The Borough of Basingstoke and Deane

Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment

Final Report: September 2008

The Borough of Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment

Contents 1: Introduction and Methodology 7 Introduction 7 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Provision 8 The Context for the Assessment 10 The Content of the Assessment 10 Structure of the Report 13 Acknowledgements 17 2: Summary 19 The Policy Context 19 The Future for Leisure in Basingstoke 19 Local Views, Local Needs 20 Significant Trends 20 Current Provision 23 Spatial Objectives 30 Key Issues 34 Planning Policy 35 3: The Policy Context 38 Introduction 38 The Policy Context 38 The Borough’s Population 40 Conclusions 40 4: The Future for Leisure in Basingstoke 42 Introduction 42 The Key Drivers of Change 42 Strategic Recommendations 45 Implications for the PPG17 Assessment 46 5: Local Views, Local Needs 50 Introduction 50 Survey of Borough Council Members 50 Survey of Town and Parish Councils 54 Review of Quantitative Market Research 61 Review of Qualitative Market Research 64 Basingstoke Town 64 Deficiencies in Provision 66 Policy Implications 67

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 1

6: Distance Thresholds 72 Introduction 72 The Nature of Distance Thresholds 72 Government Guidance 75 National Agency Guidance 76 Local Authority Research 79 Other PPG17 Assessments 80 Summary 81 Proposed Distance Thresholds 82 7: Quality Standards 84 Introduction 84 8: Allotments 86 Introduction 86 The Quality of Provision 86 Accessibility 87 The Quantity of Provision 88 Local Views 88 Trends 89 Potential Trends 90 The Implications of Likely Trends 90 Quantity Standard 91 Summary of Provision Standards 91 Spatial Objectives 91 Implementation 92 9: Artificial Turf Pitches 94 Introduction 94 Quality and Value 94 Accessibility 94 Quantity 94 The Wider Value of Grass Pitches 99 Quantity Standard 99 The Impact of Population Change 100 Spatial Objective 100 Implementation 100 10: Athletics Facilities 103 Introduction 103 Existing Provision 103 Nearby Provision 103 The Potential to Attract Events 104 A Community Stadium 104 Spatial Objective 104 Implementation 104 11: Outdoor Bowling Greens 105 Introduction 105 Existing Provision 105 Supply and Demand 105 Accessibility 106 Local Views 106 Trends 106 Spatial Objective 106 Implementation 107

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 2

12: Provision for Children and Young People 109 Introduction 109 Existing Provision 111 Accessibility 112 Local Views 113 A Suggested New Policy Approach to Play 116 Quantity Standard 117 Spatial Objectives 120 Implementation 120 13: Golf Courses 121 Introduction 121 Existing Provision 121 Demand and Supply 121 Accessibility 122 Trends 122 Quantity Standard 122 Spatial Objectives 123 Implementation 123 14: Sports Pitches 125 Introduction 125 The Sports England Playing Pitch Model 125 Quality and Value 128 Local Views 128 Accessibility 131 Supply and Demand 132 The Impact of Population Change 134 Spatial Objectives 135 Implementation 135 15: The Green Network within Settlements 138 Introduction 138 Existing Provision 138 Quality and Value 139 Local Views 143 Trends 143 Quantity Standard 144 Spatial Objectives 145 Implementation 146 16: Tennis Courts 148 Introduction 148 Current Provision 148 Accessibility 148 Local Views 148 Trends 149 The Quantity of Provision 149 Spatial Objectives 150 Implementation 150 17: Countryside Recreation and Access 152 Introduction 152 Current Provision 152 Demand for the Access Network 153 Key Issues Relating to Countryside Access 154

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 3

A Country Park for Basingstoke and Deane? 155 Spatial Objectives 156 Implementation 156 18: Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities 158 Introduction 158 Fitness Facilities 158 Ice Rinks 161 Indoor Bowls 161 Indoor Tennis 161 Sports Halls 162 Swimming Pools 163 Spatial Objectives 165 Implementation 165 19: Community Halls 166 Introduction 166 Existing Provision 166 Accessibility 166 Local Views 167 Trends 168 Quantity 168 Quantity Standard 168 Spatial Objective 168 Implementation 169 20: Issues and Options 170 Introduction 170 Strategic and Policy Issues 170 Facility-Specific Issues 172 21: Planning Policy 179 Introduction 179 Summary of Proposed Quantity Standards 179 Current Local Plan Policy 179 Suggested Broad Approach to Policy 180 Management and Maintenance Issues 183 Related Supplementary Planning Documents 185 Planning for New Residential Developments 185 Spare Capacity 185

Appendices (bound separately)

A The National and Regional Policy Context B County and Borough-wide Plans and Strategies C Quality Standards D Ward Councillors Survey E Town and Parish Councils Survey F Allotments G Playing Pitch Model H Equipped Play Areas Quantity Analysis I Indoor Sports Facilities Supply-demand Model J Accessibility Assessment K Survey of Pitch Sport Clubs L Team Generation Rates M Tennis Courts N Major Sports Facilities Listing

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 4

O MFGS Audit P MFGS Analysis Q Community Halls

Maps (bound separately)

Basingstoke and Deane Parishes

3.1 Density of Development – Borough 3.2 Density of development – Basingstoke Town 8.1 Allotments – Borough 9.1 ATPs – Borough – Existing 9.2 ATPs – Borough – Proposed 10.1 Athletics Tracks 11.1 Bowls – Borough 11.2 Bowls – Basingstoke Town 12.1 Toddlers’ Play Areas - Borough 12.2 Junior Play Areas - Borough 12.3 Teenage Facilities - Borough 12.4 Junior Play Areas – Basingstoke Town 12.5 Strategic Play Areas – Basingstoke Town 13.1 Golf Courses – Borough 13.2 Golf Ranges– Borough 14.1 Centres for Sport - Borough 15.1 Multi-functional Greenspaces - Borough 15.2 Multifunctional Greenspaces – Basingstoke Town 15.3 Amenity Greenspaces - Borough 15.4 Natural Greenspaces - Borough 16.1 Tennis – Borough 16.2 Tennis – Basingstoke Town 18.1 Fitness – Borough 18.2 Fitness – Basingstoke town 18.3 Fitness – Borough – Equipment Range 18.4 Ice rinks – Borough 18.5 Indoor Bowls 18.6 Indoor Tennis – Borough 18.7 Sports Halls – borough 18.8 Sports Halls – Basingstoke Town 18.9 Pools – Borough 18.10 Pools – Basingstoke Town 19.1 Community halls - Borough 19.2 Community halls – Wheelchair Access 19.3 Community halls – Badminton Courts

Kit Campbell Associates Open Space, Sport and Recreation Consultants Chuckie Pend 24A Morrison Street Edinburgh EH3 8BJ 30 September 2008

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 5

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 6

1: Introduction and Methodology

Introduction The importance of open space, sport and recreation planning has become increasingly apparent in the past few years in response to the Government’s “Cleaner, Greener, Safer” agenda, the clear need to promote higher level of physical activity and the growing pressures for new housing developments in most parts of the country. Planning Policy Statement 17, Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (issued by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, now the Department for Communities and Local Government, in July 2002) makes clear that the Government regards well designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation provision as fundamental to delivering its broader planning objectives. The specific national objectives that accessible, high quality open space, sport and recreation provision supports are identified in PPG17 as:

• Supporting an urban renaissance • Supporting a rural renewal • Promoting social inclusion and community cohesion • Promoting health and wellbeing • Promoting sustainable development

PPG17 therefore requires English planning authorities to undertake assessments of needs and opportunities and advises that they should include:

• Robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreation facilities (paragraph 1) • The differing and distinctive needs of the population for open space and built sports and recreational facilities (as outlined in the annex). The needs of those working in and visiting areas, as well as residents should also be included (paragraph 2) • Audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, the use made of existing facilities, access in terms of location and costs and opportunities for new open space and facilities … Audits should consider both the quantitative and qualitative elements of open

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 7

space, sports and recreation facilities (paragraph 3)

PPG17 goes on to say that “assessments and audits will allow local authorities to identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in their areas. They form the starting point for establishing an effective strategy for open space, sport and recreation at the local level (tied to the local authority’s Community Strategy) and for effective planning though the development of appropriate policies in plans” (paragraph 4).

In terms of provision standards, PPG17 makes clear that open space standards are best set locally as “national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, such as differing demographic profiles and the extent of built development in an area” (paragraph 6). It also advises, in paragraph 7, that local standards should include:

• “Quantitative elements (how much new provision may be needed) • A qualitative component (against which to measure the need for enhancement of existing facilities) • Accessibility (using distance thresholds and consideration of the cost of using a facility)”

This report summarises the PPG17-compliant assessment undertaken for the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane in 2007-8. It forms part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework and Core Strategy and:

• Provides a detailed overview of the extent, nature and condition of existing provision and identifies those spaces and facilities most deserving of protection from development • Identifies gaps in current provision and forecasts future needs • Sets out a framework the Council can use to establish its future approach to open space, sport and recreation provision in order to help to ensure the Borough is an attractive place in which to live with cohesive, vibrant and healthy communities

This assessment has corporate implications for the Borough Council and has therefore been steered by a working group of officers from Forward Planning and Transport, Community Development and Learning, the Built and Natural Environment (responsible for sport and recreation) and Parks and Open Spaces.

Open Space, Sport When people step outside their home, or place of work, and Recreation they enter the public realm – the streets, squares and greenspaces which are an essential component of our Provision towns and cities. If well designed and maintained, they contribute hugely to making somewhere an attractive place in which to live. This is something which the Georgians, in

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 8

particular, understood well, with their squares and crescents, all facing networks of attractive greenspaces.

Greenspace planning, however, has been much neglected since Georgian times, with a few exceptions including the great Victorian parks, the Garden City movement and of course the New Towns. Management and maintenance have also suffered as a result of the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering for grounds maintenance in the mid eighties. The effect has been sharply to reduce the cost of maintaining parks and greenspaces and too many are now maintained by operatives using machines rather than gardeners using knowledge and skill.

One result has been that the quality of the public realm has declined significantly just about everywhere in just twenty or thirty years. But since about 2000, a greenspace movement has emerged in the UK which champions the value of networks of high quality greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities.

The simple fact is that high quality, accessible greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities help to make somewhere an attractive place in which to live and work. There is ample (and growing) evidence that they help to boost land values for properties in their vicinity and this in turn helps to attract development and economic activity from which everyone can benefit.

This is a great opportunity to reassert the importance of providing high quality greenspaces, in particular, and then ensuring that they remain of high quality by managing them properly. Effective provision and good management and maintenance are different sides of the same coin and one without the other is likely to be a waste of time and resources. The cost of managing and maintaining open spaces in the Borough is met partly from the Council’s property income and partly from taxation. As there are many other competing priorities for its resources, there is an obvious need to ensure value for money.

A second opportunity is to make better use of planning agreements. Indeed, Sport England actively encourages and even expects councils to use them to provide sport and recreation facilities. Its approach is a little simplistic in that it tends to ignore the fact that sport is only one of the many forms of provision that might be funded through planning agreements and the pot of gold at the end of the development rainbow is of finite size. But what this actually illustrates is the importance of having in place a clear policy basis for planning agreements and a plan for using developers’ contributions to best effect. Looking to the future, the Government is proposing to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on new development, accompanied by a “scaled back” system of planning

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 9

obligations. However, at present it is far from clear how this will operate although the suggestion is that the CIL will fund major infrastructure such as roads and utility services, and planning obligations will relate to the mitigation of site-specific development impacts. This will make it more important than ever to ensure that greenspace and sport and recreation needs are “on the table” when the Borough Council considers planning applications.

This is the background to this leisure and recreation needs assessment for Basingstoke and Deane. But it will also provide a foundation for a greenspace strategy for the Borough. Overall, the purposes of the assessment are:

• To comply with Government planning guidance and provide an evidence base for use in connection with the Local Development Framework • To bring planning and management together to help deliver the aims set out in the Community Strategy and ensure that the Borough is an attractive place in which to live, work and play or to visit

The Context for the Not all strategies and plans are of equal importance. The Assessment most important, obviously, are international plans and targets, such as the Kyoto Treaty, followed by UK Government, regional and then local ones. For obvious reasons, aims and objectives of higher level plans and strategies should “cascade” down to lower ones and set the context for them. If they do not, planning for the future is disjointed and no-one can be quite sure what their priorities should be.

This assessment is very much a local one, of specific relevance to Basingstoke and Deane. The local context for it is set primarily by the Community Strategy, the Council Strategy, the adopted Local Plan and its forthcoming replacement, the Local Development Framework.

This report is concerned primarily with planning issues, although it is spatial in character, looking holistically at issues affecting the future of greenspace and sport and leisure provision throughout the Borough. The role of the Local Development Framework is to be a delivery mechanism for the land use elements of the Sustainable Community Strategy. Its policies have an important role in protecting those greenspaces and sports facilities that meet local needs and ensuring that development and community infrastructure, such as greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities, are in an appropriate balance.

The Content of the This assessment: Assessment • Identifies the broad policy context within which planning for open space, sport and recreation in the Borough is set

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 10

• Identifies the drivers likely to change leisure behaviour in the Borough over the next two decades • Summarises the views of a variety of stakeholders in relation to current and future needs • Reviews the amount, distribution and quality of existing provision, by updating the open space audit undertaken for the Council between 1999 and 2003 • Derives quantity standards the Council can use to assess the adequacy of current provision and the need for additional provision that will arise as a result of new residential developments in the future • Puts forward quality standards the Council can use both to determine the need to enhance existing spaces and facilities and ensure that new spaces provided through the development process will be fit for purpose and sustainable • Derives distance thresholds (accessibility standards) that the council can use to identify accessibility deficiencies in provision • Maps existing provision and applies the standards to determine deficiencies in the accessibility, quality or quantity of provision across the Borough and also quantitative surpluses and opportunities to rationalise current provision • Identifies a number of key issues that the Council and its partners should tackle through its open space, sport and recreation strategy • Sets out the principles on which the Council should base its future planning policies for open space, sport and recreation provision

The assessment does not review in detail two issues that PPG17 suggests should be included: the needs of visitors to the Borough and the cost of using different forms of provision. The reasons for this are:

• Given the nature of the Borough, most visitors are either day visitors, staying with friends and relatives or business tourists. Day visitors come mainly for shopping and to visit specific attractions such as the Milestones Museum or to play in sports teams. This means that their needs in terms of access to greenspaces and sports facilities are very limited. Visitors staying with friends and relatives are effectively temporary residents so their needs are no different from those of permanent residents and their number at any one time will not be sufficient to justify additional provision. Finally, business tourists may want to visit a local park or possibly a swimming pool or gym but that is about all. • The Borough has a range of sport and recreation facility providers from community schools to commercial leisure clubs. The publicly provided facilities have user charges that are acceptable to the vast majority of users plus concessions schemes for those who need

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 11

them. All of the revenue costs of sport and recreation facilities have to be met somehow, and the Borough has a spectrum of providers ranging from commercial operators who recover all costs, plus an element of profit, from income, to public sector owners who aim to achieve only partial cost recovery and therefore subsidise charges. It is also worth noting that in areas where access to facilities has been made free for an experimental period, research has shown that factors other than cost are normally significantly more critical in terms of widening access. In Basingstoke and Deane, those who wish to use facilities have a choice of both facilities and prices and the cost of admission to leisure facilities is not a significant issue.

What is “Open Space, Sport and Recreation Provision”?

This assessment uses the definition of “open space” given in PPG17:

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

Typology of Provision

The Annex to PPG17 sets out a typology of open space and sport and recreation provision. It also states that local authorities should use this typology, or variations of it. The list below gives the PPG17 typology and indicates whether each from of provision has been included for this assessment:

Open Space

• Park and gardens ( ) • Natural and semi-natural urban greenspaces ( ) • Green corridors ( ) • Outdoor sports facilities, including tennis courts ( ), bowling greens ( ), sports pitches ( ), golf courses ( ), athletics tracks ( ), playing fields ( ) and other outdoor sports areas ( ) • Amenity greenspace ( ) • Provision for children and teenagers ( ) • Allotments ( ), community gardens ( ) and urban farms ( ) • Cemeteries and churchyards ( ) • Accessible countryside in urban fringe areas ( ) • Civic spaces ( )

Sport and Recreation Facilities

• Swimming pools ( )

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 12

• Indoor sports halls and leisure centres ( ) • Indoor bowls centres ( ) • Indoor tennis centres ( ) • Ice rinks ( ) • Community Centres ( ) • Village halls ( )

The elements of the typology suggested in PPG17 not covered in this assessment are therefore:

• Other outdoor sports areas: these are not defined in PPG17 and there is no need for any additional facilities in the Borough not covered in this assessment • Community gardens and urban farms: there are none in the Borough and no evidence of any need for them • Civic spaces: these are usually provided as part of major town centre developments and Basingtoke’s town centre was redeveloped a few years ago. In addition, it is inappropriate to have provision standards for civic spaces.

In addition, because most non-sports greenspaces are the main elements of the publicly accessible green network in the Borough, serve an important amenity function and can substitute for one another to some extent, the assessment has grouped amenity greenspaces, natural greenspacesand parks and gardens into a general category of “multi- functional greenspaces”.

Structure of the The Policy Context Report As a preliminary to the main part of the assessment, and in order to set it within a broad policy framework, Chapter 3 summarises the key points from relevant national, regional and Borough-wide plans and strategies. Appendices A (The National and Regional Policy Context) and B (County and Borough-wide Plans and Strategies) give additional details of these strategies.

The Future for Leisure

Participation in leisure activities and the consequential need for various forms of leisure provision have changed considerably in the past 20-30 years. For example, people are living longer and remaining more active as they grow older; there has been huge growth in the health and fitness industry; compulsory competitive tendering had a significant detrimental impact on the quality of parks and other open spaces in most areas of the country; and more recently a clear need for public policy relating to health and physical activity in order to stave off a potential crisis in the national health service. It is also likely that there will be further dramatic changes in the next 20-30 years. Accordingly the Borough Council commissioned Henley Centre HeadLightVision to review the future for leisure in

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 13

the Borough in order to help it foresee and plan for some of the likely future trends. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the main findings.

Local Needs, Local Views

The assessing local needs part of the work took six main forms, reported in Chapter 5:

• A survey of Borough Council members (reported in detail in Appendix D) • A survey of the District’s town and parish councils (reported in detail in Appendix E) • A review of the findings of the Borough Council’s quantitative performance reviews from 2004 to 2006, plus qualitative research amongst the least active groups in the community • Interviews with a sample of pitch sports clubs • Meetings and interviews with local stakeholders • Discussions with Council officials

“Needs” are different from “wants”. For example, no-one needs a Porsche in order to drive within the speed limit on any road in the UK, but many people still want one. Similarly, at least some of the “needs” identified through local consultations are actually “wants” and therefore it is always necessary to review the results of local consultations as objectively as possible and not assume that everything identified by local consultees is necessarily an unfulfilled local need. It would be financially and environmentally unsustainable for every part of the Borough to have everything that local residents might regard as desirable. This assessment is therefore based on a mix of local views and on analysis of the existing pattern of provision, the calculation and comparison of the amount of provision per person in different areas of the Borough and good practice in open space, sport and recreation planning tempered with the knowledge and experience of Council officers.

Distance Thresholds

In order to be able to undertake an accessibility analysis, the first step is to develop appropriate distance thresholds. This is done in Chapter 6 using a mix of government and national agency guidance and research, coupled with the results of market research from other areas of the country. The times people are willing to travel to different forms of provision are remarkably consistent from one area to another and so research from other areas provides a useful guide for Basingstoke and Deane.

Quality Standards

Traditionally, the planning system has been more concerned with the quantity of greenspace than the quality

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 14

of it. This has now changed and PPG17 emphasises that quality and accessibility are every bit as important as quantity. Accordingly Chapter 7 gives the rationale for quality standards and Appendix C provides a set of standards for the future use of the Council based on a variety of sources, including the Green Flag scheme and good practice advice from agencies such as Sport England, the governing bodies of sport and English Nature.

Audit of Existing Provision

An audit of local provision is an essential element in assessing existing provision. Fortunately the Borough Council commissioned a suitable audit a few years ago, shortly before the publication of PPG17 in 2002. This audit covered greenspaces and sports facilities in most wards in the town and the rural wards and settlements with the highest populations. The only areas not included in the audit were the more sparsely populated parts of the Borough where there is little or no pressure for new development. However, audits for these areas will be competed and added to this assessment by the end of 2008.

The audit provided an extremely detailed and comprehensive assessment of several thousand spaces and included factual information, such as location, means of access and signage plus an assessment of the current nature of the site, using both quantitative scores and qualitative comments, the scope for enhancement and desirable changes to management and maintenance. It has been extremely useful to the Council for both planning and open space management purposes.

The audit results required only a limited degree of updating for this assessment. Some spaces had been developed for some other purpose and some new spaces and facilities created since its completion. Borough Council officials were able to provide most of the information necessary for this updating. They also made available their database of sports facilities in order to supplement the original audit information.

Mapping and Geographic Analysis

The consultant who undertook the original audit work provided the results to the Council primarily in the form of hand written audit forms and hand-coloured paper maps. In order to simplify the task of analysing the results, it has been necessary to convert both to electronic format:

• First, by creating GIS polygons for all of the spaces identified on the hand coloured maps and adding further ones, derived by searching the OS base map for descriptive terms such as “Playing Field”, “Sports Ground”, “Tennis Court” and “Playground”. In all this

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 15

resulted in around 9,500 polygons, although many are too small to be classed as “useful” greenspaces; they are simply small areas of grass or other landscaping. However, only around 950 related to spaces larger than 1,000 sq m (0.1 hectare). The vast majority of spaces below this size are of limited value in terms of meeting local needs and therefore for the purposes of the analysis they were weeded out of the database of spaces. GIS has also been useful as a way of determining which sites are now in: ward boundaries changed in 2004, so some of the site codes from the original audit refer to “old” rather than current wards. There were further changes to Tadley ward boundaries during the course of this assessment and it has not been possible to reflect these latest changes. • Second, by entering all of the original audit scores into Microsoft Excel workbooks and creating a summary worksheet, it has been possible to generate summary quality scores for things such as the general characteristics of spaces, safety and security, signage, landscape quality, infrastructure, facility quality and negative features, plus an overall quality score. Borough Council staff then scored each space in terms of a range of value characteristics to derive an overall value score, based on landscape structure, visual buffering, wildlife conservation and enhancement, softening of the built environment, general informal recreation, children's play, access and interconnectivity and historical and archaeological features. By linking the remaining audit forms into a master worksheet it was then possible to calculate various average scores.

The relative importance of the different characteristics that a space may have varies from one type of space to another. For example, biodiversity and nature conservation are critically important elements of natural greenspaces, but only very rarely is this true of playing fields. Accordingly formulae in the audit workbooks weight the various components of the overall value scores to reflect the nature of the various kinds of space included in the audit. This means, for example, that a natural greenspace and a playing field with the same value scores for each of the elements noted above will almost certainly have different overall scores which relate to the things that make different spaces valuable to people or wildlife.

As a result of this process it was then possible to classify p each of the spaces in the audit as being of above average (high) or below average (low) quality and value in terms of their primary purpose. By linking the audit scores to the GIS polygons it was also possible to map the quality and value of spaces by typology and add “buffers” or distance thresholds, to identify the extent to which local residents are able easily to access different forms of provision. Finally, Ordnance Survey Addresspoint® data allowed the calculation of the percentage of properties in the Borough

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 16

within the various distance thresholds of different types of space to give a measure of their relative accessibility to potential users.

Quantity Analysis

The first step in the quantity analysis was to identify the total quantity of existing provision in each ward in the Borough and for each element of the typology, expressed as sq m/person, using a combination of updated audit information and GIS mapping. By comparing local views on the adequacy and quantity of existing provision, it was possible to establish the level of provision that local interests generally found adequate and derive suitable quantity standards. Chapters 8-19 give details of this analysis and the resulting quantity standards for each of the various forms of provision included in the assessment.

Key Issues

Inevitably an assessment like this identifies issues that cannot be resolved only through the development and application of planning policy but will require the Borough Council to initiate a particular course of action. Chapter 20 summarises these issues and suggests the approach to them that the Council and its partners should take.

Planning Policy

Finally, Chapter 21 suggests the principles that should underpin the Council’s Local Development Framework core policy for open space, sports and recreation provision. Until the sites to be allocated for housing development are known it is not possible to identify the specific needs that will arise from new developments. Accordingly this chapter summarises the quantity standards derived in the assessment on both a sq m per person and sq m per thousand people basis.

Acknowledgements Consultants undertaking an assignment such as this have necessarily to depend on assistance from a wide range of people for information, guidance and support. We wish particularly to thank the Borough Councillors that completed and returned one of our questionnaires on provision in their ward; Joanne Brombley in Planning and Transportation; Margaret McGrath and Noel Preece in the Council’s Greenspace Management Section; Marion Short, the Head of the Council’s Sports and Recreation Team; those town and parish councils that took the trouble to respond to our survey seeking their views; and the various other local stakeholders who helped our work by answering our questions and supplying information.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 17

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 18

2: Summary

The Policy Context The importance of open space, sport and recreation provision has risen rapidly up the national and local policy agendas in the past few years. The main implications for this assessment are that:

• The quality and accessibility of spaces and facilities are now seen as at least as important as the quantity of provision; until relatively recently quantity was the primary concern • The Government is beginning to measure the performance of local authorities in terms of the quality of environment they deliver for their area’s residents and visitors. • There is a clear national need to drive up participation in sport and physical activity, primarily in the interests of health promotion. • Pride in Our Place and the Council’s Corporate Plan both emphasise the importance of the need to protect and enhance the quality of the built and natural environment of the Borough and improve its image

Population Change

The population of the Borough is likely to increase by around 24,000 people, or some 16%, from 2001 to 2026. The main demographic changes are likely to be a rise the number of single person households and a significant rise in the number of people aged 45 and over. These changes will probably create additional demand for informal recreation, especially in the countryside, and social activities.

The Future for Change does not just happen, but is driven by the Leisure in interaction of a complex set of social, economic, political and environmental factors or “drivers”. The Council can Basingstoke and needs to use leisure and recreation provision to:

• Build a sense of place • Improve the prosperity of the Borough and its residents • Widen participation • Develop partnerships • Source new revenue funding

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 19

Local Views, Local The Borough’s Town and Parish Councils, and Council Needs members, believe there is a need for both a significant amount of additional greenspace or sport and recreation provision and to enhance the quality of many existing spaces and facilities. They believe that the main unmet local needs relate to:

• More and better provision for teenagers • More and better provision for children • Allotments • More and better countryside access provision, particularly bridleways and off-road cycleways • Better greenspace provision, and particularly access to neighbourhood parks (or possibly park-like spaces) in housing areas in the town and larger settlements • More local recreation grounds in village communities • More mini-soccer and junior pitches and better changing pavilions • More youth centres • More tennis courts

This is potentially a very expensive “shopping list” so the Council needs both to be sure that these “needs” really do exist and innovative in how it meets some of them. The forthcoming Local Development Framework has the potential to be an important delivery mechanism provided the Council can work creatively and in partnership with local developers. In order to do this it needs a comprehensive set of robust provisions standards with quality, quantity and accessibility components to replace the limited standards in the adopted Local Plan.

Significant Trends A number of trends are affecting the long term demand for various forms of open space or sport and recreation provision and Councils like Basingstoke and Deane should obviously take account of them. The main current trends are:

• Allotments: there is growing demand for plots, especially small ones, with significant waiting lists across much of the Borough; a change in the profile of plot holders with more women and younger people renting a plot; and therefore a need for better on-site facilities such as toilets.

• Artificial Turf Pitches: the development of new surfaces suitable for football and some rugby training, coupled with the waterlogging of many grass pitches as a result of climate change, makes it desirable for most football training and matches and some rugby training to transfer from grass to artificial surfaces over the next decade.

• Athletics Facilities: there are no obvious trends,

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 20

although the London Olympic Games may have an impact in terms of increasing interest in the sport.

• Bowling Greens: across England there has been a general decline in the popularity of bowls in the past few years and a number of clubs have reported increasing difficulty in attracting new members. The reasons for this are not completely clear, but seem to relate mainly to the fact that people are remaining increasingly active as they grow older. Against this, the forecast changes to the Borough’s population summarised in Chapter 3 are likely to result in a significant increase in the number of both “young old” and “old old” people in the Borough. Accordingly there are two significant trends running counter to each other.

• Children’s Equipped Play Areas: there are two significant trends in relation to play provision for children. First, there is increasing recognition that more or less standard play areas are a very poor way of providing for children and as a result a move away from “play areas” - fenced areas with fixed play equipment and safety surfacing - to “playable spaces”, or greenspaces designed in such a way as to stimulate children’s imaginations in a natural play environment. Second, there is a growing view, supported by agencies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), that fear of litigation has resulted in most local authorities being so concerned for the safety of children using their play areas that they have tried to design out risk to such an extent that many play areas are fairly boring and of low play value. RoSPA and professional play interests are expressing the view ever more forcibly that children need to be exposed to reasonable risk so they can learn to cope with it.

• Golf Courses: many clubs up and down the country have seen a reduction in their membership, although not necessarily a commensurate reduction in their level of use, measured in rounds per year. The reason for this is that as subscriptions rise, those members who play only occasionally, and fairly casually, realise that they are paying the equivalent of a much higher price per round than “pay and play” golfers. By resigning their club membership they lose the opportunity to play in competitions and keep their handicap up to date, but gain the opportunity to play a number of courses at lower cost.

• Sports Pitches: There have been three main trends in football participation over the past decade: a switch from Saturday afternoon to Sunday morning football by adult men, followed by decline in overall levels of 11-a- side participation; growth in 5-a-side soccer, especially at commercial soccer centres; and a rise in the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 21

popularity of mini-soccer. Hockey and cricket have remained more or less static, while mini-rugby has grown significantly. More recently climate change has resulted in winter pitches being waterlogged and unplayable for longer periods. This can result in a significant backlog of fixtures at the end of the playing season with knock-on implications for cricket where winter pitches form cricket outfields in summer.

• The Green Network: there are four significant trends occurring across the country. First, parks have been undergoing something of a cultural renaissance – and significant capital investment - as government and local authorities have recognised the huge benefits they bring to urban communities. One result is a strong desire on the part of government to see councils investing in upgrading their parks and making some (limited) resource available through Lottery funds. Second, there is an increasingly widely held belief that well designed and managed major parks are wonderful, but larger towns and cities also need a network of smaller, neighbourhood parks so that everyone has fairly ready access to a park wherever they live within an urban area. In effect, there is a growing move to convert reasonably sized, well located, accessible but often fairly boring spaces into neighbourhood local parks. Third, local communities are becoming more interested in helping to look after their best greenspaces – and more vocal in terms of criticising poor ones. Basingstoke and Deane already has a number of Friends Groups which provide valuable assistance to the Borough Council. Finally, there is growing recognition that quality is better than quantity, providing accessibility is good. In effect, one high quality small space is better than two larger but uninteresting or neglected ones.

• Tennis courts: the Government’s General Household Survey suggests that participation in tennis is fairly steady across the country. However, with global warming, tennis is becoming a year-round sport, especially in the south of England, and this is particularly increasing the demand for floodlit courts. In Basingstoke town also the work of Totally Tennis has boosted demand significantly in recent years.

• Countryside Recreation and Access: The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act effectively gives everyone a “right to roam” in the countryside provided they behave responsibly, for example by not leaving litter, disturbing livestock or leaving gates open. It reflects the growing interest in informal countryside recreation such as walking, horse riding and mountain biking, especially on the urban fringe – the area immediately around major settlements such as Basingstoke Town – and seeks to minimise the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 22

potential for conflict between landowners and path users. Ideally, main settlements should be ringed by a “spider’s web” of paths so that users can go on circular walks of whatever length they choose in the urban fringe without having to retrace their steps. In addition, these paths should link to country parks and long distance paths, where they exist, and rights of way providing access to the wider countryside.

• Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities: the main trends in the use of indoor sports and exercise facilities include:

o Rising participation in health and fitness activities over the past couple of decades that now appears to have reached a plateau o A general decline in participation in door bowls over the past few years, leaving some indoor clubs financially vulnerable o Growth in indoor tennis that now appears to have reached a plateau o Fairly static levels of demand for sports halls o A recent decline in participation in swimming, that may be reversed with the introduction by the Government of free swimming for recently announced that swimming would be made free for everyone below 16 and over 60.

• Community Halls: village halls are hugely important social facilities for small communities and their use increases with housing developments in rural areas, although there must be long term questions relating to the sustainability of those villages which are occupied primarily by commuters. Until recently it was thought that the country would see the emergence of “electronic village halls” that would offer local clubs, shopkeepers and others training and opportunities to use information technology. However, with widening access to mobile telephones and broadband connections, and the reducing price of powerful personal computers, this trend seems to have stalled as individuals can afford their own technology. Accordingly, for the present at least, community halls seem to be fulfilling their traditional role although there is a need to modernise many of them.

Current Provision Notwithstanding the views of the Town and Parish Councils and local Members, most of the Borough is well provided with both the various form of greenspace and sport and recreation facilities. In general terms, the accessibility of most forms of provision is also good. However, while some of the indoor sports facilities, such as the Aquadrome, are excellent, a lot of the current greenspace provision is “much of a muchness” in terms of quality and neither particularly good nor particularly bad. Given the critical importance of greenspace provision to the image

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 23

and “liveability” of the Borough, in many areas the main need is to enhance the quality of spaces and facilities.

The Quantity of Current Provision

The Borough has the following provision at present:

Allotments • 49 sites with 1,275 plots • Total area 33 hectares • 2.2 sq m per person

Artificial Turf Pitches • 3 sites (Down Grange, Everest Community School, Queen Mary’s College) • 1 pitch to 50,500 people

Athletics Facilities • Six lane synthetic track with field events facilities at Down Grange but no formal spectator accommodation

Bowling Greens • 9 sites • 10 greens (plus one at the Aldermaston AWE just outside the Borough) • 1 green to 15,600 people

Children’s Play Areas • 169 equipped play areas • Total area 9.6 ha • 0.6 sq m per person

Golf Courses • 8 courses with 153 holes (9 of them par 3) plus an additional 9-holes planned at one site • 5 driving ranges • 9 holes to 8,700 people

Sports Pitches • 18 cricket pitches • 86 adult football pitches • 19 junior football pitches • 29 mini-soccer pitches • 8 adult rugby pitches • 4 junior rugby pitches

The Green Network • 78 sq m per person, excluding playing fields (town wards) and 30 sq m per person (rural wards)

Tennis Courts • 74 sites with at least one court, of which 32 appear to be linked to private houses; 35 appear to be club or council courts; and 7 are school sites • Ignoring private courts, 1 court to 1600 people (0.4 sq

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 24

m per person) • In wards with at least one court, 1 court to around 1,120 residents (0.6 sq m per person)

Countryside Recreation and Access • 853 km of paths

Indoor Sports Facilities • Approximately 1,000 fitness machines • 1 ice rink • 2 indoor bowls halls with 12 rinks • 3 indoor tennis halls with 11 courts • 13 sports halls containing 54 badminton courts • 9 swimming pools with 2,370 sq m water area

Community Halls • 31 village halls • 45 community halls • 7 church halls • Floor area 24,638 sq m • 0.16 sq m per person

The Quality of Current Provision

The quality of provision is hugely important to potential users; indeed, higher quality facilities normally generate higher level so use than poor ones. In addition, high quality spaces and facilities tend to be valued more by users and therefore suffer from less abuse. The quality of provision in the Borough can be summarised as follows:

• Allotments: the worst sites are generally in Basingstoke town. The main improvements needed relate to things like safety and security and signage. At the time of completion of this assessment, the Council had already started to draw up a programme of potential improvements for its own allotment sites.

• Artificial Turf Pitches (ATPs): generally good, but there will be a need to resurface the Queen Mary’s pitch in the near future

• Athletics Facilities: the Down Grange track is in excellent condition but cannot be used for major events as it has only six lanes

• Outdoor Bowling Greens: all of the bowling greens are in good condition

• Children’s Equipped Play Areas: the open space audit did not include the quality of equipped play areas

• Golf courses: the Borough’s golf facilities are in good condition

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 25

• Sports Pitches: the Borough Council’s “centres for sport” in Basingstoke Town are generally of good quality and value but pitches in the rural parts of the Borough are more variable.

• The Green Network: the Borough’s multi-functional greenspaces are “much of a muchness”: none stand out as really good or really bad. This is both positive – the grounds maintenance specification and contractor are delivering reasonably consistent results, although there is room for improvement – and negative, in the sense that although the Borough has achieved a Green Flag for Eastrop Park, it could clearly do more to provide uplifting parks for both residents and visitors.

• Tennis courts: the open space audit did not identify the quality of existing tennis courts

• Countryside Recreation and Access: the open space audit did not evaluate the quality of the Borough’s access network because of its extensive nature

• Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities: the quality of the Borough’s indoor sport facilities varies from excellent (eg the Aquadrome and Tadley Pool owned by the Borough Council; the commercial Reflections Leisure Club and the Trust–owned Centre Gym)) to less good facilities in some of the community schools.

• Community Halls: the audit did not include community halls as the Borough Council already had detailed information on their facilities and condition

The Accessibility of Current Provision

It is obviously desirable that spaces and facilities should be accessible to those who may wish to use them, but at the same time every local resident cannot expect to have all the various forms of provision “on their doorstep”. The distance that most people are willing to travel to something varies with what it is; for example, most adults will willingly travel further to take part in sport than visit a play area with a young child. This gives rise to the concept of “distance thresholds”, defined as the travel time or distance that around 75% of people will find acceptable to various forms of provision. Most people find it easier to estimate them in terms of time than distance - for example, 5 , 10 or 15 minutes – and these times can then be converted to distances for planning purposes and so they can be mapped.

There are various published sources that provide guidance on acceptable distance thresholds and the thresholds below reflect them.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 26

• Allotments: 50% of properties in the Borough are within a 10-minute walk of at least one allotments site and 96% within a 10-minute drive of one. For sites with above average quality and value scores, these percentages are 21% and 72% respectively. The main accessibility deficiencies are in north east and south west Basingstoke, Baughurst, Sherfield on Loddon and Ecchinswell, together with a number of the smaller settlements.

• Artificial Turf Pitches (ATPs): 22% of properties in the Borough lie within a 20-minute walk of at last one ATP and 77% within a 20-minute drive of one.

• Athletics Facilities: UK Athletics has recommended the use of a 30-minute drive time catchment for athletics facilities. The whole of the Borough lies within this distance of at least one track.

• Outdoor bowling greens: most bowlers either walk or drive to their club or green and across the Borough 13% of properties lie within the 10-minute walking and 87% within the 10-minute driving distance threshold of at least one green. Accordingly the accessibility of greens is very good. Apart from a very small area of Hatch Warren and Beggarwood, the areas outwith the driving distance threshold of a green are all in the rural parts of the Borough. The main settlements without reasonable access to a green are Burghclere, Ecchinswell, Sherfield on Loddon, North Waltham and the extreme south west tip of Basingstoke town.

• Children’s Play Areas: play facilities should be readily accessible to potential users on foot and in other Council areas parents are generally willing to walk with young children to an equipped play area for more than the 5 minutes accessibility standard in the current Local Plan. Overall, 78% of properties in the Borough are within a 10-minute walk of at least one of them and 46% within a shorter 5-minute walk. Most of the areas with no play provision also have a very low density of development. In addition, many of the small villages in the rural parts of the Borough have only a very low number of young children. For example, at the time of the 2001 census, the whole of Highclere and Bourne contained only 250 children aged 0-7. Some neighbourhoods have a significant number of play areas and the Council could achieve the same overall level of accessibility with significantly fewer play areas. This creates the opportunity to review and rationalise the current pattern of provision.

• Golf Courses: most golfers drive to their preferred course primarily because they take their bag of clubs with them and walking, other than for a short distance, and public transport are impractical. Across the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 27

Borough as a whole, 92% of properties lie within a 15- minute drive of at least one course and just under 80% within the same distance of a course with at least 18 holes. 85% lie within a 15-minute drive of at least one golf range. Accordingly the accessibility of golf provision is very good.

• Sports Pitches: accessibility is not particularly important as players join a club that offers the chance to play at a particular standard or time that suits them rather then their nearest one. In addition, half of all the players in a match are playing “away”.

• The Green Network: the overall accessibility of the network is good, with almost 70% of residents being able to access at least one high quality, high value space within a 10-minute walk. However, access to natural greenspaces is fairly poor, especially high quality, high value ones, and only about a third of residents are able to access a park or garden within a 15 minute walk. This suggests a need for more natural grenspaces and, although parks and gardens are realistic only in Basingstoke town and the town contains around two thirds of the Borough’s population, a need to make some existing spaces in the town more “park-like”.

• Tennis Courts: across the Borough as a whole, 28% of properties lie within a 10-minute walk of at least one club, Council or school tennis site; 81% within a 10- minute cycle ride; and 98% within a 10minute drive. For club and council courts these percentages fall to 24%, 77% and 98% respectively. There are very few significant settlements in the Borough without at least one club or council site, the main exceptions being Highclere, Whitchurch, and Sherfield on Loddon. Within Basingstoke town, most areas lie within a 10- minute cycle of at least one court, except for a part of Brighton Hill North and South and relatively small parts of Norden and Popley West. Accordingly the accessibility of tennis sites is very good.

• Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities: the proportion of properties in the Borough within the relevant distance thresholds of different forms of indoor provision is:

o Fitness facilities: 10 minutes walk - 45% o The Leisure Park Ice Rink: 20 minutes drive - 69% o Indoor bowls o Indoor Tennis: 20 minutes drive – 75% o Sports Halls: 20 minutes drive – 99% o Indoor swimming pool: 20minutes drive – 90%

• Community Halls: the Borough Council has set a policy aspiration that everyone in the Borough should

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 28

live with a 10-15 minute walk of at least one community all. 66% of properties in the Borough are within a 10-minute walk of at least one hall, 97% within a 10-mnute cycle ride and 100% within a 10-minute drive.

Quantity Standards

Quantity standards are useful for planning purposes as they allow a planning authority to estimate the amount or quantity of provision that will be needed by any given population. While they can only be a guide, as no two communities are likely to have exactly the same requirements, they nonetheless help to support equitable planning. The quantity standards used for this assessment derive from an analysis of the current amount of different forms of provision in the Borough coupled with local views and the trends noted above. They are:

• Allotments: a quantity standard of 3.4 sq m per person. The application of this standard identifies possible quantitative deficiencies in provision in all areas other than Eastrop, Norden, Tadley and Whitchurch, with the total deficiency likely to be around 16 ha

• Artificial Turf Pitches: the appropriate quantity standard depends on the extent to which football transfers from grass to artificial surfaces and lies between 0.4 and 1.1 sq m per person. There are no specific deficiencies in artificial turf pitch provision at present, but the Council should develop a rolling programme of ATP provision and seek to transfer as much local football as possible from grass pitches to them. This will make it possible to develop some existing pitch sites for other purposes, such as housing and local parks.

• Athletics Facilities: 0.04 sq m of synthetic surface per person, or 0.12 sq m of total track area per person.

• Bowling greens: 1 green to 3,000 people, which is equivalent to approximately 0.5 sq m per person. Although the age profile of bowlers is slowly changing, the Government’s General Household Survey in 2002 found that the median age of bowlers was 66. It also found that around 4% of people aged 60-69 and 3% of people aged 70 and over played the game regularly. A typical club with a 6-rink green will aim for around 100- 120 members, this implies that a green needs a catchment population of around 3,000 people aged 60 and over. In the whole of the Borough there were approximately 24,000 people aged 60-84 at the time of the 2001 census, implying a potential need for around eight greens – assuming everyone over 60 lives within an acceptable travel distance of at least one green.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 29

Given that the Borough occupies quite a large area the present provision of 10 greens on nine sites is reasonable. In Basingstoke there were a little over 13,000 people in the 60-84 age group at the time of the 2001 census, capable of generating a full membership for sustaining around 4-5 greens. Accordingly the current level of provision in the town – 6 greens on five sites – should also be perfectly adequate.

• Children’s Play Areas: 0.5 sq m per person. This is significantly lower than the current Local Plan standard of 2 sq m per person. However, it is effectively the same as the current average level of provision of 0.47 sq m per person. The current Local Plan Standard is clearly unrealistic as it would require the quadrupling of the amount of equipped play provision. This would be very expensive to do but deliver relatively little by way of better play opportunities for the Borough’s children.

• Golf Courses: no quantity standard required as existing provision has significant spare capacity

• Sports Pitches: Alternative 1 (grass provision for all football matches): 9.3 sq m per person; Alternative 2: (ATPs for football, rugby training and mini-soccer plus grass for the other pitch sports): 5.6 sq m per person

• The Green Network: Basingstoke Town 65 sq m per person, rest of the Borough 32 sq m per person.

• Tennis courts: 0.5 sq m per person

• Countryside Recreation and Access: not applicable; the provision of countryside access is primarily opportunity-based.

• Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities:

o Fitness facilities: most new facilities will be provided by the commercial sector and no quantity standard is required o Sports halls and related “dry” sports facilities: 0.1 sq m per person o Swimming pools: 0.06 sq m of pool building per person

• Community Halls: 0.25 sq m per person

Spatial Objectives The planning system has moved from being concerned primarily with land use to being seen as an important mechanism that can help deliver against spatial objectives – essentially, what a council wants to achieve, where and how. This assessment recommends that the Council

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 30

should adopt the following spatial objectives:

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 31

Allotments

• To increase the amount of provision in all areas of the Borough except those areas of Basingstoke town in which there is a surplus of provision: Eastrop, Grove and Norden • To enhance the quality and, to a lesser extent, the value of those sites with below average audit scores • To locate new allotment sites where they will increase the proportion of properties within the distance threshold of at least one site

Artificial Turf Pitches

• To move as much football as possible onto artificial turf pitches by developing high quality ATPs and related ancillary accommodation on suitable sites and making them available at affordable cost.

Athletics Facilities

• The most appropriate spatial objective for athletics provision will depend on the outcome of the current feasibility study relating the Down Grange.

Bowling Greens

• Short term: to protect the existing bowling greens across the Borough and work with the clubs to promote the game in order to keep them economically viable • Longer term: to monitor the need for more greens as the population of the Borough rises and ensure that provision keeps pace with demand

Children’s Play Areas

• To adopt a clear hierarchy (see below) of equipped/formal play provision in both existing and proposed new residential neighbourhoods as a guide for planning purposes • To work with established local communities to enhance greenspaces, and where appropriate, former equipped play areas, in existing housing areas to make them more attractive and stimulating places for both adults and children and improve their biodiversity and promote nature conservation • To require the developers of new housing neighbourhoods to design in a network of attractive greenspaces from the start that comply in all respects with the quantity standards set out in Appendix C.

Golf Courses

• To protect existing provision

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 32

• Support the further development of those courses or clubs closest to the town in order to minimise the need for golfers to travel to courses further away

Sports Pitches

• To ensure there is adequate pitch capacity to accommodate the needs of the Borough’s pitch sports clubs and teams for training, practice and matches • To enhance the quality of the poorer rugby and cricket pitches and related ancillary facilities • Progressively to move all football from grass to artificial surfaces in order to make the best use of land within settlements and provide the highest possible quality facilities for the game

The Green Network

• Progressively to enhance the quality and value of greenspaces across the Borough in order to increase the proportion of dwellings within the appropriate distance thresholds of high quality, high value and biodiverse multi-functional greenspaces • Progressively to develop networks of linked greenspaces in the main settlements in order to develop green corridors and promote and support walking and cycling

Tennis Courts

• To ensure that all residents of the Borough have reasonable access to courts • To protect existing courts and seek to open up school courts for greater community use where this does not already happen and there is an identified accessibility deficiency • To increase the carrying capacity of appropriately located and well used courts by providing or supporting the provision of floodlighting

Countryside Recreation and Access

• To encourage and facilitate inclusive access to the countryside, particularly on the urban fringe.

Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities

• To ensure that all residents are able to access high quality, affordable indoor sports and exercise facilities within an acceptable distance of home.

Community Halls

• To increase the proportion of dwellings in the Borough within a 15-minute walk of at least one community or

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 33

village hall • To ensure that all community and village halls are as accessible to people with disabilities as reasonably possible

Key Issues The key issues that the Borough Council and its partners need to tackle are:

Strategic and Policy Issues

• The impact of climate change and sustainability: the south of England’s climate is changing in noticeable ways, with a clear trend towards warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, but with occasional deluges.

• Protection versus disposal and quality versus quantity: parts of the Borough, particularly Basingstoke town and Tadley, have a large number of small areas of open space that are little more that SLOAP (Space Left Over After Planning). Because of their fragmented nature, they are expensive to maintain but do very little to enhance local environments or support biodiversity and nature conservation. However, by the same token, many are also too small to be used for development. In addition, apart from the major parks, many of the Borough’s greenspaces are “much of a muchness”. This is positive in the sense that none stand out as really bad, but equally none really set a desirable standard.

Facility-Specific Issues

• The future of Down Grange: this is inevitably linked to the outcomes of the 2008 feasibility study: the Council has commissioned a feasibility study to assess the potential to develop Down Grange into a high quality, regional multi-sports community club complex

• Sports provision in Tadley linked to the outcome of the feasibility study into options for the future of the AWE options: Tadley is one of the key locations for sport and recreation provision in the Borough, the others being Basingstoke town and the Whitchurch/Overton area (see below). For a long time the residents of Tadley have been able to use the sports facilities in the Aldermaston AWE. However they are now “tired” and the Establishment is reviewing the future of the site. It is likely that it will wish to redevelop the sports facilities, creating the opportunity for West Berkshire District Council to negotiate a planning agreement requiring compensatory provision.

• Provision in the Whitchurch/Overton area: the Whitchurch/Overton area should be the third of three centres for sport and recreation in the Borough and

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 34

various agencies – including Whitchurch Town Council, Overton PC, the Whitchurch Sports Trust, Testbourne School, Overton Recreation Centre and Overton Rugby Club - have aspirations for sports provision in the Whitchurch/Overton area.

• The Camrose Stadium: the stadium occupies a high profile on one of the gateways to Basingstoke town. Its condition and appearance do not match the aspirations of Basingstoke Town Football Club and enhancing it should be one of the Council’s priorities in accordance with the corporate priority of improving the image of the town. There are also significant deficiencies in the amount of parking and the quality of the spectator accommodation.

• Provision for football: Football is the most popular participation sport in the Borough but it has been through a period of decline in the past few years. However, the decline has now probably ceased, although the club structure is weak with too many single team clubs, some of which are struggling to survive as the loss of only one or two players an be critical. Unfortunately, climate change is now having a significant impact on the sport’s abilities to get through its fixtures in the winter season as pitches are becoming waterlogged and unplayable for longer. There is a danger that further decline will set in, especially as clubs report increasing difficulty attracting the volunteers needed to run clubs.

• The Winklebury Football Centre: The Borough Council and Hampshire Football Association have developed a high quality football centre at Winklebury, but it can sustain only low levels of use because of the nature of the pitches. In addition, the main pitch cannot be used by community teams. As a result the complex can generate only very limited income.

• Provision for children and young people: The traditional approach to play provision for children is expensive and results in play facilities of only limited value and children can rapidly become bored with small facilities with only limited equipment. At the same time, there is only limited provision for teenagers although there is widespread support in the Borough for more provision for them.

• Countryside recreation and access: the paths network in the Basingstoke and Deane countryside is often fragmented and in poor condition. At the same time, the rising population of the Borough will increase the demand pressures on countryside access.

Planning Policy Planning policy has the potential to be a critically important delivery mechanism for the recommendations in

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 35

this assessment and strategy. This chapter suggests the approach the Council should adopt in its Local Development Framework (LDF).

Current Local Plan Policy

The current Local Plan standard bears little relationship to actual provision in the Borough. It follows that the Borough Council should use very different quantity standards for major new housing developments in its forthcoming Local Development Framework.

Suggested LDF Policy Approach

The Council’s policy approach to open space, sport and recreation provision in its forthcoming Local Development Framework should probably have a broad core policy supported by a number of supplementary policies. If it produces Development Plan Document relating to Development Management it may be appropriate to set out the supplementary policies in it.

Core Policy

The spatial objectives suggested above are too detailed to be reflected individually in a core policy. Instead, the Council should adopt a broad over-arching policy along the lines of:

• The Council will ensure that there is sufficient accessible and sustainable high quality, high value, accessible and affordable greenspace provision and sport and recreation facilities to meet current and future community needs, promote social cohesion and healthy lifestyles and enhance the Borough as an area in which to live and work and promote sustainable development

Supplementary Policies

The supplementary policies should relate to:

• The protection of existing spaces and facilities • Development of existing greenspaces and facilities • New greenspace provision required to meet needs generated by new development • Other new or enhanced greenspace provision • Green corridors and access to the countryside • The management and maintenance of new on-site greenspace

Management and Maintenance

There is no point in providing high quality, well located open spaces and sport and recreation facilities if they will

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 36

be badly managed and maintained. The Council’s current policy of adopting new open spaces provided by developers is storing up long term problems for its maintenance budgets. The main options open to the Council are:

• A section 106 planning agreement plus bond when maintenance is to be by someone other than the Council • For the Council to impose a condition or negotiate a planning agreement requiring developers to transfer ownership of the “common” areas of residential developments to the dwelling owners and include a clause in title deeds requiring householders to create and fund, on an equitable basis, a management company or committee that will oversee the maintenance of the common areas of a development.

The second of these approaches is designed to overcome this problem by giving the householders or dwelling owners control over their local environment, although some will claim that it amounts to double taxation: their Council Tax will include an amount for general grounds maintenance across the Council area while they will also have to pay an additional sum each year for the maintenance of the open spaces in the development in which they happen to live. The counters to this are:

• If the Council had agreed to adopt the land it would have required a commuted maintenance payment which the developer would have added to the cost of their house anyway • The better the local environment in which a house is set the higher its selling price will be

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 37

3: The Policy Context

Introduction The first step in preparing an assessment such as this is to identify the policy context within which it is set. For obvious reasons, the more that Government policy cascades down to local plans and strategies the easier it will be to ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible to deliver agreed national and local outcomes. It should also make it easier to attract Lottery or other funding which supports Government priorities. Accordingly, this chapter provides a brief summary of the main implications of relevant National, Regional, County and Borough-wide policy documents. It also highlights forecast changes to the Borough’s population.

The Policy Context Appendix A provides an overview of a number of national and regional policy statements that are relevant to the assessment. In summary

• The emphasis in national thinking on greenspace has shifted very clearly from the quantity of provision to quality and accessibility, under a broad policy strapline of “Cleaner, Safer, Greener”.

• The Government regards the state of local environments as increasingly important and is requiring local authorities to take effective action to deliver what these days is known as “liveability”. Moreover, it is beginning to measure the performance of local authorities in terms of the quality of environment they deliver for their area’s residents and visitors. The Green Flag scheme, originally developed purely as a way of recognising high quality parks, is now being widened to encompass all forms of green space. The Government view is very clearly that any council which does not deliver demonstrable “continuous improvement” in indicators such as the total area of Green Flag standard space in its area is failing. Basingstoke and Deane has been successful with its Green Flag applications, but it will probably be able to claim that additional spaces are of a comparable standard without having to go through the process of preparing and submitting formal applications.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 38

• There is a clear national need to drive up participation in sport and physical activity, primarily in the interests of health promotion. The government regards sport and recreation as important ways of achieving this objective, together with more informal activities such as walking and cycling. The promotion of walking and cycling also responds to other critically important long term policy objectives, such as the promotion of health and physical activity and reducing vehicular travel

Appendix B widens this policy review to county and Borough plans and strategies, the most important of which are the Borough’s Community Strategy 2006-2016, Pride in Our Place; the Council’s Corporate Plan 2007-10, Shaping Our Future, and the adopted Local Plan 1996-2011. Key points from these plans and strategies include:

• Local Strategic Partnership priorities

o protecting and enhancing the quality of the built and natural environment o improving access to the countryside o Encouraging local communities to take greater responsibility for their surroundings

• Council corporate priorities:

o Improving the image of the Borough o Improving the provision of leisure, cultural and community facilities o Protecting and improving the environment o Promoting greater community engagement in decision-making o Improving the facilities at Down Grange Sports Complex; o Improving play opportunities for children and facilities for young people • Promoting health lifestyles • Improving open space maintenance • Enhancing the landscape and biodiversity of the Borough

The review in Appendices A and B suggests that the main objectives underpinning the PPG17 and related strategy should include:

• To promote pride in the Borough’s greenspaces and sports facilities and help ensure that it is an attractive and inclusive place in which to live • To promote participation in sport and other physical activities • To maximise the accessibility of greenspaces and leisure facilities on foot or by bicycle • To promote community involvement in the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 39

management and maintenance of local greenspaces • To promote informal recreation and enhanced countryside access

The Borough’s The County Council has published long term forecasts of Population the Borough’s population for each five year period from 2001 to 2026. They have some significant messages for the assessment:

• The number of residents is forecast to rise from just under 153,000 in 2001 to around 177,000 by 2026 • The proportion of single person households is forecast to rise from 25% in 2001 to 35% on 2026 • The number of people aged 0-4 years is forecast to remain roughly static from 2001-2026; the number aged 5-15 to decline slightly; the number aged 16-29 to rise by around 5,400 in the period from 2001-2011 and then decline by about half this increase; the number aged 30-44 to remain more or less static; the number aged 45-64 to rise by a little under 9,000 from 2011 to 2021 and then decline slightly; the number aged 65-74 to increase by a little under 6,000; the number aged 75-84 to increase by around 6,000; and the number aged 85 and over to increase by around 2,800. • The overall dependency ratio – the proportion of people in the population aged below 16 and over 65 – will change only slightly from 34% to 37%, but this masks a decline in the proportion of under 16s from 21% to 18% and a rise in the proportion of over 65s from 12% to 19%

These trends are likely to result in:

• Fairly static demand for provision for young children and teenagers • Growth in the demand for pitch sports and keep fit activities • Fairly static demand for family facilities • Growth in demand for informal and countryside recreation and activities such as gardening • A significant need for additional provision for elderly people • Significantly increased demand for informal and social activities

Conclusions The PPG17 assessment should help deliver national objectives, support the work of the Local Strategic Partnership and help achieve the aims of relevant Borough Council plans and strategies against a background of population growth and therefore increasing pressures on land in sustainable locations in and around the main settlements This will require:

• Clarity over long term local needs so that the Council

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 40

can protect those spaces and facilities that will meet those needs, while also identifying those other spaces that might best be developed for some other purpose • A focus on improving the quality of accessible spaces and facilities and the promotion of physical activity, “liveability” and sustainability • Ensuring that new housing developments provide attractive living environments with appropriate, but not unnecessarily lavish, networks of greenspace provision that take account of and relate well to the wider context within which developments are set

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 41

4: The Future for Leisure in Basingstoke

Introduction In 2006, the Borough Council commissioned Henley Centre HeadlightVision to identify the economic, social and demographic trends that are likely to shape the leisure market in the Borough to 2026. This chapter provides a brief overview of the Centre’s conclusions and covers:

• The key drivers of change • Potential future scenarios • Key principles for the Borough Council to adopt • The strategic implications

The Key Drivers of Change does not happen, but is driven by the interaction Change of a complex set of social, economic, political and environmental factors or “drivers”. Few if any of these drivers are unique to the Borough; instead they range from the international (such as global warming), to the national (such as legislation and the priorities of the government of the day) and regional or local (such as population change and the rate of house building). Henley and the Borough Council identified the following key drivers of change:

Social

• Shifting sense of responsibility from community to self • Community consumerism • The culture of parenting • Rise of the childfree • Ageing and agelessness • Rising obesity • Always on” society • Who will volunteer in future? • Rising concerns about mental health and mental agility • Changing family and household structures • Increasingly empowered consumers • Increasing desire for experience • Continuing time and energy pressure • Personalisation • Desire for difference • Desire for authenticity • Changing working patterns • Increasing focus on well-being • Proliferation of choice

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 42

• Rise of café culture • Rise of space culture/Project me • Future of sport • Impact of the Olympics • Rise of the mini-break • Rising desire to “holiday at home” • Perceptions of crime and rising fear in the community • Changing nature of youth to adult transition • Rise in online gambling and casinos

Technological

• Rise of social media • Blurring of the physical and virtual worlds

Economic

• Increasing migration • Retail as leisure • Increasing numbers of poor pensioners/pensions crisis • Increasing urbanisation of society • Growing socio-economic inequalities • Rising affluence • Increasing debt • Uncertain future for Basingstoke economy • Increasing spend on services and leisure • Changing nature of the countryside • Population and housing pressures in the south east • Future skills shortage

Environmental

• Increasing energy costs • Growing impact of climate change • Changing public transport needs • Increasing environmental legislation • Carbon rationing

Political

• Increasing globalisation • Impact of being part of the Greater South East • Pressured government • Transformation of civic space

Organisational

• Fir for purpose review

From this list, and as a result of consultation with stakeholders, Henley identified seven key issues, each relating to more than one of the drivers above:

• Growing socio-economic inequalities: while employment in Basingstoke and Deane is high, and

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 43

therefore most people are reasonably prosperous, there are also pockets of deprivation. The national divide between the haves and have-nots is growing in spite of various government measures to try to reduce it. There is a real need to overcome the financial and perceptual or psychological barriers to participation by those from the lower socio-economic groups.

• Greater demand for personalised solutions: consumers face a wider choice of ways to spend their disposable income than ever before. This is leading to a splintering of demand which may well reduce demand for team and similar sports and increase the need to promote an ever wider range of leisure activities.

• Ageing and agelessness: although the average age of people in the UK is rising, many older people aspire to a more active lifestyle than people of their age in previous generations. There is also likely to be a huge gulf between those older people dependent on social services and those who are affluent and active.

• Greater inequality in health: obesity is a growing health problem, but concentrated particularly amongst those in the lower socio-economic groups. Some other diseases also affect this group to a disproportionate extent. There is a clear need for public sector providers to do all they can to influence health outcomes.

• Greater split between families and childfree: the so- called “normal” British family of two parents plus 2.4 children is now far from normal as only 12% of households fit this description. Instead, there are a rising number of single person householders in all age groups. The average household size in Basingstoke and Deane reduced from 2.64 to 2.45 in the ten years from 1991 to 2001 and is projected to fall to around 2.15 by 2026. The likelihood is that households in the Borough will polarise into those with and without children, with potentially very different leisure needs.

• Fear of crime: while actual crime levels in the Borough are low, this does not mean that everyone feels safe outdoors and in particular in parks and other open spaces. The Borough Council needs to develop initiatives to reassure residents.

• The changing nature of community and the “new local”: this covers a number of trends. First, the higher social groups (and, although not highlighted by Henley, those from ethnic minorities) are more likely to feel a sense of community. This emphasises the need to use leisure as a way of building a sense of community and closing the gap between different social groups. Second, an increasing focus on localism may result in

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 44

more people retreating into their homes, or home areas, and not engaging with the wider community; or alternatively the internet may make it possible for those with particular interests to engage – at least electronically - with those with similar interests anywhere in the world.

Henley, together with the Borough Council, then mapped the interdependencies between the drivers underpinning these seven key issues. In doing so, they sought to identify the relative importance of each driver in relation to local leisure needs and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the potential impact of the driver, with the following result:

High Changing household Ageing and Focus on well-being importance structures agelessness Virtual communities Changing working patterns Medium Increasing Rising desire for Growing socio- importance urbanisation of society experience economic inequalities Changing nature of the Always on society Rising obesity countryside Continuing time and Desire for difference energy pressure Increasingly empowered consumers Perceptions of crime and rising fear in the community

Low Who will volunteer in Growing impact of importance future? climate change Pressured government

Low uncertainty Medium uncertainty High uncertainty

Strategic From this analysis, Henley arrived at six strategic Recommendations conclusions in terms of how leisure and recreation policy for the Borough can best be “future proofed”. It concluded that the Borough Council should seek to use leisure and recreational activity in order:

• To build a sense of place

o Develop a cultural hub at the Top of the Town and support the regeneration of the area as part of a “Central Area Vision” o Review the events programme and work with arts and cultural organisations to develop ideas for the Cultural Olympiad

• To improve prosperity

o Support the development of the image of Basingstoke with high quality arts/culture/events o Be seen as a regional cultural destination

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 45

• To widen participation

o Check the distribution of leisure provision and ensure everyone has access to leisure and community facilities and open space o Address barriers to participation including locality and price o Target areas of need including young people, rural access and deprived wards

• To manage leisure assets

o Assess whether leisure and community facilities are “fit for purpose” o Plan for maintenance and renewals as appropriate o Identify enhancements to facilities as part of the “invest to grow” policy o Deliver the retendering of sports facilities for 2010 and plan to the next contract period o Update Green Space Audit and identify possible sites for disposal

• To develop partnerships

o Develop the “Partnership Board to Leisure and Culture” with Hampshire County Council and contribute to the Hampshire wide review of potential shared services o Ensure leisure and cultural provision is included in the Local Area Agreement and possible Multi-Area Agreement

• To source new revenue funding

o Identify possible funding through the LAA o Link into business community eg sponsoring potential local Olympians

Implications for the Most of these actions are essentially short term. However, PPG17 Assessment it is also possible to identify a number of longer term ways in which the Council can seek to achieve these broad aims. For example:

To build a sense of place

• Require developers to use more innovative housing layouts than traditional culs de sac • Require developers to make greenspaces the focus of new residential developments • Ensure that mature trees are never felled to make way for developments

To improve prosperity

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 46

• Ensure that new residential developments front onto high quality greenspaces as this enhances property values

To widen participation

• Incorporate paths and cycle routes in large residential developments that link to existing path systems and lead to shops and community facilities, in order to promote walking and cycling • Develop mid-week floodlit football leagues • Enhance access to the urban fringe and wider countryside from within urban areas

To manage leisure assets

• Foster community clubs that will be large enough to take responsibility for managing sports facilities

To develop partnerships

• Promote greater community involvement in the management of greenspaces

To source new revenue funding

• Drive up levels of use of pitches and other sports facilities in order to maximise income

Henley’s analysis has a number of other implications for the PPG17 Assessment. It needs (in no particular order):

• To identify how best to use greenspace and leisure provision to promote a sense of place for residents and maximise the image of Basingstoke as an attractive place to visit • To identify an appropriate infrastructure for outdoor events • To identify how best to plan for the implications of climate change in terms of the nature of green spaces and future participation in outdoor and particularly team sports • To identify the extent to which all residents of the Borough have equitable and appropriate access to facilities and services, while minimising the need for personal travel • To identify how best to maximise the quality of local green spaces and sport and recreation provision, while not creating perceptual or psychological barriers to their use • To identify areas of particular need for better youth provision • To consider how best to ensure that people living in rural areas and deprived wards can access leisure provision

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 47

• To determine the extent to which green spaces and leisure facilities are fit for purpose • To identify where it will be desirable to enhance spaces or facilities • To identify any sites that it may be possible to use for some other purpose in order to maximise sustainability or part fund whatever improvements in provision may be necessary • To highlight the importance of good quality, accessible green spaces and leisure facilities

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 48

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 49

5: Local Views, Local Needs

Introduction Establishing local views on the adequacy of existing provision and unmet needs is an important part of any PPG17 assessment, undertaken through:

• A self-completion survey of Borough Council members • A self-completion survey of the Borough’s town and parish councils • A review of the results of various surveys undertaken by the Borough Council into local attitudes to and the use of different forms of provision

This resulted in a mix of qualitative views from the elected representatives of local communities throughout the Borough, based on their detailed local knowledge, plus information from statistically valid quantitative surveys undertaken by the Borough Council.

However, these sources do not help to identify the time or distance that people are wiling to travel to use different forms of provision to use as the basis for distance thresholds. However, it has been possible to use guidance from various government and quango publications and surveys from other parts of England because there is considerable consistency in local views on this issue from one area to another.

Survey of Borough Borough Council members are very well informed in Council Members relation to the views of their constituents through their surgeries and constant liaison with their ward communities. Accordingly, Borough Council officers circulated substantially the same questionnaire as that sent to the Town and Parish Councils to Council members in early 2008 in order to seek their views and Councillors from the following 15 wards responded:

• Basing • Brighton Hill South • Brookvale and Kings Furlong • Calleva • Chineham • Grove • Oakley and North Waltham

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 50

• Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon • Pamber • Popley West • Rooksdown • Sherborne St John • South Ham • Tadley South • Winklebury

The full results of the survey are given in Appendix E and the tables below summarise their views on the adequacy of Borough-wide indoor sports and recreation provision:

Quantity There is more The quantity is More is needed No response than needed about right/none and not needed Commercial health/leisure clubs 13% 73% 13% 0% Community centres 7% 47% 33% 0% Community use school facilities 7% 60% 27% 0% Indoor bowls facilities 0% 53% 33% 0% Indoor swimming pools 0% 60% 27% 0% Indoor tennis halls 0% 60% 33% 0% Public fitness centres 0% 53% 33% 0% Public leisure centres 7% 33% 47% 0% Youth centres 7% 0% 80% 0%

Quality Good or very Poor or very Not applicable No response good poor Commercial health/leisure clubs 87% 7% 0% 7% Community centres 80% 13% 0% 7% Community use school facilities 78% 7% 0% 25% Indoor bowls facilities 67% 13% 0% 20% Indoor swimming pools 87% 13% 0% 20% Indoor tennis halls 87% 13% 0% 20% Public fitness centres 80% 7% 0% 13% Public leisure centres 80% 7% 0% 13% Youth centres 13% 60% 0% 27%

Accordingly, a majority of the responding Borough Councillors are of the view that the quantity of Borough- wide commercial health and leisure clubs, community use school sports facilities, indoor bowls halls, indoor swimming pools, indoor tennis halls and public fitness centres is “about right”, but a significant proportion identified a need for more community centres, community use school sports facilities, indoor bowls halls, indoor swimming pools, indoor tennis halls, public fitness centres and public leisure centres. In addition, a majority also identified a need for more youth centres.

In terms of quality, youth centres again stand out as nearly a half of the Council members classed them as being of

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 51

poor or very poor quality. Conversely, the best quality facilities are seen generally as commercial health and leisure clubs, community centres, community use school facilities, indoor swimming pools, indoor tennis halls, public fitness centres and public leisure centres.

The tables below summarise Councils members’ views in relation to provision in their own wards:

Quantity There is more About right More is needed None and not than enough needed/no response Countryside Facilities Bridleways/off-road cycleways 7% 27% 67% 0% Nature conservation areas 7% 67% 27% 0% Rural footpaths/rights of way 7% 73% 20% 0% Water areas and waterways 7% 60% 33% 0% Woodland areas 7% 73% 20% 0%

Quantity More than About right More needed None and not enough needed/no response Public Spaces Churchyards and cemeteries 0% 47% 27% 20% Greenspaces in housing areas 7% 40% 53% 0% Local recreation grounds 7% 53% 33% 7% Parks and public gardens 0% 53% 40% 7% Street trees 20% 53% 27% 0% Village greens 13% 27% 40% 20%

Activity spaces Allotments 0% 33% 60% 7% Bowling greens 0% 20% 27% 53% Children's Play (up to 8 years) 7% 53% 40% 0% Children's Play (8 -12 years) 7% 47% 407 0% Grass mini-soccer pitches 0% 33% 47% 20% Grass junior football pitches 0% 40% 47% 13% Adult grass football pitches 0% 40% 47% 13% Grass rugby pitches 0% 13% 60% 27% Floodlit grass sports pitches 0% 27% 33% 40% Floodlit artificial turf pitches 0% 20% 33% 47% MUGA's (Multi Use Games Areas) 7% 13% 67% 13% Public use changing pavilions 7% 20% 53% 20% Teenage facilities 7% 0% 87% 7% Tennis Courts 0% 40% 40% 20% Floodlit tennis courts 0% 13% 40% 47% Water sports areas 7% 20% 27% 47%

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 52

Quality Good or very Poor or very Not applicable No response good poor Countryside Facilities Bridleways/off-road cycleways 53% 40% 7% % Nature conservation areas 47% 27% 27% % Rural footpaths/rights of way 53% 33% 13% % Water areas and waterways 40% 20% 40% % Woodland areas 67% 27% 7% %

Public Spaces Churchyards and cemeteries 53% 20% 27% % Greenspaces in housing areas 27% 60% 13% % Local recreation grounds 60% 33% 7% % Parks and public gardens 60% 40% 20% % Street trees 40% 27% 0% % Village greens 27% 33% 40% %

Quality Good or very Poor or very Not applicable No response good poor Activity spaces Allotments 67% 20% 13% % Bowling greens 27% 20% 47% % Children's Play (up to 8 years) 53% 47% 0% % Children's Play (8 -12 years) 47% 47% 7% % Grass mini-soccer pitches 33% 33% 27% % Grass junior football pitches 47% 27% 20% % Adult grass football pitches 47% 20% 27% % Grass rugby pitches 13% 27% 53% % Floodlit grass sports pitches 27% 20% 47% % Floodlit artificial turf pitches 20% 27% 47% % MUGA's (Multi Use Games Areas) 20% 40% 40% % Public use changing pavilions 27% 40% 33% % Teenage facilities 13% 60% 20% % Tennis Courts 47% 20% 33% % Floodlit tennis courts 13% 20% 60% % Water sports areas 7% 33% 53% %

On the basis of these results, the main needs for more provision across the Borough (with the percentage of councillors identifying a need for more in brackets)are:

• Countryside Facilities: off-road cycleways/bridleways (67%) • Public spaces: greenspaces in housing areas (53%), village greens and parks and public gardens (both 40%) • Activity spaces: teenage facilities (87%), multi use games areas (67%), grass rugby pitches (60%) and public use changing pavilions (53%

In quality terms, councillors identified the following main needs for better provision, again with percentages in

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 53

brackets:

• Countryside provision: bridleways/off-road cycleways (40%) and rural footpaths/rights of way (33%) • Public spaces: greenspaces in housing areas and street trees (both60%) • Activity spaces: teenage facilities (60%) and play facilities for both young and older children (both 47%)

Priorities for Additional and Better Provision

Councillors’ clear top priority is for more teenage facilities – cited by half of the members - followed by community indoor provision. Their top priorities for better provision relate to teenage facilities, off-road cycleways and community halls.

Survey of Town and With the assistance of the Borough Council, we undertook Parish Councils a postal survey of the views of the Borough’s town and parish councils in autumn 2007. Appendix D gives their views on the adequacy of current open space, sport and recreation provision both in their own areas and across the Borough as a whole. It also highlights what they believe to be the main priorities in their areas for more or better provision. A total of thirty Councils provided a “corporate” response to the survey, while Chineham Parish Council provided a total of eight responses, one from the clerk and seven from different members. The councils that did not respond were:

• Ashmondsworth • Candovers • Dummer • Ellisfield • Farleigh Wallop • Hannington • Hartley Wespall • Herriard • Litchfield and Woodcott • Popham • Preston Candover and Nutley • Rooksdown • Sherfield on Loddon • Stratfield Saye • Tunworth • Weston Corbett and Weston Patrick • Winslade • Wootton St Lawrence

We asked the Councils to comment on a number of different forms of provision, grouped under four broad heads:

• Countryside facilities: bridleways/off-road cycleways, nature conservation areas, rural footpaths/rights of

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 54

way, water areas and waterways and woodland areas • Public spaces: churchyards and cemeteries, greenspaces in housing areas, local recreation grounds, parks and public gardens, street trees and village greens • Activity spaces: allotments, bowling greens, children’s play (up to 8 years), children’s play (8 -12 years), grass mini-soccer pitches, grass junior football pitches, adult grass football pitches, grass rugby pitches, floodlit grass sports pitches, floodlit artificial turf pitches, MUGAs (multi use games areas), public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities, tennis courts, floodlit tennis courts and water sports areas • Indoor facilities: commercial health/leisure clubs, community centres, community use school sports facilities, indoor bowls facilities, indoor swimming pools, indoor tennis halls, Public fitness centres, Public leisure centres and Youth centres

The tables below summarise the Town and Parish Councils’ views on the adequacy of Borough-wide indoor sports and recreation provision:

Quantity There is more The quantity is More is needed No response than needed about right/none and not needed Commercial health/leisure clubs 0% 63% 14% 18% Community centres 0% 61% 18% 21% Community use school facilities 0% 47% 29% 18% Indoor bowls facilities 0% 50% 24% 21% Indoor swimming pools 0% 53% 19% 16% Indoor tennis halls 0% 26% 40% 19% Public fitness centres 0% 42% 30% 18% Public leisure centres 0% 39% 30% 18% Youth centres 0% 8% 66% 21%

Quality Poor or very Good or very Not applicable No response poor good Commercial health/leisure clubs 3% 69% 8% 21% Community centres 13% 61% 0% 24% Community use school facilities 13% 63% 0% 21% Indoor bowls facilities 11% 50% 13% 18% Indoor swimming pools 8% 68% 5% 18% Indoor tennis halls 13% 48% 11% 26% Public fitness centres 16% 47% 8% 26% Public leisure centres 11% 58% 5% 24% Youth centres 45% 18% 8% 24%

Accordingly, at least half of the responding Town and Parish Councils are of the view that the quantity of Borough-wide commercial health and leisure clubs, community centres, indoor bowls facilities and indoor

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 55

swimming pools is “about right”, but at least a quarter identified a need for more community use school facilities, indoor tennis halls, public fitness centres, public leisure centres and youth centres. However, it also appears that Town and Parish Councils are unaware of some of the provision in the Borough: nine respondents, for example, were of the view that there is no indoor tennis provision. This suggests a need for enhanced promotion of the Borough’s main built facilities in its rural areas; alternatively it may be that some respondents misinterpreted the question as relating to their own parish or town and not the Borough as a whole.

In terms of quality, youth centres stand out as nearly a half of respondents classed them as being of poor or very poor quality. Conversely, the best quality facilities are seen generally as commercial health and leisure clubs, indoor swimming pools, community use school facilities and community centres.

The views of the Borough’s town and parish councils are most likely to be significant in relation to provision in their own areas. Accordingly the tables below summarise their overall views on local provision in their areas:

Quantity There is more About right More is needed None and not than enough needed/no response Countryside Facilities Bridleways/off-road cycleways 0% 50% 39% 11% Nature conservation areas 0% 68% 24% 5% Rural footpaths/rights of way 0% 71% 24% 6% Water areas and waterways 0% 42% 27% 31% Woodland areas 0% 79% 21% 0%

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 56

Quantity More than About right More needed None and not enough needed/no response Public Spaces Churchyards and cemeteries 0% 68% 11% 18% Greenspaces in housing areas 0% 61% 31% 8% Local recreation grounds 0% 53% 34% 14% Parks and public gardens 0% 39% 24% 34% Street trees 0% 55% 13% 29% Village greens 0% 39% 34% 23%

Activity spaces Allotments 0% 16% 48% 32% Bowling greens 0% 73% 13% 66% Children’s Play (up to 8 years) 0% 21% 35% 11% Children’s Play (8 -12 years) 0% 55% 54% 13% Grass mini-soccer pitches 0% 34% 29% 37% Grass junior football pitches 0% 34% 30% 37% Adult grass football pitches 0% 45% 24% 32% Grass rugby pitches 0% 13% 21% 66% Floodlit grass sports pitches 0% 16% 16% 66% Floodlit artificial turf pitches 0% 3% 16% 79% MUGA’s (Multi Use Games Areas) 0% 21% 36% 45% Public use changing pavilions 0% 21% 27% 53% Teenage facilities 0% 3% 82% 16% Tennis Courts 0% 37% 19% 40% Floodlit tennis courts 0% 11% 22% 66% Water sports areas 0% 1% 14% 72%

Quality Poor or very Good or very Not applicable No response poor good Countryside Facilities Bridleways/off-road cycleways 45% 42% 8% 5% Nature conservation areas 19% 68% 13% 0% Rural footpaths/rights of way 29% 68% 0% 3% Water areas and waterways 32% 16% 47% 5% Woodland areas 21% 71% 3% 5%

Public Spaces Churchyards and cemeteries 8% 65% 16% 11% Greenspaces in housing areas 21% 66% 5% 5% Local recreation grounds 16% 66% 13% 5% Parks and public gardens 13% 29% 50% 8% Street trees 14% 48% 37% 5% Village greens 13% 48% 38% 5%

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 57

Quality Poor or very Good or very Not applicable No response poor good Activity spaces Allotments 11% 35% 47% 8% Bowling greens 5% 16% 66% 11% Children’s Play (up to 8 years) 16% 71% 8% 5% Children’s Play (8 -12 years) 24% 52% 16% 8% Grass mini-soccer pitches 19% 29% 42% 11% Grass junior football pitches 16% 42% 32% 11% Adult grass football pitches 5% 48% 39% 8% Grass rugby pitches 8% 8% 74% 11% Floodlit grass sports pitches 8% 13% 71% 8% Floodlit artificial turf pitches 5% 5% 79% 11% MUGA’s (Multi Use Games Areas) 19% 24% 45% 13% Public use changing pavilions 22% 16% 55% 8% Teenage facilities 48% 11% 34% 8% Tennis Courts 21% 29% 42% 8% Floodlit tennis courts 13% 5% 71% 8% Water sports areas 8% 3% 79% 11%

On the basis of these results, the main needs for more provision across the Borough (with the percentage of respondents identifying a need for more in brackets) are:

• Countryside Facilities: off-road cycleways/bridleways (39%) • Public spaces: local recreation grounds (34%), village greens (34%), greenspaces in housing areas (31%) and parks and public gardens (24%) • Activity spaces: teenage facilities (82%), play facilities for older children (54%), allotments (48%), play facilities for young children (35%), multi use games areas (36%), and junior football pitches (30%)

In quality terms, the Town and Parish Council respondents identified the following main needs for better provision, again with percentages in brackets:

• Countryside provision: bridleways/off-road cycleways (43%) and water areas/waterways (32%) and rural footpaths/rights of way (29%) • Public spaces: greenspaces in housing areas (21%) • Activity spaces: teenage facilities (48%), play facilities for older children (24%), changing pavilions (22%) and tennis courts (21%).

Priorities for Additional Provision

We asked each of the Town and Parish Councils to identify their top priorities for additional local provision, without placing any restrictions on what they could suggest. The most frequently cited needs were for teenage/youth facilities (12 councils), children’s play facilities (9 councils),

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 58

youth centres (8 councils), allotments (7 councils) and multi-use games areas (7 councils). The specific suggestions were:

• Allotments: Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), Hurstbourne Priors, Laverstoke and Freefolk, Old Basing and Lytchpit, St Mary Bourne, Stratfield Turgis (7 councils) • Bridleways/cyclepaths/footpaths: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents), Newnham, Oakley and Deane, Overton, Silchester, Stratfield Turgis (6 councils) • Burial ground: Bramley, Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents), Overton (3 councils) • Car parking: Ashford Hill with Headley (1 council) • Changing pavilions: Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green, Mortimer West End, • Children’s play facilities (under 8s or 8-12 year olds): Ashford Hill with Headley, Bramley, Cliddesden, Highclere and Penwood, Hurstbourne Priors, Old Basing and Lychpit, Overton, Silchester, St Mary Bourne (9 councils) • Commercial health/leisure clubs/cinema: Tadley (1 council) • Financial support: Ashford Hill with Headley, North Waltham (2 councils) • Floodlit artificial turf pitch: Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green (1 council) • Grass pitches: Baughurst, Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), Highclere and Penwood, Old Basing and Lychpit, Tadley (5 councils) • Greenspaces in housing areas: Baughurst, East Woodhay, Pamber, Stratfield Turgis (4 councils) • Indoor tennis courts: Mortimer West End (1 council) • Local recreation grounds: Baughurst, Monk Sherborne (2 councils) • Multi use games areas: Bramley, East Woodhay, Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green, Monk Sherborne, North Waltham, Oakley and Deane, Old Basing and Lychpit, Tadley (8 councils) • Nature conservation areas: Cliddesden, Monk Sherborne (2 councils) • Parks and gardens: Baughurst, Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents), Tadley (3 councils) • Public fitness centres: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents), Stratfield Turgis (2 councils) • Public toilets: Silchester (1 council) • Public leisure centres: Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), Mortimer West End, Sherborne St John (3 councils) • Public woodland: Monk Sherborne (1 council) • Street trees: Cliddesden, Stratfield Turgis (2 councils) • Teenage/youth facilities: Baughurst, Bradley, Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), East Woodhay, Highclere and Penwood, Hurstbourne Priors, Laverstoke and Freefolk, Mortimer West End, Old Basing and

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 59

Lychpit, Overton, St Mary Bourne, Tadley (12 councils) • Tennis courts: Bramley (1 council) • Village greens: Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), Cliddesden, Monk Sherborne, Oakley and Dene (4 councils) • Village hall extension: Steventon (1 council) • Water areas/waterways: Overton (1 council) • Youth centres: Bradley, Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green, Mortimer West End, North Waltham, Oakley and Deane, Sherborne St John, Silchester, Tadley (9 councils)

Priorities for Better Provision

Most of the town and parish councils also identified their priorities for better quality provision, although a number simply repeated their suggestions for additional provision. In detail, the Councils identified the following needs for better quality provision:

• Allotments: Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents) (12 council) • Better maintenance: Ashford Hill with Headley, Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), Hurstbourne Priors, Upton Grey, Whitchurch (5 councils) • Bowling greens: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents) (1 council) • Changing pavilions: Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green, Kingsclere, Mapledurwell (3 councils) • Children’s play facilities: Ashford Hill with Headley, Cliddesden, Highclere and Penwood, Kingsclere, Laverstoke and Freefolk, Mortimer West End, Old Basing and Lychpit, Pamber (8 councils) • Countryside footpaths: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents), Hurstbourne Priors, Newnham, Oakley and Deane, Old Basing and Lychpit, Overton, Silchester (7 councils • Floodlit artificial turf pitches: Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green (1 council) • Grants: Ashford Hill with Headley, Whitchurch (2 councils) • Grass pitches: Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green, Highclere and Penwood, Mortimer West End (3 councils) • Greenspaces in housing areas: East Woodhay (1 council) • Indoor bowls/tennis: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents) (1 council) • Local recreation grounds: Highclere and Penwood, Monk Sherborne (2 councils) • Multi use games areas: East Woodhay, Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green, Mortimer West End (3 councils) • Nature conservation areas: Cliddesden (1 council)

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 60

• Parking: Ashford Hill with Headley (1 council) • Public leisure centres: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents) (1 council) • Street trees: Cliddesden (1 council) • Teenage/youth facilities: Baughurst, Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents), East Woodhay, Highclere and Penwood, Laverstoke and Freefolk, North Waltham Oakley and Deane, Old Basing and Lychpit, Pamber, St Mary Bourne (10 councils) • Tennis courts: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents) (1 council) • Village green improvements: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents), Cliddesden (2 councils) • Village halls: Mapledurwell and Nateley, Steventon (2 councils) • Water areas and waterways (Chineham (2 of the 8 respondents) (1 council) • Woodland: Monk Sherborne (1 council) • Youth centres: Chineham (1 of the 8 respondents) (1 council)

Review of The Council conducts a Performance Monitoring survey Quantitative Market each year. They follow broadly the same format each year and allow the Borough Council to track changes in the use Research of and satisfaction with various facilities and services across the Borough. The surveys are interviewer- conducted and involve a representative sample of around 600 Borough residents aged 16 and over, some on a Borough-wide basis and others in specific wards within the Borough. As such the results provide a reliable quantitative evidence base.

Performance Monitoring 2003

The 2003 Performance Monitoring Survey identified the extent to which residents of the Borough use its facilities. It also asked for details of leisure facilities they visit outside the Borough and therefore the facilities for which there might be an unmet need within it. The only facilities identified by 1% or more of the respondents were:

• Skateparks/parks: 10 respondents or 1.67% of the sample • Better sports facilities: 10 respondents or 1.67% of the sample • Country fairs/parks: 10 respondents 1.67% of the sample

Accordingly the survey did not establish any significant unmet needs.

Performance Monitoring 2004

The 2004 survey involved 600 respondents, of which roughly half lived in the town and half the rural parts of the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 61

Borough. However, differences between rural and town respondents were relatively limited. The most relevant findings included:

• Only 14% of respondents were fairly or very dissatisfied with the accessibility of leisure facilities, their main reasons being poor public transport (42% of dissatisfied respondents) and the lack of local facilities for all ages (36% of dissatisfied respondents) • The main constraints on participation in sport were lack of time (19% of respondents), lack of energy (17%), not interested (13%); the most significant facility- related response was cost of entrance (7% of respondents). Only 1% of respondents preferred to visit facilities outside the Borough. • The main constraints on using parks and other open spaces were lack of time (16% of respondents), lack of energy (12%), not interested (10%). Again, only 1% of respondents preferred to use facilities outside the Borough. • The main additional or enhanced facilities wanted by respondents were facilities for teenagers (11% of respondents) and more or better sports facilities (7%) • The proportion of respondents fairly or very dissatisfied with different forms of open space, sport and recreation provision were Planet Ice Arena 0%; Sports Arena 4%; Golf Centre 4%; Tadley Pool 6%; Aquadrome 10%; Leisure Park 5%; local park 15%; War Memorial Park 2%; Eastrop Park 3%; Down Grange Sports Complex 8%; any local equipped play area 9%; community centre or village hall 3%; school or college leisure facilities 5%; area managed for wildlife 7%; indoor tennis centre 9% • The proportions of respondents fairly or very dissatisfied with the management of different forms of provision was parks and open spaces 13%; woodland and trees 8%; children’s play provision 6%

Performance Monitoring 2005

The 2005 survey reverted to a Borough-wide representative sample. The key findings included:

• Only 12% of respondents were dissatisfied with the accessibility of leisure facilities, with the main constraints being lack of time (22% of respondents), lack of energy (20%), no interested (14%) and cost (11%) • The improvements to leisure provision wanted by respondents included more indoor sports facilities (4% of respondents), lower charges (3%), more or better parks (3%) and more outdoor sports facilities (3%) • The proportions of respondents fairly or very dissatisfied with their visit to different facilities in the Borough was Planet Ice Arena 6%, Sports Centre 8%, Golf Centre 4%, Tadley pool 3%, Aquadrome 6%, Leisure

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 62

Park 3%, neighbourhood park 9%, War Memorial Park 2%, Eastrop Park 2%, Down Grange 4%, any local equipped play area 10%, community centre or village hall 5%, school for leisure activities 0%, area managed for wildlife 3%, indoor tennis centre 0%, • Only 8% of respondents felt unsafe in their local park, the main reasons being the presence of young people and lack of lighting at night

Performance Monitoring 2006

The 2006 survey was based on 600 respondents in four areas of Basingstoke town – Brighton Hill, Buckskin, Popley and South Ham. The key findings included:

• Only 9% of respondents were fairly or very dissatisfied with the accessibility of local sports facilities, with the main reasons being cost and distance (both cited by 5% of respondents) • The main constraints on additional participation in sport were personal – lack of energy (29% of respondents) and lack of time (22%) – although 16% of respondents highlighted cost • The main constraints on additional use of parks and other outdoor spaces were also personal and included lack of time (17% of respondents) and lack of energy (16%) • The main additional leisure opportunities that respondents wanted were more for children (3% of respondents) and play areas and inexpensive activities (both 2% of respondents) • The proportions of respondents fairly or very dissatisfied with local facility were Planet Ice Rink 3%, Sports Centre 3%, Golf Centre 12%, Aquadrome 5%, local park 12%, War Memorial Park 3%, Eastrop Park 1%, Down Grange Sports Complex 2%, any local equipped play area 14%, local community centre 2%, school leisure facilities 2%, areas managed for wildlife 2% • Only 4% of respondents were fairly or very dissatisfied with the management of the Borough’s parks and open spaces, the main complaints relating to litter and dog fouling • 91% of respondents thought that living in an environment with access to greenspace contributed to their wellbeing

Conclusions

Overall, these surveys identified a consistently high level of satisfaction with current provision pretty much across the Borough. Moreover, individuals’ constraints on additional use or participation were mainly personal and largely unrelated to the accessibility, nature or management of provision and there seems to be only limited need for more with the possible exception of provision for teenagers.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 63

However, it will be desirable to try to improve the quality of local parks and children’s play facilities. There is also some suggestion, especially in the 2006 survey, that cost may be a factor affecting some people’s participation in leisure activities and use of leisure provision.

Review of Qualitative In order to try to investigate further the constraints on Market Research local residents becoming more active, during 2005 the Borough Council also commissioned qualitative research involving the least activity groups – residents aged 17-25, 26-55 and over 55 in the C2DE (skilled manual, semi- skilled manual, unskilled manual) socio-economic groups The objectives of his research were to identify

• What people in these groups did in their leisure time and where exercise fitted into this • What they perceived as being exercise and what advantages/disadvantages they associated with increasing their activity levels • Local opinions regarding the opportunities available for increasing activity levels • How residents could be encouraged to be more active and what they saw as the Borough Council’s role in helping to achieve this

The main findings related to:

• The difficulties that young people without personal transport have in accessing leisure and community facilities • The lack of affordable activities for young people and the high cost of using commercial leisure facilities • The inaccessibility of the Leisure Park for those without personal transport • The need for affordable childcare provision amongst young parents • The relatively active lifestyles of older people compared with younger ones • Concerns amongst all age groups relating to personal safety • The cost of joining a fitness gym is unaffordable for many • The need for the Council to find ways of reducing the costs of participating, whether through subsidised transport or reduced entry/membership charges • The need for better promotion of leisure opportunities • The opportunity to develop more walking routes and walking groups • The importance of very local provision • The desirability of female only sessions in leisure facilities

Basingstoke Town Basingstoke itself is not parished and therefore the survey of the Borough’s Town and Parish Councils did not identify any specific needs within it. However, Borough Councillors

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 64

for the town identified the main needs in their ward as:

• Basing: none

• Brighton Hill South: bridleways./off-road cycleways, nature conservation areas, rural footpaths, water areas, woodland areas, greenspaces in housing areas, allotments, teenage facilities

• Brookvale and Kings Furlong: bridleways/off-road cycleways, nature conservation areas, allotments, multi-sport courts, teenage facilities

• Chineham: bridleways/off-road cycleways, greenspaces in housing areas, local recreation grounds, parks and public gardens, village greens, allotments, children’s play (up to 8 years, children’s play (8-012 years), mini- soccer pitches, junior football pitches, adult football pitches, rugby pitches, multi-sport courts, public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities,

• Grove: bridleways/off-road cycleways, churchyards and cemeteries, greenspaces in housing areas, village greens, allotments, bowling greens, children’s play (up to 8 years, children’s play (8-012 years), mini-soccer pitches, junior football pitches, adult football pitches, rugby pitches, floodlit grass pitches, floodlit artificial turf pitches, multi-sport courts, public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities, tennis courts, floodlit tennis courts, water sports areas

• Popley West: bridleways/off-road cycleways, greenspaces in housing areas, local recreation grounds, parks and public gardens, village greens, allotments, bowling greens, children’s play (up to 8 years, children’s play (8-012 years), mini-soccer pitches, junior football pitches, adult football pitches, rugby pitches, floodlit grass pitches, floodlit artificial turf pitches, multi-sport courts, public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities, tennis courts, floodlit tennis courts, water sports areas

• Rooksdown: bridleways/off-road cycleways, nature conservation areas, rural footpaths, water areas, woodland areas, churchyards and cemeteries, greenspaces in housing areas, local recreation grounds, parks and public gardens, street trees, village greens, allotments, bowling greens, children’s play (up to 8 years, children’s play (8-012 years), mini-soccer pitches, junior football pitches, adult football pitches, rugby pitches, floodlit grass pitches, floodlit artificial turf pitches, multi-sport courts, public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities, tennis courts, floodlit tennis courts, water sports areas

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 65

• South Ham: bridleways/off-road cycleways, nature conservation areas, rural footpaths, water areas, woodland areas, greenspaces in housing areas, local recreation grounds, parks and public gardens, street trees, village greens, mini-soccer pitches, junior football pitches, rugby pitches, floodlit artificial turf pitches, multi-sport courts, public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities, tennis courts, floodlit tennis courts, water sports areas

• Winklebury: rugby pitches, multi-sport courts, public use changing pavilions, teenage facilities, tennis courts, floodlit tennis courts

Borough Council officers also have an important perspective on local needs and opportunities in the town and it is of course their job to plan for the future. In their view the key needs and opportunities include:

• The development of a regional multi-sports community club complex at Down Grange, involving the upgrading of the athletics track to 8 lanes, at least one third generation artificial turf pitch, some indoor facilities for local clubs and construction of better changing accommodation, all possibly funded by the sale of some land (note: the Council recently commissioned a feasibility study to investigate this proposal) • Supporting the enhancement or relocation of the Camrose Stadium by Basingstoke Town Football Club • Better provision for teenagers, particularly in floodlit ball courts and “extreme” activity opportunities, possibly at the Leisure Park • The provision or upgrading of changing pavilions at various pitch sport sites • Development of community facilities within the Beggarwood woodland park, possibly with commercial involvement around an environmental/educational theme

In addition, Council officials have advised that Queen Mary’s College is currently in the course of planning the enhancement of its community facilities.

Deficiencies in Quantitative Deficiencies Provision This review of the views of Borough Council members and officers, the Borough’s town and parish councils and the findings of quantitative research undertaken by the Council leads to the general conclusion that there are a number of deficiencies in the Borough, the most common of which, in order of importance, are:

• Better provision for teenagers, particularly floodlit ball courts and opportunities for “extreme” activities. The Basingstoke Leisure Park is an obvious location for

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 66

such facilities. • Provision for children • Allotments • Countryside recreation and access, particularly bridleways and off-road cycleways • Greenspace provision, and particularly access to neighbourhood parks (or possibly park-like spaces) in housing areas in the town and larger settlements • Local recreation grounds in village communities • Mini-soccer and junior pitches

Qualitative Deficiencies

There are also some qualitative deficiencies, although these are less clear because a number of the Town and Parish Councils simply repeated the quantitative deficiencies they had identified in their areas as qualitative ones. The analysis of the audit data in Chapters 8-19 provides further information on the quality of existing provision. However, on the basis of our survey of the Town and Parish Councils, and the various performance reviews undertaken by the Borough Council, the main qualitative deficiencies in local provision appear to relate to:

• Youth centres • Countryside access provision, such as bridleways and footpaths • Provision for teenagers • Children’s play facilities • Greenspaces in established housing areas • Changing pavilions • Tennis courts

Policy Implications Chapters 8-19 provide a detailed analysis of the amount, quality, value and accessibility of each of the various forms of provision included in the assessment. However, in order to help set the scene for them, meeting the needs identified above will have a range of implications for the Borough Council’s resources and Local Development Framework policies:

• Allotments: the desire for more allotments reflects the rising popularity of gardening, fuelled by television programmes and people’s desire to grow their own vegetables. As housing densities rise, more people live in flats and domestic gardens get smaller, the demand for allotments is likely to increase further. Many allotments associations and councils wondering what to do with their spare plots only a few years ago now have waiting lists. For obvious reasons, the demand for plots tends to be higher in urban than rural areas, and so it can often be sensible; to have different provision standards for them.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 67

• Countryside access: the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 effectively gives local people a right to visit most countryside areas. However, the Town and Parish Council views suggest that the County, Borough, Town and Parish Councils and land owners and other countryside interests (for example, the Hampshire Wildlife Trust) need to put greater efforts into securing, signing and promoting countryside access, especially from the town and larger villages.

• Greenspaces in established residential areas: it is practically impossible to “retrofit” more greenspace into most established housing areas, especially in view of the pressures for infill developments and the resulting “creeping densification”. Therefore the policy priority should be to maximise the quality of existing greenspaces and, generally, to resist development on them. In addition, however, the Borough Council should seek to take advantage of any opportunities there may be to create significant new greenspaces on the edge of established residential areas with only limited provision, for example between established residential areas and planned new ones.

• Greenspaces in new residential areas: given the need to develop higher density new housing than in the past, it will be necessary to ensure that all greenspaces are well located to be as accessible to as many people as possible and of the highest possible quality. These two requirements can be contradictory. To make greenspaces worthwhile, they need to be of a reasonable size and therefore relatively few in number; but to maximise accessibility there is a probable need to have more but smaller spaces. Taking a long term resource view, it will be better to have fewer but better spaces, linked by attractive pedestrian and cycling routes, than more but smaller ones. The development of Basingstoke over the past 40-50 years has resulted in the town having a large number of small spaces or verges that serve little useful purpose and it will be sensible to base future planning on quality, value and accessibility. Pedestrian and cycling routes can also help to minimise car travel and promote social interaction between residents; if well designed and routed, they can also add considerably to local amenity.

• Local recreation grounds: probably the main needs in relation to recreation grounds are for qualitative improvements, particularly in view of the likely impacts of global warming and climate change. For example, a number of changing pavilions are of poor quality and some pitches will probably require better drainage and/or levelling. The Council’s Parks Strategy (1996) and subsequent Strategic Green Space Plan (2003) set out a policy for Centres for Sport focusing sports provision and changing facilities in fewer high quality

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 68

sites rather than having a lot of small pitch areas with small pavilions. This works in the town and larger settlements but clearly there is a need to provide good quality local recreation grounds including pavilions in some of the rural areas.

• Mini-soccer and junior football pitches: the conventional wisdom is that the rapid growth in mini- soccer over the past few years will feed through into higher levels of 11-a-side play by juniors and then adults. Following this logic, in the short term it will be desirable – although not essential as mini-soccer does not require dedicated marked-out facilities – to have more mini pitches; in the medium term to have more junior pitches; and in the longer term possibly to have more adult pitches. However, participation in adult 11- a-side football has been at best static for some years as one-team clubs have struggled to survive and the most popular form of the game is now 5-a-sides. Given the impact of global warming, the likelihood of increased waterlogging of grass pitches for lengthy periods in winter, and the pressures on accessible and developable land, it may be that there will be a fundamental change in the pattern of participation in football with more midweek floodlit leagues on artificial pitches and fewer weekend games on grass. This said, several of the Town and Parish Councils believe there is currently a need for more grass pitches in Basingstoke and Deane.

• Multi-use games areas (multi-courts) and tennis courts: essentially the difference between multi-courts and tennis courts is that the former are marked for more than one sport, the most common uses being 5-a- side football, netball and basketball. Ideally, tennis and netball courts should be actively managed, for example by a club or the Borough Council’s tennis contractor. It therefore makes sense to consolidate provision into a limited number of locations in order to minimise the costs of management. Multi-courts are usually open access facilities, and intended for use primarily by teenagers and young people, although there are many examples around the country – usually linked to indoor sports facilities - where access is controlled. They can then be used as training facilities by local pitch sport clubs, reducing wear and tear on grass pitches. The Borough has provided a number of unsupervised multi-courts, most recently in Winklebury, which have proved to be popular and not vandalised.

• Provision for teenagers: there are clear resource implications as well as land use ones if the Borough Council and its partners accept the need to improve facilities for teenagers and other young people. This can be easier said than done: while many people will support the principle of additional provision, this is

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 69

normally on the proviso that it will not be in the immediate vicinity of their own dwelling because of concerns over litter, noise and possible anti-social behaviour. It is desirable to provide limited lighting for teenage facilities in order to minimise anti-social behaviour and maximise their use, which also makes them bad neighbours. The most popular forms of teenage provision are skateboard facilities, ball courts (areas for informal sports activities such as kickabouts and basketball, but smaller than required for formal sport) and teenage shelters. The best location for teenage facilities is where they are reasonably close to well used pedestrian routes and therefore visible, but not close to dwellings as their use tends to generate noise and possibly litter. This means that they should probably be on the edge of residential areas and planned in from the start in locations where lighting and some noise will be acceptable. Isolated facilities, however, for example on recreation grounds, are best avoided because of problems of vandalism.

• Provision for children and young people: given the costs of providing and maintaining play facilities, the limited use made of most of them and the fact that they tend to be colonised by teenagers, there is also a growing move across the country away from equipped play areas (which most children find boring very quickly) and towards naturalistic play “spaces” rather than play “areas”, although there will still be a place for the latter. This has clear policy implications: instead of requiring developers to provide or fund traditional formulaic equipped play areas, the Borough Council should be requiring them to contribute to or provide fewer but larger equipped play areas and greenspaces in residential developments that are designed for play as suggested in the following quotation:

We should be tearing up the rulebook for playgrounds and going back to basics. We need to ask what children find engaging and enjoyable. They like natural environments, being able to use their imagination, being able to build dens and they like playing with sand and water (Tim Gill, former Director of the Children’s Play Council)

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 70

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 71

6: Distance Thresholds

Introduction Greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities are irrelevant to potential users if they are inaccessible. They can be inaccessible for two reasons:

• Because their design or management excludes certain people, such as those with disabilities • Because they are perceived as too far away to be worth visiting

The open space audit included an assessment of the first type of accessibility and this chapter is concerned with the second. It identifies the distances that people are generally willing to travel to different forms of open space, sport and recreation provision. It is based on:

• Guidance from the government and various agencies such as Sport England • Surveys of the distance that people are willing to travel to use spaces and facilities undertaken in a number of other local authority areas as part of PPG17 assessments. There is considerable consistency in the results from one area to another and therefore it is not necessary to undertake a specific survey in Basingstoke and Deane.

The Nature of Distance thresholds are not hard facts, but a broad and Distance Thresholds flexible guide to the distance which people in general will be willing to travel in order to use or visit a facility or space. They can be affected by many factors. For example:

• Most older or very young people will be unwilling or unable to walk as far or as fast as teenagers and young adults; therefore distance thresholds vary with age • Most people will be willing to walk further to something on a warm, sunny day than on a very cold or very hot one; therefore distance thresholds ebb and flow with the weather • Most people will be willing to walk further to something if the route is level than if it is uphill; therefore distance thresholds vary with topography • Most people will be willing to walk further to

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 72

something if the route is attractive, with fresh air, than if it is heavily polluted with traffic fumes; therefore distance thresholds vary with traffic levels • Most women and older people on their own will be willing to walk further in daylight than at night; therefore distance thresholds vary by the time of day • Most people will be willing to travel further to something of high quality than low quality • Many people will be willing to travel further to something big or high quality than small or poor quality; therefore distance thresholds vary according to the nature of the space or facility visited • Not all people of the same, gender, age and state of health are willing or able to travel the same distance to something as a result of factors such as health, disability and access to a car or bicycle; therefore distance thresholds vary according to personal circumstances • Most people living in rural villages necessarily have to travel further than almost all urban dwellers to facilities such as supermarkets, cinemas or leisure centres, while most urban dwellers have to travel significantly further if they wish to visit the countryside; therefore distance thresholds vary according to where people live

There are two other key points:

• The distance that people in any particular area travel to spaces or facilities is a function of the distribution of provision, coupled with the range of factors summarised above. In an area with little provision, distance thresholds established by surveying users of spaces or facilities will almost inevitably be much higher than in another area with a high level of well distributed provision.

• There is a clear difference between people’s need to travel and willingness to do so. In parts of the country, for example, people need to travel many miles to visit an NHS dentist but may not be willing to travel a few hundred metres to their local park if they perceive it as not worth visiting or the route as potentially dangerous. A football player may not be willing to travel more than a mile, say, to their local club, but the distance he or she will need to travel to take part in matches depends primarily on the geographical area covered by the league in which their team plays. The higher the player’s standard of skill, the wider this area will be.

This means that distance thresholds can only ever be seen as a very general guide and a flawed but useful tool for planning purposes. It would be an obvious nonsense to use either the maximum distance travelled by users or an average of all users. The maximum distance travelled by

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 73

an individual user could easily be an aberration; for example, a survey of park users might pick up a visiting business person who had travelled hundreds of miles and was early for a meeting or waiting for a train home while everyone else had travelled only a short distance. Similarly, the average distance could also be affected by some users who had travelled a very long or very short distance.

Recreation planning therefore normally uses the concept of the “effective catchment”, defined as the distance at least 75% of people are willing to travel, because there is no such thing as “the” catchment area of anything - except for facilities on small islands.

Many people are bad at estimating distances. However, they are much better at estimating travel time – not least because they have constantly to decide when to set off for something in order to arrive at a predetermined time. This means that initially it is sensible to base distance thresholds on time and then convert them to distances using appropriate travel speeds. Various research studies have found that the length of time that people are willing to spend travelling is broadly comparable for different travel modes. For example, research into the effective catchment of sports centres and swimming pools has found that it is around 20 minutes travel on foot, on public transport, or by car. Although the travel time is fairly constant, different travel modes translate into very different total travel distances. However, this has the advantage for planning purposes that it is possible to identify a generally acceptable travel time to a particular form of provision – for example on foot - and then convert it into appropriate travel distances.

This assessment does this for three modes of travel: on foot, by bicycle and by car. It does not include public transport because of the complications of analysing travel that involves at least some time spent walking and on the transport, probably plus some waiting time and possibly some time spent driving to a station. In addition, the rural parts of the Borough generally have fairly poor public transport services.

As noted above, the speed at which people travel also varies with a range of factors. In order to make the accessibility assessment manageable, it uses three standard speeds:

• Walking 80 m/minute • Cycling 200 m/minute • Driving 500 m/minute

These cycling and driving speeds are a compromise between the speeds that can be achieved in urban and rural areas and for driving they include an allowance for

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 74

parking.

Establishing realistic distance thresholds is further complicated by the fact that travelling from A to B rarely involves a straight line journey; instead, people use whatever network of paths, streets and roads will best get them to their destination. However, it is much easier to use straight line, or “as the crow flies” distance thresholds for planning purposes, but possible to identify only total distances by asking people how far they are willing to travel to something. Therefore it is necessary to adjust the distance that people say they are willing to travel in order to derive straight line distances. Broadly speaking, straight line distances are typically around 60-80% of actual distances. This means, for example, that someone will have to walk 400 m on the ground in order to travel around 240-300 m in a straight line. For the purposes of this assessment, however, the straight line distance is taken as a standard 75% of the actual distance.

This means, for example, that a 10 minute travel time threshold translates into a straight line walking distance threshold of 600 m:

• 10 minutes @ 80 m/minute 800 m • 75% of 800m 600 m

Government Regional Planning Guidance Guidance Although the Plan for the South East has nothing to say on distance thresholds, one or two of the earlier regional planning guidance documents do. RPG10 for the south- west, for example, give the following target and maximum distances from home to a limited range of community facilities:

Target Maximum • Food shop/primary school 300 m 600 m • Other non-residential facilities 600 m 1,000 m • Bus stop 200 m 400 m

This suggests a 300 m target/600 m maximum distance threshold will be suitable for most local facilities accessed on foot which residents, and especially children, can expect to have within their neighbourhood. As far as the PPG17 assessment is concerned, this category will include children’s play areas and local greenspaces.

The higher threshold, of 600 m target/1,000 m maximum, is suitable for facilities used mainly by adults, who can obviously walk further than young children, such as allotments, bowling greens, community centres, local pitches, tennis courts and similar facilities and youth facilities.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 75

PPG13: Transport – A Guide to Better Practice (DoE and DoT, 1995)

The Guide to Better Practice linked to PPG13 suggests a maximum distance from residential areas to shops, schools and workplaces of 1.6 km for walkers and 8 km for cyclists. It also indicates - somewhat optimistically - that motorised modes of travel are “rarely used for trips of around half a mile (0.8 km) or less”. PPG13 therefore implicitly suggests an 800 m walking distance threshold.

National Agency The NPFA Six Acre Standard Guidance The most recent version of the NPFA Six Acre Standard (2001) recommends three types of children’s play provision:

• Local Areas for Play (LAPs), located within a 1 minute walk (or 60 m “as the crow flies”) of all dwellings. The NPFA defines a LAP as “a small area of open space specifically designed and laid out for young children to play close to where they live. Located within a walking time of 1 minute from home, the LAP provides essential play opportunities for toddlers and young children in locations that are overseen by parents, carers and the local community”. This 1 minute threshold leads to an unrealistically high and unaffordable level of provision • Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs), located within 5 minutes walk (or 240 m “as the crow flies”) of all dwellings. The NFA defines a LEAP as “a piece of open space that is designated and equipped for children of early school age. Such areas need to be located within a walking time of 5 minutes from home”. • Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs), located within 15 minutes walk (or 600 m “as the crow flies”) of all dwellings. The NPFA defines a NEAP as “a site that is designated and equipped mainly for older children, but with opportunities for younger children too. Located within a walking time of 15 minutes from home, the NEAP is largest of the three types of play space and is able to address specific needs that cannot be met within a LAP or LEAP.

The Association based these distance thresholds on research by Holme and Massie (1970), who established that the majority of children travelled less than 400 m to play. It used this evidence to suggest a 400m maximum distance threshold for equipped play areas.

The NPFA also recommends a straight line distance threshold of 1,000 m for sports pitches but does not give this recommendation the same prominence as its recommendations for play provision.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 76

By Design: Better Places to Live (CABE, 2001)

By Design suggests that a comfortable walking distance from residential areas to local facilities should be not more than a 10 minute walk or 800 m, based on a walking speed of 80 m per minute.

Urban Design Compendium (English Heritage)

The Urban Design Compendium promotes the concept of “walkable neighbourhoods” in which people should be able to walk to a local post box or telephone box within 2-3 minutes (250 m); a newsagent’s within 5 minutes (400 m); and a primary school within 10 minutes (800 m). This also equates to a speed of 80 m per minute.

English Nature Research Report 153

English Nature (EN) Research Report 153, Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A review of appropriate size and distance criteria (1995) is an academic, but nonetheless interesting, literature review focusing on two key topics: whether accessible natural greenspaces need to be of a certain minimum size to be valuable for nature conservation, and the distance that people have been found to walk to different forms of provision. In relation to the latter, it summarises the findings from a range of empirical studies, including:

• A comprehensive survey of park use in London – a survey which resulted in London authorities, and others in their wake, adopting a quarter mile distance threshold for local parks • The NPFA Six Acre Standard (see above) • Research by the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC)

The LPAC study and NPFA Standard (see above) are by far the most widely quoted sources on distance thresholds and their recommended thresholds are very widely used by planning authorities throughout the UK. The LPAC open space hierarchy is very much London-based - not many other places will have metropolitan parks, for example - and therefore largely inapplicable to compact areas such as Hastings - but in spite of this the then DoE quoted it as an example of an open space provision standard (together with the Six Acre Standard) in the 1991 version of PPG17. LPAC suggests a hierarchy of park and greenspace provision as follows:

• Regional parks of 400 ha with 3.2-3.8 km of home • Metropolitan parks of 60 ha with 3.2 km of home • District parks of 20 ha within 1.2 km of home • Local parks of 2 ha with in 1.2 km of home

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 77

• Small local parks and other open spaces of up to 2 ha 400 m from home

Some councils - mainly cities - use a variation of the LPAC hierarchy. Liverpool City Council, for example, has adopted the following hierarchy:

• City parks, greater than 50 ha within 3.2 km of home • District parks of 5-50 ha within 1.2 km of home • Neighbourhood parks of 1-5 ha within 400 m of home • Small local parks of less than 1 ha within 400 m of home

While the NPFA has concluded that straight line distances are about 60% of on the ground ones, EN Research Report 153 noted that the LPAC identified a conversion factor of 70%. Accordingly it recommended that 400 m on the ground equated to 280 m on an as the crow flies basis. As a result EN Research Report 153 recommended the use of a 280 m straight line distance threshold for “all local and district parks and local wildlife sites” to allow for the fact that pedestrians are not crows and therefore rarely go from point A to point B in a straight line.

The EN report also reviewed relevant information on the distances that parents allow their children to “range” (ie walk unaccompanied) from home for play and other purposes. This suggested that ranging distances have steadily shortened as parents have became more and more concerned for the safety of unaccompanied children. It notes that:

“… the standard distances employed in the NPFA recommendations for children’s play areas overestimate the distances over which young girls in particular are likely to range. They also suggest that the recommended 1000 m distance to a neighbourhood play area designed for 8-14 years olds is well beyond the permitted range of 11 year old girls and beyond the permitted range of many boys of that age. Even the recommended distance of 400 m to a Locally Equipped Play Area is not within the permitted and accompanied ranges of some 8 year old girls.”

English Nature’s ANGSt

Based largely on Research Report 153, other research and a nod towards the LPAC recommendations, English Nature’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) recommends that:

• No-one should live more than 300 m from their nearest area of natural greenspace (note: this 300 m threshold is simply the 280 m one from Research Report 153, rounded up to the nearest 100 m)

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 78

• There should be at least one accessible 20 ha site with 2 km of home • There should be one accessible site of at least 100 ha within 5 km • There should be at least one accessible site of at least 500 ha within 10 km

Somewhat to the disappointment of English Nature (EN), ANGst has not been widely used by planning authorities on the reasonable grounds that it is unrealistic and unachievable in many urban areas. As a result, EN commissioned the Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology of the University of Manchester to produce Providing Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities: A Practical Guide to Assessing the Resource and Implementing Local Standards for Provision, which it published in 2003. This takes ANGSt as its starting point and suggests a methodology for progressing “towards an aspiration to meet its requirements as fully as possible”. Translated into plain English, this amounts to an acceptance that ANGSt is unlikely to be achieved in many areas but a hope that planning authorities will do their best. Certainly most councils have taken as little notice of the Toolkit as they did of ANGSt, although it actually proposes a fairly sensible if somewhat academic approach.

The Toolkit simply adopts the ANGSt straight-line distance thresholds (300 m, 2 km, 5 km and 10 km), but seeks also to define a number of different levels of accessibility, from “full” to “conditional”, “proximate” and “remote” with a final category of “no access”.

Sport England Survey of Sports Halls and Swimming Pools in England

In 1997 Sport England commissioned a major survey of the use of 155 sports and leisure centres throughout England as part of the process of determining appropriate parameters for its Facilities Planning Model. One of the issues the survey explored was the effective catchment of these facilities. The survey found that around 80% of visits to both sports halls and swimming pools originated from within a catchment of five miles or 20 minutes travel.

Local Authority Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Research One of the Performance Reviews undertaken by the Borough Council included questions designed to elicit which community facilities residents thought it important to have within 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes walk from home. The survey, which was undertaken by a specialist market research company, was based on home interviews with a representative sample of Borough residents. It found that the time 75-80% of respondents thought reasonable for most forms of provision was around 10 minutes.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 79

Wakefield Greenspace Strategy

Wakefield MBC commissioned a major market research study in Spring 2003 as part of the preparation of its Greenspace Strategy. The key findings included the following time thresholds:

• Equipped play areas 7 minutes • Parks and gardens 17 minutes • Sports pitches 10 minutes

Other PPG17 Stafford Borough Council, Staffordshire Assessments Stafford is an area with two main towns – Stafford and Stone – in an otherwise rural area. Stafford Borough Council undertook a survey of the time that residents’ were willing to travel to various forms of provision in 2007. As a result it identified the following distance thresholds:

• Grass sports pitches 10 minutes • Leisure centres 15 minutes • Parks 12 minutes • Play area for 8-12s 8 minutes • Play area for under 8s 8 minutes • Swimming pools 8 minutes • Teenage facilities 12 minutes • Tennis courts 10 minutes

Vale of White Horse, Oxfordshire

The Vale of White Horse has a single main town – Abingdon – in an otherwise rural area and also has a Citizens’ Panel and included questions in one of its 2006 surveys on the length of time that respondents were willing to travel to different forms of provision. The time thresholds derived from the results were:

• Allotments 10 minutes • Bowling greens 14 minutes • Community centres 15 minutes • Fitness facilities 15 minutes • Grass sports pitches 15 minutes • Greenspaces in housing areas 5 minutes • Leisure centres 16 minutes • Local recreation grounds 14 minutes • Play areas for 8-12s 12 minutes • Play areas for under 8s 11 minutes • Swimming pools 16 minutes • Teenage areas 14 minutes • Tennis courts 15 minutes

St Albans City and District Council, Hertfordshire

St Albans has two main towns – St Albans and Harpenden –

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 80

in a largely rural area in the London Commuter Belt immediately to the north of the M25. The Council undertook a postal survey of 5,000 local residents as part of its PPG17 assessment in 2005. The results identified the following time thresholds:

• Allotments 10 minutes • Greenspaces in housing areas 5 minutes • Parks 8 minutes • Play areas for older children 8 minutes • Play areas for younger children 8 minutes • Teenage facilities 10 minutes

Summary The table below summarises the various thresholds reviewed above, converted to time equivalents where necessary using a walking speed of 80 m per minute:

Non-facility-specific thresholds

RPG10 – local provision 5-10 minutes PPG13 15 minutes By Design 10 minutes English Heritage 5-10 minutes English Nature 7 minutes

Allotments St Albans 10 minutes Vale of White Horse 10 minutes

Greenspaces in housing areas

English Nature (ANGSt) 5 minutes St Albans 5 minutes Vale of White Horse 5 minutes Average 5 minutes

Parks Stafford 12 minutes St Albans 8 minutes Wakefield 16 minutes Average 12 minutes

Grass pitches Stafford 10 minutes Vale of White Horse 15 minutes Wakefield 10 minutes Average 12 minutes

Equipped play areas – younger children NPFA 5 minutes St Albans 8 minutes Stafford 8 minutes Vale of White Horse 11 minutes Wakefield 7 minutes Average minutes

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 81

Equipped play areas – older children NPFA 15 minutes St Albans 8 minutes Stafford 8 minutes Vale of White Horse 12 minutes Average 11 minutes

Teenagers St Albans 10 minutes Stafford 12 minutes Vale of White Horse 14 minutes Average 12 minutes

Indoor Sports Facilities Sport England 20 minutes Stafford 15 minutes Vale of White Horse 16 minutes Average 17 minutes

Proposed Distance Based on the above sources, the table sets out suggested Thresholds straight line distance walking and cycling thresholds for Basingstoke and Deane. They represent 75% of the actual distance that can be travelled at a walking speed of 80 m per minute for 5, 10, 15 or 20 minute time periods as appropriate, rounded to the nearest 100 m.

Form of Provision Travel time Walking Cycling Driving (minutes) (m) (m) (m)

Allotments 10 600 1,500 3,750 Amenity spaces 5 300 N/a N/a Artificial turf pitches 20 1,200 3,000 7,500 Bowling greens 10 600 1,500 3,750 Children’s play areas 10 600 N/a N/a Fitness facilities 15 900 2,250 5,625 Grass sports pitches 15 900 2,250 5,625 Golf courses/ranges 20 1,200 N/a 7,500 Indoor sports facilities 20 1,200 3,000 7,500 Natural greenspaces 10 600 1,500 N/a Parks and gardens 15 900 2,250 5,625 Tennis courts 10 600 1,500 3,750

Note: Indoor sports facilities = bowls halls, tennis halls, ice rinks, sports halls and swimming pools

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 82

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 83

7: Quality Standards

Introduction Quality standards are important but have generally been neglect dint eh past, with the result that some developer- provided spaces have been less attractive or usable or more difficult or expensive to maintain than they should have been. Quality standards are two things:

• For existing spaces they represent an aspiration, because it is simply not possible to improve all the poor quality or poor value spaces in an area at once • For new or enhanced spaces they represent a requirement, because it would be not be sensible to allow developers to provide spaces or facilities that require enhancement within a short period of their completion

Appendix C sets out a number of general requirements plus draft quality standards for:

Greenspaces Accessible natural greenspace Allotments Amenity greenspaces Green corridors Play provision Sports pitches Athletics tracks Bowling greens Tennis and multi-courts Urban parks and recreation grounds Teenage Facilities

Indoor provision Community centres and halls Indoor sports halls and swimming pools

Each of the quality standards is derived from examples of best practice, such as the Green Flag Award criteria for parks, or published guidance, for example from English Nature or Sport England and the Borough Council’s open space audit form and vision.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 84

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 85

8: Allotments

Introduction This chapter reviews the provision of allotments and then derives and applies a suitable quantity standard.

The Quality of 40 of the Borough’s 49 allotment sites are in Basingstoke Provision town, but there are also sites in Kingsclere (1), Overton (2), Tadley (3) and Whitchurch (3). Map 8.1 shows their location on an ordnance survey base map. It also provides an overview of the quality and value of the various sites. There are two quality scores for each site, the basic score and the adjusted score. The basic quality score relates to the intrinsic quality of a site and is the average of the scores for:

• General characteristics (eg visual attractiveness, privacy) • Safety and security • Signage • Landscape quality • Infrastructure (eg paths, fencing, furniture and accessibility) • Facility quality

As some sites can easily have features or characteristics that reduce their attractiveness to users and potential users, the adjusted quality score takes account of negative factors such as excessive noise, shading, overhead cables and litter. Accordingly the adjusted score is never higher than the basic one, but the two scores are the same if there are no negative factors.

The value of a site can depend on a wide range of characteristics. For allotments, it derives from the scores for its context value and features such as wildlife conservation, landscape structure and access and interconnectivity.

The average quality and value scores for the 48 sites were 21% and 65% respectively. While these may appear low, they are relative and not absolute scores – in other words, a low score does not indicate that a site is necessarily poor, but only that it is not as good as sites with a higher score. The number of sites with quality and value scores

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 86

above and below average are:

• High quality sites 21 • Low quality sites 27

• High value sites 29 • Low value sites 19

Combining the quality and value ranking for each site gives an overall high/low quality and value rating which, compared with the average scores, gives the following results:

• High quality, high value sites 12 • Low quality, high value sites 17 • High quality, low value sites 9 • Low quality, low value sites 10

In broad terms, therefore, it will be desirable for site owners to try to raise the quality of a number of sites across the Borough; improving value is generally less important.

Map 8.1 makes clear that:

• The worst sites are generally located in Basingstoke town: only one site outside it – in Tadley - is both low quality and low value • The sites in Kingsclere, Overton and Whitchurch, by comparison, are generally of high quality and value

On the basis of the audit, the main general improvements needed to allotment sites relate to things like safety and security and signage. Appendix C sets out a recommended quality standard for allotment sites. At the time of completion of this assessment, the Council had already started to draw up a programme of potential improvements for its own allotment sites

Accessibility Map 8.1 also identifies the areas of the Borough that lie within the 600 m and 3,750 m “as the crow flies” distance thresholds of the various sites. This map identifies that:

• Most of Basingstoke town, lies within a 10-minute walk of at least one allotment site, apart from the north- eastern and south-western areas • Most of Kingsclere, the central area of Overton, the central part of Tadley and Whitchurch are also within a 10-minute walk of a site • There are particular accessibility deficiencies in north east and south west Basingstoke, Baughurst, Sherfield on Loddon and Ecchinswell, together with a number of the smaller settlements.

Overall, the percentage of properties within the distance

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 87

threshold of at least one site, or a high quality, high value (HQHV) site, across the Borough is:

Any site HQHV site • 600 m walking 50% 21% • 1500 m cycling 72% 55% • 3750 m driving 86% 72%

The Quantity of Appendix F calculates the aggregate area of the 47 Provision allotments sites in the Borough as some 33 ha or an average of 2.2 sq m per person. However, these overall figures mask quite wide differences from one area to another. For example, in wards with at least one site, the lowest level of provision is only 0.14 sq m per person in Hatch Warren and Beggarwood but 19.21 sq m per person in Eastrop. Across the Borough as a whole, there are currently around 1,275 plots, although this figure is constantly changing as large plots are subdivided.

The take-up of plots across the Borough is very high, with untenanted plots only in Tadley. However, there is a waiting list for most sites and across the Borough a significant number of people are on at least one waiting list for a plot. Some of them may be on the waiting list for more than one site, but there is no way of identifying this without detailed analysis of the lists, which are held by a variety of agencies, although the Council is undertaking a review of the demand for plots across the Borough. However, taking the total of the waiting lists at face value suggests a need to increase the number of plots by around a quarter.

Local Views Town and Parish Council Views

In our survey of the Borough’s town and parish councils, the following councils identified a need for more or (in areas where there is none at present) some allotment provision:

• Chineham • Cliddesden • Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green • Kingsclere • Laverstoke and Freefolk • Oakley and Deane • Old Basing and Lychpit • Overton • Stratfield Turgis • Whitchurch

On the other hand the following town and parish councils identified their current level of provision as “about right”:

• Bramley • Burghclere

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 88

• Mortimer West End • Sherborne St John • Silchester

Other councils were of the view either that they currently have more provision than required (Mapledurwell and Nately plus Pamber) or that they have no provision and do not need any.

Ward Member Views

The Council members for the following wards identified a need for more allotment provision in their ward:

• Brighton Hill South • Brookvale and Kings Furlong • Chineham • Grove • Oakley and North Waltham • Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon • Popley West • Sherborne St John • Tadley South

The members for the following wards identified the level of provision in their wards as about right:

• Basing • Calleva • Pamber • South Ham • Winklebury • Rooksdown

Overview

Accordingly it is clear that there is a significant body of opinion in the Borough that more allotments provision is needed.

Trends The following national trends have been affecting the demand for allotments in recent years:

• Rising general interest in gardening and growing produce, fuelled by television programmes, early retirement and environmental concerns • Consequential slowly rising demand for allotments, partly as a result of increasing housing densities coupled with smaller gardens, but more importantly by a widening in the range of people wanting to take up allotment gardening. Traditionally, plot holders were predominantly male manual workers, often retired, but a rising proportion of plot holders are middle class and women. This has in turn led to a demand for smaller plots and additional facilities on sites.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 89

• New plot holders wanting “instantly workable” plots. This often results in a combination of a waiting list and vacant plots, with those on waiting lists not being willing to take on neglected sites that require clearance and double digging. Such plots are an irritation to established plot holders as they become covered in weeds which then spread to adjoining plots. • A need for facilities such as toilets on sites, driven particularly by the rising number of women plot holders. There is also greater potential for trading sheds and communal purchasing and storage of tools such as rotovators that are best shared by a number of plot holders as a result of higher average disposable income amongst plot holders. Finally, there is greater need than in the past for parking and disabled access. • A reduction in the average size of a plot. Traditionally, plots have been 10 rods (around 250 sq m) but many have been subdivided into 5 or even 2.5 rod plots. This makes it possible to accommodate more plot- holders without increasing the total area of land used for allotments. For example, until a few years ago the Winchester Road site in Whitchurch had sixteen 10 rod plots; it now has five 10-rod and twenty two 5-rod ones. The current average size of plots in the Borough, including the communal areas of sites, is around 270 sq m, indicating that quite a number of plots have been sub-divided.

Potential Trends A number of factors are likely to fuel these established trends further, including a number suggested by the Henley Centre’s work for the Borough Council:

• Demographic change: the rising average age of the Borough’s population • Increasing urbanisation and higher densities of housing development, resulting in small gardens for many people and a rise in the number of flat dwellers • Rising concerns over environmental sustainability and “food miles” • The growing focus on well-being coupled with rising obesity • The “desire for difference” • Climate change, which will make it possible to grow an expanded range of produce in the Borough

The Implications of These various trends suggest: Likely Trends • The demand for allotments is likely to continue to increase • Rising demand for allotments among the higher social groups • A possible need for a reversal of the trend towards smaller plots as the range of produce grown on allotments increases • A need to promote allotment gardening as a social

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 90

activity and therefore for sites to have social facilities such as barbecues and other communal facilities; this will result in a need to improve site infrastructure

Quantity Standard Putting all of these factors together suggests a quantity standard of around 3.4 sq m per person, based on:

• Existing provision (sq m per person) 2.2 • Plus 25% to accommodate existing waiting lists 0.6 • Sub-total 2.8 • 20% allowance for growth 0.6 • Total quantity standard (sq m per person) 3.4

Note: the 20% allowance for growth is based on a 15% increase in the number of plot holders plus a need to increase the communal area on many sites.

Application of the Quantity Standard

Appendix F also applies this quantity standard to identify those areas in which there is a surplus or deficiency in provision. It identifies surpluses only in Eastrop, Norden, Tadley and Whitchurch and deficiencies in all other areas. This does not contradict the fact that there are currently no vacant plots in Eastrop, Norden and Whitchurch. Instead, it simply suggests that averaging out the demand for allotments across the Borough in relation to population will make it possible for some existing or potential plot-holders to move to new sites if and when they are created.

Across the Borough as a whole, the forecast deficiency is some 164,000 sq m or 16 ha. The largest absolute deficiencies in the future (each over 2 ha in total) are likely to be in:

• Brighton Hill • Calleva • Chineham • Hatch Warren and Beggarwood • Kempshott • Oakley and North Waltham • Popley

There will also be smaller, but locally significant deficits, in many of the rural areas of the Borough.

Summary of On the basis of the above analysis, the following provision Provision Standards standards will be appropriate for planning purposes:

• Quality standard: as set out in Appendix F • Distance threshold/accessibility standard: 10 minutes walk, which equates to around 600 m on an “as the crow flies” basis • Quantity standard: 3.4 sq m per person

Spatial Objectives This analysis suggests that the Council should adopt three

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 91

broad spatial objectives relating to allotment provision:

• To increase the amount of provision in all areas of the Borough except those areas of Basingstoke town in which there is a surplus of provision: Eastrop, Grove and Norden • To enhance the quality and, to a lesser extent, the value of those sites with below average audit scores • To locate new allotment sites where they will increase the proportion of properties within the distance threshold of at least one site

Implementation The conventional way to deliver against these objectives would be to protect all the existing sites, seek to enhance those requiring enhancement and make additional provision where it is needed. This approach will be relevant across most of the Borough, but in Basingstoke town there may be opportunities to take a more flexible approach and “move sites around” in order both to increase the amount of provision and widen the walking accessibility of sites, although this can be easier said than done because it will not always be possible to identify potential new sites. It will be desirable, as part of the LDF process, to investigate:

• The potential for allowing development on one or more of the sites that are clustered fairly closely together in order to generate the funds either to enhance other sites or create better replacement sites in those areas where access is currently poor • To convert some existing greenspaces into allotments; this will be particularly desirable in Beggarwood/Hatch Warren and Chineham

The first of these approaches will obviously attract opposition from established plotholders on those sites to be “moved”. Therefore any new replacement sites must be developed to a high standard, with the ground already well prepared before plotholders are expected to move, with excellent infrastructure in the form of parking, provision for people with disabilities, toilets, water supplies, composting arrangements, communal storage and “added value” features such as a communal area with a barbecue.

The Council should also:

• Work with allotments associations and the Town and Parish Councils to monitor waiting lists for allotments and the size of plots wanted by those on waiting lists as it should be possible to meet some demand by sub- dividing large plots as they become vacant • Allocate land for new allotments as necessary, particularly where it allocates land for large developments • Use the development management process to ensure

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 92

that residential developers either provide or contribute to the provision or enhancement of allotments provision wherever there is an identified need for more or better provision, as appropriate to the context within which proposed developments will be set • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 93

9: Artificial Turf Pitches

Introduction This chapter reviews the provision of artificial turf pitches (ATPs) in the Borough and suggests a strategy for further ATP provision.

Quality and Value The Borough has three ATPs:

• Down Grange – water based and designed specifically for hockey. It is of high quality and has been include dint eh lost of potential 2012 Olympic Training sites • Everest Community College – sand filled and a surface designed as a compromise between the needs of football and hockey • Queen Mary’s College – sand filled and therefore also a compromise surface, although the College is planning to upgrade it during 2008

The Down Grange surface and the Everest Community College pitch are relatively recent and the Queen Mary’s one rather older. The two recent pitches are therefore of both high quality and value; the Queen Mary’s one requires upgrading but is of high value as an all-weather facility close to the town centre.

Accessibility Map 9.1 shows that the three ATPs in the Borough are all located in Basingstoke town. 22% of properties in the Borough lie within the 20 minute walking distance threshold from Chapter 5 and 77% within the 20 minute drive time one. It also shows that ATPs outside the Borough are at best of only limited relevance to Borough residents except for those teams willing to travel a significant distance in order to use a suitable pitch.

Quantity The three ATPs are equivalent to 1 ATP to some 50,500 people, well below the 1 to 30,000 suggested by Sport England some time ago. However, this guideline is well out of date and reflected the fairly low level of ATP provision when Sport England first developed it. More recent research for Sport England and sportscotland in 2006 found that:

• ATP users tended to be male, under 25 years old, playing 5, 7 or 11-a-side football at least once a week

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 94

• Around three quarters of users travelled by car for an average of 11 miles to play hockey and 5 miles to play football • Around two thirds of sand-filled pitch users played football and a little over a quarter hockey • 80% of third generation pitch users played football, 8% hockey, 6% American football and 2% rugby • %4% of footballers played on a subdivided pitch and 46% on a full size pitch • 52% of users were training, 24% playing casual games and 23% matches • On average, ATPs were used for 56% of available hours with the unavailability of bookings at the times wanted by users the biggest barrier to more use • Around three quarters of “training “ users would like to play matches on ATPs • Football players were evenly split between those who considered ATPs to be their ideal playing surface and those who preferred grass. Slightly under half of football users were willing to play matches on ATPs. • Football clubs in Scotland were more likely that those in England to want to use ATPs more for matches in order to reduce the likelihood of matches being cancelled • The main reasons for not using ATPs include a preference for grass (particularly amongst rugby clubs), cost, lack of access, lack of availability and a preference for indoor training • ATPs which were not on school sites had very low levels of daytime use

These findings suggest that there is considerable latent demand for ATPs for both training and matches. Based on the research findings, converting this latent demand to actual participate will require:

• More ATPs, for two reasons: first, so that clubs are able to book them at their preferred times; second to improve general accessibility to ATPs, particularly for those without cars, and reduce the average distance travelled by users in the interests of reducing car travel • Lower charges • Actively encouraging young players to use ATPs so that they “grow up” with ATPs as their preferred surface

Adopting this approach will also support both the Borough Council’s aspiration to develop Down Grange as a regional sports complex (see chapter 5 above) and the conclusions of the Henley Centre’s “Future for Leisure” review, specifically by:

• Planning for the impact of climate change on participation in outdoor team sports • Achieving more equitable access to high quality facilities, while minimising the need for personal travel

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 95

The Sport England/sportscotland research was based primarily on a survey of current ATP users and failed adequately to take account of the critical issue of climate change, which is having a significant (and increasing) impact on football. Grass football pitches are unlikely to be sustainable for much longer. The main reasons for this are:

• Grass pitches are of hugely variable quality – the degree of slope, the extent of grass cover, the exposure to wind and so on. Moreover even a “good” grass pitch may not always be “good” as it will be dependent on enough, but not too much rain; enough but not too much sunshine; enough, but not too much use; and proper maintenance. None of these requirements can be guaranteed for every pitch. • There is a clear trend for many pitches to be waterlogged for several months in winter as a result of warmer, wetter winters. This creates a backlog of fixtures with a significant impact on the cricket season. • Football depends on local authority pitches: very few clubs own their home ground. As local authorities realise the costs of subsidising grass pitches for the ever lower levels of use that will be possible in the future, they will want alternatives. Football will have to change – or find its own pitches. • Most football “clubs” are not clubs at all, but a small group of players who play as a team. They have no proper home base and are unable to promote junior development. Many are struggling financially and the football culture of teams trying to “poach” the best players from other clubs can make it difficult for them to co-operate for the good of their sport. Fortunately Basingstoke and Deane has its Football Development Council and a very close link with the Hampshire Football Association. The Council is in a very strong position to be abler to force change in football for the better. • There are growing pressures for development on existing pitch sites; they are usually eminently buildable and many are in locations where housing makes a lot of sense on sustainability grounds. One hectare of housing generates a lot more vehicle movements per week than one hectare of pitches. One ATP could more than substitute for (say) the Brighton Hill playing fields in terms of weekly capacity if teams and leagues can be persuaded to move to artificial surfaces and change the need for all matches in a league to start at the same time. Hockey did this a number of years ago to the overall benefit of the sport and football can do the same – but may need to be forced to embrace change. • Grass pitches can be used for only 2-3 games a week unlike ATPs which can be used for 15 or more.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 96

• The development of “third generation” ATPs which are eminently suitable for football and also rugby training. The world and European governing bodies for football have approved the use of third generation pitches for almost all standards of play, including World Cup matches. • The maintenance costs per year of an ATP and a grass pitch are broadly similar, but the income potential of ATP is significantly greater.

The Council should therefore actively seek progressively to move as much football onto third generation artificial surfaces. This will obviously require the development of more ATPs in the Borough and in facility terms the Council should give priority to:

• Working with the County Council to ensure there is at least one ATP on all new secondary schools provided through the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme and those schools listed later in this chapter as potential ATP sites. Schools that play hockey as well as football/rugby are likely to require two ATPs, one a third generation surface and the other a water-based or sand filled one. For obvious reasons, these pitches should be complemented by community changing and social facilities so as to foster the development of multi-age football clubs for both sexes. Local football interests are in favour of giving priority to the development of ATPs for the game, if necessary funded by the disposal of poorer and smaller sites in the Borough. • Developing Down Grange as the key hockey and rugby site in the Borough; Winklebury is already the main football centre, so it will be desirable to consider providing a third generation ATP there.

While ATPs are expensive to provide, research for the Scottish Sports Council a number of years ago and reported in its Research Digest 27, Tayside Pitches Study (October 1992), found that they are significantly cheaper on a “cost per hour of use” basis than grass pitches, even after taking account of capital costs and the need for carpet replacement every 8-10 years. However, this counter-intuitive conclusion was subject to two important caveats:

• At the time of the above research, the then available ATP surfaces were not really suitable for football. Therefore there was no real potential to move football onto ATPs until the development of better surfaces. • Football needed to be flexible over match starting times so that several matches could be played on the peak match days of Saturday and Sunday and under floodlights.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 97

The first of these caveats is no longer relevant as a result of the development of third generation pitches designed for football. The second is still valid. However, as hockey has shown, with a move to floodlit ATPs tradition can easily be changed, as can the start times of matches.

The development of third generation ATPs therefore creates significant opportunities for local authorities such as the Borough Council. In summary, it can:

• Develop ATPs on strategic sites, including schools, and encourage football leagues both to move on to them and adopt flexible starting times • Once leagues start to move to ATPs, consider redeveloping at least part of existing football sites for new housing or other land uses, ideally set around new neighbourhood parks. Moreover, as the Borough Council owns most of the sites that it may be possible to develop, it will be able both to generate the capital needed to fund the new ATPs and changing accommodation and ensure that developers deliver high quality, attractive residential environments. Its powers as land owner will be significantly greater than its powers as planning authority in terms of ensuring that developments on existing playing fields result in “conservation areas of the future”. Developers can appeal against a refusal of planning permission; they cannot appeal against a refusal by the Council to sell the land to them because their proposals are not good enough. Moreover, development on some of the Borough’s pitch sites will be inherently more sustainable than using peripheral locations. • Make significant revenue savings on the cost of maintaining grass pitches, allowing it to make ATPs available to clubs at prices that will be affordable.

Accordingly the Council should:

• Make a major effort to persuade all mini-soccer (at least) to use only artificial surfaces. This will create a clear justification for the development of a network of third generation ATPs, possibly starting at Winklebury (ideally two pitches to maximise use of the site) and Testbourne Community School in Whitchurch. Given sufficient weekday evening adult use, the Council could afford to allow accredited mini-soccer leagues, such as the Peter Houseman Youth League, to use ATPs without charge. Mini-soccer teams cause much less wear and tear than adult players and young players brought up on high quality artificial turf pitches will be unlikely to want to move to increasingly poor quality, waterlogged pitches as they progress to the 11-a-side game. • Promote the development of multi-age, multi-team football clubs for both sexes, if necessary by persuading existing single team clubs to merge • Develop an active programme of Monday-Thursday

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 98

evening floodlit leagues across the Borough: the demand for football on Friday evenings will be very low. Matches in these leagues do not have to be 45 minutes each way, but could be shorter games so as to be able to accommodate more games in the course of an evening.

The Wider Value of Many grass football pitches serve an amenity purpose as Grass Pitches well as a sporting one and many are used informally for a variety of recreational uses such as dog walking, sitting in the sun and casual kickabouts. However, because they are inevitably large, predominantly flat areas of short mown grass, their visual interest and biodiversity and amenity value is relatively low, especially when compared to many other greenspaces. Accordingly, where there is only very limited greenspace in the vicinity of a pitch site, or where it is the main greenspace in an area, it would be wrong to allow its total redevelopment. In these circumstances the Council should seek to retain part of the pitch site and landscape it as a local park or whatever other form of other greenspace may be needed in the area.

This approach will support the objective of identifying sites that it may be possible to use for some other purpose in order to maximise sustainability or part fund whatever improvements in provision may be necessary.

Quantity Standard In the short term, the Council should aim to develop a third generation ATP on each of the following sites, together with suitable community use changing and social accommodation:

• Brighton Hill Community School: although there is already a PowerLeague 5-a-side complex on the site, it will be desirable for the school also to have a full size ATP as it is a specialist sports college • Down Grange • Winklebury Football Centre • Testbourne School in Whitchurch • The Hurst School in Baughurst or Barlow’s Football Complex in Tadley • Note: this assumes that Queen Margaret College will progress its plans for an upgraded ATP in the south of Basingstoke town

Map 9.2 shows the impact of providing these pitches on the overall accessibility of ATPs across the Borough.

Overall, therefore, over the next 5-10 years the Council should aim to deliver a total of at least four additional third generation ATPs across the Borough. This will result in the Borough having a total of at least 7 or 8 such pitches (7 if there is only one at Winklebury, 8 if there are two). The total number of ATPs required will depend on the extent to which football is willing to move off grass and onto artificial surfaces. The Council will be able to reduce the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 99

number of grass pitches it operates in Basingstoke town as and when football transfers but it is impossible to predict the extent to which this will be acceptable in the rural parts of the Borough. By the same token it is impossible to identify the most appropriate quantity standard. However, the table below suggests the quantity standard for ATPs if 100% of mini-soccer matches and 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of current adult and junior football matches transfer to ATPs:

• 25% transfer 0.4 sq m per person • 50% transfer 0.6 sq m per person • 75% transfer 0.9 sq m per person • 100% transfer 1.1 sq m per person

If only mini-soccer transfers to ATPs, the quantity standard should be 0.3 sq m of ATP site per person.

The Impact of Population growth will obviously increase the demand for Population Change ATPs, but the extent to which this happens will also depend on the extent to which football moves to them.

Spatial Objective This analysis suggest the Council should adopt a spatial objective of moving as much football as possible onto artificial turf pitches by developing high quality ATPs and related ancillary accommodation on suitable sites and making them available at affordable cost.

Implementation The Borough Council should:

• Draw up a strategy for moving football onto artificial surfaces, in partnership with the Basingstoke and Deane Football Development Council. • Develop a rolling programme of allowing appropriate forms of development on suitable football sites in order to generate the funds needed to develop the new ATPs. However, football sites can also serve an important amenity function and therefore disposal for development will be acceptable only in some circumstances. For example, if there is a good supply of greenspace in the area, it will be important to use part of the capital receipt to upgrade any poor quality spaces in the vicinity; and if there is not, it will be essential to retain part of the site and lay it out as a local park in order to enhance local amenity. • Adjust the quantity standard for ATPs as football moves onto artificial surfaces • Require residential developers to contribute to additional ATP provision at appropriately located sites across the Borough • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Chapter 20 contains further recommendations relating to ATP provision.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 100

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 101

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 102

10: Athletics Facilities

Introduction This chapter reviews provision for athletics in the Borough.

Existing Provision The Borough has one athletics facility, the 6-lane synthetic track at Down Grange. Although floodlit, the track has no formal spectator accommodation and the amount of parking is fairly limited.

The Borough Council has long had an aspiration to extend the track to 8 lanes and add spectator and other ancillary accommodation in order to be able to attract major events.

Nearby Provision The nearest athletics facilities to Basingstoke are:

• Crookham Common (11 miles from Basingstoke town centre): another floodlit 6-lane track • Aldershot Military Garrison (14 miles from Basingstoke Town Centre): 8 lane track with floodlights and a spectator stand. The Garrison also has a wide range of other spots facilities. • Palmer Park, Reading (15 miles from Basingstoke town centre): an 8-lane track with floodlights and a spectator stand • Bracknell Leisure Centre (17 miles from Basingstoke town centre): 6 lane track with floodlights • Charlton Lakeside, Andover (19 miles from Basingstoke town centre): 6 lanes with floodlights

Of these facilities, Aldershot is by far the best and, as the British Olympic Association has selected it as the training camp for the British team for the 2012 Olympic Games, set to have a high profile in British athletics in the coming years. However, as Map 10.1 shows, apart from Down Grange, only the Crookham Common track is readily accessible to Borough residents.

Basingstoke may have the potential to attract the athletics team from another country in advance of the 2012 Olympic Games, particularly given its good rail link to London, and Down Grange has been approved as a potential 2012 Olympic Training Venue. However, it lacks the full range of facilities for Olympic sports and in particular the sports medicine and sports science support that teams will look

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 103

for in advance of the 2012 Games. In addition, visiting teams will probably want training venues that are more secure than Down Grange. The Council is well aware of these potential shortcomings and is working with the local Hospital Trust and Hampshire Constabulary to overcome them.

The Potential to Local Athletics Meetings Attract Events The main users of the track are members of the Basingstoke and Mid Hampshire Athletics Club. It has around 400 members and is currently in Division 2 of the British Athletics League. This league requires an 8-lane track with full field events facilities for “home” meets, so the club has started a fund-raising campaign with the aim of upgrading the track and constructing a small stand.

“Wider than Local” Events

There are only a limited number of major athletics events in the UK each summer and breaking into the “circuit” is both difficult and expensive. In order to have any hope of attracting a major event, Down Grange will require an upgraded 8-lane track with full field events facilities, a spectator stand and a range of other ancillary facilities.

A Community The Borough Council commissioned a study into the Stadium feasibility of a community stadium in 200-2001 which supported the concept of extending the Down Grange track to eight lanes. It has recently commissioned a new study to investigate the potential to develop the site into a sports complex of regional significance.

Spatial Objective The most appropriate spatial objective for athletics provision will depend on the outcome of the current feasibility study relating the Down Grange.

Implementation Down Grange is a good athletics training facility but an inadequate competitive one. However, it is the centrepiece of Down Grange and the Borough Council needs to decide whether upgrading the track to eight lanes is a corporate priority and then do whatever may be necessary to implement its decision.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 104

11: Outdoor Bowling Greens

Introduction This chapter reviews the provision of outdoor bowling greens across the Borough and suggests a quantity standard.

Existing Provision The Borough currently has nine bowling green sites:

• Kingsclere (6 rinks) • Laverstoke (6 rinks) • St Mary Bourne (6 rinks) • Sheardown House (6 rinks) • Russell Howard Park (12 rinks on 2 greens) • Houndmills Club (6 rinks) • Old Basing (6 rinks) • Popley Community Centre (6 rinks) • Fairfields Road (6 rinks)

There is also a green at the Aldermaston AWE (6 rinks) just outside the Borough which is probably used mainly by residents of the Tadley area as Tadley and Baughurst are the only significant settlements in the immediate vicinity. However, with the Borough there is one green to around 15,600 residents.

Map 11.1 shows the location of the various greens in the Borough.

Supply and Demand Although the age profile of bowlers is slowly changing, the Government’s General Household Survey in 2002 found that the median age of bowlers was 66. It also found that around 4% of people aged 60-69 and 3% of people aged 70 and over played the game regularly. As a typical club with a 6-rink green will aim for around 100-120 members, this implies that a green needs a catchment population of around 3,000 people aged 60 and over. In the whole of the Borough there were approximately 24,000 people aged 60-84 at the time of the 2001 census, implying a potential need for around eight greens – assuming everyone over 60 lives within an acceptable travel distance of at least one green. Given that the Borough occupies quite a large area the present provision of 10 greens on nine sites is reasonable. In Basingstoke there were a little over 13,000 people in the 60-84 age group at the time of the 2001

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 105

census, capable of generating a full membership for sustaining around 4-5 greens. Accordingly the current level of provision in the town – 6 greens on five sites - should also be perfectly adequate.

Accessibility Most bowlers either walk or drive to their club or green and across the Borough 13% of properties lie within the 10- minute walking and 87% within the 10-minute driving distance threshold of at least one green. Accordingly the accessibility of greens is very good. Apart from a very small area of Hatch Warren and Beggarwood, the areas outwith the driving distance threshold of a green are all in the rural parts of the Borough. The main settlements without reasonable access to a green are Burghclere, Ecchinswell, Sherfield on Loddon, North Waltham and the extreme south west tip of Basingstoke town.

Local Views The only town and parish councils to identify a need for a bowling green were Chineham (but only three out of the eight respondents) and Tadley. However, there are greens reasonably close to Chineham in both Popley East and Basing and one close to Tadley in the Aldermaston AWE. Accordingly there does not seem to be any great need for more greens, although it may be necessary to revisit this conclusion if the Aldermaston AWE green closes.

Trends Across England there has been a general decline in the popularity of bowls in the past few years and a number of clubs have reported increasing difficulty in attracting new members. The reasons for this are not completely clear, but seem to relate mainly to the fact that people are remaining increasingly active as they grow older. Indeed, the greatest growth in participation in sport and physical activity in the past few years has been amongst the over- 55s – but in activities such as walking and swimming rather than in bowls. As public policy relating to health and physical activity is designed to support and promote this trend, bowls is likely to struggle as the “young old” take up other activities and do not think of taking up bowls until they become part of the “old old” – by which time they may not be interested in doing so

Against this, the forecast changes to the Borough’s population summarised in Chapter 3 are likely to result in a significant increase in the number of both “young old” and “old old” people in the Borough. Accordingly there are two significant trends running counter to each other.

Spatial Objective The Council’s spatial objectives in relation to bowling greens should be:

• Short term: to protect the existing bowling greens across the Borough and work with the clubs to promote the game in order to keep them economically viable • Longer term: to monitor the need for more greens as the population of the Borough rises and ensure that

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 106

provision keeps pace with demand

Implementation The current level of provision of bowling greens appears to be adequate to meet current needs and there should be limited spare capacity equivalent to approximately two greens on a Borough-wide basis. Accordingly the Borough’s population aged 60-84 can grow by around 6,000 people before there will be a need for any additional greens. As the forecast increase in this age group from 2001 to 2026 is approximately 14,000 people, this implies a potential need for up to three additional greens. However, the Aldermaston AWE green may be relocated to a new site which may or may not be in the Borough, but will be readily available to Tadley residents. Accordingly the likely need, apart from Tadley, is for two additional greens by 2026. The best location for these greens will depend on where there is likely to be the greatest growth in the number of older people, but at least one should be in Basingstoke town.

In addition, the Council should:

• Identify potential sites for new greens in the Local Development Framework • Require developers to provide or contribute to these new greens when developments are within the distance threshold of them • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 107

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 108

12: Provision for Children and Young People

Introduction This chapter reviews the provision of play spaces for children and young people, based on an audit of play value undertaken for the Borough Council in late 2007/early 2008. This complemented an annual inspection of the safety and condition of play areas undertaken on a regular basis by the Council, primarily for insurance purposes.

The play value audit classed the 169 play facilities in the Borough as containing equipment designed for toddlers (children aged up to about 5 or 6 years), juniors (children aged from 6 to about 12) and teenagers (young people aged around 11 and over). Obviously there is some overlap between these groups as children and young people mature at different rates and in addition many of the play areas contained equipment for more than one group. Overall, the audit concluded that of the 169 play areas:

• 159 contained equipment most suited to toddlers • 169 contained equipment most suited to juniors • 149 contained equipment most suited to teenagers

The audit then assessed the play value of the equipment and other play opportunities on each site by ascribing value scores to different items: for example, for toddlers, swings, slides and climbing facilities scored 2 while balancing equipment scored only 1. The toddlers’ play score was then the total of the individual equipment scores. The audit also used a similar system for junior and teenage facilities.

As well as equipment items, the audit also reviewed the nature of each play site, using criteria such as the landscaping, graphics, seating, general surroundings, litter bin provision, fencing, means of access, lighting and informal surveillance. This resulted in a “site score” and adding the site score to the toddlers, junior or teenage score gave an overall play value score. Accordingly each site could have one, two or three overall scores depending on the number of age groups for which it catered.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 109

The maximum possible scores for toddlers, juniors and teenagers respectively were then split into four groups of scores designated as representing low, medium, high and very high value. This resulted in the following ratings:

Toddlers Juniors Teenagers Low 25 29 63 Medium 133 122 85 High 1 18 1 Very high 0 0 0 Totals 159 169 149

The audit covered a slightly odd mix of play facilities, activities and characteristics plus “physical development” as follows:

Facilities Activities Characteristics Bridges Agility Educational Cableways Balancing Imaginative Firefighters’ pole Climbing Colourful Group swing Crawling Interactive Platforms Gymnastics Tactile Hanging Hiding Jumping Multi movement Rocking Rope play Rotating Sand play Sliding Sports Swinging Water play Wheeled sports

There is some cross-over between different elements in these lists; for example, climbing, rope play and sand play respectively imply the existence of some sort of climbing facility, ropes and sand as play facilities. However, the audit gives a consistent assessment of play value across the Borough.

A number of the play opportunities identified in the audit are likely to be of only very limited interest to teenagers – crawling, hiding and sandplay, for example. If anything, therefore the audit overstates the value of the various play sites for teenagers. Although it concluded that 149 sites contained play opportunities for teenagers, only a handful of sites contained the sort of play opportunities that tend to be most popular with teenagers, such as:

• Cableways 5 sites • Sports facilities 54 sites • Wheeled sports 12 sites

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 110

Existing Provision Thanks to the National Playing Fields Association’s (NPFA) Six Acre Standard, the traditional approach to planning for children’s play across the UK has concentrated primarily on quantity and more specifically on the number of items of play equipment, although the NPFA (which recently changed its name to Fields in Trust) actually emphasises the importance of accessibility at least as much as quantity. Within the Six Acre Standard, 0.6-0.8 ha per thousand people is allocated to play provision for children and young people, made up of:

• Local Areas for Play (LAPs): small open spaces designated and laid out for young children • Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs), a minimum of 400 sq m in size with at least five pieces of equipment • Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs) at least 1,000 sq m in area, with at least eight pieces of equipment plus ball game facilities • Incidental play space in housing areas

However, as noted in Chapter 5, over the past five years or so there has been a growing view that this approach is too formulaic and offers little to children once they reach the age of about seven or eight.

Because of the way the audit was done, it is not possible to identify the number of equipment items on each site or to classify each play area with equipment as either a LEAP or NEAP, although the Borough Council has this information from its annual safety inspections. However, play value is by far the most important characteristic of play facilities. In addition, as the Ordnance Survey base map shows the extent of only some of the play areas in the Borough it has not been possible accurately to identify the total area of land occupied by the various play areas across the Borough. However, this said, it seems likely to be approximately 96,000 sq m, or a little under 10 ha with around a third of play areas less than 300 sq m is size. This gives an average of around 0.6 sq m per person. By comparison, the Council’s current quantity standard for equipped play provision is 0.2 ha per 1,000 people, or 2 sq m per person – at least three times the current average level of provision. While some of the Town and Parish Councils would like to see more play provision in their areas, it would clearly be unaffordable and unnecessary to have three times as much as at present. Accordingly the current Local Plan standard is unrealistically high.

Planned Provision

The Council is currently planning three major new facilities for teenagers, funded partly by the Big Lottery Fund:

• War Memorial Park • Penwood (complete)

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 111

• Basing Woods, behind the Popley Fields Community Centre

Accessibility Play facilities should be readily accessible to potential users on foot and in other Council areas parents are generally willing to walk with young children to an equipped play area for more than the 5 minutes accessibility standard in the current Local Plan (see chapter 6 above for further details of this). Broadly speaking, toddlers will normally visit a play area accompanied by a parent, carer or older sibling; juniors may visit a play with friends or parents, carers or older siblings; and teenagers will generally visit facilities with friends of around their own age. Maps 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 show the distribution of toddler, junior and teenage play areas and playgrounds across the Borough as a whole, together with 8 minute/400 m, 10 minute/500 m and 15 minute/900 m walking distance thresholds respectively. The percentage of properties in the Borough within these distance thresholds of the three types of play area are:

All High play value • Toddlers 73% 1% • Juniors 81% 17% • Teenagers 91% 6%

Overall, therefore, the conclusion from this analysis is that the Borough needs both to improve the accessibility of play facilities for toddlers and juniors and significantly to enhance the quality of provision.

At the same time, it is clear from the maps that some parts of the Borough – for example, much of Basingstoke town, Bramley, Kingsclere, Oakley, and Overton - have a significant number of play areas with overlapping catchment areas. Map 12.4 illustrates this point by showing the location of the junior play areas in Basingstoke Town at a larger scale. In these areas the Borough and Parish Councils could achieve the same overall level of accessibility with significantly fewer play areas and therefore lower revenue costs. This creates the opportunity to review and rationalise the current pattern of provision. This process is likely to take a number of years as different play areas will require re-investment at different times. However, the Borough Council and some of the Parish Councils should draw up a strategy for rationalising their play areas using the following broad approach:

• Identify the largest sites with the highest play values in each neighbourhood and the catchment within the appropriate 8, 10 or 15 minute distance threshold of them, but assuming that children should not have to cross a main road to get to them. This will automatically also identify those areas outwith the distance threshold of the sites.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 112

• If the catchment of two or more larger sites overlap to a significant extent, review the opportunities to reduce the number of sites in order to minimise the overlapping of catchment areas. This may involve anything from simply removing the equipment and landscaping the site to converting the site to some other greenspace use such as an allotment or disposing of it for development. • Where there are large areas not within the appropriate walking distance threshold, identify the smallest number of sites for additional play facilities that will result in the maximum number of dwellings being within the threshold • Where there are small sites within the area served by the larger sites, these are the sites that it will in principle be possible to remove when the equipment within them comes to the end of its useful life. Some may be suitable for an infill development, in which case they should be sold, although most will not and should then be converted to another greenspace use and landscaped accordingly. • Where there are small areas that are not within the appropriate distance threshold of one of the larger play sites, retain the minimum number of existing smaller play sites consistent with ensuring that as many dwellings as possible are within the walking distance threshold of at least one site. • If a Council decides to dispose of a site, it should reinvest the capital receipt back in the area, either in the nearest play area or use it to enhance other greenspaces in the vicinity.

Local communities will probably take two opposing views in relation to any proposal to reduce the number of play areas. On the one hand, many local residents will be concerned in principle at any proposed reduction in provision for young children. On the other, however, those living next to any play area that the Council plans to close will probably welcome a reduction in the play provision close to their homes, not least because many play areas are colonised by teenagers at night and can then be a source of noise and litter.

Local Views Town and Parish Councils

The town and parish councils that identified a need for more play facilities in their areas were:

• Provision for children aged under 8: Ashford Hill with Headley; Chineham (two of the eight respondents); Cliddesden; Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green; Highclere and Penwood; Kingsclere; Monk Sherborne; Old Basing and Lychpit; Overton; Pamber; St Mary Bourne; and Whitchurch • Provision for children aged 8-12: Ashford Hill with

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 113

Headley; Chineham (3 out of 8 respondents); Cliddesden; East Woodhay; Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green; Highclere and Penwood; Kingsclere; Laverstoke and Freefolk; Mapledurwell and Nateley; Monk Sherborne; Old Basing and Lychpit; Overton; Pamber; Sherborne St John; Silchester; St Mary Bourne; Upton Grey; and Whitchurch • Provision for teenagers: Ashford Hill with Headley; Baughurst; Burghclere; Chineham (7 out of 8 respondents); Cliddesden; East Woodhay; Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green; Highclere and Penwood; Hurst Bourne Priors; Kingsclere; Laverstoke and Freefolk; Mapledurwell and Nateley; Monk Sherborne; Mortimer West End; Oakley and Deane; Overton; Pamber; Silchester; St Mary Bourne; Stratified Turgid; Talley; Upton Grey; and Whitchurch

Borough Council Members

Council members for the following wards identified a need for more or better provision for children and teenagers in their areas:

Younger Children More Better Brighton Hill North Chineham Grove Oakley & North Waltham Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon Pamber Popley West Rooksdown

Older Children More Better Basing Brookvale & Kings Furlong Chineham Grove Oakley & North Waltham Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon Pamber Popley West Rooksdown Tadley South

Teenagers More Better Basing Brighton Hill South Brookvale & Kings Furlong Calleva Chineham Grove Oakley & North Waltham Pamber

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 114

Popley West Rooksdown Sherborne St John South Ham Tadley South Winklebury

Conclusions

Accordingly, local views very much support the analysis above suggesting that improving the value of the Borough’s play areas should be the priority. At the same time, respondents in some parts of the Borough also identified a need for more provision, particularly for teenagers. There are two points to make on this. First, some respondents may have thought that the best way to enhance provision is to provide some new play areas and so identified a need for more. This is sensible if the location of some existing facilities is not particularly good, as suggested by the accessibility assessment. Second, the audit over-stated the extent and value of teenage provision. Accordingly the analysis above and local views are not as contradictory as might at first appear. It is also worth noting that the above needs were identified by adults. A recent consultation undertaken by the Borough Council in connection with a proposed youth café found that young people regarded somewhere to hang out with friends as their top priority. In summer this can be a simple “youth shelter” (a small area with a roof and seats, but usually open sides) but in winter there is an obvious need for indoor facilities.

The wards with over 1500 residents aged 0-19 in 2008 and the forecast for 2012 are:

2008 2012 Estimate Forecast • Basing 1,904 1,778 • Buckskin 1,614 1,730 • Calleva 1,703 1,793 • Chineham 2,163 2,127 • Hatch Warren and Beggarwood 2,871 2,654 • Kempshott 1,535 1,423 • Norden 2,204 2,326 • Oakley and North Waltham 1,578 1,575 • South Ham 1,798 1,739 • Tadley North 1,531 1,496 • Winklebury 1,631 1,531

Source: Hampshire County Council 2005 based Small Area Population Forecasts

Overall, therefore, Basing, Chineham, Hatch Warren and Beggarwood, Kempshott, South Ham, Tadley North and Winklebury are likely to see a slight reduction in the number of children and young people and therefore

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 115

demand for play facilities over the next few years. On the other hand, demand will probably increase slightly in Buckskin, Calleva and Norden.

A Suggested New While it will be desirable to rationalise the current Policy Approach to provision as opportunities to do so arise, this does not mean that the Borough, Town and Parish Councils should Play simply remove some of the existing play areas when they require re-investment. Instead, they should:

• Adopt a clear hierarchy (see below) of equipped/formal play provision in both existing and proposed new residential neighbourhoods as a guide for planning purposes • Work with established local communities to enhance greenspaces, and where appropriate, former equipped play areas, in existing housing areas to make them more attractive and stimulating places for both adults and children and improve their biodiversity and promote nature conservation • Require the developers of new housing neighbourhoods to design in a network of attractive greenspaces from the start that comply in all respects with the quantity standards set out in Appendix C.

A Hierarchy of Equipped Play Facilities

The principle of a hierarchy of play provision is extremely sensible; everyday play should be close to home, with opportunities for parents and carers to take children occasionally to “special” play facilities with a wide range of play equipment and opportunities. What is needed, therefore, is to develop an approach that will meet local needs and be both affordable and sustainable. This suggests that the Council should develop a new play provision strategy, based on maximising play value in:

• Local greenspaces, designed to ensure that children can run around or sit quietly and see insects, birds and animals close to home; these spaces will not have any play equipment, but should be attractively landscaped with rocks, logs and changes of level in order to stimulate children’s imaginations. The distance threshold of 300 m derived above for multi-functional greenspaces will be appropriate for this form of provision. • Neighbourhood play areas with some stimulating play equipment for children of different ages within an acceptable walking distance of home; the distance threshold of 500 m derived above will be appropriate for this form of provision. Ideally there should be at least one such play area in each ward or neighbourhood in the larger towns and settlements so that children and parents or carers can access them without having to cross a busy road and located so that no dwelling is more than 500 m as the crow flies from

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 116

at least one and ideally two facilities. • A network of large, “super play areas” that will offer children special treat play opportunities and attract them and their parents or carers from a reasonably large area. They should be designed for children of all ages and have large pieces of equipment different in nature from those in neighbourhood play facilities, such as large climbing nets, complemented by large naturalistic areas and provision for teenagers such as a skateboard areas and hard surfaced and a floodlit kickabout. It may be appropriate for some of them to be supervised or even for the Council to levy a nominal charge for their use. A wider distance threshold, of say 20 minutes walk or 900m, will therefore be appropriate. Ideally, these super play areas should be located in parks rather than stand-alone.

This approach has the merit that the Council can develop it slowly over time as existing play areas require re- investment. It will result eventually in fewer but larger and better equipped play areas than at present which are of significantly higher play value than many of the play areas currently in the Borough.

Quantity Standard Children’s Play

It follows that the only quantity standard required by the Council for children’s play will relate to equipped play facilities; the standard for naturalistic greenspaces will be part of a wider multi-functional greenspace standard (see Chapter 15).

It is possible to derive this standard from first principles, based on the above hierarchy. For Basingstoke town, it is:

• Strategic facilities: map 12.5 demonstrates that 9 sites and a 900 m distance threshold will be sufficient to provide good accessibility to strategic sites from most parts of the town. A network of 9 sites of around 1250 sq m each will have a total area of some 12,000 sq m. Taking the population of the town as around 95,000 people, this gives quantity standard of 0.13 sq m per person. • Neighbourhood/ward facilities: a network of around 16 facilities @ 750 sq m each will have a total area of around 12,000 sq m, or 0.13 sq m per person • Local facilities: a network of around 64 facilities (ie an average of four per ward) @ 300 sq m will have a total area of around 19,200 sq m, or 0.2 sq m per person

This gives a rounded total quantity standard of 0.5 sq m per person, significantly lower than the current Local Plan standard of 2 sq m per person. The make-up of this standard implies a reduction in the total area of small local play areas by about a half, offset by the creation of the network of neighbourhood and strategic facilities.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 117

In the rural areas of the Borough the main need will be for the local sites plus a handful of neighbourhood sites in the larger settlements of Kingsclere, Overton/Laverstoke, Sherfield on Loddon, Tadley and Whitchurch. Taking the population of the rural areas of the Borough as around 65,000, this gives a quantity standard of around 0.35 sq m per person, made up of:

• Neighbourhood sites: 5 x 1000 sq m = 5,000 sq m or 0.05 sq m per person • Local sites as above (0.2 sq m per person), but with the average size increased to 450 sq m so as to be large enough to incorporate some provision for teenagers: 0.3 sq m per person

Application of the Quantity Standard

Planning for play should be based primarily on accessibility and play value coupled with the hierarchy of site sizes suggested above, rather than quantity. However, this said, the Council will obviously need to use the quantity standard in order to assess the need for developer contributions in a consistent and objective manner. Appendix H therefore applies the 0.35 sq m per person standard for the rural parts of the Borough and a standard of 0.4 sq m per person for the town wards. The reason for using 0.4 sq m per person in the Town, rather than the 0.5 sq m per person suggested above, is that it would be meaningless to apply a standard including the six strategic sites to individual wards. However, the Council should use the 0.5 sq m per person quantity standard when assessing developer contributions to off-site provision in the town, as developers should contribute to the strategic as well as local facilities. For simplicity in application, the quantity standard relates to people and not only children and young people.

Any surpluses in the rural parts of the Borough identified in Appendix H are theoretical rather than realistic because of the distribution of the population and the need for all local play areas to be large enough to be worth having. This can easily result in a higher level of provision per person that would be sensible in an urban area and there is no suggestion that it will be sensible to remove any of the play areas in the rural parts of the Borough other than to rationalise provision as suggested above.

Teenage Facilities

Teenagers will require a slightly different approach as they will nearly always visit facilities intended for their use on their own or with friends, but not parents or carers. In Basingstoke town, the appropriate hierarchy of provision for them will be a network of local facilities, within a maximum of about 900 m from as many dwellings as

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 118

possible, plus at least one or possibly two “strategic” sites with special opportunities such as major skateboard facilities. The obvious location for such a strategic facility for teenagers is the Leisure Park as it already contains other facilities that attract large number of teenagers, such as the Aquadrome, Planet Ice and tenpin bowling. In the rural areas, it will be impractical to have a hierarchy of provision; instead, the Borough Council should encourage the Town and Parish Councils to develop local facilities where there are significant numbers of young people and locate the strategic site or sites in the town where they will be as accessible as possible to young people from the whole of the Borough.

The Council should consult local teenagers when deciding the range of facilities to be provided in both neighbourhood facilities and any strategic sites. However, for the purposes of a quantity standard, it is reasonable to assume that each of the neighbourhood sites in the town will be around 1,000 sq m. This is large enough for a ball court (similar to the open access courts at Winklebury or Popley Fields, for example) or skateboard area and a shelter. Using the same eight broad locations as for the strategic children’s play sites above, but allowing for a larger site at the Leisure Park, this suggests a total provision of around 8-9,000 sq m or 0.1 sq m per person.

Application of the Quantity Standard

There is no need to apply the quantity standard for teenage facilities to the population of each ward if the Council takes the spatial planning approach suggested above.

More Naturalistic Greenspaces

Many of the town’s greenspaces are fairly bland or “indifferent” to use the term adopted for neither good nor bad spaces in the audit. There is no reason, however, why greenspaces without any play equipment should not be attractive play spaces in their own right. The things that stimulate young children’s imaginations are opportunities to run, hide, climb, get dirty and explore the natural world of plants, birds and animals. Most traditional equipped play areas are far less stimulating than the natural environment. Children also need places to sit quietly with parents or friends. Older children and teenagers want places to kick a ball around or sit and chat. Adults also want somewhere to sit and chat or watch their children play or the world go by, plus places for teenagers to gather in small groups where they will not appear as a nuisance or potential threat. Accordingly the Council should adopt an approach of redesigning many of the fairly bland greenspaces in housing areas with rocks, logs, trees, shrubs, changes in level and other natural features that will make them significantly more attractive and stimulating

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 119

and increase their biodiversity value and support nature conservation.

Spatial Objectives The Council’s spatial objectives for provision for children and young people should be:

• To develop a hierarchy of play provision for children and young people in Basingstoke Town based on local, neighbourhood and strategic facilities • To encourage the Borough’s town and parish councils to continue to make appropriate provision for children and young people in their areas

Implementation The Council should:

• Draw up and implement a strategy for developing a better range and more efficient distribution of provision for children and young people in Basingstoke town over a period • Require residential developers to provide or contribute to appropriate facilities for children and teenagers within the appropriate distance thresholds of new developments throughout the Borough • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 120

13: Golf Courses

Introduction This chapter reviews provision for golf in the Borough.

Existing Provision The Borough currently has eight golf courses/clubs:

• Basingstoke Golf Centre: 9 holes, par 3 • Basingstoke Golf Club: 18 holes • Bishopswood Golf Club: 9 holes • Dummer Golf Club: 18 holes • Sandford Springs Golf Club: 27 holes • Sherfield Golf Club: 36 holes • Test Valley Golf Club: 18 holes • Weybrook Park Golf Club: 18 holes

There are also golf driving ranges at:

• Basingstoke Golf Centre • Bishopswood Golf Club • Dummer Golf Club • Test Valley Golf Club • Weybrook Park Golf Club

The current provision for golf is the equivalent of 17 9-hole units. However, the Weybrook Park Club is planning to construct another 9 holes, so in the reasonably near future there will be one 9-hole unit to approximately 8,700 people.

Demand and Supply All of the clubs within the Borough currently have vacancies for members and current provision is adequate to meet all current demand. However, it is difficult for them to say how many additional members they could accept as it depends on the number of play and play golfers that use their course. Most like to have the guaranteed income that comes from a full membership, but also acknowledge that maximising their income depends on attracting itinerant pay and play golfers.

This said, most of the clubs have had full or nearly full memberships in the past, suggesting a total membership of up to 17 9-hole units x 300 members = 5,100. On top of this there will also have been some pay and play golfers, offset by the fact that some club members will have come

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 121

from outside the Borough.

There is a long-established guideline that an 18-hole course can accommodate around 5-600 adult members or sustain around 50-60,000 rounds per year and a 9-hole course roughly half these levels, although a handful of municipal courses have reported as many as 80,000 rounds per year. However, municipal courses tend to be designed and have course layouts that maximise the speed of play – for example, no or only small areas of rough – compared with commercial and club courses, which concentrate more on providing a test of golfing ability and inevitably result in slower play and lower overall capacity. On average, therefore, it is sensible to plan on an average of 50,000 rounds per year for an 18-hole course and 25,000 rounds per year for a 9-hole one.

Accessibility Most golfers drive to their preferred course primarily because they take their bag of clubs with them and walking, other than for a short distance, and public transport are impractical. Map 13.1 and 13.2 show the accessibility of golf courses and driving ranges respectively. Across the Borough as a whole, 92% of properties lie within a 15-minute drive of at least one course and just under 80% within the same distance of a course with at least 18 holes. 85% lie within a 15-minute drive of at least one golf range. Accordingly the accessibility of golf provision is very good.

Trends Many clubs up and down the country have seen a reduction in their membership, although not necessarily a commensurate reduction in their level of use, measured in rounds per year. The reason for this is that as subscriptions rise, those members who play only occasionally, and fairly casually, realise that they are paying the equivalent of a much higher price per round than “pay and play” golfers. By resigning their club membership they lose the opportunity to play in competitions and keep their handicap up to date, but gain the opportunity to play a number of courses at lower cost.

Quantity Standard The most recent General Household Survey to include questions on sports participation found that:

• 12.1% of adults (defined as those over 16) had played golf in the 12 months before interview • 4.8% of adults had played golf in the four weeks before interview • Participation in golf rose from 1987 to 1990, but has since remained static • The average frequency of participation was four times in the four week period before interview

Applying these figures to the Borough’s over-16 population suggests a demand for approximately 31,000 adult rounds in a 4-week period at present and approximately 35,000

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 122

adult rounds in a 4-week period in 2026. This translates into approximately 308,000 and 351,000 adult rounds per year at present and in 2026. To this it is necessary to add an allowance for play by those under 16. Unfortunately junior players are excluded from most participation surveys because of the difficulties inherent in seeking information from children. However, figures from the Royal and Ancient Golf Club (the governing body for golf) suggest that:

• About five our of every six adult golfers are men • The ratio of junior male to adult members ranges from 1:4 to 1:8 • Most clubs have only a handful of junior female members

Taking the proportions of junior male to adult mal members as 1:6, and assuming that junior males play as often as adults, suggests that there might be a demand within the Borough for about 350,00 rounds at present, rising to 400,000 by 2026:

2006 2026 Number of rounds per year 308,000 351,000 Adult male rounds (5/6) 257,000 293,000 Junior male rounds (1/6) 43,000 49,000 Total rounds per year 351,000 400,000

As a 9-hole unit can accommodate about 25,000 rounds per year, catering for this demand will therefore require approximately 14 9-hole units at present and 16 by 2026.

Spatial Objectives The Council’s spatial objectives for golf should be:

• To protect existing provision • Support the further development of those courses or clubs closest to the town in order to minimise the need for golfers to travel to courses further away

Implementation As there are currently seventeen 9-hole units in the Borough there appears to be adequate provision for golf both now and in 2026 and so no quantity standard is required.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 123

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 124

14: Sports Pitches

Introduction This chapter covers pitches for cricket, football, hockey and rugby. It is based primarily on the Sport England Playing Pitch Model and a telephone survey of a sample of pitch sport clubs across the Borough. Across the four sports, it is clear that the main constraints on pitch sport participation relate to issues such as the lack of volunteers and match officials or meeting running costs rather than the number or quality of pitches.

The Sports England Appendix G consists of the Sport England playing pitch Playing Pitch Model model (PPM) for the Borough. This uses a standard methodology for each of the pitch sports to compare the number of teams and pitches on the peak match days each week – almost inevitably Saturday and Sundays. The number of teams in the Borough by sport, and by gender and age group, comes from a variety of sources including league handbooks, league and club websites and contact with club officials; the number of pitches from the open space audit (which included school sites) and information from the Borough Council on its pitch sites and the town and parish council on local recreation grounds. This has led to the following findings:

• Cricket: the Borough has around 24 cricket clubs fielding 52 men’s teams, 20 boys’ teams and 1 women’s team but no girls’ teams; and it has at least 18 pitches • Football: the Borough has around 98 men’s teams, 12 women’s teams, 55 boys’ teams, 16 girls’ teams and 93 mini teams; it also has at least 86 adult pitches, 19 junior pitches and 29 mini pitches. • Hockey: the Borough has three hockey clubs fielding ten men’s and six women’s teams plus three mixed junior teams and two mini teams; and it has three artificial turf pitches that are suitable for hockey • Rugby Union: the Borough has four rugby clubs fielding ten men’s teams, one women’s team, seven boys’ teams, two girls’ teams and twelve mixed junior teams; it also eight adult rugby pitches and four mini- rugby ones

Appendix G also calculates the current balance between

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 125

the demand for and supply of pitches using the PPM. However, although the PPM is designed for ward level analysis, this approach is not particularly useful for a number of reasons. In particular, it is the overall balance of supply and demand that matters, not the situation in individual wards: if there is a deficiency in provision in one or more wards, it is very often not possible to allocate land for more pitches within it in order to remove the deficiency; and if there is a surplus of provision this does not mean that it will be acceptable to use one or more pitches for another purpose.

The overall findings of the PPM analysis are:

• Cricket: there appears to be more than sufficient pitches to accommodate all of the current demand; the fact that the Borough Council took the Down Grange pitches out of use a few years ago confirms this • Adult and Youth Football: there appears to be enough pitches to accommodate all of the current Saturday and Sunday adult and mini-soccer demand but a shortfall of junior pitches on Sunday afternoons equivalent to around nine pitches. However, the Model reasonably compares the demand for junior pitches with the number of junior pitches but ignores the fact that many junior patches are played on adult pitches. When this is taken into account there are sufficient pitches, although obviously it would be desirable to create some additional junior pitches as they are slightly smaller than adult ones. • Mini-soccer: there appears to be a surplus of provision for mini-soccer in the Borough as a whole. However, this calculation assumes that each mini team plays only one match on each match day and that they use only mini-soccer pitches. Mini-soccer is often arranged with teams playing two or more matches in one session and on either unmarked areas of flat grass land or across adult pitches. Overall, therefore, there appears to be adequate provision at present. • Hockey: the Borough’s three artificial turf pitches can accommodate the demand provided they can each be used four times on Saturdays • Rugby: there are enough adult pitches to accommodate the adult demand, but a shortage of junior and mini pitches on Sundays. However, this is only a theoretical deficiency in provision because junior and mini teams normally play on adult pitches.

The PPM also calculates team generation rates (TGRs) and this makes it possible to benchmark the number of teams in the Borough in relation to its population against the number of teams in other areas. The calculation is given in Appendix L. The TGR is the number of people in a specified age group, defined by Sport England, required to “generate” one team. Accordingly the lower the TGR the higher the rate of participation, and vice versa. TGRs for

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 126

Basingstoke and Deane, compared with the other TGRs from across England published by Sport England, are:

B&D England England Average median Cricket Men’s teams 811 1,359 910 Women’s teams 41,766 45,938 40,550 Boys’ teams 335 979 339 Girls’ teams N/a 12,013 4,962

Football Men’s teams 337 423 354 Women’s teams 2,726 16,846 12,949 Boys’ teams 108 168 100 Girls’ teams 367 3,488 1,853 Mini-soccer teams 89 399 228

Hockey Men’s teams 3,675 9,612 5,175 Women’s teams 6,542 7,144 6,387 Boys’ teams 1,649 3,582 2,439 Girls’ teams N/a 4,256 3,135

Rugby Union Men’s teams 1,957 6,493 3,597 Women’s teams 30,874 27,405 17,238 Boys’ teams 425 1,603 564 Girls’ teams 869 15,345 5,139 Mixed mini-rugby teams 1,018 2,323 1,098

Note: the median is the “middle value” in any list of values – in other words, there are as many values above the median as there are below it. Average values can be skewed by one or two “outliers” while medians cannot. Accordingly, medians are a more useful guide than averages in terms of TGRs.

Accordingly, it appears that:

• All of the Borough’s TGRs for cricket are lower than the averages for other areas of England, but broadly similar to the median values for England. • The Borough’s TGRs for football are generally below the averages and medians for England. The TGR for women’s and girls’ football are significantly lower than the average and median TGRs for other areas of England, but only slightly lower for men and. Although the TGR for boys’ teams is below the England average, it is slightly above the median value. The men’s TGR is below the average for other areas of England, but only slightly below the median value. • The Borough’s TGRs for hockey are lower than the average and median values for other areas of England, except for women’s hockey where the TGR is slightly higher • The Borough’s TGRs for men’s, boys’ and girls’ rugby are significantly lower than both the average and

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 127

median values for other areas of England, but those for women’s rugby are significantly higher

This suggests that the Borough’s football interests have been much better at generating participation by girls and women than their counterparts in other areas of the country; and conversely that the popularity of football amongst girls and women has resulted in lower participation by them in hockey and rugby.

Overall, however, TGRs for the Borough are either broadly comparable with or lower than average TGRs for England as a whole. It therefore follows that participation in the pitch sports by Borough residents is generally comparable with or higher than in other areas of England.

Quality and Value Following the preparation of a Strategy for the Provision and Management of Parks and Green Spaces in Basingstoke and Deane (1996), the Borough Council designated a number of pitch sites within Basingstoke town, such as the Winklebury and Brighton Hill Playing Fields, as “centres for sport”. The chart below summarises the audit scores for those spaces classed as “centres for sport” in the open space audit.

Centres for Sport - Quality and Value

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Value scores 20%

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Qualit y scores

The average quality and value audit scores for all spaces were 52 and 31% respectively. Accordingly the centres for sport generally scored slightly above average, suggesting that they are of good quality and value.

Local Views Borough Council Members

Of the 16 Borough Councillors that responded to the Members’ survey, those for the following wards identified a need for more pitches:

• Local recreation grounds: Chineham; Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon; Popley West; Rooksdown; and South Ham (6)

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 128

• Mini-soccer: Calleva; Chineham; Grove; Pamber; Popley West; and South Ham (6) • Junior football: Calleva; Chineham; Grove; Pamber; Popley West; Rooksdown; and South Ham (7) • Adult football: Calleva; Chineham; Grove; Oakley and North Waltham; Pamber; Popley West; and Rooksdown (7) • Rugby: Calleva; Chineham; Grove; Pamber; Popley West; Rooksdown; South Ham; Tadley South; and Winklebury (9) • Floodlit pitches: Calleva; Grove; Pamber; Popley West; and Tadley South (5)

Town and Parish Councils

The following town and parish councils identified a need for more pitches in their areas:

• Mini-soccer pitches: Baughurst; Chineham (5 out of 8 respondents); Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishop’s Green; Highclere and Penwood; Old Basing and Lychpit; St Mary Bourne; and Tadley (8 councils) • Junior football pitches: Baughurst; Chineham (six out of eight respondents); Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishop’s Green; Old Basing and Lychpit; Tadley; and Upton Grey (7 councils) • Adult football pitches: Baughurst; Chineham (5 out of eight respondents); Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishop’s Green; Tadley; and Whitchurch (6 councils) • Rugby pitches: Chineham (5 out of 8 respondents); Stratfield Turgis; and Tadley (3 councils) • Floodlit grass pitches: Chineham (3 out of 8 respondents); Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishop’s Green; and Tadley (4 councils) • Floodlit artificial turf pitches: Chineham (3 out of 8 respondents); Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishop’s Green; Old Basing and Lychpit; and Tadley (5 councils)

This list is a little surprising given the playing pitch model analysis, and may reflect local “wish lists”. Several areas appear in all of the categories: Chineham; Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green; and Tadley. Nonetheless, the survey of town and parish councils does seem to suggest a need for more provision.

Club Views

Appendix K gives the full results of a telephone survey of a sample of pitch sport clubs in the Borough; the next few paragraphs give a brief summary of them.

Cricket Club Views

Our telephone survey included five cricket clubs which between them run 15 teams. In summary the main

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 129

findings were:

• Current problems facing the club: getting sponsorship (5), coaching (5), ageing players (4), keeping juniors (4), lack of volunteers (4), generating income (4) and lack of new junior players (3) • Enough match pitches: Yes (4) and no (1) • Future plans: more adult members (4) and more junior members (4) • Views on cricket pitches in the Borough generally: acceptable to good • Constraints on growth in participation in cricket: lack of volunteers (5), shortage of match officials (5), lack of players (4), young people have too many other interests (4) and lack of coaches (4),

Although all of the clubs identified some constraints on growth in participation generally, and specific problems facing them in particular, it is noticeable that only one cited pitch-related issues as a difficulty. Accordingly it seems likely that the current level of provision for cricket is about right and the quality of pitches broadly acceptable.

Football Club Views

Our telephone survey included ten football clubs with a total of 60 teams and the Peter Houseman Youth League. The main findings, with the number of respondents in brackets, were:

• Current problems facing the club: lack of volunteers (8), meeting running costs (7), generating income (7), getting sponsorship (7)m quality of changing accommodation (6), quality of pitches ( 6), coaching (5), lack of new male players (5) and lack of new female players (5). • Enough match pitches: 8 of the 11 respondents indicated “yes” and two did not give a clear answer • Future plans: more junior members/teams (6), upgrade pitch (4), more adult members (3), start a women’s section (3) and upgrade changing (3). However, four of the ten clubs indicated that they hoped to “survive somehow”. • Views on football pitches in the Borough generally: 9 of the eleven respondents classed the Borough’s pitches as good or acceptable and only two classed them as poor, with one of these respondents highlighting the impact of the very wet summer. The main criticisms related to the lack of floodlit pitches (3), poor changing (2) and pitches being overplayed (2) • Constraints on growth in participation in football: lack of floodlit pitches (11), lack of volunteers (9), lack of floodlit training areas (9), shortage of match officials (9), cost of hiring pitches (8), lack of training opportunities (7), lack of coaches (6), children have too

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 130

many other interests (6), parents aren’t interested (5), lack of players (5), too few grass pitches (5) and school PE teachers aren’t interested (4).

These findings suggest that a number of football clubs would like to expand, but will find it very difficult to do so successfully. For example, it will be difficult for many to expand without more volunteers, and if they do manage to expand the lack of match officials will place a real constraint on expanding league programmes. The best way of increasing participation appears to be to provide more training and floodlit facilities.

Hockey Club Views

Our questionnaire survey included only the Basingstoke Hockey Club. In summary its views are:

• Current problems: lack of new players (male, female and junior); keeping members; ageing players; getting sponsorship; meeting costs and lack of volunteers • Enough match pitches: yes • Future plans: more members and start an U18 team • Views on hockey pitches in the Borough: acceptable • Constraints on growth in hockey participation: lack of players, children have too many other interests, players getting older, PE teachers aren’t interested and lack of water-based pitches

Rugby Club Views

Our telephone survey included three of the Borough’s four rugby clubs (note: there is also a club at AWE Aldermaston just outside the Borough). The main findings, with the number of clubs citing them in brackets, were:

• Current problems: lack of new adult male players (3), lack of volunteers (3), meeting running costs (3), lack of new junior players (2), ageing players (2), keeping juniors and adult members (2), getting sponsorship (2) • Enough match pitches: yes (2), no (1) • Future plans: more adult members (3), more men’s teams (3), upgrade changing (3), more junior members (2) • Views on ruby pitches in the Borough: acceptable (2) or good (1) • Constraints on growth in rugby participation: quality of changing facilities (2), lack of volunteers (2), lack of floodlit pitches (2), lack of floodlit training areas (2)

Basingstoke Rugby Club also specifically highlighted its need for a floodlit third generation training pitch.

Accessibility A high level of accessibility on foot or by bicycle is not particularly important for sports pitches for three main

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 131

reasons:

• In any match, half of the players are playing for the “away” team and therefore will almost certainly have had to travel to the match venue • Players choose the club or team they will play for more by the standard of play on offer rather than the location of the club’s home ground: a Wessex League standard player, for example, will want to join the nearest Wessex League club, not simply the nearest club to where they live. Moreover, players often retain a loyalty to a club after moving house and can then end up travelling a significant distance to train and play • The higher the league in which players compete, the wider the area from which the league they play in draws its teams

This said, Map 14.1 shows the location of the Borough’s designated “Centres for Sport”- that is, its main public playing fields. Overall, the proportion of properties within 15 minute distance thresholds are:

All sites HQHV sites Walking 59% 44% Cycling 80% 74% Driving 91% 91%

The overall accessibility of sports pitches is better than this because the Borough Council has not designated the pitch sites in the Borough as Centres for Sport.

Supply and Demand Overall, there seems to be an approximate balance between the supply of pitches and demand for them, but a need to upgrade some pitches and changing. This approximate balance is almost inevitable: if the supply of pitches is inadequate, those teams that cannot obtain the use of a pitch for regular matches are unable to enter local leagues. However, this also means that there will be a need for more pitches – or, more accurately, greater pitch capacity - as the Borough’s population increases as a result of new residential developments.

“Increasing pitch capacity” means different things for different sports:

• For cricket, it means either programming fewer matches at the weekend and more midweek or providing more pitches. It is unrealistic to think that a cricket ground can be used for more than one match a day, except for some junior games. However, all cricket squares contain a number of wicket strips which means they can be used most days of the week simply by moving the wicket backwards and forwards across the square. Unfortunately, midweek matches are different in nature from weekend ones because they have, almost inevitably, to be played on a limited overs

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 132

basis, which means that the midweek and weekend versions of the game exist side by side with many players playing more than once a week. Therefore population growth will increase the need for cricket grounds. • For football, primarily it means being able to accommodate more matches at the weekend. If football continues to focus on grass pitches it is possible to increase the carrying capacity of a pitch to a limited extent by upgrading its specification, but only to a limited extent. Spending say £100,000 on reconstructing a pitch to a high specification can increase its capacity from two matches per week to three or perhaps four, but not much more – but it will still be unplayable after heavy rain. Climate change is almost certainly gong to make grass pitches unplayable more and more often. Therefore there is a strong case for taking a strategic policy decision progressively to move football onto artificial surfaces as suggested in Chapter 8 above. • For hockey it means providing more artificial turf pitches, as all “proper” hockey is played on artificial surfaces. • For rugby, it means provision g more grass pitches as there are currently no artificial surfaces that are suitable for adult rugby matches. Third generation ATPs are however suitable for training, mini-rugby and some junior games.

In planning policy terms, the Borough Council therefore faces a choice:

• Alternative 1: protect all of the current grass pitches and allocate land for the additional pitches that will be needed as a result of residential developments and population growth; or • Alternative 2: protect all of the current grass pitches in the short term, but develop a rolling programme of ATP provision for football and rugby training (as suggested in Chapter 9) to replace many of the current football pitches. It will then be possible to convert some of the current football pitches to cricket or rugby.

These alternatives will have different implications for the quantity standard for pitches, although there is no suggestion that it will be possible to move all football to artificial surfaces at once. The first alternative will require a quantity standard for grass pitches that includes football and rugby training, and an implicit assumption that grass football and rugby pitches will continue to be used for an average of around two games per week. The second requires a quantity standard that omits football pitches and rugby training from the standard for grass pitches and includes it in the quantity standard for ATPs. This latter approach will require significantly less land overall because of the very high carrying capacity of ATPs, but will depend

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 133

on local football interests being willing to change their attitude to playing matches on artificial turf. However, it offers much more for the future in terms of:

• Providing floodlit training facilities for football and rugby, usable very night of the week • Providing high capacity “central venues” for Peter Houseman Youth League mini-soccer matches • Providing pitches for football league matches that will not become waterlogged in or following most weather conditions • Providing a better social base for football clubs and allow them to amalgamate, thereby making better use of volunteers and potentially making it easier to attract sponsorship.

The Impact of Using team generation rates and population forecasts it is Population Change possible to estimate the future number of teams in an area, although any such calculation is inevitable dependent on a number of implicit assumptions. However, the table below compares the number of teams in various sports and age groups in 2008 and the forecast for 2026 based on team generation rates:

2008 2026 teams teams Change Football Mini-soccer (U7-U10s) - mixed 93 89 -4

Junior football - boys 55 55 0 Junior football - girls 16 16 0 Men’s football 98 95 -3 Women’s football 12 12 0 Totals for football 181 178 -3

Cricket Junior cricket - boys 20 21 1 Junior cricket - girls 0 0 Men’s cricket 52 51 -1 Women’s cricket 1 1 0 Totals for Cricket 73 0 -4

Hockey Junior hockey – boys 3 3 0 Junior hockey – girls 0 0 Men’s hockey 9 9 0 Women’s hockey 5 5 0 Totals for Hockey 17 17 0

Rugby Union Mini-rugby - mixed 10 10 0 0 Junior rugby - boys 11 12 1 Junior rugby - girls 1 1 0 Men’s rugby 16 15 -1 Women’s rugby 1 1 0

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 134

Totals for Rugby (ex mini) 29 29 0

Accordingly, although the population is forecast to rise significantly, changes to the age structure are likely to have the overall effect of reducing participation in the pitch sports slightly.

Quantity Standard

Appendix G calculates a suitable quantity standard for grass pitches for the two alternatives as follows:

• Alternative 1 (grass provision for all football matches): 9.3 sq m per person • Alternative 2: (ATPs for football, rugby training and mini-soccer plus grass for the other pitch sports): 5.6 sq m per person

Alternative 1 is slightly lower than the current Local Plan standard of 10 sq m per person, in spite of the fact that the surveys of Borough Council members and town and parish councils identified a clear need for more pitches, as did a few of the club interviews. This suggests that the Borough is not making the best use of its available pitches.

Spatial Objectives The Council should adopt the following spatial objectives for grass pitch provision:

• To ensure there is adequate pitch capacity to accommodate the needs of the Borough’s pitch sports clubs and teams for training, practice and matches • To enhance the quality of the poorer rugby and cricket pitches and related ancillary facilities • Progressively to move all football from grass to artificial surfaces in order to make the best use of land within settlements and provide the highest possible quality facilities for the game

Implementation The Council should:

• Draw up a strategy for moving football onto artificial surfaces, in partnership with the Basingstoke and Deane Football Development Council. • Develop a rolling programme of allowing appropriate forms of development on suitable football sites in order to generate the funds needed to develop the new ATPs. However, football sites can also serve an important amenity function and therefore disposal for development will be acceptable only in some circumstances. For example, if there is a good supply of greenspace in the area, it will be important to use part of the capital receipt to upgrade any poor quality spaces in the vicinity; and if there is not, it will be essential to retain part of the site and lay it out as a local park in order to enhance local amenity.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 135

• Develop a rolling programme of improvements to grass cricket and rugby pitches in partnership with the town and parish councils and the clubs that use them • Adjust the quantity standard for grass pitches as football moves onto artificial surfaces • Require residential developers to provide or contribute to new or enhanced cricket and rugby pitches within the appropriate distance thresholds of new developments. • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 136

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 137

15: The Green Network within Settlements

Introduction This chapter reviews the “green network” for those areas of the Borough for which there is greenspace audit data. It covers:

• Amenity greenspaces • Natural greenspaces • Parks and gardens

Existing Provision The Council’s open space audit covered Basingstoke town and all of the main settlements. In the smaller settlements and remainder of the Borough there is very little provision and also very little development and a comprehensive audit of local provision would not be cost effective.

The table below summarises the provision of greenspaces over 1,000 sq m in area (excluding playing fields) in the wards for which audit information is available:

Ward Area of all Area of Area of % of total ward greenspaces greenspace greenspace area per person (sq per person, per person, m) excluding excluding playing fields playing fields (sq m) and school sites (sq m) Town wards Basing 171 164 160 4.8% Brighton Hill North 128 128 99 37.2% Brighton Hill South 58 36 31 17.0% Brookvale and Kings Furlong 14 14 8 2.8% Buckskin 42 42 28 15.6% Chineham 78 76 72 18.8% Eastrop 143 138 109 21.0% Grove 82 82 57 15.0% Hatch Warren and Beggarwood 64 56 47 15.2% Kempshott 106 86 82 19.3% Norden 73 62 41 8.5% Popley East 83 65 45 14.0% Popley West 83 83 68 15.4% Rooksdown 36 0 0 0.0% South Ham 65 61 44 15.3% Winklebury 88 88 70 17.5% Totals 86 78 65 10.4% Totals, excluding Basing 78 70 56 15.3%

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 138

Rural Wards Baughurst (part) 7 3 3 0.1% Kingsclere 36 5 5 0.0% Oakley and North Waltham 48 29 25 0.3% Overton Laverstoke and Steventon 57 26 12 0.1% Pamber 38 38 38 1.1% Whitchurch 64 38 14 0.1% Tadley North 35 33 27 7.8% Tadley South 64 58 52 5.5% Totals 46 30 23 0.3% Totals excluding Tadley 45 24 16 0.2%

Notes: the audit did not include Rooksdown ward. The reason for giving figures for the town wards with and without Basing is that a significant proportion of the ward is rural. In the rural area, the two Tadley wards are atypical in that they are comparatively developed.

The inevitable conclusion from this is that Basingstoke is a fairly “green” town. Although not given in the above table, over 20% of its total area is “green”, although this reduces to around 15% when schools and playing fields are excluded. This is broadly comparable with cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow which pride themselves on their greenspaces. The three wards with the highest proportion of greenspace per person all contain major parks or playing field sites: Brighton Hill North (the Brighton Hill open space neighbourhood park), Eastrop (Eastrop and War Memorial Parks) and Kempshott (Stratton Park). In the rural areas, the proportion of greenspace is inevitably very low at around 0.3% of their area (excluding Tadley) because they consist primarily of countryside. However, in terms of the amount of greenspace per person, the difference between Basingstoke (at around 65 sq m per person, excluding schools and playing fields) and the rural areas (at around 23 sq m per person) is less marked.

Quality and Value As noted in Chapter 1, the audit scores make it possible to ascribe a high/low quality and value classification to each of the spaces in the audit. The average quality and value scores in the audit were 52% and 31% respectively, suggesting that the quality of sites is generally better than their value. In this context, “value” is nothing to do with monetary value, but t reflects the value of spaces in terms of their benefits to local people, nature conservation, children’s play and visual attractiveness. As PPG17 makes clear, spaces can be valuable in a number of ways, for example in terms of nature conservation and biodiversity, bringing people together for social events, offering opportunities for sports and recreation, promoting wellbeing and offering enjoyable opportunities for walking and cycling.

Using the average scores as the cut-off point between high and low quality and value makes it possible to classify the spaces in the audit (or, in many cases, clusters of spaces in the same area) as follows:

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 139

• High quality, high value 92 • Low quality, high value 92 • High value, low quality 110 • Low quality, low value 95 • Total 387

The main improvements needed to sites to enhance their value include:

• Making spaces more interesting and stimulating for children • Improving landscape structure to enhance local character and making them more attractive for informal recreation • Improving the inter-connectivity of spaces and pedestrian access to them so that people are more likely to walk or cycle through them on an everyday basis • Enhancing biodiversity and nature conservation

Primarily, these improvements will require more planting and better signage, with more planting, in particular, helping to make spaces more attractive and locally distinctive, cooler in summer and generally more sustainable.

The charts below summarise these scores for the different types of space:

M ulti-functional Greenspaces: Quality and Value

70%

60% 50%

40%

30%

Value scores Value 20%

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Qualit y scores

This chart shows that the quality of spaces across the Borough is fairly consistent, with none scoring below 20% or over 80% and most scoring between 40% and about 65%. However, the value scores vary considerably, suggesting that the Borough Council and its partners need to do more to enhance the value of spaces. Map 15.1 shows the distribution and overall quality and value of multi- functional spaces across the Borough.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 140

Amenity Greenspaces - Quality and Value

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Value scores Value 20%

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Qualit y scores

Amenity greenspaces make up the vast bulk of the multi- functional spaces in the audit and therefore it is not surprising that the audit scores for this form of provision are very similar to those for multi-functional spaces in general. Map 15.3 shows the distribution and overall quality and value of multi-functional spaces across the Borough.

Green Corridors - Quality and Value

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Value scores 20%

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Qualit y scores

Green corridors are predominantly linear spaces that offer opportunities for people to walk or cycle from A to B. Although the audit identified only a handful of them, their value scores are generally higher than for multi-functional space in general.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 141

Natural Greenspaces - Quality and Value

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Value scores 20%

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Qualit y scores

The Borough’s natural greenspaces scored highly in the audit for value, predominantly because of their contribution to biodiversity and nature conservation, although their quality scores were much less good. Map 15.4 shows the distribution and overall quality and value of multi-functional spaces across the Borough.

Parks and Gardens - Quality and Value

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Value scores Value

10%

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Quality scores

The scores for parks and gardens are clustered reasonably close together, although not particularly high for what should be the Borough’s (green) “flagships”.

Quality and Value: Conclusions

The overall conclusion from this analysis is that the Borough’s multi-functional greenspaces are “much of a muchness”: none stand out as really good or really bad. This is both positive – the grounds maintenance specification and contractor are delivering reasonably consistent results, although there is room for improvement – and negative, in the sense that although the Borough has achieved a Green Flag for Eastrop Park, it could clearly do more to provide uplifting parks for both residents and

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 142

visitors.

Accessibility Map 15.1 shows the distribution of multi-functional greenspaces, excluding centres for sport, across the Borough and Map 15.2 the same information for Basingstoke town at a large scale. Overall, 72% of properties lie within a 5-minute walk of at least one such space, although only 47% within this distance of a high quality, high value space, which emphasises the importance of boosting quality and value across most of the Borough. Map 15.2 shows Basingstoke town to a larger scale and highlights the widespread distribution of low quality and low value spaces.

Map 15.3 shows the distribution of amenity greenspaces. Overall, 62% of properties in the Borough lie within a 5- minute walk of at least one such space, and 32% within this distance of a high quality, high value space. Map 15.4 shows the distribution of natural greenspaces.

Local Views The survey of Borough Council members identified the following local needs:

• Nature conservation areas: Brighton Hill South; Brookvale and Kings Furlong; Overton; Laverstoke and Steventon; and South Ham (4) • Woodland areas: Brighton Hill South; Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon; and South Ham (3) • Greenspaces in housing areas: Brighton Hill South; Chineham; Grove; Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon; Popley West; Rooksdown; South Ham; and Tadley South (8) • Parks and public gardens: Chineham; Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon; Popley West; Rooksdown; South Ham; and Tadley South (7) • Village greens: Chineham; Grove; Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon; Popley West; Rooksdown; and South Ham

The following town and parish councils identified a need for more of the following types of greenspace:

• Nature conservation areas: • Woodland areas: • Greenspaces in housing areas: Baughurst; Chineham (4 out of eight respondents); Cliddesden; East Woodhay; Ecchinswell, Sydmonton and Bishops Green; Mapledurwell and Nateley; Pamber; and Stratfield Turgis • Parks and public gardens: Chineham (3 out of 8 respondents); Cliddesden; Kingsclere; Laverstoke and Freefolk; Mapledurwell and Nately; and Tadley • Village greens:

Trends There are three significant trends occurring across the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 143

country:

• Major parks, in particular, have been undergoing something of a cultural renaissance – and significant capital investment - as government and local authorities have recognised the huge benefits they bring to urban communities. One result is a strong desire on the part of government to see councils investing in upgrading their parks and making some (limited) resource available through Lottery funds. • An increasingly widely held belief that well designed and managed major parks are wonderful, but larger towns and cities also need a network of smaller, neighbourhood parks so that everyone has fairly ready access to a park wherever they live within an urban area. In effect, there is a growing move to convert reasonably sized, well located, accessible but often fairly boring spaces into neighbourhood local parks • Local communities are becoming more interested in helping to look after their best greenspaces – and more vocal in terms of criticising poor ones. Basingstoke and Deane already has a number of Friends Groups which provide valuable assistance to the Borough Council. • A recognition that quality is better than quantity, providing accessibility is good. In effect, one high quality small space is better than two larger but uninteresting or neglected ones.

Quantity Standard It is not possible to retro-fit significant new parks, or indeed other major greenspaces, into established urban areas. As a result the best approach for the future will be to rationalise the current level of provision into a quantity standard that can be applied flexibly in the light of local circumstances to enhance existing parks and create new neighbourhood parks where there are opportunities to do so. It also makes sense to have different quantity standards for urban and rural areas because parks are much more significant in urban areas, where relatively large areas of open spaces – other than school playing fields, which often have restricted access - are relatively few and far between. In rural areas, local residents generally have better access to the countryside than town dwellers, particularly since the passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, even if there is not formal countryside access provision.

This suggests that the Borough Council’s starting point should be a quantity standard of around 65 sq m per person in the urban areas of the Borough and 23 sq m in the rural areas. The key question is whether they should be set higher than this. One the one hand, a significant proportion of the rural town and parish councils respondents identified a need for more greenspaces in their areas; on the other, the Borough Council’s performance reviews did not identify any widespread

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 144

desire amongst Basingstoke residents for more greenspace. Instead it identified the main constraints on the use of parks and other greenspaces as being personal (eg lack of time, not interested) rather than related to the quantity, quality or accessibility of existing provision. This suggests that around 65 sq m per person will be a suitable quantity standard for the town, but the rural standard should be slightly higher than 23 sq m per person. Accordingly it will be appropriate for the Borough Council to use the following quantity standards for multi-functional greenspaces:

• Basingstoke 65 sq m per person • Rural areas of the Borough 32 sq m per person

These standards relate to amenity greenspaces, natural greenspaces and parks and gardens, although the desirable split between them will vary from one location to another. They are significantly higher than the current Local Plan standards for open space of:

• Parks 4 sq m per person • Kickabout areas 8 sq m per person • Accessible Natural Greenspace 4 sq m per person • Total 16 sq m per person

Chapter 21 compares the existing level of greenspace provision in the Borough with the amount required by the application of the Council’s Local Plan Standard and shows that it bears little relation to the current quantity of provision. Indeed the strict application of the current standard would allow the disposal of around two thirds of the greenspace in Basingstoke town and half that in the rural areas of the Borough.

Application of the Quantity Standards

The most appropriate way to apply the quantity standards will depend primarily on the nature of a development and its location:

• For infill developments within Basingstoke town, it will normally be appropriate to use the quantity standard to calculate the appropriate amount of developer contributions to the enhancement of existing spaces and facilities within the appropriate distance thresholds • For major developments it will normally be appropriate to require a mix of on-site provision and either new off- site provision or the enhancement of existing off-site provision within the appropriate distance thresholds • For developments in the rural areas of the Borough it will normally be appropriate to require enhancement to existing spaces or enhanced access to the countryside

Spatial Objectives The Council should adopt the following spatial objectives:

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 145

• Progressively to enhance the quality and value of greenspaces across the Borough in order to increase the proportion of dwellings within the appropriate distance thresholds of high quality, high value and biodiverse multi-functional greenspaces • Progressively to develop networks of linked greenspaces in the main settlements in order to develop green corridors and promote and support walking and cycling

Implementation The Council should:

• Require all residential developers either to provide or contribute to the enhancement of existing greenspaces within the appropriate distance thresholds on the basis of the quantity standards set out above • Redo around 20% of the open space audit each year in order to keep its evidence base up to date • Aim to increase the number of Green Flag Awards for Basingstoke’s parks • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 146

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 147

16: Tennis Courts

Introduction This chapter reviews the provision of tennis courts across the Borough.

Current Provision The Borough has a total of 74 sites with at least one outdoor tennis court, as listed in Appendix M, of which:

• 32 appear to be linked to private houses • 35 appear to be club or council courts • 7 are school sites

Note: this list gives the number of sites with at least one court and not the number of courts. Indoor courts are considered in Chapter 18.

Accessibility Map 16.1 shows the location of the various outdoor court sites across the Borough and 16.2 the courts in Basingstoke town. Across the Borough as a whole, 28% of properties lie within a 10-minute walk of at least one club, Council or school tennis site; 81% within a 10-minute cycle ride; and 98% within a 10minute drive. For club and council courts these percentages fall to 24%, 77% and 98% respectively.

There are very few significant settlements in the Borough without at least one club or council site, the main exceptions being Highclere, Whitchurch, and Sherfield on Loddon. Within Basingstoke town, most areas lie within a 10-minute cycle of at least one court, except for a part of Brighton Hill North and South and relatively small parts of Norden and Popley West. Accordingly the accessibility of tennis sites is very good.

Local Views Town and Parish Councils

The following town and parish councils identified a need for more or better tennis courts in their areas:

• More/some courts: Baughurst; Chineham (4 of 8 respondents); Monk Sherborne; and Overton • Floodlit courts: Chineham (4 of 8 respondents); Kingsclere; Old Basing and Lychpit; Overton; Stratfield Turgis • Better courts: Baughurst; Chineham (3 of 8 respondents); East Woodhay; Ecchinswell, Sydmonton

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 148

and Bishops Green; Laverstoke and Freefolk; and Tadley

Borough Council Members

The following Borough Council members identifies a need for more tennis courts in their wards:

• Calleva • Grove • Popley West • Rooksdown • South Ham • Winklebury

Trends The Government’s General Household Survey suggests that participation in tennis is fairly steady across the country. However, with global warming, tennis is becoming a year- round sport, especially in the south of England, and this is particularly increasing the demand for floodlit courts. In Basingstoke town also the work of Totally Tennis has boosted demand significantly in recent years.

The Quantity of Without auditing all of the various court sites, it is Provision impossible to know exactly how many courts there are in the Borough. However, it is possible to make an estimate by dividing the approximate area of each site (taken from the GIS polygon) by the standard size of a court and rounding up the results to the nearest whole court. This rounding up allows for some courts being slightly smaller than the standard dimensions. The result is that the Borough appears to have around 45 courts linked to private houses, 76 club or public courts and 19 school courts. Ignoring the private courts, as they will serve only a handful of people, there is one court to roughly 1,600 people. However, in those wards with at least one court, there is one court to around 1,120 residents. These levels of provision equate to approximately 0.4 and 0.6 sq m of court per person respectively.

Quantity Standard

Given the number of parish and town councils that identified a need for some or more courts, it seems that there is a need for more courts than exist at present. However, the good accessibility of courts means that many of those who wish to play tennis but live in an area without any will normally be able to play somewhere reasonably close. This means the quantity standard should be between 0.4 and 0.6 sq m per person, or around 0.5 sq m per person. Applying this standard to the Borough as a whole suggests a potential need for something like a net additional 7 courts with the greatest deficits in Brighton Hill, Norden, South Ham and Tadley. The application of the standard also suggests that some wards have a surplus

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 149

of provision and others a deficit, but there will be no sense in closing some courts and constructing replacement ones in those areas where there is an apparent deficit.

Spatial Objectives The Council should adopt the following spatial objectives:

• To ensure that all residents of the Borough have reasonable access to courts • To protect existing courts and seek to open up school courts for greater community use where this does not already happen and there is an identified accessibility deficiency • To increase the carrying capacity of appropriately located and well used courts by providing or supporting the provision of floodlighting

Implementation In most of the Borough, it will be sensible for the Borough Council to use the quantity standard to calculate developer contributions to the enhancement of existing courts, and particularly floodlighting where this will be acceptable. However, there will also be a case for providing a small number of courts at carefully chosen locations in the rural parts of the Borough, such as at The Clere School and in Sherfield on Loddon, as well as in those parts of Basingstoke Town outwith the walking catchment of a courts site.

In addition, the Council should allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 150

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 151

17: Countryside Recreation and Access

Introduction Basingstoke and Deane residents are fortunate in that they live in an attractive part of Hampshire with the nearest area of open countryside never more than a mile or so away. However, this does not meant that the countryside in the Borough is always accessible and welcoming, in spite of the access rights created by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000. The conceptual ideal is a “spider’s web” of interconnected routes so that people can enjoy a variety of walks of different lengths that can bring them back to their starting point by a variety of routes. However, reality does not always match up to this ideal:

• Path systems in the Hampshire Downs are fragmented and may require users to use busy roads in some places – a particular concern for horse riders • Trunk roads (especially the M3, with limited bridges and underpasses), can present major barriers • The condition of paths is often poor, especially given the heavy rain that come with climate change and increasing use of path networks by 4x4 vehicles, quad bikes and motorcycles • There are few circular walks around the smaller settlements • The rights of way system is not as well promoted and waymarked as it could be • There are numerous examples of anti-social behaviour such as fly tipping, dog fouling and vandalism

Countryside provision is primarily a County rather than Borough Council responsibility, although in practice the County and Borough work in partnership to enhance access. In addition, the Borough Council owns and manages a number of countryside sites, including Beggarwood, Old Down and Binfields Woodland Parks. This chapter, based primarily on work undertaken by the County Council in 2007, summarises the current countryside access provision and makes recommendations for improving it.

Current Provision Basingstoke and Deane has some 853 km of rights of way compared with 4583 km in Hampshire as a whole, including Portsmouth and Southampton. The table below

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 152

summarises this provision:

Hampshire m per ha BDBC m per ha km km Footpaths 3,337.6 9.1 61.0 9.63 Bridleways 74.5 2.0 146.0 2.30 Restricted Byways 223.7 0.6 25.9 0.41 BOATs 276.8 0.8 70.9 1.12 Totals 4583.2 12.5 853.2 13.05

Note: BOATs = Byways Open to All Traffic

Accordingly the Borough has around 18.6% of the rights of way network in Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton. The County Council estimates that in mid 2006 Basingstoke and Deane accounted for 9.4% of the County’s population. On this measure, therefore, the Borough has well above average provision of rights of way, although this is a little simplistic as Portsmouth and Southampton have very little countryside and very limited rights of way networks.

The table below therefore compares the length of rights of way per hectare across the County, ignoring Portsmouth and Southampton:

• Basingstoke and Deane 13 • East Hampshire 16 • Eastleigh 7 • Fareham 14 • Gosport 11 • Hart 12 • Havant 12 • New Forest 11 • Rushmoor 2 • Test Valley 9 • Winchester 3 • Hampshire 12.5

Accordingly the Borough has the third highest level of rights of way provision in relation to its area amongst the Hampshire districts.

Demand for the Hampshire County Council undertakes a residents’ survey Access Network every two years which includes questions relating to the use of footpaths and bridleways. Averaged over four surveys and a seven year period, some 33.5% of Borough residents used them, which is exactly the same as the County average, as shows in the table below:

• Basingstoke and Deane 33.50% • East Hampshire 40.00% • Eastleigh 36.25% • Fareham 30.75% • Gosport 18.00% • Hart 41.75% • Havant 30.75%

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 153

• New Forest 37.50% • Rushmoor 25.00% • Test Valley 33.25% • Winchester 33.25% • Hampshire 33.50%

All such survey results are subject to a possible error of around plus or minus 3%, so apart from the coastal districts the proportion of local residents using the rights of way network may not vary hugely across the County.

The County Council has forecast that demand for countryside access in the Borough will increase by around 11% by 2026. However, this forecast assumes that leisure behaviour will be the same in 2026 as it was in 2007. In addition, it does not follow that this increase will necessarily require additional countryside provision. For example, the County Council estimates that around 63,000 Borough residents used the path system sometime in 2006. If every single one of them happened to be in the countryside at the same time – something which will obviously never happen – there would be around 13 m of path each.

This is obviously a very theoretical calculation, as some routes will be much more popular than others. However, it serves to illustrate that there is a significant amount of path provision in the Basingstoke and Deane countryside. It is also extremely difficult to create new permanent paths in the countryside, especially as resources for management and maintenance are very limited. Spreading the available funding ever more thinly will be increasingly counter- productive. Accordingly the priorities should be:

• Making sure that as many paths as possible are accessible to potential users • Minimising the negative factors that may limit people’s use of particular routes or enjoyment when doing so.

Key Issues Relating The County Council’s Draft Countryside Access Plan to Countryside (November 2007) highlights eight key issues:

Access • Local people are relatively dependent on the car for transport between the main conurbations, rural settlements and the countryside • Countryside users are forced to use or cross busy roads to link up rights of way and other off-road access • Good maintenance of routes is a priority for countryside users • There is strong demand for improved physical accessibility and usability of existing countryside access, particularly for those who are less mobiles • Local people would like to see improved connections with the countryside access network, to enable all users to plan a range of circular off-road routes

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 154

• Better information is needed to facilitate and promote enjoyment of the countryside for all and to encourage responsible use • Effective, co-ordinated access management within the area requires good communication and understanding between and among users, landowners and access managers • Public access can create difficulties for land managers, landowners and farmers

The County Council has drawn up a draft strategy for tackling these issues. The key implications for the Borough Council are a need to work with the County Council and Town and Parish Councils in order:

• To promote routes better • To provide car parking at “honeypot” locations • To identify the most important and best used routes and ensure they are maintained to an adequate standard • To ensure that new developments contribute to the enhancement of paths likely to be used by their occupants • To develop and keep up to date a guide to accessible countryside within the Borough • To develop and enhance the quality of circular routes, linked to towns and villages and from public transport networks where they exist • To enhance the accessibility of countryside path networks for people with special needs

It may be desirable to create a Basingstoke and Deane Access Forum, or something similar, to oversee this work on a Borough-wide basis. There is already a Hampshire Access Forum.

A Country Park for The Borough has no country park although there are eight Basingstoke and in other areas of Hampshire:

Deane? • Farley Mount, Winchester District • Lepe, New Forest District • Manor Farm, near Southampton • Queen Elizabeth in South East Hampshire • Royal Victoria, Southampton • Staunton, Havant Borough • Titchfield Haven, Fareham Borough • Yateley, in Hart District

The County Council’s draft Countryside Access Plan notes that “It is arguably an anomaly that a conurbation as large as Basingstoke … has no publicly-owned country park nearby”. In addition the County Council has identified a potential need for an additional three country parks by 2026, based on the unlikely assumption that each of the existing parks has no spare capacity to accommodate

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 155

additional use.

A country park should both boost the demand for countryside access and relieve the pressures on the rights of way network, although arguably it will be more expensive to develop, manage and maintain than improving key parts of the path network in the Borough. The County Council has estimated the capital cost as up to about £5M.

There is no sensible way of estimating the demand for a country park statistically and therefore the most appropriate size for a park. Almost all of the country parks in the UK have been created on an opportunistic basis and the size and use of them varies widely. The Hampshire County Parks range from 80 to over 500 hectares in size.

Spatial Objectives The Council should adopt an objective of encouraging and facilitating inclusive access to the countryside, particularly on the urban fringe.

Implementation The Borough Council should consider allocating land for a country park as part of any major expansion of Basingstoke town. In addition, and assuming that any major developments in the Borough will be on the periphery of either Basingstoke town or one of the other main settlements, it needs:

• To require developers to link their developments to existing path networks as much as possible • Expand BEST to take in access to the urban fringe • To allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 156

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 157

18: Indoor Sports and Exercise Facilities

Introduction This chapter reviews indoor sports and exercise provision for golf across the Borough and covers the facilities listed in Appendix N::

• Fitness facilities • Ice rinks • Indoor bowls halls • Indoor tennis halls • Sports halls • Swimming pools

Fitness Facilities Existing Provision

The Borough currently has seventeen fitness facilities, fourteen of them in Basingstoke and the other three outside the town. Sport England’s Active Places database suggests that they contain slightly fewer than 1,000 fitness training machines:

Machines • Aquadrome 147 • Aspects of Fitness 58 • Beechdown Club 90 • Bodysense 28 • Brighton Hill Centre 32 • Everest Community College 35 • Fitness First, Basingstoke 93 • Fort Hill Community Centre 19 • Girlzone 25 • Horizons Health and Fitness 30 • Hurst Leisure Centre 37 • Intec Fitness Centre 16 • Queen Mary’s College 45 • Reflections Leisure Club 60 • Rowans Hotel 15 • Sports Centre in the Town 230 • Testbourne Community Centre 15 • The Vyne Community School 14

• Total 989

Note: most commercial and large public fitness facilities have a policy of

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 158

replacing machines regularly in order to keep their fitness offer up to date. Accordingly the total number of machines on the Active Places database is unlikely to be completely accurate, although it gives a reasonable guide for most purposes.

This as equivalent to around 940 machines in public and/or commercial facilities, discounting the school machines by 25% to allow for limited opening hours and the fact that school facilities, which are generally limited in size and can be fairly basic, are often less attractive to potential users than public or commercial facilities. The two largest centres – at the Sports Centre and Aquadrome – are both public facilities and between them account for well over a third of the total stock of machines in the Borough.

Demand

The Government’s General Household Survey (GHS) gives the most reliable data on participation in specific sports across the country, with the most recent set of sport and leisure questions asked in 2002-3. It found that the national average 4-week participation rate amongst individuals aged 16 and over for keep fit/yoga was 12% and for weight training 5.8%, with an average frequency of participation of around twice a week. In addition, it found that participation in Hampshire is generally some 11% higher than the national average. Appendix I2 applies these figures to the 16 and over population of the Borough and suggests there are likely to be around 15,500 keep fit/yoga participants and 7,500 weight training participants, assuming that around 75% of keep fit/yoga participants are users of fitness centres and 100% of those taking part in weight training. This results in a total of just over 19,000 regular participants and around 38,200 visits per week.

Assuming that two thirds of visits are in the peak hours each week, this results in about 25,500 peak visits per week. The peak hours are typically around 1700-2100 on Mondays-Thursday (16 hours), around 1700-1900 pm Fridays (2 hours) and 1000-1700 on Saturdays and Sundays (14 hours), or a total of 32 hours per week. Taking an average visit as one hour, the average number of visits across the Borough per peak hour is therefore around 800.

In order to accommodate 800 hour-long peak hour visits per week there is a need for a minimum of 800 pieces of equipment. However, this assumes that fitness facilities operate continuously at peak capacity throughout the peak periods, which is obviously unrealistic. Accordingly the supply calculation assumes an average of 80% occupancy in the peak periods, resulting in a need for some 1,000 machines.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 159

The Supply-Demand Balance

Overall therefore, the demand is equivalent to a need for around 1000 machines and the current supply as equivalent to around 940 machines in public or commercial fitness centres. There is thus a small shortfall in provision of around 60 machines across the Borough. This shortfall will obviously increase with population growth and if participation rates or frequencies of participation rise further.

Accessibility

In order to maximise participation in fitness activities, fitness facilities need to be highly accessible. Some are also stand-alone rather than an integral part of a larger multi-sports facility. Accordingly it is appropriate to adopt a 15-minute distance threshold rather than the 20-minute one appropriate to other forms of indoor sports provision. Map 18.1 shows that there are large parts of the rural areas of the Borough that are fairly remote from fitness facilities, the most significant settlements without easy access to any provision being Bramley, Kingsclere, Oakley and Overton. Overall, some 45% of properties in the Borough are within a 15-minute walk of at least one fitness facility, 74% within a 15-minute cycle ride and 91% within a 15-minute drive. However, these percentages reduce to 33%, 66% and 83% if school facilities – which are likely to have restricted availability to community users, particularly during the school day - are excluded.

Map 18.2 highlights that there are also significant areas of Basingstoke Town outwith a 15-minute walk of a fitness facility while Map 18.3 provides an overview the of size of the various fitness facilities in the Borough.

Local Views

The only parish councils to identify a need for additional fitness provision in their areas were Chineham (half of the eight respondents), Mapledurwell and Nateley, Monk Sherborne, Overton and Stratfield Turgis.

Conclusions

There appears to be a fairly small deficit in fitness provision across the Borough, with the main areas of deficiency being in the rural area and a surplus in Basingstoke town. There are also areas of the town outwith a 15-minute walking catchment, such as parts of Brighton Hill (north and south), Brookvale and Kings Furlong, Buckskin, Chineham, Eastrop, Grove, Kempshott, Norden, Popley West, Rooksdown and South Ham, plus most or all of Hatch Warren/Beggarwood and Popley West. Equally, however, there are major facilities that will attract

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 160

a large number of users who will travel by car. Accordingly the whole of the town is well served in terms of accessibility. Chapter 21 suggests the extent to which the population of the town can increase before there will be a need for more provision.

Ice Rinks Basingstoke is one of the relatively few towns in the south east with a full size (60 x 30 m pad) ice rink and there is no need for any additional ice provision. Overall 69% of properties in the Borough are within a 20-minute drive of Planet Ice, although it is likely to attract spectators to ice hockey matches from a much wider area. Its location and the relevant distance thresholds are shown on Map 18.4.

Indoor Bowls The Borough has two indoor bowls facilities, at the Leisure Park in Basingstoke and the Longmeadow Sports Centre in Whitchurch, as shown on Map 18.5. There are also indoor bowls centres outside the Borough at the West Berkshire Indoor Bowls Club in Newbury, which will attract players from the north-western part of the Borough, and Chawton Park in East Hampshire which will probably attract some users from the sparsely populated Upton Grey and the Candovers area.

Across England, indoor bowls is generally in decline with some clubs approaching the stage where they will no longer be viable; others have already closed. The Loddon Vale Indoor Bowls Club currently has around 600 members so is operating at well below capacity: an 8-rink indoor green can sustain over 1000 members.

Local Views

The only town/parish councils to identify a need for more indoor bowls facilities were Baughurst, Chineham (a quarter of the eight respondents), Hurstbourne Priors, Mapledurwell and Nately, Monk Sherborne, and Mortimer West End. Of these, only Baughurst lies outwith the driving threshold of an indoor bowls hall, although it is close to the Hurst Leisure Centre which offers a form of indoor bowls in its sports hall using roll-out rinks.

Indoor Tennis The Borough has three indoor tennis facilities:

• Manydown Tennis Centre, with two courts in an air hall • Reflections Leisure Club/Centre Court Hotel, with five courts in a traditionally built hall • Totally Tennis, with four courts in a fabric enclosure

All of these facilities are in or close to Basingstoke, which obviously generates most of the demand for all forms of tennis in the Borough. Overall, 75% of properties lie within a 20-minute drive of at least one of these centres as shown on Map 18.6.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 161

Sports Halls Supply and Demand

Based on the parameters used in Sports England’s Facilities Planning Model, Appendix I3 contains a spreadsheet model for comparing the supply of and demand for hall sports. The key points from the analysis are:

• There is likely to be a Borough-wide demand equivalent to around 45 badminton courts in the peak hours each week. This is equivalent to 0.048 sq m of badminton court per person. The demand will rise to the equivalent of around 50 courts if there is a 10% increase in participation. • Most sports halls in the Borough are located on education sites, the one exception being the 5-court hall at the Sports Centre in the Town. In aggregate, the Borough’s school sports halls contain 49 badminton courts. Discounting the capacity of a school hall by 25% to allow for restricted access, there is a current deficit equivalent to a little over three badminton courts, which will obviously increase with population growth. Against this, there are also a number of single courts in community centres and village halls across the Borough.

Accessibility

Our simple model takes no account of where potential users live or the location of halls and therefore fails to take account of accessibility. Map 18.7 therefore shows the location of the halls with at least three badminton courts in the Borough plus 7.5 km catchment areas. Overall, 99% of properties in the Borough lie within this distance of at least one hall, including all of the larger settlements.

Across most of the Borough, sports hall users are most likely to travel by car because of the limited number of halls available. However, within Basingstoke it is obviously desirable that as many users as possible should be able to walk or cycle to a hall. Map 18.8 therefore shows the location of halls in the town in more detail in order to identify those areas outwith the walking and cycling catchments of a hall. For cycling, they are most of Chineham and Basing and parts of Kempshott plus Hatch Warren and Beggarwood. For walking, the areas outwith the catchment of a hall are Chineham, Basing, the eastern and western parts of Norden, Popley East, about half of Rooksdown, Buckskin, Kempshott and Hatch Warren and Beggarwood. Therefore these are the areas in which it will be most important to have community halls that can accommodate badminton and, ideally, also other indoor sports.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 162

Local Views

The town and parish councils that identified a need for more community use school sports facilities were Chineham (three of the eight respondents), Cliddesden, East Woodhay, Mapledurwell and Nateley, Old Basing and Lychpit, Pamber and Tadley. All of these areas lie within the driving distance threshold of at least one sports hall. The parishes identifying a need for public leisure centre provision were Chineham (two of the eight respondents), Mapledurwell and Nateley, Monk Sherborne, Overton, Sherborne St John and Stratfield Turgis. Again, all lie with the driving threshold of at least one hall and most are too small to justify a leisure centre.

Conclusions

Taking account of the Borough’s community and village halls, and restrictions on access to school halls, there appears to be an approximate balance between the supply of and demand for sports halls across the Borough. However, this masks a small surplus in the rural area of the Borough and a small deficit in Basingstoke town. Chapter 21 gives further information on the position in the town.

The Council should adopt a quantity standard that reflects the current level of provision, ie 0.048 sq m of badminton court per person. As the floor area of dry sports buildings containing a sports hall is typically around twice the area of the main hall, this suggests a quantity standard of 0.1 sq m of dry sports building per person.

Swimming Pools Supply and Demand

Appendix I4 gives a swimming supply-demand model using the Sport England parameters and the results of applying it to the Borough’s population. The key points from the analysis are:

• The is likely to be a demand for around 2,200 sq m of water area in indoor pools, compared with the current provision of around 2,370 sq m. Of this total water area, some 344 sq m is at Queen Mary’s College and Cranbourne Business and Enterprise College and the remainder at the Aquadrome, the Sport Centre in the Town and the Tadley Pool. • Discounting Queen Mary’s and Cranbourne College’s water area by 25% to allow for restrictions on access, there is still a small surplus in water area across the Borough. However, if there is an increase in participation in swimming of around 4-5% there will start to be a deficit in provision. • The required water area of around 2,200 sq m equates to 0.014 sq m of water per person across the Borough.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 163

Accessibility

Map 18.9 shows the location and accessibility of indoor pools in the Borough. Overall, some 90% of properties lie within a 20-minute drive of at least one pool but almost the whole of the western part of the Borough is outwith this travel time of an indoor pool, although there is an open air pool at the Testbourne Community School in Whitchurch which local residents can in the summer. Provision in neighbouring local authority areas is of only limited relevance to Borough residents.

Within Basingstoke, as shown on Map 18.10, there is slightly better accessibility on foot to pools than to sports halls although there are only seven pools compared with nine halls. In large measure this is the result of the commercial Beechdown Club in the south-west of the town and Reflections Leisure Club in the north-east of it. All of the town is within a 20-minute cycle ride of at least one pool.

Local Views

The parish councils that identified a need for better access to indoor pools were Chineham (two of the eight respondents), Mapledurwell and Nateley, Monk Sherborne, Overton and Sherborne St John. All of these areas lie within a 20-minute drive of at least one pool.

Conclusions

There appears to be an approximate balance between the supply of and demand for pools in the Borough as a whole, although this masks a surplus in Basingstoke town and deficit in the rest of the Borough, largely because all of the pools are in the eastern half of the Borough in either Basingstoke or the Tadley area. The minimum sensible size for a community pool is around 20 x 8.5 m (170 sq m water area). Based on the Sport England parameters, a pool of this size can serve a population of around 12,000 people. A 25 x 8.5 m pool, however, can serve a population of around 15,000 people. The largest settlement after Basingstoke and Tadley is Whitchurch with a ward population of a little under 5,000. Adding Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon increases this to around 9,250, so a small joint use pool is beginning to look feasible but a 25 m pool would be too large for the local population.

The Council should adopt a quantity standard based on the current level of pool provision ie 0.014 sq m of water area per person. As the total floor area of a typical pool is around 4-4.5 times the water area, this equates to a quantity standard of around 0.06 sq m of pool building per person.

Chapter 21 suggests the extent to which the population of

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 164

the town can increase before there will be a need for more pool provision.

Spatial Objectives The Council should adopt a spatial objective of ensuring that all residents are able to access high quality, affordable indoor sports and exercise facilities within an acceptable distance of home.

Implementation The Council should:

• Support the development of additional fitness facilities to serve new residential developments • Work with the Loddon Vale Indoor Bowls Club to ensure that it remains viable • Continue working with local schools to maximise community access to school sports facilities • Allocate land for additional indoor facilities as part of any major development areas • Work with the County Council and Testbourne Community School to upgrade the existing 20m outdoor pool to a 20 m joint use indoor pool, if the Local Development Framework allocates land for housing in the Whitchurch/Overton area. This is likely to result in local calls for the pool to be increased to 25m in length, but this will be unnecessarily expensive to build and operate. • Require residential developers to contribute to additional or enhanced indoor sports facilities within the appropriate distance thresholds of their developments • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 165

19: Community Halls

Introduction This chapter reviews the provision of community and village halls in the Borough and derives and then applies a quantity standard. Community halls are important local facilities that provide opportunities for community and other local meetings, social events and a limited amount of indoor sport and exercise such a short mat bowls, karate and keep fit classes. Sport England recommends that village halls should contain at least one badminton court although the Council does not support this view, partly because of the extra revenue costs of heating a high hall.

Existing Provision The Borough has a variety of “community halls” ranging from small village halls to larger community centres and community schools. However, this chapter is concerned with halls that are managed by community groups and so ignores school facilities. They are listed in Appendix Q.

The Borough Council’s database of community halls includes:

• 31 village halls • 45 community halls • 7 church halls

Accessibility Access to Halls and Community Centres

The Borough Council has set a policy aspiration that everyone in the Borough should live with a 10-15 minute walk of at least one community all. The proportion of properties in the Borough within a 10-minute walk of at least one hall is:

• 10 minutes walking/600 m 66% • 10minutes cycling/1500 m 97% • 10 minutes driving/3750 m 100%

Accordingly access to halls across the Borough is fairly good, but there is still a considerable way to go before the Council’s aspiration is met. Map 19.1 shows the location of the various halls in the Borough, from which it is clear that it is mainly in Basingstoke town that there is a significant number of properties outwith the 10-minute

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 166

walking time threshold.

Accessibility

For obvious reasons it is desirable that all community halls should be accessible to people with disabilities. The Borough Council has audited Council-owned halls and completed a programme of works designed to ensure that are acceptable in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). However, it would be prohibitively expensive to alter some of the older halls owned by other agencies and the DDA requires facility owners and service providers only to take “reasonable” steps to ensure that there facilities and services are accessible and inclusive. The overall percentage of properties in the Borough within at least one halls that is wheelchair accessible is:

• 10 minutes walking/600 m 57% • 10 minutes driving/3750 m 99%

Note: people with an ambulant disability will not walk to a hall, they may be accompanied by someone who does

As Map 19.2 shows, wheelchair accessible halls are distributed across the Borough rather than confined to any one area, although Whitchurch stands out as a major settlement in which two of the three halls lack wheelchair access, as do some of the halls in Basingstoke town.

Relatively few halls have facilities for badminton and therefore other indoor sports, as Map 19.3 makes clear. This is not particularly significant in Basingstoke town, Tadley and Whitchurch because local residents are able to use sports halls, but much of the southern part of the Borough and a large part of the middle of it have poor access to alternative facilities. Accordingly it is in these areas that the Council should encourage local communities to consider including at least one badminton court whenever a village hall is extended or rebuilt.

Local Views Borough councillors identified a need for more community centre facilities in the following wards:

• Brighton Hill South • Overton, Laverstoke and Steventon • Pamber • Rooksdown • South Ham

In addition the town and parish councils identified a need for more community centre provision in :

• Chineham (2 out of 8 respondents) • East Woodhay • Highclere and Penwood • Mapledurwell and Nateley

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 167

• Pamber • Tadley

Trends There is something of a general trend towards greater use of village halls in rural communities but a need to enhance the facilities available at many halls.

Quantity In aggregate, the 81 village, church and community halls in the Borough have a total floor area of 24,638 sq m, or an average of 0.16 sq m per person. This is about a quarter of the quantity standard currently used by the Council of 0.75 sq m per person. Meeting the Council’s current standard across the Borough would therefore require a major hall re-building programme.

The exact mix and scale of facilities to be included in a village or community hall will always depend on the availability of other facilities in the vicinity and the size and demographic profile of the local population. However, a “model” community hall, based on the Sport England Small Communities Recreation Centre (SCRC) prototype, will have a floor area of around:

• Main hall 20 x 10 200 • Second hall 9 x 9 81 • Committee room 5 x 4 20 • Kitchen 5 x 4 20 • Storage 25 • Toilets 30 • Sub-total 376 • Circulation, say 20% 75 • Total, say 450

However, the average hall floor area of halls in the Borough is only 304 sq m. The number of halls of different sizes is:

• Over 1000 sq m 1 • Over 500 sq m 11 • Less than 500 sq m 79 • Less than 300 sq m 54

Quantity Standard If the notional average hall is to be around 450 sq m, the appropriate quantity standard for the Borough will be around 50% higher than the current average level of provision, or say 0.25 sq m per person.

Spatial Objective The Council should adopt the following spatial objectives:

• To increase the proportion of dwellings in the Borough with a 15-minute walk of at least one community or village hall • To ensure that all community and village halls are as accessible to people with disabilities as reasonably possible

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 168

Implementation The Council should:

• Work with hall owners to identify any need there may be for reasonable alterations to enhance the accessibility of halls to people with disabilities • Ensure that major developments include appropriate hall provision and minor developments contribute to the enhancement of existing halls, where necessary • Require residential developers to contribute to the provision or enhancement of community halls within the appropriate distance thresholds of their developments • Allocate its own resources in ways that will help deliver the spatial objectives

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 169

20: Issues and Options

Introduction The analysis in the earlier chapters of this assessment suggests a number of issues for the Borough Council and its partners to tackle:

Strategic and Policy Issues

• The impact of climate change and sustainability • Protection versus disposal/quality versus quantity

Facility-Specific Issues

• The future of Down Grange linked to the outcomes of the 20087 feasibility study • Developments in Tadley linked to the outcome of the feasibility study into options for the future of the AWE options • Provision in the Whitchurch/Overton area • Provision for football • The Winklebury Football Centre • Provision in the rural neighbourhoods of the Borough • Provision for children and young people • Countryside recreation and access • Access to natural greenspace

Strategic and Policy The Impact of Climate Change Issues Issue

The south of England’s climate is changing in noticeable ways, with a clear trend towards warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, but with occasional deluges. The likely implications of climate change include:

• Increased water stress on plants and trees in summer, leading to losses • Grass swards will become more difficult to maintain owing to the effects of drought, but more cuts will be needed in spring and autumn • More winter depressions and gales, with the danger of losing trees and waterlogging of grass pitches • Changes to habitats which are likely to result in the loss or migration of some currently common species

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 170

• Higher levels of atmospheric pollution from traffic

Recommendations

The Borough Council should:

• Monitor climate change and its impact on the Borough carefully, particularly its effect on trees and other significant vegetation • Require developers to include significant tree planting in residential areas in order to provide shade and absorb pollution • Require developers to incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems in new residential areas • Minimise the use of non-permeable surfaces in new developments

Protection versus Disposal/Quality versus quantity

Issue

Parts of the Borough, particularly Basingstoke town and Tadley, have a large number of small areas of open space that are little more that SLOAP (Space Left Over After Planning). Because of their fragmented nature, they are expensive to maintain but do very little to enhance local environments or support biodiversity and nature conservation. However, by the same token, many are also too small to be used for development.

In addition, apart from the major parks, many of the Borough’s greenspaces are “much of a muchness”. This is positive in the sense that none stand out as really bad, but equally none really set a desirable standard.

Recommendations

The Council should:

• Be willing to dispose of small and incidental areas of open space that serve no useful purpose and could be incorporated into private gardens. However, if doing so would create a development plot, the Council should enter into a planning or other legal agreement with the owner, that will be binding on subsequent owners, to ensure that the Council and therefore the local community benefits from any future development value. Alternatively, the Council should encourage local communities to take ownership of these spaces and maintain them. • Identify opportunities to sell small areas of open space that serve little useful purpose and reinvest the proceeds in enhancements to local greenspaces in the vicinity of the sold sites. The criteria it can use to identify sites that it may be possible to sell include:

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 171

o The space is too small to be of any practical use for informal recreation such as sitting in the sun or a kickabout o The space has very low biodiversity and nature conservation value o The space contains no mature trees and contributes little or nothing to the appearance of the neighbourhood

Facility-Specific The Future of Down Grange Issues Issue

The Council has commissioned a feasibility study to assess the potential to develop Down Grange into a high quality, regional multi-sports community club complex with the following broad objectives:

• To support the voluntary sports sector by enabling improvements to club facilities already on the site • To relocate sports clubs currently in commercial premises owned by the Council to more appropriate accommodation • To explore with Basingstoke College of Technology the need for learning space with access to sports facilities • To enhance the image of the town and maximise the benefits of the 2012 Olympic Games by attracting teams to use Down Grange as an Olympic Training camp for athletics and hockey • To maximise the efficiency of football pitch provision through the introduction of 3rd/4th generation artificial pitches • To enhance informal activity opportunities for young people • To address deficiencies in site infrastructure for staffing commercial events • To assess opportunities for commercial leisure venues or other commercial developments on the site • To mitigate the impact of traffic and parking on the local residents by seeking additional access to the site • To assess the need for Down Grange to fulfil the role of a neighbourhood park and plan for appropriate provision within the complex • To achieve a capital funding solution for the enhancements through a range of partnership and development opportunities • To minimise the ongoing revenue implications for the Council of managing and maintaining the site

Recommendations

Down Grange has the potential to do much more for sport in the Borough than at present. It is also critical to the Borough being selected as a 2012 Olympic Training Camp.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 172

Until the feasibility study is complete it is impossible to make clear recommendations, other than to say it is the most important development opportunity in the Borough at present.

Provision in Tadley

Issue

Tadley is one of the key locations for sport and recreation provision in the Borough, the others being Basingstoke town and the Whitchurch/Overton area (see below). For a long time the residents of Tadley have been able to use the sports facilities in the Aldermaston AWE. However they are now “tired” and the Establishment is reviewing the future of the site. It is likely that it will wish to redevelop the sports facilities, creating the opportunity for West Berkshire District Council to negotiate a planning agreement requiring compensatory provision.

Recommendations

The Borough Council should work closely with West Berkshire District Council to deliver appropriate compensatory provision, for example at the Barlow’s Plantation Football Centre, in order to maintain and ideally enhance the opportunities that Tadley residents have to take part in sport and recreation. It will be desirable for this to include at least changing accommodation for the existing pitches; a sports hall; fitness facilities; a floodlit third generation artificial turf pitch; and facilities for young people. However, as the AWE has met the revenue costs of its present sports facilities to date, there is an obvious need to minimise the revenue costs to the Town and Borough Councils.

Provision in the Whitchurch/Overton Area

Issue

The Whitchurch/Overton area should be the third of three centres for sport and recreation in the Borough and various agencies – including Whitchurch Town Council, Overton PC, the Whitchurch Sports Trust, Testbourne School, Overton Recreation Centre and Overton Rugby Club - have aspirations for sports provision in the Whitchurch/Overton area.

Recommendations

The Borough Council should instigate a masterplan for sports provision in Whitchurch/Overton, taking account of any housing allocations the Borough Council may make in its forthcoming Local Development Framework and based on at last:

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 173

• A third generation artificial turf pitch at Testbourne School, to be used for physical education lessons, after- school football and rugby coaching, football training and matches and rugby training • The provision of fitness training facilities • A small indoor pool, if the Borough makes sufficient housing allocations to make a pool viable in terms of the level of use it will generate • The provision of at least one ancillary hall for activities such as dance and exercise classes • Improved facilities for rugby

The Future of the Camrose Stadium

Issue

The Camrose Stadium occupies a high profile on one of the gateways to Basingstoke town. Its condition and appearance do not match the aspirations of Basingstoke Town Football Club and enhancing or relocating it should be one of the Council’s priorities in accordance with the corporate priority of improving the image of the town. There are also significant deficiencies in the amount of parking and the quality of the spectator accommodation at the existing stadium.

Recommendations

The Council should work in partnership with the club and local businesses to draw up a deliverable long term plan based on either enhancing the existing stadium or relocating it that will :

• Improve the attractiveness of the club to potential sponsors • Improve facilities for spectators and help build a loyal fan base • Support the club’s competitive aspirations

Provision for Football

Issue

Football is the most popular participation sport in the Borough but it has been through a period of decline in the past few years. However, the decline has now probably ceased, although the club structure is weak with too many single team clubs, some of which are struggling to survive as the loss of only one or two players an be critical. Unfortunately, climate change is now having a significant impact on the sport’s abilities to get through its fixtures in the winter season as pitches are becoming waterlogged and unplayable for longer. There is a danger that further decline will set in, especially as clubs report increasing difficulty attracting the volunteers needed to run clubs.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 174

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 175

Recommendations

The Borough Council is the main provider of football pitches in the town and the town and parish councils the main providers outside it. They need to work together and with the Basingstoke Football Development Council to invent a new future for the game, based on:

• Larger and stronger, multi-team community clubs catering for all ages and both sexes, with strong links to schools and effective management • Regenerating Saturday afternoon football • Artificial surfaces becoming the norm for coaching, training and match play

The Winklebury Football Centre

Issue

The Borough Council and Hampshire Football Association have developed a high quality football centre at Winklebury, but it can sustain only low levels of use because of the nature of the pitches. In addition, the main pitch cannot be used by community teams. As a result the complex can generate only very limited income.

Recommendations

The Borough Council and Hampshire Football Association should investigate the financial and other implications of converting the main pitch and possibly one of the other pitches to a third generation artificial surface and increasing community use, developing the complex as a coaching centre and possibly a centre of excellence for mini-soccer and/or women’s football.

Provision for children and young people

Issue

The traditional approach to play provision for children is expensive and results in play facilities of only limited value and children can rapidly become bored with small facilities with only limited equipment. At the same time, there is only limited provision for teenagers although there is widespread support in the Borough for more provision for them.

Recommendations

The Borough Council needs to develop a new play provision strategy, based on:

• The progressive development, as existing play areas require re-investment, of a clearer hierarchy of play

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 176

provision, based on making local greenspaces child- friendly; developing a series of neighbourhood equipped play areas for children and young people; and a network of major play areas in Basingstoke town in strategic locations such as parks • Persuading parents of the limitations of the current approach and that a new approach is not a way of saving money but a way of catering for children and young people better

Countryside Recreation and Access

Issue

The paths network in the Basingstoke and Deane countryside is often fragmented and in poor condition The rising population of the Borough will increase the demand pressures on countryside access

Recommendations

The Council should:

• Identify opportunities to create a country park as part of any major expansion of Basingstoke town • Require developers to link their development to the urban fringe so as promote countryside access • Expand BEST to include sustainable access to the countryside

Access to Natural Greenspace

Issue

Natural England is actively campaigning for local authorities to adopt its Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt), summarised in Chapter 6 above. It has undertaken a pilot project in the south east to identify the extent to which different local authorities areas meet the standard, expressing the results in the percentage of households that meet the four elements of the standard. The results were:

B&D South east South east Minimum Maximum • Within 300m of a 2 ha+ site 19% 2% 46% • Within 2km of a 30 ha+ site 58% 0% 99% • Within 5 km of a 100 ha+ site 67% 19% 100% • Within 10 km of a 500 ha+ site 19% 0% 100% • Meets all ANGSt requirements 6% 0% 44% • Meets no ANGSt requirements 14% 0% 0%

28 of the 67 (42%) councils areas included in the pilot project met none of the ANGSt requirements, and none met all of them. This huge disparity between the standard and reality obviously calls into question its value: improving access to natural greenspace is unlikely to be a

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 177

key priority for many councils. Furthermore, by promoting ANGSt, Natural England is going totally against the advice in PPG17 that councils should develop their own local standards and not rely on national ones.

Recommendation

The Borough Council should ignore ANGSt as an academically derived and theoretical standard of little practical use.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 178

21: Planning Policy

Introduction Planning policy has the potential to be a critically important delivery mechanism for the recommendations in this assessment and strategy. This chapter suggests the approach the Council should adopt in its Local Development Framework (LDF).

Summary of The open space quantity standards suggested in this Proposed Quantity assessment are well above the provision standard of 2.8 ha per thousand people (28 sq m per person) currently used Standards by the Council and set out in its Local Plan. In summary, they are:

Existing Proposed Sq m/person sq m/person • Allotments 3.5 • Artificial turf pitches 0.67 • Children and young people 2 0.5 • Grass sports pitches 10 11.9 • The green network 65 • Tennis courts • Parks 4 • Kickabouts 8 • Accessible natural greenspace 4 • Totals 28 81.6

Note: The figure given for grass sports pitches are short term and will reduce progressively as football moves onto artificial surfaces. The figure given for the green network is for urban areas

Current Local Plan The current Local Plan standard bears little relationship to Policy actual provision in the Borough. The quantity of equipped play provision is about a quarter of the Local Plan standard, and the amount of greenspace provision is roughly three times it. There is an average of 86 sq m of greenspace per person in Basingstoke town, with a range from 14 sq m per person in Brookvale and King’s Furlong ward (the only town ward with less than 28 sq m per person) to 143 sq m per person in Eastrop ward (Basing ward actually has 171 sq m per person, but a large part of it is rural rather than in the town). In the rural parts of the Borough only one of the main settlements has less than 28 sq m of open space per person, Baughurst with 7 sq m,

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 179

and the average level of provision is 46 sq m per person. It is also worth noting that these figures do not include any spaces of less than 1,000 sq m and so understate the total amount of open space provision. In spite of this, all but one of the Borough councillors that completed and returned a questionnaire on their wards identified a need for more open space provision – the single exception, ironically, being Brookvale and King’s Furlong.

Put another way, the seventeen town wards had a population in 2001 of approximately 94,500. On the basis of the 2.8 ha/1000 standard, they should have some 265 ha of greenspace. As their total area is some 5,875 ha, only around 4.5% of the town should be greenspace. In fact around 14% of the town is some form of greenspace; but if Basing ward is excluded, the proportion of urban greenspace rises to around 21%.

This means that if the Borough Council’s objective was to achieve the Local Plan standard it would need to quadruple the amount of equipped play provision but could dispose of around two thirds of the greenspace in the town and a little under half that in the main rural settlements – or allow a very significant amount of development without requiring any increase in provision. Alternatively, developers could easily produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that new developments should not have to make any open space provision other than equipped play. However, both of these interpretations are obvious nonsense and would result in a huge public outcry. It follows that the Borough Council should use very different quantity standards for major new housing developments in its forthcoming Local Development Framework, as recommended by this assessment.

Suggested Broad Core Policies in Local Development Frameworks should be Approach to Policy as short and “strategic” as possible. Because of the significant differences between the urban and rural parts of the Borough, it may be appropriate to have an “urban” and a “rural” policy, with the former applying only to developments in or on the edge of Basingstoke town, Tadley, Overton and Whitchurch. However, the same broad principles should apply throughout the borough; only the interpretation of them will vary with location.

The Council’s policy objectives for open space, sport and recreation provision should be:

• To promote “liveability” together with effective placemaking • To ensure that local needs are met in a way that makes the best use of land • To promote walking, cycling and physical activity • To promote access to the countryside • To promote sustainability, including biodiversity and nature conservation

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 180

• To ensure conformity to the appropriate quality specification by all of the Borough’s greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities

The following principles should therefore underpin the application of the policy:

• All new developments which will result in a net increase of one or more residential units will increase the need for access to high quality open spaces and sport and recreation provision within the distance thresholds defined in this assessment • There should be a general presumption in favour of the protection of all existing high quality, high value or low quality, high value existing open spaces and sport and recreation provision unless the development of a space or facility will lead to greater benefits to the community in the vicinity of the site than retention of the space or facility. In terms of greenspaces, “greater benefit” should be interpreted in terms of the amount, quality and/or accessibility of provision. In terms of sport and recreation facilities it should relate to increasing their capacity to accommodate use and/or quality. However, this exception should apply in Brookvale and King’s Furlong ward only in exceptional circumstances because of the very low level of greenspace provision. In order to provide guidance for developers and aid consistent decision-making, the Council should develop this principle into a clear set of criteria setting out the circumstances in which it may be acceptable to allow the development of an existing space or facility. • Given the high level of greenspace provision in the four main settlements, there should be a presumption that developments within their existing boundaries should normally contribute to the enhancement of existing greenspaces rather than provide more of them; the only exception to this being any on-site spaces that may be required. The first priority should be to enhance low quality, high value spaces and facilities. • Outside the four main settlements and in Brookvale and Kings Furlong Ward, if there is a quantitative deficiency in provision, assessed using the quantity and accessibility standards set out in this assessment, or where a deficiency will arise as a result of the development, the Council will require developers to provide or contribute to the amount of new provision required by application of the appropriate quantity standard(s), after taking account of any existing surplus of provision there may be within the distance threshold. If the amount of provision required will be larger than the minimum size set out in the provision standards, it should normally be on site and will be secured by condition; if smaller, the Council will normally require the developer to contribute to off-site provision, with contributions secured through a S106 agreement or unilateral undertaking given by the

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 181

developer. • Outside the four main settlements, if there is no quantitative deficiency, and one will not be created by the development, but there is a qualitative deficiency in provision within the distance threshold, the Council will require the developer to contribute to the enhancement of an amount of provision equivalent to the size of the development multiplied by the appropriate quantity standard(s). (note: the purpose of the quantity standard is to assess the amount of provision that is required to serve a development; it can therefore also be used to assess the area of provision that should be enhanced). This will be secured by a planning agreement or a unilateral undertaking offered by the developer. • Where developers make or fund on-site or other provision that is intended primarily for the benefit of the occupants or users of a development, the Council will impose a condition requiring them to make arrangements for management and maintenance in perpetuity that will be acceptable the Council. This will normally include payment of a commuted establishment sum to fund the replacement of trees and other plants that die within five years of the completion of the development. (Note: this complies with paragraph B18 of DCLG Circular 5/2005) • Where developers make or contribute to off-site provision, or contribute to the enhancement of off-site provision, that is not intended primarily for the benefit of the occupants or users of the related development, the Council will expect the agency or body in whom the land is vested to make arrangements for long term management and maintenance that are acceptable to the Council. It will also seek to negotiate a commuted establishment sum to fund the replacement of trees and other plants that die within five years of the completion of the development. Where necessary, the Council will secure these arrangements through a planning agreement. (Note: this complies with paragraph B19 of DCLG Circular 5/2005) • All residential developments should be expected to contribute to BEST, which should be extended to include improved access to the urban fringe from the four main settlements and the rights of way network throughout the Borough. • Commercial developments in the centre of Basingstoke will increase the need for town centre greenspaces such as parks because workers will be likely to use these spaces during lunch breaks. It is clearly impractical to make additional park provision in the town centre, so the Council will require developers to contribute to the enhancement of the nearest park or similar greenspace on the basis of the net increase in floorspace.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 182

The diagram below, taken from the Companion Guide to PPG17, summarises the suggested policy approach to residential developments:

After the development is complete, will there be sufficient provision within appropriate distance thresholds of the development site to meet the needs of both existing residents and the residents of the proposed new development, as assessed using the Council’s adopted provision standards?

Yes No

Does the quality of all existing provision within If any new provision is on-site, will it be larger the appropriate distance threshold match the than the minimum size in the adopted quality adopted quality standard? standard and cost-effective to maintain?

Yes No Yes No

The developer will The developer will The developer will The developer will normally not be normally be required normally be required normally be required required either to to contribute to the to make on-site to contribute to off- make on-site enhancement of off- provision in site provision provision or site provision within accordance with within appropriate contribute to the appropriate distance adopted provision distance thresholds provision or thresholds in standards. This will in accordance with enhancement of accordance with the usually by achieved the adopted off-site provision adopted provision by a condition provision standards. standards. This will attaching to a grant This will usually usually require a of planning require a planning planning agreement. permission. agreement.

Management and There is no point in providing high quality, well located Maintenance Issues open spaces and sport and recreation facilities if they will be badly managed and maintained. As noted earlier, the Council’s current policy of adopting new open spaces provided by developers is storing up long term problems for its maintenance budgets. Circular 5/2005, however, allows Councils to require developers to make alternative arrangements “in perpetuity” for spaces that are primarily for the benefit of the occupants or users of a development. In practice such spaces and facilities will nearly always be on-site. The main options open to the Council are:

• A section 106 planning agreement plus bond when maintenance is to be by someone other than the Council • For the Council to impose a condition or negotiate a planning agreement requiring developers to transfer ownership of the “common” areas of residential developments to the dwelling owners and include a clause in title deeds requiring householders to create and fund, on an equitable basis, a management company or committee that will oversee the maintenance of the common areas of a development.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 183

These can include not only open spaces but (for example) external painterwork, entrance doors, stairways and passages in flatted developments. Any householder not contributing to the management company or committee will then be in breach of conditions in their title and so it is desirable that the title deeds should also:

o Grant the management company or committee rights to seek a court order requiring payment of maintenance contributions from any householder that defaults o Grant the Council “step-in rights” to take over the maintenance and recover the costs, plus an appropriate administrative fee, from the various householders in the event of either there being no company/ committee or the management company/committee not appointing a grounds maintenance suitable contractor.

The first of these possible arrangements is fraught with difficulty. Most developers do not wish to retain any interest in a development after it is complete and sold. While any Section 106 agreement will run with the land, it is unlikely that developers will be willing to fund a bond that may be called upon in the event of a third party over whom the developers have no control, such as the householders in a completed development, defaulting on maintenance. This also gives householders an incentive to default.

Developers do not generally want to retain ownership of the on-site open spaces in a completed residential development unless they have the potential to be used for more dwellings at some time in the future. It is therefore fairly common for them to hand over these spaces to a factor who maintains them and collects appropriate payments from householders. However, there are also many instances of where residents are less than happy with the performance of the factor. The second approach is designed to overcome this problem by giving the householders or dwelling owners control over their local environment, although some will claim that it amounts to double taxation: their Council Tax will include an amount for general grounds maintenance across the Council area while they will also have to pay an additional sum each year for the maintenance of the open spaces in the development in which they happen to live. The counters to this are:

• If the Council had agreed to adopt the land it would have required a commuted maintenance payment which the developer would have added to the cost of their house anyway • The better the local environment in which a house is set the higher its selling price will be

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 184

Related The Council will probably develop a suite of SPDs to Supplementary complement the core policies in its LDF. The content of any SPD relating to open space, sport and recreation Planning Documents provision will obviously depend on the content of other documents in the suite; for example, it the Council produces a specific SPD on planning obligations, there will be no need to go into detail on obligations on them in an Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD. However, the SPD should, at the least, set out all of the Council’s provision standards and the methods it will use to apply them.

Planning for New The locations of major new housing areas, and the number Residential and types of dwellings proposed at each allocation are not yet determined. As a result it is impossible to identify the Developments additional needs that they will generate. However,

The Council should either prepare or require developers to prepare masterplans for new housing allocations of more than say 50 dwellings. These masterplans should:

• Be greenspace-led with path systems that pass through greenspaces as much as possible while offering reasonably direct routes to facilities within walking distance such as cycleways, bus stops, shops, churches, community halls, schools and sports facilities • Seek to link up new on-site greenspaces and pedestrian and cycling routes through them with existing greenspaces and non-vehicular paths and cycleways, broadly on desire lines • Link the development and adjoining built-up areas to the network of rights of way and other paths in the urban fringe • Use the quantity standards suggested in this assessment as a guide when determining the amount of on-site greenspace that will be required; however, the priority should be to use the accessibility and quality standards to create walkable, attractive and stimulating residential environments rather than to follow the quantity standards absolutely

Spare Capacity Population growth, whether through inward migration to the Borough or more births than deaths amongst existing residents, increases the need for all forms of community infrastructure. Using the quantity standards suggested in this assessment, it is possible to identify the approximate growth in population that can be accommodated by existing sports facilities before there will be a need for more. However, it is practicable to do this only for Basingstoke town because the margin for error with small rural populations is very significant. Appendix I calculates the extent to which population growth will require additional indoor sports facilities. It is:

• Indoor fitness provision: the Basingstoke town population can grow to around 140,000 before there

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 185

will be a need for more fitness provision. However, if there is a 10% increased in participation, the population can grow to only around 140,000 before there will be a need for additional provision. • Sports halls: the Basingstoke town population can grow to around 98,000 before there will be a need for more sports hall provision and then there will be a need for one additional badminton court for each further 3,400 residents. However, if participation in hall sports grows by 10% as a result of sport development initiatives, there is already a deficit in sports hall provision equivalent to around two badminton courts. • Swimming pools: the Basingstoke town population can grow to around 128,000 before there will be a need for more swimming pool provision and then there will be a need for some 0.014-0.016 sq m of water area for each additional resident. However, if participation in swimming grows by 10% as a result of sport development initiatives, the population can grow to only around 106,000 before there will be a need for more pool provision.

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Basingstoke and Deane Leisure and Recreation Needs Assessment 186