havant open spaces plan and ppg17 assessment · 2013-09-30 · kit campbell associates, edinburgh:...

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Havant Open Spaces Plan and PPG17 Assessment 1

Havant Open Spaces Plan and PPG17Havant Open Spaces Plan and PPG17Havant Open Spaces Plan and PPG17Havant Open Spaces Plan and PPG17

AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

ContentsContentsContentsContents 1: The Need for This Plan1: The Need for This Plan1: The Need for This Plan1: The Need for This Plan 4444

Introduction 4

The Context for the Plan 6

Methodology 7

The Content of the Plan 7

Format of the Plan 8

Acknowledgements 8

2: The Policy Context2: The Policy Context2: The Policy Context2: The Policy Context 9999

Introduction 9

The National Context 9

The Local Context 10

The Local Plan 11

Comment 11

3: Local Needs3: Local Needs3: Local Needs3: Local Needs 14141414

Introduction 14

The Citizens’ Panel 14

Stakeholder Interviews 15

Conclusions 16

4: Audit Report4: Audit Report4: Audit Report4: Audit Report 17171717

Introduction 17

Audit Findings 20

Benchmarking 23

Setting Priorities 24

Demonstrating Continuous Improvement 25

5: Quality Standards5: Quality Standards5: Quality Standards5: Quality Standards 27272727

Introduction 27


6: Accessibility Standards6: Accessibility Standards6: Accessibility Standards6: Accessibility Standards 29292929

Introduction 29

Distance Thresholds for Havant 29

7: Accessibility Assessment7: Accessibility Assessment7: Accessibility Assessment7: Accessibility Assessment 32323232

Introduction 32

Conclusions 33

Map Analysis 34

8: Quantity Standards8: Quantity Standards8: Quantity Standards8: Quantity Standards 79797979

Introduction 79

The Population of the Borough 79

Conclusions of the Analysis 81

9: Issues and Options9: Issues and Options9: Issues and Options9: Issues and Options 83838383

Introduction 83

The Pattern of Provision 84

Quality Issues 89

Management Issues 96

10: Conclusions and Recommendations10: Conclusions and Recommendations10: Conclusions and Recommendations10: Conclusions and Recommendations 100100100100

Introduction 100

The Context for the Plan 101

The Vision Underpinning the Plan 102

The Plan’s Aims 103

The Plan’s Key Objectives 103

Annual Delivery Plan 105

Key Target 105

Strategic Spaces and Facilities 107

Strategic Priorities 107

Kit Campbell Associates

Open Space, Sport and Recreation Consultants

Chuckie Pend24A Morrison Street

Edinburgh EH3 8BJ

Telephone 0131-229 1006


21 January 2006


1: The Need for This Plan1: The Need for This Plan1: The Need for This Plan1: The Need for This Plan

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction When people step outside their home, or place of work,

they enter the public realm – the streets, squares and

greenspaces which are an essential component of our

villages, towns and cities. If well designed and maintained,

they contribute hugely to making somewhere an attractive

place in which to live. This is something which the

Georgians, in particular, understood well, with their

squares and crescents, all facing networks of attractive

greenspaces.

Greenspace planning, however, has been much neglected

since Georgian times, with a few exceptions including the

great Victorian parks, the Garden City movement and of

course the New Towns. Management and maintenance

have also suffered as a result of Compulsory Competitive

Tendering for grounds maintenance in the mid eighties.

The effect has been sharply to reduce the cost of

maintaining parks and greenspaces and too many are now

maintained by operatives using machines rather than

gardeners using knowledge and skill.

At the same time, there has been an increase in vandalism

and anti-social behaviour. One result has been that the

quality of the public realm has declined significantly in just

twenty or thirty years. But in the past 4-5 years, a new

greenspace movement has emerged in the UK which

champions the value of networks of high quality

greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities. Reversing

the trend of the three decades will take some time, but the

Government has recognised the problem and, with the

publication of Planning Policy Guidance PPG17, Open


Space, Sport and Recreation, requires planning authorities

to undertake assessment of needs and opportunities in

their area. It has also introduced “Liveability” funding, with

Havant one of the first tranche of councils to benefit, and

the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister now has a mantra

of “Cleaner, Safer, Greener” for its work on building

sustainable communities.

The simple fact is that high quality, accessible greenspaces

help to make somewhere an attractive place in which to

live and work. There is ample (and growing) evidence that

they help to boost land values for properties in their

vicinity and this in turn helps to attract development and

economic activity from which everyone can benefit.

This is a great opportunity to reassert the importance of

providing high quality greenspaces and then ensuring that

they remain of high quality by managing them properly.

Effective provision and good management and

maintenance are different sides of the same coin and one

without the other is likely to be a waste of time and

resources. Almost all of the cost of managing and

maintaining open spaces in the Borough is met from

taxation. As there are many other competing priorities for

resources, there is an obvious need to ensure value for

money. Havant is typical of other councils in that it has

had to cut back on the maintenance of its greenspaces.

However, the impacts of these cutbacks are inevitably high

profile as local residents, and visitors, see them every day.

They have also led, perhaps indirectly, to a growing

concern amongst Borough residents for a better local

environment, exemplified, for example, by the way in

various “Friends” groups formed to help protect and

manage specific spaces within the Borough.

The grounds maintenance works funded by the Borough

Council cost some £950,000 in 2004-5. This equated to a

little over £8 per year or 2.2p per day for each local

resident. The annual cost of the Borough‘s greenspaces to

local residents is therefore roughly equivalent to buying a

daily newspaper once every three weeks. We are confident

they will see this 2p per day as astonishingly good value

for all of the parks, pitches, play areas, verges and other

greenspaces maintained by the Council to which they have


access, in most cases without charge.

A second opportunity is to make better use of planning

agreements. Increasingly local authority greenspace and

sport and recreation services are seeing them as an

important element of their capital budget. Indeed, Sport

England actively encourages and even expects councils to

use them to provide sport and recreation facilities. Its

approach is a little simplistic in that it tends to ignore the

fact that sport is only one of the many forms of provision

that might be funded through planning agreements and

the pot of gold at the end of the development rainbow is of

finite size. But what this actually illustrates is the

importance of having in place a clear policy basis for

planning agreements and a plan for using developers’

contributions to best effect.

This is the background to this Open Spaces Plan and PPG17

Assessment for Havant. It can be summed as relating to:

• The need to comply with Government planning

guidance

• The need to bring planning and management together

to ensure that the Borough is an attractive place in

which to live, work and play or to visit and deliver the

aims set out in the Borough’s Community Strategy and

Council’s Corporate Strategy see below)

• The need to match aspirations with resources

The Context for theThe Context for theThe Context for theThe Context for the

PlanPlanPlanPlan

Not all strategies and plans are of equal importance. The

most important, obviously, are international plans and

targets, such as Local Agenda 21 and Kyoto Treaty,

followed by UK Government, regional and then local ones.

For obvious reasons, aims and objectives of higher level

plans and strategies should “cascade” down to lower ones

and set the context for them. If they do not, planning for

the future is disjointed and no-one can be quite sure what

their priorities should be.

This Plan is very much a local one, of specific relevance to

Havant. The local context for it is set primarily by the

Community Strategy, the Council’s Corporate Strategy and

the Local Plan. The Community Strategy, Creating a Better

Future – Partnership in Action, sets the overall framework


for all other plans and strategies for the Borough. Its key

aims include “strengthening our economy”, “enhancing our

environment”, “promoting a healthier community” and

“promoting social wellbeing”. High quality, well located

greenspaces can help achieve all of these things.

The Council’s Corporate Strategy sits beneath the

Community Strategy in the “planning cascade”. It sets out

the Council’s role in delivering the Community Strategy

aims and highlights the two areas in which the Council will

take the lead: “strengthening our economy” and “enhancing

our environment”. The Council’s overall vision is for a

“Cleaner, Safer, More Prosperous Borough”.

Finally, the role of the Local Plan, to be superseded in due

course by the Local Development Framework) is to be a

delivery mechanism for the land use elements of the

Community Strategy. Its policies have an important role in

protecting those greenspaces and sports facilities that

meet local needs and ensuring that development and

community infrastructure, such as greenspaces, are in an

appropriate balance.

MethodologyMethodologyMethodologyMethodology We summarise the methodology used to prepare the Plan

in Appendix A.

The Content of theThe Content of theThe Content of theThe Content of the

PlanPlanPlanPlan

In the planning cascade, this Plan sit immediately

underneath the Council’s Corporate Strategy and

development plan, on a par with other Borough-wide plans

such as those dealing with health, culture and housing.

It:

• Reviews the amount, distribution and quality of

existing provision

• Identifies where there is a need for more or better

provision and the types of enhancements which will

benefit existing facilities and spaces most

• Suggests appropriate provision standards for the

Borough Council to use as part of the planning process

• Suggests how to tackle the key issues relating to open

space, sport and recreation provision facing the

Borough Council and its partners

• Recommends priorities for the future


What is “Open Space”?What is “Open Space”?What is “Open Space”?What is “Open Space”?

The Plan uses the definition of “open space” given in

PPG17:

“… all open space of public value, including not just

land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals,

lakes and reservoirs which offer important

opportunities for sport and recreation and can also

act as a visual amenity”.

Format of the PlanFormat of the PlanFormat of the PlanFormat of the Plan This summary sets out the main elements of the Plan and

is complemented by additional supporting material in the

following appendices:

A Methodology

B The Policy Context

C Local Views, Local Needs

D The Audit Process

E Audit Results

F Derivation of Distance Thresholds

G Accessibility Assessment

H Dwellings within the Distance Thresholds of different

forms of provision

I Quality Standards

J Census data

K Quantity assessment

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Consultants undertaking an assignment such as this have

necessarily to depend on assistance from a wide range of

people for information, guidance and support. We wish

particularly to thank Dawn Baxendale, Jo Penney, Colin

Rowland and Andy Paffett in the Community Group, Roger

Jenness in Planning and Carole Samuda, the Council’s

Consultation Officer, but most especially the members of

the Citizen’s Panel and representatives of local

organisations who gave up their time to help by answering

our questions and supplying information. We also thank

the Members of the Council’s Environmental and

Community Board for their positive response to a

presentation of the broad conclusions of our work.


2: The Policy Context2: The Policy Context2: The Policy Context2: The Policy Context

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction The first step in preparing a plan such as this is to identify

the policy context within which it will be set. For obvious

reasons, the more that different plans and strategies work

to the same broad long term aims the better, as this will

help to ensure that resources are used as effectively as

possible to deliver desirable outcomes.

Accordingly we have reviewed a number of national,

regional, county and Borough-wide plans and strategies

and set out the results in full in Appendix B. This chapter

highlights the most significant points.

The National ContextThe National ContextThe National ContextThe National Context Government policy in relation to green space provision has

come a very long way in a very short time. The Office of

the Deputy Prime Minister has adopted a strapline of

“Cleaner, Safer, Greener” for its work in the area of creating

prosperous, inclusive and sustainable communities for the

21st century – places where people want to live, that

promote opportunity and a better quality of life for all. It is

under this broad agenda that Havant has been one of only

27 authorities in England to have received “Liveability”

funding. Part of the Government’s approach is to require

local authorities to concentrate on driving up the quality of

much local greenspace provision. Related to this, in future

Havant will have to report regularly on the amount of

greenspace in its area which meets the Green Flag

standard. Accordingly Havant, like other councils, will

have to pay greater attention to quality and accessibility of

greenspaces in future.


The Local ContextThe Local ContextThe Local ContextThe Local Context In the Havant context, the Community Strategy sets out the

broad aims that the Havant Local Strategic Partnership has

adopted and therefore provides the key guide to local

priorities. The Strategy includes five aims to which

implementation of this Plan will contribute:

• Making a safer community

• Enhancing our environment

• Promoting a healthier community

• Promoting social wellbeing

• Working to engage young people

The broad purpose of this Plan is to ensuring that open

spaces across the Borough are well located, well designed

and well maintained. The ways that implementing it will

contribute to the achievement of the community strategy

aims is by:

• Enhancing the distinctiveness and interest of spaces

and facilities across the Borough, many of which are

“samey” at present

• Maximising the use of green and other open spaces,

thereby making the whole outdoor environment in the

Borough safer

• Progressively raising the quality of green and other

open spaces across the Borough, thereby making the

Borough a more attractive area in which to live, work

and take part in leisure activities

• Encouraging participation in sport and physical

recreation in green and other open spaces, thereby

raising levels of physical activity and promoting health

• Developing a programme of events in green and other

open spaces thereby bringing people together and

generating pride in the Borough

• Engaging young people in the use and management of

green and other open space, thereby reducing levels of

vandalism and anti-social behaviour and reducing the

fear of crime

The Council’s Corporate Strategy vision for a “cleaner,

safer, more prosperous Borough” relates directly to both

the Community Strategy and the Government’s “Cleaner,

Safer, Greener” agenda. It is based on three Foundation

Strategies, one of which is “enhancing our environment”.


This Plan helps to flesh out what this will entail in practice.

The Local PlanThe Local PlanThe Local PlanThe Local Plan The Local Plan sets out a number of broad aims, including

some to which implementation of this plan can make a

significant contribution:

• Urban regeneration

• Community development

• Town District and Local Centres

• Transport

• Environment

The Recreation Chapter of the Local Plan includes a

number of specific policies which are directly relevant to

the Open Spaces Plan, including:

• Countryside and coastal recreation development

• Protection of the Staunton Country Park

• Recreation provision at Campdown

• Beachlands

• Environmental qualities of open space

• Protection of children’s play spaces

• Protection of playing fields and courts

• New open space

• Playing space related to new housing development

• Allotments

• Leisure routes

The recreation policies in the Plan are complemented by

Supplementary Planning Guidance on the Provision and

Improvement of Playing Space for New Housing

Development (November 2004). It sets out the Council will

assess the amount of playing space required in new

residential developments of 5 dwellings or more, based on

the National Playing Fields Association Six Acre Standard.

As this is not PPG17-compliant there is also a commitment

that the Borough Council will review and amend the SPG

following completion of this Open Spaces Plan.

CommentCommentCommentComment Strategies and plans are not an end in themselves but a

means to an end. Implementation of them is therefore

vitally important. However, we are well aware that the

Borough Council’s finances are very tight which means it

needs to focus its efforts and resources where they will


generate the greatest results. While this Plan is necessarily

wide in scope, and should ideally be seen and

implemented as a whole, we have therefore set out within

it where we suggest the Council’s strategic priorities in

relation to open space, sport and recreation should lie. We

also have to add, however, that leaving large parts of this

plan “on the shelf” is not a sensible or realistic option. The

main reasons for this are:

• The need for the Council to report to Government on

the success of its “liveability” projects and ensure that

they deliver sustainable long term benefits and are not

merely a “quick fix” which is then neglected

• The importance that local communities place on the

quality of their environment

• The fact that the Government will monitor the Council’s

performance partly through its effectiveness at

delivering the “Cleaner, Safer, Greener” national agenda


3: Local Needs3: Local Needs3: Local Needs3: Local Needs

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction We have sought to establish local views in two main ways:

a special survey of the Council’s Citizens Panel and

interviews with local stakeholders. We give full details of

the results of these consultations in Appendix C and

summarise the main points identified through them briefly

below.

The Citizens’ PanelThe Citizens’ PanelThe Citizens’ PanelThe Citizens’ Panel We used the Citizens’ Panel survey to establish local

residents’ general views on the quantity and quality of

local open space, sport and recreation provision. The

Council very kindly analysed the results of the Panel survey

for us and presented them by Council ward. However, as

wards are designed primarily for administrative purposes

and do not provide a sound basis for planning, we have

aggregated the results by Havant’s Community Board

areas. In summary:

• Emsworth residents see a need for more and better

teenage facilities, more churchyards and cemeteries,

parks and gardens, and play areas for 8-12 years olds.

A slim majority would also like more play areas for

under 8s, greenspaces in housing areas, changing

pavilions, and public tennis courts.

• Havant and Bedhampton residents see a need for more

and better teenage facilities, play areas for both 8-12

years olds and under 8s and changing pavilions.

• Hayling Island residents would like to have better


changing pavilions and teenage provision and more

tennis courts.

• Leigh Park residents see a need for more teenage

facilities and play areas for both 8-12s and under 8s

and changing pavilions.

• Waterlooville North residents see a need for more

teenage facilities, play areas for both 8-12 year olds

and under 8s, parks and gardens, changing pavilions

and greenspaces in housing areas.

• Waterlooville South residents see a need for more

teenage facilities, parks and gardens, play areas for 8-

12 years olds and under 8, changing pavilions,

recreation grounds and public tennis courts.

Across the Borough, therefore, residents see a particular

need for more and better teenage and play provision and

changing pavilions. In some areas, they also identified a

need for more or better parks and gardens and tennis

courts or recreation grounds.

Stakeholder InterviewsStakeholder InterviewsStakeholder InterviewsStakeholder Interviews Our stakeholder interviews involved representatives of

conservation and “Friends” groups, allotment societies and

cricket, football and rugby clubs. The main points from

these consultations included:

• The growing “fragility” of conservation groups and their

concentration in the more prosperous parts of the

Borough

• A desire amongst allotment societies for better site

facilities such as water supplies and toilets.

• The Council’s maintenance of cricket pitches is seen to

have improved in the last couple of years but is

thought not to be as good as it was five or so years

ago. There is a real lack of junior and women’s cricket

in some clubs.

• There has been a decline in demand for adult football

over the past few years, offset to some extent by more


demand for mini-soccer and junior football. There

seems to be little or no women’s football and a high

drop-out rate amongst boys when they leave school.

• Havant Rugby is thriving with a large membership

which includes junior and men and women players.

However, it is increasingly constrained by the capacity

of its Hook Lane ground.

ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions The main local needs we have identified include a desire

for:

• Better pitches and (especially) changing

accommodation

• Better play provision for children

• Better provision for teenagers

• Qualitative enhancements to parks and gardens


4: Audit Report4: Audit Report4: Audit Report4: Audit Report

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction With valuable assistance from the Council’s Open Spaces

Manager, we have audited a total of 213 spaces and

facilities across the Borough as follows:

• Allotments 15

• Bowling greens 7

• Civic spaces 5

• Equipped play 55

• Multi-functional greenspaces 106

• Pitches and courts 25

• Total 213

The audit process, which we describe in Appendix D, is

designed to generate comparative information on different

sites across the Borough for three main purposes:

• To provide an overview of the overall quality and value

of spaces and facilities, compared with the quality

standards and, if required, the results of similar audits

in other areas

• To provide the Borough Council with a useful tool to

help it decide its priorities for enhancements

• To provide the Borough Council with a reasonably

objective way of demonstrating continuous

improvement in the quality of its spaces and facilities

We have used a comprehensive range of criteria to assess

the quality and value of each space or facility included in

the audit. In this context “value” is not monetary value, but

relates to value to people and wildlife. The final result is a


percentage score and a series of sub-scores for different

features or characteristics. These sub-scores highlight the

improvements required to spaces, if any, and provide a

means of determining priorities in a reasonably objective

manner. They aim to compare spaces and facilities against

good practice, not “perfection”. Accordingly a score of

100% does not indicate that a site cannot be improved, but

simply that it is of a good standard and fit for purpose as it

is at present.

We have used the scores to identify high/low quality and

high/low value spaces, using the average score as the cut-

off point between high and low. It is actually possible to

set any score the Council wishes and so we have also

shown the impact of setting the cut-off point at 75% - the

level that indicates broadly whether spaces or facilities

meet the recommended quality standards.

Linking the value and quality assessments from the audit

together serves two main purposes: it provides a first

identification of those spaces which the Council should

protect through the planning system and it identifies those

spaces, and indeed settlements, which should be a priority

for greenspace enhancements. In order to do this, the

appendices classify each space in one of four groups:

• ProtectProtectProtectProtect: those spaces are of high value and above

average quality

• Protect and enhance qualityProtect and enhance qualityProtect and enhance qualityProtect and enhance quality: those spaces of high value

but lower than average quality. It should always be

possible to improve quality.

• Seek to enhance value if possibleSeek to enhance value if possibleSeek to enhance value if possibleSeek to enhance value if possible: those spaces of low

value but higher than average quality. This may, but

will not always, require a change to some other form of

greenspace which will be more valuable to local people

and help to deliver the Council’s objectives more

effectively than the present space. If it is not possible

to enhance value, the Council should review the space.

• ReviewReviewReviewReview: those spaces of low value and lower than

average quality. These spaces may require

enhancement of both quality and value; alternatively,

they may offer opportunities for development in order

to generate funds for the enhancement of other spaces

of greater value to local communities.


“Review” is not simply a euphemism for “sell”. The process

the Council should use to review sites is:


Is there a viable development use for

the review site which is acceptable in

terms of wider planning policy?

NoNoNoNo

Retain

the site

YesYesYesYes

Is there, or could there be, adequate

alternative provision of the same type

of greenspace within the distance

threshold of the site with higher

value, or potential value, to the local

community?

NoNoNoNo

Retain

the site

YesYesYesYes

Is there a shortfall of any other forms

of greenspace within the distance

threshold of the site for which it

might be suitable?

NoNoNoNo

Consider

disposal

YesYesYesYes

Is the site suitable for those form(s)

of greenspace for which there is an

identified deficiency in the area?

NoNoNoNo

Consider

disposal

YesYesYesYes

Retain the site and convert it to the

most appropriate alternative form of

greenspace use when resources allow

Appendix K gives a summary of the audit scores and we

summarise the main findings from the audit in the

remainder of this chapter.

Audit FindingsAudit FindingsAudit FindingsAudit Findings AllotmentsAllotmentsAllotmentsAllotments

The summary scores for allotments are

QualityQualityQualityQuality ValueValueValueValue

• Minimum 11% 20%

• Average 48% 54%

• Maximum 82% 73%

The average quality scores are were reduced particularly by

four sites which are currently untenanted – Conigar Road,

High Lawn Way, Riders Lane and Victoria Road – all of


which scored very poorly. Most of the other sites apart

from Hooks Lane scored reasonably well and this leads to

the following initial policy conclusions, using the average

scores as the cut-off between high and low quality and

value:

• Protect 9

• Protect and enhance quality 2

• Seek to enhance value 0

• Review the need for the site 4

Only one site – Purbrook East – scored above 75% for

quality. Accordingly the remainder of the Borough’s

allotments do not meet the quality standard, with the main

shortcomings being:

• Accessibility, especially for people with disabilities

• On-site facilities such as water supplies, composting

arrangements and toilets

Bowling GreensBowling GreensBowling GreensBowling Greens

The summary scores for bowling greens are


• Minimum 94% 88%

• Average 97% 97%

• Maximum 100% 100%

Accordingly, the Borough’s bowling greens are generally in

excellent condition and the Council should protect all of

them from development.

Equipped PlayEquipped PlayEquipped PlayEquipped Play

The summary scores for play areas, using the average

scores as the cut-off point between high and low quality

and value, are


• Minimum 43% 21%

• Average 72% 66%

• Maximum 97% 100%


Most of the play areas scored quite well, with the minimum

scores being slightly abnormal. Only three sites scored

less than 50% for quality (Diana Close, Prospect Lane and

Longwood Park) but eight for value. This leads to the

following initial policy conclusions:

• Protect 21




We have assessed the best sites in terms of quality as

Fulmer Walk in Wecock and the Old Choir School on

Hayling; the most valuable as St Clare’s in Leigh Park.

Overall, 24 sites achieved at least a 75% quality score and

23 at least a 75% value score.

Multi-functional greenspaces (MFGS)Multi-functional greenspaces (MFGS)Multi-functional greenspaces (MFGS)Multi-functional greenspaces (MFGS)

The summary scores for multi-functional greenspaces

(amenity greenspaces, churchyards and cemeteries, parks

and gardens and natural greenspaces) are


• Minimum 36% 41%

• Average 61% 74%

• Maximum 92% 97%

This indicates that most spaces scored well, although

better for value than quality. Generally speaking, however,

the best spaces were Staunton Country Park, churchyards

and natural greenspaces; other forms of greenspace –

essentially the Borough parks and amenity spaces – were

less good. Using the averages scores as the cut-off point

between high and low quality or value leads to the

following initial policy conclusions:

• Protect 38




Only 24 of the 106 spaces achieved a quality score of 75%

or over but 54 a value score of 75% or more. From this it


is clear that the Council needs to improve the quality of

many of the Borough’s spaces.

Pitches and CourtsPitches and CourtsPitches and CourtsPitches and Courts

The summary scores for pitches and courts are:


• Minimum 67% 33%

• Average 81% 64%

• Maximum 90% 100%

Based on a cut-off point set at the average quality and

value scores, this leads to the following initial policy

conclusions:

• Protect 8




Overall, only one site failed to achieve the desirable

minimum quality score of 75% - Purbrook School. Overall,

therefore, the Borough’s pitches are its best quality

greenspaces. The best site is Havant Park.

BenchmarkingBenchmarkingBenchmarkingBenchmarking We have undertaken similar audits in a number of other

council areas using more or less the same audit forms. As

a result we are able to provide some benchmarking

information which allows the Council to compare the

quality of its spaces and facilities with those in other areas.

The areas for which we have such audit scores and broadly

similar in nature to Havant are:

• Hart in NE Hampshire

• Mid Sussex in West Sussex

• West Wiltshire in Wiltshire

The table below summarises Havant’s audit scores

compared with the scores in these other areas:


Havant Hart MidSussex

WestWilts

Havantscores as %

of average

for other

areas

Allotments Minimum quality scores 11% 47% 25% 33% 31%

Average quality scores 48% 47% 45% 43% 107%

Maximum quality scores 82% 47% 55% 52% 160%

Minimum value scores 20% 50% 44% 41% 44%

Average value scores 54% 50% 56% 60% 98%

Maximum value scores 73% 50% 68% 73% 115%

Bowls – the green Minimum quality scores 94% 78% 75% 79% 122%



Bowls – changing Minimum quality scores 100% 29% 75% 71% 171%






Equipped Play Areas Minimum quality scores 43% 47% 46% 44% 94%






MFGS Minimum quality scores 36% 35% 30% 30% 114%






P&C – sports facilities Minimum quality scores 60% 55% 41% 43% 129%



P&C – changing Minimum quality scores 68% 33% 0% 0% 618%



P&C – overall Minimum quality scores 67% 53% 43% 31% 158%






On this basis, Havant compares very favourably with these

other areas.

Setting PrioritiesSetting PrioritiesSetting PrioritiesSetting Priorities The audit scores provide the Borough Council with a clear

means of identifying priorities for enhancements. For

obvious reasons, sites or facilities with a low score should

generally be given a higher priority than those with a high


score. However, it will also be appropriate to review the

need for those sites with very low scores using the

approach summarised above.

DemonstratingDemonstratingDemonstratingDemonstrating

ContinuousContinuousContinuousContinuous

ImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovement

All local authorities are under pressure from the

Government to demonstrate continuous improvement in

everything they do. The audit database provides Havant

with one means of doing so in relation to greenspaces

across the Borough. If it repeats a proportion of the audit

each year – say 20%, so as to repeat the whole of the audit

on a five-year cycle – the average scores will change

slightly. If they rise – as they will if the Council enhances

those spaces or facilities with the lowest scores – it will be

able to use them to demonstrate that it is monitoring the

quality and value of provision in its area and also to

demonstrate steady improvement. However, the higher the

baseline average score, or the higher that the Borough sets

its sights, the more it will have to do to achieve its targets.

What is clear is that the Council’s first priority should be to

enhance those spaces which are below par, rather than

encourage or require developers to create more of them.


5: Quality Standards5: Quality Standards5: Quality Standards5: Quality Standards

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction The purpose of quality standards is to set out the quality

of provision the Council wishes to see in its area. Such

standards have two main uses:

• They provide a benchmark for the Council to assess

and compare the quality of different facilities of the

same type within its area as an aid when determining

priorities for improvement or changes to management

regimes. Given that it will not always be possible to

achieve all aspects of the quality standards – for

example because of a lack of resources – they are an

aspirationaspirationaspirationaspiration for the quality of existing provision. As such

they should be challenging, but broadly achievable, and

the Council should aim to achieve them wherever it is

practicable to do so.

• They set out the Council’s requirements as a guide for

developers on the quality of provision the Council will

expect them either to provide or fund. In this context,

quality standards are a requirementrequirementrequirementrequirement, although they

must obviously be applied in a way which is reasonable

given the specific circumstances of a proposed

development.

We have derived each of the recommended quality

standards from examples of best practice, such as the

Green Flag Award criteria for parks or published advice,

coupled with our experience and the results of the audit.

For consistency, we set out the draft standards in

Appendix E under six standard headings:


• General characteristicsGeneral characteristicsGeneral characteristicsGeneral characteristics: the “first impressions” that a

space or facility is likely to create for visitors. For

example, does it appear welcoming and safe? Does it

have a “cared for” appearance? Does it have a

character of its own, and enhance the area in which it is

set, or is it simply a bland, featureless “green desert”?

• AccessibilityAccessibilityAccessibilityAccessibility: this covers criteria such as “usability”.

For example, how suitable is the space or facility for

use by people with disabilities? How well is it linked to

the local footpath or cycleway network? Are the

entrances obvious?

• Planting and biodiversityPlanting and biodiversityPlanting and biodiversityPlanting and biodiversity: trees and other plants make

spaces attractive. Is there a good mix of tree and plant

species? What condition are they in? If appropriate,

are there areas of horticultural interest?

• Facilities and featuresFacilities and featuresFacilities and featuresFacilities and features: different spaces need different

facilities. For example, where appropriate, are there

toilets? Is there interpretation where it will help people

understand their surroundings better? Are there

sufficient litter and “pooper” bins (and related signs)

and seats?

• Management and maintenanceManagement and maintenanceManagement and maintenanceManagement and maintenance: poor management or

maintenance can let spaces and facilities down so badly

that people do not want to use them. How well are

litter and vandalism under control? Is grass length

appropriate for the nature of the space? Are beds free

from weeds and paths clear of debris?

• Minimum sizeMinimum sizeMinimum sizeMinimum size: there is a minimum size beneath which

spaces are not cost-effective to maintain or unsuitable

for use. Accordingly it would undesirable for

developers to provide such small spaces. The

minimum size standards therefore provide guidance on

when the Council should seek off-site rather than on-

site provision in order to prevent the provision of small

and fairly useless spaces or facilities.;


6: Accessibility Standards6: Accessibility Standards6: Accessibility Standards6: Accessibility Standards

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction The best provision in the world is irrelevant if it is

inaccessible. Accordingly, PPG17 requires planning

authorities to include an accessibility component in their

provision standards. We have derived a range of distance

thresholds from a variety of sources, including government

guidance, guidance published or research undertaken by

quangos such as Sport England and research undertaken

by other local authorities. We have concentrated on three

thresholds: for walkers, for cyclists, in view of the

desirability of promoting cycling, and for car drivers and

their passengers. These thresholds reflect two things:

firstly the way in which most people travel to make use of

the different forms of community infrastructure; and

secondly the most and least sustainable modes of

transport.

Distance ThresholdsDistance ThresholdsDistance ThresholdsDistance Thresholds

for Havantfor Havantfor Havantfor Havant

At present we have no local market research information

for Havant on which to base distance thresholds.

Accordingly we have used a mixture of sources, including

published Government and national agency guidance,

research with which we have been involved elsewhere and

our interviews with local organisations.

Based on these sources, we set out the straight line

distance thresholds we suggest the Council should adopt

in the table below. We give details of their derivation in

Appendix F. The walking thresholds represent 75% of the

actual distance that can be travelled at a speed of 80 m per

minute for 5, 10, 15 or 20 minute time periods as

appropriate, rounded slightly to the nearest 50 m. We


have derived the cycling thresholds from the walking ones

by assuming that the same basic travel times will be

acceptable but increased the average speed of travel to 12

kph (200 m per minute). There is no cycling threshold for

equipped play areas because it is unlikely that both a child

and accompanying parent or carer will cycle to these

facilities, or for multi-functional greenspaces because it is

obviously desirable that local residents should be able to

walk from home to at least one such space within about 5

minutes. The driving thresholds reflect an average speed

of around 30 kilometres per hour. While this may seem

low, it is important to remember that it is an average speed

for a journey and includes going to the car at the start of a

journey and parking at the end of it.

Walking and Cycling ThresholdsWalking and Cycling ThresholdsWalking and Cycling ThresholdsWalking and Cycling Thresholds

Form of Provision Travel time

(minutes)

Walking

Thresholds

(m)

Cycling

Thresholds

(m)

Allotments 15 900 2,250

Artificial turf pitches 20 1200 3000

Bowling greens 15 900 2,250

Children’s play areas 5 600 N/a

Grass sports pitches 15 900 2,250

Indoor sports facilities 20 1,200 3,000

Multi-functional

greenspaces

5 300 N/a

Teenage facilities 10 600 1,500

Tennis or multi-courts 15 900 2,250

Driving ThresholdsDriving ThresholdsDriving ThresholdsDriving Thresholds

Travel Time

(minutes

Distance

Allotments 15 3.75 km

Artificial turf pitches 20 7.5 km

Athletics training 20 7.5 km

Bowling greens 15 3.75 km

Children’s play areas Na/ N/a

Grass sports pitches 15 3.75 km

Indoor bowls centre 20 7.5 km

Indoor sports hall 20 7.5 km

Indoor swimming pool 20 7.5 km

Multi-functional greenspaces N/a N/a

Teenage facilities 10 3.75 km

Tennis or multi-courts 15 3.75 km


7: Accessibility Assessment7: Accessibility Assessment7: Accessibility Assessment7: Accessibility Assessment

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction For greenspaces to be of value to people, they have to be

accessible. Accessibility is therefore of key importance in

assessing the adequacy of provision in the Borough.

We have used a map-based analysis to identify areas of

deficiency across the Borough, using the walking, cycling

and driving distance thresholds suggested in the

“Accessibility Standards” section of this report as

appropriate. For indoor provision we took account of

facilities around the periphery of the Borough as well as

within it. We have shown the distance thresholds as simple

circles and calculated the proportion of properties within

the Borough within each distance threshold. For this

purpose we have used Ordnance Survey Addresspoint data

provided by the Borough Council, but deleted all properties

outside the Borough boundary. As we have not been able

to separate out dwellings from other properties, such as

shops and offices, however, the analysis relates to all

properties. This is not particularly important, as people in

the Borough should be able to access greenspaces and

other forms of provision from work as well as home.

We give the accessibility maps at the end of this Chapter.

Appendix G summarises the results of the map analysis

while Appendix H gives details of the number and

proportion of properties in the Borough within the distance

thresholds of different forms of provision.

Most forms of greenspace are multi-functional in nature

and serve other uses besides their primary purpose.

There will nearly always be a proportion of dwellings

slightly beyond the distance thresholds for most forms of

provision. Accordingly, we have made a pragmatic


judgement as to where there is likely to be a need for more

provision in areas of deficiency based on a number of

factors, including:

• The character of the location: for example, in some

areas, allotments are not a priority, for example in a

residential area where the dwellings have large garden

grounds.

• Whether the facility or space requires a Borough-wide

catchment to support it or is one to which people

would generally drive owing to the need for

transporting equipment

• Whether there are likely to be sufficient people within

the area of deficiency who would support or require a

specific type of provision in order to justify the

additional spaces or facilities. If so, what form of

provision would meet local needs most effectively and

economically?

• Quality issues: are the available sites of such high

quality that people may be willing to travel further?

• Is there any land available for the new provision?

ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions Our main conclusions from this analysis are:

• Overall, there is a reasonably good level of accessibility

to most forms of provision across the Borough.

However, four areas stand out as needing better access

to high quality, high value provision: Cowplain, Leigh

Park, Waterlooville South/Purbrook and Hayling Island.

While Hayling is an attractive area in which to live, it

requires a significant journey to access spaces and

facilities in the rest of the Borough.

• In these areas, and across most of the rest of the

Borough, where deficiencies exist it will generally be

better to increase the quality and value of existing sites

than provide more. Enhancing quality and value will

make visiting these sites more attractive and should

therefore extend the distance that many people are

willing to walk, cycle or drive.

• In some cases, such as for sports pitches, multi-sports

courts or tennis courts, accessibility deficiencies can

probably best be addressed by making adjustments to

existing facilities. In many cases, while adult demand is

reducing, demand for junior facilities is increasing


making it sensible to convert pitches from adult to

junior use.

• There is still a need to make some additional provision,

the highest priority needs being

∗ A park for Waterlooville North (which can be created

by enhancing either the Waterlooville or Cowplain

Recreation Ground; at present both lack diversity

and horticultural features)

∗ Allotments in Waterlooville, Leigh Park and on

Hayling Island. However, is should be noted that

the Council recently closed an allotments site in

Waterlooville as a result of inadequate demand.

This may have been the result of vandalism and

plot holders transferring to other sites as a result.

∗ Bowling greens in Purbrook, Havant (eg in Havant

Park) and possibly on Hayling Island; these facilities

are not required in the short term, but may be

needed in 5-10 years

∗ Junior football pitches in Cowplain, Purbrook and

Leigh Park

∗ Mini-soccer pitches in Purbrook, Leigh Park,

Emsworth and on Hayling Island

∗ Multi-sport courts in Leigh Park and Waterlooville

South

∗ Teenage facilities in Waterlooville and Cowplain

Looking to the future, there is likely also to be a need for a

park in the proposed Major Development Area to the west

of the Borough.

Map AnalysisMap AnalysisMap AnalysisMap Analysis We have applied the distance thresholds as part of a map-

based analysis of accessibility in order to identify areas of

the Borough which are beyond the distance thresholds of

different forms of provision. We have also identified the

quality and value of different spaces or facilities on the

maps and calculated the proportion of properties within

the Borough which are within the distance thresholds of

different forms of provision.

The maps, which are given below, are:

1A Allotments - all

1B Allotments - High Quality, High Value


2 Artificial turf pitches

3 Indoor Bowls

4A Bowling greens - all

5A Pitches and Courts - all

5B Pitches and Courts - High Quality, High Value

6A Equipped Play Areas - all

6B Equipped Play Areas - High Quality, High Value

7A Adult football pitches - all

7B Adult football pitches - High Quality, High Value

8A Junior football pitches - all

8B Junior football pitches - High Quality, High Value

9A Mini-soccer pitches - all

9B Mini-soccer pitches - High Quality, High Value

10A Multi-sport courts - all

10B Multi-sport courts - High Quality, High Value

11A Sports halls - all

11B Sports halls - pay and play

12 Pools - all

12B Pools with casual use

13A Rugby pitches - all

13B Rugby pitches - High Quality, High Value

14 Indoor tennis

15A Cricket pitches - all

15B Cricket pitches High Quality, High Value

16A Youth facilities - all

16B Youth facilities - High Quality, High Value

16C Youth facilities – ball courts

16D Youth facilities – basketball goals

16E Youth facilities – BMX/skateboarding


16F Youth facilities - Kickabout areas

17A Tennis courts - all

17B Tennis courts - High Quality, High Value

18A Multi-functional greenspaces - all

18B Multi-functional greenspaces - High Quality, High

Value

19A Parks and Gardens - all

19B Parks and Gardens -High Quality, High Value

20A Amenity greenspaces - all

20B Amenity greenspaces - High Quality, High Value

21A Natural greenspaces - all

21B Natural greenspaces - High Quality, High Value

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Draft Havant Open Spaces Plan and PPG17 Assessment 79

8: Quantity Standards8: Quantity Standards8: Quantity Standards8: Quantity Standards

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction We have sought to identify the level of provision needed by

the Borough’s current population and convert this into

appropriate quantity standards. Any population growth

will then obviously generate a need for additional spaces

or facilities, except where:

• The Borough Council is satisfied that there is sufficient

spare capacity in existing provision to accommodate the

demand likely to arise from new developments: or

• The best way to accommodate additional demand

arising from new developments will be to enhance

existing provision in order to increase its quality and

capacity

In the first of these alternatives, there will be no need for

developers to make or fund any additional provision, in the

second, the Council should use the quantity standard to

determine the amount of enhanced provision it can and

should require developers to fund.

The Population of theThe Population of theThe Population of theThe Population of the

BoroughBoroughBoroughBorough

The 2001 census identified the population of the Borough

as approximately 117,000 a reduction of about 3,000

since 1991. While it may have changed slightly since then,

we have used the 117,000 figure for calculating the

quantity standards.

Appendix I gives comparative 2001 census data for

England, Hampshire and Havant. The Borough’s

population has a number of characteristics which


differentiate it from both England and Hampshire,

including a higher than average proportion of people in the

ABC1 social groups and car ownership. Other differences

include:

• A lower proportion of children aged 0-9, but a higher

proportion aged 10-19, than both England and

Hampshire

• A lower proportion of people aged 20-39 than England

• A higher proportion of people aged 40-89 than England

• A lower proportion of people aged 20-54 and 90 and

over than Hampshire

• A higher proportion of people aged 55-89 than

Hampshire

The impact of these differences is likely to include:

In the short term – the next 5 years

• Lower than average demand for children’s play facilities

• Higher than average demand for teenage facilities

• Lower than average demand for the pitch sports and

other “high energy” sports such as squash

• Lower than average demand for activities and facilities

appealing to people aged 20-39

• A lower than average rate of household formation and

therefore a lower than average birth rate and fewer

children

• Above average demand for activities and facilities that

appeal to “empty nesters” and “WOOPies” (well off older

people) such as cycling, swimming and bowls (indoor

and out); visiting parks and gardens, the countryside

and heritage sites; allotments gardening; and

community involvement and volunteering

In the longer term – beyond five years

• A decline in the demand for children’s play facilities

• A decline in the demand for mini-soccer and teenage

facilities and activities

• A possible decline in the demand for junior football, but

a possible increase in the demand for adult football

• An increase in the demand for activities and facilities

that appeal to “WOOOPies”


Conclusions of theConclusions of theConclusions of theConclusions of the

AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis

Appendix J reviews in detail the amount of different forms

of provision across the Borough in order derive the

quantitative element of provision standards. It suggests

the following standards:

• Allotments: 1.0 sq m site area per person

• Artificial turf pitches: 0.25 sq m carpet area per person

per person

• Bowling greens: 0.16 sq m site area per person

• Equipped play provision: 0.5 sq m equipped area per

person

• Grass pitches and playing fields/recreation grounds: 5.4

sq m site area per person

• Indoor swimming pools: 0.01 sq m water area per

person

• Multi-functional greenspaces (amenity greenspaces,

parks and gardens and natural greenspaces): 26 sq m

per person

• Teenage facilities: 0.4 sq m facility area per person

• Tennis and other courts: 0.26 sq m court area per

person

There is no need for a provision standard for the following

facilities, although the Council should protect those

facilities that already exist:

• Athletics facilities

• Ice rinks

• Indoor bowls halls

• Indoor tennis halls

• Sports halls


9: Issues and Options9: Issues and Options9: Issues and Options9: Issues and Options

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction We have identified four broad sets of issues for the future

of open space, sport and recreation provision in Havant

which we discuss below:

Provision Issues

• Provision for teenagers

• Provision for younger children

• Campdown

• Mini-soccer and junior football

• Broadmarsh

Quality Issues

• The Borough’s parks

• Pitches and changing

• Hayling Beach

• Signage

Management Issues

• Local pride and the image of the Borough

• The future of allotments

• The future of public tennis courts

• Local conservation and “Friends” groups

In addition to these issues, the “Liveability” work being

progressed by the Borough Council is addressing four key

priorities:


• “De-cluttering” – removing unnecessary litter bins,

poles, signs and other items and ensuring that all

street furniture is needed, of consistently high quality

and appropriately located

• Promoting play and other informal activities in the

Borough’s open spaces

• Enhancing community safety, but especially lighting

and CCTV monitoring

• The incorporation of artworks into green and other

public spaces

We strongly endorse the work the Council and its partners

are doing in these areas. It should be seen as an integral

part of the delivery of this Plan.

The Pattern ofThe Pattern ofThe Pattern ofThe Pattern of

ProvisionProvisionProvisionProvision

Provision for TeenagersProvision for TeenagersProvision for TeenagersProvision for Teenagers

Issue

Making better provision for teenagers is one of the

significant provision issues facing the Borough Council.

The need for it is widely supported by the local community.

Many local people will be more than aware of the

teenagers’ common complaint that they have “nothing to

do”, while others see young people hanging around as

potentially threatening – perceptions fuelled by media

coverage of the “yob culture”. The fact that this is nearly

always an incorrect assumption is beside the point. They

also dislike the litter that young people tend to leave

behind where they congregate.

We have found in other areas a lack of consensus amongst

teenagers as to their preferred forms of provision.

Roughly equal proportions give their first choice as ball

courts, skateboard/BMX areas and space for ball games.

The issues for the Council to tackle are:

• What provision is most appropriate for teenagers?What provision is most appropriate for teenagers?What provision is most appropriate for teenagers?What provision is most appropriate for teenagers?

Havant, like many others, has a significant number of

basketball goals. These goals are the legacy of a

hopelessly over-ambitious attempt by the English

Basketball Association, aided and abetted by the Sports

Council, to make basketball the nation’s number one


youth sport. Most of the goals are relatively little used.

A better approach is to provide ball (or multi-purpose)

courts and skateboard areas, although their drawback is

that they appeal almost entirely to boys. No-one really

seems to have found out what might appear to teenage

girls, apart from teenage boys. Accordingly there is a

need to consult young people specifically on the forms

of provision that will appeal most to them, and this

consultation and involvement must include girls.

• Where should it be located?Where should it be located?Where should it be located?Where should it be located? While many local residents

will support the Council if it decides to make additional

provision for teenagers, this is likely to be on the basis

of “but not near me, thank you”. Finding suitable sites

for teenage provision is not easy; facilities must be

readily accessible but not encourage territoriality and

reasonably high profile while not in a position where

other people may feel threatened by groups of young

people. Accordingly we suggest that the Council should

seek to make additional teenage provision a major part

of its rejuvenated parks (see below).

• How should it be managed?How should it be managed?How should it be managed?How should it be managed? Teenage provision needs

as light a touch as possible. Locating teenage facilities

in parks will provide a degree of informal surveillance

which should be more than adequate.

Recommendations

Ideally, Havant should have a network of teenage areas

with at least two facilities in each Community Board area so

that local teenagers can exercise choice in which facility

they use without leaving their home area. At present there

are eight skateboard facilities in the Borough, of varying

quality and value, and a further facility at Denmead just

outside it. Accordingly it should not take a great deal

more investment to achieve this objective.

Play Provision for ChildrenPlay Provision for ChildrenPlay Provision for ChildrenPlay Provision for Children

Issue

To date the Council has followed the recommendations of

the National Playing Fields Association in relation to play

areas for children and used it as the basis for the playing

space provision standards in its Local Plan. This leads to a


very high level of provision, much of it of very limited play

value and low levels of use by young children, with high

maintenance costs as a result of abuse and vandalism. Our

public consultations have identified a general wish for

better play provision for children.

Recommendations

The Borough Council should adopt a new approach to

children’s play provision based on:

• Designing local greenspaces in such a way as to

maximise their play value for children of different ages

with opportunities to hide, climb, run around, see

nature at work, handle sticks and stones and get dirty

or wet

• Having a relatively small number of large equipped play

spaces, ideally with one in each of the strategic spaces

in the Borough

• Requiring developers to design housing environments in

which children and other pedestrians have priority over

vehicles

• Planning traffic calming schemes with the objective of

making streets child-friendly rather than simply slowing

down traffic

Note: this recommendation is at odds with the Council’s current Local

Plan policy for play provision, which continues to require developers to

provide Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs) as defined by the National

Playing Fields Association. It also has implications for Hampshire County

Council Highways requirements in new developments, but accords with

emerging thinking on home zones and children’s play.

The Campdown DevelopmentThe Campdown DevelopmentThe Campdown DevelopmentThe Campdown Development

Issue

Havant Rugby Club is the most successful club in the

Borough, with a very large junior membership, but cannot

develop further on its present site at Hooks Lane

Recreation Ground. The issue for the Council to consider

is whether it is willing to develop part of Hooks Lane in

order partly to fund the club’s move to Campdown – simply

levelling the Campdown site will be expensive, never mind

creating new high quality, high capacity pitches and


changing accommodation. However, the new site should

help the club to expand further and perhaps – depending

on how the site is planned and the number of pitches

needed by Portsmouth FC – allow it to develop into a

multi-sports club. Against this, there will obviously be

opposition to the loss of greenspace at Hooks Lane.

However, it is unlikely that there will be a need to retain

the whole of the Recreation Ground as a local informal use

greenspace so some development should be acceptable.

An alternative approach might be to use part of Hooks

Lane for football, as this will then avoid the need to

demolish the present clubhouse and changing facilities.

However, if the Borough develops more ATPs there will be

at best be only limited demand for a football pitch at this

location. In addition, retaining a pitch will have the

significant drawback that a large part of the site will

continue to be characterless short mown grass rather than

an attractive local green space.

Recommendations

It will be desirable for the Council to give the Rugby Club a

“leg up” – a process it has already started to investigate

with the Club and Portsmouth FC. This will allow the club

to expand and do more for juniors. We recommend that

the Council should sell part of the Hooks Lane site for

development but also retain part as a local green space. It

should work with the local community to determine the

most appropriate design for this space, using the “Creating

Quality Places” approach.

Mini-Soccer and Junior FootballMini-Soccer and Junior FootballMini-Soccer and Junior FootballMini-Soccer and Junior Football

Issue

There seems to be something of an east-west split

between adult and junior football, with the former mainly

to the east of the A3(M) and junior clubs mainly to the west

of it. In part this seems to be because adult players regard

the pitches to the west of the A3(M) as poor and mini-

soccer obviously creates less wear than adult play. There

is also a Borough-wide shortage of mini-soccer and junior

pitches.


Recommendations

The Council should explore the possibility of developing a

football centre based around a third generation artificial

turf pitch (ATP) designed for football on the western side

of the Borough, ideally at Campdown, with some artificial

surfaced 5-a-side courts which can double up as mini-

soccer pitches.

If the Campdown development proceeds it will be suitable

for Portsmouth FC training, rugby club training and

community football. If it does not proceed, for whatever

reason, the fallback position should be to locate the ATP

on a secondary school site. We understand that Cowplain

School is already investigating the possibility of providing

such a pitch which will support the school’s PE programme;

allow the development of after-school football clubs for

both primary and secondary age children, with links to

community clubs; and the development of girls’ and

women’s football. The County Council and Football

Foundation may be willing to support this proposal and the

Football Foundation the Campdown one – but not ATPs at

both Cowplain and Campdown.

BroadmarshBroadmarshBroadmarshBroadmarsh

Issue

Staunton Country Park (run by the County Council) is

clearly valued by many local residents and well located in

roughly the centre of the Borough, at least in the east-west

direction. Broadmarsh is effectively a second country park,

although not designated as such and lacking facilities such

as a visitor centre and interpretation. Nonetheless it is

very popular, very different in nature from Staunton Park,

and could be developed further in partnership with

Portsmouth City Council which owns the adjoining

Farlington Marshes. The Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry

recommended that it should remain as greenspace and, as

a former landfill site, it is likely that parts will not be

readily buildable.

Recommendation


The Council needs to grasp the nettle and decide whether

to designate Broadmarsh as a country park. If it does,

there will then be a need to invest in additional facilities. If

it does not, on the basis that it hopes to be able to sell it

for development at some future time, it will need to try to

prepare the local community for the loss of what it sees as

a valuable coastal park.

Quality IssuesQuality IssuesQuality IssuesQuality Issues The Borough’s ParksThe Borough’s ParksThe Borough’s ParksThe Borough’s Parks

Issue

From Victorian times to the reorganisation of local

government in the mid seventies parks were a real source

of civic pride. Most councils had a Director of Parks, or

something similar, until “and Recreation” was added to his

or her job title and parks became just one of a range of

leisure services. We have lost sight of the fact that good

parks attract more people, at hugely lower cost, than

supposedly sexier indoor leisure centres. They also have

significant health benefits for their visitors, as research

from CABE Space, amongst others, has demonstrated; they

reduce pollution and absorb carbon dioxide; and they can

provide a massive boost to regeneration initiatives. There

is even an Americanism that in order to regenerate an area

it is best to “start with the petunias”.

Havant has a good number of parks for a Borough of its

size, but they do little for most people. CCT-driven

cutbacks have ensured that many of the features and

characteristics which generated local pride have been lost.

In effect, a number are little more than recreation grounds

and dominated by pitches. As a result they tend to be “2

days a week” outdoor leisure centres, appealing

predominantly to boys and young men.

The issues for the Council to tackle are:

• The future role of the Borough’s parksThe future role of the Borough’s parksThe future role of the Borough’s parksThe future role of the Borough’s parks. It is perfectly

reasonably for some “parks” to be “recreation grounds”,

but others should be redesigned as parks, and managed

in such a way as to appeal to people of all ages.

• Funding the improvement of parksFunding the improvement of parksFunding the improvement of parksFunding the improvement of parks and the return of

horticulture where appropriate


• Making better use of the buildings in parksMaking better use of the buildings in parksMaking better use of the buildings in parksMaking better use of the buildings in parks: most are

locked most of the time, leading to parks looking

neglected. Some are also old and approaching the end

of their useful life.

Recommendations

• Different parks can easily be designed to perform

different roles in a small Borough like Havant. The

Council should aim to achieve Green Flag status for a

network of strategic green spaces, some of which are

parks, within five years. We suggest suitable strategic

spaces in Chapter 10 below. Where they are used for

pitch sports, this should not necessitate the removal of

any pitches but the addition of features or facilities

which will make each of them more interesting for

visitors – for example, public art, water features,

children’s play, teenage facilities, more trees and

horticultural areas. This will be a high profile way of

demonstrating its commitment to making the Borough a

better place in which to live; it should also be a vehicle

for promoting greater community involvement in the

future of parks. Externally, the Council is required by

the ODPM to report annually on the amount and

proportion of greenspace in its area managed to Green

Flag Award standard as a key performance indicator of

its effectiveness.

• Where possible, buildings in parks should be multi-

purpose as this helps to attract additional users and

reduces the likelihood of vandalism. In addition, many

people perceive “busy” parks as inherently safer than

those which are seen not to be well used. Ideally, there

should be some form of community building as this will

help to confirm the park as a community asset.

The Quality of Sports Pitches and ChangingThe Quality of Sports Pitches and ChangingThe Quality of Sports Pitches and ChangingThe Quality of Sports Pitches and Changing

Issue

Havant is largely built on clay which means the ground

drains poorly – a problem most obvious in relation to some

of the Borough’s pitches. While the Council has improved

some pitches through the construction of sand slits, it

does not appear subsequently to be providing the top


dressing needed to keep them in good condition. This

runs the risk of wasting the investment in sand slits. Other

pitches are generally regarded as poor by the clubs using

them.

We understand that the Council’s broad policy is to meet

the direct costs of managing and maintaining pitches from

user charges. Achieving this aim will require both reduced

maintenance and higher charges – two things which are

clearly incompatible, at least for grass pitches with their

very limited carrying capacity. It is possible to meet costs

from user charges for ATPs because they can be used every

day of the week (and in theory for 24 hours a day) and

maintenance charges are relatively low, apart from the

need to replace the carpet at roughly ten-year intervals.

Indeed, some research we did for the Scottish Sports

Council in the early nineties came to a totally counter-

intuitive conclusion: in order to cater for anything over

about twenty games a week, it would be cheaper for local

authorities to provide ATPs and make them available free

than to provide grass pitches and charge for their use.

This calculation related only to maintenance costs, and

ignored the extra land needed for grass pitches and the

additional changing pavilions required to service them. As

a result we predicted that most local football would move

to artificial pitches when:

• Manufacturers developed a suitable surface

• Football leagues accepted that matches did not all have

to be played on Saturday afternoons or Sunday

mornings but could also be played on midweek

evenings

The implication of this for Havant is that while there is an

apparent need to invest in upgrading the Borough’s grass

football pitches, this may exist only for a few years. It will

be in the Council’s (and for that matter, although they may

not currently realise it, football teams’) long term interest

to develop and promote the use of at least one third

generation ATP. In the medium term we anticipate that

every secondary school should have at least one ATP,

complemented by changing and social facilities designed

for community clubs to use. In the longer term, we see

this having a major impact on the structure of local


football, with small one-team clubs amalgamating to form

multi-age and multi-team clubs. Something similar to

Havant Rugby Club is the model to which local football

clubs should aspire.

The short term need is therefore to improve the

maintenance of existing grass football pitches rather than

make capital improvements to them. A number of sites

also require better or new changing accommodation – a

view strongly endorsed by the Citizens’ Panel.

The position is slightly different with regard to cricket. In

the first place there has been a decline in the number of

local (mainly casual) teams, which may partly be due to the

number of matches cancelled as a result of unplayable

pitches or outfields. There is no real substitute for grass –

at least for outfields – and only one artificial wicket in the

Borough. In the medium term there is a need for capital

investment in improving cricket pitches if the game is not

to decline further – something which is clearly undesirable

in one of England’s first class cricketing counties.

In the short term, it should be possible to improve things

for cricket by adopting a more flexible approach to pitch

maintenance. At present, if ground staff cannot prepare

wickets on Thursdays or Fridays because of bad weather it

can be necessary to cancel weekend games because no

ground staff are available on Saturday mornings. This is

obviously very unpopular with the clubs. It could be

resolved either by changes to the grounds maintenance

contract or by leasing pitches to clubs so that they can

make their own arrangements. Mowing a wicket and

marking out lines are well within the capability of most

club members and cutting an outfield requires no great

skill – but access to a gang mower and tractor. Many

cricket clubs elsewhere in the country own both.

If the Rugby Club does not move to Campdown, there will

be a need also to improve the pitches at Hooks Lane.

The issues for the Council to address, therefore, are:

Football


• Improving the maintenance of existing pitches

• Investigating ways of reducing costs without affecting

the maintenance of pitches

• Planning for the longer term, ideally with the County

Council Education Service, while keeping the present

grass pitches in operation

Cricket

• Whether more clubs are willing to lease their “home”

pitches and take responsibility for at least some

aspects of maintenance

• Introducing greater flexibility into the ground

maintenance regime


Recommendations

• The Council needs to review its pitch maintenance

regimes to ensure that it is not minimising the impact of

past capital investment through inadequate

maintenance

• In the short term, the Council should adopt a “make do

and mend” policy for football changing pavilions, rather

than seek to make significant improvements to existing

facilities. Within five years it should be clear whether

local football will move to artificial surfaces and

consolidate onto a smaller number of sites than at

present

• The Council should seek to work with the Rugby Club

and Portsmouth FC, and other partners as available, to

develop the Campdown site as a new multi-sports pitch

site.

The Future of Hayling BeachThe Future of Hayling BeachThe Future of Hayling BeachThe Future of Hayling Beach

Issue

Hayling Beach is something of a sad sight as a “pleasure

beach”, even on a good day. Once a favourite south coast

destination, it seems to have lost its way, although it is a

valuable base for water sports such as windsurfing, kite

surfing and jet skiing. It is also a unique space in the

Borough. Should the Council and local community focus

mainly on its use for water sports or try to maximise its

attractiveness as a coastal greenspace?

Recommendations

Although the Council commissioned a new masterplan for

the Beachlands area a few years ago, it has not progressed

any aspects of it. Accordingly there is a need to review the

existing plan and possibly update it in the light of the aims

and objectives of this Plan, once adopted.

SignageSignageSignageSignage

Issue


Overwhelmingly, the signage in the Borough’s greenspaces

is negative.

Recommendations

The Council should resolve to take a positive approach to

all future signage and whenever any signage is renewed. It

may even be worth auditing signage in those areas of the

Borough most visited by tourists to identify ways of

“decluttering” and making them more welcoming.


Management IssuesManagement IssuesManagement IssuesManagement Issues Local Pride and the Image of the BoroughLocal Pride and the Image of the BoroughLocal Pride and the Image of the BoroughLocal Pride and the Image of the Borough

Issue

One of the key issues for the Council to address is whether

Havant’s parks and greenspaces are a source of local pride

– not only to the Council itself, but also the local

community. The entrances to Havant are fairly non-

descript and the town centre lacks character. The urban

design study being undertaken by Roger Evans Associates

will point the way forward for this so we comment no

further.

Recommendations

The Council should seek to develop and expand the

excellent voluntary “Havant in Bloom” work in Bedhampton

and Langstone to the remainder of the Borough. Indeed,

as a holiday destination, Havant really should enter the

Britain in Bloom competition. It can give this a highly

visible kick start at fairly low cost by enhancing the

approach to the Civic Centre.

The Future of AllotmentsThe Future of AllotmentsThe Future of AllotmentsThe Future of Allotments

Issue

• Allotments holders are not generally delighted with the

service they receive from the Council. At the same

time, occupancy levels are high with relatively few

vacant plots and with rent at only £1 per week the

Council is no doubt subsidising each plot holder by a

significant amount each year.

• The Borough has only one statutory allotments site and,

as the Council well knows, some of its other sites have

problems. For example, the shape of High Lawn Ways

results in inefficient use of land, Riders Lane suffered

from high levels of vandalism and Victoria Road and

Conigar Road are very small with only a few plots. We

understand that all of these sites are untenanted and

the Council is considering the potential for alternative

uses of the land. Moreover, the plot holders at West


Purbrook and Plant Farm feel their sites are threatened

by development.

Recommendations

The Council should:

• Recognise that some sites are always going to be

unpopular and consider using those which are too small

to be viable or largely vacant for another greenspace

use or disposing of them for development and then

reinvesting the cash receipts in other sites

• Simultaneously, take steps to protect the larger, more

popular and therefore more valuable sites from

development

• Ensure that all sites have water points

• Provide basic maintenance (eg regular spraying with

weedkiller and basic rotavating) of vacant plots to

prevent weed growth

• Advertise vacant plots better – and the more effective

this is, the less need for maintenance of vacant plots

• Work with Allotment Societies to promote self

management of sites

The Future of Public Tennis CourtsThe Future of Public Tennis CourtsThe Future of Public Tennis CourtsThe Future of Public Tennis Courts

Issue

The Council owns a number of public tennis courts which

are generally tarmac and not particularly well used – with

the likely exception of Wimbledon fortnight.

Recommendations

The Council should either promote “park tennis” or

conclude that tennis should be left to tennis clubs. Some

of the current courts might then be better converted to

skateparks for teenagers, for example.

If the Council decides to promote park tennis, it should

seek funding and other assistance from the Lawn Tennis

Association. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

provides an excellent example of how to develop park

tennis. It appointed a tennis coaching contractor, Totally


Tennis, which has been hugely successful in both

promoting participation and developing high standard

junior tennis. Indeed, Totally Tennis has been so

successful in Basingstoke that the Lawn Tennis Association

funded most of the construction cost of a fabric covered

indoor tennis centre in the Borough on the site of some

tarmac park courts.

Public Sports PitchesPublic Sports PitchesPublic Sports PitchesPublic Sports Pitches

Issue

Local pitch sport clubs depend to a large extent on Council

pitches. As they do not have any security of tenure they

are unable to apply for external funding.

Recommendations

The Council should consider leasing some of its pitch sport

sites to clubs. This will make it possible for them to apply

for grants to agencies such as Sport England and the

Football Foundation.


Support for Local Conservation and “Friends” groupsSupport for Local Conservation and “Friends” groupsSupport for Local Conservation and “Friends” groupsSupport for Local Conservation and “Friends” groups

Issue

The Borough has a number of committed conservation or

“Friends” groups, but some are struggling. They are a

resource which saves the Council money and have the

potential to expand their work, if given a limited amount of

support. The most immediate support they will welcome is

assistance with public liability insurance.

Recommendations

The Council should aim to work closely with properly

constituted, responsible voluntary bodies and to foster a

“Friends” group for at least each of its strategic spaces

where they do not already exist. It can give these groups

tangible support through training and other assistance in

kind. This may also help them to attract volunteers


10: Conclusions and Recommendations10: Conclusions and Recommendations10: Conclusions and Recommendations10: Conclusions and Recommendations

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction In this final section, we pull together the findings set out

above to suggest a way forward for the Council. There are

two related aspects to this: the PPG17 assessment and the

Open Spaces Plan.

The PPG17 AssessmentThe PPG17 AssessmentThe PPG17 AssessmentThe PPG17 Assessment

The main part of this report makes up the PPG17

assessment for Havant. It has a short and long term

purpose:

• In the short term, it should be used by the Council in

negotiations with developers and to inform the way in

which it implements its current Supplementary Planning

Guidance on the Provision and Improvement of Playing

Space for New Housing Development

• In the longer term, it will provide the locally determined

accessibility, quality and quantity provision standards

for open space, sport and recreation that the Council

will need to include in its Local Development Framework

and probably form the basis for a Supplementary

Planning Document (SPD) based on a suitable core

policy. The Council should seek, through this SPD, to

widen the range of open spaces and sport and

recreation facilities it can require developers to provide

on-site or contribute to off-site. We set out the

recommended standards in Chapter 5 and Appendix E

(the quality standards); Chapter 6 and Appendix F (the

accessibility standards); and Chapter 8 and Appendix J

(the quantity standards).


The Open Spaces PlanThe Open Spaces PlanThe Open Spaces PlanThe Open Spaces Plan

The main part of this chapter, including the draft Delivery

Plan at the end of it, effectively constitutes the “Open

Spaces Plan”. Its purpose is to set a wider strategic

direction for the Council’s work in terms of green and

other open spaces, such as the Hayling Island beach. In

doing so, it responds to the findings and conclusions set

out above and the additional background information in

the accompanying appendices.

The Relationship Between the PPG17 Assessment and TheThe Relationship Between the PPG17 Assessment and TheThe Relationship Between the PPG17 Assessment and TheThe Relationship Between the PPG17 Assessment and The

Open Spaces PlanOpen Spaces PlanOpen Spaces PlanOpen Spaces Plan

Given that one of the reasons for having both the future

LDF and this Plan is to help deliver aspects of the

Community Strategy, it is obviously essential that they “join

up”. Broadly speaking:

• The role of the planning process is to ensure there is

sufficient provision of the right kind in the right place

• The job of the Council and its partners is to ensure that

open spaces and sports and recreation facilities, once

provided, remain high quality, fit for purpose and well

used but capable of adaptation as necessary to meet

changing local needs

It is therefore clear that the assessment and Plan are

complementary. Accordingly, we suggest that the vision

for the Plan, set out below, can and – possibly with some

minor change to the wording – should become the basis

for the core open space policy in the future LDF.

The Context for theThe Context for theThe Context for theThe Context for the

PlanPlanPlanPlan

Havant is an attractive area with a large amount of

woodland and the nationally well known Hayling Beach. It

is unusual in that, for historical reasons, a significant

amount of land within its area is owned by a different local

authority, Portsmouth City Council. Other land is owned

by Hampshire County Council, including the Staunton

Country Park and school sites. This obviously imposes

some unusual constraints on what the Borough Council can

do.


The Council also faces significant financial constraints

which limit its scope for developing a range of initiatives

across a broad front. Accordingly, it needs to concentrate

its efforts and resources on where they will have the

greatest impact and to seek to work in partnership with

other agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors

and its local community.

Against this background, this Plan seeks:

• To ensure that a limited number of spaces or facilities

of strategic or Borough-wide significance are

accessible and of high quality and high value to local

residents and wildlife

• To ensure that all local residents have at least one high

quality, high value local space or facility within easy

reach of home

• To respond to the issues and support

recommendations set out in the previous chapter of

this report

Components of the PlanComponents of the PlanComponents of the PlanComponents of the Plan

The Plan has five main components:

• A vision setting out long term aspirations

• A small number of key aims supported by measurable

objectives and a recommended target for the next

review of the Council’s corporate strategy

• An outline Delivery Plan

• Clear priorities for the Borough Council and its partners

• Recommendations on a number of key issues which

face the Borough Council and its partners

The VisionThe VisionThe VisionThe Vision

Underpinning the PlanUnderpinning the PlanUnderpinning the PlanUnderpinning the Plan

We recommend the Borough Council to adopt a vision for

open space sport and recreation provision along the lines

of:

Havant will have a network of high quality,

accessible greenspaces and sport and recreation

facilities which meet local needs, are financially and

environmentally sustainable and support

“liveability”, social wellbeing, health promotion,

economic development and nature conservation


The Plan’s AimsThe Plan’s AimsThe Plan’s AimsThe Plan’s Aims • Borough-wide ProvisionBorough-wide ProvisionBorough-wide ProvisionBorough-wide Provision: to deliver and manage a

network of high profile, safe and high quality

greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities which

are accessible to all residents and visitors and serve a

strategic function in terms of the Borough’s overall

image and meeting local needs, engendering pride in all

its citizens and supporting bio-diversity

• Neighbourhood ProvisionNeighbourhood ProvisionNeighbourhood ProvisionNeighbourhood Provision: to ensure that local

greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities

throughout the Borough are accessible, meet the

Council’s quality standards and are attractive to

potential users

• Community InvolvementCommunity InvolvementCommunity InvolvementCommunity Involvement: to work with local

communities to ensure that local spaces are sustainable

and meet local needs

• Management and maintenanceManagement and maintenanceManagement and maintenanceManagement and maintenance: to ensure that the

management and maintenance of greenspaces and

sport and recreation facilities are adequately resourced

The Plan’s KeyThe Plan’s KeyThe Plan’s KeyThe Plan’s Key

ObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectives

Borough-wide ProvisionBorough-wide ProvisionBorough-wide ProvisionBorough-wide Provision

• To prepare a signage, development and management

plan for each of the designated Borough-wide

greenspaces within nine months of the adoption of this

Plan and then implement them

• To develop the first of a series of a rolling 3-year

marketing and events plans for the network of

designated Borough-wide spaces within one year of the

adoption of this Plan and then deliver it, rolling the plan

forward annually

• To achieve Green or Blue Flag status, as appropriate, for

each of the designated Borough-wide greenspaces

within the next five years and retain this status annually

thereafter

• To prepare the first of what is likely to be a series of 5-

year plans for the delivery of a network of well signed

and maintained pedestrian and cycling routes, linking


the strategic spaces and facilities and separated from

traffic as much as possible, within eighteen months of

the adoption of this Plan, and then deliver it

Neighbourhood ProvisionNeighbourhood ProvisionNeighbourhood ProvisionNeighbourhood Provision

• To establish and implement an appropriate process,

which includes consultation with the public and

Community Boards, to review those sites identified in

the audit as being of low quality and low value with a

view to determining which it may be desirable to

dispose of in order to help fund the enhancement of

other sites of greater value, or greater potential value,

to local communities

• To foster and support initiatives which will promote the

“liveability” and distinctiveness of local neighbourhoods,

such as signage or the incorporation of public art into

the street scene or greenspaces

Community InvolvementCommunity InvolvementCommunity InvolvementCommunity Involvement

• To ensure there is an active “Friends” group for each of

the designated strategic greenspaces within five years

• To foster and support community-based organisations

involved in local greenspace management and

maintenance in order to develop their skills and abilities

and ensure that they are sustainable

• To work with local communities and local businesses

throughout the Borough in order to develop and deliver

a “Borough of Havant in Bloom” plan, starting in

financial year 2007-8

Management and MaintenanceManagement and MaintenanceManagement and MaintenanceManagement and Maintenance

• To ensure there is adequate capital and revenue funding

to deliver the aims of the Community Strategy and the

Council’s Corporate Strategy, insofar as they relate to

greenspace, and this plan

• To harmonise management and maintenance regimes

amongst the different agencies responsible for


greenspaces in the Borough

Annual Delivery PlanAnnual Delivery PlanAnnual Delivery PlanAnnual Delivery Plan These aims and objectives provide the basis for the

preparation of an annual Delivery Plan designed to deliver

the key objectives and guide the work of the Borough

Council and its partners. We give a draft of the first

Delivery Plan at the end of this Chapter.

Key TargetKey TargetKey TargetKey Target As part of its Annual Monitoring Report to the Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister on implementation of the Council’s

future Local Development Framework, it will have to

provide details of the area and percentage of greenspace in

the Borough which is managed (not necessarily by the

Council) to Green Flag Award standard. Accordingly it

makes sense to use driving up this percentage as the

Plan’s key target, not least because it will provide an

important link between the “planning system” and the

“management system” insofar as greenspace is concerned.

The ODPM does not require councils actually to have any

Green Flag Awards for spaces in their area, but to regard

award standard as the benchmark to which they should

aspire for all of their spaces. The ODPM’s definition of

“greenspaces” for this purpose is unclear and probably it

will be more important to be consistent regarding the

range of spaces to be included in the monitoring

assessment each year than to include every little scrap of

space. Adopting this latter approach will impose a

considerable administrative burden on the Council to

achieve nothing more than a report to the ODPM, with little

benefit to the local community.

We included some 106 spaces in our multi-functional

greenspace audit. Accordingly we suggest that the Council

take them as the range of spaces it should include in its

monitoring, although it may also wish to include pitch

sites. However, as around half of these sites are owned

and managed by schools, the Council has no effective

control over them so it may be better to see if ODPM will

accept their exclusion.

In aggregate, the 106 multi-functional greenspaces

amount to something like 770 ha, of which Staunton

Country Park makes up around 223 ha (although as the


boundary is a little unclear, this figure is only

approximate). As a score of 3 (out of 4) represented

“good” for the audit, a score of 75% can be taken as

approximately equivalent to Green Flag Award standard.

Of the 770 ha, approximately 408 ha scored 75% and over

in our audit for both quality and value. Accordingly we

believe that it is realistic for he Council to take the view

that some 53% of the area of multi-functional spaces in the

Borough are at least approximately of Green Flag Award

standard. It is very fortunate that Staunton County Park is

both high quality and high value, although not managed by

the Borough Council. Without this, the totals would be

some 547 of multi-functional greenspace with 185 ha of

approximately Green Flag Award standard (34%).

Accordingly the Council should work closely with the

County Council to ensure that this situation continues; if

Staunton were to drop below the required standard, it

could face real difficulties.

The extent to which spaces meet an appropriate standard

can be monitored fairly easily using the approach

described in Appendix D.

Ensuring that particular quantity, or proportion, of

greenspace is of Green Flag Award standard is in itself

fairly meaningless – like many Government-imposed

targets. For it to be meaningful it has to take account of

accessibility. There is no point in having magnificent

spaces which no one is able to use

At present, we estimate that the occupants of some 44% of

properties across the Borough – and by extension, about

the same percentage of residents – are currently able to

access a high quality, high value multi-functional

greenspace within a 5-minute walk.

Accordingly we recommend that the Council adopt two

clear targets in the next revision of its Corporate Plan

along the lines of:

• To increase the percentage of multi-functional

greenspaces of Green Flag Award standard across the

Borough by at least 1% per year

• To increase the percentage of the Borough’s residents


able to access a greenspace meeting the Council’s

quality standard in all relevant respects within 5

minutes walk of their home by 2% per year and

therefore to not less than 50% by the end of financial

year 2009-10

Strategic Spaces andStrategic Spaces andStrategic Spaces andStrategic Spaces and

FacilitiesFacilitiesFacilitiesFacilities

It is obviously desirable that there should be at least one

strategically significant greenspace or sports facility in

each of the Community Board areas as this should then be

a key focus for that community. Our audit of provision has

identified the following spaces which we recommend the

Council and its partners should designate as the network

of strategic or Borough-wide spaces:

• EmsworthEmsworth Recreation Ground

• Havant/Bedhampton Havant Park

• Hayling Hayling Park

Hayling Beach

• Leigh Park Staunton Country Park

• Waterlooville North Waterlooville Recreation Ground

• Waterlooville South Purbrook Heath

NotesNotesNotesNotes

• Staunton Country Park is owned by Hampshire County Council

and not Havant Borough Council. It is nonetheless a strategically

important site within the Borough and is already of Green Flag

status.

• Hayling Beach currently has two Blue Flags and a Seafront Award

Strategic PrioritiesStrategic PrioritiesStrategic PrioritiesStrategic Priorities The strategic priorities of the Council and its partners

should be:

• The progressive enhancement of existing provision

rather than the creation of more provision, together

with maximising the accessibility of the best sites by

sustainable means of transport

• Working with local communities to foster the

enhancement of local greenspaces and residential

environments, with the initial priorities being the

regeneration areas of Leigh Park and Wecock

Draft Delivery PlanDraft Delivery PlanDraft Delivery PlanDraft Delivery Plan The tables below set out a draft delivery plan for the Open

Spaces Plan.

havant open spaces plan and ppg17 assessment · 2013-09-30 · kit campbell associates, edinburgh:...

Documents