A REPORT BY STRATEGIC LEISURE FOR WIRRAL METROPOLITAN 
BOROUGH COUNCIL   
 
 
  
 
 
Open Space Assessment 
A Draft Report 
August 2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
1

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
2

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
Introduction 
 
Definition of Open Space 
 
1.1 
The most complete description of open space comes from the Council of Europe 
Recommendation No. R (86)11 of the Committee of Ministers States on Urban Open 
Space (1). As revised by the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management, outlined 
below is a derivative of that description: 
 
“Urban parks and green spaces are an essential part of the urban heritage and 
infrastructure, being a strong element in the architectural and landscape 
character of towns and cities, providing a sense of place and engendering civic 
pride. They are important for enabling social interaction and fostering 
community development, as well as providing an outdoor classroom for 
biological and ecological studies. Public green spaces help to conserve natural 
systems, supporting ecosystems and providing the contrast of designed 
landscapes and conserved wildlife habitats within our urban settlements”. 
 
1.2 
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines open space as land laid out as a 
public garden or used for the purpose of public recreation or previously used as a 
burial ground. This definition does not go far enough in recognising the variety of open 
space types both private and public that is currently available within the Borough. 
 
1.3 
Open Space for the purpose of developing this report is the collective term that pulls 
together the provision of parks and public gardens, natural open spaces including 
nature reserves and public woodlands, facilities for outdoor sports, amenity areas, 
children’s play areas allotments, cemeteries and crematoria 
 
1.4 
In accordance with national guidance each of the different types of Open Space 
provision has been developed into a local typology for the Borough. 
 
1.5 
In developing an analysis of the Borough, calculations have been undertaken at 
Electoral Ward level, to enable the Council to identify priorities within more localised 
areas within the Borough.  
 
1.6 
A comprehensive audit of Open Space within the Borough was undertaken during July 
and August 2008.  The audit examined the range and quality of provision in the 
Borough’s parks and open spaces, natural green spaces, allotments, children’s play 
areas, outdoor sports facilities, cemeteries and crematoria.  
 
1.7 
Each site was visited and evaluated by experienced open space auditors who 
assessed the sites against best practice methodologies such as the national quality 
standard for parks, the Green Flag Award. The results of the audit were then collated 
and analysed to enable standards of provision to be recommended for each type of 
Open Space within the Borough. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
3

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
1.8 
The outcome is an analysis of the quantity and quality of open space that is firmly 
based on local evidence. The typologies for Wirral are identified in Figure 1.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
4

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
Figure 1.1 – Wirral Open Space Typologies 
Typology 
Primary Purpose 
Major 
Park 
Intensively managed sites providing accessible, high 
Parks and 
Country 
quality opportunities for formal and informal recreation and 
Gardens:  
Park 
children’s play including community events 
Local 
Park 
Natural and Semi 
Less intensively managed sites, including woodlands, 
Natural Green spaces  
providing accessible opportunities for informal recreation 
(Countryside and 
and the appreciation of nature and wildlife including wildlife 
Woodland) 
conservation, biodiversity and environmental education. 
Sites providing for participation in formal outdoor sports 
Outdoor sports 
such as pitch sports, tennis, bowls, athletics or countryside 
facilities –  
and water sports 
Smaller scale sites providing opportunities for informal 
Amenity Green Space  
activities close to home or work or for the enhancement of 
the appearance of residential or other areas 
Sites and facilities primarily designed and managed for 
Provision for Children 
play and social interaction by children and young people, 
and Young People 
such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard parks 
and teenage shelters  
Sites providing opportunities for people who wish to grow 
Allotments 
their own produce offering benefits for the promotion of 
sustainability, health and social inclusion 
Cemeteries and Closed  Sites which may provide additional opportunities for quiet 
Churchyards 
contemplation and natural wildlife.  
 
1.9 
The audit included all open space across the Borough to which there was legitimate 
public access.  The majority of sites were under the ownership and management of 
Wirral Council but the audit also included privately owned land with public access and 
land held and managed for open space and recreation by other bodies such as 
Registered Social Landlords, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the Port 
Sunlight Village Trust. 
 
1.10 
Private land with no public access, including domestic gardens, agricultural land and 
the wider countryside, the public rights of way network, beaches, coastal promenades 
and walkways, golf courses and school grounds which are not open for use by the 
general public have not been included. 
 
1.11 
The collection and analysis of data has been restricted to sites within the 
administrative boundary of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral  and has been 
quantified on a Borough wide and Ward basis  
(See Map 1). 
 
- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
5

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
The Importance of Open Space 
 
1.12 
Open Space is important for formal and informal recreation, local amenity and quality 
of life but can also contributes to the wider social agendas of health, local pride and 
identity, environmental education, environmental quality and biodiversity. 
 
Health 
 
1.13 
The health benefits of open space are well documented. Access to good quality, well 
maintained open space has significant impact on our physical health and mental well 
being. They provide opportunities to enjoy the natural world and to get involved in a 
wide range of leisure activities; they encourage people to walk more, to participate in 
sport or to simply enjoy the green and natural environment. The more attractive and 
accessible the green space is, the more likely it is to be used by a wide range of 
people. It has long been accepted that physical activity is a major contributor to good 
health and can reduce coronary heart problems, diabetes, certain cancers and mental 
health problems. Trees and Woodlands can also help to reduce the effect of urban 
pollution and allotments can provide an opportunity for the promotion of more 
sustainable and organic lifestyles. 
 
Sense of Place and Civic Pride 
 
1.14 
Well managed, good quality open spaces can improve the appearance of an area and 
can attract tourists and visitors.  Good quality open spaces and areas for wildlife can 
also help to create a positive image for an area, helping to attract inward investment 
and new residents, supporting local regeneration and housing market renewal.  At the 
local level they can stimulate local pride and make people feel good about where they 
live and work.  
 
1.15 
Research by national organisations such as the Commission for the Built Environment 
(CABE) [ref in footnote - “Does Money Grow on Trees?” (2005)] indicates that 
property values can be higher, by as much as 10%, in areas with good quality open 
space. Open spaces can also contribute to community cohesion by bringing people 
together, by providing meeting venues and by providing social spaces for a wide 
variety of events and activities. They can form an essential part of urban heritage, 
such as at Birkenhead Park and Port Sunlight Village, exert a major influence on 
urban fabric and play an integral role in providing for balanced and sustainable 
communities. 
 
Education 
 
1.16 
Open spaces can provide a valuable resource for all-age education as outdoor 
classrooms, spaces for training in vocations such as nature conservation, horticulture, 
community work, landscaping, forestry and sports development and can provide an 
important environment for children to learn and play through physical exercise and 
social interaction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
6

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
Environment 
 
1.17 
Open spaces can provide an essential role in supporting the species diversity, by 
providing habitat and a rich variety of flora and fauna.  This is of particular importance 
in an increasingly urbanised society where urban expansion has meant that true 
countryside has become increasingly distant from most people. Open space is being 
recognised as having an increasingly important role to play in mitigating the effects of 
climate change, through urban cooling and the provision of shade and shelter. Open 
spaces can also act as part of a wider network of wildlife corridors that allow the 
migration of plants and animals from one area to another, acting as important stepping 
stones between urban and rural habitats. 
 
 
 
 
Economy 
 
1.18  There are also economic benefits in terms of the attraction of visitors and the provision 
of employment in the provision and maintenance of sports and other community 
facilities, including retailing. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
7

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 2 
 
 
Methodology 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
8

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Methodology 
 
 Development of a Quantity Audit  
 
2.1 
With the development of digital mapping and the use of GIS (geographical Information 
systems) it has been possible to ensure that all sites can be identified with accurate 
boundaries drawn. Through having a comprehensive list of all sites with a clear 
understanding of amount, type, and location, base line information on which the future 
standards can be developed. Attached to this information is a database that is 
accessible to all staff members and can be regularly updated with information added 
or removed. The availability of this Borough wide information will enable decisions to 
be made for investment, rationalisation, and priorities for developer contributions. 
 
2.2 
The development of the quantity audit has been undertaken in 3 key stages namely: 
 
  Stage 1Initial work undertaken by the Council to establish an open space database 
  Stage 2 Gis  work completed in house by Planning Service staff  
  Stage 3 A comprehensive audit of all identified greenspace above 0.1 ha in size 
 
Stage 1 
 
2.3 
An initial assessment was carried out by Planning Services  as part of the first stage of 
work to support the Unitary Development Plan2000.The work included the 
identification and mapping sites in detail for both public and private provision and the 
setting of the initial typologies and standards for parks and greenspace 
 
Stage 2 
 
2.4 
The audit was extended and progressed with in-house staff using GIS data from the 
Ordnance Survey, All sites already mapped went through a verification process using 
in house knowledge to confirm names, define more accurately site boundaries, 
identify both land owners and maintenance responsibilities, identify other features 
contained within each sites and capture the hectares of individual sites and an X Y 
grid reference as well as allocating a primary typology. Additional sites that were 
identified were also included in this verification process.  
 
2.5 
Features such as a playground or football pitch that were identified within a sites 
boundary were accounted for in separate typologies. The datasets that sit behind 
each of the GIS typology layers noted whether they were a whole stand-alone site or 
whether they were part of a bigger site. The dataset criteria used in this work is 
attached in the Appendices. 
 
Stage 3 
 
2.6 
Open and Green Space was quantified using GIS using a size threshold of 0.1ha (the 
minimum size of a mini soccer pitch and therefore big enough to cater for informal kick 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
9

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
about) or above by greenspace consultants Strategic Leisure who worked alongside 
Council officers to verify a complete and final list to be considered and quantified to 
enable a detailed quality audit to be undertaken as the next step and to build on work 
regarding quality previously undertaken by the Council.  
 
2.7 
It is important to note that the provision for children and young people includes an 
element of double counting as many of the fixed play facilities are contained within the 
footprint of other typologies and as such has been included within the calculation for 
that typology. 
 
 
 
2.8 
Detailed discussions took place between Council officers from the parks and planning 
services and the consultants to ensure the quantitative element was correct prior to 
site visits. 
 
2.9 
The quantitative sum of each typology would be established as the baseline provision 
for each type of space in the Borough.  The quantitative sum would be calculated 
against existing population and this will enable the Council to use the information 
against predicted population growth to establish a quantitative standard per 1000 
population. The use of ha per 1000 is a recognised means of expressing provision 
levels and should be used until further guidance is given from central government 
regarding calculating provision. The evidence gathered will enable the Council to 
make informed decisions regarding the future provision to meet local demand. 
 
2.10  The baseline position identifies the spatial distribution of each type of open space on a 
Borough wide, and local Ward level. 
 
2.11  Whilst it is recognised that other types of provision exist such as Institutional sites, 
Agricultural Land Cemetery and Churchyards, Private grounds etc it is not possible to 
set quantity standards for such provision. 
 
Development of a Quality Audit 
 
2.12  The setting of a quality standard allows for an objective view as to whether an existing 
Open and Green Space meets a determined level of quality. In addition it allows for 
the setting of a benchmark against which improvements can be measured and 
priorities identified.  
 
2.13  The initial work has been built on by external consultants who have undertaken a 
quality audit of all types of open space across the Borough (where access has been 
permitted). 
 
2.14  The initial work included a methodology that was developed for the quality 
assessment and was based on the Green Flag Award Scheme. This is the most 
recognised national measure for parks and open spaces and provides a base on 
which all sites irrelevant of type can be assessed and measured for quality. The 
scheme is endorsed by, CABE Space, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
10

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
(OPDM) and the Civic Trust.  
 
2.15  A proforma was produced to enable the information to be recorded in a consistent 
manner using the Green Flag criteria as the basis. The criteria were developed into a 
series of questions which were structured to be used for a one-off site visit survey and 
be used generically across a range of open space typologies. The following criteria 
have been  considered regarding the condition of greenspace across the City : 
 
  Welcoming  
  Building and infrastructure 
  Good and safe access; 
maintenance; 
  Signage; 
  Arboriculture and woodland 
  Equal access for all; 
management; 
  Equipment and facilities; 
  Conservation of natural 
  Personal security within the 
features, wild fauna and flora; 
park; 
  Conservation of landscape 
  Dog fouling; 
features;  
  Quality of facilities; 
  Conservation of buildings and 
  Litter and waste 
structures; 
management; 
  Appropriate provision for the 
  Grounds maintenance; 
community; 
  Provision of appropriate 
marketing information 
 
2.16  In addition, a number of other elements were included in order to capture further 
information, which  
 
would inform the longer-term priorities. These included the following inventories 
 
  Outdoor activities for children; 
  Outdoor sports facilities; 
  Toilets, changing rooms and refreshment provision; 
  Park furniture 
 
2.17  Quality relates to the range of facilities and physical infrastructure contained within 
individual sites and the level and extent to which it is seen as being ‘fit for purpose’,, 
the audit considers factors such as accessibility, safety, management, maintenance 
and overall impression it also considers the presence of fixtures such as benches, 
bins, gates, signage hedges trees and paths. 
 
2.18  Although the audit was primarily driven by PPG17, the information collated will provide 
the Borough with a comprehensive overview of the condition of the greenspace 
provision and will provide a level of management information not previously available. 
The information will enable the Borough to make informed decisions with regards to 
the resources required to undertake improvements in site management and 
maintenance. 
 
2.19  A comprehensive audit of over 400+ individual sites has been undertaken based on 
the variety of greenspace provision across the Borough.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
11

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
 
2.20  The scores provide a means of comparing sites by type The audit also gives a clear 
and robust overview of the physical condition of greenspace across the Borough and 
within defined local wards. 
 
2.21  In the assessment of greenspace quality Inspections have been undertaken via a site 
visit and the completion of a scored proforma.  
 
2.22  The quality assessment proforma is based on a number of key criteria encompassing 
the quality aspects of the Green Flag Programme, ILAM Parks Management 
Guidance and the Tidy Britain Scheme. Sites are scored and rated based on the sub 
typology they may fall into. The scores are set based on best practice and would be 
expected to be present on sites of that type. As such sites are scored out of a 
potential total, that score is translated into a percentage to enable the site to be given 
a rating. This then allows for them to be measured against the quality line rating that 
has been specifically developed for the Wirral in Figure 2.3 illustrated below: 
 
Figure 2.3 Open Space Quality Line  
 
16% - 
0% - 15% 
31% - 45% 
46% - 60% 
61% - 75% 
76% + 
30% 
Lower 
Upper 
Very Low 
Low 
High Very 
High 
Middle 
Middle 
 
 
2.23  The criteria used are outlined below: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.4 –Wirral Typology 
TYPOLOGY  
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
12

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
TYPOLOGY  
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 
Parks/Gardens or 
  Entrance areas 
Recreation Ground 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
toilets 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, pathways
  Cleanliness 
  The quality of specific facilities including play 
provision, bowls greens and multi-use games areas 
(shown as separate assessment) 
Natural & Semi Natural   
Entrance areas 
Greenspace 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management mature and young trees 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
dog bins 
  Naturalistic Grass Areas 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, 
pathways 
  Cleanliness 
Outdoor Sport 
  Entrance areas 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management mature and young trees 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
dog bins 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, 
pathways 
  Cleanliness 
  Facility Assessment(pitches, greens courts) 
Amenity Space 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
dog bins 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, pathways
  Cleanliness 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
13

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
TYPOLOGY  
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 
Allotments  
  Entrance areas 
  The presence of water supply 
  Whether the site is served by toilets 
  Secure fencing around the site 
  Signage to identify management, usage 
arrangements, special events and the availability of 
plots  
  The presence of facilities such as composting bins, 
a shop and car parking.   
 
Cemeteries and 
  Main entrance safety, cleanliness, and natural 
Churchyards 
presence 
  Signage 
  Upkeep and safety of the graves 
  Quality of roads and pathways 
  Provision of bins and seats 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
 
2.24  The quality audit provides an indicative rating of quality out of 100%.  It is important to 
note that the quality score represents a “snapshot” in time and records the quality of 
the site at the time of the visit audit. Detailed analysis is provided within each of the 
typology findings.  
 
2.25  For allotments the proforma is based on space audit guidance from the National 
association of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners Association and also taken from best 
practice. 
 
2.26  For the assessment of Children’s play Strategic Leisure made use of a Play value 
Assessment derived from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) 
Play value assessment.  
. 
Assessing Accessibility 
 
2.27  An assessment of accessibility has been undertaken to identify the number of 
households within the 400m of all open space above 1.5 ha as defined within the 
Unitary Development plan. However for each typology deemed to be local such as 
parks, natural greenspace, amenity space, children’s play the 400m threshold has 
been applied to all sites within these typologies. For outdoor sport and allotments 
which are very much demand led facilities the threshold has followed best practice 
advocated by Sport England and the Fields in Trust (Formerly the NPFA) and is set at 
a 1000m of where people live. 
 
2.28  The adopted thresholds are identified below; 
 
Figure 2.5 - Accessibility Threshold by Strategic Grouping 
Typology 
Accessibility Distance Threshold 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
14

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
Parks and Gardens 
400 metres 
Natural and Semi Natural Green Space 
400 metres 
Outdoor Sports Facilities 
1000 metres 
Amenity Green Space 
400 metres 
Provision for Children and Young 
400 metres 
People 
Allotments and Community Gardens 
1000 metres 
Cemeteries and Churchyards 
1000 metres 
 
2.29  The distance thresholds identified above considers the thresholds indicated above and 
the uses the thresholds above to make detailed analysis of how accessible 
greenspace is in the Borough 
 
2.30  The definition of greenspace is taken to mean any greenspace that is publicly 
accessible.  The use of GIS digital mapping has captured the number of address 
points within the distance thresholds of typologies to identify the accessibility issues.  
 
Developing a Local Typology 
 
2.31  PPG17 guidance advocates the development of a local typology for the different types 
of greenspace within the Borough. For this purpose we are referring to the range of 
green areas that are used by the public and are in the main managed by Wirral 
Borough Council. 
 
2.32  The strategy considers core typologies of provision in Wirral, as well as setting out 
plans and policies for each of the typologies the strategy proposes provision 
standards to ensure that people have equal access to the range of typologies 
regardless of where they live. 
 
2.33  Open and green space land within the Borough has been categorised into one of 7 
typologies. Each typology identified has a specific definition which helps to allocate 
the land under its primary use. For further clarification and to help with future analysis 
each typology has then been split into a number of specific classes which describe the 
type and main use of the site. The typologies used for the Borough have been 
developed primarily from PPG17 typologies  
 
 
Figure 2.7 - Wirral Typology 
Typology 
Definition 
Parks & Gardens 
Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal 
recreation and community events 
 
Natural And Semi Natural 
Sites for wildlife conservation, biodiversity, 
Sites 
environmental education and awareness 
Outdoors Sports Facilities  
Sites which allow for participation in outdoor 
sports, such sports, tennis, bowls, athletics 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
15

---

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council  
PPG17 Assessment Of Open Space, Sport and Recreation 
 
 
 
 
Typology 
Definition 
Amenity Greenspace 
Supplementary open greenspace that enhances 
the appearance of the Borough 
 
Provision For Children And 
Designed primarily for play and social interaction 
Young People 
involving children and young people, such as 
 
equipped or unequipped play spaces, ball courts, 
skateboard areas and teenage shelters 
 
Allotments, Community 
Opportunities for those people who wish to do so 
Gardens, And Urban Farms 
to grow their own produce as part of the long term 
promotion of sustainability, health, and social 
inclusion 
 
 
Cemeteries, Disused 
Quiet contemplation and burial of the dead, often 
Churchyards, And Other 
linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation 
Burial Grounds 
and biodiversity 
 
 
2.34  The audit has concentrated on the following typologies 
  Parks & Gardens 
  Natural & Semi Natural Greenspace 
  Outdoor Sports Facilities 
  Amenity Greenspace 
  Provision for Children & Young People 
  Allotments, Community Gardens and Urban Farms 
  Cemeteries and Closed Churchyards and other Burial Grounds 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
16

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 3 
 
 
Current Provision 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Part of the Scott Wilson Group 
17

---

 
 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
3 Introduction 
 
3.1 
This section summarises the findings of the audit and identifies the key 
issues that have emerged for the quantity, quality and accessibility of 
provision for each of the typologies.  
 
3.2 
Each open space site has been identified from information provided by 
Council officers based on information contained within the Council’s 
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and management databases.  
Each site has been verified by a site visit in order to provide a 
comprehensive factual assessment.  
 
3.3 
All identified sites have been plotted using GIS and the size of each 
site determined electronically, to provide an analysis of the level of 
provision across the Borough and within each Electoral Ward.  
 
Overall Type and Quantity of Provision 
 
3.4 
Table 3.1 summarises the overall provision (quantity) of open space in 
Wirral by typology.  
 
Table 3.1 Summary of Open Space by typology 
Typology 
Number  Total area  Provision per 
of sites 
(hectares)
1,000 
population 
(hectares) 
Parks and Gardens 
55 
650.5 
2.07ha/1,000 
Natural and Semi Natural 
83 506.3 
1.62ha/1,000 
Green Space 
Outdoor Sports Facilities 272  1617.11 5.17ha/1,000 
Amenity Green Space 
137 
119 
0.38ha/1,000 
Provision for Children 
48 20.85 
0.07ha/1,000 
and Young People 
Allotments and 
45 53.9 
0.17ha/1,000 
Community Gardens 
Cemeteries and 
9 87.8 
0.28ha/1,000 
Churchyards 
 
3.5 
The majority of Wirral’s Open Space provision is provided by Parks and 
Gardens and Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace and provision for 
Outdoor Sport. (See Map 2) 
 
3.6 
The NPFA would recommend 1.6-1.8 ha of open space for formal sport 
for youth and adult use with a minimum within the provision for 1.2ha 
per 1000 being for pitch sport. The audit has identified 1617.11 ha of 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
potential outdoor sports provision (note this figure includes school 
playing fields and golf course both public and private. Further work is 
required to establish the extent of community use especially of school 
playing fields) 
 
3.7 
The NPFA would recommend 0.6-0.8 ha per 1000 for children’s playing 
space (including fixed play and play space within housing areas). 
 
3.8 
Natural England would recommend  
  An accessible natural greenspace of at least 2 hectares in size, no 
more than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home 
  At least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of 
home 
  One accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home 
  One accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home 
  Statutory Local Nature Reserves at a minimum level of one hectare 
per thousand population 
 
 
3.9 
The Thorpe Report would recommend 0.5 acres per 1000  for 
allotments (This is the equivalent of 18 plots per 1000 households 
based on a plot being 300 square yards). 
 
3.10 
The National Society for Allotments would recommend 20 standard 300 
square yard plots per 1000 households 
 
 
Overall Quality of Provision 
 
3.11 
Data on the quality of provision has been gathered through detailed site 
assessments undertaken during the each site visit..  The key criteria for 
each typology provide each site with a score between 1 and 100.  The 
scores for each site have then been categorised in accordance with the 
quality line. 
 
3.12 
A summary of the overall quality of provision by Electoral Ward is set 
out in Appendix [x] to this report. 
 
3.13 
The analysis indicates that the general quality of Open Space provision 
across the Borough is lower than 50% on the scoring matrix and that 
lower quality scores tend to be concentrated in Wards associated with 
poorer areas in the east of the Borough.  This often tends to relate to 
the absence in best practice terms would be minimum facilities 
provided for the public. These include signage, benches, bins, good 
quality footpaths and sites that are well maintained safe and 
welcoming.   .This would argue a general need for existing open 
spaces to be improved where resources can be made available and 
may justify the drawing down of monies and site specific improvements 
through section 106 legal agreements. See Map 3 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Table 3.2 Quality Value Line 
16% - 
0% - 15% 
31% - 45% 
46% - 60% 
61% - 75% 
76% + 
30% 
Lower 
Upper 
Very Low 
Low 
High Very 
High 
Middle 
Middle 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Analysis by Typology 
 
3.14 
The position with regard to each separate typology is considered in turn 
below, to identify the key issues relating to the current quantity, quality 
and distribution of each broad type of provision. 
 
3.15 
This analysis has also been used to recommend local standards of 
provision. 
 
Parks and Gardens 
 
Parks and Gardens provide accessible, high quality opportunities for a 
range of informal recreation activities, formal sporting opportunities and 
community events.  The typology includes urban parks, country 
parks and formal public gardens.’ 
 
Quantity – Parks and Gardens 
 
3.16 
The audit revealed a total of 55 sites within the Parks and Gardens 
typology occupying 650.5 hectares of land and providing a current 
standard of 2.07ha for every 1,000*(See Footnote) residents across 
the Borough as whole Further detail on the sites included under this 
typology can be found in Appendix [4] to this report.(See Map1) 
 
3.17 
The sites can be classified as follows: 
  8 large parks (449.3ha or 1.43ha per 1,000) including [5] Country 
Parks(370.65ha) (note Bidston Hill has been classified within the 
natural and semi natural typology) 
  36 local parks (193.5ha or 0.61ha per 1,000) 
  11 formal gardens (7.8ha or 0.03ha per 1,000) 
3.18 
The breakdown of total space by Ward is shown in Table3.3 below. 
 
Table3.3 Provision of Parks and Gardens by Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
population sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
Bebington 
15424 3  19.3  1.25 
Bidston & St James 
14225 1  2.87  0.20 
Birkenhead & 
2 9.75 0.69 
Tranmere 
14149 
Bromborough 
13822 7  9.85  0.71 
Clatterbridge 
14701 3  7.22  0.49 
Claughton 
14615 1 57.49 3.94 
Eastham 
13988 2 44.73 3.20 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
population sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
Greasby Frankby & 
3 59.67 4.10 
Irby 
14569 
Heswall 
13723 4 12.25 0.89 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 5  5.43  0.41 
Leasowe & Moreton 
2 25.74 1.79 
East 
14368 
Liscard 
14602 0  0 
0 
Moreton West & 
2 97.26 7.00 
Saughall Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 4 13.49 0.97 
Oxton 
13841 1 16.48 1.19 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 2 159.54 
11.92 
Prenton 
14032 1  5.42  0.39 
Rock Ferry 
13959 1 11.39 0.82 
Seacombe 
14504 2 22.33 1.54 
Upton 
15737 2  8.39  0.53 
Wallasey 
15030 1  9.49  0.63 
West Kirby & 
13166 6  52.4  3.98 
Thurstaston 
Total 
313,079 
55 
650.5 
2.07 
3.19 
An analysis by Electoral Ward does not always take account of the 
wider pattern of provision across the area, for example, where a major 
site in one Ward may also serve a catchment population within an 
adjacent Ward. 
3.20 
The inclusion of the larger Country Parks also has a significant effect 
on the totals for some Wards.  Unlike the smaller local parks, many of 
the Country Parks are facilities of Borough wide importance located in 
areas more remote from residential communities.  The results of the 
Ward based analysis therefore needs to be cross-referred against the 
mapped distribution of open space set out in Appendix [x] to this report. 
3.21 
An analysis of the above data illustrates the following key issues: 
  Five of the Six Wards with provision ahead of the Borough average 
have Country Parks within their boundaries.  The sixth, Claughton 
Ward, includes Birkenhead Park (57.49  ha), at the eastern edge of 
the Ward. 
  The Borough wide average excluding the Country Parks would be 
0.89ha per 1000 people. 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  Liscard Ward has no sites under the Parks and Gardens typology, 
with no audited parks or formal gardens falling within the Ward.  The 
proximity of Central Park (21.15 ha), in adjoining Seacombe, 
addresses some of the needs in the southern part of the Ward. 
  Bidston and St James Ward has the next lowest level of provision 
with one site of 2.87ha.  This is mainly due to the categorisation of 
many of the larger open spaces within the Ward as Semi and 
Natural Greenspace,(Bidston Hill being one) 
  Pensby & Thingwall has by far the greatest overall level of provision 
– nearly a quarter of the Wirral’s entire stock of parks and gardens 
(159.54ha) - but this is accounted for by Arrowe Country Park (153 
ha) in the northern most part of the Ward.  The only other Park and 
Garden in this Ward is Ridgewood Park in Pensby. 
  The figure for Moreton West and Saughall Massie is dominated by 
North Wirral Coastal Park  
(88.09 ha). 
  The average site size for the Borough is [20ha] or [9ha] excluding 
the 5 Country Parks 
  Bromborough has the greatest number of sites (7).  However, these 
total just 9.85ha, giving an average site size of 1.41ha. 
 
Quality – Parks and Gardens 
 
3.22 
Quality inspections were undertaken as part of the site visit to each of 
the sites. The quality assessment was based on a number of key 
criteria encompassing the quality aspects of the Green Flag Award, 
ILAM Parks Management Guidance and the Tidy Britain Scheme. (See 
Map2) The key criteria for Parks and Gardens are set out in Table 3.4. 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Table3.4 Parks and Gardens Quality Criteria 
Parks and Gardens   
  Entrance areas 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
toilets 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, pathways
  Cleanliness 
  The quality of specific facilities including play 
provision, bowls greens and multi-use games areas 
(shown as separate assessment) 
 
3.23 
A summary of the quality scores for each Ward is shown below in 
Table 3.5. It should be noted that the quality of individual facilities such 
as play areas and playing pitches have been scored separately and are 
considered in a later section of this report. Wards that rated above the 
overall average for quality are indicated in Green and those that rated 
below the Borough average are indicated in Red 
 
3.24 
Quality scores for each individual site are provided in Appendix [x] of 
this report. 
 
Table3.5 Parks and Gardens Summary Quality Scores by Electoral 
Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range (%) 
quality 
score 
Bebington 
15424 3 
28%-58% 
43% 
Bidston & St James 
14225 1 
29% 
29% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14149 2 
37%-71% 
54% 
Bromborough 
13822 7 
15%-48% 
35% 
Clatterbridge 
14701 3 
54%-81% 
63% 
Claughton 
14615 1 
45% 
45% 
Eastham 
13988 2 
54%-78% 
66% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14569 3 
47%-78% 
62% 
Heswall 
13723 4 
39%-58% 
45% 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 5 
32%-63% 
49% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14368 2 
26%-58% 
42% 
Liscard 
14602 0 
N/A 
N/A 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range (%) 
quality 
score 
Moreton West & Saughall 
2 33%-44% 
39% 
Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 4 
59%-66% 
62% 
Oxton 
13841 1 
42% 
42% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 2 
28%-44% 
36% 
Prenton 
14032 1 
29% 
29% 
Rock Ferry 
13959 1 
36% 
36% 
Seacombe 
14504 2 
43%-59% 
51% 
Upton 
15737 2 
34%-44% 
39% 
Wallasey 
15030 1 
54% 
54% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13166 6 
29%-70% 
51% 
Total 
313,079 
55 
15%-81% 
48% 
 
3.25 
Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:  
  The Borough wide average score for the quality of Parks and 
Gardens sites was 48%, at the top end of the lower middle range of 
potential scores against the key criteria in Table 2.2. 
  There is a significant variation in the range of quality scores – from 
15% (very low) to 81% (very high) 
  The average score for twelve Wards(55% of the wards in the 
Borough)falls below the Borough average of 48% 
  The Borough currently has 8 Green Flag Parks, which must achieve 
a minimum score of 75% to qualify for the Award.    
  The two Wards with the lowest overall quality rating – Prenton and 
Bidston & St James – have only one site in each Ward 
  Eastham obtained the highest overall average score – of 66%.   
However, this was only across two sites, one of which had obtained 
a Green Flag Award.  
  For Wards with four or more sites, New Brighton scored the highest 
(62%), with all sites of a consistently good standard (59-66% range) 
while Bromborough scored worst (35%) with scores ranging from 
15% to 48% 
  Within the three sub-categories, local parks scored an average of 
47% (average); large parks 53% (average) and formal gardens 45% 
(below average)  
  Of the sites assessed, 7 of the 55 had no litter bins (13%); 26 had 
no signage (47%) and 13  had no seating (24%). Only eight sites 
(15%) had lighting and eight sites offered toilets (15%). 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Accessibility – Parks and Gardens 
3.26 
In considering the accessibility threshold Table 3.5 identifies that 48% 
of the total number of households in the Borough are within 400m of a 
park or garden site, Table 3.5 also identifies the breakdown within each 
of Ward Areas and the percentage of households within 400m of parks 
and gardens. It is important to recognise that where there may be 
accessibility deficiencies these may be met by sites classified within the 
other typologies (See Map 5) 
 
Table 3.5 Accessibility threshold by Ward Area 
% of 
% of 
No. of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
outside 
within 400m 
in Area 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Bebington 6,709 
3,263 
49% 
51% 
Bidston & St James 
7,461 
3,044 
41% 
59% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
8,069 
3,853 
48% 
52% 
Bromborough 6,844 
4,153 
61% 
39% 
Clatterbridge 6,041 
2,630 
44% 
56% 
Claughton 6,740 
3,120 
46% 
54% 
Eastham 6,153 
2,003 
33% 
67% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
6,176 
2,942 
48% 
52% 
Heswall 6,015 
3,604 
60% 
40% 
Hoylake & Meols 
6,040 
3,402 
56% 
44% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
6,700 
3,110 
46% 
54% 
Liscard 7,086 
2,579 
36% 
64% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
6,220 3,123  50% 
50% 
Massie 
New Brighton 
7,231 
4,126 
57% 
43% 
Oxton 7,152 
2,474 
35% 
65% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
6,100 
3,373 
55% 
45% 
Prenton 6,142 
3,112 
51% 
49% 
Rock Ferry 
7,114 
3,325 
47% 
53% 
Seacombe 7,326 
5,311 
72% 
28% 
Upton 7,355 
2,958 
40% 
60% 
Wallasey 6,587 
1,560 
24% 
76% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
5,809 
3,864 
67% 
33% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
% of 
% of 
No. of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
outside 
within 400m 
in Area 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Total 
147,070 
70,929 
48% 
52% 
 
 
3.27 
From Table 3.5 the following the accessibility of parks and gardens can 
be summarised as follows 
  Seacombe has the greatest number of households within the defined 
catchment with 72% of all households within 400m of a park or garden, 
West Kirkby and Thurstaston has 67% of households within the 
catchment .  
 
  Wallasey has the least percentage of households within the defined 
catchment for parks and gardens with 245 of the total households in 
the Ward being within the threshold, Eastham also has a low 
percentage of households(33% within the catchment. 
  8 Wards fall below the average of 48% of households within the 400 m 
catchment threshold for parks and gardens 
 
Comparison at the Ward level can be misleading and need to be viewed in the 
context of the overall open and green space provision in each Area. Owing to 
the fact that a Ward may be deficient in parks but have a surplus of other 
types of greenspace that may serve the function of a local park.  
 
Standards 
Recommended Standard 
 
To achieve and maintain a minimum 
Quantity  
standard of 2.07ha for every 1,000 
 
people across Wirral MBC 
To achieve 61% or above as the 
minimum standard for Parks and 
Gardens in the Borough 
To Maintain the Boroughs 8 Green 
Flag Parks to achieve scores above 
Quality 
75% 
To maintain all the Borough’s Country 
Parks to achieve 75% or above 
To focus improvements on Wards 
with the most limited existing 
provision under this typology 
To provide an accessible park or 
Accessibility 
garden within 400m of where people 
live 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace 
 
Natural and Semi Natural green spaces are areas of unmanaged or 
managed land promoting a countryside experience or a wildlife, 
biodiversity interest such as a Local Nature Reserve. These sites, take 
a variety of forms, which are often important for their contribution to 
biodiversity and habitats for flora and fauna as well as provision for 
informal recreation and the appreciation of nature.  The typology can 
include green corridors, woodlands, scrubland, wetland and other 
nature conservation areas. 
 
Quantity – Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace 
 
3.28 
The audit revealed a total of 83 sites within the Natural and Semi 
Natural Greenspace typology, occupying 506.3 hectares of land and 
providing a current standard of 1.62ha for every 1,000 residents 
across the Borough as a whole. Further detail on sites included under 
this typology can be found in Appendix [4] to this report.(See Map1) 
 
3.29 
The sites include: 
  10 Nature Reserves ( 187.14  ha or 0.59ha per 1,000) 
  73 General natural areas ( 319.17  ha or 1.01ha per 1,000) 
3.30 
The breakdown of total space by Ward is shown in Table 3.6 below. 
 
Table 3.6 Provision of Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace by 
Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
population sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
Bebington 
15424 3  17.8  1.16 
Bidston & St James 
14225 10 109.4 7.70 
Birkenhead & 
0 N/A N/A 
Tranmere 
14149 
Bromborough 
13822 6  36.8  0.71 
Clatterbridge 
14701 11 46.9  2.67 
Claughton 
14615 2  1.7  0.12 
Eastham 
13988 3  7.8  0.06 
Greasby Frankby & 
7 28.4 1.95 
Irby 
14569 
Heswall 
13723 7  49.5  3.61 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 6  18.9  1.42 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
population sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
Leasowe & Moreton 
3 2.3  0.16 
East 
14368 
Liscard 
14602 2  2.6  0.18 
Moreton West & 
2 1.2  0.09 
Saughall Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 0  N/A  N/A 
Oxton 
13841 0  N/A  N/A 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 0  N/A  N/A 
Prenton 
14032 2  3.2  0.07 
Rock Ferry 
13959 2  1.5  0.11 
Seacombe 
14504 0  N/A  N/A 
Upton 
15737 6  20.1  1.28 
Wallasey 
15030 1  14.9  0.99 
West Kirby & 
13166 10 143.2 10.93 
Thurstaston 
Total 
313,079 
83 
506.3 
1.62 
 
 
 
3.31 
The figures in Table 3.6 do not include the large areas of natural and 
semi natural greenspace associated with many of the Borough’s 
Country Parks, which are classified under a separate typology as Parks 
and Gardens. 
 
3.32 
An analysis of the above data, nevertheless, illustrates the following 
key issues: 
  Five Wards with no NSNG provision at all and the number of Wards 
with a low number of sites, underlines the uneven distribution of this 
type of open space across the Borough. 
  The low level of provision recorded for Eastham and Moreton West 
and Saughall Massie excludes the substantial areas of semi natural 
greenspace associated with Eastham Country Park and North Wirral 
Coastal Park 
  West Kirby & Thurstaston has the highest overall level of provision – 
with over a quarter of the Borough’s stock of NSNG space (143.2ha) 
split across 10 sites including Thurstaston Common, which (75 ha) 
which is the largest single NSGN site in Wirral[?] 
  The high level of provision in Bidston and St James contrasts 
strongly with the low level of provision recorded for Parks and 
Gardens.  In other Wards, such as [Liscard, New Brighton, 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Birkenhead and Prenton], the low level of provision of NSNG as well 
as of Parks and Gardens illustrates a cumulative shortfall of open 
space. 
  The average site size for the Borough is 6.1ha  
  Clatterbridge has the greatest number of sites (11) with an average 
size of 4.26ha. 
 
Quality – Natural and Semi Natural Green Space 
 
3.33 
Quality inspections were undertaken as part of the site visit to each of 
the sites. The quality assessment was based on a number of key 
criteria encompassing the quality aspects of the Green Flag Award, 
ILAM Parks Management Guidance and the Tidy Britain Scheme. (See 
Map 2) The key criteria for NSNG are set out in Table 3.7.  
.  
Table 3.7 Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace Assessment 
Criteria 
Natural & Semi Natural   
Entrance areas 
Greenspace 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management mature and young trees 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
dog bins 
  Naturalistic Grass Areas 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, 
pathways 
  Cleanliness 
 
3.34 
A summary of the quality scores for each Ward is shown below in 
Table 3.8.  Quality scores for each individual site are provided in 
Appendix [x] to this report. 
 
Table 3.8 Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace Summary Quality 
Scores by Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range 
quality 
(%) 
score 
Bebington 
15424 3 
20-65 
43% 
Bidston & St James 
14225 10 
9-59 
30% 
Birkenhead & 
0 N/A N/A 
Tranmere 
14149 
Bromborough 
13822 6* 
10-35 
22% 
Clatterbridge 
14701 11 
15-50 
28% 
Claughton 
14615 2 
2-13 
8% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range 
quality 
(%) 
score 
Eastham 
13988 3 
33-38 
35% 
Greasby Frankby & 
7 16-62 34% 
Irby 
14569 
Heswall 
13723 7 
26-37 
32% 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 6 
23-36 
30% 
Leasowe & Moreton 
3 7-29 16% 
East 
14368 
Liscard 
14602 2 
17-28 
22% 
Moreton West & 
2 15-18 17% 
Saughall Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 0 
N/A 
N/A 
Oxton 
13841 0 
N/A 
N/A 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 0 
N/A 
N/A 
Prenton 
14032 2* 
42 
42% 
Rock Ferry 
13959 2 
16-24 
20% 
Seacombe 
14504 0 
N/A 
N/A 
Upton 
15737 6 
6-35 
18% 
Wallasey 
15030 1 
46 
46% 
West Kirby & 
13166 10 
25-64 
40% 
Thurstaston 
Total 
313,079 
83 
2-65 
29% 
 
 
3.35 
Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:  
  The Borough wide average score for the quality of NSNG sites was 
29%, rating within the low band width range of potential scores 
against the key criteria in Table 3.7. 
  The low scores are largely accounted for by the fact that 51 sites 
(61% of sites classified within this typology) lacked signage, 63 sites 
(76%) had no litter bin and 63 sites (76%) had no seating for 
visitors. Important elements that contribute to the visitor experience.. 
  There is a wide variation in the range of quality scores achieved – 
from 2% (very low) to 65% (high) 
  Claughton has the lowest overall quality rating, scoring just 8% 
across two sites, including the poorest site in the Borough – Vyner 
Road South Open Space, which scored just 2%. 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  Every Ward with multiple sites has at least one site with a score 
classified as low 
  Wallasey scored the highest overall Average –of 46% (. However, 
this was across only one site – Cross Lane Community Woodland, it 
is important to recognise that this was not the highest scoring 
natural and semi natural greenspace. It is the only site classified 
within this typology within Wallasey. The highest scoring site was 
found to be Storeton Wood in Bebbington (rated at 65%) 
  [Of Wards with four or more sites, West Kirby & Thurstaston scored 
highest (40%), with several sites of a consistently middle scoring 
quality (25-64% range), while Upton scored worst (18%) with scores 
ranging from 6% to 35%. 
 
 
Natural England Standards 
 
3.36 
Natural England (formerly English Nature) has recommended that local 
authorities set standards relating to natural greenspace provision 
known as the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt). This 
guidance was formally issued in 1996 within ‘A Space for Nature’. The 
recommended standards are:  
 
  That no person should be located more than 300m from their 
nearest area of natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size;  
  Provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1,000 
population;  
  That there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km 
from home;  
  That there should be one accessible 100ha site within 5km; and  
  That there should be one accessible 500ha site within 10km.  
 
3.37 
The ANGSt model was reviewed by Natural England (then known as 
English Nature) in 2003 (Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards in 
Towns and Cities: A Review and Toolkit). The review identified a 
number of problems with the model.  
 
3.38 
The definition used within the model of natural greenspace as “areas 
naturally colonised by plants and animals” was identified as being 
unclear and not practical. The definition also excluded man made types 
of vegetation, which predominate within urban areas, which can often 
also have a high biodiversity value.  
 
3.39 
Natural England has yet to adopt revised natural greenspace standards 
following the review. However, the review does recommend that the 
ecological value of greenspace should be determined through 
undertaking a Phase 1 Habitat survey.  National planning policy also 
recommends that local authorities adopt locally based standards of 
provision rather than adopt nationally derived standards without local 
justification. 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
3.40 
The Wirral audit findings reveal that: 
 
  There is 506 ha of provision, equating to 1.72ha per 1,000 
population of natural and semi natural greenspace 
  41 sites are below 2 ha in size 
  42 sites fall between the 2-20 ha category, identified within the 
ANGSt Standards 
% of 
% of 
No. of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
outside 
within 400m 
in Area 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Bebington 6,709 
2,232 
33% 
67% 
Bidston & St James 
7,461 
3,640 
49% 
51% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
8,069 
0 
0% 
100% 
Bromborough 6,844 
4,126 
60% 
40% 
Clatterbridge 6,041 
4,761 
79% 
21% 
Claughton 6,740 
2,142 
32% 
68% 
Eastham 6,153 
2,144 
35% 
65% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
6,176 
4,435 
72% 
28% 
Heswall 6,015 
3,703 
62% 
38% 
Hoylake & Meols 
6,040 
2,744 
45% 
55% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
6,700 
2,141 
32% 
68% 
Liscard 7,086 
1,417 
20% 
80% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
6,220 1,571  25% 
75% 
Massie 
New Brighton 
7,231 
0 
0% 
100% 
Oxton 7,152 
0 
0% 
100% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
6,100 
614 
10% 
90% 
Prenton 6,142 
1,494 
24% 
76% 
Rock Ferry 
7,114 
1,249 
18% 
82% 
Seacombe 7,326 
157 
2% 
98% 
Upton 7,355 
4,536 
62% 
38% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Wallasey 6,587 
1,847 
28% 
72% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 5,809  3,994  69% 
31% 
Total 
147,070 
48,947 
33% 
67% 
  9 sites are over 20 ha in size 
  Under ANGSt there would be a requirement for 313 ha of land 
designated as Local Nature Reserve.  At present Wirral has only ten 
sites designated as Local Nature Reserves covering 187.14 ha, 
implying a potential requirement for a further 128ha of land to be 
designated as Local Nature Reserve. It is important to note that this 
standard applies only for sites officially designated as Local Nature 
Reserves as such the Borough needs to identify sites that could be 
officially designated from within the existing natural and semi 
natural greenspace provision. 
 
 
Accessibility – Natural and Semi Natural Green Space 
 
3.41 
In considering the accessibility threshold Table 3.9 identifies that 33% 
of the total number of households in the Borough are within 400m of a 
natural and semi natural greenspace site, Table 3.9 also identifies the 
breakdown within each of Ward Areas and the percentage of 
households within 400m of natural and semi natural greenspace. It is 
important to recognise that where there may be accessibility 
deficiencies these may be met by sites classified within the other 
typologies( See Map6 ) 
 
Table 3.9 Accessibility threshold by Ward Area 
 
 
3.42 
From Table 3.9 the following the accessibility of natural and semi 
natural greenspace can be summarised as follows 
  Clatterbridge has the greatest number of households within the defined 
catchment with 79% of all households within 400m of a natural and 
semi natural greenspace, West Kirkby and Thurstaston has 69% of 
households within the catchment. 
  3 Wards Birkenhead &Tranmere, New Brighton and Oxton have no 
sites that have been classified as having the primary purpose of being 
natural and semi natural greenspace  
  Seacombe has the lowest percentage of households within the defined 
catchment for natural and semi natural greenspace with 2% of the total 
households in the Ward being within the threshold, Seacombe has the 
greatest number of households within the catchment for parks and 
gardens and it has to be recognised that the parks and gardens with 
the variety of habitats and landscape may serve a similar purpose to 
natural and semi natural greenspace in providing people with access to 
nature. 
  12 Wards fall below the current average of 33% of households within 
the 400 m catchment threshold for natural and semi natural 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
greenspace 
 
3.43.1  Comparison at the Ward level can be misleading and need to be 
viewed in the context of the overall open and green space provision in 
each Area. Owing to the fact that a Ward may be deficient in parks but 
have a surplus of other types of greenspace that may serve the 
function of a local park.  
 
As a minimum there should be an accessible natural or semi natural 
greenspace within 400m of where people live 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Standards 
 
Recommended Standard 
To achieve and maintain a minimum 
standard of 1.6 ha for every 1,000 
Quantity 
people across Wirral MBC 
To provide at least 1.0 ha of Local 
Nature Reserve for every 1000 people 
To achieve 61% or above as the 
minimum standard for Natural and 
Semi Natural Greenspaces  in the 
Borough 
To maintain the Borough’s Local 
Nature Reserves to achieve a score of 
Quality 
75% or above 
To focus improvements on Wards 
with the most limited existing 
provision under this typology 
balanced against local needs for 
other alternative forms of provision 
To provide an accessible good quality 
Accessibility 
natural or semi natural greenspace 
within 400m of where people live 
 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Outdoor Sports Facilities 
 
3.43 
This typology includes a variety of community accessible sports 
facilities (public and private) providing for participation in outdoor 
sports, including facilities such as playing pitches, bowling greens and 
tennis courts. 
 
3.44 
The audit of provision for outdoor sport includes all those facilities 
within other typologies including parks and open spaces. It also 
includes those stand alone sites specifically provided for sport. Further 
work is required to establish the level and range of community 
accessible provision that is included within the overall figure. .(See Map 
1) 
 
3.45 
Other more informal facilities, such as multi-use games areas (MUGAs) 
have been included within the other listed typologies.  Given their 
primary intended use, these sites have been included under the 
assessment of provision for children and young people. 
 
Quantity – Outdoor Sports Facilities 
 
3.46 
The audit has revealed a total of 272 potential outdoor sports facilities, 
occupying 1617.11 hectares of land. This equates to a current standard 
of 5.17ha for every 1,000 residents across the Borough as a whole  
 
3.47 
It is important to note that the level and extent of community use of 
school playing fields has not been established due to no extensive 
consultation being undertaken during the course of this assessment 
 
3.48 
Further detail on the sites included under this typology can be found in 
Appendix [4] to this report. 
 
3.49 
The sites can be classified as follows: 
 
o  58 bowling green sites providing 78 greens (14.50  ha or 0.05ha 
per 1000) this is provided on 29 private sites(3.74ha) with 31 
greens, 27 public sites (5.87 ha) with 45 greens and on 2 sites 
with 2 greens  
 
o  62 active tennis court sites providing 251 courts on 13.64 ha  or 
a provision of 0.04ha per 1000. These are provided on 19 
education sites( 69 courts on 3.50 ha) a provision of 0.01 ha per 
1000, 17 private club sites ( 92 courts on 5.04 ha) a provision of 
0.01 ha per 1000, 5 private school sites (15 courts on 0.94 ha) 
and 21 public sites (75 courts on 4.16ha ) a provision of 0.01 ha 
per 1000. There is also one site that is classified as a seasonal 
provision, and provides 4 courts on 0.18 ha 
 
o  13 Artificial Turf Pitches(ATP’s) (6.67 ha or 0.02 ha per 1000) 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
o  There are 123 playing fields providing 323.99ha or 1.0ha per 
1000(this figure needs to be treated with caution as it includes 
all provision). Ideally provision needs to reflect only those 
facilities that are accessible to the community; as such private 
sites and schools need to be consulted to establish the level and 
range of provision that is readily accessible to the community 
through formal access agreements. 
 
o  54 public playing fields providing 153 pitches on 185.82 ha 
(0.59ha per 1000). The playing fields provide the following  
 
  136 football pitches(92 senior, 28 junior and 16 mini 
pitches) 
  3 Rugby pitches 
  4 Cricket tables 
  2 Grass Hockey pitches 
  8 pitches that are for other sport 
 
o  22 Education sites providing 31 pitches on 38.39ha (0.122 ha 
per 1000) the pitch provision is as follows 3 junior football, 11 
rugby pitches, 6 cricket wickets, 6 grass hockey and 5 synthetic 
or gravel pitch provision 
 
o  47 private sites providing 99 pitches on 99.78 ha (0.3 ha per 
1000) the private sites provide the following 
  30 football pitches(25 senior, 0 junior and 5 mini pitches) 
  32 Rugby pitches(28 senior and 5 mini pitches 
  24 Cricket  
  1Grass Hockey pitches 
  11 pitches that are for other sport 
 
o  16 golf courses ( 588.27 ha or 1.87ha per 1000) 
 
o  3 athletics tracks (4.54ha) 
 
3.50 
The breakdown of total space by Ward is shown in Table 3.10 below. 
 
Table 3.10 Quantitative Provision of Outdoor Sports Facilities 
(total) by Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
populati
sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
on 
Bebington 
15,424 14 112.79  7.31 
Bidston & St James 
14,225 9  38.76  2.72 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14,149 4  2.87  0.20 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
populati
sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
on 
Bromborough 
13,822 13  34.87  2.52 
Clatterbridge 
14,701 8  86.48  5.88 
Claughton 
14,615 14 108.35  7.41 
Eastham 
13,988 19 163.40  11.68 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14,569 10  26.15  1.79 
Heswall 
13,723 14  75.11  5.47 
Hoylake & Meols 
13,337 19 136.67  10.25 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14,368 19 149.78  10.42 
Liscard 
14,602 5  5.02  0.34 
Moreton West & Saughall 
Massie 
13,932 6  31.42  2.26 
New Brighton 
13,969 8  16.96  1.21 
Oxton 
13,841 12  39.01  2.82 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13,386 13 184.98  13.82 
Prenton 
14,032 11  64.62  4.61 
Rock Ferry 
13,959 12  28.82  2.06 
Seacombe 
14,504 11  34.29  2.36 
Upton 
15,737 13  56.52  3.59 
Wallasey 
15,030 22 122.20  8.13 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13,166 16  98.04  7.45 
Total 
313,079 
272 
1617.11 
5.17 
 
 
3.51 
An analysis of the data in the table highlights the following key points 
with regard to the overall quantity of outdoor sports facilities: 
  The lowest level of provision is Birkenhead & Tranmere, which has 
four sites totalling2.87ha which is equivalent to 0.20ha/1,000. 
Liskard also has few sites classified as outdoor sport (5 sites 
totalling 5.02ha or a provision of 0.34 ha per 1000 population) There 
are 11 Wards with a provision level under the Borough average of 
5.17ha per 1,000. 
  Eastham has highest level of provision overall, with 163.40 ha, 
equivalent to 11.68 ha per1,000,  
  The average site size is 3.76 hectares excluding golf courses 6.1 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
hectares (including golf courses) 
  Wallasey has the greatest number of sites (22) 
3.52 
 UDP Standards state there is to be a provision of playing fields 
(school, public and private) with secured community use of 1.21ha per 
1000, further detailed work is required to establish the level and extent 
of community use especially on education and private sites. 
 
3.53 
The Council has undertaken a Playing Pitch Strategy (undertaken in 
2002 and adopted in 2004 and ideally this needs to be updated to 
reflect the changes to the Towards a Level Playing Field methodology 
advocate by Sport England. This will provide he Council with a clear 
and comprehensive needs based assessment of supply and demand 
for sports pitches and the level and extent of future provision predicted 
through the use of team generation rates based on participating 
population. 
 
Quality – Outdoor Sports Facilities 
 
3.54 
Quality inspections were undertaken as part of the site visit to each of 
the publicly-accessible sites The quality assessment was based on a 
number of key criteria encompassing the quality aspects of the Green 
Flag Award, as well as criteria detailed in Towards a Level Playing 
Field – the playing pitch assessment guidance issued by Sport 
England. (See Map 2)  The key criteria for Formal Outdoor Sport are 
set out in Table 3.11. 
 
Table 3.11 Assessment Criteria for Outdoor Sports Sites 
Outdoor Sport 
  Entrance areas 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management mature and young trees 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
dog bins 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, 
pathways 
  Cleanliness 
  Facility Assessment(pitches, greens courts) 
 
3.55 
Only publicly accessible sites were evaluated for quality.  Private sites 
with no right of public access have not been assessed.  A significant 
number of sites have therefore not been quality scored. The results set 
out in Table 3.12below only refer to the audited facilities (total number 
44). The list of sites included is provided in Appendix [x]. 
 
3.56 
 [The quality scores for each site audited are provided in Appendix [x] 
to this report. 
 
3.57 
A summary of the quality scores for each Ward is shown below in 
Table 3.12. 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Table 3.12 Outdoor Sports Facilities Summary Quality Scores by 
Electoral Ward  
Ward 
Area 
Quality 
Average 
population range (%) 
quality 
score 
Bebington 
15424 34-66 45% 
Bidston & St James 
14225 77 
77% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14149 N/A 
N/A 
Bromborough 
13822 15-56 34% 
Clatterbridge 
14701 N/A 
N/A 
Claughton 
14615 31-44 39% 
Eastham 
13988 18-30 26% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14569 N/A 
N/A 
Heswall 
13723 31-43 38% 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 27-29 28% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14368 22-39 31% 
Liscard 
14602 21 
21% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
38 
38% 
Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 36 
36% 
Oxton 
13841 13-15 14% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 37-70 54% 
Prenton 
14032 27 
27% 
Rock Ferry 
13959 N/A 
N/A 
Seacombe 
14504 34 
34% 
Upton 
15737 47 
47% 
Wallasey 
15030 9-34  21% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13166 20-68 41% 
Total 
313,079 
9-77 
36% 
 
3.58 
It is important to note that the audit was undertaken out of season for 
many pitch based sports as such many sites where not rated for the 
quality of pitches, this has a marked effect on the average quality as 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
potential good quality sites have not been rated. It is equally important 
to realise that the audit is a snapshot in time and again quality may 
vary dependent on whether sites audited had been cut that week, had 
suffered from extensive litter or over use for example following a 
weekend of wet weather. 
 
3.59 
Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:  
  Across Wirral MBC as a whole, publicly accessible sites scored an 
average of 36% - a lower middle score. 11 Wards obtained a lower 
middle score, five a low score, one a very low score.  Only two 
Wards obtained an upper middle score or very high score. 
No. of 
% of 
% of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
within 
outside 
in Area 
1,000m 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Bebington 6,709 
6,672 
99% 
1% 
Bidston & St James 
7,461 
7,131 
96% 
4% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 8,069 7,190  89%  11% 
Bromborough 6,844 
5,837 
85% 
15% 
Clatterbridge 6,041 
4,829 
80% 
20% 
Claughton 6,740 
6,740 
100% 
0% 
Eastham 6,153 
5,741 
93% 
7% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
6,176 
5,837 
95% 
5% 
Heswall 6,015 
5,328 
89% 
11% 
Hoylake & Meols 
6,040 
5,906 
98% 
2% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
6,700 
4,862 
73% 
27% 
Liscard 7,086 
7,086 
100% 
0% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
6,220 5,928  95% 
5% 
Massie 
New Brighton 
7,231 
7,231 
100% 
0% 
Oxton 7,152 
7,151 
100% 
0% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
6,100 
4,083 
67% 
33% 
Prenton 6,142 
6,142 
100% 
0% 
Rock Ferry 
7,114 
7,115 
100% 
0% 
Seacombe 7,326 
7,222 
99% 
1% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Upton 7,355 
6,976 
95% 
5% 
Wallasey 6,587 
6,587 
100% 
0% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 5,809  4,609  79% 
21% 
Total 
147,070 
136,203 
93% 
7% 
  There is a significant range of qualities shown by the results, from 
9% (very low) to 77% (very high)  
  Oxton has the lowest overall quality rating, scoring 14% across two 
sites. The poorest site overall was in Wallasey – the School Lane 
Playing Fields, which scored just 9% 
  Bidston & St James scored highest, but only over one site – Bidston 
Sports Centre – which was the highest scoring site in the audit 
(77%) 
  Only three Wards had five or more publicly accessible sites – 
Bromborough (score 34%); Wallasey (21%) and West Kirby & 
Thurstaston (41%)  
3.60 
It is important to note that many of the private sites where not rated for 
quality and from experience the quality of these sites does tend to be 
slightly higher as they often have dedicated grounds men, have a 
greater control in bad weather and have limited misuse though illegal or 
informal play.  
 
Accessibility – Outdoor Sport 
 
3.61 
In considering the accessibility threshold Table 3.13 identifies that 93% 
of the total number of households in the Borough are within 1000m of 
an outdoor sports site, Table 3.13 also identifies the breakdown within 
each of Ward Areas and the percentage of households within 1000m of 
outdoor sport sites. It is important to recognise that where there may be 
accessibility deficiencies these may be met by sites classified within the 
other typologies (See Map 8) 
 
Table 3.13 Accessibility threshold by Ward Area 
 
 
3.62 
From Table 3.13 the following the accessibility of outdoor sport based 
on distance thresholds can be summarised as follows 
   7 wards have 100% of households within the defined threshold 
(Claughton ,Liscard, New Brighton, Oxton, Prenton, Rock Ferry and 
Wallasey 
  Bebington, Bidston St James, Eastham, Hoylake & Meols, Moreton 
West &Saughall Massie, Seacombe and Upton all have over 90% of 
households within the catchment of 1000m 
  7 wards fall below the current average of 93% of all households within 
100m of a sports facility site(Bromborough, Clatterbridge, Heswall, 
Leasowe and Moreton Pensby & Thingwall and West Kirkby 
&Thurstaston 
  It is important to recognise that golf courses an school playing fields 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
are included and these are not fully accessible and a such further 
research is needed to establish the level and extent of community use 
is available.  
 
2.1 
Sport facilities are a demand led provision and as such the Council 
needs to consider supply and demand using the Playing Pitch Strategy 
as the point of reference for future provision rather than the quantitative 
standards identified above. 
 
 
 
 
 
Standards 
 
Recommended Standard 
 
To establish standards based on 
Quantity  
supply and demand and to establish 
 
provision per 1000 based on 
community accessible sites  
To achieve 61% or above as the 
Quality 
minimum standard for Outdoor 
sports provision  
To provide a good quality Sports 
Accessibility 
facility within 1000m of where people 
live 
 
 
Amenity Green Space 
 
The Amenity Green Space (AGS) typology includes open space in 
housing areas, village greens, informal recreational space and hard-
surfaced areas designed for pedestrians that provide opportunities for 
informal activities close to home or work.  They may function both as 
casual recreation areas as well as providing aesthetic value. 
 
3.63 
The AGS sites in this study have been split into two types: 
  Active amenity spaces – locally accessible areas which provide 
opportunities for informal activities, for example dog walking or 
informal play 
  Visual amenity spaces – areas which generally only improve the 
visual appearance of residential or built-up areas.  
Quantity – Amenity Green Space 
 
3.64 
The audit revealed a total of 137 sites classified as Amenity Green 
Space (AGS) typology. Ppg17 guidance advocates a size threshold of 
0.2 ha, However for the purpose of this assessment the audit has 
included sites of 0.1 ha (This ensures that the small greenspaces 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
provided in housing areas for informal recreation are recognised, the 
reason being these are often the only local space children and young 
people may have to play on close to where they live). See Map1 
 
3.65 
The sites can be classified as follows:  
  active amenity spaces – 72 sites totalling 90.3 hectares (or 0.28ha 
per 1,000) 
  visual amenity spaces – 65 sites totalling 28.7 hectares (or 0.09ha 
per 1,000) 
3.66 
The total provision of AGS is therefore 119 hectares, equal to 0.38ha 
for every 1,000 residents across the Borough as a whole. Further 
detail on the sites included under this typology can be found in 
Appendix [4] to this report. 
 
3.67 
The breakdown of total space by Ward is shown in Table 3.14 below. 
 
Table 3.14 Quantitative Provision of Amenity Green Space (total) 
by Electoral Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
Ward 
populatio
sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
n 
Bebington 
15424 4 
1.8 
0.12 
Bidston & St James 
14225 10 
14.9 
1.05 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14149 2 
0.7 
0.05 
Bromborough 
13822 18 
13.1 
0.95 
Clatterbridge 
14701 7 
2.7 
0.18 
Claughton 
14615 7 
5.4 
0.37 
Eastham 
13988 5 
4.6 
0.33 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14569 6 
2.6 
0.18 
Heswall 
13723 1 
0.5 
0.04 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 5 
3.4 
0.26 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14368 5 
2.5 
0.17 
Liscard 
14602 3 
1.6 
0.11 
Moreton West & Saughall 
13932 8 
8.5 
0.61 
Massie 
New Brighton 
13969 11 
12.4 
0.89 
Oxton 
13841 6 
4.2 
0.30 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 2 
1.8 
0.14 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
Ward 
populatio
sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
n 
Prenton 
14032 1 
0.2 
0.01 
Rock Ferry 
13959 6 
5.5 
0.42 
Seacombe 
14504 5 
2.7 
0.19 
Upton 
15737 9 
4.6 
0.29 
Wallasey 
15030 8 
24.0 
1.6 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13166 4 
1.4 
0.11 
Total 
313,079 
137 
119 
0.38 
 
3.68 
An analysis of the data in Table 2.7 highlights the following key points: 
  The lowest level of provision is in Prenton, which has only one 
audited AGS site of 0.2ha. Heswall too has just one site, of 0.5ha.  
  The highest level of provision is in Wallasey (24 hectares), over 19 
hectares of which is at Kings Parade which has been split into five 
sub-sites 
  Bidston & St James is the only other Ward with more than 1ha of 
AGS for every thousand people. The majority of Wards have levels 
of provision well below this level.  
  Bromborough has the greatest number of sites (18) ahead of New 
Brighton (11) and Bidston & St James (10). 
  The average overall site size is 0.87ha, which provides a reasonably 
sized site likely to be useful to local people and to function strongly 
as amenity space close to where people live 
 
3.69 
The provision of AGS needs to be considered alongside the local 
provision of other types of open space such as Parks and 
Gardens and provision for Children and Young People.  
 
Quality – Amenity Green Space 
 
3.70 
Quality inspections were undertaken as part of the site visit to each of 
the AGS sites. The quality assessment was based on a number of key 
criteria encompassing the quality aspects of the Green Flag Award, 
ILAM Parks Management Guidance and the Tidy Britain Scheme. (See 
Map 2) The key criteria for AGS are set out in Table 2.2.  
 
3.71 
The sites have been assessed against the quality line shown in Figure 
3.15.  The quality scores for each site are provided in Appendix [x] to 
this report. 
 
Table 3.15 Assessment Criteria for Amenity Greenspace 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Amenity Space 
  Presence and quality of signage and information 
  Boundary fencing and hedges 
  Tree management 
  The quality of key furniture including seats, bins, 
dog bins 
  The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, pathways
  Cleanliness 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
3.72 
A summary of the quality scores for each Ward is shown below as 
Table . 3.16  
 
Table 3.16 Amenity Green Space Summary Quality Scores by 
Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range (%) 
quality score 
Bebington 
15424 4 
29-58 48% 
Bidston & St James 
14225 10 
26-72 41% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14149 2 
38-41 39% 
Bromborough 
13822 18 
5-54  25% 
Clatterbridge 
14701 7 
39-56 49% 
Claughton 
14615 7 
21-54 33% 
Eastham 
13988 5 
11-35 25% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14569 6 
17-58 39% 
Heswall 
13723 1 48  48% 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 5 
36-57 49% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14368 5 
26-37 32% 
Liscard 
14602 3 
10-34 22% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
13932 8 
14-44 30% 
Massie 
New Brighton 
13969 11 
23-60 41% 
Oxton 
13841 6 
17-51 32% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 2 
39-50 45% 
Prenton 
14032 1 51  51% 
Rock Ferry 
13959 6 
21-53 39% 
Seacombe 
14504 5 
31-55 40% 
Upton 
15737 9* 
8-42  28% 
Wallasey 
15030 8 
25-58 43% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13166 4 
28-50 41% 
Total 
313,079 
137 
5-72 
38% 
 
* Some sites were not available due to access issues. These have not 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
been counted in the score [these sites include Home Farm Close(Site 
ID8940), Hoole Road(Site ID 939), New Hey Road (Site ID and Carr 
Bridge Road Backland all where locked with no access at the time of 
auditing) 
 
3.73 
Analysis of the data in Table 3.16 illustrates the following key issues:  
  Across Wirral MBC as a whole, amenity green space scored 38%. 
No Wards scored a very low rating overall. 
  There is notable variation in the quality scores – from 5% (very low) 
to 72% (high) 
  The lowest scoring Wards were Liscard (22%), Bromborough (25%) 
and Eastham (25%) 
% of 
% of 
No. of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
outside 
within 400m 
in Area 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Bebington 6,709 
3,871 
58% 
42% 
Bidston & St James 
7,461 
5,537 
74% 
26% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 8,069 2,533  31%  69% 
Bromborough 6,844 
5,506 
80% 
20% 
Clatterbridge 6,041 
3,611 
60% 
40% 
Claughton 6,740 
4,771 
71% 
29% 
Eastham 6,153 
3,540 
58% 
42% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
6,176 
3,459 
56% 
44% 
Heswall 6,015 
530 
9% 
91% 
Hoylake & Meols 
6,040 
2,070 
34% 
66% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
6,700 
3,280 
49% 
51% 
Liscard 7,086 
3,433 
48% 
52% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
6,220 4,908  79% 
21% 
Massie 
New Brighton 
7,231 
6,861 
95% 
5% 
Oxton 7,152 
3,670 
51% 
49% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
6,100 
1,643 
27% 
73% 
Prenton 6,142 
1,502 
24% 
76% 
Rock Ferry 
7,114 
5,260 
74% 
26% 
Seacombe 7,326 
4,985 
68% 
32% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Upton 7,355 
4,636 
63% 
37% 
Wallasey 6,587 
4,482 
68% 
32% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 5,809  2,586  45% 
55% 
Total 
147,070 
82,674 
56% 
44% 
  Prenton scored the highest overall score (51%) but this was only 
across a single site (Osmaston Road War Memorial,Site ID 144)  
  Within the two sub-categories, active amenity spaces scored an 
average of 34% while visual amenity sites scored an average of 
39%, both falling within the lower middle range of possible scores 
  Of the 137 sites assessed, only 30 had litter bins (22%); 29 had 
seating (21%) and 22 sites had lighting (16%) 
Accessibility – Amenity Greenspace 
 
3.74 
In considering the accessibility threshold Table 3.17 identifies that 56% 
of the total number of households in the Borough are within 400m of an 
amenity greenspace site, Table 3.17 also identifies the breakdown 
within each of Ward Areas and the percentage of households within 
400m of amenity greenspace sites. It is important to recognise that 
where there may be accessibility deficiencies these may be met by 
sites classified within the other typologies (See Map 7) 
 
Table 3.17 Accessibility threshold by Ward Area 
 
 
3.75 
From Table 3.17 the following the accessibility of amenity greenspace 
based on distance thresholds can be summarised as follows 
  New Brighton has 95% of all households within 400m of amenity 
greenspace sites 
  Only 9% of households in Heswall have access to amenity greenspace 
within 400m of where they live 
   The current borough wide average is that 565 of all households are 
within 400m of amenity greenspace sites. 
  12 Wards have a higher percentage of households within 400m than 
the identified average of 56% of households 
  9 Wards fall below this average for the percentage of households within 
the 400m threshold 
 
Standards 
 
3.76 
The National Playing Fields Association in their 6 acre standard identify 
that there should be a provision of 0.6-0.8ha per1000 of children’s 
playing space including fixed play within housing areas. In considering 
this if we apply an expected provision of 0.7ha (mid point between 0.6 
and 0.8) then the standard would require a provision of 219ha of 
amenity space. 
 
3.77 
The Council needs to consider how amenity greenspace is provided in 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
the future .The Council should consider not accepting small fragmented 
insignificant spaces provided by developers in new residential 
development as they are often difficult to maintain, they have the 
potential to become nuisance sites for residents and they provide 
limited recreational value. The preference should be to seek investment 
from developers to improve existing space rather than inherit more of 
the same, If the need is to provide more it is best if the space is 
consolidated to form a large enough site of recreational purpose as part 
of the residential layout and development design, ideally if this can be 
linked to existing space to create a larger site overall this would be 
more valuable. . 
 
Recommended Standard 
 
0.38 ha per 1,000 population across 
Quantity  
Wirral MBC as the minimum 
 
Future provision to be no less than 
1ha in size 
To achieve 61% or above as the 
Quality 
minimum standard  
 
To provide amenity greenspace 
Accessibility 
within 400m of where people live 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Provision for Children and Young People 
 
3.78 
Provision for Children and Young People (CYP) consists of areas 
designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children and 
young people, such as equipped play areas, multi-use games areas 
(MUGA), teen shelters, BMX tracks and skateboard parks.  The 
provision of facilities for children and young people is important in 
facilitating opportunities for play and physical activity and the 
development of movement and social skills. (See Map 1) 
 
3.79 
A variety of types of open space can provide children and young 
people with these opportunities, but the audit has used the principle of 
‘primary purpose’ to define the main typology within which each site 
should fall.  
 
Quantity – Children and Young People 
 
3.80 
The audit has revealed a total of 99 sites occupying 25.79 ha or a 
provision of 0.36 ha per 1000 population. Further detail on the sites 
included under this typology can be found in Appendix [4] to this report.  
 
3.81 
The sites can be classified as follows; 
 
73 public play areas (14.34 ha or 0.20ha per 1,000) 
38 Mugas 
4 Skate parks 
1 BMX Track 
 
3.82 
The above provision is provided by ward as follows in Table 3.18 , its 
important to note that sites may have a mix of the above facilities  
 
Table 3.18 Provision for Children and Young People by Electoral 
Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
populati
sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
on 
Bebington 
15,424 3  0.38  0.02 
Bidston & St James 
14,225 10  2.66 
0.19 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14,149 3  0.67  0.05 
Bromborough 
13,822 5  1.21  0.09 
Clatterbridge 
14,701 4  0.39  0.03 
Claughton 
14,615 1  0.51  0.03 
Eastham 
13,988 5  1.19  0.09 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
populati
sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
on 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14,569 2  0.47  0.03 
Heswall 
13,723 4  0.63  0.05 
Hoylake & Meols 
13,337 5  0.82  0.06 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14,368 10  1.91 
0.13 
Liscard 
14,602 1  0.17  0.01 
Moreton West & Saughall 
2 0.30  0.02 
Massie 
13,932 
New Brighton 
13,969 7  3.16  0.23 
Oxton 
13,841 1  0.19  0.01 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13,386 2  0.59  0.04 
Prenton 
14,032 3  0.47  0.03 
Rock Ferry 
13,959 7  0.81  0.06 
Seacombe 
14,504 13  3.68 
0.25 
Upton 
15,737 5  0.50  0.03 
Wallasey 
15,030 3  3.93  0.26 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13,166 3  1.15  0.09 
Total 
313,079 
99 
25.79 
0.08 
 
 
3.83 
An analysis of the data in Table 3.19 illustrates the following key 
issues: 
  Three wards have one identified site (Claughton, Liscard and Oxton) 
  Only three Wards have provision that runs into double figures  – 
Bidston & St James; Leasowe & Moreton East; and Seacombe 
  The average number of sites per ward is 5 
  The average site size across the Borough is 0.43ha 
  In terms of land provided three wards have significantly greater 
provision (New Brighton 3.16ha, Seacombe 3.68 ha and Wallasey 
3.93ha).  
  Sites in Wallasey are larger than elsewhere averaging 1.31 ha 
compared to an average size of 0.26ha across the Borough. 
3.84 
The Council need to consider moving away from the provision of small 
sites with limited equipment in favour of larger sites that provide more 
opportunity and greater play value. 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
3.85 
The provision identified is outlined below by type and by ward 
 
Table 3.20 Provision by Type  by Electoral Ward 
Play 
WARD 
Area 
MUGA
SKATEPARK  BMXTRACK
Bebington 
3 2 
0 
0 
Bidston & St James 
6 6 
0 
0 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
5 3 
0 
0 
Bromborough 
3 2 
0 
0 
Clatterbridge 
3 0 
0 
0 
Claughton 
1 1 
0 
0 
Eastham 
3 3 
1 
0 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
2 0 
0 
0 
Heswall 
4 0 
1 
0 
Hoylake & Meols 
4 1 
0 
0 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
10 3 
0 
0 
Liscard 
1 0 
0 
0 
Moreton West & Saughall 
Massie  
2 0 
1 
0 
New Brighton 
5 3 
1 
0 
Oxton 
1 0 
0 
1 
Pensby & Thingwall 
2 1 
0 
0 
Prenton 
1 0 
0 
0 
Rock Ferry 
3 5 
 
 
Seacombe 
7 3 
0 
0 
Upton 
2 1 
0 
0 
Wallasey 
2 2 
0 
0 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 3 
2  0 
0 
Total 
73 
38 
4 
1 
 
3.86 
Table 3.20 identifies the significant variance in the provision of play 
facilities for children and young people across the Borough. 
 
3.87 
From the above  
  Every ward has a fixed play provision Liscard has the least provision 
with a solitary site whereas Leasowe and Moreton has 13 different 
facilities for children and young people 
  6 Wards are not served by a multi use games area whereas other 
wards such as Rock Ferry (5) and  
Bidston St James (6) are 
served by the greatest numbers of Mugas. 
  There are 4 skate facilities and 1 BMX track provided in the Borough 
3.88 
The audit has identified approximately 473 pieces of fixed play 
equipment in the Borough and the spatial distribution of equipment is 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
outlined below in Table 3.21 
 
Table 3.21 Provision by Type by Electoral Ward 
WARD 
Total 
% of Equipment 
Bebington 
15 3% 
Bidston & St James 
30 6% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
32 7% 
Bromborough 
22 5% 
Clatterbridge 
21 4% 
Claughton 
13 3% 
Eastham 
20 4% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
15 3% 
Heswall 
25 5% 
Hoylake & Meols 
35 7% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
49 10% 
Liscard 
6 1% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
3% 
Massie 
14 
New Brighton  
34 7% 
Oxton 
6 1% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
16 3% 
Prenton 
5 1% 
Rock Ferry 
16 3% 
Seacombe 
42 9% 
Upton  
18 4% 
Wallasey 
11 2% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
28 6% 
Total 
473 
100 
 
3.89 
From the table above 
   Leasowe and Moreton East has the greatest percentage of the 
overall fixed play equipment within the Borough at 10%, Seacombe 
also has a relatively high provision at 9% compared to the other 
wards. 
  Three wards have 1% or less of the total equipment (Liscard, Oxton 
and Prenton)  
  The provision in Claughton is in Birkenhead Park and it represents 
3% of the total across the Borough. 
3.90 
 The above provision per ward can be used as an indicator to compare 
against the population of children and young people aged 0-19 to 
establish the ratio of equipment per child. This needs further 
consideration as detailed population for children and young people 
based on the mid term figures is not readily available on a ward by 
ward basis. 
 
Quality – Provision for Children and Young People 
 
3.91 
Quality Inspections were undertaken as part of the site visit to each of 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
the sites with fixed play equipment within the Borough. The quality 
assessment for play areas has been based on the Royal Society for the 
Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) “Play Value Assessment” and looks 
at a variety of criteria including the overall appearance of the site, the 
ambience and the type of equipment by age range.  The quality 
inspections consider a number of factors, which have been used to rate 
the quality and value of each local play facility.:(See Map 2)  
 
Ward 
Area 
Total sites 
Quality 
Average 
population
range (%) 
quality 
score 
Bebington 
15424 3 
30%-43% 
43% 
Bidston & St James 
14225 10 
12%-35% 
35% 
Birkenhead & Tranmere 
14149 3 
21%-38% 
38% 
Bromborough 
13822 5 
31%-40% 
37% 
Clatterbridge 
14701 4 
27%-35% 
32% 
Claughton 
14615 1 
39% 
39% 
Eastham 
13988 5 
26%-42% 
34% 
Greasby Frankby & Irby 
14569 2 
29%-38% 
33% 
Heswall 
13723 4 
16%-32% 
22% 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 5 
22%-37% 
31% 
Leasowe & Moreton East 
14368 10 
15%-48% 
31% 
Liscard 
14602 1 
42% 
42% 
Moreton West & Saughall 
2 31%-35% 33% 
Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 7 
27%-47% 
36% 
Oxton 
13841 1 
38% 
38% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 2 
13%-33% 
23% 
Prenton 
14032 3 
40% 
40% 
Rock Ferry 
13959 7 
26%-38% 
33% 
Seacombe 
14504 13 
24%-49% 
33% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Upton 
15737 5 
31%-38% 
34% 
Wallasey 
15030 3 
27%-29% 
28% 
West Kirby & Thurstaston 
13166 3 
24%-35% 
28% 
Total 
313,079 
99 
12%-49% 
32% 
3.92 
It is important to note that good quality play provision is not simply 
about providing equipment. It is also about the environment that 
equipment is situated in. The audit has therefore included elements 
which best practice play areas have been found to promote, including 
factors such as diversities in texture, use of wildflowers and 
landscaping.  
 
3.93 
In supporting the generation of a ‘sense of place’ it considers whether 
the play area is locally related to reflect some local significance. For 
example, where the site is near a railway, whether the design reflects 
the theme of trains and railways. 
 
3.94 
Site scores not only consider the condition of the equipment, they also 
consider the play value of the entire designated play area. This 
includes consideration for the different types of activity that the play 
area would allow including: 
  Overall site features including access gates, whether the area is 
pollution and noise free, presence of shade, access for the disabled, 
appropriate signage, locally related features and seating 
  Equipment for Toddlers, Juniors and Teenagers have been 
assessed as discrete elements within the overall play value 
assessment. 
3.95 
A summary of the quality scores for each Ward is shown in Table 3.22, 
below.  Quality scores for each individual site are provided in Appendix 
[x] of this report. 
 
Table 3.22 Children and Young People Summary Quality Scores 
by Electoral Ward 
 
3.96 
Analysis of the data in Table 3.22 illustrates the following key issues:  
  Across Wirral MBC as a whole, provision for children and young 
people sites scored an average of 32%, in the lower middle range of 
possible scores 
  There is significant variation in the quality scores – from 12% (very 
low) to 49% (middle range) 
  Heswall has the lowest overall quality rating (22%).  A further three 
Wards - Pensby& Thingwall; Wallasey and West Kirkby and 
Thurstaston - all score 30% or less  
  Liscard obtained the highest overall score (42%) but this was based 
on only one site – the Urmson Road Play Area, which was the best 
marked site of all  
  Bidston and had the poorest scoring site in the Borough (Bidston 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Village Road) which scored  12%  
3.97 
Factors that affect the quality score of the provision for children and 
young people identified that basic elements such as signage, seating, 
litter bins, self closing gates on play areas across the Borough where 
lacking and these are summarised below 
  43 Play Areas (59% of the Borough Total) have no signage  
  12 Play Areas (16% of the Borough Total ) have no seating provided 
  22 Play Areas ( 30% of the Borough Total) have no litter bin 
provision 
% of 
% of 
No. of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
outside 
within 400m 
in Area 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Bebington 6,709 
4,263 
64% 
36% 
Bidston & St James 
7,461 
6,097 
82% 
18% 
Birkenhead & 
8,069 6,346  79% 
21% 
Tranmere 
Bromborough 6,844 
3,926 
57% 
43% 
Clatterbridge 6,041 
1,692 
28% 
72% 
Claughton 6,740 
3,517 
52% 
48% 
Eastham 6,153 
4,456 
72% 
28% 
Greasby Frankby & 
6,176 2,838  46% 
54% 
Irby 
Heswall 6,015 
2,957 
49% 
51% 
Hoylake & Meols 
6,040 
4,705 
78% 
22% 
Leasowe & Moreton 
6,700 5,806  87% 
13% 
East 
Liscard 7,086 
4,195 
59% 
41% 
Moreton West & 
6,220 3,947  63% 
37% 
Saughall Massie 
New Brighton 
7,231 
5,708 
79% 
21% 
Oxton 7,152 
3,241 
45% 
55% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
6,100 
3,373 
55% 
45% 
Prenton 6,142 
4,047 
66% 
34% 
Rock Ferry 
7,114 
5,720 
80% 
20% 
Seacombe 7,326 
7,089 
97% 
3% 
Upton 7,355 
3,686 
50% 
50% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Wallasey 6,587 
2,286 
35% 
65% 
West Kirby & 
5,809 3,141  54% 
46% 
Thurstaston 
Total 
147,070 
93,036 
63% 
37% 
  10 Play Areas (14% of the Borough Total) have limited access for 
wheelchairs and 7 sites(10%) are considered non accessible to 
people with disabilities 
 
 
Accessibility – Children and Young People 
 
3.98 
In considering the accessibility threshold Table 3.23 identifies that 63% 
of the total number of households in the Borough are within 400m of 
fixed play equipment sites, Table 3.23 also identifies the breakdown 
within each of Ward Areas and the percentage of households within 
400m of fixed play equipment sites. (See Map 9) 
 
 Table 3.23 Accessibility threshold by Ward Area 
 
3.99 
From Table 3.23 the following the accessibility of provision for children 
and young people based on distance thresholds can be summarised as 
follows 
  Seacombe  has 97% of all households within 400m of provision for 
children and young people sites       ( Seacombe also has the highest 
percentage of households within 400m of a park and garden) 
  Only 28% of households in Clatterbridge have access to provision for 
children and young people within 400m of where they live 
   The current borough wide average is that 63% of all households are 
within 400m of provision of fixed play equipment for children and young 
people (play areas balls courts, skate parks etc) 
  11 Wards have a higher percentage of households within 400m than 
the identified average of 56% of households 
10 Wards fall below this average for the percentage of households 
within the 400m threshold 
 
3.100  Further work is required to establish the number of play areas that 
fall within the Leap/ Neap category advocated by the Fields in 
Trust and to identify how the recently developed Play Strategy will 
inform the future provision of fixed play equipment in green space 
across the Borough 
 
Standards 
Recommended Standard 
 
0.07 ha per 1,000 population across 
Quantity  
Wirral MBC as the minimum 
 
? 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
To achieve 61% or above as the 
minimum standard and to provide a 
range of fixed equipment and natural 
Quality 
play to meet the needs of children 
and young people 
 
To provide fixed play facilities for 
Accessibility 
children and young people within 
400m of where they live. 
 
 
Allotments and Community Gardens 
 
3.101  This section considers the provision of both public and private 
allotments across the Wirral. Most sites are managed by the Council, 
but some are also privately managed, either by trust, or other private 
organisation. They provide areas with natural features for cultivation of 
fruit, flowers and vegetables that involve working with people, plants 
and, in appropriate circumstances, animals.  
 
3.102  Allotments are in a period of transition at a local and national level, with 
their value as a resource being re-appraised. They have traditionally 
been provided in urban areas, which are poor in accessible space, to 
allow people space to grow their own fruit and vegetables. More 
recently allotments are of increased public interest due to the increased 
concerns generated through the links to health and food and the desire 
to grow home produce.  
 
Quantity – Allotments 
 
3.103  The audit revealed a total of 45 sites within the allotments typology, 
occupying 53.9 hectares of land and providing a current standard of 
0.17ha for every 1,000 residents across the Borough as a whole – the 
equivalent of x plots for every 1,000 residents. Further detail on the 
sites included under this typology can be found in Appendix [4] to this 
report. (See Map 1) 
 
3.104  These sites can be classified as follows: 
  Council managed allotments – 39 sites (total 50.21 hectares) 
  Trust/privately managed allotments – six sites (total 3.69 hectares) 
 
3.105  The breakdown of total space by Ward is shown in Table 3.24 below. 
 
Table 3.24 Provision of Allotments by Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
population sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
Bebington 
15424 2  4.95  0.26 
Bidston & St James 
14225 6  4.04  0.28 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Total 
Hectares 
population sites 
hectares 
per 1,000 
Birkenhead & 
1 0.37 0.03 
Tranmere 
14149 
Bromborough 
13822 5  2.02  0.15 
Clatterbridge 
14701 2  0.46  0.03 
Claughton 
14615 4  2.97  0.20 
Eastham 
13988 3  5.35  0.38 
Greasby Frankby & 
1 1.35 0.09 
Irby 
14569 
Heswall 
13723 0  N/A  N/A 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 1  2.21  0.17 
Leasowe & Moreton 
0 N/A N/A 
East 
14368 
Liscard 
14602 2  2.3  0.16 
Moreton West & 
0 N/A N/A 
Saughall Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 1  0.21  0.02 
Oxton 
13841 2  2.07  0.15 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 1  0.79  0.06 
Prenton 
14032 2  6.55  0.47 
Rock Ferry 
13959 4  8.55  0.62 
Seacombe 
14504 2  4.71  0.32 
Upton 
15737 2  1.44  0.09 
Wallasey 
15030 2  1.27  0.08 
West Kirby & 
13166 2  1.99  0.15 
Thurstaston 
Total 
313,079 
45 
53.9 
0.17 
 
 
3.106  An analysis of the data in Table 3.24 illustrates the following key 
issues: 
  the average site size is 1.18 hectares 
  there are no allotments provided in three Wards – Heswall, 
Leasowe & Moreton East and Moreton West & Saughall Massie  
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  the next lowest level of provision is in New Brighton, which has just 
one site of 0.21ha 
  four Wards have four or more allotment sites - Rock Ferry; 
Claughton; Bidston & St James and Bromborough 
  Rock Ferry has the greatest overall level of provision, split over four 
sites.  
  Bidston & St James has the greatest number of sites (6) 
 
Quality – Allotments 
 
3.107  Quality inspections have been undertaken at each of the allotment sites 
across the Borough. The key criteria are set out in Table 3.25.  Quality 
scores for each individual site are provided in Appendix [x] to this 
report.(See Map 2) 
 
Table 3.25 Assessment Criteria for Allotments 
Allotments  
  Entrance areas 
  The presence of water supply 
  Whether the site is served by toilets 
  Secure fencing around the site 
  Signage to identify management, usage 
arrangements, special events and the availability of 
plots  
  The presence of facilities such as composting bins, 
a shop and car parking.   
 
 
3.108  A summary of the quality scores for each Ward is shown in Table 2.12 
below. 
 
Table 3.26 Allotment Summary Quality Scores by Electoral Ward 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range 
quality 
(%) 
score 
Bebington 
15424 2  30-53 
41% 
Bidston & St James 
14225 6  12-31 
20% 
Birkenhead & 
1 25  25% 
Tranmere 
14149 
Bromborough 
13822 5  4-40 20% 
Clatterbridge 
14701 2  40-46 
43% 
Claughton 
14615 4  10-31 
21% 
Eastham 
13988 3  35-43 
28% 
Greasby Frankby & 
14569 1  20  20% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Ward 
Area 
Total 
Quality 
Average 
population sites 
range 
quality 
(%) 
score 
Irby 
Heswall 
13723 0  N/A  N/A 
Hoylake & Meols 
13337 1  30  30% 
Leasowe & Moreton 
0 N/A N/A 
East 
14368 
Liscard 
14602 2  28-45 
37% 
Moreton West & 
0 N/A N/A 
Saughall Massie 
13932 
New Brighton 
13969 1  27  27% 
Oxton 
13841 2  18-34 
26% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
13386 1  24  24% 
Prenton 
14032 2  33-49 
41% 
Rock Ferry 
13959 4  16-24 
20% 
Seacombe 
14504 2  18-30 
24% 
Upton 
15737 2  37-42 
39% 
Wallasey 
15030 2  31-40 
36% 
West Kirby & 
2 
13166 
38-52 
45% 
Thurstaston 
Total 
313,079 
83 
2-52 
30% 
 
 
3.109  Analysis of the data in Table 3.26 illustrates the following key issues:  
  across the Borough as a whole, the average score for allotment 
sites was classified as low 
  there is a reasonable level of variation in the quality scores – from 
4% (very low) to 52% (upper middle) but the majority of the typology 
falls within the lower middle and lower range of possible scores 
  Quality inspections have been undertaken at each of the allotment 
sites across the Borough. The key criteria are set out in Table 2.2.  
The sites have been assessed against the quality line shown in 
figure 2.1.  Quality scores for each individual site are provided in 
Appendix [x] to this report.  
  Bromborough; Rock Ferry and Greasby Frankby & Irby have the 
lowest overall quality rating, scoring 20% across their sites. 
  The poorest site overall is in Bromborough – the Shore Drive 
allotments, which scored just 4% 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  None of the sites obtained an upper middle or better score – 12 
Wards obtained a low score with the remaining seven obtaining 
lower middle scores 
  West Kirby & Thurstaston scored the highest overall – recording an 
average of 45% across two sites  
  for Wards with four or more sites, West Kirby & Thurstaston scored 
the highest (40%), with several sites of a consistently average 
standard (25-64% range) while Upton scored worst (18%) with 
scores ranging from 6% to 35%. 
 
National Standards - Allotments 
 
3.110  The guidance on assessing allotments is vague and not formalised. 
The ‘Growing in the Community’ guidance advocated by the Local 
Government Association and guidance from the National Association of 
Allotment and Leisure Gardeners identifies some issues that need to 
be scrutinised and considered. 
 
3.111  Privately owned and temporary allotments are not afforded protection 
under the allotments acts, they are however recognised in planning 
policy guidance e.g. PPG 17 recognises the need for local authorities 
to undertake robust assessments of need and this need includes 
demonstrating the demand for allotments.  
 
3.112  In 1969 the Thorpe Report recommended a minimum standard of 0.2 
ha per 1,000 population although it is unclear if this was ever adopted 
or put forward as a national recommendation. If the Thorpe Report 
recommended 0.2 ha per 1,000 population was applied in the Wirral, in 
total, 62.6 hectares would be required (an additional 8.7 hectares). 
 
3.113  Ideally, the assessment of supply and demand should be based on the 
number of plots across the Council and the number of people on 
waiting lists.  
 
3.114  The National Society for Allotments and Leisure Gardeners identifies a 
provision of 20 allotment plots per 1,000 households. PPG 17 
Advocates a move away from the application of National Standards to 
the development of local standards based on local needs. 
 
Accessibility – Allotments 
 
3.115  In considering the accessibility threshold Table 3.27 identifies that 68% 
of the total number of households in the Borough are within 1000m of 
an allotment site, Table 3.27 also identifies the breakdown within each 
of Ward Areas and the percentage of households within 1000m of 
allotment sites. (See Map 10) 
 
 Table 3.27 Accessibility threshold by Ward Area 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
No. of 
% of 
% of 
Number of 
households 
households 
households 
Area 
households 
within 
within 
outside 
in Area 
1,000m 
catchment 
catchment 
catchment 
area 
area 
Bebington 6,709 
6,234 
93% 
7% 
Bidston & St James 
7,461 
5,736 
77% 
23% 
Birkenhead & 
8,069 5,566  69% 
31% 
Tranmere 
Bromborough 6,844 
5,976 
87% 
13% 
Clatterbridge 6,041 
1,808 
30% 
70% 
Claughton 6,740 
4,416 
66% 
34% 
Eastham 6,153 
5,261 
86% 
14% 
Greasby Frankby & 
6,176 3,542  57% 
43% 
Irby 
Heswall 6,015 
0 
0% 
100% 
Hoylake & Meols 
6,040 
4,462 
74% 
26% 
Leasowe & Moreton 
6,700 2,683  40% 
60% 
East 
Liscard 7,086 
6,206 
88% 
12% 
Moreton West & 
6,220 1,598  26% 
74% 
Saughall Massie 
New Brighton 
7,231 
5,350 
74% 
26% 
Oxton 7,152 
5,222 
73% 
27% 
Pensby & Thingwall 
6,100 
198 
3% 
97% 
Prenton 6,142 
5,021 
82% 
18% 
Rock Ferry 
7,114 
7,115 
100% 
0% 
Seacombe 7,326 
5,671 
77% 
23% 
Upton 7,355 
7,355 
100% 
0% 
Wallasey 6,587 
5,705 
87% 
13% 
West Kirby & 
5,809 4,713  81% 
19% 
Thurstaston 
Total 
147,070 
99,838 
68% 
32% 
 
3.116  From Table 3.27 the following the accessibility of provision for 
allotments based on distance thresholds can be summarised as follows 
   2 Wards Rock Ferry and Upton have 100% of households within 
1000m of an allotment site  
  Heswall has no identified allotment provision 
  Pensby & Thingwall has only 35 of households within the 1000m 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
access threshold 
  12 wards have a higher percentage of households within the defined 
catchment than the borough wide average of 68% of all households 
  7 Wards fall below this average for the percentage of households within 
the 400m threshold 
 
3.117  Further work is required to establish the number of plots and the 
waiting list to establish standards for the future 
Standards 
Recommended Standard 
 
0.17 ha per 1,000 population across 
Quantity  
Wirral MBC as the minimum 
 
 
To achieve 61% or above as the 
minimum standard To ensure that all 
Council managed sites as a minimum 
Quality 
have a running water supply, toilet 
facility  
 
To provide an accessible allotment plot 
Accessibility 
within 1000m of where people live 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Cemeteries and Churchyards 
 
3.118  Cemeteries and churchyards can provide a valuable contribution to the 
portfolio of open space provision within an area.  For many, they can 
provide a place for quiet contemplation in addition to their primary 
purpose as a final resting place.  
 
3.119  They also often have wildlife conservation and biodiversity value. In the 
context of this study, it is important to acknowledge that cemeteries are 
not created with the intention of providing informal or passive recreation 
opportunities.   
 
3.120  Cemeteries and churchyards can make a significant contribution to the 
provision of urban green space, sometimes providing a sanctuary for 
wildlife in urban areas devoid of greenspace. Although many have 
restricted access, they still provide a useful resource for the local 
community. A wide variety of habitats can be often be found supporting 
the other open space types such as areas of semi-natural and natural 
areas. 
 
3.121  Within urban areas, cemeteries and churchyards are often among the 
few areas of greenspace where the local community is able to have 
some contact with the natural world. Within rural communities they 
often provide a strong link to local history and heritage. 
 
Quantity – Cemeteries 
 
3.122  There are a total of revealed a total of 9 sites, occupying 87.8 hectares. 
This equates to 0.28ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC  As 
Cemeteries primary function is for the burial of the dead no further 
quantitative analysis is undertaken as part of this review. 
 
Quality – Cemeteries 
 
3.123  Site assessments were undertaken at the nine cemeteries across the 
MBC area.  
 
 
 
3.124  The quality scores key criteria against which the sites are assessed 
include:  
  Main entrance safety and cleanliness 
  Signage 
  Upkeep and safety of graves/memorials 
  Quality of roads and pathways 
  Provision of bins and seats. 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
3.125  It is felt that whilst the quality of cemeteries may be of relevance it is 
not thought necessary to reflect the variance in quality at the ward level 
and to therefore simply reflect the overall quality of sites that have been 
audited. As such the overall average quality for cemeteries was found 
to be 65% therefore of high quality 
 
 
Standards 
Recommended Standard 
 
No standard set 
Quantity  
 
 
To achieve 61% or above as the 
Quality 
minimum standard  
 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
                                               
Section 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Resourcing the Borough’s Greenspace 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Resourcing the Borough’s Greenspace 
 
Introduction 
 
4.1 The Borough Council has endeavoured whenever possible to invest in its 
greenspace provision. It is increasingly becoming difficult to maintain sites 
let alone develop them through significant improvement. Improved revenue 
funding with increased capital support from central Government is not 
likely and as such more creative financing methods including partnerships 
will be required to help continue to improve maintenance and greenspace 
improvement initiatives. 
 
Revenue Funding 
 
4.2 
The Borough Council maintains its Greenspaces within cash limited 
budgets and due to financial pressures faced by the Council year in 
year out, revenue funding for the Borough’s greenspace has not 
increased for a number of years with parks budgets remaining static for 
some time. Rising maintenance costs and sustained lack of capital 
means that this is beginning to show in the condition of the Borough’s 
greenspaces in particular in the condition of the infrastructure including 
buildings, walls, fences, paths, benches, bins and playground 
equipment.. The range and diversity of greenspace provided across the 
Borough means that it is essential that resourcing and financial 
planning follow a strategic framework. Wirral like many authorities 
across the country has its fair share of problems associated with its 
greenspaces, vandalism, illegal tipping and abuse are often difficult to 
predict and increasingly drain resources, resources that could be best 
spent providing safer cleaner higher quality greenspace for local 
people.  
 
4.3 
It is important to note that it will be necessary to assess the financial 
implications for each type of provision. 
 
Capital Funding 
 
4.4 
The capital required to improve the infrastructure within the Borough’s 
greenspaces is not within the financial resources held by the Council, 
hence the need to maximise the capital opportunities held outside by 
national governing bodies and government agencies. 
 
4.5 
CABE Space supports the idea of a strategic framework.  The CABE 
manifesto states that political support is essential, as is making the 
case for high quality greenspace both internally within the Council and 
externally with the Borough’s many partners, regional bodies and 
national governing bodies.  The key starting point for Greenspace is to 
secure ‘Buy In’ across the Council. The development of a Parks 
Champion is increasingly seen as a means of driving forward the 
greenspace agenda and the Council will develop this initiative inviting 
interest from the elected members. 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
4.6 
In order to deliver a vision for a network of good quality, accessible 
clean and safe greenspace across the Borough it will be essential to 
direct financial support at both external and internal funding sources to 
secure the future improvement of new and existing provision. 
 
4.7 
The development of partnerships will be fundamental to the delivery of 
good quality greenspace. the Borough has already made great inroads 
into partnership working in greenspace through the establishment of 
community initiatives such as Friends of Parks and the self 
management of the Borough’s Council allotments through the 
Allotments Society and many others. 
 
4.8 
Partnership with the private sector can also bring benefits and funding 
to improve the Borough’s greenspace. Authorities such as Halton 
Borough Council have increasingly forged partnerships with the private 
sector and are the first local authority to have a Starbuck’s coffee shop 
in Victoria Park, rejuvenating day time and weekend use of the park 
and associated facilities and driving out the undesirable elements and 
anti social behaviour by packing the park with people. Oldham Borough 
Council have transformed former redundant bowls pavilions into vibrant 
community focussed café’s by working in partnership with local 
business enabling reinvestment in tired and redundant buildings, 
revitalising the bowling greens and bringing people back into the parks. 
 
4.9 
Wholesale commercial sponsorship is very difficult to obtain. Working 
in partnership with third parties may prove more attractive to local, 
regional or nationally recognised commercial sector investors. 
 
Lottery Funding 
 
4.10  The Council has already had success in securing available Lottery 
funding for a number of projects, from a number of Lottery funding pots. 
 
4.11  Lottery funds vary in grant size and funding criteria.  The most known 
for improving greenspace is the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Funds 
are particularly available for projects that include works carried out to 
sites or facilities of outstanding interest and importance to the national 
heritage. Funding is provided for complete projects in relation to parks 
or for conservation and restoration of park features and grants can vary 
from £50,000 to £5 million.  Securing funding relies on sustainability, 
stakeholder involvement and demonstrate the heritage and value of the 
park funding is being sought for. The Council has recently used this 
funding stream to maximise the opportunity for the restoration of 
Birkenhead Park. 
 
 
Big Lottery Fund 
 
4.12  Initially developed from the combined resource of the Community Fund 
(providing funds for charities, community and voluntary sectors) and 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
the New Opportunities Fund (funds for environmental, health and 
education projects). The BLF provides funding opportunities in relation 
to Greenspace. A key funding source was the Children’s Play Fund and 
the Council successfully secured £750,000 to improve play provision 
across the Borough. This funding is not just for outdoor play.  The 
funding identified for outdoor play aims to provide more adventurous 
play space. Other BLF funding streams that are available include: 
 
4.13  The Young People’s Fund- aimed at providing support to projects and 
initiatives that improve opportunities for young people in local 
communities. Funding is available to groups and community 
organisations to enable them to run and develop local initiatives with 
and for young people. Funding is also available for individuals to help 
make a difference in their local community. 
 
4.14 Changing 
Spaces – funding is available until 2009 to enable 
communities to undertake environmental improvements that include 
community space or improving accessibility to the natural environment. 
The parks programme focuses on the following objectives: 
 
  To provide better more accessible parks that are relevant to the 
local community they cater for 
  To increase community and pride in parks through greater 
involvement 
  To improve safety in parks 
  To ensure the long term maintenance and management  
  To increase the number of skilled rangers conservation officers and 
volunteers 
 
4.15  The Well Being Fund- to promote healthy lifestyle initiatives that 
increase participation in physical activity, educate communities about 
the  benefits of healthy eating or develop early intervention 
programmes to common mental health programmes 
 
Lottery Small Grants Scheme 
 
4.16  The Small Grants Scheme offers ‘Awards for All’ funding between 
£500-£5000 for small scale projects and initiatives that involve local 
people in their community, these small scale projects can include park 
improvements or local environment work. 
 
Land Fill Tax Credit 
 
4.17  Landfill operators can contribute 6.5% of their landfill tax liability to 
environmental bodies that are approved by ENTRUST. The funding 
projects include environmental, community and social initiatives that 
comply with a set of specified objectives such as the maintenance and 
provision of public amenity or the restoration and repair of buildings 
open to the public that have historical or architectural significance in a 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
local environment. Initiatives have to be within a defined distance of 
landfill or extraction operations. 
 
Barclay’s Site Saver  
 
4.18  A grant mechanism to transform derelict land through community 
based projects into leisure and recreational facilities, the funding 
available varies between £4000 and £10000 per project  
 
The Esmee Fairburn Foundation 
 
4.19  Funding is available for initiatives or projects that are primarily focussed 
on improving the quality of life of people who face disadvantage. 
Projects that are eligible include the enhancement or preservation of 
open space, good management of allotments, woodlands or gardens. 
The grants available appear to have no limits and the average grant 
size for environmental based initiatives in 2008 was £69,000. 
 
Governing Bodies - Sport England 
 
4.20  Sport England support two funding streams aimed at encouraging 
people to start, succeed or stay in sport, the funding sources available 
are national funding or community level. 
 
  National Funding- £130 Million is being invested by Sport England in 
30 key sports with 10 English priority sports identified, 10 UK/GB 
priority sports and 10 English development /world class sports.  
  Community Investment Fund- Sport England is investing in the North 
West Region over the next five years. Funding is linked to the 
Regional Plan for Sport with priority given to projects that deliver the 
best returns on investment through increased participation in sport 
on existing facilities and infrastructure, projects need to have 65% 
partnership funding of the total cost. 
 
Football Foundation 
 
  Facilities Scheme- provides money to develop new or improve 
facilities for community benefit. These include changing rooms or 
clubhouses, grass or artificial pitches and multi-use games areas. 
Applicants in most cases are expected to provide 50% match 
funding but in certain circumstance up to 90% funds are available 
  Community Scheme-aims to create opportunities and build 
communities by funding projects that use football and sport as a 
force for social change, to address social exclusion and inequalities 
in education and health. 
  Goalpost Safety Scheme- provides grants for the replacement of 
unsafe goalposts 
  Small Grants Scheme- for small projects that aim to increase 
participation by both players and volunteers in grass roots football by 
supporting the costs associated with providing new activity.  
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Conclusion 
 
4.21  There are a range of funding streams available to develop and improve 
Greenspace across the Borough. Securing the funds is not easy and 
requires time and effort as well as robust evidence and reasoning for 
the investment.  A co-ordinated approach is needed to secure these 
funds, by the Council, its partners and its communities. The 
appointment of a parks development officer and parks champion could 
improve communication regarding greenspace initiatives and 
opportunities. 
 
Developer Contributions 
 
4.22  Success will require the internal commitment to buy into initiatives such 
as Section 106 funding and developer contributions linked to the 
growth or regeneration aspirations for the Borough. Ensuring that 
appropriate revenue funding is in place to sustain capital investment in 
greenspace should be a key long term management objective.  
 
4.23  This open space report provides evidence on the quantity, quality and 
accessibility of publicly accessible greenspace across the Borough. 
This evidence needs to be used to strengthen existing planning policies 
and support the Local Development Framework through the 
development of appropriate Development Plan policies and 
Supplementary Planning Documents and to use the evidence to 
generate clear and transparent negotiation with developers to generate 
significant investment. The Open Space Assessment provides the 
evidence that will enable the Council to move to the next stage and 
prioritise the need for local investment through community and 
stakeholder consultation. 
 
4.24  When considering the implementation of planning policy that entails 
developer on or off site contributions it is worthwhile reviewing how 
other authorities determine when provision should be on or off site. 
Outlined below are examples of other local authority approaches: 
 
  Fareham Borough Council- the Council favour on site contribution, 
dependent upon a number of factors that include the size of the 
development site and the proximity to existing good quality 
provision. A matrix identifies when on or off site contributions are 
appropriate in accordance with the number and type of of dwellings 
proposed. 
  Stockport MBC- The Council commuted sum payments are sought 
even for small scale developments, with the funds being held in an 
investment / interest earning account to accrue funds to enable 
improvements 
  Harrogate Borough Council – The Council seek provision on site 
whenever possible. Where provision would fall below a specified 
size the Council will seek off site contributions 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  Worcester City Council- shortfalls in provision not accommodated 
on site are met through commuted sum payments that are then 
allocated and spent on identified projects 
 
4.25  Maintenance sums are an important consideration when dealing with 
developer contributions.  Research shows that the approach varies 
significantly across local authorities: 
 
  Fareham Borough Council – maintenance payments are required 
12 months after a site or provision is transferred to the Council. 
Maintenance is calculated by the number of bed spaces and the 
type of provision and is updated annually 
  Stockport MBC – Maintenance payments are required 12 months 
after handover.  Maintenance sums are calculated using current 
rates with a multiplier and are for 15 years 
  Harrogate Borough Council- the Council revise the maintenance 
payments required on an annual basis by adding 10% 
contingencies to the annual cost and multiplying by the number of 
years.  Maintenance is normally required for 5 years 
 
4.26  PPG17 identifies that the simplest way to express the requirements for 
future maintenance is to express it in terms of a sum per unit of 
provision such as £/ hectare or £/ sqm.  
 
4.27  The general approach, which has become the norm for many local 
authorities, has been to multiply the typical cost of annually maintaining 
a facility by an agreed number of years. The guidance advocates that a 
fair way to negotiate with developers is to calculate the net present 
value of the anticipated revenue payments. The commuted sum 
payment is then based on: 
 
  The estimated cost of annual maintenance- established on a cost 
adequate to maintain the provision to the standards required.  
  It is good practice to work to use an appropriate benchmark cost 
with an assumed rate of inflation. 
  An agreed time period for which payment is to cover (research 
shows that the time period expected varies from 5-25 years) 
 
4.28  The Council should ensure that developers with permission for new 
developments make contributions towards the capital expenditure that 
is initially required to provide and enhance provision and towards the 
ongoing revenue cost of maintaining the provision. 
 
4.29  The Council should use the audit findings as a means of identifying 
where provision and quality improvements require further investment. 
 
4.30  Analysis of existing guidance on open space leads to the conclusion 
that:  
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  The Council should establish and set standards for the different 
typologies of open space provision within the Borough 
  The Council should ensure that all new housing development 
contributes to open space provision, including the development of 
single dwellings 
  A list of priority projects should be maintained, wherever possible to 
contain costing details which can be annually updated. Initial 
priorities should be linked to the priorities identified in the audit to 
bring sites up to a good standard 
 
4.31  The Council, though local planning policies, should ensure that the 
adopted standards demonstrate the principles of Best Value(?) and the 
requirement to consult local people and communities, to ensure that 
local people have access to a network of good quality facilities within 
their local area. 
 
4.32  The Council should consider the development of a Borough Wide 
greenspace fund (pooled fund). especially for significant sites more 
remote from the urban areas, such as Country Parks, which may have 
fewer developments to generate the funds necessary for significant 
improvements but which will nevertheless still incur additional demand 
from developments elsewhere within the Borough.  This would ensure 
contributions are always sought to support these sites as well as create 
the means to enhance and improve existing provision or provide new 
provision to address more local deficiencies and needs. 
 
4.33  Circular 05/2005 states that contributions from developers should only 
be sought where they are directly related to the proposed development. 
Pooled funds will therefore need to be carefully administered to be ring 
fenced to particular areas, based around the accessibility standards 
identified earlier within this report. 
 
4.34  The improvements that can be provided to open space should be 
supported by an appropriate Development Plan policy and detailed 
within an adopted Supplementary Planning Document.  This could 
include improvements to access to facilities. While the exact 
improvements to provision may not be identified at the outset, it may be 
more appropriate to use the township level to ring fence pooled funds 
for the more rural areas. In urban areas, the accessibility thresholds 
can be applied. 
 
4.35  The pooled funds could be used to secure additional investment for 
green infrastructure, either by using monies direct from the fund to 
undertake improvements or as a source of match funding to secure 
greater levels of external investment. 
 
4.36  One of the assets available to the Borough is land, some of which is 
not used to its maximum capacity. The Council is naturally reluctant to 
release greenspace for disposal.  However. the benefits of reinvesting 
a substantial part of the proceeds from any sale could be considerable, 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
particularly when realistic alternatives to close the funding gap are not 
available. A number of larger Councils, such as Bristol and Leeds, are 
going down this route to enable them to improve their green 
infrastructure to a standard more fit for local needs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 5 
 
 
 
 
Generic Recommendations 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 
Generic Recommendations 
 
Design of Greenspace 
 
5.1 The design of greenspace has a major role to play in the delivery of 
sustainable communities. Good design can develop a stronger sense of 
local community and responsibility. CABE Space has outlined the need for 
good design in a number of publications and guidance documents. It is 
possible to design and create green infrastructure to meet people’s 
aspirations to enable people to take greater pride in their local area and 
help preserve facilities for future generations. 
 
5.2 
The following principles are taken from best practice and although not 
exhaustive, give an indication as to what is necessary to secure the 
long term sustainability, value and management of greenspaces. 
Greenspace design should therefore: 
 
  Maximise positive use by the community 
  Be easily accessible for all members of the community 
  Provide facilities that are accessible to all 
  Be part of a wider network that provide traffic free routes through 
residential areas and links to other areas via bus stops and cycle 
ways 
  Provide a sense of place for local people and reflect local history or 
culture 
  Facilitate high quality and effective management and maintenance  
  Facilitate local communities involvement in new or future provision 
  Minimise the opportunity for anti social behaviour and design out 
opportunities for crime 
  Have clear vistas and sight lines across the site, maximising 
personal safety and casual surveillance 
  Prevent any sense of isolation or insecurity through the use of 
appropriate lighting 
  Provide a setting for adjoining buildings, whilst minimising any 
detrimental effect on local amenity 
  Be designed and managed to benefit wildlife, provide integrated 
habitat areas and support and allow the movement of wildlife, plants 
and animals. The site should ideally provide a range of habitat types 
  Have an appropriate mix of mown grass areas and indigenous 
planting with mown areas that are large enough to facilitate informal 
kick about and mini soccer  
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
  Safeguard the integrity of any existing open space or space of 
heritage value and where appropriate enhance the setting of listed 
features 
  Wherever possible implement flood storage or sustainable urban 
drainage systems (SUDS) to negate flood risk and other local land 
drainage problems 
  Provide for local children - it is important that facilities match the 
age range of children and young people within each locality 
  Provide surfaced tarmac paths that are at least 2metres wide and 
concrete edged 
  Provide adequate litter bins that are in keeping with the area, set 
into a concrete surface for ease of maintenance 
  Provide adequate seating that is in keeping with the area.  Seating 
in children’s play areas should be set into appropriate safety 
surfacing. Seating in open space should have arm rests and be 
linked to paths, provided in both sunny and shaded areas and allow 
for wheelchairs and pushchairs to park alongside off the path. 
  All sites should have signage to inform people of the site name, 
ownership and contact details 
  Larger sites or sites, which people are expected to cross to get to 
nearby facilities such as schools or shops, should have street 
lighting  
  Sites in new housing developments should have housing fronting on 
to the site to allow for natural surveillance. 
  Site specific management plans should be prepared for larger sites, 
especially for new provision  
 
5.3 
In order to identify the series of actions that should betaken by the 
Council, a number of recommendations have been made. The 
recommendations inlcude the use of the information gathered as part of 
this study and the further development of this assessment in future 
years.  The following recommendations are made: 
 
a)  Audit the quantity and quality of sport, leisure and open spaces on a 
regular basis, every five years and publish the findings.  This will 
allow trend data to be collated and improvements to be tracked.  It 
is important that findings are published to enable wider stakeholders 
to track progress.   
 
b)  Develop a central record of all open space to include the findings of 
the assessment undertaken.  Currently many different sections of 
the Council hold this information; this information is not always 
consistent.  The central record should include access to GIS 
mapping.  
 
c)  Establish a central consultation database for the Council, using the 
data and contacts gathered through this study.  This information is 
held currently by a number of different sections in the Council and 
is, again, not always consistently maintained; establishing a central 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
database, which is regularly updated, will address these issues for 
the future. 
 
d)  Address the current fragmented responsibilities for the 
management, development and future provision of open space 
across the Borough through the establishment of a consultative 
Steering Group, involving representatives from both sport and 
leisure, planning and grounds maintenance, from both the public, 
voluntary and private sector, to consider specific site development 
proposals relating to existing, former and proposed sport and 
leisure provision.  This inter-departmental group should be 
established to share, and utilise the expertise of leisure and 
planning officers, to ensure that specific site development issues 
are fully considered, and the implications shared, before decisions 
on maintenance and new facilities are made. 
 
e)  Continue to develop the marketing information produced about 
parks and open space facilities, key activities accommodated and 
access arrangements.  The Council should seek to work with key 
partners in future marketing, such as the local Primary Care Trust 
(PCT), the wider voluntary sector, education, the Youth Service etc 
to ensure that open space fulfils a valuable role in meeting wider 
social objectives (e.g. health improvement, increased active 
participation).   
 
f)  Develop an access standard regarding physical access for users 
and potential users with limited mobility. 
 
g)  Review maintenance standards in consultation with local people.  
Report on performance annually.  Quality standards should be set 
for each of the open space typologies.  
 
h)  Develop and fund a programme of up-to-date signage installation, a 
key weakness of many sites audited.   Develop a consistent 
approach to the provision of signage at all sites, through a rolling 
programme of installation and improvement.  All sites should have a 
sign with site details, ownership and contact numbers.  This can 
address a number of issues including helping with the reporting of 
vandalism and improving community safety.   
 
i)  Continue to work towards reducing the effects of crime and anti-
social behaviour in parks and open spaces and To establish and 
implement a programme of action to address the actual, and 
perceived, issues of safety in parks and open spaces.  This could 
take the form of installing CCTV at identified sites, or investing in 
park/open space infrastructure to encourage increased use, which 
in turn may have a positive impact on the fear of crime because 
more people are likely to be around. 
 
Parks and Open Space 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
5.4 
The Borough has achieved success at the Green Flag Award. This 
needs to be continued. However, success should not be at the expense 
of other sites and the Borough needs to use the audit underlying this 
study to improve all sites categorised as Parks and Gardens to a Good 
Standard, paying particular attention to sites classified as Country 
Parks and Local Parks.  Up-to-date management plans area needed 
for all major formal greenspaces. 
5.5 
The recommendations below have been drawn up in response to the 
assessment undertaken and need to be viewed as complementary to 
any policies developed.  This principle applies to all managed open 
space.  The recommendations are focused on addressing facility 
deficiencies, as the first priority: 
 
a)  Use the results, issues and recommendations of the audit to 
develop locally responsive policies and practices 
b)  Ensure that any identified deficiencies in provision are addressed as 
a priority in the Local Development Framework  
c)  Continue to develop and support Friends Groups for key parks and 
open spaces to increase local involvement and ownership  
d)  Continue to review, develop and improve site Management Plans 
and extend the practice of management planning to a greater range 
of parks and open spaces 
e)  Continue to test the quality and “performance” of formal spaces 
through entering externally judged competitions and quality 
recognition schemes (e.g. Green Flag/ Britain in Bloom). 
f)  Raise the benchmark standard of provision by improving all sites to 
a good standard 
g)  Develop an asset register of the facilities within sites such as 
benches, bins, location, date installed, lifetime expectancy, 
replacement  timeframe 
h)  Develop quality standards for each typology of open space that are 
achievable and realisitic 
 
i)  Continue to recognise the importance of the gateway sites as a 
means of raising the image of the Borough and address the quality 
issues identified in this assessment 
j)  Ensure that any future provision is well designed, serves a clearly 
defined purpose and is appropriate in size (anything below 0.2ha is 
not readily useable by children and young people without the 
potential for conflict with neighbours) 
 
 
Natural / Semi-natural greenspace  
 
5.6 
Recommendations for natural and semi-natural greenspace include: 
 
a)  Use the results, issues and recommendations of the audit to 
develop locally responsive policies and practices 
b)  Ensure that any identified deficiencies are addressed as a priority in 
the Local Development Framework 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
c)  Develop a rolling programme of renewal and improvements for bins, 
signage and seating etc.   
d)  Develop a walking strategy to set out how existing walking networks 
link together and develop the footpath network to link into wider 
networks outside the Borough 
e)  Increase the awareness of opportunities for walking in the Borough 
f)  Link the use of open space and sport and recreation facilities with 
travel awareness initiatives   
g)  Take a strategic approach to the development and provision of 
cycling routes across the Borough given the importance and health 
benefits of this mode of transport in a congested area linked to the 
provision of quality open spaces 
h)  Develop the Biodiversity Action Plan for the Borough to include 
urban open spaces 
i)  Adopt appropriate management and maintenance programmes for 
nature conservation sites to better reflect their natural 
characteristics 
j)  Develop an education/resource centre to develop a better local 
awareness and understanding of open space and of nature 
conservation sites in particular 
k)  Protect all existing nature conservation sites 
l)  Develop a Green Infrastructure plan for the Borough 
m) Develop site specific habitat management schedules 
 
 
Provision for Children and Young People 
 
5.7 
The following recommendations are made in relation to provision for 
children and young people: 
 
a)  Quantify existing sites against FIT categories LEAP/ NEAP to 
establish appropriate size and equipment threshold. 
b)  Provide ‘Good’ quality sites as a minimum standard 
c)  Improve the security of play areas through introduction of CCTV or 
staff presence 
d)  Expand signage on all sites with site details and contact numbers 
e)  Develop equipment that caters for children and young people with 
disabilities 
f)  Involve young people in the design and choice of provision 
g)  Aspire to deliver a hierarchy of provision and continue to directly 
address the surplus/deficiency imbalance across the Borough 
h)  Consider moving away from only providing fixed play equipment as 
a means to catering for children and young people 
i)  Improve provision for Young People, especially Teenagers and 
Toddlers, through the hierarchy by making the provision within the 
Boroughs main parks larger and more adventurous in terms of the 
range of equipment and the element of reasonable risk  
j)  Ensure that the recommended accessibility thresholds are 
implemented 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
Outdoor Sports Facilities 
 
Bowling Greens 
 
a)  Work with the local Bowls Clubs to improve the quality of both 
existing Greens and ancillary facilities 
b)  Priority should be given to the improvement of ‘below average’ sites. 
c)  Work with the local Bowls Clubs to promote the sport in the 
Borough, and encourage participation by younger as well as older 
people 
d)  Review security measures at greens located in parks, in light of the 
reduction in staff presence on some sites 
e)  Improve the publishing of information at parks about opportunities to 
play bowls 
 
Tennis Courts 
 
a)  Retain the current provision of tennis courts and work with key 
partners and private clubs to maintain their quality and improve 
access for potential new participants 
b)   Develop a programme of court improvement in the Parks 
c)  Ensure public courts have appropriate quality nets and equipment 
 
Allotments 
 
5.8 
The following recommendations are made in relation to allotment 
provision and the continued establishment of a working group between 
the Borough and the Allotment Secretaries : 
a)  Identify the number of plots and established waiting list to 
understand demand and future need 
b)  Establish a programme of facility development with a focus on toilet 
provision 
c)  Establish a programme that will develop facilities for users/potential 
users with limited mobility  
d)  Review the mechanism for the allocation of vacant plots to reduce 
the number of empty plots, and address the local demand for 
allotments 
e)  Work with Allotment Societies to develop, improve and enhance the 
existing allotment provision 
f)  Develop partnerships to increase the value and accessibility of 
allotments, to include schools (where sites are close enough) and 
the further development of health-related project. 
 
 
 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---

 
 
Footnote* - (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005)].   
www.scottwilson.com 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
www.strategicleisure.co.uk 

---