royal oldham hospital

4959 Westwood Park/Westhulme 1

Royal Oldham Hospital

Westwood Park / Westhulme

December 2010

DRAFT


Document no: 4959 Rev D Taylor Young Compiled by: CA / MW Chadsworth House

Approved by: MW Wilmslow Road Date: December 2010 Handforth Cheshire SK9 3HP

Tel: 01625 542200 Fax: 01625 542250 E mail: [email protected]


Contents Page

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

2. The Existing Site ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Document Review ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

4. Access ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

5. Other Local Provision ............................................................................................................................................................................... 23

6. Design Development ................................................................................................................................................................................. 31

7. Further Design Work ................................................................................................................................................................................. 33

8. Re-provision .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 34

9. Initial play area sketch design and costs ................................................................................................................................................ 40

10. Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45

11. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 47


List of Figures

Figure 1. Site location

Figure 2: Existing Site

Figure 3: Opportunities & Constraints / Key features

Figure 4: Local Communities

Figure 5: Open Space Typologies (Extract from Open Space Audit)

Figure 6: Open Space Quality (Extract from Open Space Audit)

Figure 7: Location of “Other Sites”

Figure 8: Location of “Other Sites”

Figures 9 – 12: Walking Distances

Appendices

Appendix 1: Westhulme: Site visit notes and access appraisal, including Figure 13 (Gifford)

Appendix 2: Westwood Park: Site visit notes and access appraisal, including Figure 14 (Gifford),

Appendix 3: Supporting Figures including Cycle Routes, PROW, Adopted Highways and Bus Routes (Gifford)

Appendix 4: Initial Council provided costs

Appendix 5: Indicative Detailed Design Options (drawings GA(90)001 – 003) and associated costs

Appendix 6: Outline Costs and Designs from Play Manufacturers

Documents referenced

PPG17 Local Needs Assessment and Audit (PMP for OMBC, 2006)

Open Space, Sport and Recreation Provision Supplementary Planning Guidance (OMBC, 2008)

Planning and Design for Open Space and Play (Fields in Trust/NPFA, 2008)


1. Introduction

1.1. Taylor Young and Gifford have been commissioned to complete a masterplanning exercise to consider the development potential

and replacement of open space at Westwood Park, a small park close adjacent to The Royal Oldham Hospital. This requirement

initially emerged through discussions between the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (OMBC) and the Pennine Acute NHS Trust

(the Trust) with regard to the potential land swap between the Trust’s land at Westhulme and the Council’s land at Westwood Park.

Westhulme is similar in size to Westwood Park, accessed from Westhulme Avenue and currently occupied by a range of office

buildings and car parking set within a green landscaped setting. In 2007 a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was issued to protect trees

on the site at Westhulme and therefore all trees located within its boundary are protected.

1.2. Figure 1 shows the location of Westhulme and Westwood Park.

1.3. Preliminary discussions with Oldham MBC suggested that Westwood Park is becoming less desirable to the local authority as a

public open space. As a result, the focus of this commission altered from being a feasibility study regarding a land swap between the

Council and the Trust, to an assessment that considers the possibility of Westwood Park being purchased by The Trust and utilised

for car parking. The report considers this proposal by:

• Assessing the nature and quality of the existing open space at Westwood Park

• Assessing other open space facilities in the area, and their potential for taking on demand created by loss of Westwood Park

• Identifying options for the replacement of open space at Westwood Park within the local area

• Providing indicative design options for development of Westwood Park

• Identifying outline costs for construction


Figure 1: Site Location Plan (NTS)


2. The Existing Site

Westwood Park: Site Description and Existing Facilities

Figure 2: Existing Site (NTS)


2.1. Westwood Park is located to the south west of Oldham hospital and covers an area of approximately 2.5ha. The site is bounded to

the north and east by hospital properties and infrastructure, to the south by a residential area and to the immediate west by

Westhulme Avenue and beyond this a B&Q superstore. As a means to overcome localized changes in topography, the site features

three “terraces” which as a whole provide the following facilities. On the upper terrace is a small grass football pitch, on the middle

terrace, two bowling greens and on the lower terrace, a multi use games area (MUGA), small football pitch and children’s play area

(categorised by the Open Space Audit as a local area for play (LEAP). Within the centre of the park is a newly refurbished club

house. Figure 2 identifies the indicative location of these facilities within the park.

Figure 3: Opportunities & Constraints / Key features

2.2. To assess the existing quantity and quality of facilities within Westwood Park, a site visit was completed in February 2010. The survey

was based upon the same criteria set by PMP when they assessed sites for the open space audit. A descriptive record with

supporting photographs has been completed to highlight the key elements of the site.


Path connecting Westhulme Ave & Westhulme Street Alleyway from Yasmin Gardens Boundary with Weshulme Avenue showing steep

change in level and unmetalled highway

Poor quality footpath to east of park Northern boundary Access from Westhulme Sreet, looking towards

Featherstall Road North

Northern boundary and some mature trees Steep change in level between lower and mid terrace


Looking north west across upper terrace with grass 5-a-side pitch in foreground

Looking south east across bowling green

Existing play provision on lower terrace


2.3. Cleanliness and Maintenance: The park appeared clean at the time of our site survey and free from litter but there were isolated

incidences of graffiti and some damage and a clear lack of maintenance (rust and peeling paint) to boundary railings. There was a

fair range of equipment within the play area but on the whole it appeared tired and in need of modernising. It also appeared as

though some equipment was missing. Bark mulch was used as safety surfacing and appeared to be well maintained and tidy. Goal

posts were provided at the upper tier football pitch and appeared to be well fixed and maintained. In contrast, the surface of the

bowling green was poor and erosion patterns on the grass suggested use as a football pitch. Some of the paths to the north of the

site were overgrown with moss and slippery as a result. There was no adverse noise or undesirable smells at the time of our visit.

2.4. Security and Safety: Wide paths and open expanses of grass afford views across the site. The most significant issue in terms of

security was the lack of external lighting and it is probable such poor provision would deter use of the park after dark. The perimeter

of the site was formed by metal railings approximately 1.5m high but site entrances were not secured and therefore public access

was possible at all times. A tall weld mesh fence surrounds the clubhouse and is secured by a lockable gate. A police presence

during our site visit suggests there may be some security issues in the park.

2.5. Vegetation: There is a good degree of tree cover on site, most of which is focused along boundaries. The majority of trees are well

established and contribute positively to the character of the park. There are no protected trees within the park (although Westhulme

does have a number of TPO’d trees). Shrub planting is limited and takes the form of species typical of this type of amenity space (i.e.

rhododendron, cornus, laurel, lonicera, phormium). There was evidence that new planting had been vandalised and plants extracted

from the soil. Amenity grass areas were of an average condition but because the site visit was undertaken in winter, it could not be

determined whether or not the mowing regime was suitable.

2.6. Ancillary accommodation: In the centre of the park is a recently built and well maintained clubhouse that is not accessible to the

public. Provision of street furniture is predominantly limited to the play area with some additional benches close to the bowling

greens. Litter bins are only provided in play areas.


2.7. Access: The site is accessible off Westhulme Avenue (unadopted road) and Westhulme Street but there is no clearly defined main

entrance. A lack of signage in and around the park means that there is no guidance regarding site information or navigation. It is

possible to access the park by vehicle from Westhulme Street but this is not encouraged. Although there are no dedicated parking

areas, some vehicles were parked within the site at the time of survey. Cars were parked near the clubhouse so it is probable that

users were visiting this facility. Car parking within the hospital site is limited and therefore many visitors appear to utilise the streets

surrounding the park. Although there are many changes in level and some steps within the site, the majority of the park is suited to

disabled access.

Existing usage and Potential User Groups

2.8. To obtain a clear picture of the current level of usage within the park, a meeting with the Group Manager for Parks for Oldham MBC

on 20th August 2010. It is important to understand how existing facilities are used by the public and gauge Council feeling towards

the park. Key headlines from the discussions are listed below.

• The Council has completed a number of initiatives in recent years to regenerate the park but due to anti-social behaviour, their

efforts have often been unsuccessful.

• The Pavillion building was renovated in recent years (following a petrol bombing). The building is secured and only accessible

to those with an approved set of keys. There is no general public access to this building.

• The Bowling Club still have a presence within the park and utilise the pavillion on a regular basis. Because of conflict with local

youths and vandalism of the bowling greens, the club no longer uses these external facilities and instead, during the summer

they use the greens at Alexandra Park. It is important to ensure the needs of the bowling club are serviced, in particular their

requirement for a meeting place during the winter.

• There isn’t a significant local community feel for the park.

• The main user group is currently hospital visitors who use the play area. It is therefore important to maintain a facility for

children and young people and ensure a pedestrian connection to the hospital is retained.

• Long term maintenance of retained provision should be well considered.


2.9. In addition to notes on specific user groups, the Council has provided guidance on the wider community that may visit the park.

Figure 4 highlights the anticipated residents likely to use Westwood Park. This information was supplied by Oldham MBC and is an

indicative guide, and has been referred to as ‘perceived community’ in terms of their possible use of the park. It is based on a

combination of walking distance and road infrastructure considerations.

2.10. The location of the hospital and major road infrastructure means that the quantity of housing close to the site is limited. Residents to

the immediate south of the park and those off Westhulme Way (to the north west) are identified as the most likely to visit the park.

Chadderton Way and Featherstall Road North are both busy dual carriageways that act as physical barrier to pedestrian movement

from neighbouring housing areas. The proximity of the park to Oldham Royal Hospital means that there is a probable user group in

visitors and staff of the hospital. Pedestrian links between the park and hospital site are not promoted.

Figure 4: Local Communities


3. Document Review

Planning Policy

3.1. Planning Policy (including UDP policies R1, R1.1 and R1.3) generally protects the loss of recreational land unless it can be proved

that it is of limited value (i.e. not used much, not fit for purpose, wrong location, adequate alternative provision nearby, ability to

improve current provision etc). Linked to the SPD, the policies categorise the different types of space as provided at this site as

follows:

• 5-a-side football (0.28ha)– Other open space on the grounds that is under 0.4ha

• Bowling Green (0.32ha) – Other open space

• MUGA (0.14ha)– Children’s Play

• Play Area (0.12ha) - Children’s Play

3.2. The Council’s Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document refers to a Local Needs Assessment and Audit

(January 2008). This identified that the Coldhurst ward (within which the site sits) is deficient in provision as follows:

• Sports pitches by 1.14ha

• Formal and informal children’s play by 0.04ha

• Other open space by 0.09ha

Key Findings of Oldham’s Open Space Audit

3.3. In 2006 an assessment of local need and audit of open space, sport and recreation facilities was undertaken across the Borough of

Oldham in accordance with the requirements Planning Policy Guidance Note 17. This document highlights the level of deficiency or

surplus of open space and sets standards for local provision in the future. Westwood Park was surveyed as part of this assessment


and is identified within the “Parks and Gardens” typology and also recognised to have facilities fitting of the “Outdoor Sports” and

“Young People and Children” categories.

3.4. Oldham Hospital is located within the Coldhurst ward and for the purpose of the audit, located within Analysis Area 6, West Oldham.

3.5. At Borough level, the existing quantity of provision of “Parks and Gardens” is reported as 0.9ha per 1000 population (0.27ha

excluding parks over 15ha in size). The recommended standard is 0.26ha per 1000 population and therefore provision within the

Borough is deemed to be sufficient. The outcome of survey work was supported by opinions expressed during consultation whereby

residents thought quantity provision to be about right. That said, on a more local level, deficiencies were identified within West

Oldham. On a similar note the quality of parks and gardens is good and evenly distributed across the Borough but there is some

deficiency within West Oldham. Westwood Park was given a score of 44% and therefore ranked as poor. The general perception by

local people is that Parks and Gardens are the most important type of open space and that quality is more important than quality.

That said, there is strong opinion to protect local and strategic parks from development.

3.6. The Outdoor Sports facilities at Westwood Park were also assessed as part of the open space audit. Provision of this typology is

evenly spread across the Borough but both the Open Space Audit and Oldham’s Playing Pitch Strategy highlight deficiency both in

terms of quality and quantity. West Oldham is specifically identified as having a lower level of provision. At present, Borough wide

provision is 2.16ha per 1000 population but when golf courses and school sites are excluded, this reduces to 0.76ha per 1000

population. The report suggests that West Oldham may have lower provision because of the urban density of the area and therefore

lack of space for larger open spaces. The opinions of local people reflected the findings of site survey work in that the majority

thought provision both in terms of quality and quantity were both poor. Residents had general concerns about maintenance, site

drainage, litter, vandalism and dog fouling.

3.7. In terms of the Borough wide provision for “Children and Young people”, there is a perceived lack of provision and significant

variation in the quality of play facilities. Given the density of the urban area, it is surprising that West Oldham has the highest number

of facilities. The range of quality scores and low average does however indicate that there are a number of poor quality play areas

despite the high quantity of provision. The existing level of provision for children is 0.3 play facilities per 1000 population and for

young people is 0.05 facilities per 1000 population. The recommended standard responds to the deficiency by suggesting 0.37

facilities per 1000 for children and 0.1 facilities per 1000 population for young people.


Figure 5: Open Space Typologies (Extract from Open Space Audit) Figure 6: Open Space Quality (Extract from Open Space Audit)


3.8. For all typologies, the open space audit identifies an accessibility standard by recommending a maximum walking time. In the case

of Parks and Gardens and Outdoor Sports facilities, this standard is 15 minutes. Where the facilities for Children and Young People

are concerned, the walking time is 10 minutes.


Key Findings of Oldham’s Adopted Open Space, Sport and Recreation Provision SPD

3.9. The SPD provides surplus and deficiency figures for open space, sport and recreational provision and sets out information to assist

with the implementation of relevant policies within Oldham MBC’s UDP. Typologies assessed in the PPG17 audit have been

reallocated into 3 categories and used as the Council’s standard of provision set out in the UDP. Surplus and deficiency figures are

based upon these revised categories.

3.10. The SPD sets out provision standards at ward level for each category but due to the reclassification of categories, the standards differ

from those outlined by the PPG17 audit and are as follows

• Sports pitches: 1.2ha/1000 people

• Formal and informal Children’s Play: 0.8ha/ 1000 people

• Other Open Space: 0.4ha/1000 people

3.11. In all three categories there is a quantitative deficiency within the ward of Coldhurst and therefore loss of open space at Westwood

Park is likely to be considered unfavourably in terms of policy.


4. Access

4.1. During the early stages of the commission work was completed by Gifford to consider traffic and movement issues in relation to

future development in the area and assess whether alternative access can be provided for the land at Westhulme in regard to a range

of potential future land uses including retail, residential, B1 employment and other commercial. In terms of Westwood Park, the site

was reviewed on the basis that the future land use would be car parking to support the hospital. Although the need to consider

Westhulme has dissipated, it is useful to retain this information to give better context.

4.2. A site visit was undertaken on Tuesday 9th March 2010 to make an initial assessment of access options, with the observations made

on site being tabulated in Tables 1 and 2 (appendix 1 and 2). These should be read in conjunction with Figures 13 and 14 (see

appendix 1 and 2) which illustrates the location of the points under discussion.

Access Option Conclusions: Land at Westhulme

4.3. Access into this site is possible from each boundary due to the generally level configuration of the site and the relationship of the site

to the surrounding highway network. Whilst all options are possible for the land uses considered, some are not reasonable for

certain combinations of land use and access route.

Retail Development

4.4. Access through the B&Q site is likely to be most cost effective and would form a natural extension of the existing facilities. There is

potential to increase retail offer with a lower proportion of parking provision in order to make more efficient use of the currently

overprovided site. Reconfiguration of the car park and access junction is likely to be required.

4.5. Other forms of access are considered less suitable as they would:

• require traffic to come through a traffic-calmed residential area;

• require a new arm at the existing Chadderton Way/Burnley Lane signals and reconfiguration of this junction; or


• create a site without an obvious access (if access is via Westhulme Way/Westhulme Avenue) which is not commercially

attractive.

Residential Development

4.6. The Transport Assessment undertaken by SBA suggests the existing site access would be suitable for residential development. We

would agree with this conclusion, although would anticipate that improvements to the routes to the site through Westhulme

(particularly along Barton Street and Sherwood Street) may be required.

4.7. Other forms of access are unlikely to be effective as they will:

• require residential traffic to get to site through a retail site;

• attract major infrastructure costs to create a new are onto Chadderton Way/Burney Lane signal controlled junction;

• require the upgrading to Westhulme Avenue to its junction with Westhulme Way.

Employment Development (B1/Office based employment uses)

4.8. The site is already largely used for administrative support type services to the main hospital but at a very low density. To make the

site commercially viable, we would expect intensification in employment density. On that basis, access to the site for this use is likely

to be compromised for a number of reasons:

• increasing employment trips through a residential area already subject to traffic calming is unlikely to be acceptable. Access

into this area is also compromised by left in / left out only at Barton Street and Sherwood Street and is unlikely to be attractive

to tenants;

• accessing through B&Q does not give a good sense of arrival and equally impacts on attractiveness to potential tenants;

• cost of creating a new access to Chadderton Way / Burnley Lane signals must be offset against land value;

• access via an upgraded Westhulme Avenue from Westhulme Way also does not give the site any obvious frontage and sense

of arrival.


Other Commercial Uses (light industrial)

4.9. Access to the site for this type of use is not considered feasible on the basis of:

• unsuitable to bring commercial traffic through residential area;

• unsuitable to bring commercial traffic through retail site unless via the service road to the rear of B&Q. This would involve

dealing with a considerable level difference between the B&& road and Westhulme Avenue in order to create a suitable road

width and costs are likely to be prohibitive;

• creating new access to Chadderton Way/Burnley Lane signals costs would have to be borne by the site.

Westwood Park

4.10. Access is possible from the east and west boundaries of the site.

From Westhulme Street

4.11. Access is possible from here however the junction with Featherstall Road North would most likely require signalisation. Any

signalisation here would need to tie in to existing signal control junctions nearby. Westhulme Street itself is also narrow and subject

to parking restrictions, providing commercial vehicle access to a number of properties and also to the hospital itself. This option is

also likely to have some impact on blue routes to the hospital.

From Granville Street

4.12. This junction is already signal controlled and could potentially support the additional trips to the car park. However, all trips will then

pass through the industrial end of the hospital with the associated commercial type traffic, which we understand is already

congested. This is unlikely to be satisfactory operationally to the hospital and is also likely to have some impact on blue rotes to the

hospital.

From Westhulme Way access


4.13. Access from this existing access point would require considerable routing through the hospital, which is unlikely to be acceptable

operationally.

From Westhulme Avenue

4.14. Westhulme Avenue has at some point been a metalled road and could be again. It represents an option to create an access route to

the car park that minimises impact on the local highway network (trips to the existing 500 spaces leased from Oldham Athletic

Football Club would make a very minor diversion) and a new form of access could potentially be created using the existing car park

access. Land ownership and highway adoption are both key issues.

Combined Highways Impacts

4.15. Minimum impacts from the proposals are likely to arise from a combination of residential development on land at Westhulme and car

park access to Westwood Park from Westhulme Avenue. Both these options maintain the status quo to a considerable degree in

terms of the direction and volume of traffic in the locale and blue routes.

4.16. If retail development is proposed, the capacity of the existing mini-roundabout serving the B&Q store is of some concern, particularly

if the access to the new car park is taken from Westhulme Avenue. This could be offset by taking access to the car park from the

east, but implications on the wider highway network would need to be considered. Operation of the small gyratory at Chadderton

Way / Westhulme Way would also need to be considered.


5. Other Local Provision

5.1. A series of public open spaces have been reviewed to determine the extent of provision within the vicinity of Westwood Park. At the

request of Oldham MBC, a number of sites were prioritised during this research. These were Clayton Playing Fields, Fitton Park,

Coldhurst Community Park, the Grange Synthetic Pitches and open space at Trafalgar and Dunbar Street. In addition to this

selection of sites, comment is made on some other facilities that have been chosen primarily because of their size and proximity to

the site.

• Outdoor sports facilities and semi natural space off Ley Lane (site 8)

• Amenity Green Space off Busk Road (site 9)

5.2. Please refer to Figure 7 for the location of these sites.

Figure 7: Location of Other Sites


Clayton Playing Fields (site 3)

Approximate Area: 10 ha(including Chadderton FC) Current Facilities: 6no. Grass Football Pitches

5.3. This is a large site that accommodates numerous outdoor sports pitches. At the time of our survey, the site was arranged for football

and included well maintained goal posts. . The site is bounded in the most part by the busy arterial routes of Chadderton Way and

Broadway. Other adjacent land uses include housing and Oldham Athletic Football Club. Owing to the nature of playing fields, the

site is very open, has an exposed character and during inclement weather, can feel quite bleak.

5.4. Aside from the playing pitches, there are very few facilities ancillary to the site’s main use. Until recently there were changing facilities

but these were demolished in recent years. An informal car park is located to the north east of the site that is accessible from

Broadway. The car park is however poorly surfaced and probably an insufficient size to accommodate visitors at peak times. There

is opportunity to make more of this gateway into the site.

5.5. There is a minimal amount of furniture and the site does not include external lighting provision. Although the pitches need not be lit

after dark, illumination of pedestrian routes across the park may be desirable. There are no formal paths across the site, meaning that

pedestrian circulation is focused around the perimeter. The site is fairly flat so lends itself towards disabled access. The majority of


boundaries are demarcated using vertical timber posts which are permeable to pedestrian movement but prevent vehicular access.

In terms of vegetation, the majority of the site is covered by mown grass. Groups of mature trees are located to the boundary of the

site and provide a valuable green edge alongside the adjoining highways. Poor drainage of surface water is known to be a problem

on this site.

5.6. Improvements could include changing facilities, signage, improved car parking and identified footpaths around / over the site

Fitton Park (site4)

Approximate Area: 0.4 ha Current Facilities: Bowling Green, Clubhouse

5.7. This is a small triangular shaped park in a residential area and overlooked on all sides by terraced housing. This arrangement gives

the park a “village green” feeling. The main focus of the park is a bowling green and clubhouse with the remainder of the site set

aside as formal gardens. Vegetation, equipment and furniture within the park are well maintained and free from litter and graffiti.

Although there is some ambient noise generated by the traffic on surrounding roads, the park is a pleasant environment in which to

spend time. There is no lighting provision within the park but light spillage from neighbouring highways columns is likely to provide

limited illumination. Considering the size of the park, there is a good range of vegetation including shrubs and herbaceous borders,

mature hedging and trees to boundaries. There is a clubhouse within the park but it is not openly accessible to the public. Benches


and litter bins are in good supply, well maintained and would provide amply seating opportunity for spectators of a bowling game. A

network of tarmac paths enable users to move through the site easily and with the exception of steps at entrance points, the site is

suitable for disabled access. On the whole Fitton Park creates a favourable green setting for housing and provides a pleasant

environment to participate in bowling or indeed watch a match.

5.8. This provision is of good quality and well maintained and therefore improvements would not be focused in this park.

Coldhurst Community Park (site 5)

Approximate Area: 0.6 ha Current Facilities: MUGA

5.9. Coldhurst Community Park is situated on the junction of Rochdale Road and Crompton Street and comprises a multi use games area

in a green setting. To the east the park is bounded by residential properties and overlooked by rear windows. There is little evidence

of litter or graffiti within the park. The fencing and playing surface of the MUGA area in good condition and well maintained. In

addition to a designated cycleway, a network of tarmac footpaths make the site permeable to both pedestrians and cyclists. Wide

paths with a smooth wearing course are well suited to disabled access. The two site entrances are defined by a change in paving

material and include signage naming the park.


5.10. There is a good quantity of benches and bins but their style is somewhat dated. It is assumed that steel benches were selected on

the basis that they are seen as more vandal resistant.

5.11. Vegetation includes a large quantity of trees within mown grass. These trees undoubtedly add character to the park and have both

amenity and biodiversity value.

5.12. On the whole this park is well maintained and it would not be a priority for improvements. There is some opportunity to upgrade the

street furniture.

Open Space around Trafalgar Street/Dunbar Road (site 6)

Approximate Area: <0.5ha Current Facilities: Amenity grass, basketball hoop

5.13. This includes incidental space associated with residential properties, generally comprising mown grass that flanks the buildings. The

open spaces are often dissected by tarmaced footpaths but localised changes in topography provide some challenges to access.

Street furniture is limited to wooden benches. There is an area of hardstanding set aside for basketball (with basketball hoop) on


Dunbar Street but it is of a poor standard. Desktop analysis of aerial photographs suggests that there was a large play facility at

Trafalgar Street but this has now been removed. The spaces have very little function beyond creating a setting for built form.

5.14. Improvements could include upgrading the basketball area to a MUGA and the re-introduction of play facilities for children. After the

removal of a play area in recent years, the latter would require some careful thought

The Grange Synthetic Pitches, Westend Street (site 7)

5.15. In addition to the tarmac courts that belong to the school, a large synthetic pitch (with changing facilities) is located on Westend

Street. Both the pitch and building appear to be well maintained and are available for rental to the general public.

5.16. Due to low perimeter fencing and the pitch is at a lower level than the road, it does not appear intrusive. An avenue of trees

alongside Westend Street helps to soften the visual impact of the facility.

5.17. In terms of improvements, this facility is well maintained and a good quality and therefore it would be prudent to invest money

elsewhere

Land off Ley Lane (Site 8)


5.18. This area of greenspace is located to the south east of the Chadderton Way/A627(M) roundabout and provides a valuable buffer

between the busy main road and local housing. The site is at a lower level than adjacent roads and it is therefore possible that the

space suffers from drainage issues. Aerial photographs show playing pitches marked and it is therefore assumed that the site is

used for football.

5.19. Footpaths are located around the edge of the site but do not cross the greenspace. There is a limited amount of benches located to

the southern boundary.

5.20. There is opportunity to strengthen the outdoor sports offer within this open space providing any issued with drainage could be

overcome.

Amenity space off Busk Road (Site 9)

5.21. This small amenity space is enclosed on most sides by built development. A tree lined footpath and cycleway is located along much

of the southern edge and creates further enclosure. Vegetation is focused around the perimeter of the site and therefore visibility


across the site is good and promotes a feeling of safety. The study of aerial photos suggests that there has been play equipment on

the site but the recent site visit confirmed these have now been removed.

5.22. There is much scope for improvement in this space with an aspirational view of creating a community park that included a greater

range of facilities for young people.


6. Design Development

6.1. To begin to understand the capacity of Westwood Park for future use as car parking, a series of draft sketch options was prepared.

Three options were generated to demonstrate how parking provision and play facilities could be accommodated on the site. As part

of these proposals, the play area would be upgraded to include more equipment and therefore provide a better resource for local

people. This improved facility would be beneficial to existing residents and the new community if the Westhulme site is developed as

housing. At this stage all car parking would be proposed as surface level but future expansion options could look at decked

provision. The retention of existing vegetation will be encouraged, especially in regard to mature tree cover to the edges of the site.

6.2. Option 1 shows the northern half of the site given over to car parking and the southern half retained as a linear park. Total spaces:

approximately 310.

6.3. Option 2 is as per option 1 but with additional car parking on the upper terrace. Total spaces: approximately 375.

6.4. Option 3 is as per option 2 but with additional car parking on the mid terrace. Total spaces: approximately 475.

6.5. To make the project viable for the Trust, car park provision would need to be in the region of 500 spaces and for this reason, option 3

would be preferred approach. A new and improved play area would be provided within the south west corner of the site and be

accessible from existing properties and potential new housing on the Westhulme site. The retention of existing mature trees and

vegetation, where possible, would ensure a “green” character is retained.

6.6. When presented with these options Oldham MBC’s Group manager for Parks preferred option 3 as this would meet the needs of both

parties. The Trust could create a car park of a worthwhile size and the Council would retain a smaller, higher quality and more

manageable pocket park facility.


Figure 8: Initial Sketch Scheme Options


7. Further Design Work

7.1. Following the completion of the three sketch options and analysis of alternative vehicular access, a topographical survey was

commissioned to inform more detailed design work. Using this accurate base plan, more detailed car parking layouts have been

developed to determine more specific car parking quantities and also further investigate access options.

7.2. It is important to note that the layout of options 3A-C is still indicative and that there are numerous other ways to arrange car parking

spaces. At this stage the options present the general principle of parking on three terraces with provision for young people focused

in the south west of the site. Further input would be required from structural and civil engineers in regard to elements such as

retaining structures and drainage. In the instance of all the options, retention of existing vegetation is seen as important.

7.3. The options consider three alternative means of access into the site. Option 3A further explores the sketch scheme proposal whereby

the car park entrance is sited on Westhulme Avenue, half way along the park frontage. Option 3B shows access via the adjacent

hospital site through Oak View. The final option 3C also considers access off Westhulme Avenue but in this instance at the north

west corner of the site.

7.4. The key principles of these options are as follows:

• Option 3A: Access off Westhulme Avenue approximately half way along the park boundary. Total 483no spaces

• Option 3B: Access from adjacent hospital site at Oak View. Total 470no. spaces.

• Option 3C: Access off Westhulme Avenue, to the north west corner of the park. Total 491no. spaces.

7.5. An outline cost estimate has been compiled for each option to give an indication of construction cost. These figures and indicative

drawings are appended to this report.


8. Re-provision

Walking Distances

8.1. To begin to recognise whether or not the facilities of Westwood Park can be relocated, a brief assessment of walking distances has

been undertaken.

8.2. Oldham MBC documentation and best practice guidance acknowledges the importance of walking distances when considering

accessibility and also sets standards for the future. The open space audit identifies quantitative deficiencies in the area of West

Oldham but public consultation also recognised that quality is often perceived as more important that quantity. While it is clear that

the loss of public open space is not desirable, this study considers the relocation of some facilities at Westwood Park as a means to

better distribute provision and take the opportunity to improve the quality of provision at other sites in the area.

8.3. Figures 9-12 demonstrate walking distances associated with Westwood Park and other key sites in the locality. The open space audit

recommends an accessibility standard of 15min walking time for “Parks and Gardens” and “Outdoor Sports Facilities”. In the case of

“Facilities for Young Children”, walking time is reduced to 10 minutes. In order to translate walking time to measurable distances,

benchmarks identified by FIT best practice guidance have been interrogated and for the purpose of the assessment will be used as

follows:

Type of play facility Recommended Walking Time Walking Distance Straight Line Distance

Local Area for Play (LAP) 1 min 100m 60m

Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) 5 mins 400m 240m

10 mins 700m 420m

Neighbourhood Area for Play (NEAP) and

“Outdoor Sports Facilities” and “Parks and

Gardens”

15 mins 1000m 600m


8.4. Based on recommended accessibility standards, two lines have been offset from each site to highlight the catchment area for a play

and outdoor sports facilities. Straight line distances have been used to generate the offsets which are at 240m (play) and 420m

(Parks and Gardens and Outdoor Sports). In the case of Westwood Park, establishing these areas helps to further define the

probable communities that utilise the existing facilities.

8.5. Figure 9 shows the recommended walking distances in relation to Westwood Park. The inner zone (240m) represents the area

deemed to be within acceptable walking distance of the existing play area and similarly, the outer zone (420m) is concerned with

walking distance associated with outdoor sports facilities. In line with best practice guidance, all residents within each green area

could be expected to use the play and/or outdoor sports facilities. The “perceived” community (as identified by Oldham MBC) does

however extend beyond the edge of the areas shaded green. This suggests that there is a discrepancy between walking distances

outlined by guidance and distance people may actually travel.

8.6. In the case of Westwood Park, this discrepancy is probably due to other local constraints. By coincidence, the boundary of the

catchment zone for the play area broadly ties in with the highways of Chadderton Way, Featherstall Road North and Sheepfoot Lane.

These roads, particularly the dual carriageways create physical boundaries to pedestrian routes to and from Westwood Park. The

presence of hospital and retail buildings means that there are few residential properties within this area and they also provide a

further physical barrier. It is possible that these roads and large buildings deter residents in more peripheral parts of the “perceived”

community from using Westwood Park. These residents may prefer to use play areas that are accessible via safer routes along

smaller residential roads.

8.7. If Westwood Park and all its facilities were removed, the community would be under provided for in terms of play areas. Figure 10

shows the distribution and catchment areas for other existing play areas and shows how complete removal of Westwood Park is likely

to leave a local deficiency. The catchment areas assume the play areas to be LEAPs and therefore use the 240m walking distance.

In reality some of the play areas would be smaller and provide for fewer residents.

8.8. By contrast the existing provision of sports facilities is far better distributed. Figure 11 demonstrates that the community is within an

acceptable walking distance of a number of other sports facilities and in the absence of Westwood Park could utilise these spaces.

On the basis of local distribution, it is apparent that there is more need for play facilities in Westwood Park than outdoor sports

provision.


8.9. In order to provide the local community with sufficient play space, it would be preferable to retain a suitable facility within Westwood

Park. The existing play area is of a fair size but of poor quality and therefore opportunities should be sought to enhance the provision

where possible. Some initial ideas for this facility are outlined in the next chapter.

Fig 10: Existing Play Provision

(240m)

Fig 11: Existing Sports Provision

(420m) Fig 9: Westwood Park – Walking Distances and “Perceived”

Community


Fig 12: Walking distances - All typologies combined


8.10. Following the Document Review Section, the table below shows the implications of each of the three sketch scheme options upon

the existing and established deficiencies as set out through Council policy.

Original

deficiency

Site

Supply

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Loss Provides

Resultant

deficiency

Loss Provides Resultant

deficiency

Loss Provides Resultant

deficiency

Sports pitches -1.14ha 0 0 0 -1.14 0 0 -1.14 0 0 -1.14

Formal and informal

children’s play

-0.04ha

0.26ha 0.24 0.2 -0.28 0.035 0.225 -0.075 0.135 0.125 -0.175

Other open space -0.09ha 0.6ha 0.44 0.16 -0.53 0.6 0 -0.069 0.6 0 -0.069

8.11. Any of the proposals will therefore contribute to further the existing deficiency. It has also been identified that the physical barriers to

movement in the area suggest that there is restricted access to the existing facilities (refer to figs. 9-12) so the resultant deficiency

may not be as extreme as suggested by the figures.

8.12. A meeting with the Council’s Planning Policy Officer suggest that the figures identify a loss of space and that this can be mitigated

against by considering the principles of finding an appropriate balance between the size and quality of other facilities – i.e. an

improvement to the quality of either the retained space or nearby off-site space can offset the loss of square metres of play space.

8.13. It was confirmed at that meeting that a scheme for improved play facilities has already been developed at Coldhurst Park and that this

would be an appropriate development (i.e. financial contribution to assist implementation) to offset loss caused by development of

Westwood Park. It was also discussed that it would be important that a contribution is also paid towards longer term maintenance of

the improved facilities, likely to be in the form of a one-off lump sum payment.

8.14. In summary, considering the implications of the development of Westwood Park in terms of loss of the open space and recreational

facilities provided, there are three key proposals that will assist in mitigating against this loss as confirmed subsequent to the meeting


as referred to. Two are to be provided as part of any future planning application for the redevelopment of the Park for car parking

purposes:

• Open space provision that will include a replacement kick-about pitch / MUGA of a similar size to that already provided, with

associated lighting.

• A seating / landscaped area of open space for use of hospital staff and visitors as well as the local community, which could

possibly include mounding and a natural play area.

8.15. Greater detail about the proposed play facility is set out within the next chapter.

8.16. Furthermore, the Council has explained that the Trust would be expected to pay for, or contribute towards, improved play facilities at

Coldhurst Community Park, and initial design details have been provided by the Council accordingly. These, together with

maintenance and costs to offset the loss of bowling facilities, show initial costs of £400k - £460k and the breakdown is shown at

Appendix 5 accordingly.

8.17. Whilst the first two could be required through a planning condition(s) related to the application, as the third requires a financial

contribution this would have to be dealt with by a Section 106 agreement, and it is therefore anticipated that all three would then be

combined into such an agreement.


9. Initial play area sketch design and

costs

9.1. Through this feasibility study and as part of pre-

application discussions with Oldham MBC, it has

become apparent that a play facility may need to be

retained at Westwood Park. It is likely to be most

efficient to create the new play area alongside the

development of the car park. To gain an understanding

of what can be achieved on the site a basic costing

exercise has been undertaken.

9.2. Prices were sought from two play manufacturers,

Sutcliffe Play ( www.sutcliffeplay.co.uk/) and Russell

Leisure (www.russell-leisure.co.uk/home.asp ).

9.3. The following design brief was presented along with site

plans and a sketch design produced by TY to show key

zones and functions.

• Play facility for children aged say 6-12.

• A replacement MUGA 20 x 30m (with lighting),

seating, mounding/natural play/landscaping (as

requested by the Council)

• In response to past incidences of vandalism, the

play area needs to be robust with simple, yet

imaginative equipment.


• The play area could use land on both sides of the existing footpath. The square area to the north should include the MUGA

and the triangular space to the south should be sensitive to existing mature trees.

• In terms of surfacing, the triangular area should be primarily grass and the square could include safety surfacing such as wet

pour rubber.

• Budget: £100k

9.4. At this stage, both the sketch proposal by TY and designs produced by manufacturers is indicative. The object of this exercise is to

establish an idea of what can be achieved within the budget.

Feedback

9.5. Both companies responded with quotations within budget and provided

indicative designs for their costed scheme.

9.6. Russell Leisure priced at £97,342.65 and

provided the design on the left. A larger

copy of this plan and further design work

is appended to this report.

NB: When analysing the figures from Russell

leisure a discrepancy of £1.50 was found. This

small amount is deemed insignificant at this stage.

9.7. Sutcliffe Play priced at £98,943.58 with the design to the right. A larger copy of this plan and

further design work is appended to this report.


9.8. A breakdown of the quotations is shown below and allows a comparison between the two companies.


9.9. Both companies responded to budgetary requirements and therefore overall cost is comparable.

• Russell Leisure has priced for a more expensive ballcourt but play equipment is less costly

• Only Russell Leisure has costed for seating

• Sutcliffe Play fencing costs were significantly lower

• In terms of surfacing, Sutcliffe were more expensive but included for a more comprehensive range of surfacing.

• Sutcliffe included a larger number of additional, non comparable items.

Summary

9.10. Both companies responded to the brief and provided designs for a play facility that would utilize land to both sides of the existing

path. This would see the creation of a more natural looking “timber play trail” through existing trees and the installation of more

traditional play equipment and MUGA. This exercise has determined that a budget of £100,000 should provide a quality facility for

young people who both live nearby and are visiting the hospital. In response to the quotations, it is likely that a budget of £100,000

would afford the following:

• Ball court: £20-30k

• Play equipment: £30-40k

• Fencing: £10k

• Seating: £3k

• Surfacing: £10-18k

• Carriage: £2k

• Other items: £10-25k. This might include items such as soft landscape, earth mounding and other street furniture such as

signage and litter bins and lighting away from the MUGA.


9.11. Both Sutcliffe Play and Russell Leisure are reputable companies that have a wealth of experience in this field and certainly have the

skills to take on detailed design of the play area. Both designs showcase a selection of equipment but it is important to note that

these are only initial indicative designs and each one could be amended to meet more specific criteria. Clearly, more detailed

discussions and negotiation would need to be had prior to the completion of a final design, particularly in relation to timescales,

programme and labour costs would also need to be undertaken.


10. Summary

10.1. At the outset of the commission this report considered the feasibility of a land swap between Trust owned land at Westhulme and the

Council owned Westwood Park. After initial discussions it became apparent that the park has developed into a problematic resource

for the Council and the option for the Trust to purchase the park should form the focus of the report.

10.2. With this in mind a number of sketch scheme proposals were developed to test the capacity of the Westwood Park site for surface

level car parking. An assessment was completed to determine the most suitable point of access and following advice from Gifford,

the sketch scheme options included a vehicular entrance off Westhulme Avenue. Option 3 was deemed to be the preferred option

as it created a good quantity of parking provision for the Trust and also allowed for the retention of a facility for young people. A

review of planning policy and consultation with Council officers confirmed that retaining a play facility of this size and in this location

would be suitable. To meet the needs of the local community, the new facility should be a high quality amenity resource for local

people that is less of a maintenance burden for the Council.

10.3. Further design work was undertaken to generate a more comprehensive picture of parking capacities and access options. Using a

detailed topographical survey, three further options were completed and concerned two access points off Westhulme Avenue and a

third alternative through the hospital grounds. A breakdown of indicative costs was completed for each option.

10.4. Completion of work to date has determined that there is scope for the Trust to develop a large proportion of Westwood Park to

alleviate parking problems at the hospital. As part of the development the Council would expect the Trust to mitigate for the

quantitative loss of provision by providing a facility for young people and children of improved quality. An emerging set of principles

has been set out by the Council in regard to the more specific components of the play area and some initial design work and cost

estimates have been compiled to give an idea of what play provision could be created as part of the car park development. In terms

of maintenance, further discussions would be required to set out the content of an agreement. The Council would also expect the

Trust to make a financial contribution to the construction and maintenance of new off-site play provision at Coldhurst Community

Park.


10.5. In addition to all of the above, the success of the development is also reliant upon the following:

• Agreement to the development principle by the local authority highways department.

• Overcoming land ownership issues, particularly along the northern boundary of the park and Westhulme Avenue

• Mitigating against the loss of the clubhouse

• Consultation with the local community, Council officers and other relevant bodies

• Achieving planning permission.


11. Appendices


APPENDIX 1

Westhulme: Site visit notes and access appraisal (Gifford)


General Comments Retail Residential Employment Other Commercial

Westhulme

Avenue

1. Westhulme Avenue has

been surfaced in the past

but is currently in an

extremely poor state of

repair with no street

lighting or highway

drainage. It is currently

used as fly parking by

hospital staff and visitors.

Access to northern end is

via the hospital car park

access road which is itself

on a blind bend on

Westhulme Way.

Access could be

achieved but would

be expensive to

upgrade Westhulme

Avenue unless

combined with

hospital car park

aspirations.

Junction

configuration with

hospital access, B&Q

service yard and

Westhulme Way not

appropriate for high

frequency/high

volume traffic.

Would require

reconfiguration in

limited space.

Does not give

obvious access to

retail facilities so

unlikely to be

acceptable to store

tenants. Not

considered

financially viable on

Access could be

achieved but would

be expensive to

upgrade Westhulme

Avenue.

Junction configuration

with hospital access,

B&Q service yard and

Westhulme Way likely

to be able to deal

with fairly low trip

rate for residential

uses.

Not considered to be

a cost effective

solution.

Access could be achieved

but would be expensive to

upgrade Westhulme

Avenue unless combined

with hospital car park

aspirations.

Junction configuration

with hospital access, B&Q

service yard and

Westhulme Way would

probably need

reconfiguration to

accommodate

employment traffic.

Limited space is available

to do this.

Does not give obvious

access to retail facilities so

unlikely to be acceptable

to store tenants. Not

considered financially

viable on those grounds.

Access could be

achieved but

would be

expensive to

upgrade

Westhulme

Avenue unless

combined with

hospital car park

aspirations.

Junction

configuration

with hospital

access, B&Q

service yard and

Westhulme Way

not appropriate

for high

frequency/high

volume traffic.

Would require

reconfiguration

in limited space.


those grounds.

Via Westhulme

area

2. Southern section of

Westhulme Avenue is

metalled, street lit, has

footways to both sides and

lies within a 20mph zone, as

is the whole locale of

Westhulme. It provides

direct access to existing

hospital uses on site and is

access via Cottram Street

and Maygate. Both are

residential streets with on–

street parking. Maygate is

one-way northbound with

Cottram Street being 2 way

but with speed humps in

place. Access to the area is

either from Chadderton

Way (southbound only) into

Barton Street or from

Featherstall Road

(northbound only) via

Sherwood Street. Cottram

Street is closed off at its

junction with Featherstall

Road.

Not appropriate

trips to bring

through residential

area. Also issues

with access into the

area from

Chadderton Way

and Featherstall

Road for high

frequency/high

volume traffic

generation

Access to residential

development

appropriate through

residential area.

Singleton Clamp TA

has assessed net

change in trips

between existing land

use and resi and

shows betterment.

Also demonstrates

that existing site

access junction is

adequate. Issues not

considered are actual

access into area from

Barton Street and

Sherwood Street.

Sherwood Street

quality very poor and

requires

maintenance. Barton

Street has flat topped

road humps that are

failing and also

requires

improvement.

Site already used largely

for employment purposes

but at low density. If

employment density is

increased, access via

residential area is not

ideal, especially as routes

to the site are traffic

calmed and show signs of

poor maintenance.

Sherwood Street is left

in/left out junction with

Featherstall Road and

Barton Street is left in/left

out junction with

Chadderton Way. Access

for commercial reasons is

therefore limited and

would require diversion

around the network e.g.

‘sling-shotting’ around

Chadderton

Way/Featherstall Road

roundabout, to travel

northbound etc.

Access for other

commercial

uses not

appropriate due

to constrained

access routes,

traffic calming

and residential

nature of area.

Possible leisure

site but unlikely

to be viable on

‘demand’

grounds and

proximity to

main sports

centre in town

centre.

Chadderton Way 3. Direct access from

Chadderton Way is could be

achieved by amending the

existing Chadderton

Could be undertaken

but likely to cause

some difficulty with

capacity along

Not considered

appropriate for

residential

development. Costs

Could be undertaken but

could cause some

difficulty with capacity

along Chadderton Way.

Could be

undertaken but

could cause

some difficulty


Way/Burnley Lane signals.

Access to the site from here

is level however, the

junction is already

operating close to or at

capacity during the PM

peak hour. There are also

difficult crossfalls within the

carriageway to deal with as

Chadderton Way falls south

to north, with Burnley lane

falling east to west. The

junction is also on a bend

with super-elevation

applied which falls west to

east. Access from other

stretches of Chadderton

Way are not considered

feasible due to visibility and

left in/left out only

operation. There is no

space to create anew signal

controlled junction along

the site frontage without

property acquisition and

additional engineering

constraints such as

pedestrian subways.

Chadderton Way.

Costs need to be

considered as will

need to remodel

existing junction to

create 4th

arm.

Consideration of the

easement parallel to

Chadderton Way

also needed,

likewise other stats

plant in footway to

Chadderton Way.

high and does not

create a link with

existing residential

area although this

could be mitigated by

site design. Care

would need to be

taken not to create a

rat-run to Featherstall

Road.

Costs need to be

considered as will need to

remodel existing junction

to create 4th

arm.

Consideration of the

easement parallel to

Chadderton Way also

needed, likewise other

stats plant in footway to

Chadderton Way.

Preferred means of access

for employment.

with capacity

along

Chadderton

Way. Costs

need to be

considered as

will need to

remodel existing

junction to

create 4th

arm.

Unlikely that

land and

development

value would

support this

level of change

Consideration of

the easement

parallel to

Chadderton

Way also

needed,

likewise other

stats plant in

footway to

Chadderton

Way.

B&Q site 4. Access into the B&Q site

is via a mini roundabout on

Westhulme Way. Sites very

close to small, complex

5. Potential to

extend

retail/supporting

leisure uses in to site

Not suitable to access

residential

development through

retail site.

5. Could access

employment site through

retail site but

reconfiguration of B&Q

6. Unlikely to be

able to access

commercial

uses through


signal controlled gyratory

forming the junction with

Westhulme Way and

Chadderton Way. There are

no footpaths within the site

from Westhulme Way or

Chadderton Way although

there are direct pedestrian

links to both highways.

Main issues will be site

ownership and potential

negotiations with third

party; and access capacity.

Access into site from B&Q

level and gates already in

place from one to the

other.

from B&Q feasible.

Levels between sites

are compatible and

there is potential to

share car parking.

Existing car park

may require

reconfiguration to

generate a more

defined spine road.

Capacity of site

access mini

roundabout in

question,

particularly on

match days, and

some concern over

capacity of gyratory.

This may affect blue

routes to the

hospital. Third party

land/access rights

also need to be

considered.

car park likely to be

required to create a more

defined spine road.

Unlikely to create

necessary sense of arrival

for employment uses.

main car park,

however,

consideration

could be given

to extending the

service road to

the rear of the

store to cater

for commercial

uses on the site,

although costs

for this could be

high,

particularly if

the road would

need widening

into Westhulme

Avenue.


Other notes:

1. Chaddteron Way – 40mph dual carriageway urban clearway with footways to both sides. No at-grade pedestrian crossings across

Chadderton Way are provided with subways being in place at Chadderton Way/Featherstall Road roundabout, south of Barton Street

and at Burnley Lane. The first two provide combined facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and evidence suggests that pedestrians often

prefer to cross Chadderton Way unassisted than use the subways. The only at-grade pedestrian crossings along this route are across

side roads. The route is busy throughout the day, with the AM peak hour generally flowing relatively freely but PM peak hour queues

northbound stacking up along the length of this link. There are crash barriers in the centre of the road. Junctions with Chadderton

Way in the area signal controlled with the only exception being a slip road entry from Burnley Lane and Barton Street.

2. Featherstall Road – 30mph dual carriageway urban clearway with footways to both sides. There are no crash barriers along the central

island, with frequent breaks in the island being marked with ‘no u-turn’ prohibition signs. Side roads junction are generally priority

controlled, with Keep Clear markings being in evidence in places (e.g. Westhulme Street). There is a puffin crossing across Featherstall

Road at Sherwood Street.

3. Possible redevelopment at land opposite (Wickes site). Application not in but site is still available for redevelopment, most likely for a

new supermarket + another use.

4. Westhulme Avenue forms a through route from Westhulme Way into Westhulme Area. Southern section of this route is metalled,

street lit etc but the section along the B&Q boundary is unmade. May need to consider whether it is appropriate to stop up this route

as an access as it is not really suitable for vehicular use in its current state. The danger is that Westhulme will become even more

isolated than it currently is if this is undertaken. Suggests may be a case for OMBC to do something with this route if it is public

highway.

5. Accessibility reviewed – cycles, pedestrians and public transport – shown on plans in Appendix 3. In general, very good accessibility

but there are issues with the pedestrian subways. Likely that any planning consent would need to contribute to upgrading these

facilities. Bus stops along Chadderton Way have shelters and seating only.

6. There are no public rights of way other than adopted footways affecting the site.

7. We are currently awaiting detailed accident data but generic information from Greater Manchester Traffic Unit suggests there are no

particular issues in the area other than a cluster of slight accidents at the Chadderton Way/Featherstall Road roundabout.

8. We are currently awaiting adopted highway boundary information from OMBC.

9. Blue routes to the hospital are unlikely to be affected by development of this site unless stated above.

Reference numbers shown on Figure 13, Appendix 1


Appendix 1 Figure 13: Gifford Site Visit Notes – Westhulme


APPENDIX 2

Westwood Park: Site visit notes and access appraisal (Gifford)


General Comments Car Park Pedestrian Access Routes Cycle Access

Westhulme

Avenue

(north)

Westhulme Avenue has been

surfaced in the past but is

currently in an extremely poor

state of repair with no street

lighting or highway drainage.

It is currently used as fly

parking by hospital staff and

visitors. Access to northern

end is via the hospital car park

access road which is itself on a

blind bend on Westhulme

Way.

1. Could potentially upgrade

this route to create access to

new car park. Configuration of

junction at bottom is difficult

and would need to be rexolved

to deal with increased volumes

of traffic.

This option is likely to have the

lowest impact on the

surrounding highway network

given the minimal changes to

trip making behaviour i.e.

transfer of trips from OAFC

ground to park site will only

affect limited length of

Westhulme Way.

Direct link into hospital from car park

possible via nursery site and to

Westhulme Street. Direct access

across eastern boundary will requires

works due to level difference.

Pedestrian access along Westhulme

Avenue not well overlooked and

unlikely to be so in future.

As per pedestrian

access

Westhulme

Avenue

(South)

Southern section of

Westhulme Avenue is

metalled, street lit, has

footways to both sides and lies

within a 20mph zone, as is the

whole locale of Westhulme. It

provides direct access to

existing hospital uses on site

and is access via Cottram

Street and Maygate. Both are

residential streets with on–

2. Could access via southern end

of Westhulme Street and

through Westhulme area but

this is bringing high volumes of

traffic through a residential area

already traffic calmed.

Unlikely to be acceptable.

Pedestrian access along this route

reasonable but not well overlooked at

present. Redevelopment of Land at

Chadderton Way could improve on-

street activity. Direct access to

hospital possible from car park via

nursery site or Westhulme Street.

Direct access from eastern boundary

will require works due to level

difference.

As per pedestrian

access


street parking. Maygate is

one-way northbound with

Cottram Street being 2 way

but with speed humps in

place. Access to the area is

either from Chadderton Way

(southbound only) into Barton

Street or from Featherstall

Road (northbound only) via

Sherwood Street. Cottram

Street is closed off at its

junction with Featherstall

Road.

Westhulme

Street

Single carriageway street with

parking restrictions and

footways to both sides.

Provides access to 2 hospital

car parks at present. Becomes

unmetalled at entrance to Park

and is subject to fly parking

along unmetalled eastern

boundary to Park. There is

also a level difference of circa

2m between northeastern

corner of park boundary route

to hospital.

3. Actual street has capacity for

car park demand, concern is

priority junction with

Featherstall Road. Would

require detailed assessment at

planning with options to be 1)

to ban right turn (could be

difficult to enforce) or 2) install

signals (would need to link to

others nearby and could cause

difficulty in peak hours. AM

peak observed to be OK but PM

is generally more problematic in

the area. Could potentially

adjust junction layout with land

from hospital site but this would

make the approach

‘unbalanced’. This option has

implications for Blue routes to

Pedestrian access no issue although

crossing facilities on Featherstall Road

are remote from this route. Direct

access to hospital possible from car

park via nursery site or Westhulme

Street. Direct access across eastern

boundary will require works due to

level difference.

No specific cycle

facilities likely to

be feasible as

roadway is too

narrow for on-

street cycle track

and footways too

narrow for shared

use with

pedestrians.


front of hospital and also has

greatest impact on traffic on

wider highway network due to

relocating access to major

parking facility from Sheepfoot

Lane/Westhulme Way to

noethwest of hospital to

Westhulme Street to southeast

of hospital.

Hospital site The park shares 2 boundaries

with the hospital – northern

and eastern boundaries.

There is an unmetalled

road/access route along both

these sides, with the one along

the eastern boundary being a

public right of way. For any

solution, major regarding of

the Park site will be required.

4. Vehicle access from north

boundary unlikely to be feasible

other than through the Nursery

site. There is a level difference

between the nursery site and

the main hospital site increasing

as you go westwards. There is

then what appears to be an

accommodation block on the

corner of Park/ Westhulme

Avenue.

5. It may be possible to access

the site through the hospital

through the existing access on

Westhulme Street, although

need is questionable. It is

probably more appropriate to

create a new combined access

to serve a combined parking

facility. This route also currently

provides vehicular access into

hospital site and need for this to

Pedestrian access along the northern

boundary possible via Nursery site at

northeastern corner of park. To gain

pedestrian access elsewhere will

require works to account for

increasing level difference. Access

also possible via Westhulme Street.

As per pedestrian

access.


continue must be considered

depending on estates

management and future

development aspirations.

6. Westwood Way and Steptoe

Drive (on site roads) both have

potential to provide access to

Park site (assuming level

differences are addressed).Both

area accessed from main

hospital access points on

Featherstall Road at Granville

Street, E-Way (?) and Main

Drive. These have the

advantage of making control of

the parking more integral to the

hospital and making use by

others less likely however, it

concentrates activity along a

small frontage and brings all

trips through the hospital site.

It also reduces the potential to

create public revenue from the

car park.


Other notes:

1. Featherstall Road – 30mph dual carriageway urban clearway with footways to both sides. There are no crash barriers along the central

island, with frequent breaks in the island being marked with ‘no u-turn’ prohibition signs. Side roads junction are generally priority

controlled, with Keep Clear markings being in evidence in places (e.g. Westhulme Street). There is a puffin crossing across Featherstall

Road at Sherwood Street.

2. Westhulme Street – single carriageway road with priority T-junction with Featherstall Road. There are worn Keep Clear markings and a

right turn ghost island for about 6 – 7 cars into Westhulme Street. Right tutn out of Westhulme Street is not banned but is not easy. 2

vehicles observed doing this during site visit. Westhulme Street has double yellow lines along both sides for full length and provides

access to a number of ‘back door’ services to the hospital including 2 car parks, electricity sub-station and patient transport

control/ambulance control station.

3. Possible redevelopment at land opposite (Wickes site). Application not in but site is still available for redevelopment, most likely for a

new supermarket + another use.

4. Westhulme Avenue forms a through route from Westhulme Way into Westhulme Area. Southern section of this route is metalled,

street lit etc but the section along the B&Q boundary is unmade. May need to consider whether it is appropriate to stop up this route

as an access as it is not really suitable for vehicular use in its current state. The danger is that Westhulme will become even more

isolated than it currently is if this is undertaken. Suggests may be a case for OMBC to do something with this route if it is public

highway.

5. Accessibility reviewed – cycles, pedestrians and public transport – shown on plans in Appendix 3. In general, very good accessibility but

there are issues with the pedestrian subways. Likely that any planning consent would need to contribute to upgrading these facilities.

Bus stops along Chadderton Way have shelters and seating only.

6. Major level difference across site east/west and also between site and boundary route along north side (about 3 – 4m). Major

earthworks will be required to remodel the site for parking.

7. Highway adoption boundary data is being awaited from OMBC.

8. Accident data for the area is being awaited but initial information from GMTU suggests there are no particular issues of concern other

than a cluster of slight accidents at the Chadderton Way/Featherstall Road roundabout.

Reference numbers shown on Figure 14, Appendix 2


Appendix 2 Figure 14: Gifford Site Visit Notes – Westwood Park


APPENDIX 3

Supporting Figures including Cycle Routes, PROW, Adopted Highways and Bus Routes (Gifford)


APPENDIX 4

Initial Council provided costs


WESTWOOD PARK PROPOSAL – ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR REPROVISION As provided by Oldham MBC Inventory of open space on site at present:

• 2x bowling greens - 3200m² (total)

• Area of children’s play equipment -1200m²

• One tarmac MUGA - 1400m²

• 2 x grass kick-about pitch - 2800m² (total)

• Surrounding areas of semi-natural open space and mature trees Costs for replacement of park facilities on site:

• Retain one MUGA

• Provision of seating / landscaping for local people / hospital staff / patients/ visitors

• Lighting / security fencing Laying out costs

MUGA 30 x 20 metres (with lighting) £90,000 Seating £10,000 Mounding / natural play area / landscaping £10,000 Maintenance Costs 12 years @ £3,000 per year

£36,000

Total for provision of replacement open space on site at Westwood Park:

£146,000

Costs for replacement of park facilities nearby (suggested possibly go towards the Coldhurst Community Park Playbuilder Scheme): Includes reprovision of children’s play equipment / kick-about space, lost at Westwood Park.


Laying out costs

Playbuilder park scheme (see plan attached) £60,000 Maintenance Costs: 12 years @ £3k per year £36,000 Total cost for provision of replacement facilities off site: £96,000 Cost of replacement of 2 bowling greens and clubhouse facility (pool table etc.): As the Westwood Park Bowling team have moved to Alexandra Park and there is no space to provide alternative bowling greens in the area. Therefore laying out costs are not required and the cost of reprovision will be determined by the additional maintenance costs, required at Alex Park greens, due to additional use. The Westwood Park bowling club still use the clubhouse and facilities on site at present. A location for the reprovision of the club house / facilities has not yet been identified, but the cost of reprovision has been estimated. There is no way to re-provide this at Alexandra Park at present: obviously a new cabin is out of the question in a heritage park and there is no room within the existing buildings at present. As such this needs to be looked into further. One option may be to retain the existing club house on site at Westwood Park, or to provide a similar facility on site, provided this would not reduce the area of public open space retained. Additional maintenance costs on Alexandra Park bowling greens: There are 3 greens at Alex Park – maintenance costs £12,000 per year, per green - £36,000 per year in total. These greens are used by 3 teams on a regular basis (including team from Westwood Park). The costs would therefore average out at approx £12k for each club per year. So for 12 yrs maintenance of the greens this would cost £144,000.

£144, 000

Costs for reprovision of club house / facilities / pool table: Estimate of £75,000 for new facility. If an existing facility can be found to relocate

Between £20,000 and £75, 000 depending on arrangements


pool table and other equipment in, this may be able to be reduced to somewhere in the region of £20,000. Total cost for reprovision of bowling green and club house facilities:

£164,000 - £219,000

TOTAL Total overall costs for reprovision of Westwood Park, based on above estimates: approx between £400k- £460k


APPENDIX 5

Indicative Detailed Design Options and associated costs


APPENDIX 6

Outline Costs and Designs from Play Manufacturers