Play, Open Space and Sports Study for Bracknell Forest (2016-2036)
August 2017
1
Contents
Chapter Title Page number Number 1 Background and context 3 2 Prepare and tailor the approach 12 3 Overall Supply and Demand 20 4 Typology A – Parks and Gardens 51 5 Typologies B and C (Semi-Natural Greenspace, Urban 66 Woodlands and Green Corridors) 6 Typology D – (Childrens Play) 91 7 Typologies E and F (Sports Facilities and School Playing 110 Fields) 8 Typology G (Allotments) 125 9 Typologies H, I, J and K (Civic spaces / Cemeteries and 133 Churchyards / Amenity greenspace, landscape buffer, incidental verge / Drainage, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), Ponds. 10 Policy, guidance and standards recommendations 140
2
CHAPTER 1 – Background and Context
Introduction
1.1 Bracknell Forest Council has undertaken a study of play provision, open space and indoor and outdoor sport and recreational facilities. This will provide a clear vision and priorities for the future, based on local need. The study runs from 2016 to 2036 to align with the emerging Comprehensive Local Plan period. This study has been prepared in parallel with the Playing Pitch Strategy. This study follows the methodology as set out in the Sport England’s guidance1 (see paragraph 1.9).
1.2 The study embraces one of the main ambitions of the Borough Council to plan positively, creatively and effectively to ensure that there is adequate provision of accessible, high quality green spaces, civic spaces and sports and recreation facilities that meet the needs and aspirations of local people and visitors.
1.3 This report has been prepared with a number of objectives which are fully set out in paragraph 2.3 but which review; the amount of provision, its quality, availability and accessibility. It reviews likely demand up to 2036 and makes strategy, policy and implementation recommendations.
1.4 There provision of high quality play, open space and sports facilities provide many tangible benefits as summarised below:
Table 1a - POSS Benefits Who Benefits Benefits Residents and • Provides areas for play and recreation for all ages visitors • Widespread availability encourages equality and diversity • Provides local access close to where people live, visit or work • Provides community safety opportunities Environment • Provides a counterbalance to the hard landscape of urban areas. • Improves biodiversity • Provides habitat for wildlife • Important education resource • Provides sustainable drainage opportunities • Combats climate change • Provides safe and attractive routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders • Provides local access to residents • Creates a pleasant visual amenity Social • Improves physical health • Contributes to physical and mental health and wellbeing • Fosters community spirit and activity • Fosters a sense of identity and pride of place Economic • Increases land values and house prices • Can help influence where business and its employees locate • Encourages visitors and their spending
1 Assessing needs and opportunities guide for indoor and outdoor sports facilities, Sport England (July 2014)
3
• Allows new residential development to proceed • Attracts development and local investment opportunities • Improves the image of the borough
1.5 This study comprises 10 chapters with Chapter 3 providing an overall assessment of POSS provision and Chapter 10 providing recommendations for policies and standards. The individual open space typologies are considered in Chapters 4-9.
Summary of Findings
1.6 The findings from the Play, Open Space and Sports study can be summarised as follows:
• 11 Open Space Typologies have been identified and reviewed. • 350 open space shave been identified with a total area of 2969.11 hectares. • Bracknell Town Council area owns and manages the greatest number of spaces (162) with all other parishes having around 30 to 40 each. • The average ratings for quality of the open spaces were very good and excellent. • The demand for open space is high and likely to increase due to population growth. • Sport participation is high and continuing to increase in comparison with local authority places. • Local residents consistently state that open space and recreation provision are the highest valued assets of the borough. • Funding for open space provision is increasingly challenging, with a continuing financial pressures predicted within local government. • Costs of open space are hard to predict because its ongoing management is likely to vary significantly according to future design and layout. The development of projects will include consideration of costs including maintenance. • There are many benefits to the health and well being of communities derived from having good access to open space. It is essential that public health benefits form an integral POSS provision as part of sustainable development if the rising costs to the council of ill health are to be minimised. • To manage the costs of maintaining open space, all designs will be required to maximise the integration of natural features to provide security and recreation, whilst minimising ongoing maintenance costs. • Other delivery mechanisms (particularly focusing on quality improvements) include funding via financial contributions (s106 or CIL –including the proportion paid to Town and Parish Councils). Also potentially through the BFC capital programme, though the reduction in Government Grants to Local Authorities will have a significant impact on the availability of capital. • Another potential income stream could be external grants e.g. the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), which can be used to restore and enhance existing key sites where they meet specific criteria and funding priorities. These grant schemes are very competitive and so opportunities are limited. • It will be important to identify revenue funding to improve the quality of provision and their day to day maintenance. This is likely to be the biggest restriction to providing and enhancing open space in the future. • In the face of increased use, where on-site provision of open space cannot be secured through development, s106 contributions should to be used to enhance and then maintain existing open space. • Income streams from open spaces should also be explored for example, raising hire charges and providing refreshment facilities.
4
Summary of Policy Recommendations
1.7 It is recommended that a set of robust policies is included in the Comprehensive Local Plan (CLP). The detailed policy recommendations are set out in Chapter 10; these are summarised below.
• Define Open Space of Public Value (OSPV) (see Chapter 10, paragraph 10.3) • Protect, enhance and provide new OSPV and built sports facilities (Chapter 10, paragraph 10.4). • Over time, more flexibility to adapt and change the function of OSPV if necessary e.g. adapting open space to meet changing needs such as formalising an amenity area to a sports pitch. • Provide for new or enhanced sports facilities including more football pitches, cricket pitches and Artificial Grass Pitches in appropriate locations (to be identified). • Set quantity standards for OSPV provision for new development. The standard is recommended to remain at 4.3 hectares (ha) per 1000 persons (comprising 2 ha/1000 Active OSPV and 2.3 ha/1000 Passive OSPV). However, the way the standard is applied should be changed when SANG provision is required (see paragraph 10.7). • Seek in-kind or financial contributions towards recreational facilities where appropriate which relate to capacity improvement projects in the IDP (Table 10a). • Set quality standards which include a revised ‘Plus One Principle’ for the continuous improvement of all OSPV. • Reduce the ongoing maintenance obligations falling to the land owner through a focus on s106 projects and financial contributions towards the maintenance of existing OSPV which will in turn increase capacity. • Set accessibility standards. • Align the provision of play open space and sports facilities with other strategies/policies including the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, Green Infrastructure and Public Rights of Way network. • Support new recreational facilities for visitor accommodation within defined settlement boundaries subject to consideration of their environmental, transport and other planning impacts. • Promote the dual use of facilities such as schools for community recreational purposes. • Promote development which improves access to recreational activity in the countryside subject to consideration of the impact on function/character/openness.
Scope of the Study
1.8 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance requires local authorities to undertake an assessment of provision of open space, indoor facilities and outdoor sports provision. The Council has also reviewed existing strategies. NPPF paragraph 73 states:
“Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.”
5
1.9 This study updates the previous study in 2006 which was produced following previous guidance entitled Assessing needs and opportunities: A companion guide to PPG17. This guidance has now been replaced by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on open space, sports and recreation facilities. The PPG recommends that Sport England Guidance is used to assess sports and recreation provision The Sport England guidance entitled Assessing needs and opportunities guide for indoor and outdoor sports facilities (July 2014) partly replaces the companion guide but is intended for sports only. This leaves an obvious gap in guidance for other topics such as green infrastructure and other non-sport related open space and recreational provision. The Council has therefore taken a pragmatic approach and will follow the stages set out in the Sport England guidance to cover play, open space and sports. Many of the recommended stages can be applied wider than indoor and outdoor sports. Accordingly, the study follows the guidance stages:
Stage A – Prepare and tailor the approach (Chapter 2 of this report). Stage B – Gather information on supply and demand (Chapters 3 - 9). Stage C – Assessment – bringing the information together (Chapter 3- 9). Applying the Assessment - (Chapter 10).
1.10 The study will form an evidence base to:
• Develop up-to-date planning policies produced in Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. • Produce or refresh an authority wide facility strategy for play, open space and indoor and outdoor sport. • Develop and review standards of provision. • Inform the Council’s approach to infrastructure planning. • Inform the Development Management process. • Develop a good evidence base for funding bids and income generation.
1.11 Around 350 open spaces categorised into 11 typologies, have been audited in terms of their quantity, quality, availability and accessibility.
1.12 This study was produced as follows:
• Study writing - Council Officers carried out background work, creation of a new quality assessment form, all analysis of results, and formed the standards and conclusions. • Quantity stock take – officers have reviewed all the provision in the Borough including liaison with Parish and Town Councils and relevant Neighbourhood Plan bodies. • Quality Assessments – Sarah Moore (consultant) was commissioned by BFC to carry out the majority of site quality audits for play and open space, with some Council managed sites being audited in-house by BFC officers/rangers. This followed initial testing of the scoring method in 2012. Another consultant (4 Global London) carried out the sports pitch quality assessments. Atkins assessed the quality of the local authority controlled school pitches. • Availability Audit – Council officers carried out an assessment of the availability of all provision. • Accessibility Assessment – Council Officers carried out desk top accessibility analysis using its Geographical Information System (GIS).
6
• Needs Assessment – 4 Global London assessed gaps and needs in consultation with the Council, Parish and Town Councils, Sport England, the National Governing Bodies (NGBs) for sport and local clubs.
1.13 Play, open space and sports provisions is also categorised as Open Space of Public Value (OSPV) which are secured at a quantity standard of 4.3 hectares per 1000 persons from new development using prescribed quantity standards. OSPV can be categorised as Active or Passive OSPV:
• Active OSPV such as children’s play, sports and allotment gardening. This is secured using 2 hectares per 1000 persons. • Passive OSPV such as leisurely strolls, picnics, their biodiversity and visual amenity. This is secured at 2.3 hectares per 1000 persons.
1.14 The study assesses the supply and demand for Active OSPV and Passive OSPV in Chapter 3 and makes recommendations for change in Chapter 10. This assessment takes account of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and parallel work on Green Infrastructure provision in developing conclusions about future quantity and quality standards.
Methodology and End Product
1.15 The study used the following methodology:
1. A review of existing policy, strategies and consultations; 2. An audit of a number of green infrastructure, open space and sports facilities across the Borough; 3. A review of the results and formation of standards for provision; 4. Parish and Town allotment provision questionnaire.
1.16 The following tasks were undertaken to inform the study:
• Analysis of work previously undertaken by the Council to inform the current status and situation of greenspace within Bracknell Forest. • The identification of around 350 sites and their typology classifications. • Site visits and quality audits of open spaces, play areas and pitches. • A number of maps to assess supply, quality and accessibility. • The use of demographic datasets to determine participation in key leisure activities. • A review of existing open space, leisure and recreation policies contained within the existing Development Plan and guidance. • Recommendations for local standards of provision with regard to quantity, quality and accessibility for inclusion within the emerging Local Plans and SPD’s. • To form baseline policy principles to support the emerging new Comprehensive Local Plan (CLP).
1.17 The results and conclusions of the study will inform the review of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD). Policies in the CLP will have regards to relevant strategies and priorities. Therefore the study will contribute toward both the aspirations of the local community and the formulation of spatial planning policies. The study will:
• Underpin polices set out in the emerging Comprehensive Local Plan. • Support existing leisure strategies and inform service provision.
7
• Provide robust evidence to justify the amount and provision of open space and recreational facilities from new development and prioritise expenditure of s106 / CIL developer contributions. • Provide a basis from which a diverse and high quality network of open space and recreational facilities will be maintained and developed. • Look to rationalise existing facilities whilst highlighting those areas that have very little or no recreational value. • Take into consideration BFC local strategies and state their relationship to open space and recreation. • Provide a spatial view for planning for new and enhancing existing facilities.
1.18 The completed study will be made available on the Borough Council’s website. This study can be made available to anyone on request for a reasonable charge.
How we categorised the play, open space and sports provision
1.19 Chapters 3 to 9 comprise Stages B and C of the Sports England Guidance which:
• Establish a full picture covering all elements of the supply of facilities in Bracknell Forest borough. • Establish a clear understanding of the current and future demand. • Assess the demand verses supply situation.
1.20 It is necessary to consider the different types of open space, sports and recreational provision and their primary role and function. Knowing the function of an open space or sports facility is critical to making judgements about its adequacy in respect of quantity, quality and accessibility. The typologies are:
Table 1b – POSS Typologies Typology Chapter A Parks and Gardens 4 B Natural and Semi Natural (including urban woodlands). 5 C Green Corridors D Children and Young People (Children’s Play) 6 E Outdoor sports facilities 7 F School facilities G Allotments 8 H Civic spaces I Cemeteries and churchyards 9 J Amenity greenspace / landscape buffer / incidental verge. K Drainage / Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) / Ponds
1.21 All of the play, open space and sports facilities have been assigned a primary typology. Where open spaces perform multiple functions, which occurs in many instances, these spaces have been assigned a secondary and third typology. For example, an open space may have a primary sports function (Typology E) but also contain woodland (Typology B) and a balancing pond (Typology K).
1.22 Around 350 open spaces have been assessed in the study and Map 1 shows their location within the Borough.
8
9
How we carried out the Quantity Audit
1.23 The quantity audit involved updating and refining the existing PPG17 database into a new spreadsheet database. This process:
• Categorised all play, open space and sports provision by location, area and typology (including any second or third typologies). • Provided a reference number for each site. • Liaised with other relevant providers on the accuracy of records (e.g. all the Town and Parish Councils). • Created up-to-date mapping boundaries via GIS.
How we carried out the Quality Audit
1.24 Firstly, a new quality audit form was designed through reviewing the original quality audit form (from the 2006 PPG17 study). 15 sites were tested using the new and old forms to assess the differences in the resulting scores. This process gave officers the confidence to proceed with the new form.
1.25 The new quality audit form was based on a number of key criteria encompassing the quality aspects of the Green Flag Award scheme and ILAM Parks Management Guidance. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual open space. In summary the scoring included the criteria of:
• Entrance areas; • Presence and quality of signage and information; • Boundary fencing and hedges; • Roads, paths and cycle ways; • Quality of planted areas (flower and shrub beds); • Tree management; • The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, toilets; • Cleanliness – presence of litter, dog mess etc. • Safe and secure – clear site lines, emergency contact details etc.
1.26 An external consultant was commissioned to complete the audits in a shorter period of time, and to provide impartiality in the auditing of non-borough managed open spaces and facilities. The process was carried out during the autumn and winter 2014/15 where each site was scored against the above criteria, which was then converted to a percentage quality score and rating as follows:
Table 1c – Quality scores / ratings Quality Score 0%-30% 31%-45% 46%-60% 61%-75% 76% + Quality Rating Poor Moderate Good Very Good Excellent
1.27 This classification is based closely on the earlier PPG17 study with the following amendments: 0 – 15% ‘Very Poor’ was omitted and combined with Poor, and 31 – 45% was previously described as Average, and has been changed to Moderate.
How we carried out the availability and accessibility audit
1.28 The availability audit was for the most part easily carried out because most of the play and open space uses are free and fully available at all times. However for
10 sporting activities information on pricing and timings has been sourced from each provider and collated together.
1.29 The accessibility audit was carried out by mapping each open space and facilities and defining catchments to assess how easy and well located the provision is.
How we carried out the assessment
1.30 The assessment included:
• A review of strategies and priorities from a local and wider perspective. • An assessment of demographics including the existing and the future population considering pressures of new development. • The total Passive and Active OSPV quantified and assessed against the existing standards at a borough-wide, town / parish level and ward level. • The public perception of play, open space and sports facilities was also considered. • A review of sporting activity and passive use of open space and green areas. This included local views and targeted consultation with providers and key users. • A review of overall OSPV provision against the Active and Passive OSPV standards. • Individual assessments of quantity, quality, availability, accessibility and demand for each typology (chapters 4 – 9).
11
CHAPTER 2 – Prepare and tailor the approach
2.1 This chapter is comprised Stage A of the Sport England Guidance. The approach the Borough Council has undertaken has been tailored to the use and outcomes of the study (e.g. to identify gaps in provision, services provision and to justify standards and new planning policies).
Purpose, Objectives, Vision, Outcomes
2.2 The purpose of the study is to assess the level of existing provision whilst reviewing the needs of the residents of Bracknell Forest to ensure that appropriate standards and policies are effectively delivered on the ground. The study looks forward to 2036 to align with the emerging Comprehensive Local Plan. It will be used as planning evidence and to inform the Parks and Countryside service regarding recreation and sports provision in the future.
2.3 The objectives of the study are:
1. Quantifying strategic and locally important play, open space and sports facilities. 2. Quantifying planned new provision. 3. To assess the quality, accessibility and availability of existing provision. 4. To assess future demand patterns and gaps in terms of provision. 5. To provide a clear evidence base for future service provision and quality improvements. 6. To provide evidence for changes to existing play, open space or sports facilities. 7. To provide the evidence base for planning policy and guidance requirements, including local quantitative, qualitative and accessibility standards.
2.4 The recently published Borough Council Plan (2015-2019) sets out the priorities for the next four years in terms of providing services. Its narrative is: “Bracknell Forest is a good place to live with a mainly affluent, well educated and independent population. The council will provide leadership and work with others to keep the borough a place where all residents can thrive and benefit from effective core services. What we do ourselves we aim to do well, but we must prioritise and target our services to live within our means. In targeting our services, we will prioritise people and areas with the greatest need, early help and prevention so struggling or vulnerable people can maximise their opportunities to become independent”
2.5 This narrative is supported by six strategic themes:
• Value for money • A strong and resilient economy • People have the life skills and education opportunities they need to thrive • People live active and healthy lifestyles • A clean, green, growing and sustainable place • Strong, safe, supportive and self-reliant communities
12
2.6 With this in mind, and in the context of the needs study, the following vision for open space, recreational and sporting facilities has been produced:
“A high quality, accessible network of clean, safe and attractive green spaces and facilities that allow people to improve their health and well-being through recreation and sport, now and in the future”
2.7 The results of the study will be used to:
• Provide evidence to support policies for the Comprehensive Local Plan. • Update guidance on open space, play and sports provision. • Produce service provider strategies. • Evidence and support Neighbourhood Plans. • Develop projects for schemes to secure s106 contributions from new development. • Justify and prioritise spending and resource allocation. • Bid for grants and CIL funding.
2.8 The outcomes of the study are:
• An understanding of supply - what we have, where it is, its availability and accessibility; • An analysis of needs and demand; • Recommendation on standards, guidance and policies.
Proportionality
2.9 To ensure that this study stays focused on the key facilities located with Bracknell Forest Borough, it doesn’t include highways verge, small amenity or other strips of land. These would be too numerous to account for and analyse. The same applies to the location of all trees and planting in the Borough, which will be covered in more detail as part of the Bracknell Forest Tree, Woodland and Hedgerow Strategy that’s currently in development.
2.10 An analysis of green infrastructure has been reviewed in a separate study alongside this work. The assessment of pitches has also been undertaken in the Playing Pitch Strategy.
Play, Open Space and Sports scope
2.11 This study reviews and audits Borough Council open spaces which are greater than 0.4 hectares. This is the minimum area considered to be functional in-terms of their public use for recreational purposes. Parish and/or Town Council managed sites and Housing Association sites above 0.2 hectares were also audited, as were all designated play areas regardless of their size. Open space and green areas less than 0.2 hectares were not included in the audit, but it’s recognised that they still serve important functions such as visual amenity, character, landscape softening and biodiversity. The study also reviews and updates typologies with open spaces such as play, school facilities and allotments.
2.12 In terms of the sports provision as identified by Sport England, there are many mainstream sports clubs which operate in the Borough at different levels of competition. In summary these are:
13
• Hockey - Bracknell Hockey Club (Men’s teams) play in the Middlesex, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Divisions of the South Hockey League (4 teams) The Ladies Teams play in the TrySports League (Middlesex, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire) (2 teams). • Rugby - Bracknell Rugby Club compete in the RFU League structure. The 1st XV plays in National League 3 (London and South East Division). Their other teams play in the Berks Bucks and Oxon County Divisions. Crowthorne RFC also plays in the BBO County Divisions. • Cricket - Bracknell Cricket Club play in the Thames Valley Cricket League in Divisions 5 and 7. Crowthorne & Crown Wood CC, Sandhurst CC and Warfield CC all play in the Berkshire League, whilst Binfield CC plays in the Chiltern League. • Football - Bracknell Town and Binfield FC play in the Chiltern Premier League, whilst Sandhurst Town FC plays in the Combined Counties League. Sandhurst Devils play in the Thames Valley Premier League. The Bracknell and District Sunday League has 50 teams across 5 divisions. Most are pub and club teams from in and around Bracknell Forest. • Swimming - Bracknell Swimming Club competes in the Arena League - the ASA's national league, but competed for initially on a regional basis. Sandhurst Open Water Swimming Club also operate in the borough • Tennis - Bracknell Tennis Club competes in the Berkshire Winter and Summer Leagues. • Athletics - Bracknell AC competes in the Southern Athletic League (summer) and a variety of Cross Country Leagues in the winter. Sandhurst Joggers and Bracknell Forest Runners compete in the Thames Valley Cross Country League. • Netball - Brakenhale School hosts the Bracknell and District Netball League, but there is no Bracknell based team participating. • Baseball and Softball - Bracknell Baseball Club plays in the National Championships and the Windsor & Maidenhead Softball League.
2.13 Underpinning the adult leagues listed above there is a large demand for junior sport in which clubs take part in leagues, for example:
• Baseball - Bracknell Baseball Club runs an extensive youth programme competing in various national and regional leagues. • Cricket - Berkshire Youth Cricket League (various age groups) • Athletics - Alder Valley League, Southern Counties Youth Development League, Chiltern League Cross-Country and Border League also Cross-Country • Rugby - Bracknell's Colts and junior teams play in the Oxon, Buck and Berks Leagues • Football - there is a huge infrastructure of junior football with leagues for boys and girls from the age of 7 upwards. The East Berks Football Alliance features AFC Warfield, Binfield FC, Bracknell Borough, FC Bracknell, Bracknell Town FC, Sandhurst Town Boys and Girls FC, Bracknell Cavaliers and Whitegrove FC. All of those clubs run multiple teams in each age group. Two of the Country’s largest clubs operate in the Borough (Ascot United and Sandhurst Town).
2.14 There are some sports and recreation activities that use outdoor spaces in the Borough, these are:
1. Swinley Forest Mountain Bike Trails (site ref: 131 as described in paragraph 1.23) in Crowthorne ward and parish. The forest is owned and managed by The Crown Estate who have provided four trails (green, blue red and black) which range in length difficulty for user (children or adults). These trails are popular with local
14
residents and many visitors. Their introduction over recent years has helped to focus riders on these routes, thereby helping to reduce pressure on the other ecologically sensitive areas. 2. Go-Ape (261) in Crowthorne is a commercially run activity which involves rope climbing in the trees of the forest. The land is owned by The Crown Estate but the facility is managed by a private company. 3. There are a number of locations around the Borough which provide for fishing, including Allsmoor Pond (5), Braybrooke Recreation Ground (22), Horseshoe Lake (69), South Hill Park lakes (125, 126b) and Mill Pond (290) used by local anglers and clubs. 4. There is an open water swimming facility at Horseshoe Lake in Little Sandhurst and Wellington Ward and Sandhurst Town (insert ref) which is operated by a private club called Sandhurst Open Water Swimming. They have two routes (400m and 750m) with ancillary changing, showers and toilet facilities. They operate 4 days per week (Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Friday) between April and October. Costs are £8 membership fee and either £7 a swim or £60 for 10 swims. Refreshments and equipment can also be purchased. The club also runs a triathlon competition. 5. The Horseshoe Lake Activity Centre (69) operates commercial water sport activities on Horseshoe Lake. The centre specialises in dinghy sailing, windsurfing, canoeing and offers courses for junior and adults. The centre includes:
• a purpose-built pavilion with changing rooms, showers, refreshments and lecture areas; • a secure boat park for storage; • lakeside picnic area; • on-site BBQ facilities.
2.15 There are also gyms and sports centres which host a wide range of other sporting activities such as badminton, squash and fitness classes. This study reviews the role that active open space of public value has in supporting sports facility provision. There are many open space areas which are considered to be active but which formal sports activities are not played such a kickabout areas and basketball courts/hoops. Park Run at Great Hollands Recreational Ground (62) and the footpath/cycleway network provides safe opportunities for walking or running. Part of which is used for the successful Bracknell Half Marathon every year. The cycleway network also provides the opportunity for sports and leisure cycling.
2.16 According to Sport England’s Active People Survey (APS) is an annual survey of participation in sport and physical recreation of adults (aged 16 years and over), overall participation has increased in Bracknell Forest between 2005/06 and 2014/15. Participation rates are also higher and have grown much more in the borough than in the South East and England. Of this, male participation has been flat in terms of growth whereas female participation has grown significantly which bucks the trend of the regional/national picture. There has also been significant growth in the borough in participation of people aged 14 and over in the last two years compared with a drop both regionally and nationally. There is also a big increase in older people participation (aged 55+) in Bracknell Forest.
Geographical scope
2.17 The geographical scope of the project is borough-wide although many facilities in Bracknell Forest are more strategic in their scope and function. To help give a more localised assessment the study will also focus on the other administrative boundaries
15 i.e. wards and parishes. In addition there are sports, leisure and recreational facilities which also meet wider than local needs both inside and outside the borough, which are detailed as follows.
Blackwater Valley 2.18 The intention of the Blackwater Valley continuous greenspace is that it is a passive recreational corridor (amongst other matters) that includes Bracknell Forest and many other local authority areas. A co-ordinated strategy is being prepared to look at the corridor on a long term basis. This strategy will provide an opportunity to provide evidence for resource allocation, in order to provide a magnificent recreational opportunity for thousands of people who live in the surrounding areas. The specific vision and aims of the emerging Blackwater Valley Strategy can be read earlier in this document.
The Windsor Great Park 2.19 The Windsor Great Park, which is owned and managed by the Crown Estate, is located mainly in The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead with part of its area falling within the Bracknell Forest boundary. The draw of the park is enormous and it receives thousands of visitors every year. It primarily is a semi-natural area which includes a visually attractive lake, gardens, trees and countryside which attracts visitors for recreational activities such as walking, horse riding and jogging, as well as passive activities such as relaxing and picnics. The park is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
The Look Out 2.20 The Look Out is a Borough Council owned facility based in Swinley Forest (in the Crowthorne Ward) and is a major pull for visitors both locally and from further afield. It is located adjacent to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). The centre is situated within publicly accessible woodland (a total of 2600 acres of woodland) and comprises:
• Interactive science and nature exhibits; • Various shows and events; • Walks and trails; • Mountain bike trails and hire; • A picnic area; • Children’s adventure play area; • Coffee and gift shops; • Parking.
Neighbouring Authority Parks 2.21 Other parks and countryside sites in neighbouring authorities will also draw visitors from Bracknell Forest, particularly those who live adjacent to the borough boundary – for example in Crowthorne where the boundary runs thought the middle of the village. In this example, neighbouring sites in Wokingham District will also be well used by Bracknell Forest residents and vice-versa.
Coral Reef 2.22 Coral Reef is a Borough Council owned leisure swimming facility based in South Bracknell (in Hanworth Ward) and is a major pull for visitors both locally and from further afield. It is currently closed for a major refurbishment and due to re-open in 2017. On opening its facilities will comprise:
16
• Leisure pools for children of various ages; • Fun water slides; • Family Jacuzzi/hot tub; • A restaurant/café; • Sauna, plunge pool etc.; • Parking.
Golf Clubs 2.23 There are a number of Golf Clubs and driving ranges in the Borough which have a wide membership and patronage. These range from pay and play facilities such as the Borough Council’s Downshire Golf Course to private members only clubs such as Swinley Golf Club.
Ice Rink and Ski Slope 2.24 The John Nike leisure facility in Binfield is a popular privately run commercial facility. It facilitates a wide range of winter sports such as skiing, snowboarding, ice staking and ice-hockey.
Polo / Equestrian 2.25 There are private facilities in the borough which cater for polo including livery and stables.
Catchments and accessibility tools 2.26 To enable effective analysis of the different types of sports, open space and recreational provision in this study the Borough Council has developed a set of catchment areas based on local and national evidence. These are set out in the supply audit (Chapter 3). The Borough Council has used its GIS software to map all provision (quantity) and then apply straight line catchments relevant to each type to allow effective analysis. If there are circumstances where physical barriers prevent a realistic analysis of particular straight line catchments then commentary provides additional analysis.
Strategic Context
2.27 There is a strong strategic and policy framework to ensure the provision of high quality and accessible recreational facilities in the borough. National planning policy and guidance requires a robust evidence base to support the production of planning policies and to ensure facilities are provided and available on the ground to the people who need them. National strategies, such as those by Sport England and the sports National Governing Bodies (NGBs), seek to ensure the right sport provision is provided, taking account of growth demands and a drive to increase participation. The national and local public health agenda seeks for people to have active and healthy lifestyles. There are also nature conservation matters that have to be considered such as the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area designation (TBHSPA) which ensures that new housing development provides new or enhanced semi-natural open space areas (called Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs)). Table A1, Appendix A provides a more detailed review of the relevant strategies, policies and guidance.
2.28 Generally speaking the national and strategic objectives pull together in the same direction. However, localised competing interests may cause some conflict between priorities. For example, local government funding and service cuts and the absolute planning need to mitigate impacts on the TBHSPA means that the local
17 provision of SANGs as semi-natural passive recreational area is more dominant than providing new land for sports pitches. This means that the Borough Council has focused more in recent years on enhancing existing sports provision to increase capacity. This focus is likely to remain for the foreseeable future especially with the Government’s clear priority to ensure more houses are built. This gives an even greater need to protect or replace existing provision.
2.29 Following the review of relevant strategies, policies and guidance the implications for Bracknell Forest’s Play, Open Spaces and Sports (POSS) study are:
• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides national support for the provision of multifunctional open spaces for wildlife, health, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage and food production and emphasises the importance of access to high quality open space and opportunities for sport and recreation for the health and well-being of communities. • There is a need for a robust evidence base of the nature, typology and extent of green space within Bracknell Forest. • The NPPF indicates that “the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place”. Bracknell Forest Council has had a CIL charging schedule in place since April 2015 and is anticipating the production of several neighbourhood plans. • The NPPF requires that existing open space ‘should not be built on unless an assessment clearly shows the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements’. This study will help to define whether there is any surplus open space in Bracknell Forest. • The NPPF requires that development should be delivered on ‘land of less environmental value’. This study will identify which land delivers environmental, social and economic benefits to Bracknell Forest. • Policies need to be based on local needs and aspirations of Bracknell Forest’s residents. • The Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CSDPD) and the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (BFBLP) contain planning policies regarding the provision of open spaces, sport and recreation. These will be reviewed in light of the study findings. • The policies and guidance listed below are material considerations in the borough and require new residential development that is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA to put in place suitable measures to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects through the provision of SANGs and financial contributions towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM).The relevant planning policies and guidance are: o Policy NRM6: Thames Basin Heath SPA of the South East Plan; o SDPD Policy CS14; o Saved Policy EN3 of the BFBLP; o Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPASPD).
Project Management
2.30 The project has been managed in the following way:
• A Project Steering Group comprising the Environment, Culture and Communities Departmental Management Team (Director and Chief Officers).
18
• A Sports Steering Group with Sports England and the relevant sports bodies has been set up for the sporting elements of the study. • Liaison with parish and town councils. • Officers from Planning and Countryside and Leisure have undertaken various tasks including compiling data and information, drafting and reviewing documents. • External consultants have been commissioned to facilitate the Stage A and B meetings and undertake quality audits and demand analysis. • Dialogue with established neighbourhood bodies and a local Football Steering Group.
19
CHAPTER 3 – Sport England Stage B: Gather information on Supply and Demand
Introduction and Summary
3.1 This chapter focuses on the current overall supply and demand of play, open space and sports facilities for all the open space typologies and facilities across the Borough. To gain a true picture of supply and demand, there is a need to focus on key strategies, priorities, demographics, future growth pressures as well as what we have and where it is. This and the following chapters review both public and private provision under a range of different ownership and management regimes. Chapters 4 to 9 focus on the different typologies in more detail.
3.2 An accurate audit of facilities is fundamental to understanding the adequacy of current provision to meet both current and future demand, along with the objectives and vision (Chapter 2; Paragraph 2.3 and 2.6) of the work. Four key elements of supply are considered in this audit, these being:
• Quantity – the amount, type and location of facilities in the Borough • Quality – how good they are when compared with national benchmarking standards • Accessibility – are they in easily accessible locations? • Availability – when are facilities available, how long for and is there a charge to use them?
3.3 Each section in the following chapters includes a sub-heading describing how the findings should be taken forward and are developed into recommendations in Chapter 10. However, in summary the Council will look to:
1. Continue to protect and enhance existing play, open space and sports provision and provide new provision to accommodate demand from a growing population. 2. Diversify existing open spaces and adapt to changing demand over time. 3. Optimise income opportunities as far as possible from play, open space and sports provision. 4. Review management opportunities for play, open space and sports provisions. 5. Retain a quantity standard of 4.3 hectares of Open Space of Public Value (OSPV) per 1000 persons which comprises of 2ha/1000 for Active OSPV and 2.3ha/1000 for Passive OSPV. 6. Amend the type of development in which new or enhanced provision is sought. 7. Continue with the Plus One Principle as a method to continuously improve quality and to increase the capacity of existing open spaces and facilities. 8. Seek financial contributions to improve the quality of OSPV where it can demonstrate capacity improvements. 9. Focus on areas with gaps in open space or recreational facilities so that new, enhanced or changing existing provision from a particular typology with excess provision to a typology which is low or not represented in that area. 10. Seek to improve the accessibility and availability of open space and facilities wherever possible. 11. Focus on developing projects for improving the capacity of open space and facilities needed from new development.
20
Strategies and Priorities
Local Responsibilities 3.4 The Borough Council will seek to ensure good levels and appropriate distribution of parks and open spaces of recreational value, which are of an appropriate nature, and which contribute to the wide range of social and environmental functions of parks and open spaces and broad use of provision for by all members of the community.
3.5 The Borough Council will take the lead role in ensuring appropriate provision of parks and open spaces of recreational value and use by all members of the community. A partnership approach will continue to be supported with town and parish council’s and other large scale landowners with whom local delivery of services will be sought.
3.6 The current Bracknell Forest Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2012) has three key objectives and twelve priorities:
Table 3a – Objectives and Priorities Objectives a. Provision: Protect and establish public open space for recreation, play, sport, health, biodiversity, heritage and climate change mitigation and adaptation that is appropriate to need; strategically located; and adaptable to future requirements. b. Maintenance: Provide safe and welcoming public open space; attain and improve quality standards. c. Use and Enjoyment: Make sure public open space supports well-being; encourages participation; and facilitates social inclusion. Local priorities 1 Monitor and assess quality standards across parks and open spaces. Manage sites to a high standard; carry out improvement works to sustain and improve quality in line with the Bracknell Forest Council ‘Plus One Principle’ and relevant national guidance. 2 Maintain Green Flag status for existing award winning parks and attain additional Green Flag Awards for suitable sites. 3 Encourage the provision of new parks and opens spaces to support achievement of sustainable development. Create links between existing parks and open spaces to extend green infrastructure networks. 4 Implement planned improvement works to sites designated as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) to encourage residents to visit recreational areas outside of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. Identify opportunities to extend the provision of SANGs. 5 Manage the restored historic parks of South Hill Park and Lily Hill Park to a high standard in line with approved management and maintenance plans. 6 Enhance the natural qualities of parks and open spaces. Protect and enhance biodiversity. Positively manage trees and woodlands, to include new planting to provide for future generations. 7 Identify opportunities to increase the positive role that parks and open spaces can contribute to climate change mitigation (e.g. tree planting as part of carbon sequestration). Implement appropriate measures in support of climate change adaption (e.g. ponds and scrapes). 8 Enhance outdoor sport and play provision (including ancillary facilities). 9 Collate data and target actions to meet the needs of new and existing audiences; to include improving opportunities for potentially under represented or excluded groups. 10 Support volunteering opportunities within parks and open spaces. 11 Encourage greater community involvement and additional partnership working between agencies, groups and organisations. 12 Explore commercial opportunities (where compatible with the other priorities) to provide revenue to support management and maintenance.
21
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.7 Key elements of the Parks & Open Spaces Strategy are still relevant to now and future service planning. However, going forward in an era of declining budgets it is essential that the strategy is revisited to evaluate, adapt and change service provision and focus even more on income generation and other ways to manage provision.
Sporting Future - A New Strategy for an Active Nation.2 3.8 In December 2015 the Government published the Sporting Future strategy. It sets out the roles of central Government, Local Government and Sport England. It also sets out the direction for sport nationally and focuses on five key outcomes:
1. Physical wellbeing. 2. Mental wellbeing. 3. Individual development. 4. Social and community development. 5. Economic development.
3.9 An assessment of how the Council responds to the requirements of the strategy can be found in Table A1 in Appendix A. In summary, the Council is committed to developing its Sports and Physical Activity Strategy in line with High-Level Outcomes outlined by Sport England. Through focus on activities targeted at those currently under-represented in sport and developing active travel initiatives the Council already aims to work across departments and sectors to deliver increases in physical activity and decreases in those who are inactive.
How should the Borough Council respond? 3.10 A greater emphasis should be put on improving and developing facilities that are economically sustainable, accessible and have provisions for multiple sports whether these are built or open spaces. Focus should be placed on younger children and a ‘lifestyle’ approach to getting and keeping people active, through personal choice and active travel. The council should work towards increasing the number of coaches, volunteer-led activities as well as involving governing bodies, local businesses, workplaces and communities to develop sustainable funding streams.
Towards and Active Nation3 3.11 Sport England’s current strategy sets out how they will deliver the task of making the nation more physically active. This strategy focusses on putting more money and resources behind tackling inactivity, building positive attitudes to sport and activity in children and young people from the age of five. It intends to support those who are active now to continue but at a lower cost to the public purse and looks towards being more welcoming and inclusive especially of those currently under- represented in sport. Finally the strategy focusses on operating nationally where it makes sense to but also encouraging stronger local collaboration working with a range of partners across all sectors seeking to share best practice and practical learning of behaviour change.
2 Sporting Future Strategy (2015) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486622/Sporting_Future_A CCESSIBLE.pdf
3 Towards An Active Nation (May 2016). https://www.sportengland.org/media/10629/sport-england-towards-an-active-nation.pdf
22
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.12 The key changes Sport England are making and how the Borough Council should respond are shown in Table A2 in Appendix A and summarised as:
• Investing in affordable and accessible facilities and green space local to residents. • Producing key indicators which focus on increasing physical activity initiatives and encouraging participation in these by children. • Building physical activity into everyday habits and lifestyle change by facilitating active travel. • Creating new exciting sport and leisure facilities and encouraging volunteer led sport in communities. • Continuing to provide added value through the ‘e+’ card benefits and extended services. • Strengthening partnerships with specialist organisations to deliver programmes which are effective in influencing long term behavioural patterns.
Guidance for outdoor sport and play4 3.13 This revised guidance has been produced by the Fields in Trust (FIT) as a one- stop shop in the planning and design of outdoor sports, play and informal open space. It replaces the former Six Acres Standard document.
3.14 The guidance has been produced to reflect a new planning policy landscape. Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the introduction of The Localism Act (2011) and the phased introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy all combine to change how local planning operates. This updated guidance clearly identifies benchmarks within the current policy framework.
3.15 The guide has been used in the production of this study for assessing the accessibility of relevant provision and to set standards for new provision.
Key Bracknell Forest Demographics
3.16 The Borough is generally affluent with higher than national average house prices and wage earnings. Employment levels are high, crime is low and residents are generally healthy. The borough has low deprivation levels compared with many other local authorities, but there are still small pockets of deprivation where money and economic opportunities are not as easily attained. Car ownership is high, but a good public transport system and footpath/cycleway network provides choices for more sustainable forms of travel. The borough has a large quantity of high quality, accessible open space and recreational facilities which are popular and well used. The age profile of the population is slightly younger than the national average but as with the rest of the country the trend is towards an aging population. A higher demand in school places may indicate an emerging trend of younger people in the borough. Table A4 in Appendix A provides a more detail summary of the profile of the Borough.
3.17 Since the inception of new town status the population of the Borough has rapidly grown from 23,408 in 1951 to 113,205 by 2011. The two ten year periods between 1951 – 1961 and 1961 – 1971 saw an increase of around 20,000 people each. The last 10 year period (2001-2011) saw an increase of around 3,500 which was much less than the previous two 10-year periods. An increasing population density and
4 Guidance for outdoor sport and play – Beyond the six acres standard (England) (October 2015) Fields in Trust) http://www.fieldsintrust.org/guidance
23 demand for services puts pressure on the Borough’s housing, infrastructure services and environmental assets including sites designated as being important for nature conservation at an international, national and local level.
Table 3b - Population Year Total Population Time Period Percentage Net Change increase 2011 113,205 2001-2011 3.3% +3,558 2001 109,617 1991-2001 14.2% +13,668 1991 95,949 1981-1991 18.1% +14,724 1981 81,225 1971-1981 26.6% +17,090 1971 64,135 1961-1971 48.5% +20,943 1961 43,192 1951-1961 84.5% +19,784 1951 23,408 Source: Crown Copyright (Census counts) Data Updated: Every 10 years
Existing population 3.18 The current estimated population of the Borough is 118,025 people of all ages (Mid-year estimate 2014, Crown Copyright). The following table shows the estimates for each ward and with specific age bands. The main findings are:
• The main concentration of population is in the Bracknell Town wards and the least in the largely rural Winkfield and Cranbourne. • The biggest wards by population are Binfield with Warfield, Harmans Water, Hanworth and Warfield Harvest Ride due to extensive housing growth over the past 20 years. • Warfield Harvest Ride despite having a small geographical area has a high population (over 8000). • Priestwood and Garth and Binfield with Warfield have the largest amount of people aged over 45. • Harmanswater and Great Hollands North have the largest number of children aged 0 – 4 whilst Ascot and Crowthorne have the least.
Table 3c – Ward population All Ward Name Ages 0-4 5-10 11-15 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Ascot 5,785 279 454 653 480 1,318 1,630 971 Binfield with Warfield 8,964 602 701 619 656 2,500 2,695 1,191 Bullbrook 6,318 462 498 397 560 2,013 1,438 950 Central Sandhurst 5,148 345 398 339 384 1,391 1,471 820 College Town 6,510 384 447 412 1,041 1,973 1,513 740 Crown Wood 7,890 657 557 389 677 2,866 2,100 644 Crowthorne 5,271 249 365 431 419 1,278 1,509 1,020 Great Hollands North 7,162 732 773 510 582 2,539 1,350 676 Great Hollands South 5,037 353 432 380 429 1,402 1,391 650 Hanworth 8,125 601 601 510 648 2,449 2,183 1,133 Harmans Water 8,856 778 736 551 640 2,976 2,164 1,011 Little Sandhurst and Wellington 6,036 314 392 940 708 1,174 1,541 967 Old Bracknell 5,968 475 477 415 595 1,975 1,364 667 Owlsmoor 5,229 344 420 372 466 1,464 1,513 650 Priestwood and Garth 7,853 527 636 571 669 2,281 1,986 1,183 Warfield Harvest Ride 8,220 571 767 702 607 2,441 2,508 624
24
All Ward Name Ages 0-4 5-10 11-15 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Wildridings and Central 4,834 280 355 300 410 1,484 1,201 804 Winkfield and Cranbourne 4,819 206 326 271 288 957 1,472 1,299 All wards 118,025 8,159 9,335 8,762 10,259 34,481 31,029 16,000
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.19 The council should respond as follows:
• Strive to ensure existing play, open space and sports is as high quality, attractive and usable as possible. • Focus on access to provision for more rural areas. • Ensure provision caters for all ages including the young and older people. • Economic growth will continue and the recreational offer should respond to this in terms of variety and opportunities. • The population heath and well being is relatively high and an active lifestyle is needed to maintain this trend.
Future Development Pressure and Growth
Population growth 3.20 The most up-to-date population projections to 2036 are provided by the Office for National Statistics 2014 and are based on Subnational Population Projections. The lowest geographical area these projections go down to is local authority. Localised growth cannot be projected except for anecdotal ward growth where known large developments will be built up to 2026. It is not possible to provide specific details about local impacts up to 2036 however because the locations of growth have not yet been identified. This strategy can influence the locations and state what pitch provision is required to accommodate any chosen development sites. The following table shows the projected population for Bracknell Forest for specific years by age bands.
Table 3d – Projected Population Growth AGE 2014 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 GROUP 0-4 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 5-10 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 11-15 9,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 16-24 10,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 25-44 35,000 34,000 34,000 35,000 34,000 35,000 45-64 31,000 32,000 34,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 65+ 16,000 17,000 19,000 23,000 26,000 29,000 All ages 118,000 121,000 127,000 132,000 135,000 139,000
3.21 The Borough’s population is 118,025 (Mid-2014 Estimates, based on Census 2011). The population is relatively young (median age 38.3 years). 13.4% of the population is over 65 years of age, compared to 17.3% nationally, although this is expected to grow. The key findings are:
• In 2015 the population of Bracknell Forest was 119,000 people; it is projected to increase by a further 19,000 people to 138,000 by 2036, which is a percentage increase of 16%. • There is no growth projected for the two youngest age bands of 0-4 and 5-9 years.
25
• There is growth projected for the next three year age bands; 14.3% for 10-14 and 15-19 and 16.7% (1000 people) 20-24. • There is a projected increase of 12.5% for 25-29 year olds. • The age bands 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49 and 50-54 years show no projected growth. • The age band 55-59 years shows a projected increase of 14.3% and 60-64 years an increase of 33.3%. • There are big increases in the next two age bands 65-69 and 70-74 years of 60% and 75% respectively. • There is projected to be a doubling of people (100% increase) in three of the four oldest age-bands 75-79, 80-84 and 90+ years. • There is projected to be a 200% increase in the numbers of people who fall in the 85-89 age-band, this could equate to between 1000 and 3000 people.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.23 The population projection conclusions are:
• There needs to be new play, open space and sports provision for the growing population otherwise there will be strain on existing facilities. • Where new provision cannot be provided the capacity of existing play, open space and sports provision should be increased through quality improvements. • The range of provisions should cater for all age groups including an increased provision of activities and facilities to cater for an ageing population.
Future development sites and growth 3.24 The Borough Council is currently implementing its CSDPD and Site Allocation Local Plan (SALP) documents which provide for the growth needs of Bracknell Forest Borough up until 2016. These plans provide for approximately 11,000 new dwellings between 2006 and 2026. The strategy for growth is:
1. To accommodate small to medium housing sites in existing urban area, which come forward as part of the planning process at any given time. 2. To permit larger developments at allocated sites in urban areas, including in and around Bracknell town centre many of which are apartments. 3. Allocating large extensions to existing defined settlement areas that mostly comprise large housing sites.
3.25 The Borough Council has allocated a number of large sites to be built by 2026 in the SALP. Table A5 in Appendix A shows the indicated level of development, the ward in which it falls in (thereby indicating growth in that ward) and whether or not the site will provide play, open space or sports provisions. It shows significant growth in the Parishes of Warfield, Binfield and Crowthorne. There will also be significant housing growth in Bracknell town centre.
3.26 Expected population growth to 2036 will create demand for an additional 5000 dwellings in addition to the 11,000 described in paragraph 3.24. The sites and their location are yet to be identified. These sites will however bring more people and demand for accessible play, open space and sports facilities.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.27 The future development growth conclusions are:
26
• Many of the large development sites have secured new sports and recreational provision either through new facilities or contributions towards existing facilities. • Other smaller sites will provide financial contributions or CIL which could be used to provide new or enhanced open space, play or sports provision. • Development between now and 2036 which will require recreational provision to meet their demands.
Active Recreational Demand
Comparing Bracknell Forest with the regional and national picture 3.28 Sport England’s Active People Survey (APS) is an annual survey of participation in sport and physical recreation of adults (age 16 years and over) in England (by Ipsos MORI). The survey results for 2014/15 have been compared with the first survey in 2005/06.
3.29 The results from the latest report highlight a number of key points regarding sport participation in Berkshire as well as Bracknell Forest. The key findings from the data are:
• At a county level, males are more likely to take up sport or physical activity than females but females are more likely to maintain the same level of sport or physical activity. • 16-25 year olds are the most active age group; they appear to be most likely to take up more sport or physical activity nationally, regionally and across the county. • Over 65 year olds appear to be more likely to keep the same level of sport or physical activity nationally, regionally and across the county. • Overall, 41.5% of people in Bracknell Forest did not participate in any sport in 2014/15. • 84% of 16-25 year olds in Bracknell Forest participated in a sport making them the most active demographic group. • The least active group within Bracknell Forest is those with a disability or limiting illness, with 72.3% of them not participating in any sport. • Over two thirds (69.5%) of those aged 65 and over do not participate in any sport • In 2014/15, less than a quarter of the population in Bracknell Forest (24.3%) participates in sport three or more times a week. This is higher than the previous year. • The overall trend in the past 3 years is that participation in sport once a week is increasing across the whole population.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.30 The population of Bracknell Forest Borough is gradually becoming more active, but more still needs to be done to encourage participation from those who do not currently participate in any sport.
3.31 In particular, more recreational and sports facilities need to be provided for the older generation and those with a disability to encourage them to become more active. This demographic group needs better access to sports activities that are appealing, accessible and meet their needs. Facilities should ideally be in close proximity to where they live. The research indicates that for example, wards like Priestwood and Garth have a high proportion of people over 65. Similarly this ward has the highest number of residents with bad health. Consequently, this is a key area the Council needs to target.
Other active recreation
27
3.32 There are a number of other activities such as children’s play, allotment gardening, informal kickabouts, jogging, walking and fitness which need recreational facilities. The increasing population and changing age profiles will increase demand for these facilities. The higher their quality and accessibility the more likely participation in these activities will occur. Quality improvements will also increase capacity of the provisions. The promotion of a healthy lifestyle as part of the Council’s public health responsibility drives the need to protect, provide and enhance these facilities.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.33 Policy and strategy should be explicit about ensuring a range of active recreation provision is protected, provided and maintained. Focus should also be turned towards providing easily accessible activity provisions such as jogging routes and outdoor gyms. Children’s play equipment should be robust, safe, variable and welcoming. Active provision should also align closely with other strategy objectives such as reducing obesity and active travel to schools.
Passive Recreational Demand
3.34 The public open spaces within Bracknell Forest are currently very well used and highly regarded by visitors. Surveys of user satisfaction consistently highlight our parks and open spaces as the best feature in the Borough. In the most recent survey (Residents’ Survey 2014) open spaces scored a satisfaction rating of 89% from local residents, which was the highest service rating within all the Council’s functions.
3.35 The percentage of the local population that regularly uses our open spaces is consistently measured to be above 80%. In the BFC Satisfaction Survey carried out in 2006, 6.12% of respondents did not use parks and open spaces, and in the 2005 Household Survey (Strategic Leisure) the indication was that up to 17.7% of respondents did not use parks and open spaces. This means that well over 80% of Bracknell Forest’s residents do use parks and open spaces.
3.36 The 2008 Place Survey (Audit Commission) found that 78.8% of residents were satisfied with parks and open spaces, well above national and regional averages.
3.37 A Joint Neighbourhood Survey carried out in 2009 involving 6,600 residents (Neighbourhood Action Groups in partnership with Thames Valley Police) highlighted that parks and open spaces were for many residents the best aspect of living in Bracknell Forest, closely followed by access to nature and then health services.
3.38 It is not unreasonable to assume a similar percentage of new population growth attributed to new housing growth will reflect comparable percentages of use and satisfaction ratings. Therefore, demand for Parks and Gardens will continue to grow commensurate with population/housing growth in the Borough. The Council needs to ensure there is adequate capacity in the form of increasing existing capacity of existing provision and/or creating new public open spaces.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.39 The council should continue to protect, enhance and maintain existing semi- natural greenspaces and other passive OSPV provision. The council should optimise funding and income opportunities to enhance existing and new OSPV provision. It is also necessary to ensure new communities have access to passive OSPV. It is recommended that the community have a sense of ownership in the spaces that serve them, through for example; educating school children, encouraging volunteering and
28 promoting litter-pick campaigns. Continued enhancements to improve wildlife habitats and biodiversity should be prioritised.
Overall Passive and Active OSPV - quantity and quality
3.40 There are 351 open spaces of which 345 are identified within a Primary Typology with a further 6 spaces are in progress but as yet without a prescribed typology. The total amount of play, open space and sports facilities by each typology has been quantified in this audit. Map 1 below in Appendix B shows all the open spaces by their typologies. The total amount of open space includes land designated in the BFBLP as Open Space of Public Value (OSPV). OSPV is a borough-wide designation for existing provision and its quantity standards set the amount of new provision secured from new development. The assessment of quantity has been undertaken on the basis of the number of sites and size of provision, in relation to local population and a review of the site typology based on the ‘primary purpose’ of each site.
The number and overall typologies 3.41 The following table shows the number of open spaces within each typology by parish area. Maps are provided showing all the open spaces by their typologies can be found in Appendix B (their map number reference is found in the table below). The findings are:
• Bracknell contains the most open spaces, 167 in total, including two which is shared with Winkfield. • Winkfield has access to 44 open spaces (including 4 spaces shared with other parish areas). • The remaining four Parishes have over 30 open spaces each. • It should be noted that in addition to Table 3e there are 6 new spaces to come forward with new development of which 2 are in Binfield; 1 in Bracknell; 2 in Crowthorne and 1 in Warfield.
Table 3e – Parish Typologies Typology Parish Total A B C D E F G H I J K Binfield (Map 2) 1 12 1 4 5 2 1 3 1 3 33 Bracknell (Map 3) 9 34 15 32 17 25 8 7 16 2 165 Crowthorne (Map 4) 20 3 2 4 1 2 32 Sandhurst (Map 5) 2 10 8 2 7 1 1 6 37 Sandhurst / Crowthorne 1 1 Warfield (Map 6) 14 3 1 4 5 1 7 3 38 Winkfield (Map 7) 1 10 2 4 7 6 2 3 4 1 40 Winkfield / Bracknell 1 1 2 Winkfield / Crowthorne 1 1 Winkfield / Warfield 1 1 Total 13 103 21 53 37 50 12 1 17 34 9 350* There are a further 6 open spaces which are to be provided of being provided but as yet not with a typology
3.42 The following table shows the number of open spaces within each typology by ward. Maps are provided showing all the open spaces by their typologies can be found in Appendix B (their map number reference is found in the table below).The findings are:
• Binfield with Warfield contains the most open spaces; 44 in total.
29
• Central Sandhurst and College Town contain the least; 8 each. • Crowthorne contains the next most; 32 in total. • Six wards contain between 20 and 30 open spaces (Ascot, Great Hollands North, Hanworth, Priestwood and Garth, Warfield Harvest Ride and Wildridings & Central). • The remaining eight wards have between 10 and 19 open spaces each (Bullbrook, Crown Wood, Great Hollands South, Harmans Water, Little Sandhurst and Wellington, Old Bracknell, Owlsmoor and Winkfield and Cranbourne).
3.43 With regards to typologies:
• The typology with the most open spaces,103 in total, is B (Natural and Semi- Natural, including Urban Woodland), with Crowthorne having the most, 21 in total, and Central Sandhurst and Great Hollands South containing the least (only 1 each). • There are 50 open spaces each for typologies D and F (Children’s Play and School Playing Fields). • Typologies C, E and J (Green Corridors, Outdoor Sports and Amenity Greenspace) contain between 20 and 40 open spaces each. • The remaining four typologies (A, G, I and K) all have fewer than 20 open spaces each. • Binfield with Warfield has the widest variety of open spaces with at least one or each typology except Civic Spaces (H). • College Town, Little Sandhurst and Wellington and Owlsmoor wards have the least variety of typologies, with only four each.
Table 3f – Ward Typologies Typology Ward Total A B C D E F G H I J K Ascot (Map 8) 7 2 5 4 1 1 20 Binfield with Warfield (Map 9) 1 15 1 4 8 3 1 4 2 5 43 Bullbrook (Map 10) 2 4 3 4 1 14 Central Sandhurst (Map 11) 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 College Town (Map 12) 2 2 2 2 8 Crown Wood (Map 13) 6 2 5 1 3 17 Crowthorne (Map 14) 21 3 2 3 1 2 32 Great Hollands North (Map 30 15) 1 6 5 9 3 3 1 1 Great Hollands South (Map 15 16) 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 Hanworth (Map 17) 2 4 4 5 2 4 5 26 Harmans Water (Map 18) 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 15 Little Sandhurst and 13 Wellington (Map 19) 6 2 4 1 Old Bracknell (Map 20) 2 2 1 2 3 1 11 Owlsmoor (Map 21) 3 2 1 5 10 Priestwood & Garth (Map 22) 3 2 3 1 5 4 2 4 24 Warfield Harvest Ride (Map 25 23) 10 3 1 1 3- 5 1 Wildridings & Central (Map 21 24) 2 4 2 4 3 1 3 1 1 Winkfield and Cranbourne 18 (Map 25) 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 Total 13 103 21 53 37 50 12 1 17 34 9 350* *It should be noted that there are 6 further open spaces which are planned but not yet provided which have not been assigned a typology as yet and are therefore excluded from this table.
30
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.44 It is recommended that gaps in typology provision should be provided for. It may be that there are second or third typologies which fulfil the gap in provision. Also consideration should be given to other green infrastructure elements in the area which due to their size do not qualify for assessment in this study. It may be that these can be enhanced to satisfy gaps in provision. Finally, strategy should include diversifying some typologies where there is an excess to fill gaps on provision of another typology.
Overall Quantity Analysis 3.45 The following table assesses the overall quantity provision by Bracknell Forest ward on a per hectare basis using the latest ward population total from the mid–year estimates (Crown Copyright 2014). It can be found that:
• Overall, the borough is above the 4.3 ha/1000 standard for OSPV with 25.67 hectares per 1000 persons. • 15 out of 18 wards are above the standard. • Only three wards (Crown Wood, Owlsmoor and Priestwood and Garth) are below standard. • Crowthorne has the largest quantity (over 1000 hectares) at 191.2 hectares for every 1000 people in that ward. It should be noted that most of this land comprises the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area designation. • Owlsmoor contains the least amount (just over 5 hectares) at 0.99 ha / 1000. • Ascot has the second largest amount (almost 982 hectares) at 169.7ha / 1000. • Binfield with Warfield, Great Hollands North, Great Hollands South and Little Sandhurst and Wellington all have a standard of around 15-30 hectares per 1000 people.
Table 3g – Wards – OSPV totals Above / Sum of Area Ward HAs per below OSPV Ward (ha) Population 1000 standard Ascot 981.71 5785 169.70 Above Binfield with Warfield 124.34 8964 13.87 Above Bullbrook 41.53 6318 6.57 Above Central Sandhurst 65.09 5148 12.64 Above College Town 42.28 6510 6.49 Above Crown Wood 27.01 7890 3.42 Below Crowthorne 950.19 5271 180.27 Above Great Hollands North 204.25 7162 28.52 Above Great Hollands South 96.05 5037 19.07 Above Hanworth 44.18 8125 5.44 Above Harmans Water 39.30 8856 4.44 Above Little Sandhurst and Wellington 170.22 6036 28.20 Above Old Bracknell 27.16 5968 4.55 Above Owlsmoor 5.16 5229 0.99 Below Priestwood and Garth 26.52 7853 3.38 Below Warfield Harvest Ride 40.25 8220 4.90 Above Wildridings and Central 35.41 4834 7.33 Above Winkfield and Cranbourne 48.46 4819 10.06 Above Total 2969.11 118,025 25.16 Above
31
Caveats to findings 3.46 On the face of the results it looks like most wards have far in excess of the required standards for provision (4.3 hectares per 1000 persons). However, it may be that some provision seems excessive but in reality it also performs another function. This is true for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, in which excessive recreational activity causes problems for the habitat of three protected species of birds. Also, there are additional open space requirements which may have raised the amount of provision such as SANGs at 8 hectares per 1000 persons. Therefore, it might not be a straight forward answer that there is an excess of OSPV in a particular area.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.47 The amount of provision is a resounding success story and should be welcomed and cherished as a critical part of the Borough’s character. Given the caveats above, strategy should set out in detail where there may be excess of otherwise in the provision of OSPV. Where there are identified gaps in provision it is recommended that new provision is required where opportunities arise or access to existing provision is improved.
Quality Analysis 3.48 The following table provides the overall quality for each open space typology. Map 26 (below) and also in Appendix B, together with Tables A6 to A15 in Appendix A show the quality ratings for the Borough. Map 27 shows all the spaces with ratings good to excellent. Map 28 shows the spaces which rate as poor to moderate. The Council has implemented a progressive programme of quality improvements through the ‘Plus One Principle’ which has been effective in securing and channelling s106 funds to specific projects. However, government changes to how funding is secured such as s106 pooling restrictions, has undermined this objective by not allowing funds to be widely spread. The overall quality findings are:
• The average quality rating for seven out of the 11 typologies is Very Good. • Two typologies average Excellent quality ratings. • Two typologies were not quality rated.
Table 3h – Average quality ratings for the Typologies Average Quality Category Typology % Score Rating A Parks and Gardens 76 Excellent B Natural and semi-natural (includes urban woodlands) 65 Very Good C Green corridors 65 Very Good D Children and people (children's play) 69 Very Good E Outdoor sports facilities 74 Very Good F School facilities Average – Generally Good G Allotments 66 Very Good H Civic spaces N/A N/A I Cemeteries and churchyards 90 Excellent Amenity greenspace / landscape buffer / incidental 66 Very Good J verge K Drainage / SUDS / ponds 62 Very Good All Typologies 67 Very Good
32
33
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.49 It is clear that the overall average scores are in the higher quality ratings. This has validated the approach undertaken by the council following the original introduction of the ‘Plus One Principle’ for progressive enhancement of all open spaces. The ‘Plus One Principle’ should be continued but be supported by a funding regime based upon developing play, open space and sports quality enhancement projects. Emphasis should be placed upon a robust mechanism to calculate and fund improvements either through projects compliant with the pooling restrictions or securing financial contributions for maintenance which increase the capacity of spaces to serve new development.
3.50 Table 3i reviews overall quality for the Parish and Town Council areas:
Table 3i – Parish / Town Accessibility Parish / Town Commentary Conclusion Binfield (Map 29) In the south of the Parish the quality ranges There is high quality of provision in significantly with Bigwood (332) rated Poor the Parish with the majority of sites quality yet neighbouring Peacock Meadows being rated of Excellent or Very (162) of excellent quality and a group of sites Good quality. There is scope to in the south east of the Parish categorised as improve the overall quality by moderate. There are several excellent quality upgrading facilities at Bigwood. sites in the North of the Bracknell Town Parish that will supply the residential areas in the south of the Binfield Parish. Bracknell (Map 30) Provision across the Parish is generally of Other than scope for the Good, Very Good or Excellent quality. This is improvement of St Anthony’s Close particularly evident in larger sites. There are Play Area the overall quality in the only six sites classed as Moderate quality Parish is high. and only one site St Anthony’s Close play area (129) which is categorised at Poor quality. The sites classified as Very Good and Excellent are evenly spread across the Parish giving most residential areas good access to high quality Play, Open Space and Sports Facilities. Crowthorne (Map All provision in the Crowthorne parish has The new development coming 31) been identified as Excellent, Very good or forward at the Transport Research good quality. A large proportion of the SPA is Laboratory and Broadmoor Hospital situated in this Parish and therefore will lead to an upgrade in the quality residential development is concentrated in of provision of open space land at the south west of the Parish. these sites, ensuring further access to excellent quality facilities both in Crowthorne and surrounding parishes. Sandhurst (Map 32) Sandhurst Town Parish is characterised by Other than scope for the several large sites rated as Excellent, Good improvement of Gough’s meadow, or Very Good. The most densely populated overall quality in the Parish is high. area is in the centre of the Parish where there are lots of smaller sites which are also rates as good, Very Good or Excellent. There is one site; Gough’s Meadow (61) is classified as Poor in quality Warfield (Map 33) Provision for the ward is concentrated in the High quality provision is distributed south of the borough; all of the larger sites well throughout the ward. If further and most of the smaller sites other than development comes forward within Warfield Chase (144) are rated Very Good or the area there will be an opportunity Excellent quality. There is only one site of to increase provision with an
34
Parish / Town Commentary Conclusion moderate quality Garth Pond (59). Overall excellent benchmark for quality the provision within the Parish is of high already in place. quality and the sites are large enough to serve those living in the North of the Parish. Winkfield (Map 34) Play, Open Space and Sports Facilities in the The distribution of quality across Winkfield Parish are all rated as Good, Very the parish is even with no areas Good or excellent quality; with most sites lacking high quality provision. being of excellent quality. The quality of provision in neighbouring boroughs such as Windsor and Maidenhead is not noted. Residents living in the North of the parish may take advantage of facilities which are closer even though the quality of provision in the south of Winkfield Parish is high.
3.51 Table 3j reviews overall quality on a ward basis:
Table 3j – Ward Accessibility Ward Commentary Conclusion Ascot (Map 35) The north of Ascot ward has a number of Overall there is no shortage of high sites of excellent quality and one site rated as quality provision in the area. good. The residential area is concentrated in the north east of the ward; the sites which are closest to this area are all of high quality. In addition to this a large proportion of the ward is covered by Swinley Forest (132)) which is classified as Very Good quality. Binfield With This is a large ward covered by a number of Overall, excellent, very good and Warfield (Map 36) sites mainly to the south and west. Four sites good quality sites are distributed are rated as moderate quality and one Big well through the residential areas. Wood (332) as poor; these are in the south of the ward. Bullbrook (Map 37) Several excellent quality sites are situated There are no gaps in provision of within Bullbrook including Binfield Parish high quality facilities. Council Allotments (83) which covers a large proportion of the ward. There are no sites of poor quality and only one rated as moderate Beswick Gardens (292). Central Sandhurst There are several large sites in the north and Other than scope for the (Map 38) south of the ward all of which are good, very improvement of Gough’s meadow, good or excellent in quality. There is a lack of overall quality in the Ward is high. smaller high quality sites within the main residential area see Map 38. There are no sites rated as moderate but Gough’s Meadow (61) is rated poor in quality. College Town (Map There are few sites within the ward but all There is scope for provision of new 39) facilities are rated very good or excellent. high quality facilities to serve the Shepherd Meadows in the south of the ward residential area. is a large site which crosses the borough boundary but provides a high quality area easily accessible to residents in the west of the ward. Crown Wood (Map The majority of the POSS provision in this Overall there is an even spread of 40) ward is categorised as Good or Very Good good quality sites across the ward. with the Land north & west of Crown Row shops (77) rated Moderate in quality.. There is no provision classed as excellent, nor any rated as poor.
35
Ward Commentary Conclusion Crowthorne (Map The majority of the ward is covered by Overall, the quality of provision is 41) Swinley Forest (131) which is rated ‘Good’ in all Good or Very good with no area quality. There are also large sites rated as within the ward lacking access to Very Good. Development at TRL is likely to high quality facilities. upgrade the quality and quantity of provision in the ward as there is currently no provision rated excellent in quality. Great Hollands The quality of all sites in the Great Hollands There are no gaps in provision of South (Map 42) ward is either Very Good or Excellent. Great high quality facilities. Hollands Recreation Ground (62) is rated Excellent in quality and is large enough to serve the residential area within the ward which is all situated to the east. Easthampstead Park covers a large area and lies within Great Hollands South and North; it is rated as very good. Great Hollands There are a large number of sites in the Sites which are rated as excellent North (Map 43) Great Hollands North ward none are rated as are all situated in the north but are moderate or poor in quality. There are two large enough to supply residential sites to the east of the ward classified as areas throughout the ward with high Good; the larger sites in the ward are quality facilities. classified as Very Good or Excellent quality. Hanworth (Map 44) There is a range in quality of provision from There are no gaps in the area around Coral Reef (212) rated as provision of high moderate to South Hill Park (125) which is a quality facilities. large site rated as excellent quality. The ward is densely populated with many ‘very good quality sites distributed throughout residential areas. Harmans Water The ward is a residential area with several There is a wide range in quality of (Map 45) large sites rated as ‘very good’ in quality. The provision but the majority is high Parks (161) is situated well to provide access quality and of significant size to to high quality facilities for most residents. ensure provision of Very good or There is one larger excellent quality site excellent facilities for residents in Allsmoor Field (2) and a few smaller excellent the ward. sites Cunmore Way play area (36) and Oareborough Play area (98).There are two sites rated as moderate quality. Little Sandhurst and The residential area in the Little Sandhurst There are no gaps in provision of Wellington (Map 46) and Wellington ward is concentrated in the high quality facilities south east. All sites in the ward are of Good, Very Good or Excellent Quality. Particularly Ambarrow Court a large site in the west of the ward which is rated as excellent and will serve a large proportion of the population. Old Bracknell (Map The ward benefits from South Hill Park in the The quality of sites in the ward is 47) south which is a large site rated as very good predominantly good or very good. in quality. There are also several good quality facilities and part of Bill Hill (15) which ensures the north of the ward access to excellent quality provision. Owlsmoor (Map 48) Residential areas are concentrated to the There are no gaps in provision of south west of the ward, within which there high quality facilities are several small sites rated at Good, Very Good or Excellent. In the neighbouring ward to the west there is Wildmoor Heath (150/151) which is a larger site of Good and Very Good quality. Priestwood and The ward is characterised by smaller sites The centre of the ward within the
36
Ward Commentary Conclusion Garth (Map 49) other than Braybrooke Recreation Ground main residential area has the most (22) in the north east which is rated Very scope for improvement in quality of Good. There is a wide range in the quality of sites. provision; St Anthony’s Close Play Area(129) is rated poor whilst several sites are considered excellent in quality.
Warfield Harvest Generally the quality of provision is Very Overall high quality provision is Ride (Map 50) Good or Excellent with a few sites rated as evenly spread across the borough Good and Warfield Chase (14) as poor. with no evident gaps. Large sites such as Westmorland Park (147) in the north east and Garth Meadows (58) in the far west ensure there are sufficient high quality facilities to serve the large residential areas. Wildridings and Whilst there are several sites of Very Good There is scope for provision of new Central (Map 51) and Excellent quality; these are mainly high quality facilities to serve the concentrated to the south of the ward. Large residential development in the town sites Mill Pond (290) Wildridings Play Field centre. (152) and Bill Hill (15) ensure residents of Wildridings have access to high quality provision. The north of the ward is the Town Centre of Bracknell and hence only has a small amount of provision; namely Jubilee Gardens (72) however it is rated very good in quality. Winkfield and There is a cluster of sites in the south of the The sites that do exist are Cranbourne (Map ward which are rated as good, very good or consistently high in quality. There is 52) excellent. The ward is large and sparsely scope for provision of new high populated therefore residents in the north quality facilities to serve residents lack access to any sites. in the north of the ward.
Green Flag 3.52 In 2016 Green Flag Awards were granted to eight public open space areas in the Borough. The national award, handed out by environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy, recognises and rewards the best parks and green spaces across the country. A Green Flag flying overhead is a sign to visitors that the space boasts the highest possible standards, is beautifully maintained and has excellent facilities.
3.53 All of the sites listed in the table below have retained their Green Flag Award status, each successive year since after having first received the award. Map 53 shows the spaces with Green Flag status with Table A3 in Appendix A providing information about their awards. The Green Flag sites are:
• Snaprails Park (ref 124, typologies A, D and C). • Popes Meadow (ref 109, typologies A, B and D). • Lily Hill Park (83 / A and B). • South Hill Park (125, 126a, 126b, 127 / A, D and K). • Shepherd Meadows and Sandhurst Memorial Park (122, 118a, 118b / B, A, E, D and K). • Jock’s Lane Recreation Ground (71 / E, B, D). • Carnation Hall (27 / D, E and B). • Lock’s Ride Recreation Ground (85 / E and D).
37
38
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.54 The feedback provided by Green Flag judges should be used to improve the management of open spaces and the quality of management and maintenance plans. External judging of a few sites validates and benchmarks the standards applied internally to quality standard audits. It is one of the conditions of the Heritage Lottery Fund and Big Lottery Fund grants awarded to Lily Hill Park and South Hill Park restoration projects to apply for, achieve and retain Green Flag Award status following completion of grant funded works. Developing and reviewing management and maintenance plans for GFA sites to deadlines helps with improving the format, content and quality of all site management plans.
Green Infrastructure 3.55 The Council has commissioned work by the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre to assess Green Infrastructure (GI) provision across the Borough to support a Green Infrastructure Policy in the Comprehensive Local Plan. There are synergies between both pieces of work with the GI work focusing on the overall picture and links between green spaces and this work focusing on the existing spaces.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.56 This study, the Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and the GI work should be read and used together to align synergies especially when assessing and addressing gaps in open space provision or function. All pieces of work are recommended to work together to deliver local priorities and needs in terms of protecting, providing or enhancing new play, open space and sports provision and other types of green infrastructure.
Accessibility Auditing
3.57 The Borough Council has undertaken an accessibility audit of relevant open space area. The exercise used straight line distances and applies standards from relevant sources for reasonable walking or driving distances. The results are shown in the accessibility sections within the relevant chapters.
3.58 We have assumed that straight line distances are reduced by 40% to reflect that routes to open spaces are not straight-line distances. The 40% reduction is based on robust research by the Fields in Trust (FIT) in numerous areas using a representative sample of pedestrian routes. The following table shows these distance conversions:
Table 3k – Distance Conversions Time Metres Factor Reduction Metres (straight line to be (mins) mapped) 1 80 40% 50 (rounded from 48)
2 160 40% 100 (rounded from 96) 3 240 40% 140 (rounded from 144) 4 320 40% 190 (rounded from 192) 5 400 40% 240 10 800 40% 480 15 1200 40% 720 20 1600 40% 960 25 2000 40% 1200 30 2400 40% 1440
39
3.59 In terms of applying the conversion rates above to relevant standards, the Borough Council has reviewed each relevant typology against standards from relevant sources. It should be noted that accessibility to Typologies, H, I, J, K and some of the schools in Typology F were not deemed to be relevant, so not assessed. The following table shows the assessment criteria for the relevant typologies and their source/ rationale.
3.60 Generally, all residential areas are within accessible distance of a POSS site. Irrespective of site function, there are open space facilities across the borough which either already supply local areas or will provide POSS facilities if they can be secured for community use through an agreement to allow wider public access. Strategically the borough performs well against accessibility standards (see table below). The provision of several large, well-positioned, excellent quality facilities ensures the wider areas are well served. Local accessibility could be improved in some of the outer residential areas particularly the north of Winkfield and Warfield. Maps 54 to 61 show the catchment areas according to the various standards across the typologies. In certain cases there will be sites that provide accessible facilities as their secondary or tertiary function but are not shown on all maps.
40
Table 3L – Accessibility Standards OSPV Rationale Typology Accessibility Standards Type /Source A. Parks Active / 1 Local Access to a park and garden within 400m 400m Locally and Passive of home derived Gardens 2 Strategic Access to a destination park or open 4000m standard space within 4km based on experience B. Natural Passive 3 Local Access to Nature 5 minutes walk (240m) 240m Locally and Semi from all homes derived Natural standard (including based on urban existing woodlands) biodiversity character C. Green of the Corridors Borough 4 No person should live more than 500 metres 500m The from at least one area of accessible woodland Woodland of no less than 2 hectares in size. Trust 5 There should also be at least one area of 4000m (Space for accessible woodland of no less than 20 People – hectares within 4 kilometres (8 kilometre round- Targeting trip) of people’s homes. action for woodland access, Jan 2015) D. Children Active 6 LAP 100m Fields in and people 7 LEAP 400m Trust (FIT) (Children’s Standards 8 NEAP 1000m Play) (Guidance 9 Other: Muga, Skateboard park Teenage play, 700m for kickabout, paddling pool/splash pad etc. Outdoor E. Outdoor Active 10 All provision: Football, 1200m and Play – sports Cricket, Rugby Union, Hockey, Bowls, Tennis, Beyond facilities Baseball, Softball the six F. School Active 11 Selected schools whose pitch provision is also 1200m acre facilities used by the public standard, England)
41
Overall Availability and Management
3.61 Overall most typologies are available free of charge and open all day long, all year around. There are charges for some provision which limits availability for example sports pitch hire. Allotments are very cheap to hire but the limited amount make them difficult to access. Access by car to the Lookout and the forests beyond can be controlled by car park charging. However, on the whole the availability of facilities is good and either free of charge or cheap to access.
3.62 The open spaces are owned or managed by a range of providers. These include Bracknell Forest Council, the Town and Parish Councils, the Crown Estate, Charitable Trusts and private owners. Map 62 categorises the management of all the open spaces.
Overall Stage C Assessment of Supply Verses Demand
Current quantity standards 3.63 The current quantity standards for open space in the borough are:
• 4.3 hectares per 1000 persons (4.3ha/1000) of OSPV which comprise 2 hectares for Active OSPV and 2.3 for Passive OSPV5. • A minimum of 8 hectares per 1000 persons for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs)6. It should be noted that this standard is fixed by separate policy and guidance (see paragraph 3.75) and not for review in this study.
3.64 Historically the OSPV standard has delivered a high quality range of different provision throughout the Borough. The original concept was developed to create places to live, work and recreate as part of the New Towns movement. This was delivered in Bracknell New Town and carried forward from the early 1980’s until now. This is one of the outstanding successes of Bracknell New Town which has been replicated in the other parishes and Sandhurst Town. This borough-wide standard has been responsible for greening the urban landscape, and has improved the quality of life for residents. Every local survey of the population over the years has highlighted that the amount of green space is a major positive for the Borough.
Analysis of Active and Passive OSPV 3.65 A summary of the assessed Active and Passive OSPV has been undertaken in the table below as show on Map 63 in Appendix B with Maps 64 – 88 showing the relevant Active and Passive OSPV by each Parish and Ward. All relevant open spaces (using their primary typology) have been categorised either as Active or Passive OSPV. It should be noted that within these typologies some spaces contain elements of both, so it is not entirely possible to accurately quantify the provision of passive or active space in the Borough. Also some spaces are utilised as both Active and Passive and therefore it has been assumed that half of the area is Active and half Passive OSPV. These have been added to the respective areas for the Active and Passive OSPV giving an estimated amount for each. Using the 2014 mid–year population estimate of 118,025, the requirement for both Active and Passive (and overall OSPV) of this population has been calculated using the current standards for OSPV. The findings are:
5 Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Policy R4 (2002) 6 South East Plan Policy NRM6 (2009), Core Strategy Development Plan Document Policy CS14 (2008), Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (2012)
42
• There is more estimated Passive OSPV (2,302.13 hectares) than Active OSPV (704.92 hectares). • There is an excess in required OSPV (Active, Passive and Overall) when compared to the estimated population: o Just under 500 hectares for Active OSPV. o Over 2,000 hectares for Passive OSPV. o About 2,500 hectares for the total OSPV requirement. • It should be noted that of the passive total, a considerable amount of this is designated as the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area which requires additional open space provision (SANGs) at least a further 8 hectares per 1000 persons. • Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the borough does not need further Passive OSPV commensurate with the future growth of the Borough.
Table 3m – Overall Active / Passive OSPV Type Area Assume Estimated Requirement Surplus hectares 50/50 split Amount Provision amount for ‘both’ (hectares) per 1000 against (hectares) persons requirement 236.05 Active OSPV 671.32 724.51 (pop/1000 X +488.46 2 ha) 271.46 Passive OSPV 2191.41 2244.6 (pop/1000 X +1973.14 2.3 ha) Both 106.38 53.19 507.51 Total 2969.11 2969.11 (pop/1000 X + 2461.6 4.3 ha)
3.66 The following tables review each typology, their amount and provision per 1000 persons when compared to the mid-year population estimate (118,025 people). The assessment focuses on the primary typology only. Map 1 shows all these spaces by their typology and reference number. The findings are:
• Using the sum total of all the assessed sites, open spaces is provided at a standard of 26.09 hectares per 1000 persons. • Typology B has the largest amount of spaces (over 100) and area (over 2000 hectares) of all the typologies. It comprises nearly 70% of all the assessed open spaces at 18.15 ha/1000. • Typology E (Outdoor sports facilities) is the next largest typology by area (just under 500 hectares). • Sites comprising 17% of the total space at 4.33 ha / 1000. • With only 1 civic space in the borough (Typology H), this is the least represented typology. • Allotments have the next lowest least area (just under 6 hectares) comprising 0.19% of the total number of spaces at 0.05 ha / 1000. • Four other typology have low provision with each representing less than 1% of the total area (C, I, J and K).
43
44
Table 3n – Quantity by Typology – Maps 88-93 No. of Provision Typology Area (ha) % of Total sites per 1000 (ha) A Parks and Gardens (Map 88) 13 85.30 2.87% 0.72 Natural and semi-natural B (includes urban woodlands) 103 2123.19 71.51% 17.99 (Map 89) C Green corridors (Map 89) 21 28.44 0.96% 0.24 Children and people (children's D 53 47.45 1.60% 0.40 play) (Map 90) Outdoor sports facilities (Map E 37 456.74 15.38% 3.87 91) F School facilities (Map 91) 50 164.07 5.53% 1.39 G Allotments (Map 92) 12 5.80 0.20% 0.05 H Civic Spaces (Map 93) 1 0.07 0.00% 0.00 Cemeteries and churchyards I 17 15.27 0.51% 0.13 (Map 93) Amenity greenspace / J landscape buffer / incidental 34 32.91 1.11% 0.28 verge (Map 93) Drainage / SUDS / ponds (Map K 9 9.87 0.33% 0.08 93)
350 2969.11 100.00 25.16 Total
Comparison with FIT standards 3.67 The Fields In Trust standards recommends a set of quantity standards for prescribed typologies. The following table compares the FIT typology standards with the Bracknell Forest typologies. The findings are:
• The provision of parks and gardens is slightly below the FIT recommended standard (0.72 / 1000 persons verses 0.8 ha /1000). However, because there may be other spaces in other typologies which perform a similar Parks and Gardens role in the Borough, this does not warrant the Council to set a specific Parks and Gardens Typology standard. • The provision of Typologies B and C (18.39 hectares) is well in excess of the FIT Natural and semi-natural standard of 1.8 ha /1000. • Typology D at 0.36 hectares per 1000 persons is lower than the FIT standard of 0.55 ha /1000. However the Council’s strategy for delivering play areas is more focused on LEAPs and NEAPs rather than LAPs. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to set a specific Children’s Play Typology quantity standard. • Typology E (4.33 ha) is more than the equivalent FIT standards of 2.8 ha /1000. • Typology J (0.21 ha) is below the FIT standard of 0.6 hectares. The Council did not measure small spaces in this typology as there are too many to quantify. This means in reality the provision of amenity space in the Borough would exceed the FIT standard. The provision is more due to successful planning rather than a prescribed amount , meaning there is no need to set a specific quantity standard. • Overall, and coupled with the SANG standards, the current OSPV standard does not need to be raised to align with the FIT quantity standards.
45
Table 3o – Quantity by Typology compared with FIT standards Above / Provision Provision Typology FIT Typology Below per 1000 per 1000 standard Parks and Gardens Below FIT A Parks and Gardens 0.72 0.80 ha standard Natural and semi-natural B 17.99 Above FIT (includes urban woodlands) Natural and semi-natural 1.80 ha standard C Green corridors 0.24 Equipped/designated Children and people Play Areas (0.25 ha) Below FIT D 0.40 (children's play) Other outdoor provision 0.55 ha standard (0.30 ha) Playing pitches (1.2ha) Above FIT E Outdoor sports facilities 3.87 2.8 ha All outdoor sports (1.6ha) standard F School facilities 1.39 N/A N/A N/A G Allotments 0.05 N/A N/A N/A H Civic Spaces 0.00 N/A N/A N/A Cemeteries and I 0.13 N/A N/A N/A churchyards Amenity greenspace / Below FIT J landscape buffer / 0.28 Amenity Greenspace 0.60 ha standard incidental verge K Drainage / SUDS / ponds 0.08 N/A N/A N/A
25.16 ha 6.55 ha Total
3.68 There are many factors altering the amount of open space and facilities and how that could effect the raising or lowering the quantity standards provided with new development. For example, the main reasons to lower the quantitative amount are to optimise residential densities making land more efficient and the pressure on public finances to support the future maintenance of provision. Contrary to this, the need to increase physical activity is a reason to potentially increase standards. On balance, the New Town concept has proved to be very successful and valued in terms of the open space and recreation offer in that it has delivered a large variety of spaces over a period of time to provide ample leisure opportunities, amenity, visual and biodiversity for local residents to enjoy. The amount of OSPV sought coupled with the SANG requirements is correct.
3.69 On balance there is no overall justification to increase or lower the quantity standards for providing Open Space of Public Value in association with new development.
3.70 However, the way the 4.3 ha / 1000 standard is applied should be adjusted to ensure that a site can provide OSPV and/or SANG provision depending on the development in terms of the number of dwellings. The guidance is recommended to be adjusted (see Table10a) to state when normally OSPV can be required by:
• in-kind new provision on-site; or • in-kind new provision off-site; or • financial contributions are sought in-lieu of provision; or, • through a combination of in-kind provision and financial contributions.
Financial contributions and OSPV projects 3.71 It is widely accepted that in principle, new housing development produces more people which results in a greater pressure for new or enhanced recreational facilities. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that new residential development mitigates the demand
46
for new or improved recreational facilities that it creates. The new or improved recreational facilities will be primarily secured through s106 contributions although there may also be other funding streams such as grants or Community Infrastructure Levy funding.
3.72 The continued growth of the Borough in terms of more hosing and people means the need for more or improved OSPV provision which planning polices and guidance will need to continue to provide for its delivery.
3.73 The Council will secure appropriate financial contributions from residential development towards Open Space of Public Value through a project based approach. The Council cannot pool s106 contributions because there is aS106 obligation pooling restriction in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations 2010 (as amended) which restricts pooling contributions to 5 or less S106 Agreements. Therefore, many individual projects are listed in Chapter 10 which will be further developed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The costs of the individual projects will also be developed to which individual developments or groups of up to 5 developments in the vicinity of the projects will provided the funding.
3.74 The Council will accept the transfer of land subject to agreement with reasonable terms and conditions but given the need to ensure long term maintenance of the open space through a commuted maintenance sum. The calculation of this should take account of:
• Staff time and equipment. • Administration. • Inflation over time. • The lifetime of the development (80 to100 years).
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.75 The Council should produce a policy and guidance framework to set the thresholds for seeking contributions towards OSPV and provide a robust method for secure financial contributions from s106 Agreements.
Issues with existing quantity standards 3.76 Firstly and because Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Policy R1 was not saved, the definition of OSPV is not formally set out in policy. This needs addressing. Second, the existing quantity standards for OSPV (as set out in paragraph 3.60 above) have formed policy and guidance for a number of years which has resulted in successful delivery on the ground. Given the increasing demand for housing and the consequential demand or open space provision it would be very difficult to lower the OSPV standard without compromising demand for open space or lowering quality of life or residents. Therefore the overall standard for OSPV provision (at 4.3 hectares per 1000 persons) should remain. However there are some issues with applying this standard which need consideration as a result of the introduction of a SANG standard including:
• There has been relatively low provision of active open space. The standard of 2 hectares per 1000 people is lower than the Fields in Trust standard and securing such provision on large sites in recent years has been challenging because of the need to secure SANGs and passive OSPV (see below). However there is evidence of unmet demand for extra provision, especially for more football pitches (which has been established in The Playing Pitch Strategy. • The open space offer in the borough has increased for the benefit of protection the SPA, for residents and biodiversity. The impact of this has been both positive and negative - new open space is gained which is funded over a long period of time but at the same time more land is required for development because of the need to meet housing targets. Less open space provided on-site means less land is required for development. Higher
47
residential densities are more efficient in land use terms but this must be balanced against important elements of providing high quality development such as design, layout and quality of life.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.77 The following strategy quantity standard recommendations are:
1. Policy should define OSPV in terms of Active and Passive OSPV. 2. New residential development should provide 4.3 hectares per 1000 persons of OSPV comprising 2 hectares per 1000 persons Active OSPV and 2.3 hectares per 1000 person Passive OSPV. 3. New planning policies and guidance should set out more flexibility in applying quantity standards to ensure more active provision is provided including situations where a financial contribution can be sought in-lieu of on-site provision.
Develop projects to increase the capacity of open space and facilities 3.78 New development places pressure on the capacity of existing open space and facilities. Therefore, development should provide the necessary and related provision. It will be necessary whilst the s106 pooling restrictions are in place that projects to increases provision or the capacity of existing provision should be developed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.79 Strategy should focus on developing projects in the IDP for improving the capacity of open space and facilities needed from new development.
Links to Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) 3.80 The Thames Basin Heaths SPA (sites 25, 35, 131,150,151, 328, 365) is a network of heathland sites which are designated under law for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. As a consequence of the legislation protecting the site, the Borough Council must ensure that any plan adopted does not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area. To do so would be in breach of European and UK law. Therefore, alongside the production of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Site Allocations Local Plan, a Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPASPD has been adopted to show how all identified adverse effects on the SPA, resulting from these plans, will be avoided and/or removed. It has been established that new dwellings built within 7km of the SPA are likely to lead to a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA principally because this could lead to more SPA visitors and increased recreational effects. There is a presumption against any net increase in dwellings within 400m of the SPA as its effect on the SPA is unlikely to be able to be mitigated. New dwellings within 400m to 7km of the SPA are however required to provide mitigation as follows:
• The provision and in perpetuity management of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to attract new residents away from the SPA; and • A contribution toward the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Project to ensure coordinated visitor management across the SPA.
3.81 The SANG provision is through upgrading existing or providing new open spaces to a standard of at least 8ha/1,000 people. A major part of the SANG strategy includes the conversion of many existing open spaces which already comprise part of the existing Passive OSPV. The existing open spaces which have been converted to SANGs were originally delivered as Passive OSPV in accordance with the Council’s standard for provision
48
(2 .3 hectares per 1000 persons). The funding mechanism for these SANGs comprises of funding for SANG enhancements and maintenance and for the baseline management as Passive OSPV.
3.82 Currently due to changes in Government guidance, contributions for the baseline maintenance have not been secured from many housing developments. This has meant the Council using other sources of income to make up for the shortfall. This situation is unsustainable because of declining budgets and as a result the baseline quality of OSPV will be reduced. This would undermine the Councils SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy which has been agreed with NE. If open space requirements are reduced, SANG contributions will need to increase in order to ensure that developments are in compliance with the Habitats Regulations. Otherwise planning permissions would not be able to be granted. Two options are available to address the situation:
• Development makes a financial contribution towards off-site passive OSPV; or • Revise the SPA strategy (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPASPD), 2012) to increase the financial contributions towards SANGs.
How should the Borough Council respond to the findings? 3.83 The SPASPD will take time to undertake, possibly over a year so until then, the baseline quality of SANGs will continue to be eroded. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council introduces a financial contribution towards the maintenance of existing Passive OSPV in addition the SANG contributions for relevant development until such time the SPASPD has been revised and new SANG contributions are devised and secured.
Quality standards 3.84 This study assessed and rated the quality of most of the recreation provision in the Borough. The quality results vary from poor quality to excellent quality facilities across-the- board. This provides an effective baseline for obtaining and targeting resources to progressively improve their quality. This clearly suggests the continuation of the strategy to provide progressive improvement in the quality of existing recreational facilities. The ‘Plus One Principle’ as introduced in the Borough Council’s previous (PPG17) study and subsequently adopted is an achievable, realistic and reasonable approach to improving quality. This should be refined to reflect:
• The current challenging financial climate. • The S106 Obligations pooling restrictions as imposed by Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). • The guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance which restricts planning obligations for residential developments under 10 dwellings to necessary on-sit