/Study code CAMB003 Method 2 Three sites ‘fail’: No 5/Study code CAMB003 (which did not satisfy the Primary criteria), plus No 21/Study code HANT006 and No 41/Study code SOM003, which ‘failed’ both the Secondary and Tertiary criteria Method 3 Two sites ‘fail’: No 5/Study code CAMB003, No 41/Study code SOM003

5.2.4.2 Brief details of the above sites are highlighted below:

Sub-sample No 5/Study code CAMB003 “The Old Recreation Ground”, Cottenham This site has not been used as a green since 1938 when a recreation ground more convenient to the village was opened. The site is now let to a local farmer and managed as agricultural land. Note that the site ‘failed’ (or was the lowest scoring) under all three methods.

Sub-sample No 21/Study code HANT006 “Turgis Green Recreation Ground”, Nr Basingstoke This site is actively used for a variety of recreational and sporting purposes (cricket). Use of the site dates back to at least 1872. Note that it only ‘failed’ under Method 2, not meeting the Primary criteria purely on the basis of it being ‘enclosed’. It only met five of the required seven Secondary criteria and one of the required two Tertiary criteria. Despite it ‘failing’ under Method 2, it is highly unlikely that anyone would challenge the notion that this site has the character of a green.

Sub-sample No 41/Study code SOM003 “Unnamed site”, Otterford This site is an enclosed field of pasture land, outside of the village, now owned by a Water Authority. It was given to the village under an enclosure award of 1851, though it too has no apparent recreational use and therefore its status could potentially be challenged under the current legal criteria. Note that it satisfies Method 1, but not Methods 2 and 3.

5.3 Discussion and Conclusions

5.3.1 Method 1 - Scoring of characters based on probability of occurrence 5.3.1.1 The method provides results with a numeric value but how should the figures be interpreted? The simplest approach would be to say that with all sites being registered greens, any candidate site reaching the lowest score obtained here (i.e. at least 512) would be viewed as having the ‘character of a green’. However, as highlighted already this particular observation might be an ‘outlier’ in statistical terms (i.e. an atypical observation or 27

a random error), being a long way outside the spread of the other scores observed. If this was accepted and the site excluded, the next highest score was 833 which on this basis would become the new threshold value.

5.3.1.2 There are a number of statistical methods to examine for outliers. A very simple approach is to exclude observations more than two standard deviations (SD) away from the mean. This is derived from the “Empirical Rule” which states that for a normal distribution, 68% of observations will lie within +/- 1 SD of the mean, 95% will lie within 2SD, and 97.5 will lie within 3SD.

5.3.1.3 For our sample the mean is 1100 and the SD 155, which gives a figure (using the 2SD threshold) of 790. Clearly the observed minimum value of 512 is lower than this – and in terms of this approach is an outlier. Note also that all other observations are greater than the value of 790.

5.3.1.4 A more sophisticated approach to examine for an outlier is the Extreme Studentized Deviate (ESD) or Grubbs’ method6. In this method one calculates the value Z as the difference between the potential outlier and the mean value, divided by the standard deviation. This is then compared with a critical value of Z for the sample size being considered. If the observed value of Z is greater than the critical value, then there is less than a 5% chance that an outlier so far from the other observations could be encountered by chance alone (i.e. P value is less than 0.05). In other words if this is the case one would conclude that the observation is indeed an outlier.

5.3.1.5 For the observed value of 512, a sample mean of 1100.16 and a standard deviation of 155, the calculated value of Z is 3.79. For a sample size of 50, the critical value of Z is 3.13, which means that the P value is less than 0.05 and the observed value of 512 can be considered as being an outlier. Removing this observation from the sample, the mean becomes 1112 (n = 49) and the standard deviation becomes 131.

5.3.1.6 This still leaves the question of how to interpret the result for a candidate site. The approach suggested is that of adopting the “Empirical Rule”, with a threshold value set at either two or three standard deviations from the mean. In other words, any site with an observed value less than this would not be considered as having the ‘character of a green’. This clearly seems to ‘work’ on the sub-sample of 50 sites - the actual figure would of course be re-calculated using data from the Extended Sample of 250 sites.

5.3.1.7 In conclusion, Method 1 seems workable and is straightforward to perform. It produces obvious numerical results and appears to be statistically robust.

5.3.2 Method 2 - ‘Hierarchy’-based approach 5.3.2.1 Remember that the importance of the five Primary characteristics was considered such that any site meeting all five could be considered as having the ‘character of a green’ without any further assessment. The fact that a majority of sites (40 out of the 50 to be precise), ‘passed’ the Primary criteria, is encouragement in itself.

6 Details of Grubbs’ Test came from Wikipedia. Rather surprisingly, ‘Outliers in Statistical data’ (Barnett and Lewis), consulted subsequently, contained no reference to ‘Grubbs’ or ‘Extreme Studentized Deviate’ (or derivatives) in the index. 28

5.3.2.2 The ‘failure’ of just one site at the Primary stage (i.e. on the basis of being cultivated, occupied and enclosed) is of interest, as the site involved (Sub-sample No 5/Study code CAMB003) does appear to have some ‘unusual’ features (see section 5.2.4.2 above).

5.3.2.3 It is also encouraging to note that a majority of sites that progressed to consideration under the Secondary criteria (i.e. 7 sites from a total of 9 being considered) satisfied the required seven out of the nine Secondary criteria.

5.3.2.4 What is of interest is that neither of the two sites that ‘failed’ on the Secondary criteria went on to satisfy the Tertiary criteria. This suggests that whilst the general approach appears to work in practice, the Tertiary tier of assessment may be superfluous. The value of the Tertiary criteria is further questioned by the finding that of the three sites that progressed to the Tertiary stage, on only one single occasion was any of the listed characteristics actually observed.

5.3.2.5 Of the two sites that failed the Secondary criteria, there is a potential argument that one of them does not indeed have the ‘character of a green’ (i.e. Sub-sample No 41/Study code SOM003 “Unnamed site”, Otterford). As already discussed, this site is an enclosed field of pasture land outside of the village, now owned by a Water Authority. It was given to the village under an enclosure award of 1851, though it has no apparent recreational use. It certainly seems reasonable for the method to have ‘flagged up’ such a site.

5.3.2.6 The second case, however (Sub-sample No 21/Study code HANT006 “Turgis Green Recreation Ground”), suggests that some fine-tuning might be necessary. The site has active recreational use and it only ‘failed’ the Primary criteria on the basis of it being ‘enclosed’. It is felt highly unlikely that anyone would challenge the notion that this site had the ‘character of a green’, yet nonetheless it ‘failed’ to meet either the Secondary or Tertiary criteria.

5.3.2.7 On the evidence of the above site, it may be that ‘Unenclosed’ might be better ‘demoted’ to a Secondary criterion. Of the three criteria (unenclosed, unoccupied and uncultivated), unenclosed is a condition that was ‘legitimately’ observed in a small proportion of sample sites (i.e. a total of 39 out of the 250), whereas the other two were extremely rare exceptions. Such amendment of the criteria would have elevated the number of sites meeting the Primary criteria from 40 to 45. In turn, it would have meant that only five Sub- sample sites (No’s 32, 31, 35, 39 and 41) would have progressed to consideration under the Secondary criteria (only one of these ‘failing’ at this level – i.e. Sub-sample No 41).

5.3.2.8 An alternative approach might be to amend the number of ‘passes’ needed under the Secondary criteria. To have allowed Sub-sample No 21 to have met the criteria, a threshold value of 5 would need to apply, instead of the current value of 7. However, a reasoned justification for this would need to be found (even if it was merely to state that the threshold had been manipulated to enable the sample of known greens to attain that threshold).

5.3.2.9 Reducing the threshold value for the Secondary criteria to 5 would also have allowed one further site to have met the criteria. Interestingly, this is Sub-sample No 41, one of those sites that ‘failed’ at the Tertiary level, so that particular difficulty would also be satisfactorily addressed via this approach.

29

5.3.2.10 In conclusion it seems that the approach could be made to work, though some refining of what are set as the parameters at each level and the threshold number of ‘passes’ might need a degree of fine-tuning, with potential abandonment of the Tertiary level of characteristics.

5.3.3 Method 3 - Landscape Character Assessment Model 5.3.3.1 After consideration of responses under the various ‘Feature Groupings’ It was concluded that two sites ‘failed’ the assessment as follows:

Sub-sample No 5 – Interpretation statement: “Doubt over this site - an area of land given historically to the village, but not now used. Rented to farmer. No recreation or other indications of public use”.

Sub-sample No 41 – Interpretation statement: “No recreation or other indications of public use. Does not appear consistent with having the ‘character of a green”.

5.3.3.2 In consequence the method appears ‘to work’ overall in that both of the sites that ‘fail’ have been highlighted by the other two methods - i.e. Sub-sample No 5 ‘failed’ under both Methods 1 and 2, whilst Sub-sample No 41 ‘failed’ under Method 2 only. It should also be noted that this third method did not highlight Sub-sample No 21, which ‘failed’ under Method 2. However, as discussed above, it is felt highly unlikely that anyone would challenge the idea of this particular site having the ‘character of a green’.

5.3.3.3 In conclusion, therefore, the method appears to work in practice, although it has the potential disadvantage that it lacks a numeric expression of the outcome (as compared in particular with Method 1). As such it relies more heavily on the knowledge and understanding of the operator in making a judgement as to the outcome.

5.3.4 Overall conclusion for all three methods 5.3.4.1 The results of testing the sub-sample of 50 sites can be summarised as follows:

 All three methods appear to function as a character assessment.

 Method 1 is straightforward to perform and produces a numeric score that can be expressed statistically. A candidate site would need to exceed a threshold score to be viewed as having the character of a green. Nothing other than the numerical score would be taken into consideration.

 Method 2 does not produce a numerical output. Detail of the test appears to require further refinement to make it workable in practice – e.g. potential abandonment of the Tertiary tier of characteristics.

 Method 3 also does not produce a numerical output. The technique would most likely require a degree of subject knowledge on the part of the operator. This might limit the scope and usefulness of the assessment.

5.3.4.2 On the above basis and after further careful consideration, Method 1 was chosen as the ‘preferred’ option. The main reason was because it was the only one of the three that

30 produces a statistically measurable outcome. The next stage was to test the method against all 250 sites that form the ‘Extended Sample’ (i.e. Objective 5).

31

6. Section III: Evaluation of the ‘preferred method’ using the ‘extended sample’ of 250 registered sites (Objective 5).

6.1 Methods 6.1.1 Once the ‘preferred method’ had been decided (i.e. Method 1), evaluation against the full, Extended Sample of 250 sites was undertaken.

6.1.2 If the assessment were being performed on a candidate site it would be on an individual basis for the site in question. As with the trial assessment (Section 5.1.1) it was found more logical to consider each characteristic in turn across the entire Extended Sample, simply ‘tabbing’ between the relevant pair of workbooks – one with the original data and a second into which the relevant scores were entered. Again the data were arranged with the results for each site in the form of a column. Once the entry of data had been completed across each row and carefully checked to reduce the possibility of transcription error, the overall ‘score’ for each individual site (i.e. column) was then calculated using the Auto Sum facility on Excel.

6.1.3 For a variety of reasons there were a number of minor differences in the characteristics and percentage figures used in the assessment (as compared with the trial sub-sample of 50 registered sites). The actual list and scores finally adopted is as follows, with any differences from the trial assessment highlighted as appropriate:

 Mown grassland (95%)7  Scattered trees present (87%)  Seats present (74%)  Litter bins present (63%)7  Bus shelter present (16%)  Telephone Kiosk and /or Post Box present (28%)8  Children’s play facilities present (14%)  Public notice or interpretation board, including ‘village sign’ (25%)7  Commemorative Trees (7%)9  Other commemorative features (35%)9  Commemorative events (52%)9  The land is used for public benefit (96%)9  At road junction (72%)  At least of one of public house, church, village hall or other non-residential building (66%)7  Domestic residences arranged around and facing onto the green (61%)7  Wholly uncultivated (100%)10

7 Note very small differences from figure quoted in ‘trial’ sample (n = 50), probably very minor errors of calculation. 8 Note that in the ‘trial’ sample this was Telephone Kiosk alone (22%). Whilst it had generally been possible to confirm on Street View the occurrence of telephone boxes as recorded at 1990, it is recognised that they are likely to become less widespread in the future. Combining the figure with Post Box will hopefully go some way to mitigate this, though the figure quoted here might still need eventual revision to reflect a changing situation (or indeed, substitution with an alternative different indicator of public use). 9 Refer to notes on detailed interpretation of these characteristics as outlined in Section 4.3.3. 32

 Internally unenclosed from roads crossing or adjacent to the site (84%)11  Open without subdivisions (99%)  Unoccupied (99%)12  Unobstructed view (in part, at least) (96%)  Continuity of use – in existence before: 1900AD (90%), or if not, pre-1950 (4%), or post-1950 (6%)

6.1.4 And as before, the ‘negative’ indications (no changes here):

 Land with boundary feature (e.g. wall, fence, hedge) alongside roads crossing or passing adjacent to the site - 16% of sites (over part at least)  Internally fenced - 1% of sites  Cultivated, in part at least - 1% of sites  Have some form of private occupation for private gain (in the sense that this denies use of the land for public benefit) - 4% of sites (in part at least)

6.1.5 To recap, the assessment was to sum for each candidate site, the percentage value as a whole number for each of the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ characteristics occurring, to give an overall score. Using the above (i.e. slightly revised) figures the maximum possible ‘positive’ score would be 1359, and the maximum possible ‘negative’ score would be 22.

6.1.6 The individual scores were then allocated into a series of appropriate size-classes, each being subsequently assigned a ‘class mark’ (i.e. the mid-point of the size class). These data could then be plotted as a histogram to visualise the shape of the resulting curve.

6.2 Results 6.2.1 The lowest score obtained was 356 (Site Code CORN002 – VG665, The Recreation Allotment, Egloskerry, Cornwall) and the highest was 1352 (Site Code ESS008 – VG84, The Village Green, Wickham St. Paul, Essex). Note that latter score was very close to the maximum possible of 1359.

6.2.2 Table 5 (below) summarises scores for the Extended Sample of 250 registered sites from the WI Survey and the results are shown graphically in Figure 2.

10 There is only one site that is wholly cultivated (I.e. CAMB003 – and actually this was a past event). In terms of percentage, this works out at 99.6% being uncultivated, the nearest whole number being 100%. Whilst it seemed reasonable to score this figure for the uncultivated sites and the two examples that had small parts cultivated, in seemed unreasonable to give an ‘uncultivated’ score of 100% to the wholly cultivated CAMB003! Indeed this anomaly had not been realised in the trial sample of 50 sites (of which CAMB003 was one) – hence making the score for that site 100 units higher than it has been allocated in the ‘full’ testing. 11 Four sites had parts fenced and part unfenced. These have been excluded from the figure given here (i.e. based on a total of 211 sites = 84.4% rounded to 84%). 12 Based on just the two sites being wholly occupied by a single user (in the other seven examples, the occupation relates to a part of the site only). 33

Table 5: Number of observations per Class interval and Class mark – ‘Preferred’ Method 1

Class Interval Class mark No. of observations 301-400 350 1 401-500 450 1 501-600 550 2 601-700 650 5 701-800 750 6 801-900 850 23 901-1000 950 32 1001-1100 1050 47 1101-1200 1150 60 1201-1300 1250 59 1301-1400 1350 14

Figure 2: Histogram of site scores for Extended Sample using ‘Preferred’ Method 1

Figure 2: Site scores according to size-class 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 350 450 550 650 750 850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350

Figure 2: Horizontal axis shows the class mark (central point of sampling interval) and vertical axis shows the number of observations in each case.

6.2.3 The resulting plot is the same general shape as was observed for the trial sample of 50 sites, although this time there is no hint of bimodality as previously. The question of a potential outlier to the data also appears not now to be an issue – i.e. the low score values form the elongated tail of a negatively skewed statistical distribution.

6.2.4 As with the ‘trial sample’, the curve does not appear to conform to statistical normality. Once again it has the appearance of being (negatively) skewed to the left. Again this is most likely an inevitable product of there being a fixed maximum potential score (i.e. 1359 in this case).

34

6.2.5 Statistical analyses of the data are outlined in Annex 4. This shows that the data are neither log-normal nor normally distributed. It also demonstrates that the sampling distribution is ‘very likely to be negatively skewed’.

6.3 Interpretation of the outcome 6.3.1 The following thoughts and implications arise from what has been considered thus far:

Measure of location 6.3.2 For a normal distribution, the measure of location is the mean value. In our sample the observed mean is 1081.98. However, as can be appreciated from Figure 2, the skewed tail to the data dictates that the mean value does not coincide precisely with the ‘high point’ of the curve. The latter measure is the mode – I.e. the most commonly occurring value, which in our case is represented by the class mark of 1150. In other words for our data the most appropriate measure of location is the mode, having the value of 1150 in this case. Note that this differs from the mean by 68.02 (a difference of only 5.9% in the two measures of location).

Making inferences on ‘candidate’ sites 6.3.3 The primary aim of the assessment is to derive some way of deciding whether the score from a candidate site can be said to ‘belong’ to the same population as the test sample - i.e. to test the hypothesis that the site has the ‘character of a green’ based on the Extended Sample of 250 sites from the WI survey of 1990.

6.3.4 An initial approach suggested was to set a threshold value at the lowest score attained amongst the Extended Sample (in that they are ALL registered greens). In the trial sample of 50 sites the lowest score obtained (i.e. 512) was a long way outside the spread of the other data (the next lowest score being observed being 833). It was suggested that the value of 512 was in fact a statistical ‘outlier’ and should be ignored.

6.3.5 In contrast, the Extended Sample appears to have no outlying value (Figure 2), the lowest observed score (356) being at the extreme end of a moderately negatively skewed tail of data. Given that the tail is so elongated, it may be that simply adopting the value of 356 as an ‘indicator’ might represent too low a threshold. However, if a higher threshold value were to be put forward, how should it be derived?

6.3.6 One approach would be to use the ‘Empirical Rule’. This is based on the assumption that the data are normally distributed which is of course not the case, though it does enable us to make an initial attempt to identify and potentially ‘exclude’ a suite of the lowest-scoring sites.

6.3.7 When the data are normally distributed the ‘Empirical Rule’ states that 68% of observations will lie within 1 SD of the mean, 95% will lie within 2SD, and 97.5 will lie within 3SD. In our case the mean is 1082 and the SD is 175 (both rounded to the nearest whole number). The ‘Empirical Rule’ is thus based simply on the mathematical shape of the normal distribution and the 68%, 95% and 97.5% points are merely a statement of the area under the curve at these locations.

35

6.3.8 Even though it has been concluded that the sample data are not normally distributed, the curve does have a reasonably ‘well-defined’ shape as illustrated in Figure 3 below (where a curve has been fitted to the histogram that was presented in Figure 2).

6.3.9 In Figure 3, areas under the curve corresponding with the 97.5% (3SD), 95.0% (2SD) and 68.0% (1SD) positions have been indicated. Note that because the distribution is not statistically normal, the curve and the areas beneath it have been obtained manually – i.e. the curve was drawn by hand, whilst the area measurements were achieved by physically counting the number of 1mm squares below the curve. It is appreciated that this is not a 100% accurate method, but it was the only one available in the circumstances and is likely to be accurate enough for our purposes13.

6.3.10 It can be seen on Figure 3 that the 1SD, 2SD and 3SD positions correspond respectively with class mark values of 650, 750 and 1025. Remember that these are ‘equivalent’ measures to those that would have been available from standard tables (or calculated using Excel) had the data been found to be normally distributed. In other words, these values should represent a more accurate estimate of the 1SD, 2SD and 3SD locations for our data (i.e. they have been based on the actual curve rather than the assumption that the curve was normal).

6.3.11 Next, as stated previously, for our data the mode is perhaps a more appropriate marker of location than the mean. It is therefore suggested that the ‘Empirical Rule’ might be used in conjunction with the mode rather than the mean. Whilst this might not strictly be statistically correct, given that the SD is a measure of the variability of the data, it does at least seem a reasonable approximation to make.

13 Strictly speaking the curve should be defined by a mathematical formula derived by using a statistical package. Not having access to such, as stated above, the ‘manual’ method actually used is very likely to be accurate enough for our purposes. 36

6.3.12 We can in fact derive a comparison of the ‘Empirical Rule’ in the context of both the mean and the modal measure of location. In addition, as was seen in Figure 3 there is also a third way of obtaining a marker for comparison based on manually derived estimates of area beneath the curve. The results of these three approaches are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Observed score values at 1, 2 and 3 SD from both the mean and modal value and also based on the area under the curve (figures rounded to the nearest whole number).

Number of SD (1 SD = 175) or equivalent Mean (= 1082) Mode (= 1150) Area under area under curve curve*1

1SD below (68% of area under curve) 907 975 1025 2SD below (95% of area under curve) 732 800 750 3SD below (97.5% of area under curve) 557 625 650 Note*1 Values obtained on basis of the curve being plotted manually and the area measurements beneath worked out by counting squares on graph paper. Therefore they should be viewed as being an approximation only, but probably accurate enough for these purposes.

6.3.13 Table 6 therefore provides three separate measures against which the lowest scoring sites might be assessed. Note in particular the closeness of the ‘3SD’ point for both the mode (i.e. 625) and the ‘area under the curve’ method (i.e. 650). Ignoring the 1SD threshold which is considered likely to be too conservative, it can be seen that the highest value otherwise in Table 6 is 800. It is useful at this stage to take a more detailed evaluation of those sites (n = 15) identified from our data set as having scores of less than 800 (see Table 7 below).

Table 7: Analysis of those 15 sites with a score of less than a threshold value of 800

Site Score In terms of the In terms of the In terms of area under observed mean mode curve (listed in order of descending (2SD = 732; 3SD = (2SD = 800; 3SD = (95.0% = 750; 97.5% = score) 557) 625) 650) <2SD <3SD <2SD <3SD <95.0% <97.5% (2SD) (3SD) CORN002 356 Y Y Y Y Y Y CAMB003 417 Y Y Y Y Y Y CUMB006 521 Y Y Y Y Y Y DOR004 546 Y Y Y Y Y Y ESUS004 631 Y N Y N Y Y AV002 640 Y N Y N Y Y BUCK004 661 Y N Y N Y N BERK005 668 Y N Y N Y N NYORK009 687 Y N Y N Y N NYORK007 727 Y N Y N Y N NYORK12 730 Y N Y N Y N KENT005 750 N N Y N N N NYORK004 782 N N Y N N N

37

Site Score In terms of the In terms of the In terms of area under observed mean mode curve (listed in order of descending (2SD = 732; 3SD = (2SD = 800; 3SD = (95.0% = 750; 97.5% = score) 557) 625) 650) <2SD <3SD <2SD <3SD <95.0% <97.5% (2SD) (3SD) STAFF002 796 N N Y N N N BUCK003 799 N N Y N N N Key: Y = less than the threshold value, N = not less than the threshold value

6.3.14 Of course to be absolutely correct, one should also re-calculate the SD on the basis of the mode and not the mean value. However, Excel does not have this facility and in any case, with a mean of 1081 and a mode of 1150, the difference between the two values (69 – a figure of only 6% of the mean value) would probably not significantly affect the outcome anyway.

6.3.15 Remember also that if the above scores were from candidate sites we would be looking as to whether or not they could be viewed as having the ’character of a green’. Of course, they are all in reality registered greens. It’s just that if the data are being examined statistically, then some sites must by definition lie beyond two and/or three SD of the mean.

6.3.16 It can be seen from Table 7 that there several distinct groupings:

Group 1: Sites <3SD for all three ‘measures’ (i.e. score <557)

CORN002 (score 356); CAMB003 (score 417); CUMB006 (score 521); DOR004 (score 546)

Group 2: Sites as above and only <2SD in terms of area under the curve (i.e. score >557, but <650)

ESUS004 (score 631); AV002 (score 640)

Group 3: Sites <2SD only, against all three measures (i.e. score >650, but <732)

BUCK004 (score 661); BERK005 (score 668); NYORK009 (score 687); NYORK007 (727); NYORK012 (score 730)

Group 4: Sites <2SD in terms of only the modal value (i.e. score >732, but <800)

KENT005 (score 750); NYORK004 (score 782); STAFF002 (score 796); BUCK003 (score 799)

6.3.17 It is worthwhile now to look at these sites in more detail and see if there is anything ‘uncharacteristic’ of greens about them. This is presented in Annex 5. Note that any such observations are in themselves judgemental (i.e. beyond the notion of basing the outcome on a numerical value). However, going through the process helps to provide an insight that informs the establishment of a ‘threshold’ score. 38

6.3.18 Having looked at the four groups of sites in more detail (Annex 5), the following summary of outcomes can be put forward (Table 8).

Table 8: Preferred Method 1 - Summary assessment of low-scoring sites

Group No. in Upper score No. of sites consistent No of sites not group threshold of with having ‘character consistent with having group of a green’ ‘character of a green’

Group 1 4 557 1 (probably) 3 Group 2 2 650 1 1 Group 3 5 732 4 0 Group 4 5 800 2 0

6.3.19 Before considering Table 8, as an interesting additional comment, note that the ‘low-scoring’ sites are predominantly ‘early’ in the alphabetic sequence. This was of course the order in which the assessments were undertaken. Potentially then, there was a methodological difference taking place as the work progressed. If this was the case, one possible explanation might simply be because sites were being excluded from the survey with greater confidence as the work progressed. In other words, more sites with ‘sketchy’ or incomplete information might have been included earlier on during the study.

6.3.20 This issue aside, it can be seen from Table 8 that as one might expect; Group 1 (containing the lowest scoring sites) has the greater proportion of sites regarded as not having the ‘character of a green’. Group 2 has only two members, one being regarded as having the ‘character of a green’, and the other not. Once we get into Group 3 and beyond, it can be seen that all sites were considered as having the ‘character of a green’.

6.3.21 On this basis one might suggest that a cut-off between the groups, in terms of whether they can be regarded as being indicative of greens (and hence a threshold score) might be placed between Groups 2 and 3 (i.e. a score of around 650). It is interesting also to recall (see Table 7) that the thresholds of both 3SD from the modal value and that of 97.5% of the area under the curve have very similar values (625 and 650 respectively).

6.3.22 In conclusion various forms of evidence suggest that a threshold score of 650 might appropriately be used as a cut-off for deciding whether or not a site could be regarded as having the ‘character of a green’ (i.e. as based on the Extended Sample of 250 sites from the WI Survey of 1990). In statistical terms this would be presented as follows:

 There is more than a 97.5% probability that a site scoring more than 650 had the ‘character of a green’ (based on the sample data).  There is less than a 2.5% probability that a site scoring less than 650 had the ‘character of a green’, or alternatively:  There is more than a 97.5% probability that a site scoring below 650 did not have the ‘character of a green’.

39

6.3.23 Clearly, however, the situation is very likely to be more complex than a single threshold score would suggest. It would be reasonable to argue that the higher or lower the score was in relation to the threshold value, the greater would be the confidence in stating the outcome. This will be investigated more fully when making a final, overall conclusion from the research as a whole (Section 8).

40

7. Section IV: Assessment of a sample of non-registered sites using the ‘preferred method’ (Objective 7) and comparison with outcome for Extended Sample (Objective 8).

7.1 Methods 7.1.1 Assessment of the non-registered sites by the ‘preferred’ Method 1 was performed in the same manner as for the Extended Sample of 250 registered sites. The precise number of non-registered sites (i.e. 91) was established through Objective 6 – see Appendix B.

7.1.2 As with the Extended Sample, score values for each were allocated into a series of appropriate size-classes and allocated a ‘class mark’ (i.e. the mid-point of the size class). These data could then be plotted as a histogram to visualise the shape of the resulting curve, and comparisons made with the corresponding histogram for the Extended Sample.

7.2 Results14 7.2.1 The lowest score obtained was 281 (Site Code NYORK-UNR001, Linghaw Cross, Bentham, North Yorkshire). This compares with the lowest score for registered sites of 356 (Site Code CORN002 – VG665, The Recreation Allotment, Egloskerry, Cornwall). The highest score obtained for a non-registered site was 1270, actually attained by two sites (Site Code NTHUM-UNR001, Tynemouth Village Green, Tynemouth, Northumberland and Site Code WILT-UNR002, Pond Green, Urchfont, Wiltshire). This compares with the highest score for a registered site of 1352 (Site Code ESS008 – VG84, The Village Green, Wickham St. Paul, Essex).

7.2.2 Table 9 compares scores for the Extended Sample of 250 registered sites with the sample of 91 non-registered sites, and the results are compared graphically in Figure 4.

Table 9: Number of observations in each Class interval/Class mark for Extended Sample and non- registered sites.

Class interval Class mark No. of observations Extended Sample Non-registered sites 101-200 150 0 1 201-300 250 0 1 301-400 350 1 0 401-500 450 1 0 501-600 550 2 1 601-700 650 5 4 701-800 750 6 7 801-900 850 23 18 901-1000 950 32 18

14 Note –‘ Time depth characteristics’: In four cases, on the basis of the information resources to hand, it was not possible to make a conclusion as to how long the site had been used ‘as a green’. It is recognised that this might have an influence on the outcome for the lowest scoring sites and is taken into account as appropriate in the analysis of the results obtained. 41

Class interval Class mark No. of observations Extended Sample Non-registered sites 1001-1100 1050 47 18 1101-1200 1150 60 18 1201-1300 1250 59 5 1301-1400 1350 14 0

Figure 4: Number of observations per size class for the Extended Sample and the non-registered sites.

70

60

50

40 Registered 30 Non-registered

20

10

0 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350

Figure 4: Horizontal axis shows the class mark (central point of sampling interval) and vertical axis shows the number of observations in each case.

7.2.3 It can be seen from Figure 4 that the non-registered sites have a distribution of broadly similar shape to the Extended Sample. However, the curve by comparison (i.e. for non- registered sites) is very ‘flat’, the ‘peak’ comprising four consecutive size classes (i.e. 850, 950, 1050 and 1150) having the same number of observations (i.e. 18).

7.2.4 In addition, for non-registered sites, due to the absence of records within the ‘1350’ size class, it can be seen as a consequence that the curve is shifted slightly to the left. The tail at this end of the distribution is still similarly skewed, though perhaps less clearly defined as for the registered sites, potentially with ‘outlying’ vales at its extreme end (by virtue of a ‘gap’ in the tail – i.e. two size-classes at this end [350 and 450] with no observations in them).

7.2.5 Statistical parameters for the two data sets are compared in Table 10.

42

Table10: Statistical data for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Statistical parameter Extended Sample Non-registered sites

Sample size 250 91 Modal value 1150 1000 Mean value 1081.98 958.31 Sum 270495 87206 Standard deviation 174.98 195.00

7.2.6 As with the Extended Sample, Figure 4 suggests that the data from the non-registered population are also not normally distributed. A comparison of statistical parameters for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites is outlined in Annex 6. This shows that the non- registered examples are similarly, neither log-normal, nor normally distributed. It was also concluded that data from the sample of non-registered sites could again be viewed as being ‘moderately negatively skewed’.

7.3 What can be inferred about the non-registered sites? 7.3.1 The primary aim of assessing a candidate site would be to investigate whether it had the ‘character of a green’ as based on the Extended Sample of 250 sites from the WI survey, 1990. Before the final conclusions are drawn on this issue, it is useful to further reflect on the outcome of assessing the sample of non-registered sites. The analysis of results from the Extended Sample has suggested that a threshold score of around 650 might appropriately be used as a cut-off for distinguishing between those sites that can be viewed as having the ‘character of a green’ and those that do not.

7.3.2 There were a total of five unregistered sites that attained a score of below 650:

DEV-UNR001 (score 581)

NYORK-UNR001 (score 182) – i.e. the lowest scoring site

NYORK-UNR003 (score 261)

NYORK-UNR005 (score 637)

SUFF-UNR002 (score 603)

7.3.3 As with the Extended Sample these five examples are now considered in turn (Annex 7) as to whether a conclusion that they do not have the ‘character of a green’ seems a reasonable one to make.

7.3.4 It can be seen from the descriptions provided in Annex 7.1 that there are two very low scoring sites (182 and 261) where a very strong argument could be made for them not having the ‘character of a green’. The three remaining sites are quite close to the threshold score of 650. One of these scored 637 – just below the threshold, and was considered as having the ‘character of a green’. The lowest scoring of the three – 581 was considered not to have the ‘character of a green’. In the third case – score 603, depending on how one interpreted the

43

use of the entire site as an ‘informal’ car park, it was possible to argue both that the site did have the ‘character of a green’ and also that it did not.

7.3.5 In the Extended Sample, all those sites scoring between 650 and 800 were also similarly reviewed. It is therefore appropriate that same should also be done for the nine non- registered sites having the same range of scores (Annex 7.2).

7.3.6 In seven of these cases it was considered that the site had the ‘character of a green’. In one case it was considered possible that the site had actually been allocated too high a score and the ‘real’ score might have been below 650. This would be consistent with the stated opinion that the site does not in fact have the ‘character of a green’.

7.3.7 In one final case there was confusion as to whether the site, if registered, would have been done so as a common, rather than a green. Remember that when selecting registered commons from the WI Survey for sampling (i.e. those with ‘CL’ numbers as opposed to those with ‘VG’ numbers), only those that had a priori evidence that the land was used and thought of a green, and could have been registered as such, were included. In other words, ‘genuine’ commons were excluded from the sampling of registered sites and it could also therefore be argued that non-registered sites which might more appropriately be regarded as commons rather than greens, should also be excluded from consideration.

44

8. Towards an overall conclusion on character context assessment 8.1 The ‘preferred’ Method 1 is an assessment based on the simple summing of scores for the presence of a suite of potential characteristics that may or may not be present. For the most part these characteristics can be easily and quickly observed in the field, or indeed, can largely be deduced from Google Earth Street View.

8.2 The actual scores were derived from the percentage frequency of each characteristic across an ‘Extended Sample’ of 250 sites taken from the WI Survey of 1990. It was the simplicity of the assessment process and the output of a single numerical value that led to the adoption of this particular approach in preference to either of the other two methods proposed.

8.3 The outcome from assessing the full ‘Extended Sample’ of 250 registered sites suggested initially that a threshold score of 650 might form an appropriate cut-off in deciding whether or not a candidate site could be said to have the ‘character of a green’ (Section 6.3.22).

8.4 To recap on what was concluded in statistical terms, the following could be said to apply:

 There is more than a 97.5% probability that a site scoring more than 650 had the ‘character of a green’ (based on the sample data).  There is less than a 2.5% probability that a site scoring less than 650 had the ‘character of a green’, or alternatively:  There is more than a 97.5% probability that a site scoring below 650 did not have the ‘character of a green’.

8.5 Clearly, however, the situation is more complex than a single threshold score would suggest. It seems reasonable to argue that the lower the score, the greater the confidence could be attached to a statement that a site was considered not to have the ‘character of a green’, and conversely, the higher the score was above the threshold value, the more likely it would be that the site could be said to have the ‘character of a green’.

8.6 Certainly, in terms of the lowest encountered score (i.e. 356 site CORN002 – VG665 “The Recreation Allotment”, Egloskerry) it was argued (see Annex 5) that the observed features of the site were consistent with this site not having the ‘character of a green’. On this basis it could be said that any candidate site scoring below this value (i.e. 356) would be considered extremely unlikely to have the character of a green.

8.7 In statistical terms this can be expressed by reference to Figure 3. The area under the curve corresponding with the class mark of 35015 is 23mm2, which equates to a 0.23% probability. Therefore in statistical terms there is a less than 0.25%16 probability that a site scoring below 350 would have the ‘character of a green (or conversely, more than a 99.77% probability it would not).

15 The nearest practical approximation to the actual score of 356. 16 Although the actual figure was 0.23%, given that the areas measurement has been performed manually, a ‘working’ probability of 0.25% seems more reasonable and appropriate. 45

8.8 We also saw from the analysis of results for ‘low-scoring’ sites in Annex 5 that all those with scores within the range of 650-800 were considered to have the ‘character of a green’. This is in agreement with the 650 threshold and also suggests that for sites scoring above 800, the same conclusion would be true as well. From Figure 3, the probability derived from the area under the curve for a score of 800 is 7.4% (and by inference, the probability for the area under the curve above 800 equals 92.6%).

8.9 Therefore, a system of ‘graded’ thresholds for the character context assessment is proposed, each equating to different levels of confidence in answering the question – does the site have the ‘character of a green’?

Score below 350 – site ‘highly unlikely’ to have the ‘character of a green’. Statistically there is less than a 0.25% probability that it does (or more than a 99.75% probability that it does not). Score 350-650 – site ‘unlikely’ to have the ‘character of a green’ (though potentially it might). Statistically there less than a probability of between 0.25% and 2.5% that it does (or more than a probability of between 99.75% and 97.5% that it does not). Score above 650 but below 800 – site ‘likely’ to have the ‘character of a green’ (though potentially it might not). Statistically there is a probability of between 97.5% and 92.6% that this is the case (and also between a 2.5% and 7.4% probability it is not). Score above 800 – site ‘highly likely’ to have the ‘character of a green’. Statistically there is a probability of more than 92.6% that it does (or less than 7.4% that it does not).

8.10 The terms ‘highly likely’, ‘unlikely’ etc. are included to aid in a descriptive interpretation of the outcome and meant to reflect the differing probability at each threshold. Strictly speaking, of course, it is the quoted probability that gives statistical credence to the interpretation.

46

9. Acknowledgements 9.1 I am extremely grateful for the support of Graham Bathe, formerly of Natural England and Grant McPhee of Defra, without whose input the work would not have taken place. I would also like to express my thanks to Marc Thomas, Head of Farming Statistics at Defra’s Food and Farming Group for advice on statistical issues. Several people provided guidance on designing the various character context assessment methodologies, but in particular I am grateful to Chris Bolton, Head of Profession, Landscape Standards Function, Natural England for extensive advice on this aspect. Thanks also to several other individuals and organisations that provided opinion and feedback on the proposed character context methodologies, including Kate Ashbrook of the Open Spaces Society, Paul Johnson, Naomi Oakley, Wendy Thompson and Susannah England of Natural England and Hugh Craddock of Defra.

9.2 In respect of the WI Survey I would again like to express my gratitude to Professor Aitchison for allowing me to make use of the research material. I am also greatly indebted to Liz Hughes and Martin Ashby for safeguarding and storing this material over a period of several years. Last, but by no means least I would like to record my thanks to the many members of the Women’s Institute who gave of their time in submitting records for the original survey project of 1990.

47

10. References and Bibliography

Anon. (2005). South Gloucestershire Landscape Character Assessment, July 2005. South Gloucestershire Council (on-line PDF document).

Barnett, V. and Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in Statistical Data. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons.

Ashby, M and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Hampshire - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Ashby, M and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Essex - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Ashby, M and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Kent - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Ashby, M and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Oxfordshire - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Ashby, M. Dullaghan, P, Redgrave, L.J., Crowther, K.A. and Aitchison, J.W. (2000). The Common Lands of North Yorkshire – A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Clarke, G.M. (1976). Statistics and Experimental Design. A Series of Student Texts in Contemporary Biology. Edward Arnold.

Crowther, K.A. (2011). An Assessment of the Character of Town or Village Greens in England. A Study of 210 sites. Defra Project Ref: NR0146. March 2011.

Francis, I.S, Penford, N., Finch, M. and Aitchison, J.W. Biological Survey of Common Land. No 12: Hertfordshire. Rural Surveys Research Unit, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Hedley, S. and Aitchison, J.W. (1992). Biological Survey of Common Land. No 22: Somerset. Rural Surveys Research Unit, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Mitchell, S and Hamilton-Baillie, B. (2011). Traffic in Villages. Safety and Civility for Rural Roads. A Toolkit for Communities. Dorset AONB Partnership/Hamilton-Baillie Associates.

Redgrave L.J and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Gloucestershire - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Redgrave L.J and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Staffordshire - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Redgrave L.J and Aitchison J.W (2000). The Common Lands of Wiltshire - A Biological Survey. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.

48

11. Appendices

49

Appendix A: Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites

Note: this document addresses the following objectives outlined in Section 3.1 of the main report:

 Sampling of an additional 40 registered sites to form the Extended Sample (Objective 1)

 An examination of whether this additional sampling necessitated any changes to characteristics identified in the Precursor Project (Objective 2 )

1. Methods 1.1 Sampling of additional sites from the required counties was undertaken in accordance with the figures outlined in Appendix A1. The same selection criteria were adopted as previously, namely:

 Each site was either registered as a village green under the 1965 Commons Registration Act.

 Or registered as common land under the 1965 Act, but resembles a green, and apparently eligible for registration as a green.

1.2 In practical terms it can be seen from Appendix A1 that the maximum number of additional sites required for an individual county was three. Therefore the procedure for selecting individual sites was as follows:

 For counties where only a single additional record was required, the first site to be examined for potential suitability for inclusion was the next record sheet following the first site originally sampled. If that proved to be unsuitable for analysis for whatever reason, or had by chance already been sampled, the next suitable site was then examined in turn and so on until a suitable site was located.

 For counties with two additional records required, these would again be selected to follow each of the (usually) two records originally sampled. Should a situation arise where all sites originally sampled had been exhausted, then each successive site was considered in turn for suitability, until the required number of additional sites had been sampled.

 For counties where three additional records were required, it was generally the case that, originally, only a single site had been sampled. Here, the procedure was to include every third site following that originally sampled17.

1.3 In all cases, should a situation arise where the above had been followed and for whatever reason the required number of samples had still not been obtained, then the procedure was

17 The first two counties that required additional records were Cheshire and Cleveland (three in each case). These were sampled whilst the above methodology was being refined and the selected (suitable) sites simply followed on sequentially from the first site originally sampled. This slight difference in approach is not considered to have undermined the objectives and validity of the overall sampling strategy in any way. 50

to simply consider each successive site in turn for suitability until the required number of additional sites had been sampled.

1.4 Note in Appendix A1 that for some counties, to achieve the required sample size all sites available have been included (assuming they were ‘suitable’ records).

51

2. Results (Appendix A: Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites)

2.1 Sampling an additional 40 sites 2.1.1 Various factors arsing during the process of sampling required minor modifications to the target figures per county, as outlined in Appendix A1 (as will be explained shortly). However, the overall target number of 40 additional sites has been adhered to. The final situation is outlined in Table 1 (with the reasons for modifications in respect of certain counties being noted as appropriate).

2.1.2 All ‘new’ sites added to the original database have been highlighted in the various Excel worksheets so they can be identified as such, and a specific column to record this fact has been added to Worksheet No. 1 - “Register Information”.

Table 1: Additional sampling to improve geographic coverage – proposed and actual figures

County Completed WI Original Additional Extended Forms/records Sample sampling Sample (Precursor (proposed (proposed Project) in brackets) in brackets) Avon 26 5 - 5 Bedfordshire 20 5 - 5 Berkshire 48 4 - 4 Buckinghamshire 82 8 - 8 Cambridgeshire 96 9 - 9 Cheshire 11 1 3 4 Cleveland 13 1 3 4 Cornwall 39 4 - 4 Cumbria 109 11 - 11 Derbyshire 13 1 3 4 Devon 59 6 - 6 Dorset 24 2 2 4 Durham 19 2 2 4 East Sussex 58 6 - 6 Essex 106 11 - 11 Gloucestershire 46 5 - 5 Greater London*1 5 1 (3)2 (4)3 Greater Manchester*2 (4)5 1 (3)12 2 (4)2 Hampshire 83 8 - 8 Hereford & Worcester*3 37 4 (-)2 (4)6 Hertfordshire 68 7 - 7 Humberside 31 3 1 4 Isle of Wight 14 1 3 4 Kent 99 10 - 10 Lancashire 30 3 1 4 Leicestershire 66 7 - 7 Lincolnshire*4 3 1 (2)1 (3)2 Merseyside*5 2 1 (-)1 (1)2 Norfolk 73 7 - 7 52

County Completed WI Original Additional Extended Forms/records Sample sampling Sample (Precursor (proposed (proposed Project) in brackets) in brackets) Northamptonshire 45 5 - 5 Northumberland 39 3 1 4 North Yorkshire 155 15 - 15 Nottinghamshire 49 5 - 5 Oxfordshire 93 9 - 9 Shropshire 13 1 3 4 Somerset 32 3 1 4 South Yorkshire*6 3 0 - 0 Staffordshire 25 3 1 4 Suffolk 110 9 - 9 Surrey 51 5 - 5 Tyne & Wear 6 1 3 4 Warwickshire 67 5 - 5 West Midlands*7 (3)4 1 (2)3 (3)4 West Sussex 55 5 - 5 West Yorkshire 17 2 2 4 Wiltshire 39 3 1 4 Total (England) 2088 210 40 250 Notes: *1 Greater London: Only three suitable sites/records in total (one fewer than target number). Of the other two completed forms, one was a ‘genuine’ registered common and the other an unregistered site. *2 Greater Manchester: A fifth record was discovered (but for a non-registered site, described only briefly on a piece of paper). All suitable sites/records from this county have been sampled (i.e. two only). *3 Hereford & Worcester: At the completion of the further sampling process, there were still a further two sites needed to bring the total up to the required 250. As these two counties were at the time combined as a single administrative unit, it was considered appropriate to take these final two samples from here, being selected as the first ‘suitable’ records after the first and last sites originally sampled. *4 Lincolnshire: Only two suitable sites/records from this county. *5 Merseyside: Two completed forms only from this county. In order to make calculations easier (i.e. a grand total of sites to be included, of 250), it was originally intended that the second record would not be sampled. However, with the need arising to find a few additional sites, in practice, both records could now be included. *6 South Yorkshire: in the original study (Crowther, 2011), none of the three South Yorkshire WI Survey sites was found to be suitable for inclusion. *7 West Midlands: A fourth record from the WI survey was located, and all have been included in the sample.

2.1.3 In total this brings the final number of sites forming the Extended Sample to 250, representing approximately 12.0% of available records from the WI Survey (as compared with 10.1% following sampling of the original 210 sites that formed the Precursor Project).

53

2.2 Reasons for not selecting sites 2.2.1 During the extended sampling process a total of 292 sites (14.0% of the overall total) were rejected for one reason or another. This compares with a figure of 258 (12.4%) for the Precursor Project. The reasons are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Reasons for exclusion of ‘candidate’ sites

Reason for excluding Precursor Project Extended Sample No of % of total No of % of total occurrences rejected sites occurrences rejected sites Unsure of location, no map or 99 38.5% 108 37.0% boundary information Site not, or unlikely to be registered 88 34.1% 100 34.2% Incomprehensible form, very little 50 19.5% 62 21.2% information, or blank form returned No Street View image (all or part) 18 7.0% 22 7.5% Common land, not a green 7 2.7% 9 3.1% Other reasons 23 8.9% 26 8.9%

2.2.2 It can be seen from Table 2 that the overall pattern remains the same as that observed in the Precursor Project. As before, the main reason for exclusion of ‘candidate’ sites was either because there was uncertainty of some kind as to where the site was located on the ground, or because the survey form was one of those returned by the WI for non-registered greens within their parish, which were outside the scope of the Precursor Project (and this element of the extended sampling process).

2.2.3 It should be noted that across the extended sampling process, nine sites had been rejected because they appeared to be ‘true common land’, rather than greens, as compared with seven as at the Precursor Project.

2.3 Comparison of results from Precursor Project and Extended Sample 2.3.1 Here the overall results following completion of the extended sampling are compared with the situation found on the basis of the Precursor Project. Again the question headings are those adopted by the WI Survey.

Question 1 – Register Information

Greens versus commons

2.3.2 Table 3 makes a comparison of figures from the Precursor Project and Extended Sample. It can be seen that again, the figures are broadly comparable for both studies, and noting that all four additional registered commons added to the sample have the word ‘Green’ or ‘Greens’ in their name.

54

Table 3: Sites registered as greens and commons, and occurrence of the word ‘green’ (or ‘greens) in sites registered as commons.

Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Sites registered as greens 167 79.5% 203 81.2% Sites registered as commons 43 20.5% 47 18.8% Registered commons with ‘green’ 34 n/a 38 n/a as part of name Registered commons without 9 n/a 9 n/a ‘green’ as part of name

Area statistics

2.3.3 For the Extended Sample, based on quoted rather than corrected areas, the mean area of a site was found to be 0.86ha (as compared with 0.89ha as at the Precursor Project). This means that, overall most sites are still usually significantly less than one hectare.

2.3.4 The comparative figures for sites having an area of 1.0ha or greater are: 58 (23.2%) for the Extended Sample and 46 sites (21.9%) for the Precursor Project. Two of the ‘new’ sites added during the extended sampling were greater than five hectares, namely VG12 Brackenfield Village Green in Derbyshire (study code DERB003), with an area of 5.55ha and CL60 Totteridge Green in Greater London (study code GTLON003), having an area of 6.0ha (compare these figures with the areas of the two largest sites originally sampled - namely 14.9 and 20.0ha). The remaining ‘new’ >1ha sites were approximately in the order of 1-2ha in extent.

Ownership

2.3.5 Recorded ownership is outlined in Table 4. For the Extended Sample the picture is broadly the same as for the Precursor Project, with a majority (61.6%) owned by Parish/Community councils, and around a quarter being specified as ‘other’ (with no further explanation provided).

Table 4: Recorded ownership of sampled sites

Category of ownership Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total (n = No of sites % of total 210) (n = 250) Parish/Community Council 132 62.9% 154 61.6% Other 48 22.9% 64 25.6% Private 22 10.5% 24 9.6% Town/District/Borough Council 5 2.4% 6 2.4% Owner not stated 2 1.0% 2 0.8% National Trust 1 0.5% 1 0.4% TOTAL 210 251*1 Note: *1 One of the additional 40 sites sampled had two categories of ownership entered.

55

Registered Common Rights

2.3.6 The breakdown of registered rights recorded amongst the sampled sites is shown in Table 5. It can be seen that only two of the additional 40 sites had rights registered, and the overall picture for the Extended Sample remains largely the same as for the original study. Note that the additional case of ‘other rights’ was not elucidated on the form any further than this.

2.3.7 The issue of whether any of the additional grazing rights identified are currently being exercised is addressed under Question 8, below.

Table 5: Common Rights recorded on sampled sites – Precursor Project and Extended Sample

Type of right Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sampled % of total (n = No of % of total (n = sites1 210) sampled sites 250) Total sampled sites with 15 7.1% 17 6.8% rights Horses/ponies 8 3.8% 10 4.0% Sheep 7 3.3% 8 3.2% Cattle 10 4.8% 11 4.4% Other livestock 10 4.8% 11 4.4% Livestock (unspecified) 1 0.5% 1 0.4% Other rights 4 1.9% 5 2.0%

Question 2 – How frequently do the following activities take place on the green?

2.3.8 Activities recorded are summarised in Table 6. It can be seen that for the Extended Sample the frequency of activities remains close to the Precursor Project, with informal recreation and ‘exercising the dog’, being the most frequent. The comparative figures for each of these two activities occurring in one form or another (i.e. either ‘regular’ or ‘occasional’): are – Informal recreation 70.9% (Extended Sample), 70.5% (Precursor Project) and for ‘Dog walking’ 68.4% (Extended Sample), 66.6% (Precursor Project).

Table 6: Activities recorded on sampled sites

Type of Precursor Project Extended Sample activity Takes place Takes place Takes place Takes place regularly occasionally regularly occasionally No of % of No of % of No of % of No of % of sites sites sites sites sites sites sites sites Informal 106 50.5% 42 20.0% 127 50.8% 51 20.4% recreation Dog walking 99 47.1% 41 19.5% 118 47.2% 53 21.2% Picnics 19 9.0% 92 43.8% 23 9.2% 108 43.2% Children’s 43 20.5% 79 37.6% 55 22.0% 92 36.8% Games Fishing/pond 4 1.9% 8 3.8% 6 2.4% 10 4.0% dipping Cricket 17 8.1% 23 10.9% 20 8.0% 32 12.8% Football 17 8.1% 31 14.8% 24 9.6% 38 15.2%

56

Type of Precursor Project Extended Sample activity Takes place Takes place Takes place Takes place regularly occasionally regularly occasionally No of % of No of % of No of % of No of % of sites sites sites sites sites sites sites sites Other sports 10 4.8% 11 5.2% 12 4.8% 16 6.4% Fairs/village 36 17.1% 55 26.2% 43 17.2% 65 26.0% events Other 23 11.0% 40 19.0% 29 11.6% 45 11.8% activities

2.3.9 As noted in the Precursor Project report, in addition to a degree of confusion between ‘other sports’ and ‘other activities’, the two categories of ‘Fairs/village events’ and ‘other activities’, also generated an overlap of responses. For the Extended Sample, ‘Fairs/village events’ were noted as a category on a total of 108 sampled sites - 43.2% of the total (as compared with 91 sites or 43.3% for the original sample), whilst ‘other activities’ were recorded as occurring on 74 sampled sites - 29.6% of the total (as compared with 63 sites or 30.0% for the original sample). Where information on the nature of activities was available, the most commonly encountered events for the Extended Sample have been summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Commonly recorded events and activities on sampled sites (Extended Sample only)

Type of activity No of occurrences % of total (Precursor Project in (n = 250) brackets, where different) Annual village/church/school fete/fair/feast/market etc. (20) 25 10.0% Remembrance day (or other) outdoor services (13) 17 6.8% Morris/maypole/other dancing (11) 14 5.6% November 5th Bonfire/fireworks (8) 9 3.6% Parades (e.g. May Day, Easter, St Georges Day) 7 2.8% Stalls/sales 6 2.4% Christmas carols/service (5) 6 2.4% Barbecue (4) 6 2.4% Cubs/Scouts/Guides/Brownies (4) 5 2.0% Hunt (4) 5 2.0% Christmas tree 4 1.6% Parade/procession 4 1.6% Celebrations (e.g. Silver Jubilee, Royal Weddings) (3) 4 1.6% Car boot sales 3 1.2% Religions speaking and meetings (2) 3 1.2% Circus 2 0.8% Painting activities (1) 2 0.8% Charity events (including RNLI fair) (1) 2 0.8%

2.3.10 Additional activities noted on a single occasion (and not shown in Table 7) from amongst the 40 additional sites included: ‘Crowning of May Queen’, ‘Well Dressing’, ‘Quoits’, ‘Outings for handicapped/senior citizens etc.’, ‘Council Meeting’ and ‘Vicar’s cheese and wine in marquee’. 57

2.3.11 In addition to the 27 sites originally sampled (12.9%) where none of the recreational activities specified on the form (or any other) were recorded, a further three sites were identified from the Extended Sample where this was the case – thus bringing the overall total to 30 sites (12.0%). Again, as stressed in the Precursor Project report, an apparent lack of recreational activity does not necessarily imply that this is, in reality, the case. Neither does it imply that if the land is indeed not used for any recreational activity nowadays, that such a purpose was not envisaged at the time of designation.

2.3.12 It is also important to reiterate what was said on this issue in the Precursor Project report - “most sampled sites did, indeed, have some form of particularised recreational activity recorded as taking place (i.e. 87%) [cf. 88% in Extended Sample]. However, for the reasons outlined in section 4.3 (Question 2) [of the Precursor Project report], the lack of such a record did not necessarily imply that no recreational activities were taking place, or that the land was not available for recreational use”

Question 3 – Does the green have any of the following?

2.3.13 The situation for the Extended Sample is shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Physical features of the sampled sites

Feature Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Trees 183 87.1% 219 87.6% Seat(s) 155 73.8% 185 74.0% Litter bin(s) 131 62.4% 158 63.2% Hard surface areas 109 51.9% 136 54.4% Sign post (other) 108 51.4% 132 52.8% Poles & wires 95 45.2% 111 44.4% Bus stop(s) 63 30.0% 75 30.0% Fences 56 26.7% 62 24.8% Telephone box (all types) 48 22.9% 56 22.4% Notice/interpretation board 38 18.1% 47 18.8% Bus shelter(s) 32 15.2% 39 15.6% War memorial 30 14.3% 37 14.8% Swings etc. 30 14.3% 36 14.4% Stream/river 29 13.8% 35 14.0% Pond 26 12.4% 32 12.8% Junction box 24 11.4% 29 11.6% Grit box 23 11.0% 28 11.2% Post box 22 10.5% 28 11.2% Sports pitch 21 10.0% 23 9.2% Village sign 18 8.6% 20 8.0% Inspection covers 11 5.2% 17 6.8% Pavilion 14 6.7% 14 5.6% Toilets 13 6.2% 14 5.6% ‘Heritage style’ lamp posts 3 1.4% 12 4.8% Weather vane on wooden post 0 - 1 0.4% Clock on ‘heritage style’ lamp 0 - 1 0.4% post 58

Feature Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Poles for hanging baskets 0 - 1 0.4%

2.3.14 It can be seen from Table 8 that ‘trees’ remain the most frequently recorded physical feature, occurring on the great majority of sampled sites (87.6% as compared with 87.1% originally). One point of interest is that there appears to have been a disproportionately large representation of ‘heritage style’ lamp posts amongst the additional sites sampled. However, as stated in the Precursor Project report, ‘lamp post’ was not a category listed on the WI Survey forms, and may have been overlooked during the earlier phase of sampling. For the record, during the extended sampling process, a total of 15 sites were noted to have ‘modern’ type lamp posts present (and in one case, a lamp was affixed to a telegraph pole with wires!). As can also be seen from Table 8, the Extended Sample has introduced several additional feature-types not originally noted.

Historic features

2.3.15 The situation with respect to historic features as at the Extended Sample is shown in Table 9. The overall picture remains broadly the same, with approximately one quarter of sites having at least one type of historic feature present.

Table 9: Historic features of the sampled sites (main features only)

Feature Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Historic feature present 53 25.2% 62 24.8% Village pump 15 7.1% 18 7.2% Stone, market or butter cross 8 3.8% 11 4.4% Historic feature: type not stated 6 2.9% 7 2.8% Mile or boundary stone 5 2.4% 6 2.4% Well 4 1.9% 5 2.0% Village lock-up/prison 4 1.9% 4 1.6% Maypole (permanent) 4 1.9% 4 1.6% Stocks*1 3 1.4% 4 1.6% Flag pole 3 1.4% 4 1.6% Drinking fountain 2 1.0% 3 1.2% Horse/drinking trough 1 0.5% 2 0.8% Site of pound 1 0.5% 2 0.8% Millstones (whole or part) 2 1.0% 2 0.8% Mounting block 1 0.5% 1 0.4% Clock tower 1 0.5% 1 0.4% Beacon 1 0.5% 1 0.4% Replica pound 1 0.5% 1 0.4% Pound/pinfold 1 0.5% 1 0.4% Note: *1 Stocks – the additional example observed during the extended sampling process included a set of replica stocks, with quite a ‘flimsy’ appearance. As this was clearly not an original feature, their presence was not noted numerically in the spreadsheet. 59

Question 4 – Do any of the following apply?

2.3.16 Responses to question 4 “Do any following apply?” are summarised in Table 10.

Table 10: Do any of the following apply?

Feature Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Erosion of surface: vehicles 79 37.6% 94 37.6% Erosion of surface: horses 12 5.7% 16 6.4% Erosion of surface: people 36 17.1% 41 16.4% Private use by adjacent 52 24.8% 63 25.2% properties Parking 76 36.2% 89 35.6% Rubbish dumping 11 5.2% 13 5.2% Litter problem 38 18.1% 44 17.6% Pet fouling 93 44.3% 114 45.6% Heavy passing 51 24.3% 65 26.0% traffic/congestion Boundary disputes 7 3.3% 10 4.0%

2.3.17 Comparison of the Precursor Project and Extended Sample reveals a very similar picture – indeed, an identical percentage in some. Thus one again, the most frequent types of ‘encroachment’ are those associated with motor vehicles (erosion of surface, parking and heavy passing traffic). Fouling by pets also remains a frequently recorded occurrence (just under half of sites). It would be interesting to investigate how the incidence of dog fouling related to the presence of bins for dog waste, and whether the same overall frequency would be recorded nowadays (given that this issue has perhaps achieved more attention in recent decades, and probably with the greater provision of bins for dog waste since the WI Survey).

Question 6 – have any developments affected the green?

2.3.18 Results of the extended sampling have been summarised in Table 11.

Table 11: Developments affecting the green (as noted in Question 6 of the WI survey form)

Type of development Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Road widening/building 12 5.7% 18 7.2% Vehicular access to adjoining 8 3.8% 10 4.0% property Construction of property 4 1.9% 5 2.0% apparently on the site Increase in size from 3 1.4% 3 1.2% demolition of property Bus lay-by installed 0 - 1 0.4% 60

Type of development Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Pavement made site smaller 0 - 1 0.4% Laying of new water pipes 0 - 1 0.4% across site Filled-in mere 0 - 1 0.4%

2.3.19 Note here that these figures merely reflect occurrences noted by the respondent and do not necessarily provide an estimate of the overall total. In the case of the Extended Sample site with the ‘filled-in mere’, this relates to VG1, Flamborough Village Green in the former county of Humberside (study code: HUMB004). Here, the greater part of the site comprised a mere, but which was filled in circa 1965 because it “was always full of rubbish”. Access to property – a further example might occur, but the respondent stated that (due to mapping issues), it had not been possible to establish whether this was actually the case (VG3, The Village Green, Woore, Shropshire – study code: SHROP003).

2.3.20 At the one additional Extended Sample site where housing has been built, namely VG75, Dalton Piercy Village Green, Cleveland (study code: CLEV003), reference to the original register map (beyond the scope of this study) would be required to establish whether or not these houses are situated on part of the land actually registered.

2.3.21 Note finally that the laying of water pipes in the single example identified in the Extended Sample probably did not physically reduce the size of the green; rather it was likely to have been only a temporary disturbance. Such activities may have occurred on many other sites and has gone unrecorded. One example is to be found amongst the non-registered sites, namely the green at Stetchworth in Cambridgeshire (study code CAMB-UNR003), where a photograph of the site provided by the respondent, clearly shows work by contractors, apparently laying cables (or at least using the green for storage of equipment and materials).

Question 7 – Appearance/Wildlife (and comments on attached documentation)

2.3.22 Details of the types of additional documentation (or not) is provided in Table 12, from where it can be seen that the Precursor Project results hold true for the Extended Sample as well. This serves to further reinforce the original statement that there is a valuable resource of historical documentation contained within the WI Survey.

Table 12 – Maps/plans, other documents and photographs provided

Type of material Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of % of total (n = 210) sites (n = 250) Sampled sites with additional material 123 58.6% 149 59.6% provided Sketch map/plan/OS maps 114 54.3% 137 54.8% Additional documents 36 17.1% 39 15.6% Photographs etc. 26 12.4% 33 13.2% No additional material provided 87 41.2% 101 40.4% 61

Question 8 – Management and maintenance activities

2.3.23 Management activities recorded for the Precursor Project and Extended Sample are outlined in Table 13. As with the Precursor Project, for the Extended Sample the vast majority of sites were maintained by the mowing of grassland. The other activities of litter collection, tree planting and regulation of parking were also noted with effectively the same frequency as in the Precursor Project.

Table 13 – Management and maintenance activities

Management activity Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Grazing 12 5.7% 17 6.8% Mowing 197 93.8% 236 94.4% Litter collection 99 47.1% 118 47.2% Tree planting 91 43.3% 105 42.0% Regulation of parking 51 24.3% 58 23.2%

2.3.24 Again, very few sites overall (only 17) were said to be grazed, the relevant information in respect of the additional ‘grazed’ sites (n = 5) identified being summarised in Table 14 (below).

Table 14: Details of sites recorded as grazed by the respondent (Extended Sample only)

Study code Register Name of site Grazing Available comments on form etc. no. rights (R) = respondent, (KC) = report author CLEV004 VG44 Village Green No KC – “Grazing ticked, but no other information provided. This activity would appear most unlikely, based on what can be seen of the green on Street View”. DUR003 VG14 Redworth No R – “Villager grazes his ponies”. KC – “not Village Green sure if the site is still grazed (no evidence seen on Street View)”. HWOR006 VG5 The Green No R – “Grazing: Occasionally, by children's ponies. KC – “very unlikely now”. SHROP002 VG1 The Common No R – “Grazing: a local resident occasionally grazes his sheep”. KC – “seems unlikely there would be any grazing now - certainly no evidence seen in Street View images”. WILT004 CL13 The Village Yes R – “Local farmers for grazing”. KC – “with Greens both portions small and unfenced from the roads that surround them, seems very unlikely that any grazing might take place nowadays”. N.B. Registered right is for ‘horses and ponies’.

62

2.3.25 It can be seen from the comments above that active grazing nowadays on any of these five sites was considered unlikely. One further green from the Extended Sample was recorded as having grazing rights, namely VG8, Lanchester Village Green (study code DUR004). In the comment box for Question 1, the following comment (by KC) was entered “Extremely unlikely that there is any grazing nowadays”.

Question 9 – Management and Maintenance

2.3.26 As with the Precursor Project, for the Extended Sample there was to some extent an overlap in responses between this and the previous question. The full picture for the Extended Sample is outlined in Table 15, with Local Council again being the most frequently-noted land manager. Only one of the additional 40 sampled sites had no form of management noted (VG29, Recreation Allotment, East Stoke, Dorset (study code DOR004). This means that for the Extended Sample, a total of 233 (i.e. 93.2%) of sites were recorded as being managed in one way or another (as compared with 194 sites – 92.4% in the Precursor Project).

Table 15: Managers of sites

Type of manager Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Local Council 132 62.8% 158 63.2% Parish Council 40 19.0% 51 20.4% Local volunteers 32*1 15.2% 38 15.2% Village Committee 11 5.2% 13 5.2% Other 9*2 4.3% 10 4.0% Notes: *1 On the basis of comments entered elsewhere on the form by respondent, an additional entry for the category of ‘local volunteer’ has been noted for the Precursor Project. *2 In the original analysis, there was a degree of confusion caused by the use of the separate categories of: ‘An outside body’ and ‘Other’, both of which asked for details to be provided. In practice, it was difficult to separate the written responses for these two categories and therefore in Table 15 (above) all have been grouped under the term ‘Other’. This does not appear to have been the case with the original analysis, where not all comments entered on the forms appear to have been enumerated, so this oversight has been rectified here.

Question 10 – History and Local Customs

2.3.27 For the Extended Sample, a total of 154 WI Survey records (61.6% of the sample) provided information in this section (the original figure being 131 records, or 62.4%).

Question 11 - Respondent’s views and opinions on the use and management of the site

2.3.28 For the Extended Sample, comments in this section were provided for a total of 82 sampled sites (32.8% of the sample). As with the Precursor Project, a frequent theme was comment along the sentiment of: “We would like the green to stay exactly as it is”. For comparison, the equivalent figures for the Precursor Project were 59 sites (28.1% of the sample).

63

Question 13 - Character Assessment

2.3.29 As with the Precursor Project, the various characteristics being considered have for convenience been broken into a number of sub-categories. Remember that this and subsequent parts of the assessment were made primarily on the basis of on-line resources, as opposed to the WI Survey forms.

Q13a: Structures on or adjoining the site

2.3.30 As in the Precursor Project, for the Extended Sample the observed frequency of the three categories of structure (Pub/hotel, Church and Other non-residential) was found to be very similar as compared with the original situation. There was a slightly higher overall frequency of sites with at least one of these features present (Precursor Project - 63.8%; Extended Sample - 67.2%).

Table 16: Structures on or adjoining sampled sites

Adjoining structures Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Adjoining structure: Pub/hotel 63 30.0% 75 30.0% Adjoining structure: Church 49 23.3% 61 24.4% (or grounds) Adjoining structure: Other 75 35.7% 95 38.0% non-residential Greens with at least one of 134 63.8% 168 67.2% above present None of above present 76 36.2% 82 32.8% Adjoining structure: Private 202 96.2% 240 96.0% residences Residences arranged around 133 63.3% 153 61.2% site Residences not arranged 86 41.0% 114 45.6% around site

2.3.31 For the Extended Sample, almost exactly the same proportion of sites was found to have domestic properties adjoining (96.0% as opposed to 96.2% originally) – i.e. the vast majority. A very slightly lower proportion had residences arranged around and facing the site (63.3% for the Precursor Project and 61.2% for the Extended Sample), whilst a slightly higher proportion had residences not arranged round the site (Precursor Project – 41.0%; Extended Sample – 45.6%). The reason why the changes in proportion of these two figures don’t match exactly each other is because sites often had adjoining properties that fell into both categories. Note also, as stressed in the original report, that in a significant number of cases, it was difficult to make a firm decision on this character.

64

Q13b: Location and shape of sampled sites

Table 17: Location and shape characteristics of sampled sites

Location/shape*1 Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites*2 % of total No of % of total (n = 210)*2 sites*2 (n = 250)*2 At road junction: Yes 151 71.9% 179 71.6% At road junction: No 59 28.1% 71 28.4% Shape: Triangular (or broadly 106 50.7% 127 51.0% so) Shape: Rectangular (or broadly 26 12.4% 34 13.7% so) Shape: Square (or broadly so) 14 6.7% 17 6.8% Shape: Linear 13 6.2% 14 5.6% Shape: Irregular 22 10.5% 25 10.0% Shape: Other (including 28 13.4% 32*3 12.9% ‘various’) Location: Central 95 45.5% 114 45.6% Location: Peripheral 37 17.7% 45 18.0% Location: Neither central, nor 78 37.3% 91 36.4% peripheral Notes: *1As in the Precursor Project, where an individual site occurred as several discrete portions, each might correspond with more than one type of shape category as listed here. However, only the shape of the single most dominant element has been categorised above for the purpose of this analysis. This merely serves to illustrate that, in practice, the outline shape of some sites was complex and difficult to allocate precisely into a single, simplified category. *2 It can be noted that for the Precursor Project, the total number of sites listed under the various ‘shape categories’ only adds up to 209 and not 210 sites – in other words, the shape of one site was overlooked during the original analysis. Consequently, for the Extended Sample the comparable total figure is also one short of what it actually should be. The percentage figures have here been based on the relevant totals (209 and 249 as appropriate). *3 One site in the Isle of Wight, namely VG5, Fishbourne Green (study code IOW004) was almost a complete circle.

2.3.32 It can be seen from Table 16 that the overall picture remains the same, with fully 50 per cent of the sampled sites being triangular (or approximately so) in outline. The proportion of sites at a junction of roads (or not), is also broadly the same as the original value.

2.3.33 As in the Precursor Project, deciding whether a site was either central, or peripheral within the settlement, could still be problematic. Nonetheless, the overall frequency of the three categories of ‘Central’, ‘Peripheral’ and ‘Neither central, nor peripheral’ remains consistent with the figures originally recorded.

Q13c: Vegetation and land use characteristics

2.3.34 As can be seen from Table 18, for the Extended Sample the vast majority of sites remain as ‘predominantly grassland’, with a majority (subject to constraints outlined in the original report) also having ‘mature trees’.

65

Table 18: Vegetation and land use characteristics of sampled sites

Vegetation and land use Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Predominantly grassland site 197*1 93.8% 236 94.4% Scattered mature trees present 182 86.7% 216 86.4% Predominantly other 12*2 4.3% 13 5.2% vegetation etc. types Land cultivated: Yes 1 0.5% 3 1.2% Land cultivated: No 209 99.5% 249 99.6% Land enclosed: Yes 34 16.2% 39 15.6% Land unenclosed: Yes 177 84.2% 214 85.6% Notes: *1 In the Precursor Project report, for ‘predominantly grassland’ the figure of 195 sites was quoted in error, because on two occasions the appropriate response had not been entered into the appropriate box of the spreadsheet. *2 For similar reasons, three sites with other vegetation types had been overlooked in the spreadsheet (in one case because text and not a number 1 had been entered in the box – hence affecting the ‘Auto-sum’ facility).

2.3.35 Note also that the two categories (‘predominantly grassland’ and ‘other vegetation types’) are not necessarily mutually exclusive – reasons for this are discussed in the Precursor Project report - noting that there are is now one site that had part of the area as ‘predominantly grassland’ and part(s) elsewhere that were ‘other vegetation’ – namely VG29, Recreation Allotment, Dorset (study code DOR004) – approximately one third of the site being secondary woodland in this case.

2.3.36 In addition to the single ‘cultivated’ site identified during the Precursor Project, the Extended Sample revealed a part of two further sites that was considered to be cultivated. For the record these were: VG43 Matfen Village Green, Northumberland (study code NTHUM004) - “small allotment area walled-off and cultivated” and VG73, Church Green [Whickham], Tyne & Wear (study code TYNE003), where approximately 40% of the site comprised cultivated flower beds. It has already been highlighted in the Precursor Project report that a small amount of ornamental planting was considered acceptable within the definition of being uncultivated (and was indeed, quite frequently encountered). However, on this latter site, the extent observed was considered as being in excess of what would be regarded as being compatible with this definition.

2.3.37 As in the Precursor Project, for the Extended Sample the majority, and approximately the same proportion of sites were found to be unenclosed (i.e. 85.6% as compared with 84.2% originally). In addition to the site originally recognised as having only a part of its area enclosed, a further two sites with this situation were revealed during the extended sampling process. These were VG1, Flamborough Village Green, Humberside (study code HUMB004) and VG43, Matfen Village Green, Northumberland (study code NTHUM004). In addition, it can be seen that a further three, completely enclosed sites were also identified during the extended sampling process.

66

Q13d: Land occupancy and view across the site

2.3.38 In considering this set of questions, it is important to firstly recap on what was said on the definitions of land occupancy as adopted in the Precursor Project.

2.3.39 By occupied, it is meant that someone is using the site for exclusive private purpose, perhaps intermittently, and has exclusive benefits from it, and that other members of society would normally respect and exclude themselves from such areas. Examples would be allotments, cultivation, or a private sports facility such as a school playing field, private golf club etc., (but not a village cricket field available to any capable member of the community).

2.3.40 Thus, unoccupied land would be available for use by all and any members of the community, without any evidence that it is being used exclusively or is reserved for particular clubs or groups. In the latter, clearly children’s play areas would not be excluded – whilst these are reserved for children, they are available to all members of a community.

Table 19: Land occupancy and view across the site

Land occupancy and aspect/view Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Land unoccupied: Yes 208 99.0% 248 99.2% Land occupied: Yes 7 3.3% 9 3.6% Open aspect to site: Yes 201 95.7% 241 96.4% View obscured: Yes 21 10.0% 22 8.8% Residences next to site: Yes 202 96.2% 240 96.0% Residences arranged around and 133 63.3% 153 61.2% facing onto the site Not directly focussed upon the site 86 41.0% 114 45.6%

2.3.41 It can be seen from Table 19 that for the Extended Sample it remains the case that the very great majority of sampled sites were considered to be unoccupied (i.e. 99.2%).

2.3.42 No further sites were revealed that were considered to be wholly occupied by a single user. However, two sites were identified where a part of the area was considered to be ‘occupied’. The first case involves VG43, Matfen Village Green, Northumberland (study code NTHUM004). This green lies along the course of a ‘channelised’ stream, with land to the south (as already noted) being largely enclosed by stone walls. A part of this area is used as allotment gardens, thus representing a form of occupation of this land by virtue of the fact that this use denies access to, and use of this area by other local residents (i.e. land in exclusive use by the allotment holders).

2.3.43 The second example relates to VG73, Church Green [Whickham], Tyne & Wear (study code TYNE003). As already outlined under Question 13c, around 40% of this site comprises formally managed flower beds. As such, and being a significant proportion of the site’s extent, this activity was considered to be denying members of the public the opportunity to make use of these areas for other purposes.

67

2.3.44 In terms of the view across the sampled site, it can be seen from Table 19 that for the Extended Sample the vast majority of sites (i.e. 96.4%, as compared with 95.7% originally) again have a clear view across the site. Indeed, only at one additional site was the view considered to be obscured (in part only), this being VG29, Recreation Allotment, East Stoke, Dorset (study code DOR004), where the view across part of the site was considered likely to be obscured due to the presence of an area of woodland.

2.3.45 It can also be seen from Table 19 that adjacent residential properties were considered to be “arranged around and focussed onto the green” in very closely the same proportion of cases for both the Precursor Project and Extended Sample (63.3% and 61.2% respectively). Similarly, both were compatible in the proportion of sites where this was not the case (41.0% and 45.6% respectively) – noting, however, the slightly higher percentage of sites for the Extended Sample. Note also, again, those occasions when both situations were considered to apply. As with the original sampling, in some cases, decision-making on this issue was relatively straightforward, whereas at other times it was more problematic.

Question 14 - Time Depth Characteristics

2.3.46 Overall, it can be seen from Table 20 that the situation for the Extended Sample mirrors very closely what was revealed by the Precursor Project. Therefore, it remains the case that a great majority of sampled sites (i.e. 90.4%) were considered as belonging to the ‘Pre- 1900’ category (again, many of these are likely to have a much longer history than this date would suggest – it was merely a convenient cut-off to aid with categorising sites of more recent origin).

Table 20: Time depth characteristics of sampled sites

Time depth character Precursor Project Extended Sample No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 210) (n = 250) Evidence of use/existence pre- 192 91.4% 226 90.4% 1900 Evidence of use/existence pre- 7 3.4% 10 4.0% 1950 Evidence of origin post-1950 11 5.2% 14 5.6% Long-standing name 173 82.4% 203 81.2%

2.3.47 In addition to the seven sites already identified, from the Extended Sample a further three were considered as dating back only to before 1950. In one case this conclusion was based purely on mapping evidence, this being VG26, The Puddy Dale (Heswall), Merseyside (study code MERS002). In a further instance, namely VG133, The War Memorial (Hockley Heath), West Midlands (study code WMID003), it was stated that the site had been created as a war memorial in 1921, whilst in the last case – VG14 The Green (The Gurneries), Isle of Wight (study code IOW003), it was stated that the site was given to the Urban District Council to be an open space for public recreation around 1935.

2.3.48 A further three sites were also considered to have originated more recently than 1950. In one case – VG69, Walditch Village Green, Dorset (study code DOR003), it was stated by the

68

respondent that the site was created in 1980 as part of a small housing development. On the two other sites – VG29, Recreation Allotment (East Stoke), Dorset (study code DOR004) and VG3, Village Green, Woore, Shropshire (study code SHROP003), mapping evidence suggested that the sites had only become greens post-1950 (on both cases, probably post- 1960, in fact).

2.3.49 Using the same criteria as adopted for the Precursor Project, the Extended Sample was found to have a total of 203 sites with an apparently ‘long-standing’ name (81.2%). These are effectively sites with the word ‘green’ in their name. Whilst this is a very similar proportion to that originally found (82.4%), it was highlighted in the original report that sites with apparently ‘long-standing’ names can in fact be of recent origin.

2.3.50 The conclusion was reached, and is maintained here, that attempting to make inferences as to the apparent age of a particular green on the basis of its name alone is considered unlikely to be all that helpful (and in some cases might be quite misleading).

69

3. Discussion and Conclusions (Appendix A: Sampling of an additional 40 registered WI Survey sites)

3.1 Does the increased sample size affect any of the ‘preliminary’ conclusions about the character of greens as outlined in the Precursor Project report? The broad, overall answer to this question is – “No”- the conclusions remain essentially the same for the Extended Sample.

3.2 Whilst this might initially be taken as evidence that the additional sampling has not added anything to the overall picture, this is far from the case. In the first instance, it has enabled a more representative geographical coverage of sites to be achieved. This, and the fact that the addition of 40 additional sites has not substantially altered the findings, increases confidence that the conclusions reached are representative of the wider picture across registered greens in England. This consolidation of the survey results thereby provides a sound basis from which to investigate a range of potential character tests for village greens.

3.3 A comparison of the Precursor Project and Extended Sample findings is outlined below.

Area

3.4 Both statements originally made with respect to ‘Area’ still hold true following the additional sampling:

 The vast majority of greens will be less than one hectare in size.  A size of up to 20ha would be regarded as being exceptional.

Ownership

3.5 In respect of ownership, the Precursor Project conclusion still holds true, namely:

 Most greens would be expected to be owned by either a community or parish council (61.6% probability, as compared with 62.9% at original sampling).

Rights

3.6 Again, the following statement with regard to rights is still appropriate for the Extended Sample:

 The occurrence of common rights (e.g. grazing) on greens would be unlikely, though can occur very occasionally (6.8% probability - as compared with 7.1%18 originally).

Recreational use

3.7 For the Extended Sample the following two conclusions/statements still hold true:

 In accordance with the 1965 Commons Registration Act and 2006 Commons Act, registration requires that that the land involved is used for lawful sports and pastimes19.

18 The figure of 8% was erroneously quoted here in the original report (but making no material difference to the conclusions). 70

 The most popular activities are likely to be ‘informal recreation’ of some sort and dog- walking (50% and 47% probability respectively – for both the Precursor Project and Extended Sample20).

Physical features

3.8 The conclusions made for the Precursor Project still hold true (figures for Precursor Project in brackets):

 Most greens will be mown grassland - probability 94.4% (93.8%).  Most greens will usually have trees - probability 87.6% (87.1%).  A high proportion will have seats - probability 74.0% (73.8%).  A high proportion will have litter bins - probability 63.2% (62.4%).

Historic features

3.9 As with the Precursor Project, the following conclusions still hold true with respect to the Extended Sample:

 The presence of historic feature(s) is relatively unlikely, although they will be found on around 25% of greens (no change to this proportion).  However, when present, they are a feature likely to be highly indicative of the site being a green.

Management

3.10 Conclusions as to management activities also remain true for the Extended Sample:

 Almost all greens will have some form of management – 93.2% probability (92.4% for Precursor Project).  A local or parish council will be the most likely type of manager – 63.2% and 20.4% probability, respectively (62.8% and 19.0% for Precursor Project).  Mowing of grassland will take place on the vast majority of greens – 94.4 % probability (93.8% for Precursor Project).

Associated buildings

3.11 The following statements can be made:

 A majority of greens will have at least one of: church, public house, or other non-residential building associated with it – Extended Sample = 67% probability (64% for Precursor Project).

19 Note again what was said here in the Precursor Project - “most sampled sites did, indeed, have some form of particularised recreational activity recorded as taking place - i.e. 87% [88% in Extended Study]. However, for the reasons outlined in section 4.3 (Question 2) [of the Precursor Project report], the lack of such a record did not necessarily imply that no recreational activities were taking place, or that the land was not available for recreational use”. 20 The figures quoted here in the Precursor Project report were for activities occurring ‘regularly’, If one adds the also occurrences recorded ‘occasionally’, the figures of 71% and 68% respectively are obtained for the Extended Study (as compared with 71% and 67% in the Precursor Project) - all percentages rounded to nearest whole number. 71

 A majority of greens will also have domestic residences associated with it - 96% probability for both the Precursor Project and Extended Sample. However, as stated originally, this would be true of a high proportion of any land in a ‘village’ environment.  It is more likely than not, that the dwellings will be arranged around and facing the green in a ‘traditional’ manner - 61% probability (unchanged for Extended Sample). Note also that examples of both situations might occur at a particular green, and in some cases it may be difficult to decide on a clear answer to this question.  Buildings on the green itself will be rare (though can be present, and may take the form of historic features).

Position within settlement

3.12 The following statements can be made:

 It is more likely that a green will lie at an intersection of roads (probability 72% - unchanged from Precursor Project).  The most likely shape is triangular, or broadly so (probability 50%), although a wide variety of other shapes can also occur – again, conclusion unchanged from Precursor Project.  A central location in the settlement is the more likely (probability 45% - unchanged from Precursor Project).  Almost equally likely, the green might be ‘neither central, nor peripheral’ (probability 37% for Precursor Project; 36% for Extended Sample) and then most probably still within, or very occasionally outside a settlement altogether.

Land use characteristics (concept of ‘waste of the manor’)

3.13 The following statements can be made:

 The green will almost certainly be uncultivated - 99.6% probability for Extended Sample (99.5% for Precursor Project).  The green is more likely to be unenclosed - 86% probability for Extended Sample (84% for Precursor Project), though some enclosed greens do occur - 16% probability (for both Precursor Project and Extended Sample).  The vast majority of greens will be wholly unoccupied – 99% probability (again for both Precursor Project and Extended Sample).  In the majority of cases, there will be a clear, unobstructed view across the green - 96% probability (likewise for both Precursor Project and Extended Sample).

3.14 As outlined in the Precursor Project report, the first three criteria outlined above, relate to the concept of village greens being regarded as ‘waste of the manor’ (i.e. they should be unenclosed, unoccupied and uncultivated). This study suggests that, yes, one might expect that the vast majority of greens will indeed be unoccupied and uncultivated, but it is possible for a smaller proportion greens to be enclosed. This would suggest that not all village greens need be waste of the manor.

3.15 The following statement made in the Precursor Project report should also still be borne in mind: One of the criteria that must be satisfied under the current legislation when applying

72

to have land registered as a town or village green is that there must have been access as of right to the land, for a period of 20 years. It was not possible to assess this particular criterion as part of the current study, as that would have required local enquiries to be made in each individual case. However, it is very likely from what has been observed, that the vast majority of the 210 sites (now 250) encompassed under this (extended) study, do appear to have access as of right (and in general this would seem to be compatible with the land being unoccupied).

Time depth characteristics

3.16 The Precursor Project conclusion still holds true, namely that a majority of greens will have existed as such since before 1900 AD – 90% probability for Extended Sample (91% for Precursor Project). Note again, however, that attempting to make inferences as to the apparent age of a particular green on the basis of its name alone is considered unlikely to be all that helpful.

73

Appendix A1: Proposed additional sampling following Precursor Project to enhance geographic coverage

County Completed Precursor Proposed Proposed WI Forms Project additional Extended Sample sampling Sample Avon 26 5 - 5 Bedfordshire 20 5 - 5 Berkshire 48 5 - 5 Buckinghamshire 82 8 - 8 Cambridgeshire 96 9 - 9 Cheshire 11 1 3 4 Cleveland 13 1 3 4 Cornwall 39 4 - 4 Cumbria 109 11 - 11 Derbyshire 13 1 3 4 Devon 59 6 - 6 Dorset 24 2 2 4 Durham 19 2 2 4 East Sussex 58 6 - 6 Essex 106 11 - 11 Gloucestershire 46 5 - 5 Greater London 5 1 3 4 Greater Manchester 5 1 3 4 Hampshire 83 8 - 8 Hereford & Worcester 37 4 - 4 Hertfordshire 68 7 - 7 Humberside 31 3 1 4 Isle of Wight 14 1 3 4 Kent 99 10 - 10 Lancashire 30 3 1 4 Leicestershire 66 7 - 7 Lincolnshire 3 1 2 3 Merseyside 2 1 - 11 Norfolk 73 7 - 7 Northamptonshire 45 5 - 5 Northumberland 39 3 1 4 North Yorkshire 155 15 - 15 Nottinghamshire 49 5 - 5 Oxfordshire 93 9 - 9 Shropshire 13 1 3 4 Somerset 32 3 1 4 South Yorkshire 3 0 - 02 Staffordshire 25 3 1 4 Suffolk 110 9 - 9 Surrey 51 5 - 5 Tyne & Wear 6 1 3 4 Warwickshire 67 5 - 5 74

County Completed Precursor Proposed Proposed WI Forms Project additional Extended Sample sampling Sample West Midlands 4 1 2 3 West Sussex 55 5 - 5 West Yorkshire 17 2 2 4 Wiltshire 39 3 1 4 Total (England) 2088 210 40 250 Notes: *1 In order to make calculations easier (i.e. a grand total of sites to be included of 250), the number of sites from Merseyside (which has only two WI Survey sites in total) has remained at just the one site sampled. *2 South Yorkshire – in the Precursor Project (Crowther, 2011) none of the three South Yorkshire WI Survey sites was found to be suitable for inclusion.

75

Appendix B: Non-registered WI Survey sites – Sampling, and scanning of documents attached to records

Note: this document addresses the following objectives outlined in Section 3.1 of the main report:

 Sampling of non-registered sites (Objective 6)

 Scanning of documents, photographs etc. for non-registered sites (Objective 9)

1. Sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites

1.1 Methods 1.1.1 The non-registered sites were assessed in exactly the same way as had been the registered ones. The absence of a registration number on the form was taken as the primary evidence of their status (see Appendix B1), together with the handwriting ‘style’ and content of Section 1 of the form – indicating it had been completed either by RSRU staff (and hence registered) or the WI respondent (and therefore potentially non-registered). That done, sites were then checked on the MAGIC website to make sure as far as practicably possible prior to being assessed, that they were indeed unregistered.

1.1.2 At the same time a grid reference was also determined (or checked) as this information was not generally provided on records for non-registered sites. The original RSRU grid references were only to six-figure accuracy. However, it was felt worthwhile to take advantage of the fact that MAGIC will calculate grid references to ten-figure accuracy. This would be useful if these data are ever plotted into GIS should the future opportunity arise. The physical extent of the site was also checked using the area measurement facility on MAGIC (noting that a minimum reportable size threshold of 0.1ha has been adopted). Obviously, in cases of doubt as to the location or physical extent of the site, the above could not be done.

1.1.3 As with the registered sites, there were various reasons why a particular non-registered site might not be suitable for ‘full’ assessment (e.g. no Street View image, doubt as to location or boundary of the site, inadequate or incoherent information on the WI Survey form). For the purposes of the present research on character context assessment, to be compatible with information collected on the registered sites it was important that only sites with the ‘full’ information should be included in any subsequent analysis. However, as information in the WI Survey on unregistered sites has not been previously documented, it was felt important that all available information on these sites was recorded during the present study, even if a record as unsuitable for the ‘full’ analysis. Therefore in such cases any information that was available on the WI Survey forms was still recorded in the spreadsheets, and the reasons for the record being regarded as being only ‘partial’, was noted.

1.1.4 In addition, as these ‘partial’ records were not to be included in any ‘full’ analysis, it was not considered worthwhile (or indeed often it was not possible) to perform the ‘on-line’ element of the assessment (i.e. Questions 13 – Character and 14 – Time depth). Of course this has also been the case for ‘unsuitable’ sites in the Precursor Project. Therefore in the spreadsheet, records were separated into two separate categories, firstly those sites where a 76

‘complete’ assessment could be made, followed by sites where only partial information existed. Then, subject to any doubts over copyright, all documentation attached to the forms was scanned – the relevant file names being recorded under Question 7 of the spreadsheet (see Section 2 below).

1.1.5 There were certain situations where a site, apparently unregistered, was discounted completely from the recording of any information. The most obvious was where it was discovered upon investigation that the site was in fact registered (as either a green or a common). Other reasons why certain sites were excluded for sampling are outlined as appropriate in the results (Section 1.2).

1.2 Results – sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites

1.2.1 Full and Partial records 1.2.1.1 The number of non-registered sites, as both ‘full’ and ‘partial’ records is outlined in Appendix B1. The overall total of sites belonging to either category was 134, as compared with the original estimate of 153. The main reason for this apparent ‘shortfall’ of sites was because upon investigation, some were found in fact to be registered. Full details of the situation in each affected county are discussed in the notes beneath Appendix B1.

1.2.1.2 Of these 134 sites, a total of 91 records were found to be suitable for ‘full’ analysis and what is presented subsequently has been based on these 91 records. In addition, a total of 43 records were found to be ‘partial’ only, with only the information presented on the forms being recorded (and any documents scanned). The reasons for records being regarded as being ‘partial’ only are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Reasons for regarding records for non-registered sites as being ‘partial’ only (n = 43)

Reason No of % of total occurrences ‘partial’ records (n = 43) Unsure of location, no map or 28 65.1% boundary information Site not, or unlikely to be registered n/a - Incomprehensible form, very little 11 25.6% information, or blank form returned No Street View image (all or part) 9 20.9% Common land, not a green n/a - Other reasons 4 9.3%

1.2.1.3 Note that the total number of occurrences (52) adds up to more than the total number of sites (i.e. in some cases there was more than one reason). It can be seen that two of the ‘reasons’ originally given (i.e. ‘Site not registered’ and ‘Common land, not a green’) are relevant only to registered sites. The former circumstance (unregistered) is not relevant here as they all are by definition (the purpose was of course to exclude any non-registered sites from sampling). In addition, respondents were not requested to submit records for what they regarded to be ‘unregistered commons’ (only greens). However, there were a handful of 77

records that potentially might be more appropriately regarded as common land and this is discussed more fully, where appropriate (1.2.2.53 and subsequent paragraphs).

1.2.1.4 It can be seen from Table 1 that the main reason why records from unregistered sites were regarded as being incomplete was because there was uncertainty of some kind as to its precise location or boundary (generally due to a lack of mapping evidence). All four cases of ‘other reasons’ relates to a ‘group’ of sites in East Sussex, all being recorded on a single form. It proved impossible to determine which of the individual sites the content of the one form related to (and the form had very little information on it anyway). It should be noted that some sites with no, or inadequate Street View coverage had good information otherwise.

1.2.2 The results for the 91non-registered sites 1.2.2.1 The overall results for the non-registered sites will now be considered (based on the 91 ‘full’ records) and comparisons made with counterpart data from the Extended Sample of registered sites, again under the question headings adopted by the WI Survey.

Question 1 – Register Information

Area statistics

1.2.2.2 In contrast to the Extended Sample, where each had been allocated an area value in the register, area information was provided for only a proportion of the non-registered sites. Often this was consistent with the fact that the actual extent of the site had not been physically identified by the respondent. Even when an ‘area’ figure was quoted, this was often in acres, though a simple conversion was possible using an on-line converter. However, in some cases the area had been quoted in linear dimensions, and then often as an Imperial, rather than a Metric value, and on one occasion no units of measurement had been provided at all.

1.2.2.3 Where a stated area value in hectares could be established, this was compared with a figure calculated using the ‘area measurement’ facility on MAGIC, and what follows has been based on figures obtained from (or confirmed by) that source. Despite the above constraints, in many cases the area when quoted on the form was in reasonable agreement with that obtained by MAGIC.

1.2.2.4 Using MAGIC, it was possible to provide area estimates for a total of 88 non-registered sites (65.7% of ‘full’ records), as follows:

Table 2: Area estimates for non-registered sites as measured using MAGIC website

Area (ha) No of sites (% of n = 88) <0.1 25 (28.4%) 0.1-1.0 49 (55.7%) 1.1-2.0 9 (10.2%) 2.1-3.0 3(3.4%) 3.1-4.0 1(1.1%) >4.0 1(1.1%)

78

1.2.2.5 In comparison with the Extended Sample the figures outlined in Table 2 are broadly comparable – i.e. a majority of sites were found to be less than one hectare. In the Extended Sample it was found that 21% of registered sites had an area of 1.0ha or greater, as compared with 15.8% for the non-registered sites. The largest of the non-registered sites (with an area measured using MAGIC) was found to be 10.4ha in extent (i.e. Recreation Ground, Great Dunmow, Essex – Study code ESS-UNR005), as compared with a maximum size of 20.0ha for the Extended Sample.

1.2.2.6 A further point on area measurement is that we are dealing here with sites that have no ‘formally’ defined boundaries – only the opinion of the person providing the record. When examining sites in Street View there were occasionally, additional areas of land that appeared as though they might be considered as being also a part of the site in question. However, the area measurements above have followed as closely as possible the boundary information provided by the respondent (and the occurrence of potential, ‘additional’ areas discussed elsewhere in the relevant record). There were also cases where a precise boundary was not indicated by the respondent, and here area measurements (and comments on the site generally) have been based on what appeared to be the ‘logical’ boundary to the site from information available on maps, Street View etc.

Ownership

1.2.2.7 A comparison of recorded ownership of the Extended Sample and non-registered sites is outlined in Table 3. The picture is broadly the same for both data sets, with a majority in both cases being owned by Parish/Community councils. Perhaps the main difference is the obviously higher proportion of non-registered sites owned by a Town/District or Borough Council.

Table 3: Recorded ownership of sampled sites

Category of ownership Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 250) (n = 91) Parish/Community Council 154 61.6% 43 47.3% Other 64 25.6% 16 17.6% Private 24 9.6% 9 10.% Town/District/Borough Council 6 2.4% 15 16.5% Ownership category not stated 2 0.8% 7 7.7% National Trust 1 0.4% 1 1.0% Owner not known - - 1 1.0% TOTAL 251*1 92*1 Note: *1 Both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites, had the one record with two categories of ownership entered.

Question 2 – How frequently do the following activities take place on the green?

1.2.2.8 Activities recorded are summarised in Table 4. It can be seen that both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites, the type and frequency of recorded activities is broadly similar.

79

Table 4: Activities recorded on registered and non-registered sites.

Type of Extended Sample (n = 250) Non-registered sites (n = 91) activity Takes place Takes place Takes place Takes place regularly occasionally regularly occasionally No of % of No of % of No of % of No of % of sites sites sites sites sites sites sites sites Informal 127 50.8% 51 20.4% 41 45.0% 28 30.8% recreation Dog walking 118 47.2% 53 21.2% 35 38.5% 19 20.9% Picnics 23 9.2% 108 43.2% 7 7.7% 30 33.0% Children’s 55 22.0% 92 36.8% 22 24.2% 27 31.9% Games Fishing/pond 6 2.4% 10 4.0% 1 1.1% 4 4.4% dipping Cricket 20 8.0% 32 12.8% 7 7.7% 5 5.5% Football 24 9.6% 38 15.2% 16 17.6% 4 4.4% Other sports 12 4.8% 16 6.4% 7 7.7% 7 7.7% Fairs/village 43 17.2% 65 26.0% 11 12.1% 18 19.8% events Other 29 11.6% 45 11.8% 10 11.0% 13 14.3% activities

1.2.2.9 As noted in the Precursor Project report (Crowther, 2011), in addition to a degree of confusion between ‘other sports’ and ‘other activities’, the two categories of ‘Fairs/village events’ and ‘other activities’, also generated an overlap of responses. Where information on the nature of activities was available, the most commonly encountered events have been summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Commonly recorded events and activities for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Type of activity Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total occurrences (n = 250) occurrences (n = 91) Annual village/church/school 5 10.0% 2 2.2% fete/fair/feast/market etc. Remembrance day (or other) outdoor 17 6.8% 3 3.3% services Morris/maypole/other dancing 14 5.6% 2 2.2% November 5th Bonfire/fireworks 9 3.6% - - Parades (e.g. May Day, Easter, St 7 2.8% - - Georges Day) Stalls/sales/Auctions/bazaars 6 2.4% 3 3.3% Christmas carols/service 6 2.4% 1 1.1% Barbecue 6 2.4% 3 3.3% Cubs/Scouts/Guides/Brownies 5 2.0% 1 1.1% Hunt 5 2.0% - - Christmas tree 4 1.6% 4 4.4% Parade/procession 4 1.6% - -

80

Type of activity Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total occurrences (n = 250) occurrences (n = 91) Celebrations/street party (e.g. Silver 4 1.6% 1 1.1% Jubilee, Royal Weddings) Car boot sales 3 1.2% 3 3.3% Religions speaking and meetings 3 1.2% - - Circus 2 0.8% 1 1.1% Painting activities 2 0.8% - - Charity events (including RNLI fair) 2 0.8% - - Dog show - - 2 2.2%

1.2.2.10 Additional activities noted on just a single occasion on the non-registered sites (and not shown in Table 5) were: ‘Kite flying’, ‘Radio-controlled cars’. ‘Viewing regatta and yachts’, ‘Nature rambles’, ‘Meeting place for teenagers’, ‘Caravan site’, ‘Washing of vehicles in river’ and ‘Extraction of gravel from river bed’. The last-mentioned two, both recorded from a site in North Yorkshire – ‘Burton Waste (banks of River Greta)’ (study code NYORK-UNR004), do not appear to be recreational activities.

1.2.2.11 The type and frequency of activities is very broadly comparable for both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites. Note that in respect of the apparently large difference in ‘fairs/village events’, what is being reported here are the nature of specified activities, in contrast to the recorded frequency of the activity categories on the WI Survey forms (which was presented in the preceding table). Certain activities appear to have been recorded at higher frequency on non-registered sites (e.g. Christmas Tree and Car Boot), but this probably just reflects the wide scope and manifestation of activities taking place. This is further reflected in the range of additional activities noted on the non-registered sites that did not feature amongst the registered ones.

1.2.2.12 Further detail on recorded activities for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites is provided in Table 6 (below). The remarkable feature here is the almost identical proportion of sites recorded as having no form of recreation activity at all (and by deduction, the proportion having at least one form of particularised recreation activity). The proportion of sites with at least one type of sporting activity recorded is also very broadly similar as well.

Table 6: Comparison of further ‘recreational use’ statistics of registered and non-registered sites.

Type of activity Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of sites sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) No form of recreation recorded at all 30 12.0% 11 12.1% At least one form of particularised 220 88.0% 80 87.9% recreation activity recorded At least one type of sporting activity 75 30.0% 24 26.4% recorded

81

Question 3 – Does the green have any of the following?

1.2.2.13 The situation for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Physical features of registered and non-registered sites

Feature*1 Extended sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Trees 219 87.6% 77 84.6% Seat(s) 185 74.0% 59 64.8% Litter bin(s) 158 63.2% 55 60.4% Hard surface areas 136 54.4% 67 73.6% Sign post (other) 132 52.8% 57 62.4% Poles & wires 111 44.4% 50 54.9% Bus stop(s) 75 30.0% 17 18.7% Fences 62 24.8% 29 31.8% Telephone box (all types) 56 22.4% 9 9.9% Notice/interpretation board 46 18.4% 20 22.0% Bus shelter(s) 39 15.6% 11 12.1% War memorial 37 14.8% 8 8.8% Swings etc. 36 14.4% 17 18.7% Stream/river 35 14.0% 12 13.2% Pond (or documented site of) 32 12.8% 4 4.4% Junction box 29 11.6% 10 11.0% Grit box 28 11.2% 4 4.4% Post box 28 11.2% 11 12.1% Sports pitch 23 9.2% 11 12.1% Village sign 20 8.0% 7 7.7% Inspection covers 17 6.8% 27 29.7% Lamp posts (modern types) 15 6.0% 21 23.1% Pavilion 14 5.6% 8 8.8% Toilets 14 5.6% 7 7.7% ‘Heritage style’ lamp posts 12 4.8% 1 1.1% Commemorative plaques and/or - - 8 8.8% sculptures/statues etc. Combined picnic table/seat - - 6 6.6% Fire hydrant markers - - 6 6.6% Traditional ‘Guide Post’ direction sign or mile - - 4 4.4% post type Pole/wire with lamp attached - - 4 4.4% Planted tubs etc. - - 4 4.4% Recent sculpture/monolith/obelisk or similar - - 3 3.3% Weather vane on wooden post 1 0.4% - - Clock on ‘heritage style’ lamp post 1 0.4% - - Poles for hanging baskets 1 0.4% - - Commemorative stones/plaques - - 5 5.5% Cycle racks - - 2 2.2% Donation box - - 1 1.1% Lamp posts (‘old’ types) - - 2 2.2% Cricket score board - - 1 1.1% 82

Feature*1 Extended sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Barbecue ‘bases’ - - 1 1.1% Triangulation point - - 1 1.1% “Sarsen stones” to stop cars parking - - 1 1.1% Small footbridge over watercourse - - 1 1.1% Gas main or other utility marker post - - 1 1.1% Notes: *1 Items that appeared in the standard ‘tick list’ of features on Question 3 of the WI Survey form are highlighted in bold. Other features have been identified from various additional sources (e.g. noted in Q3 under the category of ‘Other physical features’, derived from what was said elsewhere on the forms, or noted whilst examining sites in Street View). In other words, the above list is far more extensive and detailed than that provided originally in Question 3 of the WI Survey form.

1.2.2.14 It can be seen from Table 7 that both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites had a broadly similar range of physical features. ‘Trees’ were the most frequently recorded, though the frequency was slightly higher for the Extended Sample (i.e. 87.6%) as compared with non-registered sites (84.6%). Seats and litter bins were also both slightly less- frequently encountered on non-registered sites, whereas hard surface areas and ‘road signs’ were slightly more frequent. Further interesting observations are the lower observed frequency of bus stop, telephone box and (especially) of ponds, on non-registered sites.

1.2.2.15 As a general statement regarding the recording of physical features on sites, there is a possibility that certain less-common types may have to some extent been overlooked (or at least not specifically enumerated) when recording the registered sites (e.g. Fire Hydrant indicators, traditional white-painted ‘Guide Post’ direction signs, inspection covers, combined picnic bench with seat). This was because early on during the recording process, due emphasis was given to recording the feature types listed (in bold, above), whereas the variety and potential significance of other features perhaps only became more fully appreciated as the work progressed.

1.2.2.16 One obvious omission from the original list in Q3 and noticed very early on when sampling the original 210 registered sites that formed the Precursor Project, is ‘Post boxes’. In consequence there is a high degree of confidence that very few (if any) post boxes have been overlooked by the recording. However, when it gets to the extent of having four separate categories of lamp post – ‘modern’, ‘heritage style’, ‘old types’ and ‘lamps attached to poles/wires’, then perhaps the level of detail being recorded, was perhaps going a little too far….

1.2.2.17 In contrast, other infrequently encountered features probably serve more to illustrate the sheer range of types that can occur almost as ‘one-off’, or at least only very rarely (e.g. cycle racks, donation box, triangulation point). One interesting finding is the apparent absence of ‘commemorative stones/plaques’ on registered sites – though again this may be potentially due to such features being overlooked during earlier phases of recording.

83

Historic features

1.2.2.18 The situation with respect to ‘historic features’ recorded for the Extended Sample and non- registered sites is shown in Table 8. It can be seen that registered sites have a slightly higher overall frequency of historic features. This appears to reflect the observed higher proportion of registered sites being of pre-1900 origin (see under Q14). Note here that the term ‘historic feature’ is used rather loosely, as strictly speaking some features listed in Table 8 might in themselves be recent additions to the site. Examples here include flag pole, replica pound and replica stocks, the assumption being made that even if what physically exists now is of relatively recent in origin, its presence is on the basis of an ‘original’ feature being there historically. Whilst this might generally be true in the case of stocks and livestock pound, the same might not necessarily always be the case for flag pole. In the case of the latter it is interesting to note their much higher recorded frequency on non-registered sites, for reasons unexplained.

1.2.2.19 Note also that some other features regarded as ‘historic’ have been listed already in the previous section (e.g. War Memorial, traditional Guide Post).

Table 8: Historic features of the Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Feature Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 250) (n = 91) Historic feature present 62 24.8% 13 14.3% Village pump 18 7.2% 5 5.5% Stone, market or butter cross 11 4.4% 1 1.1% Historic feature: type not stated 7 2.8% - - Mile or boundary stone 6 2.4% 1 1.1% Well (or documented site of) 5 2.0% 1 1.1% Village lock-up/prison 4 1.6% - - Maypole (permanent) 4 1.6% - - Stocks (or old stone base of) 3 1.6% 2 2.2% Flag pole 4 1.6% 4 4.4% Drinking fountain 3 1.2% - - Horse/drinking trough 2 0.8% 2 2.2% Site of pound 2 0.8% - - Millstones (whole or part) 2 0.8% - - Mounting block 1 0.4% - - Clock tower 1 0.4% - - Beacon 1 0.4% - - Replica pound 1 0.4% - - Replica stocks 1 0.4% 1 1.1% Pound/pinfold 1 0.4% - - Statue or other memorial - - 2 2.2% Old barn on site - - 1 1.1% Old ferry landing - - 1 1.1% Tap (out of use) from village spring - - 1 1.1% Historic feature (type non specified) - - 3 3.3%

84

Question 4 – Do any of the following apply?

1.2.2.20 Responses to Question 4 “Do any following apply?” for the Extended Sample and non- registered sites are summarised in Table 9.

Table 9: Do any of the following apply?

Feature Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Erosion of surface: vehicles 94 37.6% 20 22.0% Erosion of surface: horses 16 6.4% 2 2.2% Erosion of surface: people 41 16.4% 1 1.1% Private use by adjacent properties 63 25.2% 17 18.7% Parking 89 35.6% 23 25.3% Rubbish dumping 13 5.2% 6 6.6% Litter problem 44 17.6% 16 17.6% Pet fouling 114 45.6% 31 34.0% Heavy passing traffic/congestion 65 26.0% 10 11.0% Boundary disputes 10 4.0% 5 5.5%

1.2.2.21 Comparison of the Extended Sample and non-registered sites reveals a broadly similar picture. The most frequent types of ‘encroachment’ are those associated with motor vehicles (erosion of surface, parking and heavy passing traffic). Note, however, that all three categories of ‘erosion’ occur on a lower proportion of non-registered sites, as do ‘private use by adjacent properties’ (generally for parking) and ‘parking on the green’. Despite this, a most extreme example of surface erosion was noted on one non-registered site in Suffolk, this being an ‘Unnamed site’ in Great Finborough (Study code SUFF- UNR002). Being a small, triangular ‘road island’ one might have argued the site had much of the character of a one that was registered. Unusually, however, there is very little grass on this site (20% only), a major portion of its surface being bare ground created through use as a ‘car park’ (80%). In addition, Street View images revealed the presence of contractors constructing a new bus lay-by on the road opposite, with very extensive additional ground disturbance across the site as a result of their activities.

1.2.2.22 Interestingly, ‘rubbish dumping’ was recorded on a slightly higher proportion of non- registered sites, reflecting, perhaps, a lower overall intensity of public use/presence and management of these (though as noted in Table 9 above, exactly the same proportion of registered and non-registered sites have at least one form of recreational activity taking place). A lower intensity of public use might also be consistent with the lower recorded frequency of ‘dog fouling’ on non-registered sites (and consistent with the slightly lower overall frequency of ‘dog-walking’). The reason for the much lower frequency of ‘heavy passing traffic/congestion’ on non-registered sites, is however, unclear.

Question 6 – have any developments affected the green?

1.2.2.23 A comparison of results for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites is summarised in Table 10.

85

Table 10: developments affecting the green (as noted in Question 6 of the WI Survey form)

Type of development Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Road widening/building 18 7.2% 4 4.4% Vehicular access to adjoining property 10 4.0% 1 1.1% Construction of property apparently on the site 5 2.0% 3 3.3% Site created as a result of development - - 4 4.4% Increase in size from demolition of property 3 1.2% - - Bus lay-by installed 1 0.4% 1 1.1% Pavement made site smaller 1 0.4% - - Laying of new water pipes across site 1 0.4% - - Filled-in mere 1 0.4% - - Increased traffic due to other local - - 1 1.1% development nearby Site created on are left vacant by building - - 1 1.1% demolition Site created as a result of road realignment - - 1 1.1%

1.2.2.24 As stated previously, remember here that these figures merely reflect occurrences noted by the respondent and do not necessarily provide an estimate of the overall total. Road widening appears to be the main type of development affecting both registered and non- registered sites (though the proportion of sites involved is lower for the latter). Vehicular access to adjoining property has been noted to have affected a much lower proportion of non-registered sites – the reason not clear. In the case of ‘construction of property’, the three examples noted for non-registered sites relate to areas of land built upon that had previously been regarded as being a part of the site.

1.2.2.25 Respondents reporting the non-registered sites had in a number of cases considered it appropriate to state the event that had facilitated the creation of the site. The fact that this was sometimes due to some form of ’development’, reflects in part the more recent origin of some non-registered sites.

Question 7 – Appearance/Wildlife (and comments on attached documentation)

1.2.2.26 As with the Extended Sample, in the vast majority of cases at least a most basic description of the site was generally provided. Indeed, as respondents had ‘gone out of their way’ to report these unregistered sites, it is logical to expect they would have something to note on this section of the WI Survey form. Occasionally the notes were quite extensive.

1.2.2.27 Details of the types of additional documentation (or not) for both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites is provided in Table 11. This serves to further reinforce an earlier statement that there is a valuable resource of historical documentation contained within the WI Survey. Note that the majority of additional documents and photographs etc. attached to records for non-registered sites (only) have been scanned electronically (subject to considerations of copyright etc.) and this information is also summarised in Table 11.

86

Table 11 – Maps/plans, other documents and photographs provided – Extended Sample and non- registered sites

Type of material Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total No of *1 sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) scanned files Sampled sites with additional 149 59.6% 87 95.6% 197 material provided Sketch map/plan/OS maps 137 54.8% 87 95.6% 126 Additional documents 39 15.6% 6 6.6% 8 Photographs/transparencies etc. 33 13.2% 19 20.9% 63 No additional material provided 101 40.4% 4 4.4% n/a Note: *1 An attempt has been made to enumerate the different categories of scanned documents for non- registered sites. This is a ‘best guess’ estimate. This is because there is to some extent an overlap of content between files of the different categories listed, and also a small degree of duplication (e.g. where photographs had been stuck onto a sheet of paper and comments written alongside, both the original page has been copied and also a better quality scan of the individual photographs was made).

1.2.2.28 It can be seen in Table 11 that almost all (i.e. 95.6%) of the records submitted by respondents for non-registered sites have some form of additional record attached. This contrasts with the somewhat lower figure for the Extended Sample. Perhaps the reason is because the mere act of going to the effort of researching and compiling the additional records encouraged the respondent to prepare a plan of some sort. The same reason might also explain the higher proportion of non-registered sites having photographs included.

1.2.2.29 Conversely, whilst respondents seem to have been enthusiastic about drawing/obtaining plans/maps and taking photographs, a lower proportion of non-registered sites appear to have other forms of document attached for some reason.

Question 8 – Management and maintenance activities

1.2.2.30 Management activities recorded for the Extended Sample and non-registered sites are outlined in Table 12. It can be seen that for both categories the vast majority were maintained by the mowing of grassland. The two activities of litter collection and tree planting also occurred at remarkably similar frequencies, whilst regulation of parking was for some reason less frequent in the non-registered sites. Overall, there seems to be a close agreement of management activities of both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites.

Table 12 – Management and maintenance activities – Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Management activity Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 250) (n = 91) Grazing 17 6.8% 2 2.2% Mowing 236 94.4% 87 95.6% Litter collection 118 47.2% 45 49.5% Tree planting 105 42.0% 41 45.0% 87

Management activity Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of sites % of total No of sites % of total (n = 250) (n = 91) Regulation of parking 58 23.2% 11 12.1%

1.2.2.31 Grazing appeared to be an even less-frequently occurring activity on the non-registered sites (i.e. just the two examples). This information was based on evidence of Street View images rather than what had been recorded by the respondent. Both sites are in North Yorkshire and can be described as ‘managed agricultural land’, namely: Linghaw Cross, Bentham (Study code NYORK-UNR001) and Sweetlow Whins Quarry, Bentham (Study code NYORK-UNR003).

Question 9 – Management and Maintenance

1.2.2.32 As with the Extended Study, for non-registered examples there was to some extent an overlap in responses between this and the previous question. A comparison of results is provided in Table 13. It can be seen that Local Council is the most frequently-noted land manager for both categories (though slightly lower for non-registered sites). In contrast, a slightly higher proportion of non-registered sites were managed by a Parish Council. The three categories of Local Volunteers, Village Committee and ‘Other’ were also more frequently recorded on non-registered sites. Interestingly, every single non-registered site (as compared with 93.2% for those registered) appeared to have at least one form of management taking place.

Table 13: Managers of greens – Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Type of manager Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Local Council 158 63.2% 50 54.9% Parish Council 51 20.4% 22 24.2% Local volunteers 38 15.2% 26 28.6% Village Committee 13 5.2% 9 9.9% Other (including ‘outside body’) 10 4.0% 15 16.5% At least one form of management activity 233 93.2% 91 100.0% recorded No form of management recorded 17 6.8% - -

Question 10 – History and Local Customs

1.2.2.33 For the Extended Sample a total of 154 WI Survey records (61.6% of the sample) provided information in this section. This compares with a figure of 67 (73.6% of records) for non- registered sites. Again, this may reflect the degree of effort taken by respondents to seek out information on particular sites they felt motivated to include in the survey.

Question 11 - Respondent’s views and opinions on the use and management of the site

1.2.2.34 For the Extended Sample, comments in this section were provided for a total of 82 sampled sites (32.8% of the sample) and for the non-registered sites, the figure was 35 (38.5%) –

88

thus a broadly similar proportion in both datasets. For both categories alike, a frequent theme was comment along the sentiment of: “We would like the green to stay exactly as it is”. At least 20 of the responses for non-registered sites reflected this, or similar sentiments.

Question 13 - Character Assessment

1.2.2.35 As with the Extended Sample, the various characteristics being considered have for convenience been broken into a number of sub-categories. Remember that this and subsequent parts of the assessment were made primarily on the basis of on-line resources, as opposed to the WI Survey forms.

Q13a: Structures on or adjoining the site

Table 14: Structures on or adjoining the site - Extended Sample and non-registered examples

Adjoining structures Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Adjoining structure: Pub/hotel 75 30.0% 18 19.8% Adjoining structure: Church (or grounds) 61 24.4% 14 15.4% Adjoining structure: Other non-residential 95 38.0% 32 35.2% Sites with at least one of above present 168 67.2% 48 52.7% None of above present 82 32.8% 43 47.3% Adjoining structure: Private residences 240 96.0% 80 87.9% Residences arranged around and facing onto 153 61.2% 38 41.8% Residences not arranged around site 114 45.6% 51 56.0%

1.2.2.36 As can be seen from Table 14, a lower overall proportion of non-registered sites had one of the three ‘adjoining structures’ associated with it, than was the case for the Extended Sample (52.7% in the case of the former category, as compared with 67.2% for the latter). This is reflected accordingly in the figures for ‘Pub/hotel’ and ‘Church’, whereas the proportion for ‘Other non-residential’ is very broadly comparable for both categories. The reason and significance (if any) of these differences is not immediately obvious.

1.2.2.37 The proportion of sites with ‘Private residences’ adjacent is slightly lower for non-registered sites. The Extended Sample had a higher proportion of residences ‘arranged around and facing onto the green’, and also a lower proportion not arranged thus. This seems logical, but might actually be quite complex to comprehend fully. For example, it may be a function of a site’s age - i.e. it is more likely that a long-established ‘traditional’ green with houses arranged around and facing onto it, has been registered. In contrast, a site originating in recent times will have ‘fitted’ into an existing landscape rather than influenced how the settlement pattern around it has developed.

1.2.2.38 However, this should perhaps not be stressed too strongly as it was highlighted in the Precursor Project report that in a significant number of cases it was difficult to make a firm decision on this character.

89

Q13b: Location and shape of Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Table 15: Location and shape characteristics – Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Location/shape*1 Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of sites % of total sites*2 (n = 250) (n = 91) At road junction: Yes 179 71.6% 57 62.6% At road junction: No 71 28.4% 34 37.4% Shape: Triangular (or broadly 127 51.0% 31 34.1% so) Shape: Rectangular (or broadly 34 13.7% 16 17.6% so) Shape: Square (or broadly so) 17 6.8% 11 12.1% Shape: Linear, elongated 14 5.6% 4 4.4% Shape: Irregular 25 10.0% 20 22.0% Shape: Other (including 32 12.9% 9 9.9% ‘various’) Location: Central 114 45.6% 31 34.1% Location: Peripheral 45 18.0% 19 20.9% Location: Neither central, nor 91 36.4% 36 39.6% peripheral Note: *1Where an individual site occurred as several discrete portions, each might correspond with more than one type of shape category as listed here. However, only the shape of the single most dominant element has been categorised above for the purpose of this analysis. This merely serves to illustrate that, in practice, the outline shape of some sites was complex and difficult to allocate precisely into a single, simplified category.

1.2.2.39 It can be seen from Table 15 that a slightly higher proportion of the Extended Sample was associated with a road junction (71.6% as compared with 62.6% for non-registered sites). For both categories the types of shapes occurring were somewhat varied in their manifestation, ‘though triangular or broadly so’ was the most frequently encountered general shape in both data sets. There are no obvious differences between the Extended Sample and non-registered sites in terms of location within the settlement, except, perhaps, for a slightly higher proportion amongst the former category being located centrally.

Q13c: Vegetation and land use characteristics of Extended Sample and non-registered sites.

1.2.2.40 As can be seen from Table 16, the majority of both the Extended Sample non-registered sites are ‘predominantly grassland’, and have ‘mature trees’ – although the actual proportions are slightly lower in the case of the latter category. Consistent with this, a small but slightly increased proportion of non-registered sites have ‘predominantly other vegetation types’.

90

Table 16: Vegetation and land use characteristics for Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Vegetation and land use Extended sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Predominantly grassland site 236 94.4% 81 89.0% Scattered mature trees present 216 86.4% 77 84.6% Predominantly other vegetation etc. types 13 5.2% 6 6.6% Land cultivated: Yes 3 1.2% 4 4.4% Land cultivated: No 249 99.6% 89 97.8% Land enclosed: Yes 39 15.6% 27 29.7% Land unenclosed: Yes 214 85.6% 71 78.0% Internal boundaries within site 2 0.8% 2 2.2%

1.2.2.41 A higher proportion of non-registered sites were cultivated. As can be deduced from the above, only one site from the Extended Sample was wholly cultivated, whereas two non- registered sites were wholly cultivated. The first was a site in Devon, known as ‘Pa’ Partington’s Garden’, in Ivybridge (Study code DEV-UNR001). This small triangular road island (an outline and situation not unusual in itself when considering registered greens) had been entirely planted up with shrubs/heathers/small trees and conifers. As an aside this was also considered to represent a form of occupation of the site, as it prevented access or other use of the site by any members of the public. The second was a site in North Yorkshire, namely ‘Sweetlow Whins Quarry’ in the Parish of Bentham (Study code NYORK- UNR003). This small, former quarry has since 1990 been ploughed and re-seeded and is now fully under agricultural use as grazing land (making it again fully occupied (and fenced) by a private owner or tenant, with no form of public access).

1.2.2.42 The first of the two part-cultivated, unregistered sites is ‘Morris Green’, near Sible Hedingham (Study code ESS-UNR002). This site is interesting in that on maps prior to WW2 the full extent of the original ‘Morris Green’ is evident. However, during WW2 a major part of the green was cultivated by an adjacent farm, and this practice still continues today (though the land involved, is not enclosed).

1.2.2.43 The second example concerns a site in North Yorkshire, namely ‘Rose Garden or Amenity Area’ in Low Bentham (Study code NYORK-UNR002). This is a fairly recently created small green with around 20% of the site occupied by planted beds. As highlighted in the original report, a small amount of ornamental planting was considered acceptable within the definition of being uncultivated. However, the extent observed here was considered as being perhaps a little in excess of what would be regarded as compatible with this definition.

1.2.2.44 Almost twice the proportion of non-registered sites was found to be enclosed, a finding that may well be highly significant when it comes to character context assessment. From the figures outlined in Table 16 it can also be deduced that a total of seven non-registered sites (i.e. 7.7%) had just a part of their area enclosed, whereas the total was only three for the Extended Sample (i.e. 1.2%) – again, a hugely different proportion.

91

1.2.2.45 It can be seen in comparison with the Precursor Project report that an additional row for ‘Internal boundaries within the site’ has been introduced to Table 16. This was in response to the presence of internal divisions being considered as of potential value in character context assessment. The situation was not specifically looked for during the assessment of sites making up the Extended Sample, so the above figure has been based on a later inspection of the data to look for an indication of such condition existing. Similarly, for the non-registered sites the criterion was only ‘introduced’ late on in the sampling process, so has again relied primarily on what was noted on the forms (and also from memory, as it was all reasonably ‘fresh in the mind’ whilst this was taking place). It can be seen from the figures that a much higher proportion of non-registered sites was considered to have internal fencing of some sort (though the actual number of sites was quite small).

Q13d: Land occupancy and view across the site

1.2.2.46 In considering this set of questions, it is important to firstly reiterate what was said on the definitions of land occupancy as adopted in the Precursor Project:

“By occupied, it is meant that someone is using the site for exclusive private purpose, perhaps intermittently, and has exclusive benefits from it, and that other members of society would normally respect and exclude themselves from such areas. Examples would be allotments, cultivation, or a private sports facility such as a school playing field, private golf club etc., (but not a village cricket field available to any capable member of the community)”.

1.2.2.47 Thus, unoccupied land would be available for use by all and any members of the community, without any evidence that it is being used exclusively or is reserved for particular clubs or groups. In the latter, clearly children’s play areas would not be excluded – whilst these are reserved for children, they are available to all members of a community.

Table 17: Land occupancy and view across the site – Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Land occupancy and aspect/view Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 91) Land unoccupied: Yes 248 99.2% 87 95.6% Land occupied: Yes 9 3.6% 7 7.7% Open aspect to site: Yes 241 96.4% 88 96.7% View obscured: Yes 22 8.8% 11 12.1%

1.2.2.48 It can be seen from Table 17 that a slightly lower proportion of non-registered sites were considered to be unoccupied, though this still represents the great majority. It can also be inferred from the figures that seven sites from the Extended Study (i.e. 2.8%) were occupied in part, and three of the non-registered sites (i.e. 3.3%) – very similar proportions.

1.2.2.49 Of the four unregistered sites considered to be wholly occupied, in two cases this was because the land was being farmed (Study codes NYORK-UNR001 and NYORK-UNR003). In one case the land was being used exclusively as a car park (Study code SUFF-UNR002),

92

whilst in the fourth and final case, the entire area of the site had been densely planted, thus preventing any other uses of the site (Study code DEV-UNR001).

1.2.2.50 The three ‘part-occupied’, non-registered sites were: an area of land roped off, apparently in an effort to keep other people out (Study code CORN-UNR001); a part of a site now under agricultural use (Study code ESS-UNR002); and a part of a site under contested ownership (Study code NYORK-UNR004).

1.2.2.51 In terms of the ‘view across the site’ it can be seen from Table 17 that the great majority of both the Extended Sample and non-registered sites have a clear view across the site. The slightly higher proportion of non-registered sites with ‘view obscured’ is because a slightly higher percentage had this affecting a part of the site only (i.e. 13 examples – 5.2% for the Extended Study as compared with eight examples – 8.8% for non-registered sites).

Question 14 - Time Depth Characteristics

1.2.2.52 Overall, it can be seen from Table 18 that there is a very great difference in ‘time depth characteristics’ between the Extended Sample and non-registered sites. Whilst the vast majority of sites making up the Extended Sample were considered to be pre-1900 in origin, this was the case in only around a third of non-registered sites. In contrast, around two fifths of non-registered sites were considered to be post-1950 in origin, whereas this was considered to be the case in only around one twentieth of the Extended Sample sites. It is very clear, therefore, that non-registered sites overall were more recent in origin as compared with the Extended Sample.

Table 18: Time depth characteristics of the Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Time depth characteristics Extended Sample Non-registered sites No of % of total No of % of total sites (n = 250) sites (n = 250)

Evidence of use/existence pre-1900 226 90.4% 35 38.5% Evidence of use/existence pre-1950 10 4.0% 12 13.2% Evidence of origin post-1950 14 5.6% 39 42.9% ‘Long-standing’ name 203 81.2% 51 56.0%

1.2.2.53 Note that there are ‘no data’ for a total of five non-registered sites. This was because on the basis of available information (the WI survey forms and on-line resources) it was not possible to draw a firm conclusion as to the likely age of the site. In fact this isn’t quite the full story, as one site was not assigned an age category because it was considered likely to be a common, rather than a green. This relates to the site called ‘Sweetlow Whins Quarry’, near Bentham in North Yorkshire (Study code NYORK-UNR003). This is a former small ‘common’ quarry, now filled-in and used as agricultural land. The respondent stated under Q10 that “this was one of the pieces of land reserved at the time of the Enclosure Award of 22.06.1767 for public gathering of sand/gravel/stone”. As the land was allocated as common land, but never registered, it would nowadays still be regarded as common land rather than as a green if it were being considered for registration.

93

1.2.2.54 This raises a further general point, that this is just one of several cases where there was doubt as to whether a non-registered site could actually be regarded as being a ‘green’. Of course, excluding sites on that basis would in effect be pre-empting the outcome of the character context assessment, so these ‘doubtful’ non-registered sites have been retained in the data. It should also be borne in mind that the instruction to respondents with regard to the request for records on non-registered sites was that they should be “….areas of land thought of and used as greens by local people”. Clearly, some sites reported do not seem to have satisfied this criterion.

1.2.2.55 The above site (Sweetlow Whins Quarry) is one of a suite of sites that were administered by the “Bentham Common Lands Charity”. Certainly, none of these were registered common land, so it would seem they are common land sites that were never registered under the 1965 Commons Registration Act. This site and one called ‘Linghaw Cross’ (Study code NYORK-UNR001) are now both fenced, managed farmland with no public access and would not be considered as being a green under even the current legislation. Note also the comment for Sweetlow Whins Quarry (Study code NYORK-UNR003) under Q10 of the WI Survey form: “Subject to any decision arrived at by the Trustees of Bentham Common Lands Charity, this isolated piece of ground would be cleared and made safe; then possibly offered for sale to any adjoining landowner for incorporating in normal agricultural land use”. Hence it would appear that one function of the “Bentham Common Lands Charity” has been to make appropriate ‘disposal’ of some sites.

1.2.2.56 Thus in a similar vein, a further ‘Bentham Common Lands’ site, (which was a ‘partial’ record only) ‘Woodland near Burton (46)’ (Study code NYORK-UNR006) is now a Woodland Trust nature reserve. However, a further woodland site, ‘Woodland near Burton (51)’ (Study code NYORK-UNR005) is again now a nature reserve, but the present ownership is not known – perhaps it is still in the possession of the “Bentham Common Lands Charity”. The same might be the case for a fifth ‘Bentham Common Lands’ site - ‘Burton Waste (banks of River Greta) (Study code NYORK-UNR004), which appears to have been ‘common land’ through the practice of gathering gravel from the banks of the river. It will be interesting to see how the various character context assessment methodologies interpret these various ‘unusual’ sites.

1.2.2.57 The above said, there was in fact, one record for an ‘unregistered site’ that was not included in the sampling process at all. This relates to an area of land in Otley, West Yorkshire, where the respondent states in a letter accompanying the survey form “there was a very large village green in Otley in Anglo-Saxon and Medieval times”. It then goes on to say “when it was last used as a village green, I have been unable to discover”…….”It was certainly built over in 1846”. The enclosed maps provided show the area to now be a fully developed part of the town (confirmed on Google Earth), and it was considered extremely unlikely that such an area of land, which had not existed as a green for several centuries, might be regarded as such by even the most generous character assessment criteria. Clearly the respondent had reported the site to document its history, not because it was “thought of and used as a green by local people”.

1.2.2.58 As discussed in the Precursor Project report, the notion of a ‘long-standing name’ as Indicative of the time-depth character of a site is of no value in itself for character context

94

assessment (and might actually be quite misleading). Decision making on this characteristic meant in practice that any site called a ‘green’ was regarded as having a ‘long-standing name’, whereas sites with names, for example, to the effect of ‘recreation ground’ were regarded as not having a ‘long-standing name’. Clearly a site created just yesterday, could be called a ‘green’ so this criterion in itself is of no value. What is important is the historical context of the name – e.g. does it appear on old maps with the name “The Green”.

1.2.2.59 Reference to Table 18 does reveal that a lower proportion of non-registered sites had ‘long- standing’ names. The aforementioned constraint apart, this difference might at least partly be explained by the fact that a total of seven non-registered sites were in fact unnamed. In fact, even this was quite a tricky question to answer for some sites. Many of the forms had no name entered in the ‘site name’ box on the front. However, in many such cases the respondent referred to a name elsewhere on the form. It was only when the entire record had been examined and no indication of a name was found, that ‘Unnamed Site’ was adopted. This was considered more appropriate than using the term ‘Unnamed Green’, as this might have incorrectly imparted a ‘long-sounding name’ to the site.

1.3 Discussion and Conclusions – Sampling of non-registered WI Survey sites 1.3.1 It is clear from the results that amongst the non-registered sites there exist a number of what would be regarded as ‘traditional village greens’, with a character similar to some of the sampled, registered examples.

1.3.2 In general there is a broad similarity of observed characters between the Extended Sample (i.e. registered) and non-registered sites. The one really obvious difference is the tendency towards non-registered examples being ‘more recent’ in origin. It will be interesting to see how other, more subtle differences in detail are reflected in the evaluation of the proposed character assessment methodologies.

95

2. Appendix B: Scanning of documents, photographs etc.

2.1 Methods 2.1.1 With the exception of photographic transparencies, scanning was done using a Canon LiDE 200 flatbed scanner. Original photographs were scanned at a resolution of 600dpi, using the ‘colour’ setting for both colour and black & white images. They were saved in JPEG format. Other documents, including photocopies of images, were all scanned on the appropriate ‘document’ setting (i.e. colour or black & white) at 300dpi resolution and saved as PDF documents.

2.1.2 The few transparencies were scanned using a Plustek OpticFilm 7300 film scanner at 2400dpi setting and saved as TIFF images. All scanned photographs were then opened in Adobe Photoshop and ‘enhanced’ as appropriate (e.g. cropping, adjusting lighting, sharpening, removing obvious dust/scratches and other blemishes). All were then saved as final copies at maximum resolution in JPEG format.

2.1.3 All documents and images were given filenames according to the following general format:

Study Code-Site name (abbreviated where necessary)-nearest town or parish-document type (e.g. Photo, OS (for OS copyright material), Doc (for documents) etc.).

2.2 Results 2.2.1 The findings have already been discussed under Question 7, Table 11 under Section 1.2.1 above.

96

Appendix B1: WI National Survey of Town and Village Greens, 1990 – number of completed forms and the occurrence and sampling of non-registered sites

County Completed Non-registered sites WI Survey Total *1 Partial Full Overall forms (original records records total estimate) completed completed Avon 26 - - - - Bedfordshire 20 2 - 1 1 Berkshire 48 3 - 3 3 Buckinghamshire 82 9 2 6 8 Cambridgeshire 96 11 2 8 10 Cheshire 11 - - - - Cleveland 13 3 2 1 3 Cornwall 39 1 - 1 1 Cumbria 109 6 2 2 4 Derbyshire 13 2 - 1 1 Devon 59 4 - 4 4 Dorset 24 - - - - Durham 19 - - - - East Sussex 59 12 5 9 14 Essex 106 - - 5 5 Gloucestershire 46 3 - - - Greater London 5 3 - 1 1 Greater Manchester 5 1 1 1 2 Hampshire 83 12 5 3 8 Hereford & Worcester 36 5 - 5 5 Hertfordshire 68 1 - - - Humberside 31 - - - - Isle of Wight 14 - - - - Kent 99 9 4 4 8 Lancashire 30 2 1 1 2 Leicestershire 66 6 1 4 5 Lincolnshire 3 - - - - Merseyside 2 - - - - Norfolk 73 - - - - Northamptonshire 45 4 1 3 4 Northumberland 39 3 - 3 3 North Yorkshire 155 7 1 8 9 Nottinghamshire 49 1 1 - 1 Oxfordshire 93 5 3 1 4 Shropshire 13 1 - - - Somerset 32 4 1 2 3 South Yorkshire 3 - - - - Staffordshire 25 3 1 - 1 Suffolk 110 9 2 6 8 97

County Completed Non-registered sites WI Survey Total *1 Partial Full Overall forms (original records records total estimate) completed completed Surrey 51 2 2 - 2 Tyne & Wear 6 - - - - Warwickshire 67 2 2 - 2 West Midlands 4 - - - - West Sussex 55 2 1 - 1 West Yorkshire 17 3 1 1 2 Wiltshire 39 12 2 7 9 Total (England) 2088 153 43 91 134 Notes: *1 Non-registered sites: on basis of there being no registration number provided on the WI survey form. Detailed notes to individual counties:

Bedfordshire: One of the apparently unregistered sites, was found upon investigating MAGIC, to be a registered common, namely “Washbrook”, Riseley.

Buckinghamshire: One of the sites in Buckinghamshire originally thought to be unregistered, on basis of there being no registration number entered onto the form, turned out to be a registered common (CL52 Bovingdon Green) – this being the reason why the total in the final column is one short of that stated originally. A further site in this county, with the registration number VG269, was excluded from the original study because it was not registered as a village green according to the MAGIC website (and was not included as one of the nine sites outlined above). However, whilst searching for common land as well as greens, the site was found to actually be a registered common with the same number (CL269, “Stump Well”, 0.01ha, Grid ref: East - 4646 North - 2234, OS sheet 165). In fact, the situation is even further complicated, as the area shown as common land on MAGIC includes only a part of the land indicated (somewhat vaguely) on the respondent’s sketch map. Thus, potentially there could be a non-registered village green at this location, on a separate area of land to the registered common.

Cambridgeshire: One of the apparently unregistered sites in Cambridgeshire appears upon investigation to be registered. This relates to “Recreation Ground” at Barton (GR 540843 255334). No registration number was provided on the form and section 1 appeared to have been completed by the respondent, rather than RSRU staff. Thus it appeared to be an ‘additional’ record for a non-registered site highlighted by the respondent. However, on looking at MAGIC, a village green symbol appears on the map, in an adjacent agricultural field, less than 100m from the site boundary. It would seem, therefore, that this symbol in fact relates to the site being described, but slightly on the wrong place on the map due to a small error in the grid reference (the figure quoted above, is a corrected one, derived from MAGIC).

Cumbria: Within Cumbria, two apparently unregistered sites (on the basis of no registration number being quoted) were found upon further investigation to be registered commons and therefore excluded 98 from any further analysis. These were – CL59 Mill Moor (near Pooley Bridge) and CL175 Turnmire Common (Wetheral).

Derbyshire: Fritchley Green. No registration number on form. MAGIC shows a registered green apparently in a field behind a nearby private house (and therefore extremely unlikely to be a green). This is most probably, ‘the green’ as clearly indicated on maps, at the centre of the village, but with the MAGIC grid reference in error (435706 352795 for the site indicated, as opposed to 435759 352914 for the ‘actual’ green). All available RSRU paperwork was checked and there was no record of this site. However, as it would appear from MAGIC that the site might indeed be registered, it was decided on the basis of this, to exclude the site from sampling.

East Sussex: One site in this county, apparently not registered (i.e. due to lack of a registration number being quoted on the WI Survey form), appeared upon investigation (using MAGIC), to be a registered site. This site is known as The Horsefield, in East Dean (grid ref 555788 097855, area 1.1ha).

In the settlement of Hooe Common, East Sussex, four separate sites are listed on a single form, one of which appears to be registered; the others not (unless all four parcels are covered under the same registration). These have been listed as sites ESUS-UNR006a-d. All four areas are highlighted on an OS plan accompanying the record and therefore, grid references for each, and areas, have been worked out using MAGIC. In fact, the grid reference quoted for ESUS-UNR006d is in fact the actual location on MAGIC of the symbol indicating the presence of a registered green (569503 110496). However, given the potential presence of errors in the RSRU data, it cannot be certain whether the symbol indicates a general grid reference for the whole site, the location of site ESUS-UNR004d, or is intended to mark the location of one of the other three sites as being the one that is actually registered. Given this uncertainty, all four sites have been listed as ‘partial’ records (there is very little information on the forms anyway), meaning these records have been excluded from any further analysis. In effect, if a registered site has indeed been listed in error, this would have no bearing on the findings of the research. As an aside, the whole set of records from East Sussex were visually screened to look whether any of the four sites had been recorded, as registered, on forms elsewhere, but this was found not to be the case. Also, on the forms, as there was only one set of responses, but four sites, the information was not recorded on the spreadsheet (to avoid potentially recording incorrect responses), unless it could be discerned that the information related individually to one of the four sites.

The apparently unregistered site known as Friston Pond (at East Dean), appears most likely to form part of the adjacent registered green (VG9, Friston Green). The latter site has a copy of the RSRU 1:50,000 map attached. This suggests there are four separate parts of VG9, one of which coincides with the location of Friston Pond.

Essex: A small cluster of unregistered sites was overlooked when compiling the above list. One of those thought ‘apparently’ to be unregistered, turned out when checking the site on MAGIC, to be a registered common. Upon investigation of the relevant Biological Survey of Common Land report (Ashby and Aitchison, 2000), this was found to be CL310 Southey Green (Sible Hedingham), GR 5776, 2320, area 1.3ha (as corrected by RSRU – the area quoted on the register being 1.6ha). Indeed, a 99 second ‘apparently’ unregistered site (Church Green, Fingringhoe) was also found to be a registered common. Upon investigation of the relevant Biological Survey of Common Land report (Ashby and Aitchison, 2000), this was found to be CL136, GR 6029, 2204, area 0.36ha.

Gloucestershire: All three, apparently unregistered sites in Gloucestershire were found, on further investigation, in fact to be registered. 1): - France Lynch/Chalford Hill Recreation Ground – is in fact a registered green (VG131, Recreation Ground), appearing at this location on MAGIC, with the name “Pleasure Garden”. 2: – Forest Green Green – also a registered green (VG129, Forest Green), as identified via MAGIC and then searching the RSRU list of registered greens in the county as further confirmation. 3):- found to be a registered common (CL225, Parish Bank) – confirmed via the copy of the RSRU 1:50,000 map attached to the record for VG131, and reference to the Biological Survey of Common Land report for that county (Redgrave and Aitchison, 2000).

Greater London: Two of the apparently unregistered sites related in fact to an area of registered common land, namely CL60 Totteridge Common and Totteridge Green. Separate records were submitted for the area regarded as being the common, and also for the area being the green. The latter record was included in the extended sample of greens (study code GTLON003), whilst the former, being regarded as a common, was not.

Greater Manchester: Excluded from the original estimate was one apparently unregistered site (Gatley Green, Stockport), for which no record form has been submitted – only a handwritten note accompanied with a copy of an OS map indicating the location and extent of the site.

Hampshire: There is one site in Hampshire, where the situation (as to both the issue of registration, and also the site’s location) is a bit of a puzzle. Section 1 of the form was completed by the RSRU and includes the registration number (VG107) and the name Chequers Green. However, the respondent has crossed out the registration number. The remainder of the form has very little information on it in general. The record also includes a copy of the RSRU 1:50,000 map, with VG107 highlighted as being located in the village of Old Alresford. In addition, the respondent has attached a copy of a ‘A-Z’ style atlas, depicting the village of Pennington (at Lymington), with several ‘sites’ identified on this. Chequers green itself is not depicted, but there is an arrow along the bottom edge of the plan stating “Chequers Green ¼ mile on” – i.e. southwards. Section 1 of the form, the RSRU have said the site is in Lymington and Pennington Parish, but this contradicts what is shown on the 1:50,000 map, which depicts an area around Alresford (and not Lymington), even though the registration number also quoted by the RSRU in Section 1, is indeed indicated. Thus, in effect, it is not sure what site the record as completed, is meant to indicate, or even whether or not it has been registered. On account of the latter, the site has not been allocated a ‘HANT-UNRXX’ number, as the respondent could, potentially, have been describing one that has been registered.

A second ‘questionable’ site occurs in the village of Bursledon (site name – “Old Bursledon High Street”). There is no registration number quoted on the form. A plan is attached to the record, with the location of the site clearly highlighted. When looking up the site in MAGIC, a village green symbol was noted within 100m of the site described on the form. The actual location of this symbol on the map (at GR 448501 109497) appeared to be at the boundary hedge to a private house in its own 100 grounds. The only site in the vicinity that appeared on Street View as though it could be the site being described, was the one that is depicted on the respondent’s map (GR 448577 109318). It is possible, therefore, that the site being described, is in fact, registered (see also following paragraph).

In fact there is a second site that the registered one above (MAGIC GR 448501 109497) might relate to – it is around the same distance from this location, but in the opposite direction. The site is called “Wildlife Park” (again no registration number quoted), and is situated at the corner of School Road and Church Lane (GR 448545 109698). In other words, the possibility that this site may be registered, could not entirely be ruled out.

A site with no registration number quoted on the WI Survey form, appears from MAGIC, as though it might in fact be registered (Glebe Field, Owslebury). The single ‘green triangle’ symbol in this village on MAGIC appears at GR 451501 123499. Street view indicates the precise location of the symbol to be at the boundary bank/hedge to a community centre. The location of the site being described by the form is quite obvious, next to the church, when viewing Street View images and under 100m away from the latter point (GR 451461 123363). The weight of evidence, therefore, is that the site is indeed registered, but that the symbol indicating its location in MAGIC is incorrect.

A site called “Pilands Wood, Bursledon”, according to MAGIC, appears to be registered (GR for the ‘Green triangle’ symbol being 448002 109496). Note that, according to the map of the site provided by the respondent, the site at that time extended further west of its current extent, the area concerned, now being occupied by housing. Reference to an available copy of the RSRU listing of registered sites in Hampshire, the site that corresponds with the one highlighted on MAGIC (i.e. the same data set), is as follows: VG149, The Recreation Ground, 2.97ha, GR 4480 1095.

The site called “Sheet Common” (HANT-UNR007) might potentially be a registered green. However, this would not affect the outcome of any analysis, as it has been treated as a partial record only (see spreadsheet for full details). Briefly, the record has no map, or grid reference provided. MAGIC shows a registered green to the east of Sheet, which appears to coincide with a site on the RSRU county listing (VG141 “The Sheet Recreation Ground), but without a map or grid reference for “Sheet Common”, it has been impossible to say. A check was also made against the list of registered commons for the county of Hampshire (Ashby and Aitchison, 2000), and none matching the name “Sheet Common” was found.

Hereford & Worcester: The village of Belbroughton in Worcestershire has two registered greens (VG 9, Ram Alley Green and VG10, Church Green) and two unregistered ones (Sylvesters Corner and Belbroughton Village Green). It did appear a little odd, with registered sites in the village, that a site called “Belbroughton Village Green” was not one of the ones registered. However, this does indeed, appear to the case. In MAGIC, the grid references for the two ‘green triangles’ indicating the location of the registered greens, do seem to coincide with co-ordinates provided on RSRU listings (as one would expect, given that the greens layer in MAGIC was based on the RSRU database). This is just mentioned in case someone looks up Belbroughton on MAGIC, sees two greens shown, and wonders whether the greens sampled here were mistakenly considered to be non-registered (on the basis that the grid references had been incorrect in MAGIC – of course, they may still be incorrect, but they do indeed appear to relate to registered sites as recorded as well, in the WI Survey).

101

Hertfordshire: The only, apparently unregistered site in this county, namely Belsize Green, shows VG60 on the WI Survey form, which someone has crossed out. The site is in fact CL60 – this agrees both with MAGIC and RSRU records. During the extended study, amongst the records for Kent, a further, apparently unregistered site (actually from Hertfordshire) was also found. This relates to CL70 – Tracts in Ickleford (Francis et al, 1990). The WI survey form appears to have been completed for just a part of this registered common known as “Lower Green”.

There is a letter and WI Survey form concerning a further site, more to document the fact that it was decided not to register it under the 1965 Act, rather than it being the intention of the respondent to record the site as being thought of and used as a green by local people. The area concerned has the name “Primrose Green” and is situated in the Parish of Colney Heath. The letter concludes: “In these circumstances it has not, with all due respect to your recommendation, been considered worthwhile to register this small parcel – which is in any case already regarded by the Highway Authority as lying within the limits of the public highway”. Even if it was to be included, the precise area of land could not be identified on the ground, and so would have been a ‘partial record’ at best, and therefore not included in any analysis.

Kent: See under Hertfordshire (above) in respect of CL70 from that county – the WI survey form for which, had been incorrectly placed in the Kent folder.

The apparently unregistered site called “Park Corner” turned out to be registered common land – CL143, Land at Park Corner, Knockbolt, 0.93ha, 548300 160000. This was checked on both MAGIC and in the relevant Biological Survey of Common Land report (Aitchison and Ashby, 2000). A more precise grid reference taken from MAGIC was 548359 159985.

In the original study, four sites in Kent were ‘not selected’ because they considered to be unregistered (namely: VG124 Duncan Down, VG126 West Beach and Seasalter Beach, VG222 Railway Embankment at Seasalter Beach near “Avoca” and VG115 Land by Island Wall. In assessing the sites for sampling as non-registered ones, it was in fact realised that this had been in error – they are indeed registered. This means that the total number of ‘non-selected’ sites in the original study should actually read 288 (not 292 as originally stated), with the number of these being unregistered should be 96 (and not 100 as originally stated). The main difficulty appears to have been trying to relate the ‘green triangle’ symbols on MAGIC, to the maps provided with the records. The spreadsheet has been updated to reflect this. However, as the WI Survey forms do actually have VG numbers entered onto them, although enumerated as unregistered sites, they were not in fact included under the ‘Completed WI survey forms’ (for unregistered sites) column, in the above table.

Leicestershire: There is a record for an ‘un-numbered’ site, namely Cold Newton Village Green (GR 4716 3064). When looking up the site in MAGIC, a ‘green triangle’ shown in the village, around 100m away from the actual site (GR 471501 306498), in what appears to be a large private field/garden. On checking the RSRU paper listing of registered greens for the county, there is no site listed in the village at all. Thus it would appear that the sites are one and the same, and that it has been registered since the WI Survey, or was omitted in error from the RSRU listing.

102

North Yorkshire: Six unregistered sites (plus one registered green and one registered common) contained within a separate folder of records from the Bentham and Low Bentham. The registered common and five of the unregistered sites were, at the time of the WI Survey, under the ownership of the “Bentham Common Lands Charity”. For the sake of completeness, the WI Survey form for the registered common (Birkwith Plantation, Low Bentham), has also been scanned. Two of these sites (including Birkwith Plantation) have since been transferred to Woodland Trust ownership.

One of the sites included in the above estimate of unregistered sites turns out, in fact, to be part of a registered common. This appears with the name of “Quarry Hill Common” on MAGIC. However, according to the RSRU registration data (Ashby et al, 2000), the same site (CL87) appears to be called “Land in Gayles” (co-ordinate data and area appear to coincide with equivalent figures derived from MAGIC).

The WI survey form for an apparently unregistered North Yorkshire site, was discovered to actually be describing two unregistered sites on the one form (and in fact, one of the two was actually seen to comprise two individual sites). The only map included was a copy of the RSRU 1:50,000 sheet, onto which the location of the two sites had been crudely indicated. This was insufficient to identify the sites on the ground, and even then, information for the two sites was all mixed up on the same form, and fully separating out responses for the individual sites, did not appear fully possible. Thus, neither has been reported any further in this study. For the record, the two sites (both in the village of Shaw Mills, near Bishop Thornton) were: “Youth Club Garden Shaw Mills Bridge” (GR 4256 4626, size 18’ x 24’) and “Two small Greens, Grange Close” (GR4 257 4627, sizes 54’ x 87’ and 21’ x 75’).

Two apparently unregistered North Yorkshire sites appear in fact to be registered (Green at both Sherriff Hutton and Newsham). In MAGIC, there is a ‘green triangle’ symbol appearing within 100m of both sites being described on their respective forms (at GR 465301 466397 in the case of the former and at GR 410801 510096).

Oxfordshire: An apparently unregistered site, namely Goosey Green, was found in fact to be registered as common land. This was discovered on MAGIC and checked in the relevant Biological Survey of Common Land county report (Ashby and Aitchison, 2000). Summary details of the site as follows: CL 46, Goosey Green, 6.8ha, GR 435700, 191800.

A second apparently unregistered site, namely Langley Common, turned out to be a registered green, namely VG55 – “Church Green and Langel Common” (at Witney). The two sites are in fact geographically separate, although they are described using the same registration number. The respondent provided a separate record for each site, the one for “Langel Common” being the ‘additional’ form, and having no registration number entered onto it.

One record for an unregistered site (namely “The Pound at Forty Cross” – i.e. in the village of Blewbury), was provided only in the form of notes written onto two A4 sheets of paper. As such, it may have been omitted from the estimate of unregistered sites. This appears to be the reason why when one subtracts the above two sites from the estimated total of five, the final, ‘overall’ total above comes to four sites and not three.

103

Shropshire: The single, apparently unregistered site in Shropshire, turned out in fact to be registered – VG10, Village Greens and War Memorial, Albrighton, 1.12ha, GR 3813 3041 (based on RSRU listing and MAGIC).

Somerset: One apparently unregistered site in Somerset, was found, in fact, to be registered. This relates to the site at Langford Budville, identified as “The Triangle”. This area makes up just a small portion of a much larger registered common – namely: CL20, Langford Budville Common (as confirmed via the Biological Survey of Common Land Report (Hedley and Aitchison, 1992) and through reference to MAGIC).

Staffordshire: One of the apparently unregistered sites, turns out to be a registered common – “The Green, Baddeley Green” (CL1 – Pt. D) – see Biological Survey of Common Land Report (Redgrave and Aitchison, 2000). The registered area was 2.7ha, corrected by Redgrave to 2.1ha; whilst the registered grid reference was 390000, 351500.

A second apparently unregistered site in this county (unnamed, Betley, quoted GR 754 486), also seems to be registered. On MAGIC, a ‘green triangle’ symbol appears within 100m of the actual site (this being physically located within the roadway of the nearby St Margaret’s Crescent – GR 375502, 348497). On the RSRU listing for the county of Staffordshire, there is no listing of any site for the village of Betley. However, the ‘green triangle’ on MAGIC is of a paler, more turquoise shade of green, which might have been used to indicate greens registered subsequently to the RSRU listing.

Suffolk: There is one apparently unregistered site (no registration number on form) that might, in fact, be registered. This is the site called “Green Acre” at Great Waldingfield. A single ‘green triangle’ appears on MAGIC, within the village – located within the back garden of a house along Chestnut Close! A covering letter from the respondent, pinned to the WI Survey form, seems to suggest this is the only form submitted from the village. As the MAGIC ‘green triangle’ (GR 590502, 243498) is located around 100m away from the site being reported on the form, there is a possibility that the form is, indeed, describing the site represented by the ‘green triangle’. On this basis, it was decided to exclude it completely from the assessment of unregistered sites.

There are several registered greens around the town of Southwold (VGs 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86), and several unregistered ones reported by the WI Survey. In addition, one apparently unregistered site the town, namely Tibby’s Green, contained the following note “It would appear this has been put in with St Edmunds Green”. The latter is one of the registered sites (VG81).

Warwickshire: One of the two apparently unregistered sites, namely Whichford Green, looks very likely as though it is in fact, registered. On MAGIC, there is a village green ‘Green Triangle’ symbol around 50m away from the site boundary (GR 431499 234496).

The situation regarding one of the registered sites in the county is rather confusing, namely VG 136 Land at Weston-in Arden. The respondent has attached a note to the record identifying VG 136 as being called “The Bull Ring”. On Google Earth this has the appearance of a ‘triangular road island-

104 type’ green – i.e. consistent with many others noted during the study. However, the respondent then states that “the area known as Bulkington Village Green” is now used as a car park. It is situated in the centre of the village, marked on my map in green”. It is this (unregistered) site that has been reported on the form, instead of VG 136. Even though it has been reported (as a partial record only – see spreadsheet for full details), it seems unlikely that this site would pass the test: “Is it an area of land thought of and used as a green by local people?” A more appropriate statement might be - “this is an area of land formerly thought of as being a green, but is no longer used as a green by local people”. Nonetheless, the site has been reported here on the basis of a record for it being submitted under the WI survey. Clearly, it has been a green in the past (and the record is accompanied a really interesting old black & white photograph of the green in Edwardian times!).

The situation is further complicated that in looking up the town of Bulkington on MAGIC, a second ‘green triangle’ symbol was located (whereas the RSRU 1:50,000 map definitely only shows the one site). This is located in the middle of Winterton Road at GR 439502 286496. It may relate to the quite close-by “Warwick Green” which is an area of open grassland/marginal trees situated within an area of modern housing.

West Sussex: One apparently unregistered site (no registration number on WI survey form), might in fact be registered. This relates to Barns Green Village Green (Recreation Ground) at Barns Green, near Billingshurst. On MAGIC, a ‘green triangle’ symbol appears on the map, around 100m distant from the site’s boundary (at GR 512500, 127497). However, when one looks at a copy of the RSRU 1:50,000 map, there is no registered site indicated in the village. It would appear that the site has been registered subsequent to the WI Survey (a fact further reinforced by the inclusion amongst the paperwork, of a photocopy of a newspaper article on the registration of greens that missed out under the 1965 Act). Interestingly, MAGIC shows the ‘green triangle’ in a lighter, more turquoise shade of green – potentially this slightly different colour has been used to highlight sites registered later than the RSRU database (several other examples have been noted during the course of the study). However, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the grid reference quoted on the WI survey form (126, 272) is not in agreement with that for the MAGIC ‘green triangle’ symbol. Perhaps incorrect information was given, if the site was indeed registered. Whatever the case, there is a possibility that this site might be registered, and it has, therefore, been excluded from the study.

West Yorkshire: One of the apparently unregistered sites in West Yorkshire, in fact relates to an area of land that was formerly a green, but now isn’t. The WI Survey form has been returned completely blank, along with a letter from the respondent stating the following: “There was a very large village green in Otley in Anglo-Saxon and Medieval times – see enclosed copy map. This area is now the very heart of Otley but when it was last used as a village green, I have been unable to discover due to the fact that very few maps are available. It was certainly built over in 1846 see enclosed copy map”. On this basis, the site would not, therefore, fall under the description of “thought of and used as “greens” by local people” – the respondent has purely been documenting the fact that the site used to be a green. The RSRU 1:50,000 map does not show any greens in Otley. However, one of the ‘turquoise triangle’ symbols appears in MAGIC at GR420501, 445498. On that basis it would seem to be a site registered subsequent to the RSRU database and might relate to a site labelled “Play Area” on the map, adjacent to “Tealbeck Approach” less than 100m away from the triangle symbol (GR 420602, 445443). 105

Wiltshire: Devizes Green and The Crammer Pond is a sizeable and important area of public open space in the Town of Devizes. A record (albeit rather sparsely filled-in) was submitted for this apparently unregistered site. The RSRU list contains no record of a site in the town. However, MAGIC shows a ‘turquoise triangle’ at GR 400500, 161499 – a point which relates to no obvious feature on the ground, and lies around 400m WNW of The Green . Therefore, unsure whether this point is an incorrect grid reference for The Green, or what? Potentially, it might relate instead to a site called “Market Green”, around 100m west of the actual point, but not really sure and on that basis have decided not to include the record on the basis that there remains a chance that “Devizes Green and The Cranmer Pond” might in fact be registered.

An apparently unregistered site “Marston, Nr Devizes” turned out in fact to be a registered common – namely CL85 Marston Green (RSRU grid ref – 3966, 1566, area 7.0ha) – see Redgrave & Aitchison, 2000.

A further apparently unregistered site (Recreation Field, Cholderton) appears also to be registered. The site does not appear on the RSRU list of greens for the county, but a ‘turquoise triangle’ symbol appears in MAGIC, physically (just) within the boundary of the site (at GR 422502, 142495). This provides further support to the assertion that the ‘turquoise’ as opposed to the more usual green, triangle symbols on MAGIC relate not to the RSRU database, but greens that have been registered subsequently.

There was one final record from the county, stated as being an “additional” green. MAGIC shows a ‘green triangle’ at GR 395500, 192795, which equates to that for VG6, Crudwell Village Green (RSRU GR of 3955, 1928). A form was submitted under the WI Survey for this particular site. A form for an “additional Green” within the village was also submitted. This includes a map that clearly identifies the location and boundary of both sites. MAGIC also shows a ‘turquoise triangle’ symbol in the settlement at GR 395501, 192497. This lies within an area of recently planted woodland fringing part of a larger agricultural field, some 300m to the south-east of the “Additional Green”. Given that there are no other records for further additional sites in Crudwell, it would seem that the additional site reported by the respondent has since been registered (subsequent to the RSRU database) and that the grid reference provided, was slightly inaccurate.

106

Annexes

107

Annex 1: Method 1 - Derivation of scores for certain characteristics

A majority of the scores outlined in paragraph 4.4.1 of the main report were derived directly from the list of criteria outlined in Section 3 of Appendix A. However, certain other characteristics had to be derived though a reassessment of the raw data, as follows:

 Open without subdivisions – 99%. A specific check whether any internal sub-divisions were present, was not originally undertaken. An inspection of the records revealed two examples (0.8% of sites) where the presence of internal fencing of some sort was mentioned. Clearly, it would be no problem to assess this character for any candidate site.

 Public notices (‘notice or interpretation board’: recorded frequency – 18% of sites, and ‘Village sign’: recorded frequency – 8% of sites). Note that all other forms of ‘sign’ (e.g. road signs, direction signs etc.) were grouped together – some of which would imply public use of the site – such as the traditional ‘finger-post’ direction type, whereas others would be more general road signage erected to control passing traffic.

 Commemorative features of some sort: - 1) Trees (7%) – derived from examples described in Q7 of the WI Survey form as being planted for commemorative purposes (and so the actual figure may be more). - 2) Other commemorative features (35%) – taken to include: Village sign, war memorial, flag pole, beacon, Maypole, well, pump, stocks, mounting block, stone/butter/market cross. Note that some might also be classed as ‘historic features’. Pound has not been included (considered to be an ‘historic feature’ – thus indicative of a continuity of use - as opposed to one with a commemorative function - except for a ‘replica pound’ which it was considered to have been created to commemorate the existence of the original feature).  Commemorative events (52%) - includes all cases where ‘fairs/village events’ have been noted, but what actually takes place, hasn’t. Examples given include Maypole and Morris Dancing, Circus, Annual/Church Fete, Barbecue, Bonfire night celebrations, various open air religious and other services (including Remembrance Day and carol singing), Easter/Good Friday/Palm Sunday processions.

 The land is used for public benefit (as opposed to being used for private benefit). To identify such sites firstly, all those with at least one form of recreational activity were screened out. Then the remaining sites were examined to look for other evidence of public use (e.g. presence of phone box, notice board, seat, litter bin, war memorial”). Those lacking such features (representing 3.2% of the total) were then assumed to have no evidence of ‘public use’, meaning that 97% (rounded to nearest whole number), did.

 Internally fenced. An examination of responses revealed two examples - 1% of sites.

 Cultivated (as in the growing of crops). A total of three sites (1%) were found to be wholly cultivated.

 Have some form of private occupation for private gain. A total of seven sites were found to be partly occupied, with a further two wholly occupied. This gives a figure of 4% of sites with at least a part being privately occupied.

108

Annex 2: Method 3 - Landscape Character Assessment (LCA)Model

2.1 Method 3: Potential character description (Section 4.7 of main report)

Ownership and rights 2.1.1 The most likely owner will be a Community or Parish Council, although a wide variety of other forms of ownership can occur, including private individuals. Very often, the site will have a name suggestive of public ownership e.g. containing any of the words ‘green’, ‘pond’, ‘pound’, ‘recreation ground/allotment’, ‘the square’, ‘war memorial’, ‘market place’.

Physical characteristics 2.1.2 Greens are usually small in extent, very often less than a hectare, though can be larger than this on occasion (e.g. as much as 20ha). The most likely shape is triangular (and then, often with roads bordering all three sides), though a wide variety of other shapes can also occur. Very occasionally there may be more than one component part. Often a green will lie at an intersection of roads and will usually (though not always) be associated with some form of settlement.

2.1.3 Most greens will comprise mown grassland often with occasional scattered trees. Cultivation (e.g. planted flower beds) will be limited to small areas (see below). In a minority of cases a pond might be present and there might occasionally be a stream/river adjoining, or traversing the site.

2.1.4 It is likely that a green will have at least one of: church, public house, or other non-residential building associated with it (though not always). In this sense the term ‘associated’ simply means that the site is either on the green (rare, though they do occur - e.g. sports pavilions, village halls), or geographically adjacent to the site (and often be on the opposite site of an adjoining road). It is also rare for a green to have no buildings at all geographically adjacent, although examples do occur. An arrangement of dwellings around the margins of the green and facing onto it in a ‘traditional’ manner is a feature indicative of greens, though on occasion it can be difficult in making such a judgement. Generally there will be a clear, unobstructed view across the site.

Activities and features indicative that the land is used for of public benefit 2.1.5 Some form of recreational use will very commonly take place, the most popular activities being ‘informal recreation’ of some sort and dog-walking. The most likely sports to be encountered are football and cricket, though a range of other types might also occur.

2.1.6 A wide range of commemorative and other events and activities occur on around half of sites and include Maypole and Morris Dancing, Circus, Annual/Church Fete, Barbecue, Bonfire night celebrations, various open air religious and other services (including Remembrance Day and carol singing), Easter/Good Friday/Palm Sunday processions. It will be quite rare for a green to have no form of ‘recreational usage’ of any kind whatsoever. 109

2.1.7 A wide range of physical features are indicative of public use. Seats and litter bins are commonly present. Other features can occur at lower frequency – for example, bus stops/shelters, sports pitches, telephone boxes, notice/interpretation boards, children’s play facilities, post boxes etc. Commemorative and/or historic features occur on around a third of sites and include Village sign, war memorial, flag pole, beacon, Maypole, well, pump, stocks, mounting block, stone/butter/market cross.

Land use and management 2.1.8 Almost all greens will have some form of management for the benefit of public users, with mowing of grass taking place on the vast majority of sites. There may be management for sports and/or recreational events as a secondary purpose, over a part of the land. A local or parish council will be the most likely type of manager, after which management on a voluntary basis is the most likely. Often there will also be a formal collection of litter, and a history of tree-planting activity. Grazing of sites is very rare.

2.1.9 The vast majority of greens are uncultivated. A small proportion of the site might be cultivated (e.g. flower beds and less commonly, allotment gardens). Cultivation of the whole or greater part of the site would be extremely unusual. Most greens are open and unenclosed, though in a smaller proportion of cases they can be enclosed. Internal division of a site by fences will be rare. A vast majority of greens are wholly unoccupied (i.e. the land is available for use by any and all members of the community, without evidence that it is being used exclusively, or is reserved for particular clubs or groups). However, on occasion minor parts (only) of the site might be considered as occupied.

Historical context 2.1.10 Many ‘traditional’ greens have a long history and will have existed as such, potentially for several centuries (the date of 1900 AD being the ‘marker’ adopted in the Extended Study). Consistent with this, there may be indications of a continued history of use (e.g. market, May fair, Maypole dancing). The presence of actual historic feature(s) is relatively unlikely (e.g. village pump or drinking fountain, market or butter cross), but when present they can be highly indicative of the site being a green.

2.1.11 Many of the greens registered under the 1965 Commons Registration Act are consistent with the above model (and conversely, some clear examples of the type were not registered). In addition, using the adopted ‘date markers’, examples of sites dating only to pre-1950 and more recently than this, were also registered under the 1965 Act. Under the Commons Act 2006 there has been a trend toward the registration of sites which do not share the character of such traditional greens (e.g. railway sidings, former waste tips, golf courses). However, the fact that a site might have a long-established history is just as valid now, as it was under the previous legislation.

110

2.2 Method 3: Suggested recording sheet (Paragraph 4.7.4 of main report)

Characters indicative of greens Characters non-indicative of greens Character description Tick if Character description Tick if present present Ownership Community or Parish Council Private owner Other public owner, including charitable body/trust Physical characteristics Less than one hectare in extent Triangular (or broadly so) in outline Lies at intersection of roads Lies within a settlement Mown grassland Mature trees (or at least beyond ‘sapling’ stage) At least one of church/public house/school/village hall or other non-residential building physically adjacent or actually on the site Dwellings arranged around and facing onto green Unobstructed view across the site Activities and features indicative of public use (i.e. land used for public benefit)

At least one type of informal No recreation activity of any sort recreation taking place Dog walking At least one type of sporting activity Commemorative and/or other events and activities (e.g. Maypole and Morris Dancing, Circus, Annual/Church Fete, Barbecue, Bonfire night, various open air religious and other services, processions). Seat(s) and/or litter bin(s) Sports pitches Children’s play facilities Telephone and post boxes Public notices of some sort (signposts, signs, notice boards)

111

Characters indicative of greens Characters non-indicative of greens Character description Tick if Character description Tick if present present Other physical features indicative of public use (e.g. Bus stops/shelters) Commemorative and/or historic features (e.g. Village sign, war memorial, flag pole, Maypole, well, pump, stocks, stone or butter/market cross). Land use and management Mowing of grassland Collection of litter Site unmanaged Site uncultivated (ignore small areas Whole site cultivated (e.g. crops) cultivated) Site unenclosed from roads crossing it Site fenced from roads across or or passing alongside. I.e. represents alongside (note that some greens can “No barrier to access” be thus fenced). Represents “Barrier to access”. Site open, lacking internal divisions Internal divisions present (private fencing) Site unoccupied (ignore small areas Site occupied privately (for the most occupied) part) Historical context Evidence to pre-1900 (may include the name ‘green’ etc. on maps). Post-1900 origin Post-1950 origin Historic feature(s) present Evidence of historic customs and uses (i.e. records of Commemorative events as per Q2)

2.3 Method 3: LCA Model - A potential further refinement (adopting ‘Local Character’ considerations)

2.3.1 As discussed under Section 4.7 of the main report, following input from Natural England’s Head of Landscape Character, further refinements of the approach can be are proposed (See Annex 1B). Essentially this uses the relevant National Character Area profile/description to inform a more locally focussed character context for an individual candidate site. An example of how this might work is provided by the first of the suggested sub-sample of 50 sites (as suggested above). Note also that NCA definitions are also currently being revised.

2.3.2 The site in question is VG 24, Heath End Green in the former county of Avon (Study code AV006). The relevant NCA is No 118: Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges. The site lies in the north-eastern part of this NCA, and is situated within the valley of the River Frome. Local character features of potential relevance to this site include:

112

 Settlement pattern in the clay vale of the R. Frome with frequent groups of cottages and isolated houses sprawling along roads.  Scattered and often substantial stone farmsteads and hamlets linked by complex network of lanes and trackways.  Open landscape on lower ground in Frome Valley.

2.3.3 With this information, the assessment could be extended to examine the extent to which a candidate site reflected these local characteristics. Note that the revised LCA statements will include aesthetic/perceptual elements that will help to gauge how local communities view and relate to the site.

2.3.4 Following on from the definition of the 159 National Character Areas, individual areas have been encouraged to prepare their own, local character assessments (e.g. at the scale of a whole region, county, district, local council etc.). The process could therefore be further refined by making reference to the appropriate local character assessments. In the context of the above example, VG24, Heath End Green, an appropriate document would be the South Gloucestershire Landscape Character Assessment (Anon, 2005). This identifies the site as lying within the Local Character Area of “Yate Vale”. Based on this example, specific, relevant character features for this site might include the following:

 Land Cover: Arable and pasture land within various field patterns. In the north, where VG24 is located, there is an area of irregular-shaped, pre-Parliamentary Enclosure fields. Fields largely contained by clipped hedges, with some tall overgrown hedges, mature specimen hedgerow trees (particularly Oak) are common, though are fewer to the east of Heath End.  Settlement and infrastructure: Heath End is described as a ‘linear settlement with a clustered pattern at road intersections’. Farm buildings are numerous in the area, generally comprising small farmhouse buildings, of similar design, constructed during the early 19th Century. Roads are limited in the north of the area, though the B4058 runs north-south (and the site in question lies adjacent to this). Pennant Sandstone walls border much of the B4058.  Landscape character: The Yate Vale is largely an agricultural Landscape, with a large concentrated area of settlement in the south. The area to the east of Heath End is described as being ‘more open’ (in contrast with other parts of the Ladden Brook and River Frome Valleys), with few hedgerow trees. This allows views eastwards to Wickwar Quarry (within the adjacent area), where a section of quarry face and associated buildings on the skyline are visible.  The changing landscape: In the north of the area, to the east of Heath End, few mature trees, low tightly clipped hedges and a rising landform allow open views across the landscape. The Heath End area is highly sensitive to any visible land use change which has the potential to erode the rural landscape character. Pennant stone boundary walls around individual properties in the south are largely in good condition. However, in some locations e.g. along the B4058, the condition of walling is variable, influencing the character of the locality.

2.3.5 The detailed character assessment would then need to consider the extent to which the site contributed to these locally distinctive features. In practice, it is likely that site visit would be needed to fully answer this. To record the findings in the above tabular format, the left hand 113

column might be more appropriately labelled “Characters indicative of local distinctiveness”, or similar, and the second column could be used to record where these were not considered to be present. As with the previously-described method, some form of brief summarising statement might be appropriate.

2.3.6 With the current move toward character assessments that better reflected the values, opinions and requirements of local communities, the approach could be taken one step further and incorporated into a series of measures aimed at a single village. A good model for this can be taken from current thinking on rural traffic management (Mitchell and Hamilton- Baillie 2011). This document takes the form of a toolkit, informed by best practice in the UK, and is intended to encourage the engagement of rural communities in contributing to the way that rural roads are managed. The purpose is to find ways of reconciling the conflicting objectives of responding to ever-increasing levels of traffic, and the need to protect the attractiveness and viability of rural communities.

2.3.7 Of course, many rural greens have an intimate relationship with the local highway network – many are at important road intersections and nearly all, have at least one road adjacent to them. They are also, often, a focal point of the community and, as such, the Toolkit has potentially, much of relevance to informing the character assessment process for greens.

2.3.8 The first stage in using the toolkit is to build up a clear understanding of how the town or village has developed in the past – what historical and geographical factors have shaped it? The next stage is to explore how people respond to the settlement today – what are its defining characteristics? This would largely take the form of a mapping exercise, but might also include questionnaire surveys to explore the needs and opinions of local residents. The third and final stage is to use this information to plan for the future - an existing green might form a key focal element, both in terms of its physical appearance and also in the way it is used.

2.3.9 Using this model, a green could be more fully assessed in its local context, and the needs of local communities taken into account in the maintenance of existing sites, the establishment of new greens and other forms of local open space valued by local communities.

2.3.10 An example of how this might work is provided by the first of the suggested sub-sample of 50 sites (Section 5.1.1 of main report). Note also that NCA definitions are also currently being revised.

2.3.11 The site in question is VG 24, Heath End Green in the former county of Avon (Study code AV006). The relevant NCA is No 118: Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges. The site lies in the north-eastern part of this NCA, and is situated within the valley of the River Frome. Local character features of potential relevance to this site include:

 Settlement pattern in the clay vale of the R. Frome with frequent groups of cottages and isolated houses sprawling along roads.  Scattered and often substantial stone farmsteads and hamlets linked by complex network of lanes and trackways. 114

 Open landscape on lower ground in Frome Valley.

2.3.12 With this information, the assessment could be extended to examine the extent to which a candidate site reflected these local characteristics. Note that the revised LCA statements will include aesthetic/perceptual elements that will help to gauge how local communities view and relate to the site.

2.3.13 Following on from the definition of the 159 National Character Areas, individual areas have been encouraged to prepare their own, local character assessments (e.g. at the scale of a whole region, county, district, local council etc.). The process could therefore be further refined by making reference to the appropriate local character assessments. In the context of the above example, VG24, Heath End Green, an appropriate document would be the South Gloucestershire Landscape Character Assessment (Anon, 2005). This identifies the site as lying within the Local Character Area of “Yate Vale”. Based on this example, specific, relevant character features for this site might include the following:

 Land Cover: Arable and pasture land within various field patterns. In the north, where VG24 is located, there is an area of irregular-shaped, pre-Parliamentary Enclosure fields. Fields largely contained by clipped hedges, with some tall overgrown hedges, mature specimen hedgerow trees (particularly Oak) are common, though are fewer to the east of Heath End.  Settlement and infrastructure: Heath End is described as a ‘linear settlement with a clustered pattern at road intersections’. Farm buildings are numerous in the area, generally comprising small farmhouse buildings, of similar design, constructed during the early 19th Century. Roads are limited in the north of the area, though the B4058 runs north-south (and the site in question lies adjacent to this). Pennant Sandstone walls border much of the B4058.  Landscape character: The Yate Vale is largely an agricultural Landscape, with a large concentrated area of settlement in the south. The area to the east of Heath End is described as being ‘more open’ (in contrast with other parts of the Ladden Brook and River Frome Valleys), with few hedgerow trees. This allows views eastwards to Wickwar Quarry (within the adjacent area), where a section of quarry face and associated buildings on the skyline are visible.  The changing landscape: In the north of the area, to the east of Heath End, few mature trees, low tightly clipped hedges and a rising landform allow open views across the landscape. The Heath End area is highly sensitive to any visible land use change which has the potential to erode the rural landscape character. Pennant stone boundary walls around individual properties in the south are largely in good condition. However, in some locations e.g. along the B4058, the condition of walling is variable, influencing the character of the locality.

2.3.14 The detailed character assessment would then need to consider the extent to which the site contributed to these locally distinctive features. In practice, it is likely that site visit would be needed to fully answer this. To record the findings in the above tabular format, the left hand column might be more appropriately labelled “Characters indicative of local distinctiveness”, or similar, and the second column could be used to record where these were not considered to be present. As with the previously-described method, some form of brief summarising statement might be appropriate. 115

2.3.15 With the current move toward character assessments that better reflected the values, opinions and requirements of local communities, the approach could be taken one step further and incorporated into a series of measures aimed at a single village. A good model for this can be taken from current thinking on rural traffic management (Mitchell and Hamilton- Baillie 2011). This document takes the form of a toolkit, informed by best practice in the UK, and is intended to encourage the engagement of rural communities in contributing to the way that rural roads are managed. The purpose is to find ways of reconciling the conflicting objectives of responding to ever-increasing levels of traffic, and the need to protect the attractiveness and viability of rural communities.

2.3.16 Of course, many rural greens have an intimate relationship with the local highway network – many are at important road intersections and nearly all, have at least one road adjacent to them. They are also, often, a focal point of the community and, as such, the Toolkit has potentially, much of relevance to informing the character assessment process for greens.

2.3.17 The first stage in using the toolkit is to build up a clear understanding of how the town or village has developed in the past – what historical and geographical factors have shaped it? The next stage is to explore how people respond to the settlement today – what are its defining characteristics? This would largely take the form of a mapping exercise, but might also include questionnaire surveys to explore the needs and opinions of local residents. The third and final stage is to use this information to plan for the future - an existing green might form a key focal element, both in terms of its physical appearance and also in the way it is used.

2.3.18 Using this model, a green could be more fully assessed in its local context, and the needs of local communities taken into account in the maintenance of existing sites, the establishment of new greens and other forms of local open space valued by local communities.

116

Annex 3: Method 3 - Results of trial assessment (‘raw data’ – Paragraph 5.2.3.1 of main report)

3.1 Findings of the assessment under each ‘feature grouping’

3.1.1 Ownership characteristics Public – 41 sites; Private – 3 sites; No information – 5 sites

3.1.2 Physical characteristics Table 3.1: Number of indicative physical characteristics – Method 3

No of characteristics (max = 9) Number of occurrences 4 0 5 5 6 7 7 18 8 13 9 7

3.1.3 Activities and features indicative of public use  “Adequate evidence of use” – 45 sites

 “No recreation recorded” – 4 sites*1

 “Only evidence is children’s games” (Sub-sample No 8 only).

Note*1: Sub-sample No 5, also here noted - “no indicative features”; Sub-sample No 17 - “Phone/post box present”; - Sub-sample No 25 “but other features present”.

3.1.4 Land use and management  “No negative indications” – 42 sites

 “No negative indications, but note barrier to access” – 6 sites*2

 “Whole site cultivated, privately occupied (by farmer). Fenced site” (Sub-sample No 5 only).

 “Cobbled former market place, now mainly used as car park” (Sub-sample No 35 only).

Note*2: Sub-sample No 41 also states “Result does not reflect the fact that there is no management aimed at public use of the site”.

3.1.5 Historical context  Pre-1900 site (only) – 16 sites

 Pre-1900 and Commemorative event(s) – 16 sites

 Pre-1900 and Commemorative feature(s) – 7 sites 117

 Pre-1900 and both Commemorative event(s) and feature(s) – 7 sites

 Post-1950 only – 1 site

 Post 1950 and Commemorative events – 3 sites

118

Annex 4: Statistical analysis of data for evaluation of ‘preferred method’ using Extended Sample of 250 registered sites (Section 6.2 of main report)

4.1 Logarithmic transformation of sampling data for ‘preferred’ Method 1 4.1.1 As outlined in Section 6.2.5 of the main text, when discussing the shape of the sampling distribution for the ‘preferred’ Method 1, one possible reason for the observed shape might be the fact that the distribution is log-normal. To investigate this, a logarithmic transformation was performed on the data, the outcome of this being presented in Tables 4.1 and Figure 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Logarithmic transformation of data – ‘Preferred’ Method 1

Log(n) Class Interval Log(n) Class mark No. of observations 5.81-5.90 5.85 1 5.91-6.00 5.95 0 6.01-6.10 6.05 1 6.11-6.20 6.15 0 6.21-6.30 6.25 2 6.31-6.40 6.35 0 6.41-6.50 6.45 4 6.51-6.60 6.55 3 6.61-6.70 6.65 6 6.71-6.80 6.75 22 6.81-6.90 6.85 31 6.91-7.00 6.95 48 7.01-7.10 7.05 69 7.11-7.20 7.15 62 7.21-7.30 7.25 1

119

Figure 4.1: Histogram of Log(n) site scores for Extended Sample using ‘Preferred’ Method 1

Figure 4.1: Log(n) of site scores according to size-class 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5.85 5.95 6.05 6.15 6.25 6.35 6.45 6.55 6.65 6.75 6.85 6.95 7.05 7.15 7.25

Figure 4.1: Horizontal axis shows log(n) of the class mark (central point of sampling interval) and vertical axis shows the number of observations in each case.

4.1.2 It can be seen from Figure 4.1 that the logarithmic transformation has produced a curve of approximately the same shape as that originally obtained. The only real effect is that the skewed tail is in fact now even more elongated, with some size classes at this end having no observations within them at all. Note that a log(10) transformation was also done and the resulting curve was of the same shape. In conclusion this means that the data do not have a log-normal distribution.

4.2 ‘Preferred’ Method 1- are the untransformed data normally distributed? 4.2.1 After deciding that the data were not log-normally distributed, the next logical step was to investigate whether they were normally distributed (noting that the skewed tail would suggest this was not the case). This was assessed by plotting cumulative frequency of the data on probability paper. Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 show the results.

Table 4.2: Cumulative frequency of observed scores – ‘Preferred’ Method 1

Class Mark No of observations in Cumulative No of Cumulative size class observations frequency of observations 350 1 1 0.4% 450 1 2 0.8% 550 2 4 1.6% 120

650 5 9 3.6% 750 6 15 6.0% 850 23 38 15.2% 950 32 70 28.0% 1050 47 117 46.8% 1150 60 177 70.8% 1250 59 236 94.4% 1350 14 250 100.0%

Figure 4.2: Cumulative frequency of observed scores – ‘Preferred’ Method 1

Figure 4.2: Cumulative frequency of observed scores 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

0

39 97 11 18 28 51 63 73 83 94

0.7 1.6 3.2 6.5

0.28 89.5 98.5 99.4 99.7 99.9

99.97 99.99

The vertical axis in Figure 4.2 shows ‘Class mark’ of the data, whilst the horizontal axis shows the cumulative frequency of observations

4.2.2 Note: MS Word/Excel does not have the facility to draw plots using a probability paper template. The data points used to create Figure 4.2 have been ‘constructed’ manually from the actual plot done on real probability paper and should therefore be seen as only an approximation. Nonetheless, the curve as shown here is pretty much consistent in shape with the one that was actually drawn onto probability paper.

4.2.3 When plotted in this way, if the data were normally distributed, a straight line of fixed inclination would be obtained. Clearly from the above the data are not normally distributed and this seems logical on account of the skewed distribution. In fact there are further statistical techniques that can be used to address this latter question even more fully.

121

4.3 Are the data skewed? 4.3.1 Whether or not a sampling distribution is skewed, and the extent to which this is the case can be tested statistically using the Moment Coefficient of Skewness21 of a data set using the following formula:

3/2 g1 = m3/m2

3 Where g1 = skewness; m3 = ∑(x−x) / n (known as the ‘third moment’ of the data set); and m2 = ∑(x−x) 2 / n (i.e. the variance of the data).

4.3.2 The above is true for the whole population, but for a sample from the population, then it is the sample skewness G1 that is required:

G1 = Square root of n (n-1), divided by n-2, and the product of this then multiplied by g1

If the above calculations are performed on our data set (see spreadsheet), the values for m3

are -5417211 and for m2 are 31552.

From this, m2 to the power of 3/2 (i.e. to the power of 1.5) calculates as 5604544.73

And thus g1 = -5417211/5604544.73 = -0.9666

This figure assumes the data was for the whole population. To calculate for the sample population, the following applies:

Square root of n (n-1) = square root 250 x 249 = 249.499; and n-2 = 248

Thus sample skewness, G1 = (249.499/248) x -0.9666 = -0.9724

4.3.3 To interpret this outcome, the first thing to note is that a negative value here confirms that the data are negatively skewed. As to the extent of skewness, a suggested rule of thumb is:

 If G1 is less than −1 or greater than +1, the distribution is highly skewed.  If G1 is between −1 and −½ or between +½ and +1, the distribution is moderately skewed.  If G1 is between −½ and +½, the distribution is approximately symmetric (in other words, almost normal; not significantly skewed).

This suggests that our data set should be viewed as being moderately negatively skewed (i.e. the observed value for G1 was between −1 and −½).

4.3.4 Remember that this is an estimate of the sample skewness, but what can be inferred from this about the whole population? This question is addressed by the Test Statistic, which measures how many standard errors separate the sample skewness from zero. The Test Statistic is obtained by dividing the sample skewness G1 by the Standard Error of Skewness (SES).

The formula for the SES is: SES = the square root of 6n (n-1)/(n-2)(n+1)(n+3)

Thus for our sample 6n(n-1) = 373500 and (n-2)(n+1)(n+3) = 15748744 = 0.023716

And the square root of this is 0.154 = SES

21 Method obtained from Wikipedia 122

Finally from this the Test Statistic = G1/SES

Which equals -0.9724/0.154

And this gives the Test Statistic as -6.31

4.3.5 The critical value of the Test Statistic is approximately 2. If the value is less than -2 then the population is very likely to be skewed negatively. The conclusion is therefore that the population is indeed very likely to be moderately negatively skewed. Remember that the Test Statistic is not an expression as to how much the data are skewed, but rather the degree of confidence in stating that the data are skewed.

123

Annex 5: Preferred Method 1 - Summary details of sites scoring less than a threshold value of 800 in the assessment (Section 6.3 of main report)

GROUP 1: Sites <3SD for all three ‘measures’ (i.e. score <557)

CORN002 – VG665 “The Recreation Allotment”, Egloskerry (score 356) Note this was the lowest scoring site of all. There are no recorded recreational activities and no recorded features indicative of public use (i.e. the land was not recorded as being used for public benefit). It is stated in Q7 to comprise “Rough pasture land, 70% covered by small trees…” and observed on Street View to look like “scrub-woodland” at present. In Q10 it is said that the land is “too far from any settlement to be of any value for exercise and recreation” and is let to a local farmer. It had originally been allotted to the village under an Inclosure Act of 1848. It could reasonably be argued that given what has been summarised here, this site does not have the character of a green.

CAMB003 – VG7 “The Old Recreation Ground”, Cottenham (score 417)22 This site has not been used as a green since 1938 when a recreation ground more convenient to the village was opened. The site is now let to a local farmer and managed as agricultural land. On this basis the site was not recorded as being used for public benefit. Again it could be reasonably argued that this site is not generally consistent with what would be regarded as having the character of a green. Indeed, it appears likely it would not satisfy even the current legal criteria (i.e. public use as of right).

CUMB006 – CL61 “The Green”, Beetham (score 521) Again this site has no recorded recreation activities (entered on the form) though it did have a post box and notice board as seen on Street View. Most of the site is fenced and has been ‘landscaped’ by the planting of shrubs and trees (dating from 1983); these are now well-grown. It appears to be privately owned. There is a road-side lay-by outside the fence, with a narrow, uncut grass verge alongside (the post box and notice board located here – and this is the only part that was considered as being used for public benefit). The site does certainly not have the character of a ‘traditional’ village green (and with strong indications there is no public access onto it).

DOR004 – VG29 “Recreation Allotment”, East Stoke (score 546) This site is more problematic in that occasional dog walking and children playing (e.g. football) are recorded (i.e. considered as land being used for public benefit). Also it was used for a celebration of the Royal Wedding in 1981. A letter from the respondent states that the frames of an old swing and a see-saw are present, though neither appeared to be present now on Street View. However, there is a pair of goal posts. Street View also shows an open grassland area to be mainly tall/rank and tussocky,

22 Note that this was one of the trial sample of 50 sites. In that assessment it was allocated the higher score of 512. This is primarily due to the effect of the score in respect of cultivation. This was the only site that had been regarded as being entirely cultivated (as in being ploughed for the growing of crops at some time in the past). One site in 250 gives a percentage score of 0.04% - or a score of 96.6% for the proportion of (wholly) uncultivated sites. This of course was rounded up to provide the score of 100. However, it seemed illogical to give a score of 100 (as in uncultivated) to a site that was being regarded as cultivated (as had been done for the trial sample of 250 sites without realising this ‘anomaly’). 124 suggesting there is no, or extremely frequent mowing (this accounts for about a third of the site, the other part comprising secondary woodland). KC did add a comment under Q8 based on appearance on Street View “Shorter grass between the goalposts probably kept this way by trampling of feet, rather than mowing” and in both Q8 and Q9 (management) there is no information provided by the respondent.

Mapping evidence (1960) shows the area now forming the site to lie at the southern tip of a larger area known as Stokeford Common (not registered under 1965 Act). It is shown as 'rough moorland' at this time, with no ‘mapping’ indication of recreational use. As with Q8 and 9, the respondent again says nothing about the history of the site in Q10. Note also that the respondent mentions in a note attached to the record that they had initial difficulty in locating the site, and had then realised what the reason for this was - “it is almost totally abandoned”.

Clearly this site does have occasional recreational use and therefore would appear to meet the current legal criteria, in spite of the respondent’s observations. If one looks in detail at the recorded features on the spreadsheet it is immediately obvious that the site is one of a small minority (5%) that appears not to have mowing of grassland. It also lacks any trees (in the open grassland part of the site), another very commonly recorded feature (86%). Had it had even a seat (74%) this would have elevated the score to 636 which would have placed it above the 3SD threshold for both mean and modal values (557 and 625 respectively). Similarly, on mapping evidence the site appeared to be post-1950 in origin, but little in fact is known for definite about its actual history. Being part of some ‘historic common’ (or even if it were unfenced) might potentially elevate the score for this characteristic from 6 to 90, which would again place it above the 3SD threshold. Finally, the Royal Wedding of 1981, as a one-off, has not been recorded as a commemorative event (score 52) and adding even this would have elevated the score to 598, exceeding the 3SD threshold above the mean, at least. Looking back at the record for this site, with sections 8 and 9 of the form not actually being completed by the respondent (e.g. potential lack of reference to any mowing), it would perhaps have been more appropriate to have excluded the site from the study on this account.

On the basis of the above discussion, it perhaps is not too worrying that such a site with apparent recreational use (though in a rather neglected state and with perhaps somewhat sketchy information on the form) should have ended up with such a low score.

GROUP 2: Sites as Group 1 and only <2SD in terms of area under the curve (i.e. score >557, but <650)

ESUS004 – VG69 “Lye Green”, Withyam (score 631) Question 2 on the form (recreation activities) was not completed by the respondent. In hindsight this perhaps should have triggered automatic rejection of the record from inclusion in the study. Q3 (Physical features) was completed, but none indicative of public use was noted to be present. In Q7 it states: “This is a very overgrown piece of waste land which was moderately passable in parts before the 1987 hurricane when so many trees were blown down, that it is now impassable. It is in private ownership, so will possibly remain in this condition.....”. All that it said about management was “No” to “Is the Green Managed?” (Q9). In Q10 it states: “I think the green was probably used for recreational purposes before the 1914-18 war, but has since become steadily overgrown and untended”. In Q13 (Street View appearance) it states that the site is dense secondary woodland. On the basis of the above the site was considered not to have evidence of being used for public benefit.

125

On the basis of the above it would seem that the site does not satisfy the current legal criteria of public use. Perhaps given this it was not unreasonable for there to be no information on management, as there doesn’t appear to have been any!

AV002 – CL235 “The Green”, Wick & Abson (score 640) This site does see occasional dog walking and informal recreation, though Q2 of the form was not answered. Q7 describes the site as “A very small triangular piece of roughly grassed land. Very little- used away from main part of the village, with only a farm and two or three houses nearby”, whilst in Q9 it states that there is no obvious management. Essentially the site is a small triangular plot of grass, at a road junction with roads on all three sides, in a very rural situation. This is another site with a low score in part due to an apparent lack of mowing of grassland and any features indicative of public use – though there does indeed appear to be informal recreational use of the site and as such it was considered as having evidence of being used for public benefit. Given what is there, it could certainly be said that the site had been adequately covered by the WI Survey. On this basis it is argued that the site does have the ‘character of a green’.

GROUP 3: Sites <2SD only, against all three measures (i.e. score >650, but <732)

BUCK004 – VG101 “Recreation Ground”, Whaddon (score 661) The site has a variety of recorded recreation activities and has swings seen on Street View (i.e. was considered as being used for public benefit). In Q7 the respondent states: “Green neglected and not used to its full potential…..”. There is occasional mowing of grassland and site is post-1950 in origin. The latter certainly contributes to the low score, as does a lack of trees and does the lack of any ‘high scoring’ features indicative of public use (swings only score 14). Nonetheless, the site appears to function as a green and certainly appears to meet the current legal definition.

BERK005 – VG59 “Wokefield Green”, Wokefield (score 668) This site too has good evidence of recreational activity (regular dog walking and informal recreation) and with a telephone box present. In Q7 the respondent uses the words: “too dark and overgrown….”, whilst in Q9 it says “I suspect no one manages it at present, unless some maintenance is done by the other neighbouring large estate (Oakfield)”. On Street View (Q10) it says that the site appears to be well-established secondary woodland. This was another site where the low score is contributed to by a lack of mown grassland. Also interesting that as it was entirely woodland, it could not have scattered mature trees (in the sense that these overly an open grassland habitat). Had this been interpreted the other way, the score would actually have been 754. Despite the site being woodland, it does however, have recreational use and on that basis was considered as being used for public benefit – and therefore as having the ‘character’ of a green.

NYORK009 – VG172 “The Rectory Field”, Brandsby-cum-Searsby (score 687) Again the site sees recreational use (occasional informal recreation, children’s games and picnics plus regular dog walking and very occasional commemorative events). As such it was considered as being land used for public benefit. However, there are no actual features indicative of public use, though a village hall adjoins. In Q7 the site is described as old permanent pasture with a variety of grasses. The site is fenced, and both mown and grazed. In Q10 it states that the land was bequeathed to the Parish Council in 1940. The low score is thus in part due to a lack of features indicative of public use, in part because it is fenced – and in particular because it is one of very few sites that had internal fencing present (to fence off the lane to the village hall from the remainder of the site). Further ‘points’ have been lost due to the recent origin. 126

Thus an ‘interesting’ site in that it is essentially managed permanent grazing pasture (i.e. formally managed agricultural land) that is also formally a green under the administration of a Parish Council, with documented recreational activity.

NYORK007 – VG105 “The Recreation Ground”, Matfen (score 727) Recorded were: regular dog walking and informal recreation, occasional picnics and children’s games, but no features indicative of public use (i.e. there was considered to be evidence of the land being used for public benefit). In Q7 it states: “The green is apart from the village, and is surrounded by Forestry Commission, it is a natural unkempt area which is appealing because of that. There are grassy pathways going through its bracken which grows profusely leading into the woods beyond….”. There is no mowing, though there is collection of litter. In Q10 it says that the land was given to the village in 1879, with the church warden and “the overseers of the poor to be responsible for the land known as the "Recreation Ground". It is also claimed that the land was registered as common land on 31.03.1970, with trustees appointed (in fact it was presumably registered as a Town or Village Green, rather than as common land under the 1965 CRA). Street View suggests the land is mainly broadleaved secondary woodland, and that the site itself is surrounded by coniferous plantation woodland. This was another ‘unusual’ site in not being open grassland, instead being long-standing woodland, but with good evidence of recreational use. Again the lack of mown grassland and features indicative of public use are the main reasons for the low score (together with loss of ‘points’ also from the view being obscured by tree cover). It has been considered as having the ‘character of a green’ on the basis of public use.

NYORK012 – VG151 “The Village Green, Cray”, Buckden (score 730) There were a number of recorded recreational activities (Informal recreation, dog walking, picnics, children’s games), but no recorded publicly used facilities (i.e. the land was considered as being used for public benefit). Described in Q7 as: “A grassy area at the side of the White Lion Inn and an area of hardstanding opposite the Inn used as a car park…..”. There was no mention by the respondent of grassland being mown and indeed it was considered on the basis of Street View that the site was likely to be unmanaged (even though the respondent indicated in Q9 that it was). Again the main reasons for the low score are the lack of mown grassland and trees and of any features indicative of public use. However, despite the lack of management there is at least some recreational use (though note that the only buildings in the ‘settlement’ were in fact the adjacent public house).

GROUP 4: Sites <2SD in terms of only the modal value (i.e. score >732, but <800)

KENT005 – VG40 “Recreation Ground”, Charing (score 750) There were a wide range of recorded recreational activities (Informal recreation, dog walking, picnics, children’s games, fishing/pond dipping, cricket, football). Features indicative of public use were swings etc., pavilion, sports pitch, seat(s). In other words, the site is a well-used public recreation ground, and therefore formally managed. Factors contributing to the low score are the recent origin and the fact that it is fenced. Clearly, the site has strong evidence of being used for public benefit and it is felt there would be a broad consensus that this site has the ‘character of a green’.

127

NYORK004 VG104 “Greenhow Village Green”, Bewerley (score 782) The site has recorded recreational use (Informal recreation, dog walking, picnics and children’s games, village events). There are children’s swings etc. and a notice board of some sort, seat/litter bin (all within the children’s play area) and war memorial (in a semi-circular ‘alcove’ within the wall). The site is both grazed (most of the site) and mown (as noted by KC in the separate, fenced children’s play area). The respondent states in Q9 – “Un-managed and fallen into disuse - according to informants, but I believe it is under the management of either Harrogate Council or NRCC. Certainly nothing is done about trying to keep it as a village green”. Of the site’s history (Q10) the respondent says “This village - Greenhow - was once a lead mining community where life was hard but there was a village feeling - so the green would be then more used than now. There is an adjoining graveyard both this and green walled in (local stone) about 30 yrs. ago when war memorial erected. Local 'boys' remember adjoining pond where there were dragonflies, newts etc. and this was drained off by the council”. In Q13 KC comments “Most appears to be a grazed, grassland field. Smaller, separately fenced portion used as children’s play area)” and also “The 'grazed' part of the green does not appear to have any public use and so this area is considered to be occupied by the grazier”. Clearly, then a small part of the site has the character of a green (and has evidence of being used for public benefit, whereas the major part does not. On this basis the overall conclusion was that the site as a single unit of land has the ‘character of a green’. The lack of trees, fencing of the site and recent origin are contributors to the low score.

STAFF002 VG37 “Hopwas Village Green”, Wigginton (score 796) The site has no recorded recreation activities, nor were there any recorded features indicative of public use. The site appeared on Street View to be mown (not noted as such by the respondent, though they did consider the site to be ‘managed’). On Street View the site was seen to comprise a triangular road island with roads on each side. The lack of a mature tree (the only specimen being a sapling), recreational use or associated features and indeed the fact that the land was not considered to be used for public benefit all contributed to the low score. However, there are a good number of very similar registered sites and on that basis it could be argued that this site still has the ‘character of a green’.

BUCK003 VG96 “Gossmore Lane Recreation Ground”, Marlow (score 799) Recreational activities on record are: Informal recreation, dog walking, picnics, children’s games, cricket and football. Features associated with public use were: Pavilion, sports pitch, toilets, seat/litter bin and bus stop. The site is clearly well-used and managed for recreational purposes. Obvious contributory factors to the low score include the fact that the site is fenced and the recent origin. However, it is consistent with having the ‘character of a green’.

128

Annex 6: Comparison of statistical parameters for Extended Sample and non-registered data sets (Section 7.2 of main report)

6.1 Logarithmic transformation of data Table 6.1: Logarithmic transformation of data for Extended Sample and non-registered sites

Log(n) Class Interval Log(n) Class mark No. of observations Extended Sample Non-registered sites 5.11-5.20 5.15 0 1 5.21-5.30 5.25 0 0 5.31-5.40 5.35 0 0 5.41-5.45 5.45 0 0 5.51-5.60 5.55 0 1 5.61-5.70 5.65 0 0 5.71-5.80 5.75 0 0 5.81-5.90 5.85 1 0 5.91-6.00 5.95 0 0 6.01-6.10 6.05 1 0 6.11-6.20 6.15 0 0 6.21-6.30 6.25 2 0 6.31-6.40 6.35 0 2 6.41-6.50 6.45 4 1 6.51-6.60 6.55 3 4 6.61-6.70 6.65 6 7 6.71-6.80 6.75 22 16 6.81-6.90 6.85 31 18 6.91-7.00 6.95 48 19 7.01-7.10 7.05 69 18 7.11-7.20 7.15 62 4 7.21-7.30 7.25 1 0

129

Figure 6.1: Logarithmic transformation of data for Extended Sample (registered) and non- registered sites

Figure 6.1: Horizontal axis shows log(n) of the class mark (central point of sampling interval) and vertical axis shows the number of observations in each case.

6.1.1 It can be seen from Figure 6.1 that a logarithmic transformation of data for non-registered sites has produced a curve of approximately the same shape as that originally obtained for the Extended Sample. Again there is a skewed tail that is in fact now grossly elongated in comparison with than that of the original, untransformed data. Also in contrast with the untransformed data, a slightly more noticeable, though still barely discernible peak can be seen in the curve. This is by virtue of the fact that there is now one size class forming a very slight peak with just one more observation than those beside it (as opposed to four consecutive size-classes with the same value in the untransformed data).

6.1.2 At this stage when considering the Extended Sample, a plot was done on probability paper to make a more objective assessment of whether or not the data conformed to a normal distribution. Table 6.2 and Figure 6. 2 show equivalent results for the non-registered sites.

Table 6.2: Cumulative frequency of observed scores (non-registered sites only)

Class Mark No of observations in Cumulative No of Cumulative size class observations frequency of observations 150 1 1 1.10% 250 1 2 2.20% 350 0 2 2.20% 450 0 2 2.20% 550 1 3 3.30% 650 4 7 7.70% 130

Class Mark No of observations in Cumulative No of Cumulative size class observations frequency of observations 750 7 14 15.38% 850 18 32 35.16% 950 18 50 54.95% 1050 18 68 74.73% 1150 18 86 94.51% 1250 5 91 100.0%

Figure 6.2: Cumulative frequency of observed scores: Extended Sample (registered) and non- registered sites

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Registered

600 Non-registered

400

200

0

28 73 97 11 18 39 51 63 83 94

3.2 0.7 1.6 6.5

0.28 89.5 98.5 99.4 99.7 99.9

99.97 99.99

The vertical axis in Figure 6.2 shows ‘Class mark’ of the data, whilst the horizontal axis shows the cumulative frequency of observations

6.1.3 Note: As previously stated, MS Word/Excel does not have the facility to draw plots using a probability paper template. The data points used to create Figure 7.2 have been ‘constructed’ manually from the actual plot done on real probability paper and should therefore be seen as only an approximation. Nonetheless, the two curves as shown here are pretty much consistent in shape with those that were actually drawn onto probability paper.

6.1.4 When plotted in this way, if the data were normally distributed a straight line of fixed inclination would be obtained. As with the Extended Sample data, it can be seen that the non-registered sites have produced a curve of similar shape, again indicating the data do not conform to a normal distribution. Note also that the ‘step’ in the curve for the non-registered sites is due to three consecutive size-classes having the same cumulative frequency (i.e. class marks 250, 350 and 450).

131

6.2 Are the data skewed? 6.2.1 Given that the curve for the non-registered sites is of roughly the same shape as that for the Extended Sample, it seems reasonable to conclude that the data are again moderately negatively skewed. Note it has not been considered necessary to repeat the actual skewness calculations on these data. The actual shape of the curve for non-registered sites is not all that important; it is a ‘test’ sample of ‘unknown’ sites, so it ‘has the shape it has’, for whatever reason. It was the shape of curve of the sample population it is being compared with that was the more important in defining the character of a population of known examples.

6.2.2 Also note here that for the sample of non-registered sites the issue of outlying data points is also not really relevant. Again they are by definition genuine results and therefore the question of whether they or not they should be ignored does not arise – clearly they should not be ignored!

132

Annex 7: Summary details for non-registered sites (Section 7.3 of main report)

7.1 Non-registered sites: Summary details of sites scoring less than a threshold value of 650 in the assessment (Paragraph 7.3.4 of main report)

DEV-UNR001, Pa’ Partington’s Garden, Ivybridge, Devon (score 581) On Street View this site was found to comprise a small, triangular road island in the middle of a busy road junction that has been completely planted-up with ornamental shrubs and small trees etc. The respondent had ticked dog walking (regular), though given the current appearance of the site this seemed highly unlikely now. Indeed, given that the site is all ‘planted up’ it was considered unlikely there was now any public use made of the site, and more likely it was there primarily for visual amenity. Note also that being completely planted, it was regarded as being ‘cultivated’.

The respondent had also said there was a seat and a flag pole but no evidence of any actual features indicative of public use there now. However, given that the site is clearly maintained as a visual feature, it was considered that the land was used for public benefit. Also note that the respondent had ticked mowing, but that could not take place now as there is no grassland present!

In comparison with registered sites there are many examples that are small, triangular road islands, but these are nearly always mown grass rather than fully planted-up features as here. Indeed this appearance caused an immediate ‘gut reaction’ on the part of the researcher at first sight on Street View as being very clearly different to other sites (as mown grass). The low score is in part due to the lack of mowing and features indicative of public use (e.g. seats, litter bins etc.). In addition, the site lost a full 100 points in that it was considered to be cultivated (a very unusual situation on registered greens generally).

Given the above and despite the fact that the land is considered as being used for public benefit, it would seem reasonable to say that this site does not have characteristics comparable with the sample of 250 registered examples. Certainly, there were no fully, ornamentally planted, small triangular ‘road islands’ in that sample. In other words it does not have the ‘character of a green’.

NYORK-UNR001, Linghaw Cross, Bentham, North Yorkshire (score 182) – i.e. the lowest scoring site It would appear that the respondent reported this site on the basis that it was at the time being considered as a picnic site. However, clearly, this never happened. This site is a fenced field that appears to be fully used for agriculture (sheep grazing and what appear to be some pig sheds or possibly hen houses) with no recreational use whatsoever. It was felt very likely that if the same respondent was doing the WI Survey with the site in its present condition, it would not have been considered for inclusion. There is a seat, but this is on the road verge outside the boundary wall.

Note this score is extremely low, the ‘positive’ element being made up from just three component features – lack of cultivation (100 points), unobstructed view (96 points) and post-1950 origin (6

133 points). Subtracted from the resulting value of 202 was a negative score of 20 (i.e. fenced – both around and internally, and privately occupied –presumably by tenant farmer in this case).

It is reasonable to suggest there would be a broad consensus that this site does not have the ‘character of a green’ (an expression that is consistent with the threshold score value of 650).

NYORK-UNR003, Sweetlow Whins Quarry, Bentham, North Yorkshire (score 261) This site is a grazed agricultural field, most likely as permanent pasture, either by the owner or a tenant farmer and considered likely to have been ploughed and re-seeded since 1990 (at the time of the WI Survey it is recorded as being covered by secondary tree growth). It is fully fenced without any public right of way and as such, public use of the site was thought to be extremely unlikely. There are no physical features indicative of public use. The only recreational activity recorded by the respondent was ‘occasional shooting’, which was not considered to indicate that the land was used for public benefit. It is recorded that the site was an 18th Century Enclosure Award allocated the site for the public to collect sand/gravel/stone - i.e. common land (though was never registered under the 1965 CRA). It appears to have been a focus of illegal tipping activity until a bank and a fence was erected alongside the road. As with NYORK-UNR001, it is one of a number of sites that passed to the “Bentham Common Lands Charity”. It is clearly now a privately managed agricultural field without public access. In conclusion it is felt there is a high degree of certainly that this site would not be considered as having the ‘character of a green’.

NYORK-UNR005, Woodland near Burton (51), Bentham, North Yorkshire (score 637) Another site that came under the umbrella of the Bentham Common Lands Charity. It comprises an area of woodland. There is public use of the site – e.g. informal recreation, dog walking, occasional nature rambles. The low score was in part due to the lack of mown grassland and also the lack of any features associated with public use. It was also not possible to allocate a score for ‘time depth’ - it was one of a minority highlighted previously where it had not been possible to make a determination as to how long the site was likely to have been a green. It is fairly unusual for a site to be entirely wooded, but there were a small number of examples amongst the 250 registered sites. The site also clearly has recreational usage. Given that the actual score was very close to the 650 threshold, and the fact that there has been no score value included for ‘time depth’ (which could potentially be as high as 90 points), it is considered that this site does in fact have the ‘character of a green’.

SUFF-UNR002, Unnamed site, Great Finborough, Suffolk (score 603) The site has no apparent recreational usage and there are no physical features indicative of public use. The site is another small triangular ‘road island’. In this case it is almost entirely bare ground (i.e. around 80%) resulting from it being used an ‘informal’ car park for a nearby school. There is a small area of grass remaining, but this appears unmanaged. Among the sample of 250 registered sites, there are many triangular grassed 'road islands' but none were being used in such a way. Note that the site was classed as not being used for public benefit. However, one could argue the point that car parking was a public benefit, but then this prevents other potential uses of the site. Nonetheless, this use was not considered as ‘being in the spirit’ of what might generally be regarded as used for public benefit. Note that there were very occasional examples of registered sites being used as a car park, but these (from memory) always had other forms of public use. Of course one could take the alternative view of the car parking being an encroachment onto a ‘traditional green’. 134

On that basis it seems possible to argue ‘either way’ that the site may, or may not have the ‘character of a green’.

7.2 Non-registered sites: Summary details of sites scoring more than 650 but less than 800 in the assessment (Paragraph 7.3.5 of main report)

BERK-UNR002, Anstey Green, Burghfield, Berkshire (score 762) The site sees regular informal recreation, dog walking and children’s games. However, there were no features indicative of public use (part of the reason for the low score). The site is a ‘modern’ green associated with recent housing (the recent origin again contributing to the low score). It is unfenced from roads, mown grass with trees. Given this, it is felt there would be a broad consensus that the site has the ‘character of a green’.

ESS-UNR002, Morris Green, Sible Hedingham, Essex (score 703) The outline of this small, historic green (actually more like a small common) can be made out on old OS maps (dating as far back as 1897), with three farms situated along its boundaries. Little of the original green now remains, with most of the land to the west being cultivated farmland (dating from WW2). In addition much of the land east of the road is now part of the fenced off grounds of one of the adjacent farms. In question 2 it was commented: “Extremely unlikely there would be any form of recreational use”. Of what remains of the original green, on Street View, there appeared to be very localised mowing of grass for ‘road-sighting’ purposes only. There is also an old pump on what remains of the green (though this could not be sited on Street View). It was considered very unlikely that any recreational use was made of the site.

The low score is thus due in part to the lack of features indicative of public use, no evidence of use for public benefit, and the fact that a significant part of the (original) site is both cultivated and occupied. Nonetheless, the site is clearly a small historic green (or common), though with only a small portion of the original area remaining. Therefore on the basis of the site’s history it is argued that it does have the ‘character of a green’.

ESS-UNR004, Picnic Area and Riverside Walk, Great Dunmow, Essex (score 783) The site has a wide range of recreational uses (informal recreation, dog walking, picnics, children’s games, fishing/pond dipping, and cubs/scouts outdoor activities). There are picnic tables with seats and litter bin(s). The site comprises an area of (mown) watermeadows fringed by the river and hedges. In Q10 it states that the site was “given to the town under a Section 52 Agreement with the builders of an adjoining intensively developed residential estate”. Contributory factors to the low score are the fact that a small car parking area is fenced off from the remainder of the site (i.e. internally fenced) and the recent origin. Given what has been summarised above, it is felt there would be a general consensus the site had the ‘character of a green’ (though not necessarily a ‘traditional’ example). Certainly there are good examples of areas of land given by developers for recreational use by the community that have been formally registered as greens.

135

ESS-UNR005, Recreation Ground, Great Dunmow, Essex (score 669) There is very good evidence of recreational use (informal recreation, dog walking, picnics, children’s games, football and other sports, car boot sales and dog shows!). The site comprises a complex of former agricultural fields/watermeadows that still retain the original field boundaries. The internal division is a rather unusual for a green. It was bequeathed to the Parish Council at a date later than 1921 and seems to have appeared on mapping as ‘Recreation Ground’ post-1950. Thus the low score is in part due to the recent origin and also the presence of internal divisions. The view was also considered to be ‘obstructed’ by the internal boundaries. Nonetheless given the wide range of formal and informal recreational uses it is argued that despite certain ‘unusual’ features there would be a broad census that the site has the ‘character of a green’.

HANT-UNR002, Bridge Close Green, Bursledon, Hampshire (score 762) Informal recreation and children’s games are recorded (both occasional) and the site is mown grass given by a builder around 1960. There do not appear to be any features indicative of public use. These two factors in part account for the low score, but clearly the site functions as a green.

HANT-UNR006, Outside “Greywell”, formerly the New Inn, at the top of Station Hill, Old Bursledon, Hampshire (score 797) There are no recorded recreation activities, with the comment by the respondent: “too small now”. In Q10 it states: “This seems to have been an ancient village green, outside an inn The New Inn, now converted to a residence 'Greywell'. Half the green has been lost by road widening, and ditches dug around the remainder to prevent parking of cars. This green was the scene of May Fairs, Maypole dancing and other village celebrations in years past”. Thus the site appears to be a small, traditional green (an area of mown grass) and a well-established feature of the village (though it was larger in the past). The low score is in part due to the fact that the site was not considered (now) to be used for public benefit (though it might be arguable that it functions as a visual amenity). Nonetheless, given its historic status, there is a strong argument it has the ‘character of a green’.

HWOR-UNR001, Majors Green, Wythall, Worcestershire (score 688, or potentially 593) The site is a small triangular area of woodland, fringed with scrub/tall herb vegetation and very local narrow grassland verges. The respondent in Q8 indicated that the site is mown, though no obvious evidence of this could be seen on Street View. Perhaps the very margins of the site by the road might occasionally be ‘strimmed’ by the highways authority? Note that if mown grass was deselected for this site, the actual score would fall to 593.

The site was considered to be so overgrown that any recreational use, even dog walking (recorded as occasional by the respondent), seemed unlikely. There was reference to a ‘gate and stile’ in the surrounding hedge, but there was no sign of such a feature on Street View. Indeed, the woodland on the site was so well-developed that it was indistinguishable from any sort of an enclosing hedgerow feature. There was also a reference to the fact that picnic tables were about to be installed. Again, none could be seen in Street View and it appears probable that even if they are present, they are now completely engulfed in the scrub/woodland and never used.

136

There are examples of wooded sites amongst the sample of 250 registered greens. However, in this case, given that it appears probable that no recreational use is made of the site nowadays (i.e. not used for public benefit), it is suggested this site does not have the ‘character of a green’.

NTHUM-UNR003, Redburn Playing Field, Henshaw, Northumberland (score 717) The site sees regular recreation (children’s games, football) and an occasional ‘fair/village event’ (though what form this took was not specified). Children’s play facilities are provided and seat(s)/litter bin(s). As such there is clear evidence that the site is used for public benefit. In Q7 it states that “This area was until the late 1970s the pit yard for Bardon Mill Pit. It was reclaimed by Northumberland County Council and part turned into a village recreation field”. The lack of trees (they are all on the boundary), the site being fenced and having an ‘obstructed view’ from the road and the recent origin are the main contributory factors to the low score. Nonetheless, it is considered likely there would be a broad consensus the site has the ‘character of a green’.

NYORK-UNR004, Burton Waste (Banks of River Greta), Bentham, North Yorkshire (score 776) The site as its name suggests comprises a section of the riverbank of the River Greta. It contains a mixture of scrubby woodland, grassy glades and open grassland patches (mown in part) and 'tall ruderal' type vegetation. Management (mowing of grass) appears to be primarily done by adjacent householders – i.e. ‘volunteers’. It is yet a further site of the Bentham Common Lands Charity, who let a small part of the site to the local authority for the storage of road maintenance materials. There is regular informal recreation plus occasional dog walking, picnics, children’s games and fishing/pond dipping (presumably fishing). The additional activity of ‘washing vehicles in the river’ and ‘extracting gravel from the river bed’ are two further activities recorded. A seat is the only noted feature indicative of public use.

The site appears to have been regarded as waste of the manor (note the name) and perhaps more appropriately should be regarded as 'common land' by virtue of the historic tradition of local people of obtaining gravel from the river bank. This is presumably why the land came into the possession of the Bentham Common Lands Charity. As an interesting further observation, it is intriguing that this site appears to connect directly with a piece of registered common land running along the river bank, but has not itself been registered.

It was not possible to say on the basis of available resources how long the site had been regarded as a ‘green’. In particular, further research would be needed to arrive at a conclusion as to how long and under what circumstances the gravel has been collected (e.g. has the land ever been expressly allocated for this purpose?). Clearly a part of the land has an element of recreational/amenity use (i.e. the mown, western portion), whilst the eastern part is in contested ownership.

The low score is attributable in part due to the lack of any features indicative of public use (though the land was regarded as being used for public benefit, in part at least). A further reason was the ‘obstructed view’ (due to tree cover). Clearly the score would also be increased if the question of Time Depth could be answered (and as ‘waste of the manor’, one might argue the score in this regard should be 90, which would bring the overall site score up to 886).

137

As to the question of whether the site would be viewed as having the ‘character of a green’, it is perhaps arguable that it does not, as the site appears to be an area of common land instead. Remember that in selecting the sample of registered sites, of those registered as commons only those that ‘resembled a green and apparently eligible for registration as a green’ were included (i.e. ‘genuine’ commons were discounted).

However, if one was using evidence of public use as the main criterion, then you could argue that the part of the site that was thus used (i.e. excluding the fenced area of contested ownership and no public access) did have the ‘character of a green’ and that this would be the case even if it had been registered as a common.

138