Contents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Page 
Foreword 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
Acknowledgements 
 
        4 
Summary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
Introduction 
         7 
National and Local Context: PPG 17 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
Methodology 
         9 
Consultation 
results 
at 
Borough 
level 
     16 
Quality assessment results at Borough level 
 
 
 
 
28 
Greenspaces 
at 
Ward 
level       32 
Individual 
Ward 
profiles 
       38 
Conclusions   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
82 
Appendices 
         84 
A  
– Typology 
B  
– Community group questionnaire 
C 
– Residents questionnaire 
D  
– Children and young peoples questionnaires 
E  
– Children and young peoples web sites  
F 
– Summary of results on the children and young peoples web pages 
G 
– List of residents activities 
H  
– Definitions of quality scoring criteria 
I 
– Quality survey form 
J  
– List of greenspace site codes used for GIS mapping 
Tables
1.  Age of respondents to the Residents’ survey 
2.  Age of respondents to the Children and Young People’s survey 
3.  Gender and ethnicity of respondents to the Residents’ survey 
4.  Gender and ethnicity of respondents to the Young people’s survey 
5.  Activities engaged in most often by Young people 
6.  Traditional greenspace and non-traditional greenspace groups and their 
usage
7.  Groups’ frequency of usage of different types of greenspace 
1

---

8.  Residents’ frequency of usage 
9.  Reasons why greenspace is not used  
10. Reasons why people can’t go to greenspaces. Open answer question  
11. Reasons why people are put off using greenspaces
12. Most popular use of greenspace by children
13. Group suggestions for improvements to greenspace  
14. Residents suggestions for improvements to greenspace  
15. Children and young peoples suggestions for improvements to greenspace
Graphs
1.  Greenspaces visited by community groups 
2.  Children and Young people’s frequency of greenspace usage 
3.  Activities groups use greenspaces for 
4.  Activities residents use greenspace for 
5.  Residents and children’s satisfaction scores for greenspaces 
6.  Summary of the quality of access to greenspaces 
7.  Summary of cleanliness of sites  
8.  Summary of quality of facilities of sites  
9.  Summary of the quality of the natural and semi natural features
10. Summary of the quality of the biodiversity of the sites within the Borough 
11. The quality of the quality of the design of sites within the Borough
2

---

Foreword
Greenspace 2004 has been the largest research project on greenspace in Trafford 
carried out to date. We have been impressed with the scale of the community 
engagement achieved and grateful for the many suggestions, and enthusiasm for 
further involvement by Trafford residents. 
The joint working on the project between officers across the Council and our partner 
organisations has given us robust and accountable information on our greenspaces. 
It would not have been possible without the involvement of so many different groups 
across the Borough from our friends of parks and greenspaces to schools, sports 
clubs and many others providing the information we need to improve our 
greenspaces. 
We would commend the value of this work to other local authorities. It will help the 
Council make the best use of its available resources in coming years We will make it 
a commitment of the Council to improve the quality of our environment in particular 
our greenspaces to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the Borough. 
Finally we would like to thank everyone who has been involved and contributed to the 
project and look forward to the results of this hard work being used in positive action 
over years to come. 
Councillor 
Mrs 
Poole 
    Councillor 
Mrs 
Pearson 
Executive 
Member 
    Executive 
Member 
for Strategic Planning,  
 
 
 
for Arts and Leisure 
Property and Prosperity 
3

---

Acknowledgements 
This project would not have been possible without the assistance and co-operation of 
the following: - 
Alan Barber 
Bollin Valley Partnership 
CABE
Clive Payne Consultancy 
Doncaster MBC 
Healthy Schools Initiative 
Mersey Valley Countryside Warden Service 
Manchester University School of Environment and Development 
Manchester Metropolitan University School of Environmental Science 
Martin O’Hanlon Consultancy 
Manchester, Salford and Trafford Groundwork Trust 
Newcastle upon Tyne MBC 
Red Rose Community Forest 
Trafford Children’s Fund 
Trafford Voluntary Community Action Team 
Wakefield MDC 
Woodland Trust 
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council: - 
Area Services 
Asset Management 
Economic Development Policy & Partnerships 
Education Service 
ICT Integrated Business Unit 
Library Service 
Parks and Countryside Service 
Planning and Building Control Service 
Sports Development and Leisure Service 
Trafford Direct 
Prepared and Coordinated by; 
Strategic Planning and Development, Waterside House, Sale Waterside, Sale, 
Cheshire, M33 7ZF 
Tel 0161 912 4770 Fax 0161 912 3128 
Email: [email address] 
Website: www.trafford.gov.uk/greenspace 
Printed on environmentally friendly paper 
4

---

Summary 
The Trafford Green/Open Space research project was initiated in January 2004 to 
enable the Council to comply with the provisions of the newly published Planning 
Policy Guidance Note PPG17. Greenspace, sports and recreation facilities make a 
major contribution to ensuring that Trafford is a place where people choose to live. 
By using the information from this research the Council will endeavour to meet the 
needs of its residents by ensuring the provision of high quality greenspaces. 
Using robust and tested techniques the project sought to identify, consult users and 
assess the amount and quality of publicly accessible green space available across 
the Borough (all sites over 0.2 hectares). 
The project findings provide important information about the available supply of 
green/open space in the Borough, the quality of that provision and the current needs 
of its users e.g. community groups, residents, children and young people for such 
provision.
The outputs of the project are also available through Geographical Information 
Systems (GIS) mapping where sites can be easily identified according to their size, 
location, quality and value. This flexible system of interrogation allows the data to be 
looked at on many different levels, for example comments about a single Park or all 
the greenspaces by Ward, by Area or Borough wide.  
The research results in this report have been collated by Ward to present an 
overview of the adequacy of green space provision. However, it must be 
remembered that greenspace does not follow artificial boundaries and information 
collated on small areas must not be looked at in isolation. It is only a guide to 
provision in the area. Quantity and quality of greenspace must also be looked at 
together, just because an area has a lot of greenspace does not necessarily mean it 
is of a high quality or that it contains facilities needed by local residents. Similarly a 
small area of greenspace could be highly valued by residents and contain well-used 
facilities. 
The findings of the research are therefore key to making improvements to Traffords 
greenspace. They will be used to inform a Parks and Open Spaces Strategy setting 
out priority actions to maintain and enhance provision. 
The benefits of this work will be felt across the Council. A number of Service areas 
will have access to information on open spaces and will be in a better position to 
make fully evidenced decisions on future opportunities for the improvement/use of 
these spaces. The information will be of benefit to other Services within the Council 
and enable informed decisions on future opportunities for improving, enhancing 
greenspaces or identifying new provision. 
5

---

Key Project Findings 
There are three elements to the project assessment: 
Quantity
A total of 346 green/open spaces totalling 1,275 hectares of land have been 
identified across the Borough. This equates to 10.5% of the total area of the 
Borough.
The project uses the English Nature national Standard for Locally Accessible Natural 
Greenspace (Langsp). This standard recommends that an acceptable quantity of 
greenspace for a population of 1000 is 2 hectares 
Overall when compared with this standard, the available green/open space provision 
across the Borough is sufficient. 
On a Ward by Ward basis, however, the level of provision relative to the English 
Nature standard is more variable – with 11 Wards being identified as sufficient and 
10 Wards deficient in provision  
Consultations
Separate questionnaires that were sent to community groups, schools and members 
of the public yielded excellent levels of return, many of which were returned 
electronically. The findings showed the following:  
  Accessibility to and around sites is generally felt to be good. 
  There is a high frequency of visits to sites with many residents using green space 
2 to 4 times a week 
  The cleanliness of sites particularly in relation to dogs fouling needs to be 
improved.
Quality
A robust system based on a combination of tried and tested methods was used to 
assess the quality of sites. An independent assessor reviewed 130 sites. The key 
quality findings of the site survey research can be summarised as follows: - 
  Sites in general scored highly on accessibility 
  The management of sites for biodiversity and natural features scored 
satisfactorily
  Cleanliness improvements were identified for many sites  
  The quality of facilities on many sites needs to be improved 
6

---

Introduction 
This report examines the findings from Trafford MBC’s biggest ever greenspace 
research project, ‘Greenspace 2004’. Together with previous research undertaken by 
the Parks and Countryside Service, Sports Development and Leisure Service and 
external bodies such as the Manchester, Salford and Trafford Groundwork Trust and 
Red Rose Forest, the report provides a basis for the forthcoming Trafford Parks and 
Open Spaces Strategy.
Apart from fulfilling the guidance to address Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG 
17), the data from this project is relevant to a number of strategic priorities in 
Trafford. Including objectives in Trafford’s Community Strategy relating to education, 
life-long learning, community safety, economy, social inclusion, equality, and civic 
pride and community involvement.  
There are a number of reasons why the findings from this research project are 
significant. Firstly, there has never been a dedicated project based on assessing the 
quantity of accessible greenspace in the whole of Trafford. This report details every 
publicly accessible greenspace over 0.2 hectares in the Borough. All data collected 
for each site is linked to a GIS (Geographical Information Systems) map that can be 
interrogated by Services in the Council. Digital mapping has also been used to 
develop the application of greenspace standards such as English Nature’s Local 
Accessible Natural Greenspace standard (LANGsp). 
Secondly, whilst some greenspace consultation work has been carried out in the 
past, this has largely been about specific sites or as part of assessment of 
development proposals. The Greenspace 2004 project represents a much wider 
scale and includes consultation work with community groups, residents and children 
and young people. The research looks at whether or not local greenspaces are used 
and how. Consulting with such a vast audience has given an excellent grounding into 
identifying the open spaces that are valued by the local community.  
Thirdly, whilst the data gathered in the three consultation exercises is crucial to 
progressing greenspace policy in Trafford, the information should not be viewed in 
isolation. In order to objectively look at the quality of the sites, an independent 
assessor examined all of the accessible greenspaces using a robust methodology 
designed using best practice from PPG 17, English Nature, Green Flag and existing 
skills and knowledge within the Council. A large amount of in-depth data was 
collected and can be interrogated through the GIS mapping. 
The report begins with an examination of the national drivers behind this research 
and methodologies used to undertake the work .The second section examines the 
Borough-wide data collected from the three consultation exercises, exploring the 
broad themes emerging from the responses from residents, community groups and 
children and young people.  
The final section reviews the data geographically at ward level. Calculations have 
been made as to the sufficiency of accessible greenspace on a ward level and 
linkages made to population densities. Key findings from the consultation and quality 
assessment exercises are also provided here and an audit of the facilities available in 
each ward is provided at the end of the report. 
7

---

National and Local Context:
Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for open space, sport 
and recreation 
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) notes set out the Governments national policies on 
different aspects of planning. The PPG 17 note published in 2001 replaces the 1991 
version and with its accompanying document “Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A 
Companion Guide to PPG 17” (September 2002) sets out the policies that should be 
followed. PPG17 states that to ensure effective planning for open space, sport and 
recreation it is essential that the needs of local communities be known. In order to do 
this Local Authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future 
needs of their communities for open space and recreational facilities. The companion 
Guide to PPG17 sets out recommendations for criteria and methods for carrying out 
this assessment. The Greenspace 2004 research has used these recommendations 
in putting together its methodology. 
The long-term outcomes PPG 17 aims to deliver are: 
“Networks of accessible, high quality open spaces and sport and recreation facilities 
which meet the needs of residents and visitors, are fit for purpose and economically 
and environmentally sustainable” 
“An appropriate balance between new provision and the enhancement of existing 
provision” 
“Clarity and reasonable certainty for developers and land owners in relation to the 
requirements and expectations of local planning authorities in respect of provision.” 
Traffords Greenspace 2004 report goes some way towards achieving these 
outcomes for the population of Trafford. 
However as well as striving to achieve high quality greenspace for its residents it 
must also be recognised the Greenspace 2004 impacts on other Council priorities 
and should not be seen as a report which looks at improving greenspace alone. 
The assessment addresses many national, regional and local issues, policies and 
strategies. The assessment contributes to those priorities and objectives contained in 
the Councils Community Strategy, Cultural Strategy, Unitary Development Plan and 
Action for Nature and Sustainability Plan. 
The assessment also reflects national strategies such as Securing the Future – UK 
Sustainable Development Strategy (05), Our Towns and Cities (2002) and the 
Biodiversity Strategy for England (2002) 
The quality of greenspace impacts on education and lifelong learning, safety, social 
inclusion, equality and civic pride. By doing this assessment we are therefore 
addressing the priorities of The Community Strategy, Cultural Strategy and more 
general Regeneration targets as set out in The Government White Paper “Our Towns 
and Cities The Future 2002” 
8

---

Methodology 
This section examines the methods used in the Greenspace 2004 project to address 
the requirements of PPG 17 and Trafford’s greenspace strategy. Firstly, the research 
carried out in preparation for the primary data collection is discussed. Secondly, the 
quantity assessment is considered with particular reference to the mapping carried 
out on GIS. Thirdly, the three stages of consultation are examined in turn, paying 
special attention to the methods used to maximise the response rates. Finally, details 
of the quality assessment are given, including details of the criteria selection 
procedure.
The Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 Companion Guide provides detailed 
information about how a local assessment of needs and provision of open space, 
sport and recreation provision should be carried out. Whilst many of the key 
suggestions have been followed in this project, in accordance with the Guidance, a 
local approach to data collection has been employed to ensure that other standards 
(other than PPG 17) are also met. This report addresses steps 1-4 of the suggested 
local assessment processes in PPG 17; identifying local needs, auditing local 
provision, setting provision standards and applying provision standards.  
Despite the relatively short amount of time available to the carry out the work, the 
data produced is robust and viable due to the variety of different methods employed 
to address the objectives. These included: employing a research officer for 15 
months to work on the project, engaging local students, the use of the internet in 
consultation and a sound utilisation of existing networks and resources available in 
the Borough. 
Assessing previous research and existing standards 
Several months were spent examining existing research and standards (relating to 
greenspace in Trafford) in order that work would not be duplicated. Prior to the 
appointment of the Research Officer a Steering Group (led by Strategic Planning and 
Developments and Parks and Countryside) had been set up to explore what was 
needed from the project and who might contribute data or knowledge. The Steering 
Group comprised of a monthly review of progress and important information for the 
research officer. Detailed minutes were kept for each meeting with actions indicated. 
Numerous individual meetings were also held with colleagues from across the 
Council including the Schools Improvement Service, Children and Young People’s 
Service, Development Control, ICT, Parks & Countryside Service, Asset 
Management, Leisure and Sport and Area Services. 
Outside of the Council, several local authorities identified as being ‘best practice’ 
were consulted to investigate the best approach for the Greenspace 2004 project, 
including Newcastle upon Tyne, Southwark, Manchester City Council, Halton 
Borough Council, Richmond and Doncaster MBC. Of particular interest were the 
unsuccessful methods that had been tried and collected data that later turned out to 
be of little consequence.  
A report based on the experiences of other local authorities ‘Openspace case studies 
– examples of openspace methodologies from five local authorities’ was produced in 
October 2003 as a background document. This report concluded that there were 
important differences between all of the different approaches employed and that 
these reflected the local circumstances and the budgets of each local authority.  
9

---

Of particular interest was that four out of the five authorities had employed 
consultants to carry out the research and that it was common to only address the 
‘quantity’ aspect to the assessment, excluding the time-consuming and costly ‘value’ 
exercise.
Assessing quantity 
The guidance document accompanying PPG 17 suggests that using GIS provides a 
number of benefits to a greenspace assessment. Apart from addressing e-
government objectives, digitally mapped data is easier to share, easier to update and 
review and allows linkages with other data sources such as population and quality 
data. This method was fully embraced for Trafford’s greenspace assessment using 
MapInfo software. The research officer carried out all mapping.  
The GIS mapping produced for this project represents the most important output for 
two reasons. Firstly, the maps combine data from all the different parts of the project 
including the quality assessment and consultation. A site can simply be ‘clicked’ on to 
examine details of its size, location and quality. Secondly, the possibilities for 
interrogating data through MapInfo queries on a ‘demand-led’ basis (for example, for 
individual site projects) are enormous, and thus it would be senseless to try to cover 
each one in a report or map format unless they are needed. This report therefore 
provides a more broadbrush examination of the project findings. 
As little or no greenspace digital mapping had been previously undertaken, a good 
deal of time was spent identifying sites. Once a typology had been created (see 
Appendix A), a number of lists and other sources were explored to create the 
different ‘layers’ of mapping including: 
  Unitary Development Plan 
  GIMS (grounds maintenance) database 
  Red Rose Community Forest data 
  Groundwork Old Trafford Openspace Study 
  Woodland Trust – Accessible Woodland Study 
  Parks and Countryside Playspace  audit  
  Housing Stock Transfer Project 
  1992 School Playing Fields Mapping (Strategic Planning) 
  1992 Woodland Study (Parks and Countryside) 
As the consultation section progressed, the community identified a number of new 
sites and the quality assessor later discovered even more sites. Conversely, sites 
were removed from the database, as they had either been built on or were 
inaccessible to the public. 
Whilst many sites such as school playing fields, leisure centres and private bowling 
clubs were mapped for the Greenspace 2004, the following criteria were applied for 
any sites included in the accessibility standards: 
  Above 0.2 HA (as recommended in PPG17). 
  Publicly accessible (i.e. free to enter and public assess agreed by the 
landowner).
  Physically accessible by the public (for example, unlocked gates and visible 
entrances)
10

---

  Containing natural or semi-natural features (not, for example, shopping centres, 
village halls or town squares) 
In accordance with PPG17, the classification deliberately excludes SLOAP (space 
left over after planning) and other incidental areas of land, which are not intended for 
a specific use. Care was taken to ensure that the different layers did not overlap (for 
example playing fields within parks) to ensure that an area within a site was not 
counted twice.
Whilst PPG 17 recommends that the “minimum range of ‘core facilities’ for which 
local authorities should undertake local assessments is sports centres and 
community centres”, these were not included in this study due to the highly detailed 
commissioned assessment carried out for the Leisure Development Service by 
Kavanagh Page. The document “Outdoors Sports Facilities” (2000) should be viewed 
in conjunction with data from this study when examining specific sites. For a copy of 
this document contact the Strategic Planning and Developments team. 
Consultation
Before the consultation methodology was finalised a pilot consultation study of one 
greenspace area, Timperley Green, was carried out. 
This survey was undertaken using a model survey user package from Sport England. 
The 6-page questionnaire contained user-data questions relating to the reasons for 
visits and visitor details, but also more qualitative data using satisfaction level 
questions and an ‘importance’ rating to improve the measure of customer satisfaction 
in line with best value requirements. Two people (a planning student on work 
experience and an agency worker) undertook the survey, over a time scale of two 
weeks of the summer (21st July to 6th August 2003) on 13 days both at weekends, 
and during the week. A report of the pilot study is available separately from Strategic 
Planning and Developments.  
The pilot study was deemed to be very labour intensive and the available resources 
and time needed to roll out this approach across the Borough was not realistic. 
However the pilot study influenced the design of the final questionnaire used in the 
Borough wide survey. 
The consultation project was carefully planned to ensure that, as many different 
people in Trafford, would have an opportunity to contribute to the project. The 
research was branded as ‘Greenspace 2004’ and a logo was produced that would 
identify the project in promotional work. A particular emphasis was placed upon 
identifying non-users of greenspaces since they might provide the most useful 
information about how to improve existing sites. Three separate groups were 
identified:
 Community 
groups 
 
 Residents 
  Children and Young People 
A quantitative approach 
PPG 17 suggests several different methods for consultation that are commonly used 
by local authorities. The options were carefully considered and a quantitative 
approach was decided upon for four reasons. Firstly, questionnaire surveys would 
yield information from a wider number of people than would focus groups or semi-
11

---

structured interviews. Secondly, questionnaires would provide data about a greater 
number of sites. Thirdly, qualitative data would be more comparable between 
different areas of the Borough (for example, regeneration areas and non-
regeneration areas). Fourthly, the data could feasibly be collected and analysed in 
the time frame available. Focus groups, however, would be an excellent way to follow 
up site-specific issues. Names and telephone numbers have been collected 
throughout the project from consultees who are willing to take part in further 
research.
Community Groups 
A sample frame of community groups was compiled from lists supplied by 
Encompass (a Trafford-based community group database), Parks and Countryside 
Service (for Friends of Parks and other greenspace groups), Leisure Development 
(for clubs hiring pitches and other facilities) and VCAT (Trafford’s volunteer scheme). 
Six hundred questionnaires were sent out in total and followed up with a reminder 
letter.
Over half of the groups in the sample frame were not traditionally associated with 
greenspaces (such as sports or parks groups) and included such groups as: mother 
and toddler groups, scouts, morris dancers, brass bands, illness support networks, 
painters, playschemes and photographers.  
The questionnaire was short and (as with later questionnaires) was site-specific in its 
approach, asking detailed questions about the value of the site to the group, the 
extent of provision, quality of facilities, satisfaction with management and opportunity 
to provide guidance to the Council about specific site-related matters. A copy of the 
questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. A great deal was written in the open-
answer sections of the questionnaire providing invaluable detail.  
Residents
Following research carried out in Newcastle Upon Tyne, it was decided to publish the 
residents’ survey in Trafford Today, a free newspaper distributed to over 100,000 
households in Trafford. As with Newcastle, the questionnaire was short and featured 
a cash prize of £100. Unfortunately however, budgets would not stretch to a postage-
paid reply, which may have been detrimental to the overall response rate from this 
approach. The questionnaire was published in the April 2004 edition of the 
newspaper and yielded just 59 responses, most of whom were aged over 65. 
To increase the response rate the questionnaire was printed onto loose sheets 
covering 1 side of A4 and distributed via a number of different outlets. These 
included: community group meetings, park rangers, leisure centres, libraries, Trafford 
Direct offices, shops, health centres, youth clubs, greenspace events, Area Board 
meetings, Manchester, Salford and Trafford Groundwork, Mersey Valley Countryside 
Warden Service and throughout the Council by the Steering Group. Posters were 
also displayed in all of these places. All community groups (from the first survey) that 
had replied saying that they would like to be further involved with the project were 
sent a bundle of questionnaires for their groups to fill in, with a pre-paid envelope to 
return them.
The survey was also placed on a website: www.trafford.gov.uk/greenspace2004 that 
yielded almost a quarter of the overall responses. The website was advertised via 
posters in public buildings across the Borough, via the home page of the Trafford 
12

---

website, in emails sent to interested parties, community groups, meeting minutes and 
via the Trafford intranet. 
Again, the questionnaire was site-specific encouraging the respondent to think about 
their experiences of the greenspace that they visited most often A copy of the 
questionnaire can be found in Appendix C. An open question provided a space to say 
how the greenspace could be improved. For residents who did not use greenspaces, 
there was an opportunity to say why and if there were any sites that they would like 
to visit but were not able. Data about the respondents’ age, ethnicity and postcode 
was also collected for comparison. 
Children and Young People 
The consultation with children and young people was web-based for three reasons. 
Firstly, the questionnaire could be delivered through schools. Secondly, officers at 
Doncaster and Nottingham had suggested that their children’s surveys would have 
been more effectively completed if the children had first learned more about 
greenspaces and the challenges that are faced. Thirdly, as it is not viable to ask 
teachers to teach this, a web resource could provide information, games, pictures 
and photos to allow the children to engage with the topic before filling in the 
questionnaire.  
The website was designed to be colourful and fun, whilst meeting special 
accessibility standards set by the Council for websites (see Appendices D and E for
the questionnaires and screen-print of the site). Various greenspace games and 
interesting links created by the BBC, National Trust and CABE were found and 
permissions were granted to link to them from the website. Pages containing historic 
photographs of parks in Trafford were provided along with a history of the growth of 
parks in the Borough. A separate website for secondary schools was also created. 
The themes here fitted in closely to the ‘citizenship’ curriculum, and on 
recommendation from the Schools Improvement Service, both websites contained a 
page about what a local authority does and how the democratic process works.  
A number of steps were taken to ensure a high response rate. Firstly, ten schools 
were visited so that some ‘project champions’ would spread the word and legitimise 
the project. Secondly, a letter and colourful poster demonstrating the project was 
sent to each of the hundred headteachers in Trafford asking them to return a slip in 
the postage-paid envelope if they wished to take part. These schools were then sent 
a further poster showing screen prints of the different parts of the website and details 
on how to take part. Follow up phone calls were also made to schools in under-
represented areas (found by mapping postcodes) and information sent. A free tree 
(donated by the Red Rose Forest) was promised to every school who took part in the 
project as an incentive.  
A design competition was run alongside the survey and the winners were presented 
with certificates from the Mayor at a special Environment Awards Ceremony. The 
winners were selected by Alan Barber, Commissioner for CABE (Commission for 
Architecture and the Built Environment), an informal adviser and friend of the 
Greenspace 2004 project. Twenty-seven classes and school councils agreed to take 
part in the project, although it is not clear how many participated, as the Internet 
responses were anonymous. Schools without Internet access tended to print off the 
questionnaire (which was also provided as a pdf document on the website).  
13

---

Winners of the competition with the   
 
One of the winning competition  
Major of Trafford and Councillor Mrs Poole 
 
entries 
One of the winning competition entries 
 
 
Alan Barber from CABE  
        Selecting 
the 
winners 
Quality assessment 
Advice from other local authorities on the quality assessment was invaluable, not just 
for copies of their survey forms but for methodological tips. It is widely acknowledged 
that the data should be collected by an independent assessor rather than a full time 
officer at the Council for reasons of impartiality and objectivity. A recent first class 
graduate from the Masters in Planning course at Manchester University was 
employed to carry out the work over the summer of 2004 for 20 weeks with 
assistance from an independent consultant. Together with the Steering Group and 
assistance from several key officers, a robust assessment form was drawn up using 
criteria suggested by: 
 PPG 
17 
 Green 
Flag 
  BT Accessibility Standards 
  Cleanliness Best Value Indicator (BVPI) 
  DfEE Asset Management Plan Condition Assessment 
  Grounds Maintenance output specification for housing sites (January 2004) 
14

---

  Parks and Countryside service grounds maintenance output specification 
(December 2003)   
  Urban Design’s document ‘By design, urban design in the planning system: 
towards better practice’  
Members of the Steering Group and the greenspace assessor carried out a pilot 
survey using numerous categories from the list above to check the scoring system 
and ensure that the research could be replicated in the future. A comparison of 
different grades in three different sites by the group gave a good basis for refining the 
score sheet. The assessor later accompanied a greenspace consultant (who carries 
out grounds maintenance inspections on parks and open spaces within housing and 
school sites) for comprehensive checking of the scoring procedures. The categories 
used by the consultant were fully integrated into the Greenspace 2004 assessment to 
avoid re-inventing the wheel and to ensure that data collected in the future can be 
integrated into the database. Similarly, categories that had already been explored in 
separate greenspace quality assessments (for example, play areas) were excluded 
from the study.
In total 130 sites were visited. Each site took varying amounts of time to assess 
according to size and contents, for example, large empty sites commonly took less 
time to assess than small full sites. Consistency in approach was key to effective 
scoring, and difficulties experienced in comparing sites were overcome by a regular 
checking of previously scored sites before and after each assessment. Scores were 
also re-checked before being inputted into the database. 
It is important to note that the assessment of each site was taken at face value and 
that the history of a site (for example that it had received recent funding) was not 
taken into account. Parks and open spaces evolve over time due to changes or 
improvements to facilities, funding, habitat and natural changes or changes due to 
antisocial behaviour. The assessment therefore represents a snapshot of the quality 
of Trafford’s greenspaces.   
The maintenance policy was understood prior to the assessment and taken into 
account, for example, where hedgerows had been left purposefully uncut to protect 
nesting birds, or where fields had been allowed to grow to create a wildflower 
meadow.
Each site was coded to correspond with the GIS mapping and scores were entered 
into a purpose built database that can be easily explored and updated by officers in 
the future. As there are so many categories, several different total scores were 
assigned to each site to make comparison easier. These were split into access, 
cleanliness, facilities, biodiversity, natural and semi-natural features, landscaping, 
and design. These scores can be interrogated in detail using queries in MS Access 
or MapInfo. Such sub-scores are more appropriate because a single score tends to 
even out issues that should be highlighted. For example, a site scoring poorly on 
natural surveillance can score highly on biodiversity and vice-versa. 
15

---

Consultation Results at Borough Level 
Introduction
This section shows the results of the consultation exercises that examined the value 
of greenspaces to people in Trafford. Three separate user groups were identified for 
consultation, each needing a separate approach: community groups, residents of 
Trafford, and children and young people. 
The Community Group questionnaire 
There were 220 questionnaires returned from the 600 initially sent out, which is a 
good overall response rate. Views were asked to be expressed not on a personal 
level but on behalf of the group and the membership numbers of the group were 
requested. The total number of these memberships was 19,136.   
Residents questionnaire 
There were 784 responses received with 25% of these being received electronically. 
Children and Young Peoples questionnaire 
In total 27 school classes and School Councils agreed to take part in the consultation 
exercise and 414 responses were received, with over half of these being received 
electronically. A summary of the results from this survey is available on the website 
and in Appendix F.
A local resident completing the residents questionnaire 
Respondents to all three surveys were asked to answer the questionnaire based on 
the greenspace area they used most often. The information from these surveys has 
been collated on a ward and site level, but this section will examine the data at a 
Borough wide level to give a broad overview of the views of each group. The 
questions that were asked aimed to give insight into which greenspaces are used, 
16

---

how often and for what activities. Views on satisfaction were also gathered along with 
suggestions on how to improve greenspaces. 
Although some of the information from the different surveys is not directly 
comparable, similar questions have been grouped together: and the results laid out 
under the following headings: - 
  About the respondents.  
  Which greenspaces are used? 
  How often are these greenspaces used?  
  Why Traffords greenspaces are not used.  
  Issues affecting the use of Trafford Greenspace. 
  The activities that greenspace is used for. 
  How satisfied people are with greenspace. 
  Is there enough greenspace?  
  Ideas for improvement. 
For each of the above sections the results are laid out for the three different 
questionnaires: -  
 Group 
 Residents 
  Children and young people 
About the respondents 
To ensure that as many people from varying age groups and backgrounds could be 
involved in the consultation, a number of different methods were employed (see 
methodology section). As a result a good range of ages has been covered. Clearly, 
the resident’s survey did not effectively reach children and young people in Trafford. 
This was compensated by the consultation carried out in conjunction with schools, 
however, the response from young people over the age of 13-14 was limited, and the 
number of Secondary Schools wanting to take part was only 4 compared to 11 
Primary Schools. 
Table 1: Age of respondents to the Residents’ survey 
Residents
Percentage of 
Age
respondents
Under 14 
3.2 
15-20 3.8 
21-30 4.5 
31-40 11.4 
41-50 8.6 
51-60 9.9 
Over 65 
8.7 
Unanswered 50.2 
17

---

Table 2: Age of respondents to the Children’s and Young People’s survey 
Age Percentage 
of 
respondents
4-5 0.2 
6-7 23.1 
8-9 25.6 
10-11 12.7 
11-12 32.4 
13-14 5.4 
15-16 0.5 
17-18 0.2 
The residents’ survey yielded many more responses from women than from men and 
many more white people than other ethnic groups (see Table 3). Slightly more boys 
than girls answered the children and young people’s survey. 
Table 3: Gender and ethnicity of respondents to the Residents’ survey 
 Male 
Female 
Total 
White (British, Irish, European) 
37.12% 
58.29% 
95.42% 
Black or Black British 
0.47% 
0.95% 
1.42% 
Mixed 0.16% 
0.47% 
0.63% 
Asian or Asian British 
0.95% 
1.11% 
2.05% 
Chinese 0.00% 
0.16% 
0.16% 
Other 0.16% 
0.16% 
0.32% 
 38.86% 
61.14% 
100.00% 
Table 4: Gender and ethnicity of respondents to the Young people’s survey 
 Male 
Female 
Total
Asian or Asian British 
1.46% 
1.75% 
3.21% 
Mixed 4.37% 
2.04% 
6.41% 
Chinese 0.87% 
0.29% 
1.17% 
Black or Black British 
2.04% 
0.87% 
2.92% 
White (British, Irish, European) 
48.69% 
37.61% 
86.30% 
Total 57.43% 
42.57% 
100.00% 
In order to find out the importance of greenspace activities to young people, they 
were asked ‘what activities do you do most often?’ The respondents could choose up 
to three activities. When calculated, three of the top five activities were greenspace 
related, which demonstrates that young people are keen to be outside as well as 
watching TV and playing computer games. 
Table 5: Activities engaged in most often by Young people 
Activity 
Number of times 
activity listed 
Watch TV 
406 
Play computer games 
220 
Hang out with friends outside 
132 
Go to the park 
129 
Play sports 
126 
18

---

Which greenspaces are used? 
Over 90% of respondents to the residents’ survey were greenspace users, compared 
to 95% of children and young people.  Table 6 below shows the usage of greenspace 
by respondents to the Community Groups’ survey. Significantly, just less than half of 
the groups not traditionally associated with greenspaces (as defined in the 
methodology) made use of greenspace as part of their group’s activities. 
Table 6: Traditional greenspace and non traditional greenspace groups and their usage 
 
Does your group use greenspace? 
Traditional
‘greenspace’ group?
No Yes 
Total 
No 71 
51 
122 
Yes 8 
88 
96 
Total 79 
139 
218 
Graph 1 shows the types of greenspaces used by community groups. Not 
surprisingly perhaps, outdoor sports faciltites such as recreation grounds were most 
used, but public parks were also popular, with some groups regularly visiting several 
different parks. This was particularly true for children and youth groups. 
Graph 1: Greenspaces visited by community groups 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Number of groups
30
20
10
0
Outdoor sports
Public Parks
Playgrounds
Countryside
Green
Woodlands
Allotments
Openspace in
Parks 2
facs
routeways
housing areas
Types of greenspaces used
(N.B. Parks 2 = 2nd Park listed as being used.) 
How often are these greenspaces used? 
Groups
As previously mentioned, the sites most frequently visited by groups were outdoor 
sports facilities, mainly for organised sports such as football. This was true for non-
traditional groups too such as scouts and local community clubs as well as the sports 
19

---

teams. The high usage of playgrounds is mainly by nurseries and mother and toddler 
groups.
Table 7: Groups’ frequency of usage of different types of greenspace 
Type of greenspace 
Mode usage 
Playgrounds 
More than once a week 
Outdoor sports facilities 
More than once a week 
Allotments 
More than once a week 
Open space in housing areas 
More than once a week 
Public parks 
Once or twice a year 
Woodlands 
Once or twice a year 
Green corridors 
Once or twice a year 
Countryside 
Once or twice a year 
Residents
The most popular frequency of usage for respondents to the residents’ questionnaire 
was 2-4 times a week (see Table 10). This may be because they were dog walkers, 
but there is evidence to suggest that non-dog owners are frequent users of 
greenspaces, particularly those with young children or who use greenspace for 
exercise. More over, 68% of respondents to the residents’ survey visited 
greenspaces all year round, whilst only 31.8% visited mainly in the summer. 
Table 8: Residents’ frequency of usage 
Frequency of use 
Valid Percentage of 
respondents
Every day 
19.5 
2-4 times a week 
28.8 
Once a week 
18.8 
2-3 times a month 
18.2 
Once a month 
10.7 
Once or twice a year 
6.0 
Children and young people 
Children’s play facilities at Stamford Park 
20

---

The respondents to the children and young people’s survey reported that they most 
commonly used greenspace at weekends, but everyday and every week were also 
popular responses. This shows more children use greenspace regularly than 
occasionally. When asked who they visited sites with 75% of respondents said they 
visited sites with friends or parents. This is also demonstrated in the resident’s survey 
where the results show a high use of playgrounds. 
Graph 2: Children and Young people’s frequency of greenspace usage 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Number of respondents
30
20
10
0
At weekends
Every week
Sometimes after
Just in the
Every day
After
Every month
When skiving
school
summer
school/college
from school
Frequency of use
Why Traffords greenspaces are not used and  
Issues affecting the use of Trafford Greenspace 
Groups
Groups were asked what issues they had with using Traffords greenspaces and why 
they did not use them. The table below lists the reasons and the number of times 
they were mentioned. 
Table 9: Reasons why greenspace is not used 
Reason for not going to a specific 
Number of times 
site
reasons listed 
Dogs fouling  
64
Greenspace not relevant to the group  55
Fear of crime 
52 
Fear of other people there 
40 
Poor wheelchair access 
37 
 
 
     
Residents
Only 7.9% of resident respondents said they did not use greenspace in Trafford. 
21

---

Residents who said they did not use greenspaces in Trafford were asked why. The 
residents’ survey showed the most common answer for not going to greenspace was 
that there are better greenspaces elsewhere.
These residents were also asked if there was any greenspace that they could not go 
to and why. This was an open answer question there was no menu to choose from. 
Only 6.6% of respondents said there was greenspace that they could not use. 
The most common reasons for not going were, difficult to get to, fear of crime and 
dog fouling. The later two of these reasons were also in the top three reasons for 
groups not using greenspaces. Several respondents listed more than one reason.  
Table 10: Reasons why people can’t go to greenspaces. Open answer question 
Reason for not going to a specific site  Number of times 
reasons listed 
Difficult to get to 
39 
Fear of crime 
30 
Dogs fouling 
23 
Nothing worth going for 
14 
Fear of other people there 
14 
Uneven paths 
10 
Better greenspaces elsewhere 
9 
Poor wheelchair access 
8 
Lack of facilities 
3 
Cleanliness e.g. broken glass 
2 
poor lighting 
2 
Children and Young People 
On the children’s survey the question was asked slightly differently in that they were 
asked what put them off using greenpace rather than why they didn’t use it. A menu 
of reasons was listed and many respondents ticked more than one of these. 
Respondents said that other kids were the main reason for putting them off using 
greenspace. Many other reasons were also voiced showing that the reason may vary 
between sites or could be affected by the difference in age and experience of the 
young people questioned. 
Children were also asked if their being on sites bothered other users of greenspace, 
62% thought other users were not bothered and 30% thought they liked them being 
there. This shows that young people do not see themselves as a threat to other 
users.
Table 11: Reasons why people are put off using greenspaces 
What puts you off going to 
Number of times 
greenspaces 
reasons listed 
Other kids 
190 
Dodgy adults 
127 
Vandalism 98 
Damaged equipment 
93 
Nothing to do 
67 
Fear of crime 
66 
Drugs 65 
22

---

The activities that greenspace is used for 
Groups
Groups said playing sport was their most popular use of greenpace particularly for 
football. As the graph below shows groups use greenspace for a wide variety of other 
uses too. Greenspaces are therefore suitable for many different interest groups. 
Graph 3: Activities groups use greenspace for 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Number of times activities selected
20
10
0
s
rts
ay
g
ts
g
Pl
in
ing
nt
lk
or
out
sic)
her
den
ng
Eve
owlin
Ot
al spo
Wa
al sp
B
oarding
m
ngi
ppreciation
Gar
eb
, art, mu
For
 A
 ha
kat
re
Inform
ma
S
ing /
atu
ra
N
Relax
rts (d
A
Activities 
Residents
The questionnaire asked residents what activities they liked to do on greenspace. 
The most popular activity selected was walking. More than one activity was often 
chosen. The graph below shows all the activities chosen from the list. Twenty-seven 
other activities were listed under the “other” category and these are listed in 
Appendix G. This shows that residents also use greenspaces for a wide variety of 
uses.
Bowling at Walton Park
23

---

Graph 4: Activities residents use greenspace for 
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Number of times activities selected
50
0
Walk
Relax
Picnic
Use playground
Walk dog
Play sport
Hang out with
Skate
friends
Activities
Children and Young People 
The table shows the most popular use of greenspace by children is to play sport with 
playgrounds, riding a bike and meeting friends also popular. Interestingly walking is 
not so popular amongst children.
Table 12: Most popular use of greenspace by children 
 Overall 
frequency
Play sports 
175 
Playground 139 
Ride bike 
127 
Meet friends 
124 
B3 (Blades, Boards and BMXs) event at Seymour Park 
24

---

How satisfied people are with greenspace 
Results across the different questionnaires can be directly compared in terms of 
everyone’s satisfaction with greenspace. Both residents and children agreed 
greenspace was easy to get to and get around. The issue people seem most 
dissatisfied with is cleanliness where only 52.4% of young people and 67.9% of 
residents were satisfied.  
 
          
Graph 5: Residents and children’s satisfaction scores for greenspaces 
100
90
80
70
60
Young people
50
Residents 
40
30
20
 of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing
%
10
0
Looks good
Is Popular
Is Fun
Is clean
Is safe
Is easy to get to
Is easy to get
around
Satisfaction categories
Groups
Groups were asked specific questions about their satisfaction with particular facilities. 
Generally most facilities only satisfied around 50% of respondents .The facility 
people were most satisfied with, at 59.3%, was changing rooms. The main issue was 
with litter and dog fouling, with only 28% and 35.5% satisfied.  
A question was put in to see how aware groups were of wider greenspace issues. 
The majority of people were correctly aware that it is TMBC who are responsible for 
maintenance. However most groups were unaware that Parkwatch exists. 
Is there enough greenspace?
Groups were asked how far they travelled to the greenspaces they used. These were 
mostly to parks, allotments and open space in housing areas. 64% travel less than a 
mile and 21.3% travel between 1 and 2 miles. This shows how locally people use 
greenspace and how the most often used greenspace is very close to where people 
live.
Views from residents and children and young people were similar as to whether 
Trafford has enough greenspace. 66% thought there was enough and 33% thought 
25

---

there was not enough. Groups were asked more specifically as to whether there was 
enough of different types of greenspace. Again very few thought there was too much 
of any of the categories of greenspace. The majority of people felt there were enough 
parks but not enough open space in housing areas. Opinions on playgrounds were 
split evenly between not enough, just right and don’t know. Significantly, 30% of the 
groups felt there were not enough outdoor sports facilities. This reflects the high 
number of respondents from sports groups.   
Ideas for improvement 
Groups
Groups were asked as an open question what suggestions they had to improve 
greenspace. The table below groups the most common suggestions by theme. 
Unfortunately some groups did not answer the question and there were also a high 
number of individual suggestions that could not be grouped. 
Table 13: Group suggestions for improvements to greenspace 
What suggestion would your group make  Number of times 
to improve greenspace? 
suggestion made 
No dog fouling/ more dog toilets 
12 
More activities for youths 
9 
Improvements to maintenance 
8 
Toilets 6 
Park keeper or groundsman 
6 
lights 5 
More changing facilities 
4 
Groups identified dog fouling as their biggest major issue. 
Residents
Table 14: Residents suggestions for improvements to greenspace 
How could your most used greenspace 
Number of times 
be improved? (open answer question) 
suggestion made 
Improve cleanliness 
80 
Dog zones 
78 
Improved play facilities 
57 
Better paths 
50 
Tightened security 
50 
Children and young people 
Table 15: Children and young peoples suggestions for improvements to greenspace 
What would make your greenspace 
Number of times 
better?
suggestion made 
More sports areas 
154 
Toilets 151 
Bike trails/ramps 
138 
No dog fouling 
110 
Skate park 
106 
26

---

In looking at ideas for improvement from both residents and children it is interesting 
to see there are also many similarities. Dog fouling, litter and cleanliness are popular 
issues to improve. However children listed improved sports areas and toilets as their 
most popular improvement. Play facilities and better paths were also mentioned by 
residents and bike ramps and skate parks by children. Improvements to security 
were mentioned by all. 
Getting involved 
Community Groups 
Groups were asked about their involvement in green space.50% of the respondents 
said they were involved in greenspace at present and 66% would like to be in the 
future.
Picnic in Halecroft Park 
27

---

Quality Assessment Results at Borough Level 
Introduction
This section shows the results of the quality assessment of greenspaces in Trafford. 
The assessment of the quality of the existing open spaces and recreation facilities 
relates only to those sites that are managed by the local authority. In total 130 sites 
were assessed during the summer of 2004. The assessment was undertaken using a 
clear set of criteria and a comprehensive scoring system. The aim of the assessment 
was to identify the sites considered to be good to excellent and those requiring 
improvement. 
The criteria used on the survey form was determined by researching previous 
examples used for similar studies and from information contained within government 
guidance as described in the methodology. The survey information is stored on an 
individual site basis and at ward level, and is available in a separate database. 
Appendix H contains definitions used against the scoring criteria and Appendix I 
contains a copy of the survey form.  
This section gives a broad overview of the standard of greenspaces in terms of 
access, cleanliness, facilities natural and semi-natural habitat, biodiversity and 
design. The scoring system is colour coded on a traffic light system, green being 
good to excellent, amber needing improvement and red for unsatisfactory.  
Access
The assessment of access considers whether the site is close to public transport, the 
quality and provision of car parking, signage, entrances to the site, surface condition, 
and gradients of footpaths in and around the site.
Graph 6: Summary of the quality of access to greenspaces 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of greenspaces
10
0
RED
AMBER
GREEN
Scoring system
Of the sites surveyed, 52% were considered good in terms of the quality of the 
access criteria.  
28

---

Cleanliness
The assessment of cleanliness used the following criteria to score the sites: presence 
of vandalism, graffiti, dog fouling, flying tipping, litter, and provision of litter and dog 
bins.
Cleanliness had the highest number of unsatisfactory scores of all categories, with 
56% of the sites surveyed being below the acceptable standard for cleanliness.  
Graph 7: Summary of cleanliness of sites 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of greenspaces
10
0
RED
AMBER
GREEN
Scoring system
Facilities
In considering the quality of facilities within the Borough the following criteria have 
been used: seating, lighting, toilets, the condition of buildings, monuments, 
structures, sports pitches, bowling greens, tennis courts, and other sporting facilities.  
53% of the sites were considered to have poor quality facilities. 
Graph 8: Summary of quality of facilities of sites 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of greenspaces
10
0
RED
AMBER
GREEN
Scoring System
29

---

Natural and Semi Natural 
In considering the natural and semi natural quality of the site facilities within the 
Borough the following criteria have been used: the quality of the ornamental, amenity 
grass areas, shrub, roses and ornamental beds, hedges, trees and water features.  
Of the sites surveyed 46% were considered to be of good quality in terms of the 
natural and semi natural criteria.  
Graph 9: Summary of the quality of the natural and semi natural features 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of greenspaces
10
0
RED
AMBER
GREEN
Scoring system
 Biodiversity 
The quality assessment ‘in terms of biodiversity’ was measured against the following 
habitats: grass areas, hedges, trees and water features. In addition the use of native 
species; presence of bat and bird boxes were further indicators contributing to rich 
biodiversity. These figures were collated to give an overall biodiversity score.  
47% of the sites surveyed were considered to have a good quality of biodiversity.
Trafford Ecology Park
30

---

 
         
Graph 10: Summary of the quality of the biodiversity of the sites within the Borough 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of greenspaces
10
0
RED
AMBER
GREEN
Scoring System
Design
In consideration of the quality of the design the following criteria were assessed: 
natural surveillance, hard landscaping, character, continuity and enclosure, legibility, 
diversity, evidence of use and appropriateness of the facilities for the size of the site. 
All of these criteria were assessed against infrastructure and not from a maintenance 
or customer point of view.
Graph 11: The quality of the quality of the design of sites within the Borough 
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of greenspaces
10
0
RED
AMBER
GREEN
Scoring System
In terms of the quality of the design the scoring of sites is fairly evenly distributed. 
27% of the sites are considered good quality, and a further 27% considered 
satisfactory but in need of some improvement. 
31

---

Greenspaces at Ward Level 
Introduction
The results of the research have been collated on a ward basis to give a more local 
insight into the quantity, type and issues surrounding greenspace. The distribution of 
greenspace in Trafford varies greatly as do the social and economic issues affecting 
particular areas. By displaying the information at ward level a more accurate picture 
of the local area can be seen. However, it does have its limitations. These should be 
born in mind when looking particularly at quantity of greenspace. 
Information at ward level 
Each ward profile sets out the name, size, type and quality score of each greenspace 
within its boundaries. This gives an insight into the variety of greenspace and types 
of facility that are available to its local population. General characteristics of the ward 
are also set out including ward area, population and trends in that population around 
density and percentage of the population under 16. The sufficiency rating of each 
greenspace and the satisfaction ratings from the consultation exercise are also 
included.
Standards
There are many standards that are relative to the different categories of greenspace 
that the data can be compared to. However, for this report a standard has been 
chosen which covers general greenspace and looks specifically at quantity. This has 
been used as it can give a general overview of greenspace and a base from which to 
carryout further work. Other standards can be explored through future interrogation of 
the data. 
The sufficiency rating has been calculated using English Natures national standard 
for Locally Accessible Natural Greenspace (LANGsp). This standard recommends 
that an acceptable quantity of greenspace for a population of 1000 is 2 hectares. 
Therefore by using the research data and population numbers a figure can be 
calculated in terms of whether a particular ward meets this standard and can be 
deemed sufficient in greenspace. In order to calculate this figure all the publicly 
accessible greenspace areas including parks, woodlands, recreation grounds, and 
other open space were added together.  
School playing fields were not included, as generally they are not publicly accessible. 
Green corridors were also absent from the calculation as they span many ward 
boundaries and so were too difficult to split on a ward basis. 
Quality Scores 
The quality scores are shown for each site surveyed in the ward. Not all sites have 
scores as time only allowed for a representative sample to be surveyed. The score is 
the average for the site made up of the individual category scores explained in the 
quality chapter. Scores under 7.5 represent sites that are unsatisfactory in quality 
terms and are colour coded red. Sites scoring between 7.5 and 8 are in need of 
32

---

improvement and are coloured amber. Sites scoring over 8 are considered to be 
good –excellent and are colour coded green. 
Limitations
Ward area boundaries are artificial in terms of greenspace. Some sites span two 
Wards and others are adjacent to ward boundaries and so accessible to residents in 
two or more wards even though they are only counted in terms of sufficiency in one. 
Population density figures can be misleading in some wards where part of the ward is 
densely populated and the other part is made up of open land. In these wards where 
the population is concentrated into one area and other whole parts of the ward are 
made up of rural inaccessible open land or golf courses sufficiency of greenspace 
should not be looked at in isolation. The distribution of the greenspace and its 
distance from the residential areas should also be taken into account. 
The quality score is not analysed in this section, as the average score is only an 
indication of the sites’ quality. Further analysis has been done in the quality chapter 
by categories including access, cleanliness, facilities and biodiversity. 
In terms of the satisfaction ratings, these were not looked at on a Ward level.  
Insufficient questionnaires were returned for some wards making it invalid to draw 
conclusions from these and compare them to the Borough average ratings. In some 
instances the entire questionnaire returns in some wards were for one site only 
meaning they were not representative of the whole ward. Therefore more in-depth 
interrogation of the consultation database is needed to draw specific results for a site.  
Ward level Results for the Borough 
All the greenspace sites mapped on the GIS can be found in Appendix J. The sites 
are split into the categories recommended in PPG 17. There are 346 sites split into 9 
categories as follows: 
37 Parks 
21 Recreation Grounds 
50 Amenity greenspaces 
85 Play spaces 
69 School playing fields 
41 Woodlands 
32 Allotments 
6 Green corridors 
5 Cemeteries 
In order to see the differences in population density, distribution of under sixteen year 
olds and greenspace sufficiency, the thematic maps have been produced from the 
research data to give a general insight into differences between wards. 
Map 1 Population Density per Ward. This shows the red colour indicating the 
densest ward as Clifford. Whilst the dark blue colour shows Gorse Hill, Bucklow St 
Martins, Bowden and Hale Barns to be the least dense. 
Map 2 Percentage of Ward population under sixteen. This also shows Clifford as 
red, having a high percentage of under sixteen year olds. However in contrast to 
population density Bowdon and Bucklow St Martins are also high.
33

---

By using this information all together and comparing these results to the indices of 
deprivation that have also been mapped on a Ward area basis in Trafford 
correlations in the data could be looked at.  
Map 1: Population density per Ward
34

---

Map 2: Percentage of Ward population under sixteen year olds 
35

---

Wards Ranked in order of Sufficiency 
Using the Langsp standard Wards were ranked in order of sufficiency. Ashton Upon 
Mersey is the most deficient Ward and Bowdon the most sufficient. All Wards in blue 
are deficient and all in red sufficient. A more detailed breakdown of the sufficiency 
and deficiency is shown on the thematic Map 3. 
Wards 
Sufficiency rating(1=most deficient) 
Ashton Upon Mersey 
1
Timperley
2
Sale Moor
3
Clifford
4
Stretford
5
Hale Central 
6
Broadheath
7
Brooklands
8
Gorse Hill
9
Altrincham
10
Hale Barns 
11
St Mary's 
12
Flixton
13
Davyhulme East  
14
Village
15
Davyhulme West  
16
Urmston
17
Bucklow St Martins 
18
Longford
19
Priory
20
Bowdon
21
36

---

Map 3: Wards sufficient or deficient in accessible greenspace 
The numbers represent hectares of land under or above the ideal standard, which is 
zero.
37

---

Individual Ward Profiles 
Walkden Gardens 
Stamford Park 
38

---

Altrincham
Description:
Altrincham is a densely populated Ward with high land values and strong demand for 
development. The Ward is bounded by the natural beauty of Bowdon to the south 
and the light industry of Broadheath to the north. Altrincham is a multifunctional 
Ward, providing a vibrant town centre, housing, and a transport interchange and well 
used greenspaces. 
Commentary on results:
Altrincham has five significant areas of greenspace. Its largest site, John Leigh Park, 
contains children’s play areas, tennis courts, a pet’s corner and a bowling green. 
There are formal sports facilities within the Ward, including provision for football and 
a municipal golf course. Other facilities include King George V pool, an historic pool 
adjacent to Altrincham golf course. There are six play areas, three of these play 
areas are identified as local equipped areas for play (LEAP). The Ward is densely 
populated and it is slightly deficient in accessible greenspace (0.79 hectares) using 
the LANGsp standard.  
Characteristics, facts and figures
Population
8731
Area of Ward (hectares) 
301.31
Density of population (people per hectare) 
29
Density of population in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
% of population under 16 
20.2
(national average) 
% of population under 16 
17
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
39

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality 
Score
John Leigh Park 
P2Alt 
6.14 
Neighbourhood 
8.54
Park
Hendam Drive Play Area 
P17Alt 
0.74 
Other open space 
7.87 
Oldfield Brow 
P27Alt 
2.44 
Recreation Ground 
8.01 
Navigation Road Recreation 
P5Alt 4.34  Neighbourhood 
7.79
Ground 
Park
King George V Pool 
P29Alt 
2.73 
Other open space 
7.81 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace (LANGsp) 
Total Area of LANGsp 
16.38
Recomended Area of LANGsp 
17.46
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient (2nd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
10/21
John Leigh Park 
40

---

Ashton Upon Mersey 
Description:
Ashton Upon Mersey, is a densely populated Ward in the west of the Sale area. 
There are areas of open space to the north, which are traversed by the River Mersey. 
The majority of the land is under private ownership and includes a private golf 
course, sewage works, private sports facilities and an allotment site.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward has one park, Ashton Park. This contains a play area, provision for 
basketball, bowls and football. There are no other publicly accessible areas within the 
Ward, but paths that run through and adjacent to the private sites and links to the 
Trans Pennine Trail. The Ward has an above average population density and a high 
percentage of the population is under 16. Therefore the amount of land required to 
meet the LANGsp standard is higher than the available greenspace within the Ward, 
it is the most deficient Ward in the Borough. There is currently a 14.88 hectare 
shortfall in available accessible natural greenspace.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9696
Area of Ward (hectares) 
230.3
Density of population (people per hectare) 
42
Density of population in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
% of population under 16(national 
20.2
average) 
% of population under 16 
21.2
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace (LANGsp) 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Ashton Park 
P52Ash 
4.51 
Neighbourhood 
7.88
Park
41

---

Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
4.51 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.39 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient (1st Quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
1/21
Playground at Ashton on Mersey Park 
42

---

Bowdon
Description:
Bowdon is the largest Ward in Trafford and is characterised by open farmland and a 
predominantly rural nature, to the southern boundary the River Bollin forms the 
Borough boundary with Cheshire. The majority of the land is owned and managed by 
the National Trust as part of the Dunham Massey estate. Within the area there are 
small historical villages including Dunham and Warburton and the Borough’s 
crematorium and cemetery. The Brigewater Canal runs through the area, forming 
part of the Cheshire Ring Canal Walk. In addition the Trans Pennine Trail runs 
through the Ward and there are local paths forming part of the Bollin Valley Way 
within the area.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward contains many woodland areas, including areas within Dunham Park. 
There are six other areas of open space within the urban area, including two parks 
and four local play areas and other areas of open space used for informal activities. 
Other facilities within the area include bowling greens, artificial turf pitches at a 
private hockey and cricket club and a private golf course. The largest area of open 
space is Dunham Park and Dunham Massey Hall, which contains a moat, lake and 
gardens. The rural character and low population density contribute to the Ward’s 
status as the most sufficient Ward in the Borough for greenspace, containing 145.65 
hectares above the standard.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9634
Area of Ward (hectares) 
2342.73 
Density of population (people per hectare) 
4
Density of population in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
21.8
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
43

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Denzell Gardens 
P31Bow 
3.83 
Community Park  8.19 
Kings Acre 
P24Bow 
0.39 
Other open 
8.24
space 
Grange Road Play 
P22Bow 0.30 
Other 
open  8.15
Area
space 
Springbank 
P13Bow 1.24 
Community 
Park 
7.69 
Recreation Ground 
Bowdon Recreation 
P12Bow 1.10 
Recreation  7.91
Ground 
Ground 
Minster Drive 
P23Bow 
0.30 
Other open 
8.27
space 
Dunham Park 
P97Bow 
117.82 
Country Park 
N/A
The Devisdale 
P110Bow 
6.16 
Other open 
8.19
space 
Oakwood Lane 
P115Bow 
0.38 
Other open 
N/A
space 
Moss Wood 
W1Bow 
2.19 
Woodland 
8.1 
Bluebell Wood 
W8Bow 
3.89 
Woodland 
6.83 
Convent Wood 
W11Bow 
0.82 
Woodland 
7.63 
Wood near 
W15Bow 2.52 
Woodland 
7.86 
Broadheath 
Dark Lane Wood 
W27Buc 
2.49 
Woodland 
7.43 
Dunham Hall 1 
W29Bow 
14.08 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham Massey 
W30Bow 6.10 
Woodland 
N/A 
Lodge Wood 
Dunham New Park 1 
W31Bow 
3.78 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham New Park 3 
W32Bow 
3.56 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham New Park 2 
W33Bow 
3.17 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham Park 1 
W34Bow 
3.02 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham New Park 4 
W35Bow 
2.75 
Woodland 
N/A 
Back Lane Wood 
W36Bow 
2.68 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham Hall 2 
W37Bow 
2.64 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham New Park 5 
W38Bow 
2.52 
Woodland 
N/A 
Dunham Park 2 
W40Bow 
2.04 
Woodland 
N/A 
44

---

Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace (LANGsp) 
Total Area of LANGsp 
164.91 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.26 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Sufficient (3rd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
21/21
Dunham Park 
45

---

Broadheath
Description:
Broadheath has a mix of land uses to the south industrial and retail areas, to the 
north a new housing development known as Stamford Brook which includes 
provision for a substantial amount of public space. To the west it has agricultural 
areas with views across to Warburton and Dunham and to the south the Bridgewater 
Canal and the east residential areas of Timperley.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward has five main areas of greenspace of varying size, including three 
community parks. The Ward has an above average percentage of under 16 year olds 
and the area is well served by four evenly distributed play areas, three of which are 
up to LEAP standard. Other facilities include a pitch and putt facility at Woodheys 
Park and football pitches. The Ward is slightly deficient in greenspace by 1.59 
hectares. Within the Unitary Development Plan a site has been identified as a 
proposed country park (the former Altrincham Sewage Works) which could address 
the deficiency.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
11457 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
415.66
Density of population (people per hectare) 
28
Density of population in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
22.2
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
46

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Quality Score 
Function 
Woodheys Park 
P54Brd 
4.83 
Neighbourhood 
8.76
Park
Newton Park  
P8Brd 
2.04 
Community Park  7.47
De Quincey 
P9Brd 3.17  Community 
Park 
7.94 
Park
Woodstock Park 
P10Brd 
1.36 
Community Park  8.05 
Salisbury Fields 
P95Brd 
9.92 
Recreation 
7.26
Ground 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
21.32 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
22.91HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient ( 2nd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
7/21
Playground at Woodheys “Pinky” Park  
47

---

Brooklands
Description:
Brooklands is a small and densely populated Ward within the Sale area. It is 
bounded by the A56 to the west, to the south by Baguley brook, and to the north and 
east residential areas. The Bridgewater canal runs through the western part of the 
Ward.
Commentary on results:
The Ward has six greenspace areas including a park, two large recreation grounds 
and small woodland. Facilities contained in these areas include four play areas, 
which are currently not up to LEAP standard, a leisure centre, rowing club, tennis and 
bowls facilities and football pitches.  The Ward has a high number of residents and is 
slightly deficient in greenspace by 1.18 hectares. There are areas of open space 
adjacent or within close proximity to the Ward boundaries in particular to the south 
Baguley Brook and Wythenshawe Park in Manchester.   
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9759
Area of Ward (hectares) 
222.29
Density of population (people per hectare) 
44
Density of population in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
% of population under 16(national average) 
20.2
% of population under 16(in ward) 
19
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
48

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Sylvan Avenue 
P65Brk 
3.11 
Recreation 
7.78
Ground 
Walton Park 
P53Brk 
4.41 
Neighbourhood 
7.86
Park
Kirklands Play 
P63Brk 0.28 
Other 
open 
7.63
Area
space 
Moor Nook Park 
P55Brk 
8.18 
Community Park  7.32
Dalebrook Road 
P101Brk 
2.09 
Other open 
7.67
space 
Granary Wood 
W13Brk 
0.28 
Woodland 
8.16
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
18.35 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.52 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient (2nd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
8/21
Walton Park Railway 
49

---

Bucklow St Martins 
Description:
Bucklow-St Martins is the second largest Ward in the Borough and, like its southern 
neighbour Bowdon, is characterised by large areas of agricultural green belt land 
including Carrington Moss. Within the Ward is a large industrial complex area at 
Carrington. Within the south east part of the Ward are the villages of Carrington and 
Partington and the eastern areas the residential area of Sale. The northern boundary 
of the site is bounded by the River Mersey. The Ward as a whole is in the 15-20% 
most deprived areas in the country.  
Commentary on results:
There are sixteen areas of greenspace including woodland, open space and parks. 
The Ward has seven play areas, five of which are in Partington and one of which is 
up to LEAP standard. The remaining two play areas are in Sale West. Other facilities 
in the area include Dainwell Woods, within which the Trans Pennine Trail linear 
recreational route passes, football pitches, a pitch and putt golf course, tennis, 
bowling and cricket facilities and multi use games areas. The Ward is very sufficient 
in greenspace, containing 45.83 hectares above the standard. However, this includes 
a large amount of woodland within the rural area that is not easily accessible to 
Partington residents, who make up the majority of the Ward’s population. With an 
above average level of under sixteen year olds, the many small sites and recreation 
grounds do not offer the variety of facilities that other parts of the Borough offer.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10277 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
1304.91 
Density of population (people per hectare) 
8
Density of population in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
23
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
50

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Priority 
Brick Wood 
W2Buc 
1.43 
Woodland 
7.49 
Urmston 
W17Buc 2.47 
Woodland 
 
7.0 
Meadows 3 
Urmston 
W19Buc 5.58 
Woodland 
 
8.03 
Meadows 5 
Dainwell Wood 
W23Buc 39.64 
Woodland 
8.0 
(part of) 
Oak Road 
W41Buc 2.23 
Woodland 
6.80 
Woods 
Cross Lane 
P37Buc 7.98 
Town 
Park 
7.25 
Park
Moss View 
P49Buc 1.93 
Recreation 
5.88
Playing Field 
Ground 
Davis Road Play  P44Buc 0.10 
Other 
open 
7.80
Area
space 
Wood Lane 
P109Buc 
0.98 
Other open 
5.36
space 
Central Road 
P50Buc 
0.07 
Other open 
8.09
space 
Manchester 
P42Buc 1.49 
Other 
open 
5.65
Road 
space 
Ackers Lane 
P43Buc 
0.08 
Other open 
7.71
space 
Hornbeam 
P100Buc 2.0 
Community 
Park 
7.56 
Close Park/ 
Sale West 
Stamford Road 
P106Buc 
0.27 
Other open 
6.31
space 
Oak Road 
P41Buc 
5.34 
Community Park  6.80 
Valley Fields 
P118Buc 
0.36 
Other open 
N/A
space 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
66.38 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
20.55 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Sufficient (3rd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
16/21
51

---

Clifford
Description:
Clifford is a small and densely populated Ward at the north east tip of the Borough, 
bordering Hulme in Manchester to the east and Whalley Range to the south. It is 
characterised by dense residential areas of victorian terraced housing and limited 
amount of greenspace. Clifford Ward is part of the Old Trafford and Gorse Hill 
regeneration area and suffers from high deprivation (in the top 5% most deprived 
wards in England) and high crime rates. 
Commentary on results:
The Ward has four main areas of greenspace, but only one of significant size, Hullard 
Park. Within the Ward there are facilities for bowling, children’s play areas, football 
and cricket pitches and multi use games areas. In addition there is a artificial turf 
pitch at the local school available for community use and sites identified within the 
Unitary Development Plan where new facilities could be provided. The Ward is 
deficient in accessible greenspace as it has a very high population density and there 
is a significantly high proportion of under sixteen-year-olds. The area has less than 
half the recommended area of greenspace, falling short of the standard by 11.16 
hectares. Residents within the Ward have access to nearby greenspaces, including 
to the west Seymour Park.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10494 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
185.47
Density of population (people per hectare) 
57
Density of population in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
% of population under 16 
20.2
% of population under 16 
23.05
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
52

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Hullard Park 
P72Cli 
4.0 
Town Park 
8.05 
St Brides Fields 
P85Cli 
1.30 
Recreation 
5.45
Ground 
Clifford Court 
P79Cli 
2.29 
Other open 
7.80
space 
Cornbrook 
P111Cli 2.23 
Other 
open 
6.73
Street
space 
Access to local accessible natural greenspace 
 
  
Total Area of LANGsp 
9.83 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
20.99 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very deficient (1st quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
4/21
Hullard Park 
53

---

Davyhulme East 
Description:
Davyhulme East is in the north of Trafford and is bounded to the north by the 
Manchester Ship Canal and the Bridgewater Canal. The north area of the Ward is 
home to the Trafford Centre and its environs, separated from the residential areas of 
the Ward by the M60, with the sewage works and Trafford General hospital to the 
west of the Ward.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward has three main areas of greenpace that are all of a significant size. The 
Ward contains two play areas, one of which is a neighbourhood-equipped area for 
play (NEAP), and facilities for tennis, basketball, street hockey, bowls and football. 
The Ward is sufficient in greenspace by 8.7 hectares.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9911
Area of Ward (hectares) 
417.56
Density of population (people per hectare) 
24
Density of population in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
20.5
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Davyhulme Park  P32DaE 
5.99 
Town Park 
8.61 
Dover/Kingsway
P45DaE 8.02 
Community 
Park 
7.39 
Park
Broadway/Crofts
P117DaE 14.51 
Community 
Park 
7.33 
Bank (part of) 
54

---

Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
28.52 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.82 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
sufficient 
Rank in Trafford 
14/21
Ornamental ponds and rose garden at Davyhulme Park 
55

---

Davyhulme West 
Description:
Davyhulme West is bounded by the Manchester Ship Canal to the west, Davyhulme 
sewage works to the north and residential areas of Davyhulme and Flixton to the east 
and south. There Ward is mainly residential with large areas of private open space 
along the canal edge and the Mersey Valley to the south east tip of the Ward.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward has a good variety of greenspace including a large Country Park and five 
play areas, one of which is up to LEAP standard. Other facilities include football 
pitches, a bowling green, a multi use games area, and nature areas including 
Davyhulme Millennium nature reserve. The Ward is sufficient in accessible 
greenspace by 35.52 hectares.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9633
Area of Ward (hectares) 
435.34
Density of population (people per hectare) 
22
Density of population in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
19.8
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
56

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Wellacre (part 
P92Fli 20.64  Country 
Park 
7.80 
of)
Broadway/Crofts
P117DaE 3.15 
Community 
Park 
7.33 
Bank (part of) 
Lytham Road 
P39DaW 
1.35 
Other open 
7.15
space 
Woodsend Park 
P25DaW 
6.07 
Community Park  7.36 
Lees Field 
P46DaW 
2.10 
Recreation 
7.62
Ground 
Bents Lane 
P40DaW 
0.40 
Other open 
6.68
space 
Davyhulme
P113DaW 21.10 
Other 
open 8.80
Millennium
space 
Nature Reserve 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
54.79 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.27 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Sufficient (3rd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
16/21
Wellacre Primary School planting daffodils in Woodsend Park 
57

---

Flixton
Description:
Flixton is bounded by the Mersey Valley and the River Mersey to the south and is 
traversed by the Manchester to Liverpool railway line. Its population is in 
concentrated areas in the northern half of the Ward, other areas are generally open 
and include two golf courses (William Wroe and Flixton Golf Course).  
Commentary on results:
There are five play areas within the Ward, but none currently up to LEAP standard. 
The Ward contains other facilities for football, cricket, bowls, tennis and a model 
railway facility. In addition there are countryside sites within the Ward that form part 
of the proposed Wellacre Country Park and the Mersey Valley to the south east of 
the Ward. Other facilities include a model railway within Abbotsfield Park and sensory 
and ornamental gardens at Flixton Park. The Ward is sufficient in greenspace with 
8.73 hectares above the standard. 
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10762 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
400.91
Density of population (people per hectare) 
27
Density of population in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
19.1
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
58

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Flixton Park 
P34Fli 
2.07 
Neighbourhood 
7.83
Park
Flixton Fields 
P94Fli 
6.78 
Recreation 
7.83
Ground 
Wellacre (part 
P92Fli 18.53  Country 
Park 
7.80 
of)
Abbotsfield Park 
P33Urm 1.86 
Neighbourhood 
7.87
(part of) 
Park
Chassen Rd 
P99Fli 1.01  Recreation 
7.53
Football Ground 
Ground 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
30.25 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
21.52 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Sufficient (3rd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
13/21
Walled Garden, Flixton Park 
59

---

Gorse Hill 
Description:
Gorse Hill is the northernmost Ward in Trafford, bounded by the Manchester Ship 
Canal. It is the third largest Ward, a large proportion of which is made up of Trafford 
Park Industrial Estate. The Bridgewater Canal runs through the site and the majority 
of population are located within the southern part of the Ward. Gorse Hill is a 
regeneration area and is one of the top 20 percent most deprived areas in England. 
Commentary on results:
The Ward has five large areas of greenspace, including two parks and Trafford 
Ecology Park. The Ward is well served by eight play areas, including one of only two 
NEAP standard play areas in the Borough, along with a further LEAP standard play 
area. This is important in a Ward with a high percentage of under sixteen year olds. 
Other facilities include multi use games areas, football pitches and facilities for 
tennis. Trafford Ecology Park contains a variety of facilities include a bird hide, 
sensory garden, nature trails, provision for anglers and a training and meeting venue. 
The Ward is 0.9 hectares deficient in greenspace.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10092 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
880.86
Density of population (people per hectare) 
11
Density of population in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
21.6
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
60

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Gorse Hill Park 
P77Gor 
4.41 
Community Park  8.08 
Moss Road 
P70Gor 
0.64 
Other open 
6.25
space 
Lostock Park 
P76Gor 
7.72 
Community Park  7.33 
Ecology Park 
P96Gor 
4.38 
Other open 
8.71
space 
Nansen Street 
P78Gor 
2.14 
Community Park  7.72 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
19.28 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
20.18HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient (2nd quarile) 
Rank in Trafford 
9/21
Games in Gorse Hill Park 
61

---

Hale Barns 
Description:
Hale Barns lies at the southern tip of the Borough. It is bounded to the east by the 
M56, to the south by the River Bollin, by the residential areas of Altrincham to the 
west and Newhall Green to the north. The Ward contains a large amount of 
agricultural land including a private golf course. There is also a number of private 
sports clubs within the Ward providing facilities for tennis, bowling and football. It is 
an affluent Ward in the top 10% wealthiest areas in England.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward contains six areas of greenspace, including a park with facilities for tennis 
and football, areas of woodland and other smaller areas of open space. There are 
three play areas in the north of the Ward and none are currently up to LEAP 
standard. The Ward has a very low population density, which makes it sufficient in 
greenspace by 1.17 hectares. In addition there are proposals within the Unitary 
Development Plan to create a country park which would not only provide local 
residents with further greenspace but also cater for residents throughout the 
Borough.
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9555
Area of Ward (hectares) 
834.98
Density of population (people per hectare) 
11
Density of population in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
20.3
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
62

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Halecroft Park 
P3HaB 
4.26 
Neighbourhood 
8.95
Park
Wellfield Lane 
P20HaB 0.76 
Other 
open 
8.08
Play Area 
space 
Marfield Road 
P26HaB 
0.18 
Other open 
7.88
space 
Clarke Crescent 
P21HaB 
0.07 
Other open 
7.92
space 
The Mount Play 
P18HaB 0.13 
Other 
open 
6.83
Area
space 
Tomfield Bank
W7HaB 
5.82 
Woodland 
7.69 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
20.28 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.11 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Sufficient ( 3rd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
11/21
Halecroft Park 
63

---

Hale Central 
Description:
Hale Central is a densely populated Ward located to the south west of Altrincham 
town centre. It is bounded to the south by the River Bollin and to the north by 
Altrincham Golf Course and by the residential areas of Hale Barns and Bowdon to 
the east and west.   
Commentary on results:
The Ward has three areas of accessible greenspace. The facilities within the parks 
include provision for bowling, tennis and football. The Ward has five play areas, one 
which is a LEAP standard. However the distribution of greenspace in the Ward is 
uneven and the two largest areas of greenspace are located in the north part of the 
Ward and separated from the main residential area of Hale by the main A538 road. 
The Ward is 3.65 hectares deficient in greenspace putting it in the top third of most 
deficient wards.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9098
Area of Ward (hectares) 
261.36
Density of population (people per hectare) 
35
Density of population in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
20.3
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
64

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Stamford Park 
P1HaC 
6.21 
Town Park 
7.84 
Grove Park 
P4HaC 
8.19 
Recreation 
8.18
Ground 
Bankhall Lane 
P19HaC 
0.16 
Other open 
7.96
space 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
14.55 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
18.20 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient (2nd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
6/21
Junior play area at Stamford Park 
65

---

Longford 
Description:
Longford is a densely populated urban area in north east of the Borough. To the east 
are residential areas within Manchester, the River Mersey and Mersey Valley are to 
the south and the residential areas of Old Trafford and Gorse Hill are to the north and 
west. Within the Ward is one of the five local cemeteries, and the world famous 
Lancashire Cricket Ground.  
Commentary on results:
Longford Ward has a variety of greenspace that includes two woodlands, two parks 
and a large recreation ground. The largest park within the Borough, Longford Park, is 
located within the Ward along with the largest area for outdoors sports facilities at 
Turn Moss playing fields. There are six play areas of which one is up to LEAP 
standard. Other facilities within the Ward include those for football and rugby, 
bowling, tennis, an athletics track and multi use games areas and a pet’s corner. The 
Ward is in the top quarter of Wards for sufficiency of greenspace with 60.8 hectares 
above the standard. This is accounted for by the large size of two of the 
greenspaces.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
11273 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
347.60
Density of population (people per hectare) 
32
Density of population in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
21
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
66

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Longford Park 
P75Lon 
32.45 
Town Park 
7.38 
Turn Moss 
P86Lon 
39.12 
Recreation 
8.06
Ground 
Stephenson 
P84Lon 0.24516 Other 
open 
7.68
Road 
space 
Gorse Park 
P80Lon 
1.22 
Community Park  8.21 
Seymour Park 
P73Lon 
6.49 
Neighbourhood 
7.85
Park
Turn Moss 
W20Lon 
2.23901 
Woodland 
8.03 
Ivy Green Wood 
W21Lon 
1.7 
Woodland 
7.63 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
83.41HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
22.55 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very sufficient (4th quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
17/21
Seymour Park, Party in the Park 2003
67

---

Priory 
Description:
Priory Ward is bounded to the north by the River Mersey and to the east by the 
residential areas of Sale Moor, Ashton on Mersey lies to the west and Brooklands to 
the south. The M60 motorway, A56 Chester Road and the Bridgewater Canal all run 
through the Ward.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward has a variety of interesting greenspaces. These include Sale Water Park 
and Priory Gardens, which provide a number of facilities including Trafford Water 
Sports Centre, Mersey Valley Visitor Centre and areas for informal walking, cycling 
and horse riding. These facilities serve the local community but also attract visitors 
from further afield. Within the Ward there are five play areas and one is up to LEAP 
standard. Other facilities in the ward include provision for tennis, bowling, skating, 
football, an athletics track and in addition Walkden Gardens a peaceful hideaway 
known locally as 'The Maze' because it consists of several 'rooms' leading off from 
the main ornamental grass walkway.
Despite the Wards fairly high population density it has a very low percentage of its 
population under the age of 16. The two large areas of greenspace in the north of the 
Ward result in the Ward being very sufficient in greenspace.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9424
Area of Ward (hectares) 
322.68
Density of population (people per hectare) 
29
Density of population in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
15.3
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Low (1st quartile) 
68

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspaces 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Kelsall Street 
P62Pri 
0.55 
Community Park  8.11
Walkden 
P56Pri 2.01 
Community 
Park 
8.37 
Gardens 
Clarendon 
P68Pri 4.99 
Recreation 
8.06
Crescent 
Ground 
Harley Road 
P69Pri 
0.16 
Other open 
7.99
space 
Crossford 
P64Pri 12.53  Recreation 
7.95
Bridge
Ground 
Priory Gardens 
P114Pri 
63.71 
Country Park 
7.63 
Sale Water Park 
P88Pri 
24.99 
Country Park 
7.78 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
108.93 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
18.85 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very sufficient (4th quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
18/21
Sale Water Park 
69

---

Sale Moor 
Description:
Sale Moor is situated to the east of the Borough and shares a large part of its 
boundary with Manchester. Its northern boundary is the River Mersey and Sale Golf 
Course. The remaining boundaries are adjacent to residential areas on Northern 
Moor in Manchester and Sale. The M60 motorway runs through the Ward and 
separates the main residential area from Sale Golf Course and the Mersey Valley 
Commentary on results:
The Ward contains four greenspaces. Worthington Park is the only park within the 
Ward and provides facilities for bowling, football, and skating and informal recreation. 
There are three play areas in the Ward but none are currently up to LEAP standard. 
The Ward is very deficient in greenspace being the third lowest in the Borough with 
11.63 hectares of new space required to meet the standard. The Wards main 
residential area is concentrated into half of the Ward area, which emphasises the 
density of that particular population. However there are two significant large 
greenspace areas in the neighbouring Ward of Priory.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9902
Area of Ward (hectares) 
283.23
Density of population (people per hectare) 
35
Density of population in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
19.9
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
70

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Worthington 
P51Sal 6.52 
Town 
Park 
8.42 
Park
Baguley
P108Sal 0.22 
Other 
open 
6.79
Ave/Royton A 
space 
Bramhall Close 
P59Sal 
0.99 
Other open 
7.18
space 
Pimcroft Way 
P61Sal 
0.47 
Other open 
7.78
space 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
8.21 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.80 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very deficient (1st quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
3/21
Event day at Worthington Park, Sale 
71

---

St Marys 
Description:
The Ward is densely populated and suburban in character. The eastern boundary is 
the A56 (Chester Road) and the western boundary is Dainwell Woods, Carrington 
Moss and the residential areas of Ashton on Mersey and Broadheath lie to the south.  
Commentary on results:
There are six greenspace areas within the Ward. These include woodlands, 
recreation grounds and a park. There are four play areas within the Ward, but none 
are currently up to LEAP standard. Facilities within the Ward include provision for 
bowling, tennis, multi use games areas, football and rugby. The Ward is deficient in 
greenspace by 3.85 hectares due to its high population density.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
11263 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
266.612 
Density of population (people per hectare) 
42
Density of population in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
19.95
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
72

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Weathercock 
P57StM 4.86 
Recreation 
7.85
Farm
Ground 
Manor Avenue 
P66StM 
2.90 
Recreation 
7.48
Ground 
Sale West  
P58StM 
1.36 
Other open 
7.39
space 
Cecil Avenue 
P67StM 
5.20 
Recreation 
7.65
Ground 
Old Sale Boys 
W25StM 0.45 
Woodland 
8.48 
Grammar site 
Dainwell Woods 
W23Buc 11.6 
Woodland 
8.0 
(part of) 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
26.38 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
22.53 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Deficient (2nd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
10/21
Sale West open space 
73

---

Stretford 
Description:
Streford is a densely populated Ward. The M60 motorway and Bridgewater Canal run 
through the Ward. The River Mersey is the southern boundary and the residential 
areas of Stretford and Urmston are adjacent boundaries. The Ward contains one of 
the four shopping centres, Stretford town centre within the north eastern part of the 
Ward. A large majority of the Ward is greenbelt land and forms part of the Mersey 
Valley.
Commentary on results:
There are four areas of greenspace within the Ward. These include a park and 
woodland areas. There are two play areas within the Ward, both of which are up to 
LEAP standard. Other facilities in the Ward include provision for bowling, tennis and 
football. The Ward is very deficient in greenspace being 5.26 hectares below the 
standard. Within the Ward is the former Lesley Road landfill site which has not been 
included in the accessibility figures as it is not formally accessible by members of the 
public. There are opportunities within the Unitary Development Plan to formally allow 
access to this area, which would reduce the deficiency. 
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
9814
Area of Ward (hectares) 
322.13
Density of population (people per hectare) 
30
Density of population in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
18.4
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
74

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Highfield Close 
P87Str 
2.13 
Other open 
7.76
space 
Moss Park 
P81Str 
2.43 
Community Park  7.80 
Victoria Park 
P74Stre 
7.29 
Neighbourhood 
8.43
Park
Ousel Brook 
W16Str 2.52 
Woodland 
8.05 
Wood 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
14.37 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
19.63 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very deficient (1st quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
5/21
Victoria Park 
75

---

Timperley 
Description:
Timperley is primarily a residential area in the south of the Borough. It is bounded to 
the west by the Bridgewater Canal and to the north by Baguley Brook. To the east 
are residential areas and to the south the main A560 road and Altrincham Golf 
Course. Within the Ward is the busy Timperley district shopping centre.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward contains four small areas of greenspace. There are four play areas one of 
which is up is a LEAP standard. Other facilities within the Ward include bowling, an 
athletics track, and football pitches. Timperley is very densely populated area and 
falls below the accessible greenspace standard by 14.2 hectares making it the 
second most deficient ward in the Borough. It is a small Ward in area and has good 
access to neighbouring Wards on three sides. The large areas of greenspace at 
Fairywell Brook and Sylvan Avenue recreation ground are accessible and close by.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10381 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
206.10
Density of population (people per hectare) 
50
Density of population in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
20
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
76

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Pickering Lodge 
P6Tim 
2.79 
Recreation 
7.59
Ground 
Riddings Acre 
P30Tim 
0.37 
Other open 
8.51
space 
Buckingham 
P107Tim 1.35 
Other 
open 
7.87
Way
space 
Timperley 
P7Tim 2.12 
Recreation 
7.87
Recreation 
Ground 
Ground 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
 6.63 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
 20.77 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very deficient (1st quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
2/21
Pickering Lodge Bowls Club 
77

---

Urmston
Description:
Urmston is situated in the heart of the north part of the Borough. It is split into three 
residential areas by the M60 motorway and a railway line. The Mersey Valley and the 
River Mersey form the southern boundary, with the residential areas of Stretford to 
the east and Flixton to the west. Within the Ward at Urmston is one of the five 
cemeteries of the Borough, and Urmston shopping centre.
Commentary on results:
The Ward has five areas of greenspace, including three parks, a Country Park and 
informal open land. There are three play areas of which two are up to LEAP 
standard. Other facilities within the Ward include provision for bowing, tennis, a 
model railway line and part of the Trans Pennine Trail and the Co-operative Bank 
Woodland in Urmston Meadows.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10035 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
370.15
Density of population (people per hectare) 
27
Density of population in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 
19.6
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Below average (2nd quartile) 
78

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Abbotsfield
P33Urm 5.10 
Neighbourhood 
7.87
Park/Chassen 
Park
Rd
Golden Hill Park 
P36Urm 
2.46 
Community Park  7.91 
Higher Road 
P38Urm 
0.61 
Other open 
8.12
space 
Urmston 
P89Urm 133.34  Country 
Park 
7.78 
Meadows 
Newcroft Road 
P82Urm 
3.31 
Community Park  7.99 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
144.82HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
20.07 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Very sufficient (4th quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
20/21
Urmston Meadows 
79

---

Village 
Description:
Village Ward is on the eastern boundary of the Borough adjoining Manchester along 
Brooklands Road. To the south are Timperley wedge and the Bollin Valley and to the 
west the residential area of Timperley. Within the Ward is the regeneration area of 
Broomwood, which contains a variety of greenspaces including Brookes Drive which 
runs from the A560 roundabout through the Ward and forms part of a linear walkway 
and cycleway to link through to Davenport Green.  
Commentary on results:
The Ward has nine areas of greenspace made up of a good variety of woodland, 
parks and recreation grounds. There are three play areas with one currently up to 
LEAP standard. Other facilities within the Ward include five-a-side artificial turf 
pitches, football pitches and local woodland areas. The Ward is sufficient in 
greenspace with 9 hectares over the recommended standard. However due to the 
narrow linear shape of the Ward the largest area of greenspace, Beech Avenue, is 
not easily accessible to residents in the south of the Ward. This is primarily due to 
busy main roads cutting across the Ward several times.  
Characteristics, facts and figures 
Population
10564 
Area of Ward (hectares) 
217.25
Density of population (people per hectare) 
49
Density of population in Trafford 
High (4th quartile) 
% of population under 16 (national average) 
20.2 
% of population under 16 (in ward) 
20.6
Density of under 16s in Trafford 
Above average (3rd quartile) 
80

---

Audit of current provision of accessible natural greenspace 
Name of site 
Code 
Area (HA) 
Function 
Quality Score 
Broomwood/ 
P14Vil 1.41 
Community 
Park 
8.00 
Mainwood Road 
Larkhill P15Vil  1.71 
Other 
open 
8.35
space 
Timperley 
P11Vil 2.21 
Community 
Park 
8.18 
Green (Aimson 
Road 
Redbrook P16Vil 
2.18 
Other 
open 
7.52
space 
Beech Avenue 
P28Vil 17.95  Recreation 
8.48
Playing
Ground 
Fairywell Wood 
W9Vil 
1.90 
Woodland 
7.67 
Broom Wood 
W10Vil 
0.92 
Woodland 
7.82 
Stelfox
P116Vil 0.44 
Other 
open 
N/A
Ave/Stockport 
space 
Rd
Shaftsbury 
P103Vil 1.64 
Other 
open 
7.88
Avenue
space 
Analysis of access to local accessible natural greenspace 
Total Area of LANGsp 
30.36 HA 
Ideal Area of LANGsp 
21.13 HA 
Degree of Sufficiency/Deficiency 
Sufficient (3rd quartile) 
Rank in Trafford 
12/21
Broom Wood
81

---

Conclusions
The Greenspace 2004 research has given Trafford a snap shot in time as to the 
quantity, quality and residents views of its greenspace. As part of the research we 
have used the LANGsp standard, which has shown that overall the borough is 
sufficient in accessible greenspace. However the distribution of that greenspace is 
not equitable and if viewed at a ward level only eleven wards are sufficient and ten 
are deficient in accessible natural greenspaces.  
Generally the most sufficient wards such as Bowden and Priory tend to be the ones 
bounding Green Belt and include the larger areas of Trafford’s greenspace, and the 
most deficient are the more densely populated very built up residential wards such as 
Ashton upon Mersey and Timperley. However the research has shown that ward 
boundaries are artificial, but that generally in the high-density residential areas where 
land is at a premium, the opportunities for large open spaces are more limited. 
There are opportunities to create new areas of accessible greenspace in Trafford, for 
example, the proposed Country Park areas in Davenport Green, the former 
Altrincham Sewage works as part of new housing development such as Stamford 
Brook. These will not impact on all the wards and whilst adequate quantity is 
important it is perhaps the quality, range of facilities and accessibility that can be 
more readily improved.
The use of the LANGsp standard has had its limitations as seen in the Bucklow St 
Martins ward. The results for this ward show there to be vast areas of greenspace 
but with limited consultation responses, a poor range of facilities and low quality 
scores in most of these areas this may suggest that they do not meet the needs of its 
local residents. 
The issues associated with providing the right greenspace to meet community needs 
are complex and the results show that one set of data is not mutually exclusive when 
considering a strategy for improvements. 
The data sets a baseline from which more in-depth work could be undertaken on 
more site-specific locations. It paves the way for more standards to be tested, new 
ones derived, policies revised and resources targeted. For example, in testing 
existing standards, data now exists for playgrounds that can show how Trafford is 
meeting its own standard as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and 
Supplementary Planning Guidance. In looking at new standards The Woodland Trust 
is currently working on introducing a national standard for accessible woodland. With 
the data collected, Trafford will be in a good position to test and look at the 
appropriateness of introducing such a standard. 
In drawing conclusions from the consultation exercise over 20,000 residents’ views 
have been represented in varying degrees of detail and the issues that have been 
highlighted are not new. Cleanliness, particularly concerning dog fouling is high on 
everyone’s agenda, issues of accessibility are felt to be good and in terms of more 
facilities, more sports areas, playgrounds, toilets and bike ramps are wanted. 
The issues identified in the quality assessment closely match those expressed in the 
residents’ consultation. Generally, sites score well on accessibility but on cleanliness 
improvements are identified for many sites. The quality of facilities was also 
highlighted for improvement on many sites too. Managing sites for biodiversity and 
82

---

natural features scored highly but it is difficult to manage sites to meet both these 
criteria. On smaller sites there is not the space to provide for both and this is where 
the requirements of users and wildlife must be carefully assessed and a balance 
achieved.
The information that has been gathered can greatly assist with the evidence needed 
to write funding bids and secure appropriate planning obligations through the 
planning system, and to effectively direct existing resources. Encouragingly a high 
proportion of the consultation respondents expressed an interest in being more 
involved in greenspace decisions. This will ensure that improvements made to 
greenspaces in the future will more closely match the needs of the community who 
use it. 
Longford Park International Festival 2004 
83

---

Appendices
84

---

Appendix A 
Typology 
Mapped on GIS as ‘accessible’ greenspace
Parks layer 
 Country 
Parks 
 District 
Parks 
 Town 
Parks 
 Community 
Parks 
 Recreation 
Grounds 
  Other open space 
Play spaces (often located within parks) 
 LEAPs 
layer 
 NEAPs 
layer 
  Other play spaces layer 
  LEAP buffers layer 
  NEAP buffers layer 
  Other play space buffers layer 
  Green corridors layer 
 Allotments 
layer 
 Woodlands 
layer 
Other greenspaces mapped but not included in ‘accessible’ categorisation for 
LANGsp calculations: 
  School Playing Fields layer 
  Outdoor Sports Facilities (such as bowling greens and public golf courses) layer 
 Cemeteries 
layer 
85

---

Appendix B  
Community group questionnaire 
86

---

87

---

88

---

89

---

90

---

Appendix C  
Residents questionnaire 
91

---

92

---

Appendix D 
Children and young peoples questionnaires 
93

---

94

---

95

---

96

---

97

---

98

---

99

---

100 

---

Appendix E 
Children and young peoples web sites 
101 

---

Appendix F 
Summary of results on the children and young peoples web 
pages 
102 

---

Results and what happens next… 
Here are some of the some of the key results from the consultation with children and young people that 
we carried out in July 2004.  
About you 
We had almost 450 responses in total from children and young people all over the Borough. 
416 of these were correctly filled in and usable. If a postcode was provided, we were able to 
map the results. This has given us valuable information about trends in different areas of 
Trafford.
Over half of the questionnaires were sent to us online via our website. We would be interested 
to hear any comments about using this method with people in schools.  
Most of our respondents were male and aged 6-14:  
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
11-12 
13-14 
15-16 
17-18 
Total
Male
0
46
58
29
71
21
2
1
228 
Female 
1
48
47
23
62
1
0
0
182 
Total
1
94
105 
52
133 
22
2
1
About using greenspaces 
Almost everyone (95 %) goes to some kind of greenspace (like a park or a playground) near 
where they live.  
You mostly go at weekends and with your parents and friends.  
Here are the top 10 most popular things to do there. Number 1 is the most popular.  
1. Play sports 
2. Playground 
3. Ride bike 
4. Meet friends 
5. Walk 
6. Roller blade 
7. Walk dog 
8. Ride scooter 
9. Feed ducks 
10. Bully other kids 
Most of you (62 %) thought that other people in greenspaces were happy or not bothered 
about you being there. Only 5% felt that they were not welcome or that other people were 
intimidated by them. These tended over 13 year olds.  
This is what you thought of your local greenspaces. We’re also going to look at each 
individual greenspace to work out how much people like them. Unfortunately there is not 
enough space to show those results here.  
Agree lots (%)  Agree (%) 
Disagree (%)  Disagree lots (%) 
It looks good 
34.4 
47.3 
12
6.3 
Lots of people go there 
38.9 
13.2 
13.6 
4.3 
It is fun 
51.1 
35.6 
9.4 
3.9 
It is clean 
23.5 
28.9 
30.9 
16.6 
It is safe 
29.9 
37.7 
23.5 
9.0 
It is easy to get to 
63.6 
28.5 
5.4 
2.5 
It is easy to get around 
51.9 
38
5.8 
4.3 
We also asked this question of adults in Trafford. They did not think that the greenspaces were as fun 
as you did but they agreed with you that cleanliness and safety are big issues. It’s good to see that you 
find your local greenspaces easy to get to and get around. Access and accessibility (how easy it is to 
access something) are very important when improving greenspaces. 
103 

---

Here are the top 10 things that you thought would make your local greenspace better. Number 
1 was the most popular.  
1.
More sports areas  
2.
Toilets  
3.
Bike trails/ramps  
4.
No dog fouling  
5.
Skate Park  
6.
Water features  
7.
More/better equipment  
8.
Litter bins  
9.
More sheltered areas  
10.
More lights  
We asked you whether you thought there was enough greenspace in your area. More than half 
of you (66.5 %) thought that there was. In our adults’ survey, fewer people thought there was 
enough, however, many of these people did not actually go to greenspaces. This may be 
because young people often have a better awareness of their local area than adults do.
Here are the top 10 things that put you off going to greenspaces. Other people and the damage 
they cause seemed to be the most off-putting thing about Trafford’s greenspaces.  
1.
Other kids  
2.
Dodgy adults  
3.
Vandalism  
4.
Damaged equipment  
5.
Nothing to do  
6.
Fear of crime  
7.
Drugs  
8.
Better things elsewhere  
9.
Alcohol  
10. Overgrown/dirty  
Almost all of you (91 %) wishes they could spend more time outdoors if they could. Maybe 
it’s the Manchester weather that stops us?  
Just over half of you (50.1%) walk to or from school every day. This is great news as the 
roads get busier and busier in Trafford. Walking to school is good exercise and chance to hang 
out with your friends and family before and after school.  
Here are the top 10 favourite things for young people to do in Trafford. Whilst the top two 
favourites were ’inside activities’ (watching TV and playing computer games) there is lots of 
evidence to show that young people in Trafford like to do things in the open air.  
1. Watch TV 
2. Play computer games 
3. Hang out with friends 
4. Go to the park 
5. Play sports 
6. Play in the garden 
7. Ride bike 
8. Reading 
9. Roller blading 
10. Play inside 
What happens next? 
When local authorities like Trafford plan what they are going to do with their greenspaces, libraries or 
schools, they write a strategy. A strategy contains ideas for what to do and when to do them. The 
research that the Greenspace 2004 project found will be used to help to write the strategy and to make 
sure that the most important things are done first. By taking part in our survey you have given us 
valuable details about how the Council is doing and what we should do next.  
104 

---

Appendix G 
List of resident activities 
List of Activities residents named as how they used green spaces. 
Other activities 
Number of respondents 
Cycling 26 
Kids 22 
Feed animals/ducks 
16 
Running/jogging 9 
Access 8 
Horse riding 
6 
Nature 5 
Water sports 
5 
Fishing 4 
Research 4 
Bowling 4 
Croquet 4 
Allotment 3 
Look after site 
3 
Photography 3 
Play 2 
Kite 2 
Get high 
2 
Pitch and putt 
2 
Sunbathe 2 
watch sports 
2 
Pub 1 
Paddle 1 
Read 1 
Events 1 
Bottle bank 
1 
Tea room 
1 
105 

---

Appendix H 
Definitions of quality scoring criteria 
106 

---

107 

---

108 

---

109 

---

110 

---

111 

---

112 

---

113 

---

114 

---

115 

---

Appendix I 
Quality survey form 
116 

---

117 

---

118 

---

Appendix J 
List of greenspace site codes used for GIS mapping 
Parks
 
 
 
P33Urm 
Abbotsfield Park/Chassen Rd 
Urmston 
Neighbourhood Park 
P43Buc 
Ackers Lane 
Partington 
Other open space 
P58StM 
Ascot Avenue, Sale West 
Sale West 
Other open space 
P52Ash 
Ashton Park 
Sale 
Neighbourhood Park 
P108Sal 
Baguley Ave/Royton A 
Sale 
Other open space 
P19HaC 
Bankhall Lane 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P28Vil 
Beech Avenue Playing 
Altrincham 
Recreation Ground 
P40DaW 
Bents Lane 
Urmston 
Other open space 
P12Bow 
Bowdon Recreation Ground 
Altrincham 
Recreation Ground 
P59Sal 
Bramhall Close 
Sale 
Other open space 
P117DaE 
Broadway/Crofts Bank 
Davyhulme 
Community Park 
P14Vil 
Broomwood/Mainwood Road  
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P107Tim 
Buckingham Way 
Timperley 
Other open space 
P67StM 
Cecil Avenue 
Sale 
Recreation Ground 
P50Buc 
Central Road 
Partington 
Other open space 
P99Fli 
Chassen Rd Football Grnd 
Urmston 
Recreation Ground 
P112Buc 
Christchurch Ave Pla 
Sale 
Other open space 
P68Pri 
Clarendon Crescent 
Sale 
Recreation Ground 
P21HaB 
Clarke Crescent 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P79Cli 
Clifford Court 
Stretford 
Other open space 
P111Cli 
Cornbrook Street 
Old Trafford, Stretford 
Other open space 
P37Buc 
Cross Lane Park 
Partington 
Town Park 
P64Pri 
Crossford Bridge 
Sale 
Recreation Ground 
P101Buc 
Dalebrook Road 
Sale 
Other open space 
P44Buc 
Davis Road Play Area 
Partington 
Other open space 
P113DaW 
Davyhulme Millenium Nature Res 
Davyhulme 
Other open space 
P32DaE 
Davyhulme Park 
Urmston 
Town Park 
P9Brd 
De Quincey Park 
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P31Bow 
Denzell Gardens 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P45DaE 
Dover/Kingsway Park 
Urmston 
Community Park 
P97Bow 
Dunham Park 
Altrincham 
Country Park 
P94Fli 
Flixton Fields 
Flixton 
Recreation Ground 
P34Fli 
Flixton Park 
Urmston 
Neighbourhood Park 
P36Urm 
Golden Hill Park 
Urmston 
Community Park 
P77Gor 
Gorse Hill Park 
Stretford 
Community Park 
P80Lon 
Gorse Park 
Stretford 
Community Park 
P22Bow 
Grange Road Play Area 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P4HaC 
Grove Park 
Altrincham 
Recreation Ground 
P3HaB 
Halecroft Park 
Altrincham 
Neighbourhood Park 
P69Pri 
Harley Road 
Sale 
Other open space 
P17Alt 
Hendam Drive Play Area 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P38Urm 
Higher Road 
Urmston 
Other open space 
P87Str 
Highfield Close 
Stretford 
Other open space 
P100Buc 
Hornbeam Close Park/Sale West 
Sale 
Community Park 
P72Cli 
Hullard Park 
Stretford 
Neighbourhood Park 
P2Alt 
John Leigh Park 
Altrincham 
Neighbourhood Park 
P62Pri 
Kelsall Street 
Sale 
Community Park 
119 

---

P29Alt 
King George V Pool 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P24Bow 
Kings Acre 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P63Brk 
Kirklands Play Area 
Sale 
Other open space 
P15Vil 
Larkhill 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P46DaW 
Lees Field 
Urmston 
Recreation Ground 
P75Lon 
Longford Park 
Stretford 
Town Park 
P76Gor 
Lostock Park 
Stretford 
Community Park 
P39DaW 
Lytham Road 
Urmston 
Other open space 
P42Buc 
Manchester Road 
Partington 
Other open space 
P66StM 
Manor Avenue 
Sale 
Recreation Ground 
P26HaB 
Marfield Road 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P23Bow 
Minister Drive 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P55Brk 
Moor Nook Park 
Sale 
Community Park 
P81Str 
Moss Park 
Stretford 
Community Park 
P70Gor 
Moss Road 
Stretford 
Other open space 
P49Buc 
Moss View Playing Fields 
Partington 
Recreation Ground 
P78Gor Nansen 
Street 
Stretford Community 
Park 
P5Alt 
Navigation Road Recreation Ground 
Altrincham 
Neighbourhood Park 
P82Urm 
Newcroft Road 
Stretford 
Community Park 
P8Brd 
Newton Park 
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P41Buc Oak 
Road 
Partington 
Community 
Park 
P115Bow 
Oakwood Lane 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P27Alt 
Oldfield Brow 
Stackoe Ave, Altrincham 
Recreation Ground 
P27Alt 
Oldfield Brow/Stokoe Avenue  
Altrincham 
Recreattion Ground 
P6Tim 
Pickering Lodge 
Altrincham 
Recreation Ground 
P61Sal 
Pimcroft Way 
Sale 
Other open space 
P114Pri 
Priory Gardens 
Sale 
Country Park 
P16Vil 
Redbrook 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P30Tim 
Riddings Acre 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P83Gor 
Ripon Road 
Stretford 
Other open space 
P88Pri 
Sale Water Park 
Sale 
Country Park 
P95Brd 
Salisbury Fields 
Salisbury Road, Broadheath 
Recreation Ground 
P73Lon 
Seymour Park 
Stretford 
Neighbourhood Park 
P103Vil 
Shaftsbury Avenue 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P13Bow 
Springbank Recreation Ground 
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P85Cli 
St Brides Fields 
Stretford 
Recreation Ground 
P1HaC 
Stamford Park 
Altrincham 
Town Park 
P106Buc 
Stamford Road 
Carrington 
Other open space 
P116Vil 
Stelfox Ave/Stockport Rd 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P84Lon 
Stephenson Road 
Stretford 
Other open space 
P65Brk 
Sylvan Avenue 
Sale 
Recreation Ground 
P110Bow 
The Devisdale 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P18HaB 
The Mount Play Area 
Altrincham 
Other open space 
P11Vil 
Timperley Green (Aimson Rd) 
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P7Tim 
Timperley Recreation Ground 
Timperley 
Recreation Ground 
P96Gor 
Trafford Ecology Park  
Trafford Park 
Other open space 
P86Lon 
Turn Moss 
Stretford 
Recreation Ground 
P89Urm 
Urmston Meadows 
Urmston 
Country Park 
P118Buc 
Valley Fields 
Partington 
Other open space 
P74Str 
Victoria Park 
Stretford 
Neighbourhood Park 
P56Pri 
Walkden Gardens 
Sale 
Community Park 
P53Brk 
Walton Park 
Sale 
Neighbourhood Park 
P57StM Weathercock 
Farm 
Sale 
Recreation 
Ground 
P92Fli Wellacre 
Flixton 
Country 
Park 
P20HaB 
Wellfield Lane Play Area 
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P109Buc 
Wood Lane 
Partington 
Other open space 
120 

---

P54Brd 
Woodheys Park 
Altrincham/Sale 
Neighbourhood Park 
P25DaW 
Woodsend Park 
Urmston 
Community Park 
P10Brd 
Woodstock Park 
Altrincham 
Community Park 
P51Sal Worthington 
Park 
Sale 
Town 
Park 
Woodlands 
W1Bow Moss 
Wood 
 
 
W2Buc Brick 
Wood 
 
 
W3Pri Willow 
Wood 
 
 
W4Pri Priory 
Gardens 
 
 
W5Pri Crossford 
Bridge 
 
 
W6Pri Plane 
Wood 
 
 
W7HaB 
Tomfield Bank/Hale Golf Course 
 
 
W8Bow Bluebell 
Wood 
 
 
W9Vil Fairywell 
Wood 
 
 
W10Vil Broom 
Wood 
 
 
W11Bow Convent 
Wood 
 
 
W12Brd Woodheys 
Park 
 
 
W13Brk Granary 
Wood 
 
 
W14Urm 
Urmston Meadows 1 
 
 
W15Bow 
Wood near Broadheath 
 
 
W16Str Ousel 
Brook 
Wood 
 
 
W17Buc 
Urmston Meadows 3 
 
 
W18Urm 
Urmston Meadows 4 
 
 
W19Buc 
Urmston Meadows 5 
 
 
W20Lon Turn 
Moss 
 
 
W21Lon 
Ivy Green Wood 
 
 
W22Fli 
Carrington Road, Flixton 
 
 
W23Buc Dainewell 
Woods 
 
 
W25StM 
Old Sale Boys Grammar site 
 
 
W26Urm Pike 
Wood 
 
 
W27Buc 
Dark Lane Wood 
 
 
W28HaB 
Wood next to Bollin 
 
 
W29Bow 
Dunham Hall 1 
 
 
W30Bow 
Dunham Massey Lodge Wood 
 
 
W31Bow 
Dunham New Park 1 
 
 
W32Bow 
Dunham New Park 3 
 
 
W33Bow 
Dunham New Park 2 
 
 
W34Bow 
Dunham Park 1 
 
 
W35Bow 
Dunham New Park 4 
 
 
W36Bow Back 
Lane 
Wood 
 
 
W37Bow 
Dunham Hall 2 
 
 
W38Bow 
Dunham New Park 5 
 
 
W40Bow 
Dunham Park 2 
 
 
W41Buc Oak 
Road 
Woods 
Partington 
 
Green Corridors 
GC3 
Mersey Valley 
East to West from Sale to Carrington  
GC5 
Brookes Drive 
Hale (Village ward) 
 
GC4 
Bridgewater Canal 
North East to South West 
 
GC2 
Transpenine Trail 
Sale to Bowdon 
 
GC2 
Transpenine Trail 
Sale to Bowdon 
 
GC1Bow 
Bollin Valley Way 
Hale, Bowdon, Partington 
 
Allotments 
 
 
 
AL28Fli 
Marlborough Road 
Marlborough Road 
Urmston 
AL26Fli 
Laneheads 
The Fold (off Moorside Road) 
Urmston 
AL23Fli 
Brookfields Allotments 
Brook Road 
Urmston 
AL29Urm 
Mossfield Allotments 
entrance from Bowfell Road 
Urmston 
121 

---

AL25Urm 
The Grove Allotments 
Entrance from Moorside Road 
Urmston 
AL24DaE 
Granville Allotments 
Entrance from Granville Road 
Urmston 
AL27Fli Mansfield 
Allotments 
Balmoral 
Road 
Urmston 
AL31Buc 
St Mary's Allotments 
off River Lane 
Partington 
AL30Buc 
Moss View Allotments 
Moss View Road 
Partington 
AL32Fli 
Wyndcliff Drive Allotments 
Wyndcliff Drive 
Urmston 
AL17Urm Chadwick 
Park 
Bradfield 
Road 
Stretford 
AL20Urm 
Humphrey Lane Allotments 
Humphrey Lane 
Stretford 
AL19Gor 
Gorse Hill Allotments 
Burleigh Road 
Stretford 
AL22Lon 
Old Trafford 
off Kings Road 
Stretford 
AL21Str 
Lesley Road/Urmston Lane allotments 
Lesley Road 
Stretford 
AL18Str 
Church Street Allotments 
Church Street/Wellington Stree 
Stretford 
AL13Pri 
Winstanley Allotments 
Winstanley Road 
Sale 
AL10Brk 
Moor Nook Allotments 
Moor Nook, off Hulme Road 
Sale 
AL12Brk 
Walton Road Allotments 
Walton Road 
Sale 
AL11StM 
Tavistock Road Allotments 
Tavistock Road 
Sale 
AL9Ash 
Grosvenor Road Allotments 
Grosvenor Road 
Sale 
AL16StM 
Totnes Road Allotments 
Totnes Road 
Sale 
AL15Sal 
Warslow Drive Allotments 
Warslow Drive 
Sale/Altrincham 
AL14Brd 
De Quincy Allotments 
Off Woodcote Road 
Sale/Altrincham 
AL8Brd 
Woodstock Road Allotments 
Woodstock Road 
Altrincham 
AL1Tim 
Grove Lane Allotments 
Grove Lane 
Altrincham 
AL4Vil 
Trafford Drive Allotments 
Park Road (off Langham Road) 
Altrincham 
AL6HaB 
Wellfield Lane Allotments 
off Tarbolton Crescent 
Hale, Altrincham 
AL2HaB 
Moss Lane / Golf Road Allotments 
Moss Lane 
Altrincham 
AL5BOW 
Vicarage Lane Allotments 
Off Vicarage Lane/Bollin Avenue 
Altrincham 
AL7Bow 
Eaton Road/ Edale Close Allotments 
Eaton/York Road 
Altrincham 
AL3Tim 
Riddings Allotments 
off Sylvan Avenue 
Timperley, Altrincham
Cemeteries 
C1Bow Altrincham 
Cemetery 
Altrincham 
 
C2Brk Sale 
Cemetery 
Sale 
 
C3Lon Stretford 
Cemetery 
Stretford 
 
C4Urm Urmston 
Cemetery 
Urmston 
 
Playspaces (NB Most of these sites exist in sites in other layers eg parks) 
PS65Gor 
Gorse Hill Park 
Chester Road 
Stretford 
PS51Gor 
Davyhulme Park 
Canterbury Road 
Davyhulme 
PS16HaC 
Stamford Park 5-14 yr (2 of 2) 
Charter Road 
Altrincham 
PS26Alt 
Welman Way 
Welman Way 
Altrincham 
PS12Tim 
Pickering Lodge 
Green Walk 
Altrincham 
PS37Brd 
Newton Park 
off Preston Road 
Altrincham 
PS15Alt 
Stokoe Avenue Playing Fields 
off Oldfield Road (Oldfield Brow) 
Altrincham 
PS41Brd 
Woodheys Park 
Kenmore Road 
Sale 
PS57Buc 
Oak Road 
Oak Road 
Partington 
PS48DaW 
Broadway Park 
Broadway/Laburnum Road 
Davyhulme 
PS55Urm 
Higher Road Recreation Ground 
Higher Road 
Urmston 
PS73Urm 
Newcroft Road 
Newcroft Drive, off Newcroft Road 
Stretford 
PS71Str 
Moss Park 
Moss Park Road 
Stretford 
PS70Lon 
Longford Park Under 5s 
Cromwell Road 
Stretford 
PS72Gor 
Nansen Street 
Thornbury Road 
Stretford 
PS67Cli 
Hullard Park 
Northumberland Road 
Old Trafford 
PS82Cli 
Tamworth Court 
off Clayton Close, Bold Street 
Old Trafford 
PS33Pri 
Kelsall Street 
nr Roebuck Lane 
Sale 
PS23Vil Timperley 
Green 
Aimson 
Road 
Altrincham 
PS76Str Victoria 
Park 
Victoria 
Road 
Stretford 
PS22Brd 
Woodstock Park 
Lee Avenue 
Broadheath 
PS86Vil 
Broomwood Youth Centre 
Mainwood Road 
Altrincham 
122 

---

PS1HaC 
Bankhall Lane 
Bankhall Lane 
Hale 
P21HaB 
Clark Crescent 
Old Meadows Lane 
Hale Green 
PS7HaC Grove 
Park 
Delahays 
Road 
Hale 
PS20HaB 
Wellfield Lane Openspace 
Tarbolton Crescent 
Hale 
PS5Vil 
Broomwood Play Area 
Mainwood Road 
Altrincham 
PS19Tim 
Timperley Rec Ground 
Park Road 
Timperley 
PS4Tim Buckingham 
Way 
Grove 
Lane 
Timperley 
PS10Alt 
Navigation Road Rec 
Navigation Road 
Altrincham 
PS14Brk 
Sylvan Avenue 
Riddings Road 
Timperley 
PS8HaB Halecroft 
Park 
Hale 
Road 
Hale 
PS13Bow 
Primrose Bank 
off Brick Kiln Road 
Bowdon 
PS3Bow 
Bowdon Rec Ground 
Vicarage Lane 
Altrincham 
PS6Bow 
Kings Acre Play Area 
Eyebrook Road 
Bowdon 
PS17Bow Springbank 
Ashley 
Road 
Altrincham 
PS9Alt 
John Leigh Park 
Oldfield Road 
Altrincham 
PS18Alt 
Thurlstone Road/ Hendham Drive 
Oldfield Road 
Altrincham 
PS39Pri 
Sale Water Park 
 
Sale 
PS28Pri 
Crossford Bridge Rec Ground 
Meadows Road 
Sale 
PS30Pri 
Harley Road 
Harley Road 
Sale 
PS42Sal 
Worthington Park 
Cheltenham Drive 
Sale 
PS36Brk 
Moor Nook Rec Ground 
Norris Road 
Sale 
PS26Sal 
Bramhall Close 
Norris Road 
Sale Moor 
PS44Sal 
Baguely Lane 
Frodsham Road 
Sale Moor 
PS32Brk Kirklands 
Framingham 
Road 
Sale 
PS43Brk Walton 
Park 
Walton 
Road 
Sale 
PS35Pri 
Marsland Road 
St James Drive 
Sale 
PS27StM Cecil 
Avenue 
 
Sale 
PS38StM 
Sale West Wood 
Ascot Avenue 
Sale 
PS59Buc 
Partington Shopping Precinct 
 
Partington 
PS58Buc Partington 
Community 
Centre 
 
Partington 
PS52Buc Davis 
Road 
Hardwick 
Road 
Partington 
PS46Buc Ackers 
Lane 
Manchester 
Road 
Carrington 
PS61DaW 
Valley Road South 
Lytham Road 
Flixton 
PS62DaW 
Woodsend Park 
Crescent Road 
Flixton 
PS63DaW Woodsend 
Libary 
Woodsend 
Road 
Flixton 
PS49DaW 
Bent Lanes 
Woodhouse Lane 
Davyhulme 
PS56DaE Kingsway 
Park 
Kingsway 
Davyhulme 
PS85Gor 
Moss Vale 
Crescent Road 
Stretford 
PS81Gor 
Ripon Road 
Chatsworth Road 
Stretford 
PS69Gor 
Lostock Park 
Curzon Road 
Stretford 
PS53Fli 
Flixton House 
Flixton Road 
Flixton 
PS47Fli 
Abbotsfield Park 
Flixton Road 
Flixton 
PS54Urm 
Golden Hill Park 
Moorside Road 
Flixton 
PS68Str Lacy 
Street 
 
Stretford 
PS75Lon Stephenson 
Road 
Christie 
Road 
Stretford 
PS79Lon 
Milton Close 
Milton Road 
Old Trafford 
PS77Gor 
Longford Close 
Thomas Street 
Stretford 
PS64Lon 
Cranford Avenue 
Gorse Avenue 
Stretford 
PS84Gor 
Burleigh Court 
Burleigh Road 
Stretford 
PS78Cli 
Malpas Walk 
Off Clifton Close 
Stretford 
PS80Cli 
Telford Walk 
Off Clifton close 
Stretford 
PS74Sey 
Seymour Park 
Carver St/St Hildas Road 
Old Trafford 
PS83Cli 
Hamilton Street 
Clifton Grove 
Old Trafford 
PS66Str Highfield 
Close 
 
Stretford 
PS29StM 
Christchurch Road 
Manor Avenue 
Sale West 
PS40StM 
Weathercock Farm Rec 
Firs Road 
Sale 
123 

---

PS25Ash 
Ashton Park 
Dumber Lane 
Sale 
PS50Buc 
Cross Lane East Rec Ground 
Cross Lane 
Partington 
PS31Buc Hornbeam 
Close 
 
Sale 
PS16HaC Stamford 
Park 
Charter 
Road 
Altrincham 
School Playing Fields 
S1HaB St 
Ambrose 
College 
5.11 
 
S2HaB 
Well Green Primary School 
0.86 
 
S3HaC 
Altrincham Grammar School for Boys 
6.40 
 
S4Bow 
Altrincham Grammar School for Boys 
0.35 
 
S5Bow 
Bowden CE Primary School 
0.92 
 
S6Bow 
Bollin Primary School 
1.17 
 
S7Bow 
Altrincham Grammar School for Girls 
0.50 
 
S8Bow 
Altrincham Grammar School for Girls 
0.73 
 
S9Alt 
Altrincham CE Primary School 
0.99 
 
S10Alt 
St Vincents Catholic Infant/Junior School 
2.05 
 
S11Tim 
Wellington High School 
1.22 
 
S12Tim 
Willows Primary School 
1.33 
 
S13Tim Pictor 
School 
1.03 
 
S14HaB 
Cloverlea Primary School 
0.79 
 
S15Vil 
Broomwood Primary School 
1.03 
 
S16Brd 
Broadheath Primary School 
0.75 
 
S17Brd 
South Trafford College 
3.58 
 
S18StM 
Cherry Manor Primary School 
3.38 
 
S19StM 
St Margaret Ward Catholic Primary School 0.88 
 
S20StM 
Woodheys Primary School 
0.55 
 
S21Brd 
Tyntesfield Primary School 
0.78 
 
S22Brd 
Park Road Primary School, Sale 
0.57 
 
S23Tim 
St Hugh's Catholic Primary School 
1.29 
 
S24Tim 
Heyes Lane Junior School 
1.29 
 
S25Brk 
Jeff Joseph SaleMoor Technology College 6.03 
 
S26Buc 
Broadoak High School 
9.21 
 
S27Buc 
Ortonbrook Primary School 
1.06 
 
S28Buc 
Oakwood Community Primary School 
0.55 
 
S29Buc 
Mill Bank Junior School 
1.16 
 
S30Buc 
Our Lady of Loudres RC Primary School 
0.91 
 
S31Buc 
Partington Primary School 
0.93 
 
S32Buc 
Moss View Primary School 
1.35 
 
S33DaW 
Wellacre Technology College 
1.38 
 
S34DaW 
Woodsend Primary School 
0.64 
 
S35Fli 
Wellacre High School 
7.14 
 
S36Fli 
St Michael’s CE Primary School 
0.90 
 
S37Fli 
Flixton Junior School 
0.79 
 
S38Fli 
Flixton Girls High School 
1.92 
 
S39Urm Urmston 
Junior 
School 
1.89 
 
S40Urm 
Urmston Grammar School 
0.45 
 
S41DaE 
Davyhulme Infant/Junior School 
1.60 
 
S42Urm 
St Antony's RC High School 
2.16 
 
S43Urm 
Highfield Primary School 
1.30 
 
S44Gor Lostock 
College 
2.29 
 
S45Str 
Moss Park Infant/Junior School 
0.53 
 
S46Buc 
All Saints Catholic Primary School 
0.71 
 
S47StM Firs 
Primary 
School 
0.89 
 
S48StM 
Ashton upon Mersey School 
4.53 
 
S49Ash 
Wellfield Infant/Junior School 
1.59 
 
S50Ash 
Park Road Primary School 
0.31 
 
S51Pri 
Sale Grammar School 
3.35 
 
124 

---

S52Sal 
Lime Tree Primary School 
0.70 
 
S53Sal 
Holy Family RC Primary School 
0.57 
 
S54Sal 
Temple Moor Infant School 
0.26 
 
S55Sal 
Moorlands Junior School 
1.41 
 
S56Sal Worthington 
Primary 
School 
0.95 
 
S57Lon 
Stretford Grammar School 
5.61 
 
S58Str 
St Matthew’s CE Primary School 
0.95 
 
S59Str 
Victoria Park Infant/Junior School 
1.54 
 
S60Gor 
Stretford High School 
0.83 
 
S61Lon 
Kings Road Primary School 
1.00 
 
S62Lon 
St Teresa's RC Primary School 
0.32 
 
S63Lon 
St Hilda's CE Primary School 
0.45 
 
S64Gor 
North Trafford College 
3.21 
 
S65Cli 
Old Trafford Community Primary School 
0.53 
 
S66Gor 
Barton Clough Primary School 
5.99 
 
S67DaE 
Egerton High School 
2.78 
 
S68DaE 
Our Lady of the Rosary Primary School 
0.45 
 
S69DaW 
Woodhouse Primary School 
1.40 
 
125 

---