Open Spaces Quality Audit Produced for Maidstone Borough Council April 2015 V Hyland Associates Ltd Seijo Associates Ltd Prepared for Maidstone Borough Council by: Val Hyland BA Dip LA (Hons), Director V Hyland Associates Ltd 01233 812195 – 07740 185381 [email protected] Registered in England, number 8953928 Registered Office: Silverthorn, Scotton Street, Wye, Kent TN25 5BZ Irene Seijo BA LA (Hons), MA Public Art & Design, Director Seijo Associates Ltd 01843 585568 - 07827 859269 [email protected] Registered in England, number 09385063 Registered Office: 42 Dane Park Road, Ramsgate, CT11 7LS Sharon Bayne MSc BSc MIEEM, Director Blackwood Bayne Ltd www.blackwoodbayne.co.uk 01622 746316 - 07761 067124 [email protected] Registered in England, number 8423224 Registered Office: 8 Herts Crescent, Loose, Maidstone, Kent ME15 0AX Summary To have a better understanding of the quality of the Borough’s open space sites an assessment of accessibility and quality was conducted between October 2014 and April 2015. The assessment included visits to 140 open space sites across the Borough including parks and open spaces, natural and semi-natural greenspaces and allotments. The open spaces were not all in Maidstone Borough Council’s ownership or management, but they were all freely accessible and open to the public. The assessment of play areas and sports pitches were excluded at the Client’s request. Where sports pitches occurred as part of a green space, the whole site (i.e. pitches and surrounding open space) was assessed as an amenity space. As a basis for the assessments criteria were developed that were based closely on the Green Flag Award Programme and its standards. This challenging standard is recognised as the benchmark national standard for parks and green spaces in England and Wales1. Each site was assessed for accessibility and quality:- Accessibility related to both access to the site and on the site itself. The assessment considered the entrances, how easy they are to find, the quality of the signage to the site and how accessible the sites are in terms of vehicular access and parking, public transport and cycling. Accessibility also considered how accessible the sites are for less-able users. On-site accessibility included the quality and extent of pathways and on-site information. Quality related to the range of facilities, the physical infrastructure contained within individual sites and the site condition. The assessment considered a range of factors including health and safety, management, cleanliness and maintenance, as well as the presence and condition of fixtures such as benches, bins, gates, signage, boundary treatments, planted areas, trees and paths and areas designed for the benefit of wildlife. The results of the assessments will provide the Borough with a comprehensive overview of the condition and quality of the open space provision and will provide a level of management information not previously available. The assessments will help to establish a quality standard for the Borough’s open space provision, identify sites that would benefit from improvement, and give a clear and robust overview of the physical condition of open space across the Borough and within defined areas. This will enable to Borough to make informed decisions with regard to the improvements needed to sites in terms of their design and content, and in site management and maintenance. The sites were measured in a consistent and objective way and the assessment reflected the condition of sites from a visitor’s perspective. In order to assess each site on a fair and consistent basis the long list of criteria in each assessment category was tailored to the site type. The natural/ semi natural sites were assessed primarily for their amenity value. There was no specific site assessment of biodiversity interest, however for some sites the assessments have included comments on the standard of - and need for - conservation management. 1 http://www.greenflagaward.org/media/45083/raising_the_standard_2009.pdf The assessments of very large semi-natural sites focused on their amenity value and accessibility only, with particular focus on the main public access areas. Methodology Maps of each site were compiled, and assessment inspections were then undertaken through a site visit and the completion of a score sheet. In the case of the allotment assessments, the Assessor usually met with an Allotment official and was escorted around the site. Assessment criteria, measurement standards, on-site survey recording sheets and scoring methodology were developed for the assessment exercise. They are appended to this report (see Appendix). In order to set appropriate standards for the sites, they were divided into types and categorised by a site hierarchy. The site categories comprised District, Neighbourhood, Local, Small, Large Allotments and Small Allotments. The site types comprised Amenity, semi-natural or allotment. The assessment was based on awarding scores from 1 to 5 to a number of key criteria appropriate to the site type and category. The criteria encompassed the quality and accessibility aspects of the Green Flag Programme. Scores were then translated into an overall percentage score for the site, resulting in an assessment of either ‘Very Poor’, ‘Poor’, ‘Fair’, ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. The minimum target standard to aim for was ‘Good’. The site scores provide a means of comparing sites both by type and within the individual hierarchical tiers. The scoring system is weighted whereby the number of characteristics measured and scored differs depending on the type of site; larger, more complex sites which serve a wider audience will comprise a greater number of characteristics to be measured. N.B. Sites are classified according to a range of factors including the site size, catchment area served and facilities provided - or expected to be provided - in a site of this type. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. e.g. Bearsted Woodland Trust and The Larches; these sites are scored as ‘local’ sites. Although the size of the sites and the catchments they serve as informal recreation sites would place them in a ‘neighbourhood’ category, the informality of these natural sites does not require the facilities required of a neighbourhood site The Site Assessments and Key Issues The open spaces included in the assessments serve a range of functions including play, sport, walking, events, access to nature and growing food and other crops. In many of the open spaces several of these functions are provided at the same time and a balance is struck between competing needs. Of the 140 sites assessed 8 were scored to be in Poor condition, 62 as Fair, 57 as Good and 1 as Very Good. Of the rest 1 was unscored (as no access could be arranged) and 11 were scored as part of another site. The challenging standard meant that only site achieved a Very Good score. Overall the sites scored mostly ‘Fair’ or ‘Good’. A number of sites could have achieved a higher ranking but were let down by their accessibility issues, a number of which may be outside the control of the Client (e.g. signage to the sites, public transport, cycleways and cycle parking) Most of the sites were clean and well maintained, and few sites appeared to be suffering from vandalism and graffiti. It was clear that efforts had been made to protect some sites from vandalism or damage through the use of barriers or by limiting the type of equipment installed. The assessments provide an indicative rating of quality out of 100%. It is important to note that the site score represents a “snapshot” in time and records the quality and accessibility of the site at the time of the assessment visit. Some of the sites may benefit from a whole or partial review to ensure they are serving their locality and future populations. Contents Allington Ward ....................................................................................................................1 Allington Open Space ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Braunstone Drive Open Space ........................................................................................................................ 5 Braunstone Drive Open Space (i) ....................................................................................................................... 8 Corben Close Open Space ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Giddyhorn Lane Recreation Ground .................................................................................................................. 14 Barming Ward ................................................................................................................................... 17 South Street ................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Teston Green ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Teston Picnic Site .................................................................................................................................................. 24 Bearsted Ward .................................................................................................................................