open space standards paper july 2020 · civic space . including civic and market squares and other...

QUALITY, INTEGRITY, PROFESSIONALISM Knight, Kavanagh & Page Ltd Company No: 9145032 (England)

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Registered Office: 1 -2 Frecheville Court, off Knowsley Street, Bury BL9 0UF

T: 0161 764 7040

KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE STANDARDS PAPER JULY 2020

KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN SPACE STANDARDS PAPER

CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 PART 2: ASSESSMENT REPORT SUMMARY ............................................................... 4 PART 3: SETTING PROVISION STANDARDS................................................................ 6

3.1 Developing and setting standards ........................................................................... 6 3.2 Quality and value..................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Accessibility ............................................................................................................. 7 3.4 Quantity ................................................................................................................. 11

PART 4: APPLICATION OF PROVISION STANDARDS ............................................... 14

4.1: Quality and value.................................................................................................. 14 4.2: Accessibility .......................................................................................................... 15 4.3: Quantity ................................................................................................................ 18

PART 5: POLICY ADVICE AND STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 21

5.1 Strategic recommendations ................................................................................... 21 5.2 Implications ........................................................................................................... 24 5.3 Approach to developer contributions ..................................................................... 26

APPENDIX ONE: QUALITY AND VALUE MATRIX SUMMARY .................................... 28 APPENDIX TWO: ACCESSIBLITY CATCHMENT MAPS ............................................. 36 APPENDIX THREE: STRATEGIC AND PREMIER OPEN SPACE PROVISION ........... 40


July 2020 Standards Paper 1

PART 1: INTRODUCTION Open space provision standards should be used to inform local plan and supplementary planning documents by identifying any deficiencies and surpluses in existing and future provision. In addition, it should also help inform an approach to securing open space facilities through new housing development as well as helping to form the basis for negotiation with developers for contributions towards the provision of appropriate open space facilities and their long-term maintenance. This document follows on from, and should be read in tandem with, the preceding Open Space Audit and Needs Assessment (2020). Together, the two documents provide an Open Space Study which establishes an evidence base to help inform the future provision for open spaces in Kettering Borough. The purpose of an Open Space Study is to recognise the role of open space provision as a resource to the Borough of Kettering. Open spaces contribute to the health, well-being, cultural heritage, landscape, education, climate change mitigation, biodiversity and movement for people and wildlife. The impact of climate change is a recognised concern. One which open space provision has the ability to help contribute towards tackling through measures such as tree planting, landscaping, re-wilding and creation of wild areas etc. It is therefore vital for local authorities to know what provision currently exists and what the priorities and requirements are for the future. For this reason, a review of the Green Infrastructure Network and Ecosystem Services has also been undertaken (set out within the Assessment Report). This Study has been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); which sets out the Governments planning policies for England. In order for planning policies to be ‘sound’ local authorities are required to carry out a robust assessment of need for open space, sport and recreation facilities. Paragraph 96 of the NPPF refers to the need to identify qualitative or quantitative deficiencies or surpluses of open space. Scope This Study should be read in conjunction with the Playing Pitch Strategy (2020) (PPS) which is provided as a separate report. The associated PPS covers the provision and need of formal outdoor sports. The PPS was undertaken in accordance with the methodology provided in Sport England’s Guidance ‘Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance’ for assessing demand and supply for outdoor sports facilities (October 2013). Any site recognised as sports provision but with a clear multifunctional role (i.e. where it is also available for wider community use as open space) is included in this study as a type of open space. Provision purely for sporting use are included within the PPS. For sites with a dual use (e.g. a recreation ground with playing pitches): no double counting has occurred between the two studies because the PPS looks at the number of pitch facilities at a site (as prescribed in Sport England Guidance) and whilst pitch size is important it is only important in terms of type for play purposes e.g. mini pitch, adult pitch and not hectares of land (as utilised for open space studies). On duel use sites, the pitch playing surfaces are counted as part of the overall site size as they are considered to contribute to the total open space site and reflect its multifunctionality. Pitches on duel use sites are identified in the PPS too but only by number and pitch type as noted earlier.



The table below details the open space typologies included within the study: Table 1.1: Open space typologies Typology Primary purpose Parks and gardens Urban parks, country parks and formal gardens, open to the general

public. Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events.

Natural and semi-natural greenspaces

Woodlands, scrubland, orchards, grasslands (e.g. meadows and non-amenity grassland), wetlands and river corridors, nature reserves and brownfield land. Supports wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental education and awareness.

Amenity greenspace Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas.

Provision for children and young people

Areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children and young people, such as equipped play areas, MUGAs, skateboard areas and teenage shelters.

Allotments Opportunities to grow own produce. Added benefits include the long term promotion of sustainable living, health and social inclusion

Cemeteries, disused churchyards and other burial grounds

Private burial grounds, local authority burial grounds and disused churchyards. Provides burial space but is considered to provide a place of quiet contemplation and is often linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity.

Civic space Including civic and market squares and other hard surfaced community areas designed for pedestrians. Provides a setting for civic buildings, public demonstrations and community events

Green Infrastructure A network of multifunctional green space urban and rural which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities and wildlife.

Analysis areas For mapping purposes and audit analysis, Kettering Borough is divided into three sub-analysis areas. This allows more localised examination of open space surpluses and deficiencies and local circumstances and issues to be better considered. The areas and their populations are shown in the table below. Table 1.2: Population by analysis area

Analysis area Population* Desborough and Rothwell 22,752 Kettering & Burton Latimer 73,276 Rural 4,224 Total 100,252

Figure 1.1 overleaf shows the map of settlement areas with population density.

* Source: ONS 2017Mid-Year population estimates for England



Figure 1.1: Settlement areas



PART 2: ASSESSMENT REPORT SUMMARY A summary from the Assessment Report on a typology by typology basis is set out below. 2.1 Parks and gardens 20 sites are classified as parks and gardens equating to over 100 hectares. Catchment mapping shows the majority of higher population density areas are covered by

the walk times applied. However, some small gaps are noted to the east of Kettering, the outskirts of Burton Latimer and to the settlement of Mawsley.

The gaps identified around Kettering are likely to be met by other forms of open space provision such as amenity green space, which can provide similar recreation opportunities.

Of the 20 park and garden sites in Kettering Borough, 35% score above the quality threshold.

Rockingham Road Pleasure Park is the only park site with Green Flag Award status. All park and garden sites rate above the threshold for value. The highest scoring sites for

value are Wicksteed Park, Rockingham Road Pleasure Park and Desborough Greenspace scoring 80%, 71% and 70% respectively.

2.2 Natural and semi-natural greenspace In total, there are 50 accessible natural and semi-natural greenspace sites in Kettering

Borough, equating to over 784 hectares. There are also 49 sites which are inaccessible. With these sites included, the total

hectarage of natural provision increases to over 1,551 hectares. Based on ANGSt standards there are gaps in natural and semi-natural greenspace

provision in the Kettering & Burton Latimer Analysis Area. This is attributed to most sites within the higher population density area being smaller in size.

Of natural and semi-natural sites assessed, a total of 33 sites (66%) in Kettering Borough rate above the threshold set for quality.17 sites score below the quality threshold.

There is one local nature reserve (LNR); Tailby Meadow, at a size of 4.93 hectares. There are also eight SSSI sites across the Borough.

All natural and semi-natural sites in Kettering score above the threshold for value. The above demonstrates the added benefit natural and semi-natural greenspaces can

provide especially in terms of contributing to flora and fauna, providing habitats and breaking up the urban form. Larger sites also provide a good recreational offer.

2.3 Amenity greenspace There are 73 amenity greenspace sites in Kettering Borough equating to over 92 hectares. Kettering Borough is sufficient against the FiT quantity standard of 0.60 hectares per 1,000

head of population. This is also the case for all individual analysis areas. Mapping of a ten-minute walk time catchment demonstrates a good distribution of amenity

greenspace provision across Kettering Borough, with all areas of higher population density being served by a form of provision.

A total of 57% of amenity sites in Kettering Borough rate above the threshold for quality. The majority of sites scoring below the threshold are smaller sites and are observed as

being fairly basic, small pockets of green space. In addition to its multifunctional role, amenity greenspace makes a valuable contribution to

visual aesthetics for communities – hence all sites rate above the value threshold.



2.4 Provision for children and young people A total of 67 play locations are identified in Kettering Borough as provision for children and

young people. This combines to create a total of more than seven hectares. Provision with multiple forms of play equipment are combined to one site with a quality and

value score. This is due to these sharing ancillary features as a result of their close proximity. On this basis, there are 53 play sites which are classified and receive a quality and value score.

Play areas in Kettering Borough fall into the classifications of 0-8 years or 9+ years. The majority (56%) of sites have play provision that fit into both 0-8 years and 9+ years.

There is a good spread of provision across Kettering Borough. All areas with a greater population density are within walking distance of a form of play provision. There are some small gaps noted to the east of the settlement of Kettering.

Quality of provision is generally good across Kettering Borough with two thirds (66%) assessed as above the threshold. There are however 18 sites rating below the threshold.

All play provision in Kettering Borough rates above the threshold for value; reflecting the social, healthy and developmental benefits provision can provide.

2.5 Allotments 23 sites are classified as allotments in Kettering Borough, equating to over 36 hectares. Kettering Borough, as a whole, based on its current population (100,252) meets the

National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners standard. Using the suggested standard, the minimum amount of provision for Kettering is 25 hectares. Existing provision of 36.25 hectares therefore meets this guideline.

Mapping demonstrates a good distribution of allotments across Kettering Borough, with the Borough being well served based on a 15-minute drive time catchment (applied based on resident survey responses). However, given that waiting lists do exist across Kettering Borough, this would suggest that current supply does not meet the demand.

Where known, there is currently a waiting list at four allotment sites. The largest waiting list is at Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, where there are currently 20 people on the list.

In contrast, Church Street Allotments, Wilbarston Allotment Association reports that it currently has two and a half vacant plots.

Great Cransley Parish Council highlight residents would like allotment provision in the area. The majority of sites assessed for quality rate above the threshold (68%), suggesting a

high standard of allotment provision in the Kettering Borough. All allotments are assessed as high value reflecting the associated social inclusion and

health benefits, their amenity value and the sense of place offered by provision. 2.6 Cemeteries 42 sites are classified as cemeteries/churchyards, providing over 28 hectares of provision. Mapping demonstrates a fairly even distribution across the area; however, the need for

additional cemetery provision should be driven by burial demand and capacity. There is circa 399 years of burial capacity remaining in the Borough. The majority of cemeteries and churchyards in Kettering Borough (76%) rate above the

threshold set for quality, suggesting a reasonably high standard of quality for this form of open space provision within the area.

All cemeteries are assessed as high value in Kettering Borough, reflecting their role within communities, as well as their cultural/heritage role and conservation benefits.



PART 3: SETTING PROVISION STANDARDS 3.1 Developing and setting standards The following section derives and details the proposed local standards recommended for Kettering Borough. It details how current provision levels identified as part of the assessment compared to existing standards as well as national benchmarks and whether any adjustments to the proposed standards are required. It is important to recognise that there are no prescribed national standards for open space provision. In general, very little guidance is offered at a national level for quality with benchmarking of standards focusing on quantity and accessibility levels. Subsequently the following approach has been used to provide an informed reasoning to the setting and application of standards for Kettering Borough. Consultation to update local need for open space provision has been conducted with key local authority officers. A Community Survey was also hosted and promoted online. The results of the survey are set out within the Audit and Needs Assessment Report. An overview of the proposed standards in terms of quality, accessibility and quantity is set out below. Further information on the evidence used to inform these standards is provided in the associated Audit and Needs Assessment Report. The proposed standards are then used to determine deficiencies and surpluses for open space in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility. 3.2 Quality and value To determine whether sites are high or low quality* the results of the site assessments are colour-coded against a baseline threshold (high being green and low being red). The primary aim of applying a threshold is to identify sites where investment and/or improvements may be required. It can also be used to set an aspirational quality standard to be achieved at some point in the future and to inform decisions around the need to further protect sites from future development (particularly when applied with its respective value score in a matrix format). The only national benchmark available for quality of parks and open spaces is the 66% pass rate for the Green Flag Award. However, whilst the criteria used in this study utilises similar elements as the criteria of the Green Flag Award; using the Green Flag pass rate is not appropriate for every open space typology as it is designed to represent an exceptionally high standard of provision. For example, a park would be expected to feature a greater presence and variety of ancillary facilities (e.g. seating, bins, paths, play equipment, landscaping, etc) in comparison to an amenity greenspace or other type of open space. Furthermore, the 66% threshold for Green Flag is not appropriate as a different scoring mechanism is used within this study (albeit the criteria for this study is derived from the categories used as part of Green Flag).

* As set out in the Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to Planning Policy Guidance 17 (2001)



For each typology a different set or weighting for each criterion of quality is used. This is in order to better reflect the different roles and uses of each open space type. Consequently, a different threshold level is set for each open space typology. In order to distinguish between higher and lower quality sites, the quality thresholds are set to reflect the average scores for each typology within the Borough. For example, an average quality score of 52% is observed for the 67 amenity greenspace sites to receive a quality rating. Consequently, the quality threshold is set at 50% in order to help distinguish higher and lower quality sites. In our experience this works as an effective initial method to reflect local levels of provision and their variability. The highest and lowest scoring sites clearly distinguish those forms of provision of a higher and lower quality. However, consideration and flexibility is needed when viewing sites close to the average score/threshold. The application of the quality thresholds should be treated as a first step; helping to identify those sites of a high quality, low quality and those sites potentially needing further consideration based on local knowledge. For value, there is no national guidance on the setting of thresholds. The 20% threshold is derived from our experience and knowledge in assessing the perceived value of sites. A high valued site is one deemed to be well used and offering visual, social, physical and mental health benefits. Value is also a more subjective measure than assessing the physical quality of provision. Therefore, a conservative blanket threshold of 20% is set. Whilst 20% may initially seem low - it is a relative score. One designed to reflect those sites that meet more than one aspect of the criteria used for assessing value (as detailed earlier). If a site meets more than one criterion for value it will score greater than 20%. Consequently, it is deemed to be of higher value. Table 3.2.1: Quality and value benchmark standards

Typology Quality threshold Value threshold Parks and gardens 60% 20% Natural and semi-natural greenspace 50% 20% Amenity greenspace 50% 20% Provision for children and young people 60% 20% Allotments 55% 20% Cemeteries/churchyards 50% 20%

3.3 Accessibility Accessibility catchments for different types of provision are a tool to identify communities currently not served by existing facilities. It is recognised that factors that underpin catchment areas vary from person to person, day to day and hour to hour. For the purposes of this study this problem is overcome by accepting the concept of ‘effective catchments’, defined as the distance that would be travelled by most users. The determination of a distance catchment (or accessibility standard) for Kettering Borough is decided through an assessment of available information including: the Fields in Trust (FiT) guidance, the KBC consultation and by an examination of the accessibility standards set for the Borough’s neighbouring authorities namely Corby, Wellingborough and East Northamptonshire District Councils (see table 3.3.2)



Guidance on walking distance and times is published by FiT in its document Beyond the Six Acre Standard (2015). Appropriate accessibility distances for children’s play provision vary depending on the type of play provision (children’s play or older age ranges). FiT do not set accessibility standards for allotments or churchyards / cemeteries. Churchyards and cemeteries are unique in their function; making new provision occurs only in exceptional circumstances based on evidence beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to set an accessibility standard as this report can have no impact on provision. For allotments, like cemeteries, it is more appropriate to determine need for allotment provision based on demand such as waiting lists. Table 3.3.1: FiT accessibility guidelines Open space type FiT guideline Time equivalent Parks & Gardens 710m 9-minute walk time

Natural & Semi-natural Greenspace 720m 9-minute walk time

Amenity Greenspace 480m 6-minute walk time

Provision for children & young people

LAP 100m 1-minute walk time LEAP 400m 5-minute walk time NEAP 1,000m 12.5-minute walk time Youth 700m 9-minute walk time

Table 3.3.2 sets out a comparison to the different information available on accessibility catchments relevant to Kettering Borough.



Table 3.3.2: Comparison of accessibility catchments and standards

FiT Walking Guideline

KBC Consultation

(2019)

KBC OSNA (2007)

Wellingborough OS Assessment

(2017)

East Northamptonshire OS Assessment

(2017)

Corby OS Assessment

(2017) Parks & Gardens

710m (c. 9 mins walk) 12.5 mins walk 480m

(c. 10 mins walk) 720m

(c. 15 mins walk) 1,200m


(c. 9 mins walk)

Amenity Green Space

480m (c. 6 mins walk) 10 mins walk 480m

(c. 10 mins walk) 480m (c. 10 mins

walk) 400m

(5 mins walk) 480m

(c. 6 mins walk)

Natural & Semi Natural

720m (c. 9 mins walk) 30 mins drive 720m


(c. 15 mins walk) 1,200m


(c. 9 mins walk)

Play - children

LAP 100m

0 to 8 yrs (12.5 mins walk

480m (c. 10 mins walk)



400m (c. 5 mins walk

LEAP 400m (5 mins walk) NEAP 1,000m (12 mins walk)

Play – young people

700m (8 mins)

9+ yrs (15 mins walk)

Urban: 480m (c. 10 mins walk)

Rural: no standard



1000m (c. 12 mins)

Allotments No standard set No available data 720m (c. 15 mins walk)

720m (c. 15 mins walk

1,200m (c. 15 mins walk) No standard set

Cemeteries and Churchyards No standard set No available data No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set

Civic Spaces No standard set 15 mins walk No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set



Recommendation for accessibility standards For the purposes of this study, and to recognise the role different types of open space provision have across the Borough, a sub-level classification of sites has been utilised for typologies with an accessibility standard recommended. This is in order to better reflect provision with a more strategic role and those with a more localised function. Sites considered as strategic forms of provision (‘premier’ sites) are larger in size and have a greater level of ancillary facilities. Consequently, they are considered to attract people from a wider area and warrant a greater catchment area as they act on a Borough level. Other forms of provision are referred to as ‘neighbourhood’ sites. For play provision, separate accessibility standards are recommended for children’s play (0-8 years) and young people (9+ years) to reflect the difference in an individual’s willingness to travel to each type of provision. The recommended accessibility catchments for Kettering Borough are a combination of FiT guidance, consultation and existing standards. These are also broadly in keeping with the accessibility standards set by neighbouring authorities. For natural and semi-natural greenspace provision respondents signal a willingness to travel further than the FiT guideline or the existing KBC standard. Respondents also suggest a willingness to travel by car as opposed to walking. However, applying a 30-minute drive time catchment to natural provision could potentially imply a surplus of sites (as a catchment of this distance and type reaches well beyond the local authority boundaries). For the purposes of providing a meaningful analysis, it is recommended that a walk time accessibility catchment (more in line with FiT and existing standards) is used. On this basis, we recommend the following accessibility standards for each typology. Table 3.3.4: Recommended accessibility standards

Open space type Sub-typology Recommended accessibility standards

Parks & Gardens Premier/strategic 15 min walk Neighbourhood /

Community garden 10 min walk

Amenity Greenspace Premier 10 min walk

Neighbourhood 6 min walk

Natural & Semi-natural Greenspace

Premier 10 min walk

Neighbourhood 6 min walk


Children’s play 10 min walk Young people 15 min walk

Allotments n/a n/a

Cemeteries n/a n/a Civic space n/a n/a



3.4 Quantity Quantity standards can be used to identify areas of shortfalls and help with setting requirements for future developments. No quantity standard is suggested for open space provision such as cemeteries or civic space. Cemetery provision should be determined by instances of demand such as burial capacity and local need. Civic space provision should be considered as a design requirement for any large-scale developments. To set a quantity standard it is useful to compare existing levels of provision identified as part of the assessment against national benchmarks and neighbouring authorities. The current provision levels are initially detailed in the Assessment Report. Guidance on quantity levels is published by Fields In Trust (FiT) in its document Beyond the Six Acre Standard (2015). The guidance provides standards for three types of open space provision; parks and gardens, amenity greenspace and natural and semi-natural greenspace. FiT also suggests 0.25 hectares per 1,000 population of equipped/ designated playing space as a guideline quantity standard for play provision. The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) offers guidance on allotments. Table 3.4.1 sets out the quantity figures for current provision levels identified, 2008 levels and the national benchmarks.



Table 3.4.1: Comparison of quantity levels and standards

FiT Quantity Guideline

KBC OS* assessment

(2019)

KBC OS SPD (2008)

Wellingborough OS Assessment (2017)

East Northamptonshire OS Assessment

(2017)

Corby OS Assessment

(2017) Parks & Gardens 0.80 ha per 1,000 1.00 ha per 1,000 0.30 ha per 1,000 Urban: 1.5 ha per 1,000

Rural: 1.0 ha per 1,000 0.58 ha per 1,000 2.13 ha per 1,000

Amenity Green Space 0.60 ha per 1,000 0.92 ha per 1,000 0.80 ha per 1,000 Urban: 1.0 ha per 1,000

Rural: 0.5 ha per 1,000 0.67 ha per 1,000 2.00 ha per 1,000

Natural & Semi Natural 1.80 ha per 1,000 7.82 ha per 1,000 0.90 ha per 1,000 1.80 ha per 1,000 4.37 ha per 1,000 1.59 ha per 1,000

Play - children 0.25 ha per 1,000 0.07 ha per 1,000

0.45 ha per 1,000 0.065 ha per 1,000 0.06 ha per 1,000 0.07 ha per 1,000 Play - young

people 0.30 ha per 1,000 0.25 ha per 1,000

Allotments** 0.25 ha per 1,000 0.36 ha per 1,000 0.40 ha per 1,000 Urban: 0.3 ha per 1,000 Rural: 1.0 ha per 1,000 0.36 ha per 1,000 0.12 ha per 1,000

Cemeteries and Churchyards No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set

Civic Spaces No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set No standard set

*Current provision across the Borough as determined by the Open Space Audit and Needs Assessment (2020)

** National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardening recommendation



The recommendation for open space is for the current provision levels to be used as a basis to inform and determine the quantity requirements for Kettering Borough with recognition to national benchmarks and neighbouring local authorities. An approach using locally derived quantity standards ensures more reflective standards are set as they are based on and take consideration to current local provision levels and views. Furthermore, the community survey shows respondents are content with existing levels of provision. The availability of provision is generally considered to be very (34%) or quite satisfactory (46%) by respondents to the community survey. Table 3.4.2: Survey respondent satisfaction to availability

Very satisfactory

Quite satisfactory

Neither satisfactory or unsatisfactory

Quite unsatisfactory

Very unsatisfactory

33.7% 45.7% 11.1% 5.5% 4.0%

For natural and semi-natural greenspace, the initial current provision level is noticeably quite large (7.82 hectares per 1,000 population). This figure is based on all forms of accessible provision, regardless of size, being used to calculate an initial current provision level. However, there are several sites identified as being significantly large. Such large forms of provision skew the current provision level which makes it potentially impractical to base the recommended quantity standard on the current levels of provision; as seeking such large amounts of provision through developer contributions is likely in most cases to not be achievable. If these significantly large sites are omitted from the current provision level calculation*, then a total of 1.70 hectares per 1,000 population is observed. This is considered a more realistic provision level to use and achieve. On this basis, the following quantity standards are recommended. Table 3.4.3: Recommended quantity standards

Typology Quantity standard (hectares per 1,000 population)

Parks & gardens 1.00 Amenity greenspace 0.92 Natural & semi-natural greenspace 1.70 Provision for children & young people 0.07 Allotment 0.36

* Average size of a natural site in Kettering Borough is 15.7 hectares. There are seven sites greater than this in size. If omitted, the total amount for natural provision is 171 hectares.



PART 4: APPLICATION OF PROVISION STANDARDS The provision standards used to determine deficiencies and surpluses for open space are set in terms of quality, accessibility and quantity. 4.1: Quality and value Each type of open space receives a separate quality and value score. This also allows for application of a high and low quality/value matrix to further help determine prioritisation of investment and to identify sites that may be surplus as a particular open space type. Quality and value matrix Assessing the quality and value of open spaces is used to identify those sites which should be given the highest level of protection, those which require enhancement and those which may no longer be needed for their present purpose. When analysing the quality/value of a site, it should be done in conjunction with regard to the quantity of provision in the area (i.e. whether there is a deficiency). When analysing the quality/value of a site it should be done in conjunction with regard to the other forms of provision in the area (i.e. whether there may be an accessibility deficiency). It is also important to have regard to a site’s role and contribution to the Green Infrastructure Network as part of any decision-making processes. The high/low classification gives the following possible combinations of quality and value: Quality

High Low

Valu

e

Hig

h

All sites should have an aspiration to come into this category. Many sites of this category are likely to be viewed as

key forms of open space provision.

The approach to these sites should be to enhance their quality to the applied

standard. The priority will be those sites providing a key role in terms of access

to provision.

Low

The preferred approach to a site in this category should be to enhance its value in terms of its present primary function. If this is not possible, consideration to a change of primary function should be given (i.e. a change to another open

space typology).

The approach to these sites in areas of identified shortfall should be to enhance their quality provided it is possible also

to enhance their value. In areas of sufficiency a change of

primary typology should be considered first. If no shortfall of other open space typologies is noted than the site may be

redundant/ 'surplus to requirements'. It should be noted all assessed sites in Kettering Borough are above the value threshold. There is a need for flexibility to the enhancement of low-quality sites. In some instances, a better use of resources and investment may be to focus on more suitable sites for enhancement as opposed to trying to enhance sites where it is not appropriate or cost effective to do so. Please refer to the Appendix One for a breakdown of the matrix.



4.2: Accessibility Accessibility catchments for different types of provision are a tool to identify communities currently not served by existing facilities. It is recognised that factors that underpin catchment areas vary from person to person, day to day and hour to hour. For the purposes of this process this problem is overcome by accepting the concept of ‘effective catchments’, defined as the distance that would be travelled by most users. The recommended accessibility standards for Kettering Borough are set out in Table 4.2.1. Table 4.2.1: Recommended accessibility standards

Open space type Sub-typology Recommended accessibility standards

Parks & Gardens Premier/strategic 15 min walk

Other 10 min walk

Amenity Greenspace Strategic 10 min walk

Other 6 min walk

Natural & Semi-natural Greenspace

Strategic 10 min walk Other 6 min walk


Children’s play 10 min walk

Young people 15 min walk Allotments n/a n/a

Cemeteries n/a n/a

Civic space n/a n/a No catchments are suggested for the typologies of allotments, civic space or cemeteries. For cemeteries, it is difficult to assess such provision against catchment mapping as it is better to determine need for provision based on demand for burial space. For allotments, it is more appropriate to determine need for allotment provision based on demand such as waiting lists. If an area does not have access to the required level of provision (consistent with the catchments) it is deemed deficient. KKP has identified instances where new sites may be needed or potential opportunities could be explored in order to provide comprehensive access to this type of provision (i.e. a gap in one form of provision may exist but the area in question may be served by another form of open space). The following sections summarise the deficiencies identified from the application of the accessibility standards together with the recommended actions. Please refer to the associated mapping data to view site locations. In determining the subsequent actions for any identified catchment gaps, the following key principles are adhered: Increase capacity/usage in order to meet increases in demand, or Enhance quality in order to meet increases in demand, or Commuted sum for ongoing maintenance/repairs to mitigate impact of new demand



These principles are intended to mitigate for the impact of increases in demand on existing provision. An increase in population will reduce the lifespan of certain sites and/or features (e.g. play equipment, maintenance regimes etc). This will lead to the increased requirement to refurbish and/or replace such forms of provision. Consequently, the recommended approach is to increase the capacity of and/or enhance the existing provision available. Table 4.2.2: Rural Area Typology Identified need

(catchment gap) Action

Amenity greenspace

No significant gaps in catchment mapping.

No action required

Natural and semi/natural


No action required.

Parks and gardens


No action required.



No action required.

Table 4.2.3: Desborough and Rothwell Analysis Area Typology Catchment gap Action Amenity greenspace


No action required.

Parks and gardens

Gap in catchment mapping to settlement of Mawsley

Gap is served by other sites such as amenity greenspace like The Green Recreation Ground (ID 454) and natural greenspace like Mawsley NGS (ID 57) and Jibwood NGS (ID 59)


Gaps in catchment mapping to north of Desborough

Gap is served by other sites such as parks like Desborough Greenspace (ID 51)



No action required.



Table 4.2.4: Kettering and Burton Latimer Area Typology Identified need

(catchment gap) Action

Amenity greenspace

Gaps in catchment mapping to west and south of Kettering.

Gap is served by other sites such as the parks serving Kettering but particularly Grafton Street (ID 8), Rockingham Road Pleasure Park (ID 17), Highfield Road Park (ID 381), Wicksteed Park (ID 18), Spring Rise Park (ID 87) and Meadow Road Park (ID 419)


Gaps in catchment mapping to centre and south of Kettering.

Gap may be served by other sites such as parks like Rockingham Road Pleasure Park (ID 17) and Highfield Road Park (ID 381) as well as cemeteries e.g. London Road Cemetery (ID 520) and amenity greenspace like Lake off Thurston Drive (ID 85).

Parks and gardens

Gaps in catchment mapping to east of Kettering, outskirts of Burton Latimer and settlement of Broughton.

East of Kettering: Gap is served by other sites such as amenity greenspace like Charlotte Place (ID 359), Ise Valley (ID 212) and Deebie Road South (ID 210) as well as natural greenspace like The Grange Pocket Park (ID 40) and Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park (ID 38) Outskirts of Burton Latimer: Gap is served by other sites such as amenity greenspace like King George IV Recreation Ground (ID 405), Snetterton Close (ID 259) and Cranford Road (ID 220) as well as natural greenspace like Burton Latimer Pocket Park (ID 33) Broughton: Gap is served by other sites such as amenity greenspace like Broughton Recreation Ground (ID 431) and Gate Lane Recreation Ground (ID 432)


Minor gap noted to east of Kettering

Explore any potential opportunities to provide play provision at existing open space sites such as Ise Lodge Community Centre (ID 163), Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park (ID 38) or Hanover Close (ID 181)



4.3: Quantity Quantity standards can be used to identify areas of shortfalls and help with determining requirements for future developments. Setting quantity standards The setting and application of quantity standards is necessary to ensure new developments contribute to the provision of open space across the area. Shortfalls in quality and accessibility standards are identified across the Borough for different types of open space (as set out in Parts 4.1 and 4.2). Consequently, the Council should seek to ensure these shortfalls are not made worse through increases in demand as part of future development growth across the Borough. The recommendation for open space is for the current provision levels to be used as a basis to inform and determine the quantity requirements for Kettering Borough (with recognition to national benchmarks and neighbouring local authorities). Table 4.3.1: Recommended quantity standards

Typology Quantity standards (hectares per 1,000 population)

Parks & gardens 1.00 Amenity greenspace 0.92 Natural & semi-natural greenspace 1.70 Provision for children & young people 0.07 Allotment 0.36

The current provision levels can be used to help identify where areas may have a shortfall against the recommended quantity standards for Kettering Borough. Table 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 show the position for each sub-area as to whether it is sufficient or identified as having a shortfall against the recommended quantity standards for each type of open space.



Table 4.3.2: Current provision against recommended quantity standards Analysis area Parks and gardens Natural & Semi-natural Amenity greenspace Allotments

(Hectares per 1000 population)

1.00 1.70 0.92 0.36

Current provision + / - Current

provision + / - Current provision + / - Current

provision + / - Desborough & Rothwell 1.52 + 0.52 1.37 - 0.33 0.96 + 0.04 0.21 - 0.15

Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.90 - 0.10 4.66 + 2.96 0.80 + 0.12 0.41 + 0.05

Rural - - 1.00 97.48 + 95.78 2.69 + 1.77 0.28 - 0.08



All analysis areas are observed as having shortfalls in some form of open space. The Rural Analysis Area has no parks provision but is observed as being potentially well served by amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspace. Provision for children and young people Table 4.3.4 shows the position for each sub-area as to whether it is sufficient or identified as having a shortfall against the recommended standard in terms of provision for children and young people. Table 4.3.4: Current play provision against recommended quantity standard Analysis area Hectares per 1000 population

Current provision Sufficiency/deficiency against 0.07 recommended standard

Desborough & Rothwell 0.06 - 0.01 Kettering & Burton Latimer 0.07 Level Rural 0.25 +0.18

The Desborough & Rothwell Analysis Area is identified as having a slight quantity shortfall. The other areas either meet or are greater than the recommended quantity play standard. Identifying priorities The focus for areas identified as being sufficient against the existing quantity standards will be for priorities to ensure quality and accessibility standards are being met. Table 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 highlight those areas of the Borough with quantity shortfalls in provision. The recommended quantity standards should also be used to determine the open space requirements as part of new housing developments. In the first instance, all types of provision should look to be provided as part of new housing developments. If this is not considered viable, the column signalling whether an area is sufficient or has a shortfall against the recommended quantity standards may be used to help inform the priorities for each type of open space within each area (i.e. the priorities may be where a shortfall has been identified). For example, in the Kettering and Burton Latimer Analysis Area, quantity shortfalls are highlighted in parks and amenity greenspace provision (see Table 4.3.3). On this basis, these should be identified as a priority in the area. For other forms of provision, a focus should be on ensuring contributions to enhancing the quality and accessibility of existing open space provision.



PART 5: POLICY ADVICE AND STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Strategic recommendations The following section provides a summary on the key findings from the application of the quantity, quality and accessibility standards. It incorporates and recommends what the Council should be seeking to achieve in order to address the issues highlighted. It is also important to have regard to a site’s role and contribution to the Green Infrastructure Network as part of any decision-making processes. Recommendation 1 Explore low quality sites and their potential for enhancement The policy approach to these sites should be to enhance their quality to the applied standards (i.e. high quality) where possible. This is especially the case if the site is deemed to be of high value to the local community. Therefore, they should initially be protected, if they are not already so, in order for their quality to be improved. The summary of low quality/value sites (Appendix One) identifies those sites that should be given consideration for enhancement if possible. Priority sites should be those highlighted as helping or with the potential to serve gaps in provision (Recommendation 2) Recommendation 2 Sites helping or with the potential to serve areas identified as having gaps in catchment

mapping should be recognised through opportunities for enhancement The implications summary for the accessibility catchment mapping (Section 4.2) highlights those sites that help or have the potential to serve identified gaps in provision. Furthermore, there are several sites across Kettering Borough with a multi-functional role which may serve (to some extent) the wider areas of the borough. A summary of the sites helping to serve catchment gaps is set out in Table 5.1.1. Table 5.1.1: Summary of sites helping to serve catchment gaps

Site ID

Site name Type of open space Helps to serve gap in provision of:

8 Grafton Street Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace

17 Rockingham Road Park Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace Natural greenspace

18 Wicksteed Park Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park Natural greenspace Parks and gardens

38 Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park Natural greenspace

Parks and gardens Potential play provision

40 The Grange Pocket Park Natural greenspace Parks and gardens 51 Desborough Greenspace Parks and gardens Natural greenspace 57 Mawsley NGS Natural greenspace Parks and gardens 59 Jibwood NGS Natural greenspace Parks and gardens 85 Lake off Thurston Drive Amenity greenspace Natural greenspace



Site ID


163 Ise Lodge Community Centre Amenity greenspace Potential play provision 181 Hanover Close Amenity greenspace Potential play provision 210 Deeble Road South Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 212 Ise Valley Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 220 Cranford Road Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 259 Snetterton Close Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 359 Charlotte Place Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

381 Highfield Road Park Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace Natural greenspace

405 King George IV Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

419 Meadow Road Park Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace 431 Broughton Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 432 Gate Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 454 The Green Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 520 London Road Cemetery Cemetery Natural greenspace

These sites currently help to meet the identified catchment gaps for other open space typologies. Often this is related to parks, amenity greenspace and natural and semi-natural greenspace. The Council should explore the potential/possibility to adapt these sites through formalisation and/or greater provision of features linked to other types of open space. This is in order to provide a stronger secondary role as well as opportunities associated with other open space types. This may also help to minimise the need for creation of new provision in order to address any gaps in catchment mapping. Such sites should be viewed as being key forms of open space provision. It is important that the Council looks to maintain sites of this classification to as high a standard as possible. Many of these sites are recognised as strategic and/or premier forms of provision within the accessibility standards (Appendix Three sets out a list of sites considered to act as strategic and/or premier forms of provision). Given the importance of these sites it is recommended that strategic and premier sites have a management plan to support and guide any future decisions and investments. Recommendation 3 Ensure low quality/value sites helping to serve potential gaps in accessibility

catchments are prioritised for enhancement The approach to these sites should be to enhance their quality/value to the applied standards (i.e. high quality and/or value). The implications summary of the quality and value matrix (Appendix One) identifies those sites that should be given priority for enhancement if possible. A key consideration is whether the site may benefit from being changed to a different type of open space (See Recommendation 4). A list of low quality and/or value sites currently helping to serve catchment gaps in provision is set out in Table 5.1.2.



Table 5.1.2: Summary of low quality/value sites helping to serve catchment gaps

Site ID


85 Lake off Thurston Drive Amenity greenspace Natural greenspace 163 Ise Lodge Community Centre Amenity greenspace Potential play provision 212 Ise Valley Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens 220 Cranford Road Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

259.1 Snetterton Close Play Area Contained within Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

381 Highfield Road Park Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace Natural greenspace

405.2 King George IV Recreation Ground

Contained within Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

419 Meadow Road Park Parks and gardens Amenity greenspace

431.1 Broughton Recreation Ground Contained within Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

432.1 Gate Lane Recreation Ground Contained within Amenity greenspace Parks and gardens

Recommendation 4 Sites in areas with sufficient provision of open space may be able to meet the need for

other types of open space or could potentially be considered surplus If no improvement to quality and/or value can be implemented for sites identified as low quality and/or value (Appendix One), a change of primary typology should be considered. If no requirement for another type of open space site is recognised (Section 4.3), or it is not feasible to change the primary typology of the site, then the site could be potentially redundant/ 'surplus to requirements'. For instance, there are 75 parks, natural, amenity and play sites identified as either lower quality and/or value. Of these 75 sites, 10 are is identified in Table 5.1.2 as helping to serve catchment gaps in other types of open space. These should look to be enhanced in terms of quality. Recommendation 5 Keeping data, report and supporting evidence base up to date in order to reflect

changes over time The Open Space Standards Paper and the Audit and Needs Assessment Report provide a snapshot in time. Whilst significant changes are not as common for open space provision, inevitably over time changes in provision occur through creation of new provision, loss of existing provision and/or alterations to site boundaries and management. Population change and housing growth are also another consideration to review when undertaking any form of update as this may impact on quantity provision levels and standards. It is therefore important for the Council to undertake regular reviews of the data (i.e. every 1-2 years) to ensure decisions are being based on evidence which is as accurate as possible.



5.2 Implications The following section sets out the policy implications in terms of the planning process in Kettering Borough. This is intended to help steer the Council in seeking contributions to the improvement and/or provision of any new forms of open space. How is provision to be made? The requirements for on-site or off-site provision and / or contributions will vary according to the type of open space to be provided. Collecting contributions from developers can be undertaken through the following two processes. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Planning Obligations are the two main mechanisms available to the Council to ensure future development addresses any adverse impacts it creates. If required, Planning Conditions can be used to ensure that key requirements are met. The Council does not collect CIL so this is not currently an open option to secure funding through planning. Planning obligations Planning Conditions and Obligations (often known as Section 106 Agreements) require individual developments to provide or pay for the provision of development specific infrastructure requirements. They are flexible and deliver a wide range of site and community infrastructure benefits. A development should make appropriate provision of services, facilities and infrastructure to meet the needs arising from that development. Seeking developer contributions This document can inform policies and emerging planning documents by assisting in the Council’s approach to securing open spaces through new housing development. The evidence should form the basis for negotiation with developers to secure contributions for the provision of appropriate facilities and their long term maintenance.



The wider benefits of open space and associated features regardless of size should be recognised as a key design principle for any new development. These features and elements can help to contribute to the perception of open space provision in an area, at the same time as also ensuring an aesthetically pleasing landscape providing wider social, environmental, climate and health benefits. Sport England’s Active Design* looks at the opportunities to encourage sport and physical activity through the built environment in order to support healthier and more active lifestyles. It is therefore important for planning to consider the principles of Active Design. Where open space provision within the catchment/analysis area is identified as being sufficient in terms of quantity and can accommodate additional demand, provision of new open space is not always necessary (subject to local plan policy requirements). It may be more suitable to seek contributions for quality improvements and/or new off-site provision in order to address any demand arising from the development. Smaller infill development areas may not be expected to meet its own needs. This should be made clear through local plan policies, supported by the minimum area thresholds for on-site provision. Off-site contributions If new provision cannot be sufficiently provided on-site it may be possible to seek to enhance the quality of existing provision and/or improve access and linkages to existing sites. In some instances, a development may be located within proximity to an existing site. In such cases, it may be more beneficial for an off-site contribution to avoid creation of small incremental spaces so close to existing sites. Costs required for the enhancement of existing open space and provision of new open spaces should be clearly identified and revised on a regular basis. Maintenance contributions There will be a requirement on developers to demonstrate that where on-site provision is to be provided it will be managed and maintained accordingly. In most instances, the site will be adopted by the Council, which would require the developer to submit a sum of money in order to pay the costs of the site’s future maintenance. The procedure for councils adopting new sites may include: The developer being responsible for maintenance of the site for an initial agreed

establishment period. Sums to cover the maintenance costs of a site (once transferred to the Council) should

be intended to cover an agreed set period. Calculations to determine the amount of maintenance contributions required should be based on current maintenance costs.

* https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-and-planning/active-design/

https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-and-planning/active-design/



5.3 Approach to developer contributions KKP advocates the requirement for open space should be based upon the number of persons generated from the net increase in dwellings in the proposed scheme. We also promote the use of quantity provision standards (in hectares per 1,000 population) in calculating the open space requirements of new housing development. Flexible approach A focus of this study has been to recognise the role quality and accessibility has in terms of open space provision. Future need should not just centre on quantity requirements of new residential developments. In some instances a new residential development may not warrant on-site provision but instead could contribute towards an existing site in proximity. However, KBC preference is for onsite contributions to be sought. The flowchart (Table 5.3.1) sets out the process that should be considered when determining contributions in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility. The provision standards should be used to help determine the requirements for open space provision as part of a development. Table 5.3.1: Determining developer contributions

Step 1 - Determine the open space requirement resulting from the development based on the recommended quantity standards. Step 2 – Consider whether the size of the development warrants on-site provision or whether the proximity of an existing open space could benefit from enhancement? Step 3 – Determine which sites could benefit most from contribution Step 4 - Calculate the financial off-site contribution required.

If at Step 2, it is determined that provision should be on-site then the recommended quantity standards should be used to calculate the requirements for open space. The recommended quantity standards (Table 4.3.1) should be used to help determine the open space requirements as a result of a development. These should be used as part of the formula below which calculates the actual open space provision to be required The formula to determine the initial amount of open space provision required is:

New/additional population from development x quantity standard / 1000 For example, a hypothetical development of 50 dwellings would require the following amount of amenity greenspace:

New/additional population from development (50 x 2.4* = 120) x amenity greenspace quantity standard (0.90) / 1000 = 0.11 hectares

* Based on household occupancy rate of 2.4 people per dwelling (Source: ONS Families and Households Release 2017)



Determining on-site or off-site contributions The requirement for on or off-site provision should be undertaken in conjunction with the accessibility and quality of existing open space provision. For instance, if an existing form of open space is located within access to the development there may not be a requirement to provide on-site provision. It is recognised that open spaces of a particularly small size hold less recreational use and value. The presence of additional smaller sites will also add to the existing pressures of maintenance regimes and safety inspections. It is therefore suggested that a minimum area threshold is used to determine if provision should be provided on or off-site and in order to ensure meaningful forms of provision are provided. For instance, if a new form of open space provision falls below a size of site which is considered too small to act as meaningful open space provision it could look to be secured as an off-site contribution. If the provision to be provided surpasses the minimum area it could look to be provided on-site as part of the development. For this reason, KBC is not seeking to promote or support provision of small play areas; often referred to as LAPs (Localised Areas of Play). In instances where a small amount of play provision is required, the preference would be for it to contribute to existing play sites. Fields in Trust (FiT)* offer some guidance to the potential minimum area of sites. KBC also have existing minimum site areas set out in the 2008 SPD. Consideration to reviewing these minimum site sizes is advised given the recommended change in quantity standards within this document.

* Beyond the Six Acre Standard (2015)



APPENDIX ONE: QUALITY AND VALUE MATRIX SUMMARY Desborough and Rothwell Analysis Area Table A1.1: Parks and gardens

Site ID Site name Quality Value

1 Lower Street Memorial Gardens(P&G) 5 Manor Park

15 Rothwell Recreation Ground 51 Desborough Greenspace

Table A1.2: Natural and semi-natural greenspace


2 Beech Close NSN & Millennium Green, Desborough 25 Land at back of St Giles Church, Desborough 26 Buckwell Close NSN, Desborough 32 Rothwell Pocket Park 43 Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Park 50 Tailby Meadow 54 Bracher's Wood, Kettering Road, Rothwell 57 Mawsley NGS, Off Loddington Way, Mawsley 59 Jibwood NGS, Land off School Road, Mawsley 91 Mawsley Wood 95 Shotwell Mill Meadows

Table A1.3: Amenity greenspace

Site ID Site name Quality Value 4 Blythe Close 56 Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Avenue 72 AGS around the Museum, Harrington 81 Neuville Way AGS, Desborough 88 Connoly Drive AGS 89 Nelson Drive AGS 90 Sharman Way AGS 157 Harrington Road AGS, Loddington 228 Well Lane, Rothwell 251 Burdock Way, Cranesbill Close and Ironwood Avenue (Land

adjacent), Desborough

260 Loddington Way, Mawsley 267 The Green, Mawsley



Site ID Site name Quality Value 276 Loddington Way, Fox Coverts, Warren End, and Birch Spinney

(Land adjacent), Mawsley

283 Browns Close and Loddington Way (Land adjacent), Mawsley 301 Desborough Rushton Road YPC, Desborough 361 Loddington OSF 394 Greening Road 454 Recreational Ground, The Green, Mawsley 540 Desborough Recreation Ground

Table A1.4: Provision for children and young people Site ID Site name Quality Value

4.1 Play Area Blythe Close 15.1 Rothwell Recreation Ground MUGA 296 Loddington YPC, Loddington

301.1 Desborough Rushton Road YPC Play Area 308 Spring Gardens Play Area 322 Dunkirk Avenue Play Area. Desborough 333 Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Avenue 345 Skate Ramp - Well Lane Recreation Ground

394.1 Rothwell Play Area 454.2 Mawsley Play Area, Hawthorn Avenue

Table A1.5: Allotments


466 Desborough Allotments, Desborough 470 Shotwell Mill Lane Allotments 471 Rushton Road Allotments north 482 Brachers Field Allotments, Edinburgh Close, Rothwell



Kettering and Burton Latimer Analysis Area Table A2.1: Parks and gardens


6 The Paddocks Churchill Way 8 Grafton Street 9 Westfield Gardens (Merged into Meadow Road Park) 10 Garden of Rest 11 Manor House Gardens 12 Jubilee Gardens South 13 Jubilee Gardens North 16 Municipal Offices Gardens 17 Rockingham Road Pleasure Park 18 Wicksteed Park 19 Mill Road Park 87 Spring Rise Park (Top Park), Springfield Road 314 Millennium Park 381 Highfield Road Park 416 North Park Playing Fields 419 Meadow Road Park 446 Grays Field 456 The Weekly Glebe Playing Fields

Table A2.2: Natural and semi-natural greenspace


20 Deeble Road South NSN 23 Cransley Wood, Great Cransley 28 The Rectory Plantation 29 Pendle Avenue NSN 30 Union Street NSN 31 Cranford Pocket Park 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park 35 Polwell Lane NSN 36 Barton Seagrave Pocket Park 38 Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park 39 Broughton Pocket Park - Parsons Spinney 40 The Grange Pocket Park 41 Kettering General Hospital Pocket Park




49 Valley Walk, Land off Deeble Road (near Christ The King Church)

55 Burton Latimer Meadows, off Virginia Crescent 58 Land South of Weekley Wood Lane, Kettering 60 Wicksteed Park South Lake 62 Southfield Farm Marsh 63 Wicksteed Watermeadows 64 Castle Field 66 Ise Marsh, Wicksteed 67 Burton Latimer Meadows 74 Weekley Hall Wood & Quarry 76 Cherry Hall Plantation 82 Broughton Green Lane 128 Northampton Road AGS 142 Grafton Park Wood 207 SW Kettering NSN 541 Southfield Farm Marsh


Site ID Site name Quality Value 34 Glade Close AGSa 65 North West Kettering AGS D 85 Lake off Thurston Drive 86 Slade Crescent AGS 94 The Green, Cranford 96 The Crescent AGS, Burton Latimer 100 Cleveland Avenue AGS 101 Cleveland Avenue AGS 107 Dalby Close AGS 108 Malham Drive AGS 112 Longfellow Drive AGS A 113 Longfellow Drive AGS B 117 Community Centre AGS 119 Stamford Road AGS B 121 Alice Gardens AGS 127 Kettering Sports Ground 148 Windmill Avenue AGS e 158 Cornfield Way AGS 162 St Nicholas' Close AGS



Site ID Site name Quality Value 163 Community Centre AGS (Ise Lodge) 168 Gleneagles Close AGS 172 Creighton Crescent 178 St Botolph's Road AGS 181 Hanover Close AGS 185 Delamere Drive AGS 196 Off Haweswater Road 209 Harwood Drive AGS A 210 Deeble Road South AGS 211 Merrivale Footpath 212 Ise Valley AGS 213 Welbeck Court 214 Barton Road NSN 220 Cranford Road, Burton Latimer 221 Woodcock Street, Burton Latimer 223 Yateley Drive, Barton Seagrave 225 Charlotte Place, Kettering 240 Dearlove Road, Burton Latimer 259 Snetterton Close, Burton Latimer 325 Pennine Way AGS 359 Charlotte Place Kick about area 402 Pytchley Playing Field 405 King George V Recreation Ground 422 Northampton Road Recreation Ground 431 Broughton Recreation Ground 432 Gate Lane Recreation Ground 543 Hall Meadow Park AGS

Table A2.4: Provision for children and young people


8.1 Grafton Street Park Children's Play Area 17.1 Rockingham Road Pleasure Park Play Area 87.1 Spring Rise Park Playground 293 Mill Road Play Area - Children's Play 298 Podmore Way CYP, Broughton 299 Loddington Road Play Area, Great Cransley 303 Hall Meadow Park - Children's Play Equipment 311 The Paddocks Churchill Way Play Area 318 Gray's Field Play Area




319 Play Area "Ise Valley Toddlers" 320 Junior Play Area "Ise Valley" 321 The Square Play Area 323 North Park Recreation ground play area 326 Play Area, Bellway Close, Kettering 330 Bird Street and Woodford Road (Land adjacent), Burton

Latimer

331 Playground, Malham Drive, Burton Latimer

332 Playground, Yateley Drive, Burton Latimer 334 Mill Road Park basketball 337 Hall Meadow Park - Skate Ramp Off Thurston Drive 339 Wicksteed Park Playground 341 Brambleside Play Area 2 344 Skate Park KBC

359.1 Charlotte Place Play Area 381.1 Highfield Road Parks 381.2 Highfield Road Park Playground 402.1 Pytchley Playing Field Playground 405.1 King George V Rec Play Area 427 Carey Street OSF

431.1 Broughton High St Recreation Ground - Children 432.1 Cycle track, Playing Fields, Gate Lane, Broughton 432.4 Play Area, Broughton 438 Grantown Close Football area 542 Chapel Close / Manor Road play area

259.1 Snetterton Close play area 325.1 Pennine Way play area



Table A2.5: Allotments

Site ID

Site name Quality Value

463 Burton Latimer Allotment 464 Allotment Gardens, Stamford Road, Weekley 467 Grafton Underwood Allotments 469 Whitehorse Drive Allotments 472 Pytchley Allotment 473 Railway View Allotments 474 Windmill Avenue Allotments South 475 Broughton Allotments North 476 Margaret Road Allotments 477 St Botolph's Road Allotments 478 Short Lane Allotments 479 Northfield Avenue Allotments 480 The Green Patch Allotments, Valley Walk, Kettering 481 Allotment Gardens, Scott Road, Kettering 483 Burton Latimer Allotments, Finedon Road, Burton Latimer



Rural Analysis Area Table A3.1: Natural and semi-natural greenspace


22 Rushton Pocket Park 46 Pipewell Woods 48 Stoke Albany War Memorial and Stoke Albany Pocket 52 North Kettering Business Park (Southern Site) 53 North Kettering Business Park (Northern Site) 75 Mill Farm Meadow 79 Barford Meadows 131 Dingley Wood 139 Oakley Bushes 147 Geddington Chase


Site ID Site name Quality Value 83 The Meadows, Geddington 365 Middle Lane Recreation Ground 546 Geddington Recreation Ground

Table A3.3: Provision for children and young people


295 Main Street Play Area 297 Carlton Road Playground, Wilbarson 302 Playground within Geddington OSF 324 Rushton Play Area 353 Middle Lane BMX Track, Stoke Albany

365.1 Stoke Albany Recreation Ground Play Area Table A3.4: Allotments


468 Allotments, Grafton Road, Geddington 484 Rushton Allotments, Desborough Road, Rushton 485 Allotment Gardens, Middle Lane, Stoke Albany



APPENDIX TWO: ACCESSIBLITY CATCHMENT MAPS Map 1: Parks and Gardens with catchments



Map 2: Amenity greenspace with catchments



Map 3: Natural and semi-natural greenspace with catchments



Map 4: Provision for children and young people with catchments



APPENDIX THREE: STRATEGIC AND PREMIER OPEN SPACE PROVISION For the purposes of this study, and to recognise the role different types of open space provision have across the Borough, a sub-level classification of sites has been utilised for typologies with an accessibility standard recommended. This is in order to better reflect provision with a more strategic role and those with a more localised function. Sites considered as strategic forms of provision (‘premier’ sites) are larger in size and have a greater level of ancillary facilities. Consequently, they are considered to attract people from a wider area and warrant a greater catchment area as they act on a Borough level. Other forms of provision are referred to as ‘neighbourhood’ sites. Table A3: List of ‘Strategic’ and ‘Premier’ open space sites

ID Site name Quality Value 4 Blythe Close

17 Rockingham Road Pleasure Park 18 Wicksteed Park 20 Deeble Road South NSN 22 Rushton Pocket Park 31 Cranford Pocket Park 32 Rothwell Pocket Park 33 Burton Latimer Pocket Park 36 Barton Seagrave Pocket Park 38 Dog Kennel Spinney Pocket Park 39 Broughton Pocket Park - Parsons Spinney 40 The Grange Pocket Park 41 Kettering General Hospital Pocket Park 43 Desborough (Hall Farm) Pocket Park 49 Valley Walk, Land off Deeble Road (near Christ

The King Church)

50 Tailby Meadow 51 Desborough Greenspace 52 North Kettering Business Park (Southern Site) 53 North Kettering Business Park (Northern Site) 56 Desborough Leisure Centre, Ironwood Avenue 63 Wicksteed Watermeadows 66 Ise Marsh, Wicksteed 85 Lake off Thurston Drive 210 Deeble Road South AGS 212 Ise Valley AGS 359 Charlotte Place Kick about area 365 Middle Lane Recreation Ground 394 Greening Road 405 King George IV Recreation Ground



ID Site name Quality Value 419 Meadow Road Park 422 Northampton Road Recreation Ground 431 Broughton Recreation Ground 432 Gate Lane Recreation Ground 454 Recreational Ground, The Green, Mawsley 540 Desborough Recreation Ground 541 Southfield Farm Marsh 543 Hall Meadow Park AGS

open space standards paper july 2020 · civic space . including civic and market squares and other...

Documents