Methodology

0x08 graphic
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Open Space Assessment

A Draft Report

March 2009

0x08 graphic

Table of Contents

Introduction

Definition of Open Space

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”.

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 burial ground. This definition does not go far enough in recognising the variety of open space types both private and public

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 (nature reserves, public woodlands) outdoor sports, amenity areas, children's play areas, allotments, beaches, cemeteries and crematoria.

In accordance with the guidance advocated by PPG17 each of the different types of open space provision has been developed into a local typology for the Borough and for this report we are referring to the diverse range of green open spaces within the Wirral used by local people and that are mainly managed by or through the Borough Council.

In developing the analysis of the Borough Calculations are set at ward and Borough level. This analysis enables the Council to identify the priorities for each area of the Borough in relation to the emerging Local Development Framework. Priorities may also be drilled down to a ward level.

A comprehensive audit was undertaken in 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, beaches, cemeteries and crematoria.

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 where considered against feedback from the consultation to enable standards of provision to be set for each type of open space in the Borough. The feedback from consultation includes responses from people who regularly use open space such as teams making use of pitches, young people, allotment societies and equally important from those people do not make use of the spaces and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

The outcome has been to develop an analysis of quantity and quality of open space that is firmly based on local evidence and a robust assessment of need. The typologies for Wirral are identified in Fig.1.1

Figure 1.1 - Wirral Open Space Typologies

Typology		Primary Purpose
Parks and Gardens:	Major Park	Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events
			Country Park
			Local Park
Natural and Semi Natural Green spaces (Countryside and Woodland)		Including woodlands. Wildlife conservation, bio diversity and environmental education awareness
Outdoor sports facilities -		Participation in outdoor sports such as pitch sports, tennis, bowls, athletics or countryside and water sports
Amenity Green Space		Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas
Provision for Children and Young People		Areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children and young people, such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard areas and teenage shelters
Allotments		Opportunities for those people who wish to grow their own produce as part of the long term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion
Cemeteries and Closed Churchyards		Quiet contemplation. Site for natural wildlife.

The report covers all open space across the Borough where there is a legitimate public access, much of the land in question is under the ownership of the Borough Council, but there are also areas under private ownership or do not fully allow public access such as school grounds.

After consideration the following open space types are not considered in any great depth as part of this report. These are private land including domestic gardens, agricultural land and the wider countryside, the public rights of way network, Golf Courses or school grounds with no community use.

The analysis and collective data of sites is restricted to the sites that are within the definitive administrative boundary of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

The Importance of Open Space

The following information identifies how Open space is important to local people and how it contributes to wider social agendas of Health, Local Pride, Education and the Environment , and then its importance locally in the Wirral.

Health

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 help reduce the effect of urban pollution and allotments provide opportunity for more sustainable organic lifestyles.

Sense of Place and Civic Pride

Well managed, good quality open spaces improve the appearance of an area. For the Borough they attract tourists and visitors. An urban area with good quality open spaces and areas for wildlife create a positive image and help attract inward investment from the relocation of businesses. In turn this increases employment opportunities for local people and support physical regeneration. At the local level they stimulate local pride and make people feel good about where they live.

Research by national organisations such as CABE (Commission for Built Environment) “Does Money Grow on Trees?” (2005) shows that property value in areas of good quality open space can increase by more than 10%. Open spaces are important to community cohesion by bringing people together, by providing meeting venues and social spaces for events and activities. They are an essential part of urban heritage and the urban fabric that makes up an area as such they have an integral role in providing balanced and sustainable communities.

Education

Open spaces provide a valuable resource for education as outdoor classrooms, spaces for training in vocations such as nature conservation, horticulture, community work, landscaping, forestry, sports development. They provide an important environment for children to learn and play through social interaction.

Environment

Open spaces are essential to supporting the species diversity of the Borough, providing habitat and access to a rich variety of flora and fauna in an increasingly urbanised society where urban expansion has meant that true countryside becomes increasingly distant from most people. Open space has an increasingly important role to play in mitigating the effects of climate change, as urban areas get hotter the cooling effect of open space and the shade they provide will become increasingly valuable. Open spaces can act as wildlife corridors that allow the migration of plants and animals from one area to another, thereby acting as important stepping stone links between urban and rural areas ensuring wildlife in both can connect

Section 2

Current Provision

2 Current Provision

Introduction

This section sets out the relevant audit findings and key issues for each of the typologies in terms of the quantity, quality and accessibility of provision.

Each open space site has been identified through the Council's Geographical Information System (GIS) and information provided by council officers. In addition, sites have been verified via site visits in order to provide a comprehensive assessment as far as possible.

All identified sites have been plotted using GIS and the total size of these sites (hectares) has been determined via this method, to provide an indication of the level of provision across the Wirral and within each area on a ward basis.

We will show the each typology in turn, identifying the findings and key issues relating to the current quantity, quality and accessibility of each.

Both quantity and quality analysis has been undertaken across Wirral MBC and on a ward-by-ward basis. From this information standards have been set for each ward and for the MBC as a whole. Table 2.1 summarises the overall provision (quantity) of open space by typology.

Table 2.1 Summary of Open Space by typology

Typology	Number of sites	Total area (hectares)	Provision per 1,000 population (hectares)
Parks and Gardens	55	650.5	2.07ha/1,000
Natural and Semi Natural Green Space (NSN)	83	506.3	1.62ha/1,000
Outdoor Sports Facilities	83	297.4	1.05ha/1,000
Amenity Green Space	137	119	0.38ha/1,000
Provision for Children and Young People	48	20.85	0.007ha/1,000
Allotments and Community Gardens	45	53.9	0.17ha/1,000
Cemeteries and Churchyards	9	87.8	0.28ha/1,000

The qualitative data has been gathered through detailed site assessments. When undertaking site audits, a number of key criteria have been considered for each typology. These are shown below in Table 2.2. The sites have been scored against a quality line, shown below as Figure 2.1. More detail on the quality assessments is shown in the appendices.

Figure 2.1 Quality Line

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

Table 2.2 Qualitative assessment criteria

Typology	Assessment 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, bowling greens, multi-use games areas etc. (these are shown as a separate assessment)
Natural and Semi Natural greenspace	Entrance areas Presence and quality of signage and information Boundary fencing and paths Tree management The quality of key furniture including seats and bins Cleanliness
Formal Outdoor Sport	Entrance areas Presence and quality of signage and information Presence and quality of parking and lighting The quality of key furniture including seats and bins The quality of grassed areas Cleanliness
Amenity Areas	Presence and quality of signage and information The quality of key furniture including seats and bins (excluding visual amenity areas) The quality of grassed areas Cleanliness
Provision for Children and Young People	Play value assessed against RoSPA play value assessment, which considers elements such as play value and ambience more than equipment
Allotments and Community Gardens	Entrance areas The presence of a 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 Churchyards	Entrance areas Presence and quality of signage and information Boundary fencing and hedges Tree management The quality of key furniture including seats and bins The quality of maintenance, grass cutting, pathways Cleanliness Memorial management and vandalism

Parks and Gardens

Parks and Gardens provide accessible, high quality opportunities for a range of informal recreation activities, formal sporting opportunities and community events.

PPG17 definition

`Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events. The typology includes urban parks, country parks and formal public gardens.'

Quantity - Parks and Gardens

The audit has revealed a total of 55 sites in the Parks and Gardens typology, occupying 650.5 hectares providing 2.07ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4. These sites have been classified as follows:

8 large parks (449.3ha or 1.43ha per 1,000)
36 local parks (193.5ha or 0.61ha per 1,000
11 formal gardens (7.8ha or 0.025ha per 1,000)

The breakdown of total space by ward is shown below as Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Provision of Parks and Gardens by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Hectares per 1,000
Bebington	15424	3	19.3	1.25
Bidston & St James	14225	1	2.87	0.20
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	2	9.75	0.69
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
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	3	59.67	4.10
Heswall	13723	4	12.25	0.89
Hoylake & Meols	13337	5	5.43	0.41
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	2	25.74	1.79
Liscard	14602	0	0	0
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	2	97.26	7.00
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 & Thurstaston	13166	6	52.4	3.98
Total	313,079	55	650.5	2.07

An analysis of the above data illustrates the following key issues:

Liscard ward has the least provision in the parks and gardens typology. There are no audited parks or formal gardens in the ward
Bidston and St James Ward has the next lowest level of provision with one site of 2.87ha, equating to 0.20ha per 1,000 population
Pensby & Thingwall has the greatest overall level of provision - nearly a quarter of the Wirral's entire stock of parks and gardens (159.54ha) equating to 11.92ha per 1,000 people in the ward. This is split over just two sites. The Arrowe Country Park makes up nearly 153 hectares of this total
The average site size is 11.8ha (including Arrowe Country Park) or 9ha without
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

Quality Inspections have been undertaken via a site visit to all of the sites. The quality assessment is 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.

Further information can be found in Appendix 1. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual site. Appendix 4 contains the individual quality ratings for Parks and Gardens sites.

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. The quality audits were undertaken between in July- August 2008.The sites have been assessed against a quality line, shown below as Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Quality Line - Parks & Gardens

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

The quality scores key criteria against which the sites are assessed include:

Entrance safety and cleanliness
Signage
Overall cleanliness
Quality of roads, pathways and boundaries
Quality of bins and seats
Tree management
Grass quality
Parking and lighting (where appropriate).

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.4. It should be noted that play areas and playing pitches have been scored separately and can be found later in this section of the report.

Table 2.4 Parks and Gardens quality scores

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Quality range (%)	Average 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	No provision	N/A	N/A
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	2	33-44	39%
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	44% Below Average

Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:

Across Wirral MBC as a whole, parks and gardens sites scored an average of 44%, at the top end of the `below average' rating on the quality line
There is significant variation in the quality scores - from 15% (very poor) to 81% (excellent)
The Borough currently has 8 Green Flag Parks
Two wards have the lowest overall quality rating - both Prenton and Bidston & St James scored 29%
Eastham scored the highest overall score - recording an average of 66%, however this was only across two sites.
For those 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 55 have no litter bins (13%); 26 had no signage (47%) and 13 (24%) had no seating. Only eight sites (15%) had lighting and eight sites offered toilets.

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

2.07ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard for parks in the Borough

To Maintain the Boroughs 8 Green Flag Parks, therefore these sites need to be maintained above to achieve above 75%.

The Borough's Country Parks to be maintained to achieve above 75%

Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace

Natural and Semi Natural green spaces are areas of either unmanaged or semi-managed land, which can take a variety of forms, including scrubland, woodland and wetland areas. These areas are important for their contribution to biodiversity and provide habitats for flora and fauna.

PPG17 definition

`Natural and semi-natural areas providing access to wildlife, environmental education and awareness, biodiversity and nature conservation. The typology includes green corridors, woodlands, scrubland, wetland and nature conservation areas.'

Quantity - Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace

The audit has revealed a total of 83 sites in the Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace (NSN) typology, occupying 506.3 hectares. This equates to a total of 1.62ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4. Although the sites have been classified as a single typology, they include:

Nature Reserves
General natural areas
Children's play space
Rural green space.

The breakdown of total space by ward is shown below as Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Provision of NSN green space by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Hectares per 1,000
Bebington	15424	3	17.8	1.16
Bidston & St James	14225	10	109.4	7.7
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	No provision	N/A	N/A
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 & Irby	14569	7	28.4	1.95
Heswall	13723	7	49.5	3.61
Hoylake & Meols	13337	6	18.9	1.42
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	3	2.3	0.16
Liscard	14602	2	2.6	0.18
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	2	1.2	0.09
New Brighton	13969	No provision	N/A	N/A
Oxton	13841	No provision	N/A	N/A
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	No provision	N/A	N/A
Prenton	14032	2	3.2	0.07
Rock Ferry	13959	2	1.5	0.11
Seacombe	14504	No provision	N/A	N/A
Upton	15737	6	20.1	1.28
Wallasey	15030	1	14.9	0.99
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	10	143.2	10.93
Total	313,079	83	506.3	1.62

An analysis of the above data illustrates the following key issues:

there are five wards which have no NSN provision at all, suggesting an uneven distribution of this open space type across the MBC area
the next lowest level of provision is in Eastham, which has just three sites totalling 7.8ha, equating to 0.06ha per 1,000 population
West Kirby & Thurstaston has the greatest overall level of provision - over a quarter of the Wirral's entire stock of NSN space (143.2ha) equating to 10.93ha per 1,000 people in the ward. This is split across 10 sites. The Thurstaston Common (both the Common and National Trust-managed area) makes up nearly 75 hectares and is the largest site in the catchment area
the average site size is 6.1ha
Clatterbridge has the greatest number of sites (11) at an average size of 4.26ha.

Quality - Natural and Semi Natural Green Space

Quality Inspections have been undertaken via a site visit to all of the sites. The quality assessment is 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.

Further information can be found in Appendix 1. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual site. Appendix 4 contains the individual quality ratings for Parks and Gardens sites.

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. The quality audits were undertaken in 2008.The sites have been assessed against a quality line, shown below as Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Quality Line - NSN green space

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

The quality scores key criteria against which the sites are assessed include:

Entrance safety and cleanliness
Signage
Overall cleanliness
Quality of roads, pathways and boundaries
Quality of bins and seats
Tree management.

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 NSN quality scores

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Quality range (%)	Average quality score
Bebington	15424	3	20-65	43%
Bidston & St James	14225	10	9-59	30%
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	No provision	N/A	N/A
Bromborough	13822	6*	10-35	22%
Clatterbridge	14701	11	15-50	28%
Claughton	14615	2	2-13	8%
Eastham	13988	3	33-38	35%
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	7	16-62	34%
Heswall	13723	7	26-37	32%
Hoylake & Meols	13337	6	23-36	30%
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	3	7-29	16%
Liscard	14602	2	17-28	22%
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	2	15-18	17%
New Brighton	13969	No provision	N/A	N/A
Oxton	13841	No provision	N/A	N/A
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	No provision	N/A	N/A
Prenton	14032	2*	42	42%
Rock Ferry	13959	2	16-24	20%
Seacombe	14504	No provision	N/A	N/A
Upton	15737	6	6-35	18%
Wallasey	15030	1	46	46%
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	10	25-64	40%
Total	313,079	83	2-65	29% Poor

* Some sites were not available due to access issues. These have not been counted in the score

Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:

across Wirral MBC as a whole, NSN sites scored an average of 29%, at the top end of the `poor' rating on the quality line
there is a fair amount of variation in the quality scores - from 2% (very poor) to 65% (good)
Claughton has the lowest overall quality rating, scoring just 8% across two sites. The poorest site overall is also in Claughton - Vyner Road South Open Space, which scored just 2%
every ward which has multiple sites has at least one classified as `poor'
Wallasey scored the highest overall score - recording an average of 46% (average) however this was only across one site -
for those 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%.…

Natural England Standards

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.

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.

The definition used within the model of natural greenspace “Areas naturally colonised by plants and animals” was identified as being unclear and not practical. The definition also excludes man made types of vegetation which predominate within urban areas and which have high biodiversity value.

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. The revised PPG 17 also recommends that local authorities derive locally based standards of provision rather than adopt nationally derived standards wholesale.

Initial 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
9 sites are over 20 ha in size
There is a requirement for 313 ha of land designated as Local Nature Reserve and at present the Wirral has 10 sites designated as Local Nature Reserves and these provide 187.14 ha. Therefore against the Natural England expected Local Nature Reserve designation there is a requirement for a further 128ha of land to be designated.

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

1.6 ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC as the minimum

To provide 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1000 population

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard for Natural Green Spaces in the Borough

To achieve 75% or above for the Boroughs Local Nature Reserves

Outdoor Sports Facilities

This typology includes a variety of open space types, including playing pitches, bowling greens and tennis courts. While it only includes standalone facilities, when assessing overall provision, the process has looked at facilities within other typologies - tennis courts within a larger park, for example.

Other more informal facilities have been included within the other listed typologies. For example, a number of multi-use games areas (MUGAs) have been identified. Given their intended use, primarily as sites for informal activity, these have been included as part of the assessment of provision for children and young people.

PPG17 definition

`Community accessible sports facilities (public and private) with participation in outdoor sports such as pitch sports, tennis, bowls and golf.'

Quantity - Outdoor Sports Facilities

The audit has revealed a total of 113 outdoor sports facilities, occupying 460.1 hectares. This equates to a level of 1.47ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). For the purposes of analysis however, the quantitative figures do not include golf courses, although we have shown figures both with and without for comparative purposes where appropriate. The omission of golf is due to the disproportionate effect on the figures of the very large area occupied by a golf course.

The revised total therefore is a total area of 297.4 hectares, giving a level per 1,000 population of 1.05 hectares.

Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4. Although the sites have been classified as a single typology, the sites which have been audited include bowling greens, golf courses, tennis courts, synthetic turf pitches, playing fields and schools with secured community usage. We have made separate comments regarding these facilities below.

The breakdown of total space by ward is shown below as Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Quantitative provision of Outdoor Sports Facilities (total) by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Total excluding golf	Hectares per 1,000
Bebington	15424	4	74.6	32.4	2.1
Bidston & St James	14225	1	6.4	-	0.45
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	1	0.28	-	0.02
Bromborough	13822	8	14.2	-	1.03
Clatterbridge	14701	3	11.2	-	0.76
Claughton	14615	2	1.7	-	0.12
Eastham	13988	6	48.6	-	3.5
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	3	6.1	-	0.42
Heswall	13723	6	5.2	-	0.38
Hoylake & Meols	13337	11	56.7	12.9	0.97
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	4	16.4	-	1.15
Liscard	14602	5	4.8	-	0.33
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	1	0.6	-	0.04
New Brighton	13969	2	5.5	-	0.40
Oxton	13841	8	16.6	-	1.20
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	3	5.7	-	0.43
Prenton	14032	8	18.7	-	1.36
Rock Ferry	13959	4	2.3	-	0.17
Seacombe	14504	3	4.0	-	0.28
Upton	15737	4	10.9	-	0.69
Wallasey	15030	15	99.8	23.1	1.54
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	7	38.1	-	2.89
Total	313,079	83	460.1	297.4	1.05

An analysis of the data in the table highlights the following key points with regard to the overall quantity of outdoor sports facilities:

The total provision in Wirral MBC is equivalent to 1.05 hectares per 1,000 population (excluding golf courses)
The lowest level of provision is Birkenhead & Tranmere, which has just one site (0.28ha) which is equivalent to 0.02ha/1,000. Moreton West & Saughall Massie, also has only one site, of 0.6 hectares, which translates to 0.04ha per 1,000. There are 11 wards with a provision level under 0.5ha per 1,000.
Eastham has highest level of provision overall, with 48.6 hectares in total, equivalent to 3.5 ha/1,000, although nearly half of this total (23.4ha) is at the Leverhulme Sports Ground - the largest non-golf club site in the Council area
The average site size is 3.76 hectares excluding golf courses 6.1 hectares (including golf courses)
Wallasey has the greatest number of sites (15) including the Warren Park Golf Courses.

Quality - Outdoor Sports Facilities

Quality inspections have been undertaken via a site visit to all of the publicly-accessible sites. The quality assessment is 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.

Further information can be found in Appendix 1. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual site. Appendix 4 contains the individual quality ratings for outdoor sports sites.

As only publicly accessible sites were evaluated, a significant number of sites have therefore not been quality scored. The results in the table shown only refer to the audited facilities (total number 44).

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. The sites have been assessed against a quality line, shown below as Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6 Quality Line - Outdoor Sports Facilities

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

The quality scores key criteria against which the sites are assessed include:

Entrance safety, access and cleanliness
Signage
Evidence of damage to surface
Vandalism
Litter
Suitability for competitive play
Changing and ancillary facilities

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Outdoor Sports Facilities Quality Scores

Ward	Area population	Total accessible sites	Quality range (%)	Average quality score
Bebington	15424	3	34-66	45%
Bidston & St James	14225	1	77	77%
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	No provision	N/A	N/A
Bromborough	13822	7	15-56	34%
Clatterbridge	14701	No provision	N/A	N/A
Claughton	14615	3	31-44	39%
Eastham	13988	3	18-30	26%
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	No provision	N/A	N/A
Heswall	13723	3	31-43	38%
Hoylake & Meols	13337	2	27-29	28%
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	2	22-39	31%
Liscard	14602	1	21	21%
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	1	38	38%
New Brighton	13969	1	36	36%
Oxton	13841	2	13-15	14%
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	2	37-70	54%
Prenton	14032	1	27	27%
Rock Ferry	13959	No provision	N/A	N/A
Seacombe	14504	1	34	34%
Upton	15737	1	47	47%
Wallasey	15030	5	9-34	21%
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	5	20-68	41%
Total	313,079	44	9-77	36% Below Average

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 classification of `below average'. 11 wards were classified as `below average', with five `poor', one `very poor', one `average' and one `excellent'
There is a significant range of qualities shown by the results, from 9% (very poor) to 77% (excellent)
Oxton has the lowest overall quality rating, scoring 14% across two sites. The poorest site overall is in Wallasey - the School Lane Playing Fields, which scored just 9%
Bidston & St James scored the 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%)

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

1.6 ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC as the minimum

To provide 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1000 population

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard for Natural Green Spaces in the Borough

To achieve 75% or above for the Boroughs Local Nature Reserves

Amenity Green Space

The Amenity Green Space (AGS) typology consists primarily of sites which are usually located near to residential areas. They may include other open space types and facilities, such as children's play areas, and may function as casual recreation areas as well as providing aesthetic value.

PPG17 definition

`Open space in housing areas, village greens, informal recreational space and hard-surfaced areas designed for pedestrians. Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas.'

Quantity - Amenity Green Space

The AGS sites in this study have been split into two types:

active amenity spaces - highly accessible areas which provide opportunities for informal activities, for example dog walking, informal play or sport
visual amenity spaces - areas which improve the visual appearance of residential or built-up areas.

The audit has revealed a total of 137 sites in the Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace (NSN) typology. We have set a site size threshold of 0.1 hectares to ensure that even small portions of land which are of value are counted. The provision is as follows:

active amenity spaces - 72 sites totalling 90.3 hectares
visual amenity spaces - 65 sites totalling 28.7 hectares.

The total provision is therefore 119 hectares, equal to 0.38ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4.The breakdown of total space by ward is shown below as Table 2.7.

Table 2.7 Quantitative provision of Amenity Green Space by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Hectares per 1,000
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 Massie	13932	8	8.5	0.61
New Brighton	13969	11	12.4	0.89
Oxton	13841	6	4.2	0.30
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	2	1.8	0.14
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

An analysis of the data in the table highlights the following key points with regard to quantity of amenity green spaces:

The total provision in Wirral MBC is equivalent to 0.38 hectares per 1,000 population. This can be split into active amenity space (0.29ha/1,000) and visual amenity spaces (0.09ha/1,000)
The lowest level of provision is in Prenton, which has only one audited AGS site, of 0.2ha, giving a figure of 0.01ha/1,000. Heswall also has just one site - of 0.5ha - equating to 0.04ha/1,000.
The highest total level of provision is Wallasey (24 hectares) which is equivalent to 1.6ha/1,000. Bidston & St James is the only other ward with more than 1ha/1,000 (1.05ha). However, over 19 hectares of this is at Kings Parade (which has been split into five sub-sites)
Bromsborough has the greatest number of sites (18) ahead of New Brighton (11) and Bidston & St James (10) all three wards have around 1ha/1,000 population
The average site size is 0.87ha this provides a reasonably sized site that is useful to local people and functional as amenity space close to where people live

Quality - Amenity Green Space

Quality Inspections have been undertaken via a site visit to all the AGS sites. The quality assessment is 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.

Further information can be found in Appendix 1. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual site. Appendix 4 contains the individual quality ratings for amenity green space sites.

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.

Figure 2.8 Quality Line - Amenity Green Space

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

The quality scores key criteria against which the sites are assessed include:

Entrance safety and cleanliness
Signage
Overall cleanliness
Quality of bins and seats on appropriate sites
Grass quality
Parking and lighting (where appropriate).

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.4.

Table 2.8 Amenity Green Space quality scores

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Quality range (%)	Average 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 Massie	13932	8	14-44	30%
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% Below Average

* Some sites were not available due to access issues. These have not been counted in the score

Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:

across Wirral MBC as a whole, amenity green space scored an average of 38%, placing it in the `below average' rating on the quality line. No wards returned a `very poor' rating.
there is notable variation in the quality scores - from 5% (very poor) to 72% (good)
three wards score 25% or under for an overall quality rating - Liscard (22%), Bromborough (25%) and Eastham (25%) are the lowest scoring wards
Prenton scored the highest overall score - recording an average of 51%, however this was only across a single site.
the best site score (72%) was given to the Tam O'Shanter Urban Farm
within the two sub-categories, active amenity spaces scored an average of 34% (below average); while visual amenities scored 39% (below average)
of the sites assessed, 30 had litter bins (22%); 29 had seating (21%) and 22 sites had lighting assessed (16%)

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

0.38 ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC as the minimum

Future provision to be no less than 0.8ha in size

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard

Provision for Children and Young People

Provision for Children and Young People (CYP) consists of equipped play areas and specialist provision for young people, including skateparks, Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs) and Teen Shelters. 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.

A variety of types of open space can provide children and young people with these opportunities, but the audit uses the principle of `primary purpose'. Therefore, provision for children and young people focuses on equipped play areas.

PPG17 definition

`Areas designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children and young people, such as equipped play areas, multi-use games areas (MUGA), BMX tracks and skateboard parks.'

Quantity - Children and Young People

The audit has revealed a total of 48 sites in the CYP typology, occupying 20.85 hectares, providing 0.007ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4. These sites are made up primarily of play areas and MUGAs.

The breakdown of total space by ward is shown below as Table 2.9.

Table 2.9 Provision for Children and Young People by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Hectares per 1,000
Bebington	15424	1	0.31	0.02
Bidston & St James	14225	10	6.18	0.44
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	4*	1.01	0.07
Bromborough	13822	2	0.95	0.07
Clatterbridge	14701	No provision	N/A	N/A
Claughton	14615	No provision	N/A	N/A
Eastham	13988	2	1.26	0.09
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	1	0.21	0.01
Heswall	13723	No provision	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	2	1.35	0.10
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	9	4.83	0.34
Liscard	14602	1	0.17	0.01
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	No provision	N/A	N/A
New Brighton	13969	1	0.13	0.01
Oxton	13841	No provision	N/A	N/A
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	No provision	N/A	N/A
Prenton	14032	1	0.22	0.02
Rock Ferry	13959	5	1.01	0.07
Seacombe	14504	7	2.52	0.17
Upton	15737	1	0.25	0.02
Wallasey	15030	1	0.45	0.03
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	No provision	N/A	N/A
Total	313,079	48	20.85	0.007

*Includes proposed play area at Eaton Place

An analysis of the above data illustrates the following key issues:

The total provision of facilities for children and young people is equivalent to 0.007 hectares for every 1,000 people
There are seven wards which have no provision for children and young people. A further seven wards have just one site
Only five wards have more than two sites - Bidston & St James; Birkenhead & Tranmere; Leasowe & Moreton East; Rock Ferry; and Seacombe
Bidston & St James has the greatest overall level of provision - over a quarter of the Wirral's entire stock of children's play provision (6.18ha) including the largest audited site - Beechwood Park. The ward also has the highest number of sites (10) at an average size of 0.62 hectares
The average site size is 0.43ha

Quality - Provision for Children and Young People

Quality Inspections have been undertaken via a site visit to all 120 sites with fixed play equipment. The quality assessment proforma 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, including the following:

Balancing
Jumping
Climbing
Rotating
Crawling
Sliding
Agility Bridges
Viewing Platform
Wheeled Play.

In summary the criteria have been used to rate quality and value of local play facilities. Appendix 4 contains the quality rating for the provision of children and young people.

It is important to note that play provision is not simply providing equipment. It is also about the environment that equipment is situated in. The audit considers elements which best practice play areas have been found to promote. These include diversity in textures, use of wildflowers and landscaping.

In supporting the generation of a `sense of place' it considers whether the play area is locally related to reflect some local significance. This could be for example if the site is near a railway, then the play area's design could reflect this through themed equipment designed around trains and railways.

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 allows 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.

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.

Figure 2.10 Quality Line - Provision for Children and Young People

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.10.

Table 2.10 Children and Young People quality scores

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Quality range (%)	Average quality score
Bebington	15424	1	41	41%
Bidston & St James	14225	10	14-53	30%
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	4*	23-33	30%
Bromborough	13822	2	14-45	29%
Clatterbridge	14701	No provision	N/A	N/A
Claughton	14615	No provision	N/A	N/A
Eastham	13988	2	54-78	47%
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	1	25	25%
Heswall	13723	No provision	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	2	45-70	57%
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	9	21-75	37%
Liscard	14602	1	82	82%
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	No provision	N/A	N/A
New Brighton	13969	1	47	47%
Oxton	13841	No provision	N/A	N/A
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	No provision	N/A	N/A
Prenton	14032	1	53	53%
Rock Ferry	13959	5	17-55	33%
Seacombe	14504	7	16-39	24%
Upton	15737	1	39	39%
Wallasey	15030	1	63	63%
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	No provision	N/A	N/A
Total	313,079	48	14-82	42% Below Average

Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:

across Wirral MBC as a whole, provision for children and young people sites scored an average of 42%, placing them in the `below average' rating on the quality line
there is significant variation in the quality scores - from 14% (very poor) to 82% (excellent)
Seacombe has the lowest overall quality rating (24%) with a further four wards (Bidston & St James; Birkenhead & Tranmere; Bromborough and Greasby Frankby & Irby) all scoring 30% or less
Liscard scored the highest overall (82%) however this was only based on one site - the Urmson Road Play Area, which was the best marked site of all
for those wards with four or more sites, Leasowe & Moreton East scored the highest (37%), although there was some variation in the site qualities (21-75% range) while Bidston & St James; Birkenhead & Tranmere scored worst (30%) with ranges of 14-53% and 23-33% respectively
Bidston and Bromborough had the two poorest scoring sites (Onslow Park Play Area and Bidston
Village Road) which scored 14% each

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

0.07 ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC as the minimum

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard

Allotments and Community Gardens

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.

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.

PPG17 definition

`Opportunities for those people who wish to grow their own produce as part of the long term promotion of sustainability, health, and social inclusion.'

Quantity - Allotments

The audit has revealed a total of 45 sites in the allotments typology, occupying 53.9 hectares. This equates to 0.17ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4. These sites have been classified as follows:

Council managed allotments - 39 sites (total 50.21 hectares)
Trust/privately managed allotments - six sites (total 3.69 hectares)

The breakdown of space by ward is shown below as Table 2.3.

Table 2.11 Provision of Allotments by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Hectares per 1,000
Bebington	15424	2	4.95	0.26
Bidston & St James	14225	6	4.04	0.28
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	1	0.37	0.03
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 & Irby	14569	1	1.35	0.09
Heswall	13723	No provision	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	1	2.21	0.17
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	No provision	N/A	N/A
Liscard	14602	2	2.3	0.16
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	No provision	N/A	N/A
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 & Thurstaston	13166	2	1.99	0.15
Total	313,079	45	53.9	0.17

An analysis of the above data illustrates the following key issues:

the total provision across the Wirral is 53.9 hectares, equating to 0.17ha/1,000 people.
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
the next lowest level of provision is in New Brighton, which has just one site of 0.21ha, equating to 0.02ha per 1,000 population
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 with 8.55ha equating to 0.62ha per 1,000 people in the ward. This is split over four sites.
Bidston & St James has the greatest number of sites (6)

Quality - Allotments

Site assessments were undertaken at the allotment sites across the MBC area.

Further information can be found in Appendix 1. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual site. Appendix 4 contains the individual quality ratings for individual allotment sites.

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.

Figure 2.12 Quality Line - Allotments

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

The quality scores key criteria against which the sites are assessed include:

Main entrance safety and cleanliness
Signage
Upkeep of allotment site and provision of facilities, including water supply
Quality of roads and pathways
Provision of toilets and parking.

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.12.

Table 2.12 Allotment quality scores

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Quality range (%)	Average quality score
Bebington	15424	2	30-53	41%
Bidston & St James	14225	6	12-31	20%
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	1	25	25%
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 & Irby	14569	1	20	20%
Heswall	13723	No provision	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	1	30	30%
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	No provision	N/A	N/A
Liscard	14602	2	28-45	37%
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	No provision	N/A	N/A
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 & Thurstaston	13166	2	38-52	45%
Total	313,079	83	2-52	30% Poor

Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:

across Wirral MBC as a whole, allotment sites scored an average of 30%, at the top end of the `poor' rating on the quality line
there is a reasonable level of variation in the quality scores - from 4% (very poor) to 52% but the whole typology is either `below average' or `poor'
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%
there are no sites assessed as `average' or better - 12 wards were `poor', with the remaining seven `below average'
West Kirby & Thurstaston scored the highest overall score - recording an average of 45% (average) across two sites
for those 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%.

The graphical representation of the allotments in Wirral overall when compared with the quality line is shown below as Figure 2.13.

National Standards - Allotments

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

0.17 ha per 1,000 population across Wirral MBC as the minimum

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard To ensure that all Council managed sites as a minimum have a running water supply, toilet facility and

Cemeteries and Churchyards

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.

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.

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.

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.

PPG17 definition

`The primary purpose is for the burial of the dead and for quiet contemplation but also often linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity and to provide a link to the past.'

Quantity - Cemeteries

Our audit has included all cemeteries in the Council area, and has not included churchyards.

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 (based on a population of 313,079 Source: ONS Mid Year 2005). Greater detail on sites can be found in Appendix 4. These sites have been classified as follows:

The breakdown of space by ward is shown below as Table 2.13.

Table 2.13 Provision of Cemeteries by ward

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Total hectares	Hectares per 1,000
Bebington	15424	1	8.9	0.58
Bidston & St James	14225	1	10.7	0.75
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	No provision	N/A	N/A
Bromborough	13822	No provision	N/A	N/A
Clatterbridge	14701	No provision	N/A	N/A
Claughton	14615	No provision	N/A	N/A
Eastham	13988	2	5.6	0.40
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	1	10.4	0.72
Heswall	13723	No provision	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	No provision	N/A	N/A
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	No provision	N/A	N/A
Liscard	14602	No provision	N/A	N/A
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	No provision	N/A	N/A
New Brighton	13969	1	10.4	0.75
Oxton	13841	No provision	N/A	N/A
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	2	37.7	2.81
Prenton	14032	No provision	N/A	N/A
Rock Ferry	13959	No provision	N/A	N/A
Seacombe	14504	No provision	N/A	N/A
Upton	15737	No provision	N/A	N/A
Wallasey	15030	No provision	N/A	N/A
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	1	3.04	0.23
Total	313,079	9	87.8	0.28

An analysis of the above data illustrates the following key issues:

the total provision across the Wirral is 87.8 hectares, equating to 0.28ha/1,000 people.
the average site size is 9.76 hectares
seven wards have cemeteries within them
Pensby & Thingwall has the greatest overall level of provision with 37.7ha equating to 2.81ha per 1,000 people in the ward. Of this, 35ha is from the Landican Cemetery - the largest in the Wirral

Quality - Cemeteries

Site assessments were undertaken at the nine cemeteries across the MBC area.

The quality assessment audit is based on a number of key criteria encompassing the quality aspects of Green Flag, Tidy Britain and ILAM Parks Management best practice. The assessment considered the physical, social and aesthetic qualities of each individual site. Further information can be found in Appendix 1. Appendix 4 contains the individual quality ratings for individual sites.

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..

Figure 2.14 Quality Line - Cemeteries

0% - 15%	16% - 30%	31% - 45%	46% - 60%	61% - 75%	76% +
Very Poor	Poor	Below Average	Average	Good	Excellent

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.

A summary of the quality scores for each ward is shown below as Table 2.14.

Table 2.14 Cemeteries quality scores

Ward	Area population	Total sites	Quality range (%)	Average quality score
Bebington	15424	1	63	63%
Bidston & St James	14225	1	43	43%
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	No provision	N/A	N/A
Bromborough	13822	No provision	N/A	N/A
Clatterbridge	14701	No provision	N/A	N/A
Claughton	14615	No provision	N/A	N/A
Eastham	13988	2	69-69	69%
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	1	86	86%
Heswall	13723	No provision	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	No provision	N/A	N/A
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	No provision	N/A	N/A
Liscard	14602	No provision	N/A	N/A
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	No provision	N/A	N/A
New Brighton	13969	1	67	67%
Oxton	13841	No provision	N/A	N/A
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	2	57-72	65%
Prenton	14032	No provision	N/A	N/A
Rock Ferry	13959	No provision	N/A	N/A
Seacombe	14504	No provision	N/A	N/A
Upton	15737	No provision	N/A	N/A
Wallasey	15030	No provision	N/A	N/A
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	1	55	55%
Total	313,079	9	43-86	65% Good

Analysis of the data collected shows the following key issues:

Across Wirral MBC as a whole, cemeteries scored an average of 65% - in the `good' rating on the quality line
There is a consistently good quality of provision across the Council, with a relatively small range of quality scores (43-86%)
The best scoring site was the Frankby Cemetery in Greasby, Fransby & Irby (86%)
The poorest scoring site was the Flaybrick Memorial Gardens in Bidston & St James (43%) which was at the top end of the `below average' category

Standards

Recommended Standard

Quantity

No standard set

Quality

To achieve 61% or above as the minimum standard

Resourcing the Borough's Greenspace

Introduction

The Borough Council has endeavoured whenever possible to invest in its greenspace provision and 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

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. Unfortunately 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 t 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.

It is important to note that following further consultation it will be necessary to assess the financial implications for each type of provision.

Capital Funding

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 on the capital opportunities held outside by national governing bodies and government agencies.

CABE Space support the idea of a strategic framework, in the CABE manifesto they also identify 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.

In order to deliver a vision for a network of good quality, accessible clean and safe greenspace across the Borough it is essential to financial support at the external and importantly internal level for future improvement to new and existing provision.

The development of partnership 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.

Partnership with the Private sector can also bring the benefits and funding to improve the Borough greenspace, other authorities such as Halton Borough Council have forged partnership with the private sector, Halton 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 into the parks.

Wholesale commercial sponsorship is very difficult to obtain when requested by the Borough Council, however working in partnership with third parties may prove more attractive to local, regional or nationally recognised commercial sector investors.

Lottery Funding

The Council has already had relative success in securing available Lottery funding for a number of projects and from a number of Lottery funding pots.

Lottery funds vary in grant size and funding criteria, possibly the most known for improving greenspace is the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Funds are available for very specific projects if they 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, grants can vary from £50,000 to £5 million and securing the funding relies on sustainability, stakeholder involvement and demonstrate the heritage and value of the park funding is being sought for. The Council utilised this funding stream to maximise the opportunity for Birkenhead Parks restoration.

Big Lottery Fund

Initially developed from the combined resource of the Community Fund (providing funds for charities, community and voluntary sectors) and the New Opportunities Fund (funds 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 t to provide more adventurous play space. Other BLF funding streams that are available are.

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.

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

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

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

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 hat have historical or architectural significance in a local environment. Initiatives have to be within a defined distance of landfill or extraction operations.

Barclay's Site Saver

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

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

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, project 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 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. We fund projects that 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.

There is 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. What is needed is a co-ordinated approach to securing these funds by the Borough, its partners and its communities. The appointment of a parks development officer and parks champion will improve communication regarding greenspace initiatives and opportunities.

Developer Contributions

An essential part of the success will be the internal commitment and buy in to 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 is a key long term management objective.

The research behind this open space report provides the evidence with regards to the quantity quality and accessibility to greenspace across the Borough. The evidence needs to be used to strengthen existing planning policies and support the Local Development Framework through the development of 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 Borough Council to move to the next stage and prioritise the need for investment through wider community consultation and stakeholder consultation at the local level.

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 guidance.

Fareham Borough Council- the Council favour on site contribution, it is dependent upon a number of factors that include- the size of the development site and if the site is in close proximity to existing good quality provision. The Council guidance also includes a matrix to identify when on/ off site contributions are appropriate in accordance with the number of dwellings and provision type
Stockport MBC- The Council seek commuted sum payments 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, if provision falls below a specified size the Council seek off site contributions
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

Maintenance sums are also an important consideration when dealing with developer contributions, research of other Council's has revealed that this varies significantly across local authorities.

Fareham Borough Council - maintenance payments to the Council 12 months after a site or provision is transferred to the Council. Maintenance is calculated on the number of bed spaces the type of provision and is updated annually
Stockport MBC - Maintenance payments to the Council 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

The PPG17 Guidance 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.

The general approach, which has been 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- this needs to be established not so much on the current cost of maintenance but after consideration as to whether the current level of maintenance is adequate to maintain the provision to the standards required. This removes the opportunity to under price the commuted sum payment and transfer historic budgetary constraints or budget reductions onto new provision.
It is good practice to work to a more appropriate cost with an assumed rate of inflation.
An agreed time period for which payment is to cover ( research undertaken as part of this report has shown that the time period expected varies from 5-25 years)

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(i.e. capital contribution), whilst also contributing to the ongoing revenue cost of maintaining the provision( i.e. revenue contribution).

The Council should use the audit findings as a means of identifying where provision and quality improvements require further investment.

Analysis of existing guidance on open space leads to the conclusion that:

The Council should establish and set standards for the different types ( typologies) of provision
The Council need to ensure that all new housing development contributes to open space provision, this includes development of single dwellings
The SPD should contain a list of priority projects and wherever possible contain costing detail which can be annually updated. The initial priorities should be linked to priorities identified in the audit to bring sites up to a good standard

The Council, though the planning policy, will ensure that the adopted standards demonstrate the principles of Best Value and the requirement to consult local people and communities. It will ensure that local people have access to a network of good quality facilities within their local area.

The Council should consider the development of a Borough Wide greenspace fund (pooled fund). especially for the more rural areas within the Borough boundaries, as there may be developments that are small in size and do not generate a contribution that is large enough for improvements, yet the development will still incur additional demand on existing facilities. This would be established to ensure contributions are always sought and create the means whereby funds could be used to enhance and improve existing provision or provide new provision to address deficiencies and need. This would prove useful especially in the rural areas and where insufficient funds are generated to provide anything of purpose

Policy test of Circular 05/2005 have identified that contributions from developers are only sought where they are directly related to the proposed development. This leads to pooled funds needing to be carefully administered and ring fenced within particular areas. Pooled funds can be based around the accessibility standards identified earlier within this report although this can be restrictive in rural areas. The same applies to off site contributions.

The improvements that can be provided to open space should be detailed within the SPD, this could relate to improvements to access to facilities. It has to be recognised that the exact improvements to provision may not have been identified at the outset and therefore may be more appropriate to use the parish level as the area to ring fence in more rural areas. In urban areas the accessibility thresholds can be applied.

The principle of the pooled fund would be to create a source of funding that could be utilised in planned way to secure additional investment into greenspace. This would 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.. One of the valuable assets available to the Borough is land, some of which is not used to its maximum capacity. The Borough council is naturally reluctant to release greenspace for disposal, however the benefits of reinvesting a substantial part of the proceeds from any sale are considerable and at present there are no real alternatives available to close the funding gap. A number of larger Borough Councils such as Bristol and Leeds are going down this route to enable them to improve the greenspace to a standard fit for local people.

Generic Recommendations

Design of Greenspace

The design of greenspace has a major role to play in the delivery of sustainable communities. Good design is recognised for developing a sense of local community and mutual 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 greenspace that meet people's aspirations and in meeting aspirations people will take pride in their local area and help preserve them for future generations.

The following design principles are taken from best practice and although not an exhaustive list they give an indication as to what works in ensuring the 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 allow traffic free routes through residential areas and links to other areas via bus stops and cycleway
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 provide a range of habitat type
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
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
Provide for local children, it is important that facilities provided match the age range of children and young people
Provide surfaced tarmac paths that are at least 2metres wide and concrete edged
Provide adequate litter bins that are in keeping and bins are set into a concrete surface for ease of maintenance
Provide adequate seating that is in keeping, 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, seating should be provided in both sunny and shaded areas and allow for wheelchairs and pushchairs to park alongside off the path.
All sites should have signage that informs people of the site name, ownership and contact details
Larger sites or sites where people are expected to cross to get to nearby facilities such as schools or shops should have street lighting
Sites in new housing should have housing fronting on to the site to allow for surveillance.
The development of a site specific management plans for larger sites especially new provision

In order to identify the `A number of recommendations are made in relation to all sites and the assessment undertaken. These are concerned with the use of information gathered and the further development of the study in future years. The following recommendations are made:

Audit sport, leisure and open spaces on a regular basis (every two/three years) and publish 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.

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 (sites listed by different names etc). The central record should include access to GIS mapping.

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/individuals in the Council; in the course of this study, a number of inaccuracies/wrong contact details etc have been identified; establishing a central database, which is regularly updated, will address these issues for the future.

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, and planning and grounds maintenance, 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 a planning decision is made.

Continue to develop the marketing information produced about the parks and open space facilities available, 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).

Develop an access standard regarding physical access for those users and potential users with a disability.

Review maintenance standards for open space, and agree with local people any changes. Report on performance annually. It is important to set quality standards for each of the open space categories.

Develop and fund a programme of signage installation. The absence of signage or the presence of outdated signage was found to be 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.

Continue to work towards the reduction of the effects of crime and anti-social behaviour in parks and open spaces.

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

Management plans are needed for some of the major formal greenspaces; the Borough has achieved success at the Green Flag Award and needs to continue this success. However the success should not be at the expense of other sites and the Borough needs to use the audit 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. The recommendations detailed below form a 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 made in this report are focused on addressing facility deficiencies. On the basis of the assessment undertaken the following recommendations are made:

Utilise the results, issues and recommendations
Identified provision deficiencies are addressed as a priority in the production of a Local Development Framework (LDF).
Continue to develop and support Friends Groups for key parks and open spaces to increase local involvement and ownership
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
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).
Raise the standard by improving all sites to a good standard
Develop an asset register of the facilities within sites such as benches, bins, location, date installed, lifetime expectancy, replacement timeframe
Develop quality standards that are achievable and realisitic

To provide `Good' quality sites as a minimum

To continue to recognise the importance of the Gateway sites as a means of raising the image and address the quality issues identified
Ensure that future provision is well designed, serves a purpose and is appropriate in size (anything below 0.1 ha is not readily useable by children and young people without the potential for conflict with neighbours)

Natural / Semi-natural greenspace

A number of recommendations are made in response to the assessment findings. These are:

Identified provision deficiencies are addressed as a priority in the production of a Local Development Framework (LDF).
Develop a greenspace databases and consider utilising the results, issues and recommendations
Work to develop a rolling programme of renewal and improvements, e.g. bins, signage and seating.
Develop a walking strategy to set out how the existing walking networks link together.
Further develop the footpath network and link into wider footpath networks outside of the Borough
Increase awareness of the opportunities for walking in the Borough
Link the use of both open space and sport and recreation facilities with travel awareness initiatives
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
Develop the Biodiversity Action Plan for the Borough
Adopt appropriate management and maintenance programmes for the Nature Conservation sites to reflect their natural characteristics, and thereby preserving their special characteristics.
Develop an education/resource centre to develop better local awareness and understanding of open space, and in particular nature conservation sites
Protect all existing nature conservation sites
Develop a Green Infrastructure plan for the Borough
Develop site specific habitat management schedules

Provision for Children and Young People

The following recommendations are made in relation to provision for children and young people:

To provide `Good' quality sites as a minimum
Improve the security of play areas through introduction of CCTV or staff presence
Expand signage on all sites with site details and contact numbers
Develop equipment that caters for children and young people with disabilities
Involve young people in the design and choice of provision
Aspire to deliver the Hierarchy of provision and continue to address the Surplus/ deficiency imbalance across the Borough
Consider moving away from providing fixed play equipment as a means to catering for children and young people
Improve provision for Young People, especially Teenagers and Toddlers, through the Hierarchy and also by making the provision within the Boroughs main parks more adventurous and bigger in terms of the range of equipment and the element of risk
Ensure that the recommended accessibility thresholds are implemented

Outdoor Sports Facilities

Bowling Greens

Work with the local Bowls Clubs to improve the quality of both existing Greens and ancillary facilities
Priority should be given to the improvement of `below average' sites.
Work with the local Bowls Clubs to promote the sport in the Borough, and encourage participation by younger people
Review security measures at greens located in parks, in light of the reduction in staff presence on some sites.
Improve the publishing of information at parks about opportunities to play bowls

Tennis Courts

Retain the current provision of tennis courts and work with key partners and private clubs to maintain quality and improve access for potential new participants
Develop a programme of court improvement in the Parks
Ensure public courts have appropriate quality nets and equipment

Allotments

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 programme of facility development with a focus on toilet provision needs to be established and prioritised.
Facilities for users/potential users with a disability need to be further developed
Review the mechanism for the allocation of vacant plots to reduce the number of empty plots, and address the local demand for allotments
Work with Allotment Societies to develop, improve and enhance the existing allotment provision
Develop partnerships to increase the value and accessibility of allotments. Partnerships could include, schools (where sites are close enough) and the further development of health-related projects

		P & G		NSN		OSF		AGS		CYP		ALL
Ward	Area population	HA per 1,000	Qual	HA per 1,000	Qual	HA per 1,000	Qual	HA per 1,000	Qual	HA per 1,000	Qual		Qual
Bebington	15424	1.25	43%	1.16	43%	2.1	45%	0.12	48%	0.02	41%	0.26	41%
Bidston & St James	14225	0.20	29%	7.7	30%	0.45	77%	1.05	41%	0.44	30%	0.28	20%
Birkenhead & Tranmere	14149	0.69	54%	N/A	N/A	0.02	N/A	0.05	39%	0.07	30%	0.03	25%
Bromborough	13822	0.71	35%	0.71	22%	1.03	34%	0.95	25%	0.07	29%	0.15	20%
Clatterbridge	14701	0.49	63%	2.67	28%	0.76	N/A	0.18	49%	N/A	N/A	0.03	43%
Claughton	14615	3.94	45%	0.12	8%	0.12	39%	0.37	33%	N/A	N/A	0.20	21%
Eastham	13988	3.20	66%	0.06	35%	3.5	26%	0.33	25%	0.09	47%	0.38	28%
Greasby Frankby & Irby	14569	4.10	62%	1.95	34%	0.42	N/A	0.18	39%	0.01	25%	0.09	20%
Heswall	13723	0.89	45%	3.61	32%	0.38	38%	0.04	48%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Hoylake & Meols	13337	0.41	49%	1.42	30%	0.97	28%	0.26	49%	0.10	57%	0.17	30%
Leasowe & Moreton East	14368	1.79	42%	0.16	16%	1.15	31%	0.17	32%	0.34	37%	N/A	N/A
Liscard	14602	0	N/A	0.18	22%	0.33	21%	0.11	22%	0.01	82%	0.16	37%
Moreton West & Saughall Massie	13932	7.00	39%	0.09	17%	0.04	38%	0.61	30%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
New Brighton	13969	0.97	62%	N/A	N/A	0.40	36%	0.89	41%	0.01	47%	0.02	27%
Oxton	13841	1.19	42%	N/A	N/A	1.20	14%	0.30	32%	N/A	N/A	0.15	26%
Pensby & Thingwall	13386	11.92	36%	N/A	N/A	0.43	54%	0.14	45%	N/A	N/A	0.06	24%
Prenton	14032	0.39	29%	0.07	42%	1.36	27%	0.01	51%	0.02	53%	0.47	41%
Rock Ferry	13959	0.82	36%	0.11	20%	0.17	N/A	0.42	39%	0.07	33%	0.62	20%
Seacombe	14504	1.54	51%	N/A	N/A	0.28	34%	0.19	40%	0.17	24%	0.32	24%
Upton	15737	0.53	39%	1.28	18%	0.69	47%	0.29	28%	0.02	39%	0.09	39%
Wallasey	15030	0.63	54%	0.99	46%	1.54	21%	1.6	43%	0.03	63%	0.08	36%
West Kirby & Thurstaston	13166	3.98	51%	10.93	40%	2.89	41%	0.11	41%	N/A	N/A	0.15	45%
Total	313,079	2.07	44% Below Avg	1.62	29% Poor	1.05	36% Below Avg	0.38	38% Below Avg	0.007	42% Below Avg	0.17	30% Poor

0x01 graphic

Part of the Scott Wilson Group

0x01 graphic