DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Spaces Quality Audit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Spaces Quality Audit 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 .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Detling & the North Downs
    point your feet on a new path Detling and the North Downs Distance: 9 km=5¾ miles moderate to challenging walking Region: Kent Date written: 22-jul-2019 Author: Tryasoguska Last update: 2-apr-2021 Refreshments: Detling, Thurnham Map: Explorer 148 (Maidstone) but the map in this guide should be sufficient Problems, changes? We depend on your feedback: [email protected] Public rights are restricted to printing, copying or distributing this document exactly as seen here, complete and without any cutting or editing. See Principles on main webpage. Villages, high hills and valleys, views, woodland, easy field paths In Brief This walk along the North Downs is assessed as “moderate to challenging” because of the frequent ascents and descents which can test your fitness. However, there is no actual scrambling and the steeper sections always have flights of steps. The ascents are rewarded by some great views. The return leg is completely level, giving you time to recover before returning to Detling (via Thurnham) for refreshments in the Cock Horse or the Black Horse . At the time of writing, there were few nettles to worry anyone wearing shorts. But one or two sections on the downs and just one short section in the return leg (after the farm) might become overgrown in late summer, so keeping legs covered might always be a good option. Cover your head in case of overhanging brambles! Despite the hills, this walk can be done quite comfortably in trainers, etc. Most serious walkers will probably wear boots as usual. Be careful in wet or wintry conditions as the descents can be quite slippery, when a pole is useful.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent International Gateway, Bearsted, Kent
    Wessex Archaeology Kent International Gateway, Bearsted, Kent Archaeological Evaluation Report Ref: 72070.02 July 2009 KENT INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY, BEARSTED, KENT Archaeological Evaluation Report Prepared for: CgMs Consulting Morley House 26 Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2AT by: Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park SALISBURY WILTSHIRE SP4 6EB WA reference: 72070.02 Date: July 2009 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2009, all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 Kent International Gateway, Bearsted, Kent Archaeological Evaluation Report KENT INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY, BEARSTED, KENT Archaeological Evaluation Report CONTENTS SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................1 1.2 SITE LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, TOPOGRAPHY........................................................................1 1.3 GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................................2 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND..................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Binbury Park Garden Village, Detling
    Detling, Maidstone Creation of an Exemplar Garden Village in the Garden of England Quinn Estates are proposing the creation of a new garden village in Kent. Strategically located in mid Kent to support growth in the wider region, the scheme is proposed to encompass the following: • 1100 dwellings • 50 self build dwellings • 500,000sq.ft of B8 commercial space • 150,000sq.ft of office and incubator space • Hotel • New park and ride to ease chronic congestion in Maidstone • Highways improvements including new access into the Kent Showground ; and • Creation of a new country park • Two form entry primary school and associated playing space; • Village/local shopping facilities including medical centre; Binbury Park, Detling The site comprises the former Detling Aerodrome and additional surrounding land within Maidstone Borough. Quinn Estates Limited would be nationally and regionally sustainable residential working as the development significant infrastructure settlement. Quinn Estates Limited partner to bring forward improvements and major has a very strong track record of development on this site and commercial and employment delivering large-scale, mixed-use envisages the potential for opportunities, in addition to a new developments across Kent. Objective To obtain funding for strategically and regionally important highways improvements at a prime location between two nationally significant motorways. To ensure the delivery of a new sustainable settlement, incorporating major residential development, an employment hub and business development
    [Show full text]
  • List of Unpublished Fieldwork Reports Held by Kent County Council
    LIST OF UNPUBLISHED FIELDWORK REPORTS HELD BY KENT COUNTY COUNCIL The following reports (so-called ©grey literature©) may be viewed by appointment only with the Kent Historic Environment Record Team at: Invicta House County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XX telephone: 01622 221541 email : [email protected] Report Publication Title Author Easting Northing number Date 1978/1 54 ROCHESTER ROAD KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 574272 168637 1979/1 1979 THE MINTYARD, CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL Canterbury Archaeological Trust 615118 158098 1980/1 1980 ST PETERS STREET - GAS WORKS REDEVELOPMENT, MAIDSTONE WIMPEYS 575650 155742 1982/1 1982 RIPPLE RD, RIPPLE Dover Archaeological Group 636290 149333 1982/2 1982 CHATHAM HISTORIC DOCKYARD (INITIAL STUDY) R ELLIS, H WILSON AND L 575874 169347 WOMERSLEY 1984/1 1984 BORE PLACE- BUILDING/LANDSCAPE SURVEY Institute of Archaeology Field 550866 149209 Archaeology Unit 1985/1 1985 ROCHESTER, KENT - ANALYSIS OF COIN PELLET MOULDS English Heritage 574270 168640 1985/2 1985 MAIDSTONE SPINE ROAD - BOREHOLE REPORTS KENT COUNTY COUNCIL 575600 156205 1985/3 1985 BORE PLACE (THE MOUNT AND WARREN)- EXCAVATION Institute of Archaeology Field 550806 149276 Archaeology Unit 1987/1 1987 HAM FARM, FAVERSHAM KENT RURAL PLANNING SERVICES PLC 602081 162641 1987/2 1987 RIVERVIEW PARK, GRAVESEND A G WEEKS AND PARTNERS 566358 171095 1988/1 1988 ABBEY STREET, FAVERSHAM BRIAN MOOREHEAD AND 601857 161857 PARTNERS 1988/2 1988 SNOWDOWN COLLIERY - POLICY GUIHoneyDELINES DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL 624772 151081 1988/3 1988 NETHERCOURT ESTATE
    [Show full text]
  • Maidstone Downs
    1 Maidstone Downs Hollingbourne Station - Broad Street - Thurnham Castle - Kit's Coty House - Pratling Street - Aylesford Station Length: 12 miles (19km) Useful websites: Much of this route follows the North Downs Way national trail. The Underfoot: Mixture of woodland, ridge route passes through the new White Horse and field paths, many of which - Wood Country Park and past Kit's Coty particularly in the lower sections - could House megalithic tomb. become very muddy. Good shoes necessary. Getting home: Aylesford is served by half- hourly (hourly on Sundays) Southeastern Terrain: Frequent short but often steep services on the Medway Valley line. Your can climbs and descents throughout. Some return to London northwards via Strood (15 tricky route-finding at the start, but mins) where trains connect with services to generally easy after that. London Charing Cross (69 mins) via Woolwich Arsenal (37 mins) and Lewisham Maps: 1:50,000 Landranger 178 Thames (50 mins); and with Southeastern high-speed Estuary or 188 Maidstone & Royal services to London St Pancras (34 mins) via Tunbridge Wells; 1: 25 000 Explorer 148 Stratford International (27 mins). Maidstone & the Medway Towns Alternatively, you can return via Maidstone Barracks (5 mins from Aylesford), where you Getting there: Hollingbourne is served can make the 5 minute walk to Maidstone daily by hourly Southeastern services East station for half-hourly (hourly on from London Victoria (71 mins) via Sundays) services to London Victoria (56 Bromley South (55 mins) for connections mins) via Bromley South (39 mins). from London Blackfriars via Elephant & Castle and Peckham Rye. Fares: If you intend to travel back via Strood, simply purchase a return to Hollingbourne (£19.00, child £9.50, railcard £12.55) - note that if you wish to use the high-speed service from Strood, you will need to purchase a supplement (£3.20).
    [Show full text]
  • Hollingbourne Circular Via Thurnham Walk
    Saturday Walkers Club www.walkingclub.org.uk Hollingbourne Circular via Thurnham walk A contrast between ruined castle walls on the North Downs ridge and the splendours of Leeds Castle to finish. Length Main Walk: 22½ km (14.0 miles). Five hours 45 minutes walking time. For the whole excursion including trains, sights and meals, allow at least 10½ hours. Short Walk, omitting Thurnham: 15½ km (9.6 miles). Three hours 45 minutes walking time. Curtailed Walk, omitting Leeds Castle: 17 km (10.6 miles). Four hours 20 minutes walking time. OS Map Explorer 148. Hollingbourne, map reference TQ833551, is in Kent, 8 km E of Maidstone. Toughness 8 out of 10 (6 for the Curtailed Walk, 4 for the Short Walk). Features This walk is in three roughly equal parts, with pubs at the end of each leg. The first two legs are in the form of a Figure-of-8, alternating sections across low-lying farm fields with undulating stretches along the North Downs escarpment, while the third leg is quite different. The first leg starts across vast farm fields before climbing onto the North Downs Way (NDW), where it goes through a mix of woods and open downland. This is a short but fairly strenuous little section, as the walk has to get across a succession of sunken lanes and hollows in the hillside. The walk leaves the NDW to make a circuit around a small country park containing some medieval castle ruins, then drops steeply down the wooded hillside to the first of the possible lunch pubs in the small village of Thurnham.
    [Show full text]