Area Green Space Plan - St George East and West
Consideration of the value of Furber Rd Open Space prior to identifying it in the
Area Green Space Plan for potential partial disposal for development.
Notes of meeting held 10th June 2009. To be considered as part of the Area Green Space
Plan consultation process.
Introduction
•
The Parks and Green Space Strategy was adopted by Bristol City Council in February 2008
with a clear aim to improve the city's accessible green spaces - providing new facilities,
providing them where they are needed across the city and arresting the decline resulting
from decades of under investment.
•
One of the funding methods adopted by the Strategy was to sel some green space and
reinvest 70% of money raised back in to improving more important spaces.
•
Area Green Space Plan ideas and options papers, currently out for consultation until
October 29th 2010, identify where potential disposal spaces are.
How were potential disposal spaces identified:
•
The Parks and Green Space Strategy set out how potential disposal spaces should be
identified. The minimum open space provision standards adopted by the Strategy were
applied and a range of value criteria also considered.
•
The value criteria, as set out in the Strategy are given below:
Community value
This is an assessment of a site’s value to the local community based on both feedback from
local people and knowledge of changes taking place in the area.
Factor
Example of type of considerations
Level of use
Current use and potential for improved use
Community views of the
Does the community think it’s important and why?
space
Views of different groups wil be considered.
Is there a sense of community ownership of the space?
Community involvement
Is there a group or potential group who are involved in the
care of the site?
Equalities considerations
Does it have any features that are particularly important to
specific equalities groups?
Educational significance
Is it currently used by schools?
Is there the potential for it to act as an ‘outdoor classroom’?
Demographic change
Could it meet the needs of any changes to the local
population?
Level of anti-social
Does the space contribute to an ASB issue?
behaviour
How much does it affect the local community?
Is it possible to reduce it?
Events
Does it hold events or could it?
Custodial value
These are values which are largely fixed and will only be affected by external
influences such as new housing being built alongside. They are intrinsic values of
the site
Factor
Example of type of considerations
Local context and
What other spaces there are nearby and how close?
significance
Would a community be disadvantaged if this space
wasn’t here?
Is it a focus for the community?
Is it a backland site?
Accessibility
How accessible is the site in terms of getting to it or
around it?
Is it part of a greenway/cycle route/PROW?
Does the space offer opportunities for those with poor
mobility which other spaces nearby don’t, therefore
disadvantaging them by its removal – particularly in
terms of assessing its topography?
Landscape significance
To what degree does it contribute to urban landscape
character?
Does it contribute to important views and vistas both to
and from it?
Does it include water as a feature?
Nature conservation
Is it an important habitat?
significance
Is it protected or does it have protected species?
Does it have veteran trees?
Is it a wildlife corridor?
Does it have a watercourse?
Does it have geological interest?
Archaeological/Historical Does it have any features of significance to the locality/
interest
city?
Significant social link with the past?
Is it protected or registered?
Legal status
Is it common land, village green or under an Act of
Parliament?
Economic value
Does it contribute to or reduce property values?
Does it add to economic regeneration?
Sustainability significance Contribution to adaptation for climate change?
Trees providing shade and temperature reduction?
Good location to help control/ameliorate potential
flooding?
Applying the value criteria
•
The process identified 'low' value sites, not 'no' value sites. Al sites are likely to have some
value under the criteria set by the Strategy. With identified low value sites, some of course
will be of lower / higher value than others.
•
The value criteria were judged holistical y. That is, if when considered together there is not
enough evidence that the site is high value to preclude it from being recommended for
consultation, then it can be included. Should further consultation reveal such information
then it is possible to remove a site from consideration.
•
It was clear that different values could be attached to different parts of green spaces and
this has led to partial site disposals being put forward.
•
A scoring mechanism or value threshold has not been used.
•
The value assessment is informed by comment or observation from a range of council
professionals. It isn't necessary to speak to al relevant officers in each case. Officers
approached included planners, highways engineers, water/drainage engineers, ecologists,
arboriculturalists, archaeologists, the council's legal team, landscape designers, urban
designers, sports development workers, pol ution control officers and play officers.
•
The process and information used fol owed a similar approach to that used by Development
Management to help determine planning applications. That is, existing information
regularly brought to bear on planning and development decisions is also used here. For
example, value was informed by whether the land is covered by a planning designation
which itself recognises importance, such as Site of nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).
An ecologists view is then sought.
•
External stakeholders were also consulted including community members. Presentation of
potential disposal sites to community stakeholders drew a cautious response with a
reluctance amongst most, but not al , respondents to endorse disposals. Some had a clear
'no disposal' perspective and some felt that a debate needed to be had about subsequent
investment.
•
When considering comments from community stakeholders officers were looking for the
importance and function of a site to be distinct and unique from those of other spaces in the
local area.
•
The process identified sites or parts of sites that were considered low value, recreational
open space but which have not been identified as disposal sites. This can arise for example
because sites are protected by Green Belt planning policy, are owned by a third party, are
compromised by the presence of overhead or underground services or are protected by
covenants.
•
The development potential of disposal sites would need to be further established through
development plan or development management processes - that is, further investigations
might reveal that a site is not suitable for development. For example an intrusive ground
survey might reveal ground conditions that make development not viable.
•
The Strategy set out a policy to “Develop and redesign some backland sites to provide
frontages of houses looking onto the site - in so doing create a community focal point and
improve feelings of personal safety”. In these instances a disposal is informed by a low
value assessment but the backland principle is the overriding factor. The positive attributes
of introducing limited, and control ed, development are well known and in one or two cases
this positive benefit has been a strong factor in putting forward a partial disposal.
Furber Rd OS value assessment
This assessment was considered by Parks and Estates officers with input from officers from Strategic Planning Policy and Corporate Property
Services. Its use was to aid discussion. It was used together with aerial and ground photographs and also GIS information which al ows layers of
information to be added or removed in real time on a projected site map. On the basis of this information and the way it is applied, the PGSS Board
made a decision that the site should go forward for consultation as a low value green space.
Area Green Space Plan - Value Assessment
Neighbourhood Partnership area:
St George East and West
Site name:
Furber Rd O/S
Date:
10th June 2009
Value criteria
Evidence
This is a smal (one plot) open space close to the city boundary. It is across the road from a larger (but still smal ) open space. The larger space has the best recreational
potential. Although there is a general lack of open space locally this space is not needed to meet the PGSS standards for distance or quantity either now or in 2026 using
population projections based on the SHLAA. The nearest significant space in Bristol City Council ownership is Dundridge Playing Fields 750m. However, closer and within
S.Glos is Magpie Bottom - a large accessible open space. This is available for public use and will be proposed for inclusion into the AGSP as publicly accessible open
space. The larger Furber Rd site is likely to be proposed to hold a children's playground and it is not thought that the community will be disadvantaged by the smal er site
Local context
being declared surplus.
Accessibility
The space is directly accessible from the road. It is not part of a through route but a cul-de sac. There are no PROW or green routes associated with the space
The site is a green verge on the highway and holds little landscape significance and is not designated as a Prominent Green Hil side. Landscape Architects have raised no
Landscape significance
objection.
Nature conservation significance
The site is not subject to to any planning designation relating to protection of wildlife. Ecologists have not raised objection.
Archaeological / historic interest
There are no known archaeological constraints.
Legal status
The land is not common land or vil age green. There are no legal barriers to disposal, the council holds the land title.
Economic value
There are no known economic regeneration implications.
Sustainability significance
The site offers the opportunity to provide tree cover. There are no flood risk issues.
Level of use
No on site surveys have been carried out. The site has limited recreational use and the larger area to the north offers a more suitable and wel used recreational space.
Community views of space
Stakeholders have advised of the larger site being used for kickabout very regularly.
Community involvement
There are no community groups connected to this space.
Equalities considerations
Informal kickabout often takes place on part of this site - this part is being retained.
Educational significance
Contact with local schools indicate that the space is not used for education purposes.
Level of ASB
Does not appear to have any serious issues.
Events
No evidence that events have been held on the site in the past, but the larger component may be suitable for future events.