hart ppg17 assessment main report · health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational...

Kit Campbell Associates, Edinburgh: Hart PPG17 Assessment – Main Report 1 of 109

Hart PPG17 AssessmentMain Report

Contents 1: Introduction 4The Need for this Assessment 4The Context for the Assessment 5The Content of the Assessment 6Format of the Report 9Acknowledgements 9

2: Summary 10Introduction 10The Policy Context 10Local Views 11Audit Report 13Quality Standards 13Accessibility Standards 14Quantity Standards 15Issues and Options 16Planning Policy 16Conclusions and Recommendations 16

3: The Policy Context 19Introduction 19Key Points 19

4: Local Needs 21Introduction 21Summary of Key Conclusions 22The Accessibility of Provision 24What Matters Most to Local Residents? 24Countryside Issues 25Pitch Issues 26Youth Issues 28Parish and Town Councils 29Policing Issues 31Housing Association views 32General Concerns 32Good Practice Sites 33


Site Specific Issues 33Suggested “Wasted Spaces” 35

5: Audit Report 38Introduction 38Scope of the Audit 38Allotments 39Bowling Greens 39Equipped Play Areas 42Multifunctional Greenspace 44Pitches and Courts 46Benchmarking 47Conclusions 49

6: Quality Standards 50Introduction 50

7: Accessibility Standards 52Introduction 52Recommended Distance Thresholds 53

8: Accessibility Assessment 54Introduction 54Methodology 55District-wide Overview 56Conclusions - Accessibility 61

9: Quantitative Assessment 80Introduction 80Quantity Standards 80Allotments 81Artificial Turf Pitches 81Athletics Facilities 82Bowling Greens - Outdoor 82Equipped Play Areas 83Grass Pitches 84Parks, Gardens and Commons 85Teenage Facilities 86Tennis Courts 87Indoor Provision 87The Impact of Population Growth 89

10: Issues and Options 90Introduction 90Provision Issues 90Funding Issues 97Management Issues 100

11: Draft Planning Policy 102Introduction 102Principles 102Draft Policy 102KCA Development Control Model 104

12: Conclusions and Recommendations 105Introduction 105Policy Priorities 105The Evidence Base 106Keeping the Community Informed and Involved 107

Volume 2: Appendices

A: Methodology


B: Policy ContextC: Survey of Town and Parish CouncilsD: Project Greenspace SurveyE: The Audit ProcessF: Audit ReportG: Draft Quality StandardsH: Draft Accessibility StandardsI: Accessibility AssessmentJ: Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Volume 3: Background Notes

Project Greenspace Survey: Open-ended Responses Confidential Notes from Stakeholder Interviews KCA Development Control Model

Kit Campbell AssociatesOpen Space, Sport and Recreation ConsultantsChuckie Pend24A Morrison StreetEdinburgh EH3 8BJTelephone 0131-229 1006

February 2006


1: Introduction

The Need for this Assessment

Whenever people step outside their home, or place of work, they enter the public realm – the streets, squares and greenspaces which are an essential component of our villages, towns and cities. If well designed and maintained, they contribute hugely to making somewhere an attractive place in which to live. This is something which the Georgians, in particular, understood well, with their squares and crescents, all facing networks of attractive greenspaces.

Greenspace planning, however, has been much neglected since Georgian times, with a few exceptions including the great Victorian parks, the Garden City movement and of course the New Towns. Management and maintenance have also suffered as a result of Compulsory Competitive Tendering for grounds maintenance in the mid eighties. The effect has been sharply to reduce the cost of maintaining parks and greenspaces and too many are now maintained by operatives using machines rather than gardeners using knowledge and skill.

At the same time, there has been an increase in vandalism and anti-social behaviour. One result has been that the quality of the public realm has declined significantly in just twenty or thirty years. But in the past 4-5 years, a new greenspace movement has emerged in the UK which champions the value of networks of high quality greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities. Reversing the trend of the three decades will take some time, but the Government has recognised the problem and, with the publication of Planning Policy Guidance PPG17, Open Space, Sport and Recreation, requires planning authorities to undertake assessments of needs and opportunities in


their areas. More generally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister presents much of its work on sustainable communities under the broad strapline of “Cleaner, Safer, Greener Communities” and is requiring local authorities to deliver them.

Alexandra Park in Hastingsfollowing its recent upgrading –regarded as the “best thing the Council’s ever done” by some residents. Why does Hart have nothing like this?

This is also a great opportunity to reassert the importance not only of providing high quality greenspaces but ensuring that they remain of high quality by managing them properly. Effective provision and good management and maintenance are different sides of the same coin and one without the other is likely to be a waste of time and resources. Almost all of the cost of managing and maintaining publicly accessible open spaces in Hart is met from local or national taxation. As there are many other competing priorities for resources, there is an obvious need to ensure value for money. This is the background to this Assessment. It can be summed up as relating to three main things:

The need to comply with Government planning guidance

The need to bring planning and management together to ensure that Hart is an attractive place in which to live, work and play or to visit

The need to match aspirations with resources

The Context for the Assessment

Not all plans and strategies are of equal importance. The most important, obviously, are Government plans and targets, followed by regional and then local ones. For obvious reasons, those at lower levels of this “cascade” of plans should reflect and seek to deliver objectives set in wider plans. If they do not, planning for the future is disjointed and no-one can be quite sure what their priorities should be.

PPG17 notes that “open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people's quality of life. Well designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are therefore fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives. These include:

Supporting an urban renaissance - local networks of high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces, sports and recreational facilities help create urban environments that are attractive, clean and safe. Green spaces in urban areas perform vital functions as areas for nature conservation and biodiversity and by acting as 'green lungs' can assist in meeting objectives to improve air quality.

Supporting a rural renewal - the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors can play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas. Open spaces within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and


recreational facilities contribute to the quality of life and well being of people who live in rural areas.

Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion - well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving people's sense of well being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for social interaction.

Health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness, and in the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others.

Promoting more sustainable development - by ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned for locations well served by public transport.”

This assessment is very much a local one, of specific relevance to the Hart District. The local context for it is set primarily by the Community Strategy (prepared by the Local Strategic Partnership), together with the Council’s Corporate Plan and the Local Plan (both prepared by the District Council). In the planning cascade, this assessment will contribute to the District’s first Local Development Framework (the replacement for the Local Plan) and also help to set wider Council priorities for open space, sport and recreation provision.

The Content of the Assessment

The Community Strategy, Planning the Future of Hart Together, seeks to bring together all of the issues affecting the District’s future to ensure that everyone is “pulling in the same direction”. It aims “to improve, sustain and promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in Hart District”. It is based around five broad themes: community safety; safe and affordable housing; environment; transport; and health and well-being. There is also a single “cross-cutting theme” of youth issues.

This statement makes clear that the LSP acknowledges and endorses the fact that effective greenspace planning, provision and management has the potential to make a major contribution to the District’s quality of life.

This assessment therefore covers all aspects of open space, sport and recreation provision in Hart. More specifically, it:

Reviews the amount, distribution and quality of existing provision


Identifies where there is a need for more or better provision and the types of enhancements which will benefit existing facilities and spaces most

Suggests appropriate provision standards for the District Council to use as part of the planning process

Suggests how to tackle the key issues relating to open space, sport and recreation provision facing the District Council and its partners

Recommends priorities for the future

What is “Open Space”?

This Assessment uses the definition of “open space” given in PPG17:

“… all open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can also act as a visual amenity”.

In many areas, open space planning has until very recently concentrated almost completely on “playing space” as defined by the National Playing Fields Association in its Six Acre Standard. Hart is no exception. One of the strengths of PPG17, however, is that it requires planning authorities to adopt a wider definition of open space. Indeed, it sets out a recommended typology of open space provision which councils can adopt or adapt as they see fit. The PPG17 typology is appropriate to Hart and therefore we have used it:

Accessible countryside in urban fringe areas Allotments Amenity greenspace Churchyards and cemeteries Civic spaces Green corridors Natural and semi-natural urban greenspaces Outdoor sports facilities, which we have split into

bowling greens, pitches and tennis or multi-courts (also known as multi-use games areas)

Parks and gardens Provision for children and teenagers

One of the purposes of the typology is to encourage planning authorities to consider the need for all the different types of open space by identifying a range of “primary purposes” so that spaces can be designed to accommodate these purposes as well as possible. However, most greenspaces also serve at least one secondary purpose: a football pitch is primarily an outdoor sports facility, for example, but also helps to support local amenity and may serve a strategic purpose in terms of


providing open-ness in an otherwise densely developed area. To reflect this, we have subsumed a number of elements of the PPG17 typology – amenity greenspaces, churchyards and cemeteries, natural and semi-natural greenspaces and parks and gardens – under the broad heading of “multi-functional greenspaces”. In addition, as some sites contain more than one form of provision (for example, a pitch, tennis courts and a play area) we have more than one audit form for some sites.


Methodology

We summarise the methodology used for the Assessment in Appendix A.

Format of the Report This report sets out the main elements of the assessment. As most people will be interested mainly in broad conclusions, rather than fine detail, we have kept it reasonably short and put as much of the supporting material as possible into the following appendices:

A MethodologyB The Policy ContextC Survey of Parish And Town Council ViewsD Project Greenspace SurveyE The Audit ProcessF Audit ScoresG Draft Quality StandardsH Derivation of distance thresholdsI Dwellings within the Distance Thresholds of different

forms of provisionJ Draft Supplementary Planning Document: The Use of

Planning Agreements in Hart District

There are also two sets of background notes which do not form part of the report but simply provide the District Council with additional background information:

Open-ended responses to the Project Greenspace Survey

Confidential notes from our stakeholder interviews

Acknowledgements Consultants undertaking an assignment such as this have necessarily to depend on assistance from a wide range of people for information, guidance and support. We wish to thank the various Council members and officers who contributed to our work. In addition, we wish particularly to thank the many members of the Hart community who took the trouble to complete and return one of our survey questionnaires and the various representatives of local organisations who answered our questions and supplied useful background information.


2: Summary

Introduction This assessment has involved a number of discrete pieces of work which together constitute the PPG17 assessment for Hart District:

The identification of the policy context within which the assessment is set

The identification of local views on the quality and quantity of existing provision across the District

A sample audit of the quality and value of local open spaces and sport and recreation local provision

The derivation of quality standards The derivation of appropriate distance thresholds for

Hart and their application to assess the accessibility of existing provision across the District

The development and application of locally determined quantity standards

The identification of a number of key issues for the Council and its partners to tackle, with recommendations for how it should tackle them

The drafting of a new planning policy approach for open space, sport and recreation provision

The Policy Context There are three key messages from our review of existing plans and strategies:

The state of local environments is seen as increasingly important by the Government. It is requiring local authorities to take effective action to deliver what these days is known as “liveability”. The Government view is very clearly that any council which does not deliver demonstrable “continuous improvement” is failing.

The state of their local environment is also very important to Hart’s residents. In an area like Hart, with


a very high level of home ownership and therefore economic mobility, the state of the local environment has a direct influence on the desirability of the District as a place in which to live.

The Community Strategy contains a number of important aspirational policy “hooks” on which it is possible to hang the PPG17 assessment. Taking positive action to improve the District’s open space, sport and recreation provision should be seen as an important component of delivering the Local Strategic Partnership’s vision for the District.

Local Views Taking account of local views is fundamental to achieving a successful greenspace network that people feel proud of and enjoy using. We sought to establish local views in four main ways:

Analysis of local residents’ views through the Council’s Project Greenspace Survey (see below)

Telephone interviews with key local stakeholders suggested by the District Council, ranging from Council staff such as rangers to local sports clubs, youth workers and amenity bodies

A self-completion questionnaire survey of Parish Councils, supplemented by a meeting with councillors for the non-parished areas of Fleet and Church Crookham

Discussions with District councillors and officials

General Overview

Our consultations have revealed that the District Council is storing up potentially serious problems for itself as a result of continuing under-investment in the provision, management and maintenance of community infrastructure. We encourage the Council to read the open-ended responses to the Project Greenspace Survey; some of which can only be described as angry. There is a strong feeling in the local community that there has been too much housing development; that community infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth; and, as a result, that the quality of local sports and open space provision is suffering from excessive demand pressures.

The Quantity of Provision

Respondents’ satisfaction with the quantity of provision is fairly low, although generally higher than their ratings for quality of provision. This suggests the Council’s priority should be to enhance quality rather than quantity. If it boosts quantity, its extremely limited revenue funding will be spread over a greater quantity of provision and quality is then bound to suffer further.


The main local needs we have identified include a desire for:

More and better football pitches and changing provision

More and better provision for children and teenagers in both the main towns and the larger villages

Better access to the countryside, for example through enhancements to the rights of way network or the creation of more paths and cycleways

More opportunities for active recreation in the countryside (for example, motorised sports) and possibly a country park designed for countryside activities rather than quiet enjoyment

More and better indoor sports provision Better management and maintenance of the greenspace

resource and enhancement of the quality of many spaces or facilities

Peter Driver Sports Ground – how can providing pitches like this for young people persuade them that sport is “good fun”?

The Quality of Provision

The majority of respondents find the overall quality of most forms of provision to be fairly low or worse

Many people commented that the quality of public facilities is very poor, particularly sports facilities such as the Hart Leisure Centre, with the result that many residents prefer to use commercial centres

Sports pitches and changing rooms are perceived as being of particularly poor quality

More positively, 58% of respondents rated the quality of provision at nature conservation sites as fairly high/very high

Resolving local concerns over quality will require the redesign, reconstruction or replacement of some spaces and facilities. Management and maintenance are also key aspects of quality and the local community is particularly critical of what it sees as inadequate action by the Council to tackle litter, dog fouling, vandalism and anti-social behaviour. In some areas, there are also problems with travellers encroaching onto open space.

Opportunities

There is a large amount of MoD land with high conservation value in the area, some of which may be available for extending existing open space sites. As the MoD is downsizing and selling off land, some good conservation sites and recreation site will become available. Already, Farnborough Airfield is used for dog walking and is almost a ready made country park.

Priorities


In the short term, it will obviously be impossible for the Council to tackle all the issues of concern to the local community we have identified through our consultations. Given the parlous state of the Council’s resources for open space, sport and recreation provision, it will be better to focus resources on improving the quality of key sites than spreading resources ever more thinly over more sites. The improvements that local residents would like to see most are:

Better pitches and changing accommodation Better parks and other high profile sites Better provision for children and teenagers More cycle and footpaths linking towns and villages

Audit Report PPG17 requires planning authorities to undertake an audit of existing provision in their area as a key element of assessing local needs and opportunities. This is generally seen as a requirement for an audit of all relevant sites and facilities. In Hart, because of the restricted budget available for the assessment, we have been able to undertake only a sample audit of sites, selected by Council officers as broadly representative of local provision.

The audit has led to a number of strategic conclusions:

In broad terms, the quality of provision in Hart is broadly comparable with other areas in which we have undertaken audits using the same basic audit forms and methodology. This said, however, there is a need to improve the quality of a number of playing pitches and related changing accommodation and a general need to enhance the quality of multi-functional greenspaces.

The value of Hart’s greenspaces – to the local community and in relation to wider issues such as wildlife and biodiversity - is also generally good, but there are many sites where it will be desirable to enhance value if at all possible.

Although play areas in the District achieved a reasonable average quality score, it is clear that there is a need significantly to improve a number of sites. More generally, we question the long term play value and attractiveness of many play areas – especially in the context of their fairly high maintenance costs.

Quality Standards The purpose of quality standards is to set out the quality of provision the Council wishes to see in its area. Such standards have two main uses:

They provide a benchmark for the Council to assess and compare the quality of different facilities of the same type within its area as an aid when determining


priorities for improvement or changes to management regimes

They set out the Council’s requirements as a guide for developers on the quality of provision the Council will expect them either to provide or fund

We have derived each of the recommended quality standards from examples of best practice, such as the Green Flag Award criteria for parks or published advice, coupled with our experience and the results of the audit.

Accessibility Standards

The use of distance thresholds as a planning tool means that it is possible to ignore boundaries and use the typical distances that people are willing to travel to different forms of provision. The distance thresholds we recommend are:

Form of Provision Travel time

(minutes)

Walking Thresholds

(m)

Cycling Thresholds

(m)

Allotments 15 900 2,250Artificial turf pitches 20 1,200 3,000Bowling greens 15 900 2,250Children’s play areas 5 300 N/aGrass sports pitches 15 900 2,250Indoor sports facilities 20 1,200 3,000Multi-functional greenspaces 5 300 N/aTeenage facilities 10 600 1,500Tennis or multi-courts 15 900 2,250

The application of these thresholds to the District leads to the following conclusions:

Allotments: probable need for additional allotment sites across the District, but especially in Hook and Yateley

Artificial turf pitches: there is a need for at least one ATP in the Fleet area – at least one because ATPs can now be designed specifically for hockey or football(and, in the case of the latter type, some rugby training) rather than multi-purpose.

Athletics: as there is no athletics facility within the District, there is an obvious need at least for a training area. Any such facility should obviously be associated with a secondary school if at all possible.

Bowling greens: probable need for greens in Hook, Hartley Wintney and Church Crookham and possibly also in Yateley/Blackwater

Parks, gardens and commons: it will be desirable to increase the number of “park-like” spaces across the District but this does not necessarily imply any additional provision. Instead it will make better use of land, and be far more cost-effective, to enhance a number of existing spaces.

Grass pitches: there is little need for more grasspitches purely on accessibility grounds, although the


quality of many sites leaves a lot to be desired. This is another argument in favour of providing at least one high capacity artificial turf pitch designed for football.

Equipped Play Areas: there may be opportunities to rationalise provision in parts of Yateley, Hook and Odiham

Teenage areas: there is a probable need for additional provision in Blackwater, and the southern half of Fleet/Church Crookham and possibly Crondall.

Tennis courts: there is no real need for additional provision on accessibility grounds, other than perhaps in Hartley Wintney

Indoor Bowls: as the population of the District grows older, there may be a growing need for indoor bowls provision.

Indoor Tennis: given the fairly widespread provision of tennis courts, there may be a need for indoor tennis courts in Hart. However, with milder winters a cheaper option will be to identify existing outdoor courts it will be possible to floodlight in order to allow winter use.

Sports halls: there may be a need for additional sports hall provision in the western part of the District, although village halls will no doubt provide substitute opportunities for badminton and some other indoor sports activities.

Swimming pools: there is no need for additional provision on accessibility grounds.

Quantity Standards We have derived suitable quantity standards for the District on the basis of the following evidence:

Our analysis of the present quantity of provision across the District

Local views as established through the survey of local residents and parish and town councils

“First principles” calculations The Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator

In summary, the standards we recommend are:

Outdoor Provision

Allotments 0.75 sq m/personArtificial turf pitches 0.25 sq m/personAthletics training 0.24 sq m/personBowling greens 0.11 sq m/personEquipped play areas 0.5 sq m/personGrass pitches 19.0 sq m/personParks, Gardens and Commons 18.0 sq m/personTeenage areas 0.3 sq m/personTennis courts 0.25 sq m/person

Indoor Provision

Indoor bowls 0.013 sq m/person


The Impact of Population Growth

Each of the above quantity standards relates to the population of the District, as established by the 2001 census. As there is to be significant housing development in the District, the population is likely to rise. If the overall demographic structure of the District stays broadly the same as in 2001, it will be possible simply to apply the above standards to new development.

Issues and Options

Basingbourne Play Area

In the course of the assessment we identified a number of issues on which we think it desirable that the Council should make policy decisions. They are:

Provision Issues

Completing the audit of local provision A new approach to children’s play Provision for teenagers Provision for football Provision in the western part of the District Walking and cycling Provision for athletics Indoor provision

Funding Issues

The use of planning agreements District Council funding External funding

Management Issues

Asset management The Basingstoke Canal Community relations

Planning Policy Most planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are essentially negative; that is, they aim to protect spaces from development. Given the need to enhance provision across the District, and possibly to change the overall pattern of provision, we suggest that the Council should adopt a more positive approach. We also suggest that the Council’s overall objective - which it could probably use as a core policy objective in its LDF -should be to ensure that Hart has a network of accessible, high quality greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities which meet local needs and enhance the “liveability” of the District, promote sustainability, support bio-diversity and make the best use of land.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In the final chapter we pull together a number of key points from the assessment and make further recommendations to the Council under three broad heads:


Policy issues The evidence base for open space, sport and recreation

policies Keeping the local community informed and involved

Policy Issues

In broad terms, the main policy message from this assessment is that the quality and accessibility of provision are far more important than the amount of it. The planning system can help to deliver resources for greenspace and sport and recreation facility enhancements, but we recommend that the Council should see this as an important complement to better management and maintenance, rather than a substitute for it.

In broad terms, the priorities for open space, sport and recreation provision are likely to be:

The development and enhancement of a limited number of high profile strategic sites, designed to serve a wide range of community needs. The upgrading or reconstruction of existing pitches and related changing and the provision of artificial turf pitches

The improvement of provision for teenagers The development of a new approach to children’s play The development of more walking and cycling routes

within and between the main settlements

The Evidence Base

In order for an assessment of this kind to be fully PPG17-compliant it is necessary to undertake a comprehensive audit of local provision. We recommend that the Council should:

Seek to obtain the views of those town and parish councils that did not respond to our requests for their views, in spite of several requests

Develop and maintain a comprehensive database of local provision. Without this, there is a risk thatInspectors may not regard the assessment as fully PPG17 compliant. In addition, the Council will need this in order to be to report annually to the ODPM in its LDF Annual Monitoring Report on the area and proportion of greenspace in the District that is of Green Flag Standard.

Keeping the Community Informed and Involved

Many Hart residents have contributed to this assessment and open space, sport and recreation provision is clearly


important to many local people. This creates both a need and an opportunity for the Council.

The need is to keep residents better informed on what the Council is doing and why. We therefore recommend that the Council should:

Put more effort into making clear to the local community that it is not entirely its own master in terms of the amount of residential development planned for the District, but must conform to the Regional Spatial Strategy (and in the short term, the Structure Plan)

Prepare a short version of this assessment, for example as a supplement to Hart News, thanking those members of the community that contributed to it and setting out what the assessment found, inviting comments on the policy issues it has raised and, once these responses are collated, to set out how the Council intends to respond to the recommendations and what it intends to do differently as a result

Emphasise to the local community that the Council intends to harness development more than it has done in the past to benefit existing local communities by enhancing their greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities. Having done this, and raised expectations, it must then deliver.

The opportunity is for the Council to get local communities more involved in greenspace management and maintenance across the District. These people could be a hugely valuable resource for the Council in its work to enhance and maintain the “liveability” of the Hart District. The Friends of Oakley Park is an obvious model to follow and could be a useful ally in helping the Council foster similar approaches in other areas.


3: The Policy Context

Introduction In Appendix B we set out a brief summary of those policy statements, plans and strategies that set the broad context for planning and managing the District’s open space and recreation provision. They include:

PPG17, Open Space, Sport and Recreation Regional Planning Guidance RPG9 for the south-east The Hart Community Strategy The Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 The Hart District Landscape Assessment The Hart Leisure Strategy 1995-2005 The Blackwater Valley Strategy 2000-2005

Key Points Like many other areas, Hart has a number of well researched plans and strategies containing sensible proposals. However, it is noticeable how little of them have been implemented to any significant extent. This is particularly true of the Council’s ten-year old Leisure Strategy. It contains a lot of sensible proposals – which this assessment supports – but the Council has done little to implement them. When this happens, the effort put into producing strategies can be very largely wasted, staff morale slumps and services can easily decline. Strategies also raise expectations within the local community, leading to local residents becoming increasingly cynical in their view of the local authority and frustrated by what they come to see as a lot of “pie in the sky” effort at Council taxpayers’ expense.

At the same time it has to be said that this problem is not unique to Hart, but widespread across the country. It is to be hoped that the development of community strategies will lead to a more effective focus on fewer things. There is a lot to be said for doing a few things well rather than many things badly. Unfortunately, however, and in spite of all the Government rhetoric about community involvement, many local priorities are set more by Whitehall directives and targets than local needs.

There are three key messages from our review of existing plans and strategies:


Oakley Park

Calthorpe “Park”

The state of local environments is seen as increasingly important by the Government. It is requiring local authorities to take effective action to deliver what these days is known as “liveability”. Moreover, it is beginning to measure the performance of local authorities in terms of the quality of environment they deliver for their area’s residents and visitors. For example, one of the Council’s Government-set performance indicators is the proportion of its greenspaces that are of “Green Flag” standard. The Green Flag scheme, originally developed purely as a way of recognising high quality parks, is now being widened to encompass all forms of greenspace. Hart residents are very lucky in that they live in a predominantly rural area, with a high quality landscape and attractive towns and villages. That is one reason why it faces significant development pressures. However, the Council cannot afford to rest on its laurels. The Government view is very clearly that any council which does not deliver demonstrable “continuous improvement” in indicators such as the area of Green Flag standard space is failing.

The state of their local environment is also very important to Hart’s residents. A poor quality, neglected environment sends out very clear messages in relation to community safety, for example, and whether the Council “cares”. In Hart, Oakley Park sends out a very positive message and must be a source of pride and enjoyment to the people who live around its periphery – an attractive, well cared-for greenspace which has a range of facilities which appeal to people of different ages. But few would be positive about the state of Basingbourne Recreation Ground or Calthorpe Park. Moreover, in an area like Hart, with a very high level of home ownership and therefore economic mobility, the state of the local environment has a direct influence on the desirability of the District as a place in which to live.

The Community Strategy contains a number of important aspirational policy “hooks” on which it is possible to hang the PPG17 assessment, and policies and proposals arising from it, including enhancing the local environment; reducing car travel and therefore promoting walking and cycling; encouraging community involvement; promoting physical activity and doing more to meet the needs of young people. Taking positive action to improve the District’s open space, sport and recreation provision should therefore be seen as an important component of delivering the Local Strategic Partnership’s vision for the District.


4: Local Needs

Introduction Taking account of local views is fundamental to identifying community needs and achieving a successful greenspace and sports facilities network that people feel proud of and enjoy using. Such an approach is very much in accordance with the advice of PPG17 which emphasises the importance of developing local provision standards which reflect local needs. We sought to establish local views in four main ways:

Analysis of local residents’ views through the Council’s Project Greenspace Survey (see below)

Telephone interviews with key local stakeholderssuggested by the District Council, ranging from Council staff such as rangers to local sports clubs, youth workers and amenity bodies

A self-completion questionnaire survey of Parish Councils, supplemented by a meeting with councillors for the non-parished areas of Fleet and Church Crookham. We give the results of this survey in Appendix C.

A presentation and discussion with local councillors

The Project Greenspace Survey consisted of a self-completion questionnaire survey placed on the Council’s website and also circulated through Hart News. In total this generated 1,445 responses, equivalent to 1.7 % of the District’s residents. As the sample was self-selected, its composition did not match the age and gender structure of Hart’s population and therefore the results are unlikely to be properly representative. More specifically, the sample was biased towards the older age groups and contained 56% men and 44% women. This said, the high response rate certainly indicates the significant local interest that local residents have in their environment and offers a useful insight into the views of those who responded. Appendix D contains District-wide frequency tables from the survey. We also analysed the results by postcode of respondent to see if there was any significant variation of opinion from one part of the District to another, but only for those postcode districts (eg RG27) with around 100 or


more respondents. In areas with fewer respondents than this the results would be much less robust.

Summary of Key Conclusions

Elvetham Heath

General Overview

Our consultations have revealed that the District Council is storing up potentially serious problems for itself as a result of continuing under-investment in the provision, management and maintenance of community infrastructure. We encourage the Council to read the open-ended responses to the Project Greenspace Survey; some of which can only be described as angry. There is a strong feeling in the local community that there has been too much housing development; that community infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth; and, as a result, that the quality of local sports and open space provision is suffering from excessive demand pressures. There are four main issues:

Growing opposition to further development: the Council needs to find ways of ensuring that development benefits, and is seen to benefit, the District’s existing residents while also channelling development to acceptable locations

Growing frustration with the Council’s approach to community provision; the Council needs to find ways of increasing its expenditure on community infrastructure in ways that will reflect the community’s needs and priorities

Growing concerns that the very qualities that make Hart an attractive place to live are being eroded; the Council needs to audit Hart’s “liveability” and draw up clear guidelines for ensuring that it is maximised

Growing concern over rising levels of vandalism and anti-social behaviour, giving rise to local fears relating to personal safety; the Council needs to work effectively with a range of partners to tackle these issues if it is not to face serious problems in the future

The Quantity of Provision

Respondents’ satisfaction with the quantity of provision is fairly low, although generally higher than their ratings for quality of provision. This suggests the Council’s priority should be to enhance quality rather than quantity. If it boosts quantity, its extremely limited revenue funding will be spread over a greater quantity of provision and quality is then bound to suffer further.

The main local needs we have identified include a desire for:

More and better football pitches and changing provision


More and better provision for children and teenagers in both the main towns and the larger villages

Better access to the countryside, for example through enhancements to the rights of way network or the creation of more paths and cycleways

Opportunities for active recreation in the countryside (for example, motorised sports) and possibly a country park designed for countryside activities rather than quiet enjoyment

More and better indoor sports provision Better management and maintenance of the greenspace

resource and enhancement of the quality of many spaces or facilities

The Quality of Provision

The majority of respondents find the overall quality of most forms of provision to be fairly low or worse

Many people commented that the quality of public facilities is very poor, particularly sports facilities such as the Hart Leisure Centre, with the result that many residents prefer to use commercial centres

Sports pitches and changing rooms are perceived as being of particularly poor quality

More positively, 58% of respondents rated the quality of provision at nature conservation sites as fairly high/very high

Resolving local concerns over quality will require the redesign, reconstruction or replacement of some spaces and facilities. Management and maintenance are also key aspects of quality and the local community is particularly critical of what it sees as inadequate action by the Council to tackle litter, dog fouling, vandalism and anti-social behaviour. In some areas, there are also problems with travellers encroaching onto open space

Opportunities

There is a large amount of MoD land with high conservation value in the area, some of which may be available for extending existing open space sites. As the MoD is downsizing and selling off land; some good conservation sites and recreation site will become available. Already, Farnborough Airfield is used for dog walking and is almost a ready made country park.

Priorities

In the short term, it will obviously be impossible for the Council to tackle all the issues of concern to the local community we have identified through our consultations. Given the parlous state of the Council’s resources for open space, sport and recreation provision, it will be better to focus resources on improving the quality of key sites than


spreading resources ever more thinly over more sites. The improvements we recommend the Council should concentrate on are:

Improving pitches and changing accommodation, in particular by working with clubs to secure external funding, for example form the Football Foundation

Enhancing parks and other high profile sites, for example by increasing the horticultural interest and attractiveness to older people, in particular by seeking external funding from the Big Lottery Fund and working with Friends groups

Better provision for children and teenagers, in particular by seeking external funding from the Big Lottery Fund

Creating more cycle and footpaths linking towns and villages, and with the countryside, in particular by seeking to influence the County Council’s Local Transport Plan

The Accessibility of Provision

Accessibility

Using the car is the normal mode of transport for the vast majority of respondents travelling to facilities such as large parks, outdoor local sports facilities, indoor leisure centres and countryside sites.

More than 14% walk to large parks, countryside sites or routes and outdoor local sports facilities; a positive start in supporting sustainability.

Around 10% cycle to the countryside; given that most of these people own a car, this may indicate a need for more cycling routes and should be encouraged for sustainability.

Buses are almost insignificant in terms of current leisure travel patterns.

Public transport in the area is very poor, resulting in some people being unable to access much social provision including open spaces.

Accessibility and Alternatives to the Car

Hart residents are likely to react more positively to carrots rather than to sticks in that a switch to more sustainable forms of transport will be welcomed only if non-car access is made easier

The most effective measures will be making pedestrian and cycle access easier or more convenient

What Matters Most to Local Residents?

The Countryside

The proximity of the countryside is important to people living in Hart – nearly 90% of respondents classed the countryside as being of fairly or very high importance to them.


Public Spaces

Street trees, planted verges and parks and public gardens are the most important elements of public spaces for respondents.

Activity Spaces

Pitches (whether public or educational), water sports areas and children’s play areas are the most important activity spaces.

Ancells Farm Nature Reserve

Local people’s activities and interests

Hart residents are very active, with respondents using facilities at frequencies well above the national averages found in the General Household Survey.

A high proportion of people visit the countryside. With around an average of 1.5 visits per week. While rural footpaths have the highest number of visits per year, the general countryside, tranquil water areas and woodland attract the highest proportions of local residents.

Around 44% of respondents cycle regularly. Swimming pools, community centres/village halls are

used by a high proportion of respondents. The facilities with the highest proportion of residents

using them regularly are those that which are commercially operated. 24% have membership of a private fitness club compared with only 10% in membership of Hart’s 365 Club.

Countryside Issues Countryside and Water Recreation

Countryside provision is dominated by a desire to provide for quiet enjoyment and therefore there is poor provision for some sectors of the community such as young people and motor sports interests. As a result, there is a need for a country park, designed primarily for active recreation rather than conservation, and providing facilities for BBQs, active sports, kite flying areas, a water area and model boats. A country park offering opportunities for these and other similar activities will help to resolve existing conflicts between recreation and conservation, provided it is in a convenient location.

The footpath/Rights of Way (RoW) network should be improved. The major problem is that much of the network is permissive and unmapped.

A sense of safety is a major issue in the countryside. Some people worry about being attacked on the footpath network. Others worry about theft of and from cars. There is a clear need to address these fears with more information and guidance.

The Sheffield Hallam Countryside Access Plan


mentioned the need for 4x4 and motorcycle provision but this has a low ranking in the Countryside Action Plan as the group overseeing it is dominated by quiet recreation interests.

There is a need for more small car parks linked to access points in the Forest of Eversley (supported by the Access Plan).

The west of the District needs more bridleways. While the north east corner at Yateley is good for horseriding, there are fewer permissive or suitable routes in the west.

The North East Hants Water Activities Association takes canoe groups – especially young people - paddling the whole of the Basingstoke Canal as far as the Mychett Centre. It needs better facilities and better access to the canal bank. At present, it uses a portacabin at Court Moor School, with no lighting, for changing and the only toilet available is in the school

The priority is for a proper footpath down to the canal bank; the wharf side should be tarmaced.

Basingstoke Canal

Cycling Provision

The Basingstoke Canal is a good route for cycling - as long as cyclists respect walkers and fishermen.

Kissing gates on paths are a real nuisance for cyclists and should not be used.

Cycling network should be better publicised. Fleet and Farnborough/Aldershot are ideal cycling

distances but key links are missing – there should be a cycle path opened up at Norris Bridge.

Pitch Issues Football

Two quotations reflect local attitudes to football pitch provision in Hart:

“The best pitches we use are at away matches in Surrey” and “Hampshire FA regards the area as poorly provided for in both quality and availability”.

Calthorpe Park

Calthorpe Park

Despite being a “central venue” for mini-soccer; the pitches are poor and badly maintained

There are no changing facilities and around 200 children are forced to “use the bushes” on Sunday mornings

Clubs have to determine whether or not ground conditions are suitable for play. This is not sensible as they will tend to use a pitch if at all possible and this can cause significant damage.

Velmead Community Centre


Reasonable pitches and acceptable changing facilities, but costs £50,000 per year to operate

Peter Driver Sports Ground

One of the two 11-a-side pitches is in very poor condition

The changing accommodation is very basic

Elvetham Heath

One 11-a-side pitch was fenced off last summer for recovery and the second has been compromised by housing at both ends

The changing accommodation looks good on the outside but is 20 years out of date with communal showers and insufficient changing

Issues and Needs

Hart is seen as not interested in boys’ and girls’ sport with little or no work supporting children or promoting sports development

Clubs dare not promote their activities as facilities are already over-stretched

Councillors are seen to be interested only in quiet recreation

Pitches are not properly maintained in summer and Hart is seen as having no active interest in the pitch sports

Developers are perceived as being allowed to wriggle out of their obligations: for example, at Elvetham Heath the provision of an ATP was changed into a pedestrian bridge; the Ancells Farm development was to include a pitch but it was never constructed

Hockey

“There are no good pitches in the District –although we do use a good pitch at Havant”.

Needs an ATP Needs more volunteers Needs a Development Plan Needs more sponsorship School changing rooms almost tolerable

Cricket

Brick pavilion at King George Playing Field needs refurbished and the showers and toilets need improvement

The pitch at Rotherwick should be improved; there are no sight screens and a very old pavilion


Need to address problems with vandalism – containers are broken into regularly; stones through windows; fly tipping; sometime stolen cars are dumped

Artificial Turf Pitches

At first glance, a District of 85,000 people with 4 ATPs looks to be well provided for, but two of these are deep in the countryside, at Lord Wandsworth College near Long Sutton, and a third is at RAF Odiham

The only ATP site with good accessibility is the Frogmore Leisure Centre, but the pitch is 10 years oldand in poor condition; replacement is needed soon

There is no third generation ATP for football in the District, the obvious location for such a pitch being at one of the secondary schools provided it is willing to manage joint use

Youth Issues General Points

There is a perceived lack of provision for children’s play

Youth and ranger services are seen to be over-stretched and under-funded

There are perceived problems with youth behaviour and a very low level of provision for youth in most areas

There is inadequate provision for young teenagers who mainly have fairly basic needs such as benches, skateboard areas and ball walls for football, basketball and cricket

Many parks have no provision for 16/17 year olds and there is a need for more youth shelters/pods and multi-courts (also known as Multi-use games areas)

Ranger programmes should involve young people more in nature conservation areas

Young people don’t walk to bins – bins should be provided where they congregate

Young people in Crondall and South Warnborough are isolated and have to walk significant distances to meet others

There is a disproportionate amount of provision in the south of the County, for example, the Calshot Activities Centre in Southampton; the climbing wall at Barfield School Farnham; Runway’s End in Farnborough or the Alpine Ski in Aldershot.

A high ropes course sited locally would help provide a more equitable distribution

The Views and Skateboard Park at the Point

The best youth site is The Views skateboard park at the Point: it is very well used which makes it easy for youth workers to engage with their clients

Local girls want a team shelter from where they can


watch the activities

The Base Youth Centre in Hook

Great for youth sport and recreation with a good Multi-court for basketball, football, cricket; a small skateboard area; equipped play area and an adventure play ground for 8-14s with climbing and balancing equipment.

Areas of Tension between Young People and Residents

Basingbourne Park in Church Crookham has become an area of tension between young people and residents, with police chasing them away

Hawley has a lack of space for older teenagers and they are congregating in a copse by the cricket field where there are often drugs and alcohol problems

Swan Way play area in Netherhouse – there are calls for the site to be closed because young people are gathering there

The Youth Service is contributing to the Vandalism Focus Group in Yateley

Noise from the skatepark at The Views is annoying local residents

Areas Where Young People Gather

Close to the Council offices and library Monteagle Lane by the red cross building Darby Green Recreation Ground Zebon Copse Forest of Eversley - Ford Lane Elvetham Heath

Parish and Town Councils

Overview

On the whole, the District’s Parish and Town Councils recognise that access to the countryside and countrysidefacilities is generally good, but see a widespread need for more or better provision of:

Cycle paths and bridleways Children’s play areas Youth facilities

A number of councils identified specific needs for their area. Although they probably represent, at least partially, long-standing and detailed “wish lists”, they also support local residents’ views that while Hart is a good area in which to live, open space, sport and recreation provision does not contribute as much to the quality of local life as it could and should.

Area-specific Findings


Eversley

New football pitch with pavilion so that village football club can return to a local pitch

Second cricket pitch for the Cricket Club, which currently has to rent a pitch outside the village

Improve the play facilities at the Lower Common Play Area. Replace old swing set with two new sets and add other items of play equipment.

Create and dedicate a riverside footpath and bridleway, with links to the existing network, in both Hampshire and Berkshire

Provide a running track and/or tennis courts linked to the new sports development at Eversley Cross

More cyclepaths, nature conservation areas and natural footpaths, bowling greens and play areas for children.

Need teenage facilities, tennis courts and a youth centre

Great “A” village green needs clearing and tidying, new avenue planting, informal footpaths

Up Green Village Green – selective thinning, pond restoration, new informal footpaths

Lower Common woodland – selective thinning, pond restoration, new informal footpaths

Yateley

Youth centre plus skate boarding facility Public swimming pool Athletics facility Off road pedal/motor cycle track Climbing wall More greenspace in housing and more local recreation

grounds. Needs provision of children’s play areas, teenage facilities and a youth centre.

Desire to see quality improvements to rural footpaths, street trees, parks and gardens and children’s play areas.

Hook

Elizabeth Hall – total rebuilding due to age and DDA requirements

Community Centre – ongoing repair and refurbishments to comply with DDA

Need for teen facility/meeting area; identified in the parish plan

Permanent library More cycle/bridleways, woodland areas, grass pitches

and teenage facilities. Wanted to see quality improvements to bridleways and

woodland areas and Elizabeth Hall. There are no allotments in the area but no need for any


Odiham

North Warnborough Recreation Ground is under used at present and this should be rectified

Church Crookham

More bridleways and commons More greenspace in housing More parks and public gardens More children’s play areas More grass pitches More supervised adventure play More teenage facilities More tennis courts More allotments More youth centres Quality improvements to local recreation grounds,

parks and gardens, children’s play areas, teenage provision, indoor facilities, bridleways and footpaths

Fleet

Athletics provision (several sources) More bridleways and footpaths More country parks or common lands More children’s play areas More grass pitches More adventure play More teenage facilities More village halls / community centres More youth centres Quality improvements to local recreation grounds,

children’s play areas, grass sports pitches, teenage facilities, bridleways and parks and gardens

Mattingley

More bridleways and cycle paths More children’s play areas More adventure play areas More grass pitches More tennis courts Hound Green – provide facilities for teenagers and

children and improve condition Church Green – Upgrade and restore Mattingley Common - Restore

Bramshill Parish

There are few facilities in this area and no facilities are required. Access to the surrounding countryside is good.

Greyswell


Identified a need for youth centres and better quality country parks / common land.

Policing Issues The Police have identified a number of problem sites or issues, including:

Basingbourne Park, Calthorpe Park and Hook Community Centre where large groups of 40-50 youths congregate

Youths congregating on equipped play areas “Flashers” in the forest Basingbourne – growing problem of graffiti Blackwater Station - overgrown paths and vegetation

problematic Southwood playing fields – temporary incursions by

travellers. Hearsey Gardens/Beaulieu Gardens in Darby Green –

problems with gypsies/travellers.

Housing Associationviews

In some hostels, fewer than half of the households have a car. Bus services are so poor that residents without cars are trapped and therefore open space issues are less important than transport ones for residents.

General Concerns Local people are concerned by the perceived lack of appropriate management or maintenance of various sites. Other concerns raised frequently include:

Disturbances by youths congregating Safety and security on country lanes and on the

meadows High degree of dog fouling Management of litter, rubbish and vandalism Poor quality and management of Council leisure

centres – people forced to take out private membership of sports clubs

Sense that the Council isn’t taking a lead in providing good open space, leisure and recreation facilities

The amount, use and future of MoD Army land in the area

Poor public transport and car parking problems.

There is a general desire for:

Outdoor Sports Provision

An all-weather athletics facility More pitches – especially hockey and rugby An area for 4x4 and motor sports Better changing facilities for sports pitches Hart DC does not access available grants through Sport

Associations as other Councils do. Money is available the FA for improvements but the Council is not working with clubs to access it.


Indoor Sports Provision

Toddler swimming facilities Hart Leisure centre is too busy and badly managed;

more facilities are needed in a larger centre Hart Leisure Centre swimming pool is too small and too

shallow Hart is the only council in Hampshire without

concessionary entry at the leisure centre.

Youth provision

More teenage/youth facilities

Better Public Transport

Decent bus services Car parking spaces (from unused amenity spaces)

Better Management and Maintenance

Greenspaces for older people to sit and admire flower beds

More dog bins and litter bins More facilities – especially seating areas More effective action to tackle rubbish and litter Warden patrols, for example at Yateley Common;

people report being “hassled” by gangs of youths, people on motorbikes and aggressive dogs

Better Countryside Access

Better countryside access – people report finding footpaths impassable in places, sometimes due to broken kissing gates; other times due to difficult styles.

More cycle paths Fleet Pond is over-used, sometimes causing a clash

between conservation and recreation Need to manage use by cyclists/walkers on some paths

and by horses and walkers in the commons. Better provision for people with disabilities

Good Practice Sites Many people identified the following as sites that are examples of good practice:

Basingstoke Canal Blackwater Valley Water Bodies – the well managed bits

are very good. Fleet Pond Hartley Wintney Cricket Green Hazeley Heath Oakley Park Odiham Common


The Heathland Commons The Views skateboard park next to the Point Villages from Fleet southwards

Site Specific Issues Fleet Pond

Needs an educational centre to bring people together and from which to coordinate youth group work.

Ranger service needs administrative support. Vandalism; overnight parties result in broken benches

and burned seats; motorcycles on land. Mountain bikers build ramps and cycle through

sensitive areas. The field east of Fleet Pond used for infantry training

could be released for more public access.

Oakley Park

Needs signage Need provision for 10-15 year olds Improving the play area has pushed up use from about

6 a day to 30. Vandalism – illicit drinking in woodland. Vandalism

coming out of nightclubs late and night and pulling down fences.

Odiham Common

Needs a long term management plan; the ranger’s work is just marking time.

Needs better information and signage – people are frightened of getting lost.

The link between the Common and the Canal should be forged better.

Interest groups using bridleways / footpaths can clash. May not be enough bridleways to cope with increase in popularity of riding.

Vandalism – sporadic fly tipping; occasionally problems with traveller visits.

Blackwater Valley

Needs an interpretation centre; ideally to be achieved in the Yateley area, in conjunction with contributions from gravel workings.

Given the nature of the valley, a 20 mile strip along the urban fringe, problems tend to involve burned out cars by sewage works near Darby Green Lane, damage caused by motorcycling, dumping of household items.

There are a few problematic sites which are suffering from problems of indecision caused by hope value, including Clarks Farm; downstream from Clarks Farm, east of Sandhurst Lane; and the Darby Green Meadows SSSI.


Elvetham Heath

Vandalism and anti-social behaviour often a problem. Youths drinking, smoking and harassing livestock. Smashed gates; water trough vandalised; equipment smashed; trees hacked down.

Major incidents of arson.

Hazeley Heath

Needs remedial work - the cap on the landfill site is wearing thin and causes offence when rubbish comes to surface.

Maintaining favourable condition of Hazeley Heath requires sustainable grazing as the key. Access for maintenance equipment also a problem.

Problems with vandalism – raves, fire (one third of Hazeley Heath lost to fire); stolen cars; graffiti.

Basingstoke Canal

Suggestions based on using some of the large amount of military land adjacent to the canal for picnic areas to enable the public better access to, and use of, the Canal and other open spaces.

Suggested “Wasted Spaces”

Derelict (ex-petrol station site) on corner of Aldershot Road and Kings Road in Fleet. Many respondents want to see the site tidied up and put into a positive use. Suggestions include either developing the site or providing a garden with seats and welcoming signs or a well landscaped car park area.

Hitches Lane opposite Fleet Sports Centre –Conservation area with sports activities and pitches.

Albany Road, Plane Park – revitalise, cricket pitch, swimming pool, skateboard park, place to meet, activities to do.

Hart Leisure Centre – revamp; modern sports facilities and music venue

Area behind Tweseldown PH, near Peter Driver Ground (Night club burned down several years ago) – turn out ATP for local football clubs. Plant trees. Use for children’s play / outdoor adventure centre / BMX / local youth club / all weather running track.

Land at right of junction Reading Road / A30 – water sump could be made into pond to attract wildlife and become a local amenity site for youngsters.

Land in Bell Lane, Frogmore behind church – Provide youth club site.

Field behind Hearsey Gardens and next to Blackwater River – could be used as a large park for children and youths

Part of Yateley Common – should have a dog toilet to deal with the problem. Also travellers encroaching should be dealt with quickly.


Open space at base of “Woodside” and intersection with Hawley Lane/A30 – could use as children’s gym area and for swings and ball games.

Corner Beech Ride, Fleet – area encourages congregating youths and should be opened up

Yateley school playing fields – Part access route via alley closed after 9pm which connects the two sides of Yateley. Damage to school fences caused by people just wanting to make their way home. Alley should be open and well lit. Playing fields are useless all winter as constantly water-logged. Suggest land used for ATPs.

Yateley Green Bandstand – open air concerts. Also provide table tennis on Yateley Green. Space next to Bowling Green and tennis courts could be a proper sports club. No tennis or squash club in Yateley.

Devereux Park, Yateley – should be positively used. Pop concerts? Volley ball? Find uses for it.

Park by greenacres site (off Bracken Lane) Yateley –large additional space could be used for skateboard/BMX area. Small ramps, rails, dips, bumps, steps for street skating; sculpture rather than equipment. Displays and competitions.

Sandhurst Road by Trilakes, Yateley – hopeful about building leisure complex

Frogmore Community Campus – needs a swimming pool

Yateley – needs a cinema, bowling, theatre, swimming pool.

Blackwater Valley River Walk – complete the missing section between Sandhurst Road and Horse Shoe Lake

Clarkes Farm, Frogmore – provide open space, parks and gardens and nature reserve

Calthorpe Park – provide outdoor activity facilities (climbing walls?) basketball pitch and teenage shelter

Elvetham Heath – provide allotments Elvetham Heath along Turners Way – create a football,

hockey or rugby pitch. Oakley Park – renew the poor quality/unpleasant

children’s play area BMX track, Upper Hale – improve track and stop

scrambling Ex-Gurkha Base – adventure training, mountain bike

tracks, parking, some affordable housing. Nature reserve. Gardens for older people to enjoy seating and horticulture.

Zebon Copse – large area ear-marked in passed for play area but nothing happened.

Queen Elizabeth Barracks - Sports and leisure complex instead of more housing.

Basingbourne Park – Skateboarding park/basketball court/tennis court. Regenerate derelict building or remove it

The Views – fitness trail/adventure play area for older children

Calthorpe Park – area between cricket pitch and tennis


courts – seating areas for older people, flower beds and shrubs

Haig Lane play area – poorly maintained and equipped –upgrade and improve tree planting and landscaping, provide benches and bins

Centre of Hartley Wintney – needs a good play park for children – the two on the outskirts of the village are dirty, unsafe and unusable. Should be near to the cricket pitch.

Centre of Hartley Wintney – needs tree planting in the centre

Land between Jolly Miller PH and petrol station, or land opposite the Jolly Miller, North Warnborough – outdoor activity for children/youths

Land on left of road from King Street into Odiham cemetery – provide allotments

Fleet –provide a recreational park with horticulture, park benches and bandstand

Fleet bike lane near Fleet station is dangerous. Either improve the road for bikes or restrict traffic flow on the road. Speed humps not designed for cyclists.

Hawley Meadows: open this up with bridges and signage.


5: Audit Report

Introduction PPG17 requires planning authorities to undertake an audit of existing provision in their area as a key element of assessing local needs and opportunities. This is generally seen as a requirement for an audit of all relevant sites and facilities. In Hart, because of the restricted budget available for the assessment, we have been able to undertake only a sample audit of sites, selected by Council officers as broadly representative of local provision. Assuming that this is indeed the case, we have analysed the results of the audit to draw some conclusions about general patterns of provision across Hart.

Appendix E summarises the approach we have used for the audit while Appendix F gives a summary of the various audit scores. Appendix E also describes how the Council can use the audit as a tool for the future.

Scope of the Audit The sites we have audited comprise:

Allotments 1 Bowling Greens 5 Equipped Play areas 26 Multifunctional Greenspaces 86 Pitches and Courts 20

One of the purposes of the audit is to identify those sites which are of high or low quality and value, partly in order to identify an appropriate initial policy conclusion and priorities for possible enhancement. In order to do this we have used the average scores across all of the sites of the same type as the cut-off point between high and low quality or value – except for bowling greens, for the reasons given below. We stress, however, that these are initial conclusions only because at this stage they take no account of either accessibility or the overall need for an adequate quantity of provision. For obvious reasons, those sites with the lowest scores are those it will be most desirable to improve. In any audit which reviews a significant number of sites it is usually the case that there is a fairly wide “spread” of scores, indicating that the quality or value of sites varies considerably. By setting a


cut-off point for quality or value scores, it is possible to class the quality or value of sites as being high or low, or, by using the average scores over all the audited sites, as above or below average.

This is not so easy with a sample audit. For example, it is obviously impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from an audit of a single allotments site or a handful of bowling clubs. However, within the constraints of this overall caveat, we summarise below the general results of the audit.

Each of the spaces we audited is intended to serve a useful purpose for people, flora or fauna and none are road verges or small “left-over” spaces. Through the audit, we sought to evaluate the quality and value (in the non-financial sense) of each site using up to about 150 different site features or characteristics. We then combined the scores for each of the various features or characteristics into summary quality and value percentage scores for each site. This provides a reasonably objective means of comparing the various sites and identifying those most in need of enhancement. However, a score of 100% does not mean that a site can not be improved in any way, but merely that it is fit for purpose in all respects.

Allotments We audited only one allotment site, Vicarage Hill, which achieved an overall quality score of 47% and an overall value score of 50%. This site will benefit from:

Better accessibility (external and internal to the sites) Better footpaths across sites Providing information on composting and rubbish

collection Better planting for wildlife and habitat creation

Bowling Greens We audited five bowling green sites:

Odiham and North Warnborough Bowling Club Crondall Bowling Club at Hook Meadow Yateley Bowling Club Hook Bowling Club at Great Sheldon Richard Yeoman Sports Ground

Bowling greens – especially club ones – tend nearly always to be of high quality and high value. Their users treat them with respect and maintenance regimes are often very effective; moreover, bowling clubs are important social facilities for their members and, if their pavilions are suitable and available for local events, sometimes the wider community as well.

Quality - Greens

Highest quality: Yateley (93%)


Lowest quality: Crondall, Hook Meadow (78%) Average quality score: 83%


Quality – Pavilions

Highest quality: the Odiham and North Warnborough Bowling Club and Hook Bowling Club (both 88%)

Lowest quality: Yateley (no changing and therefore 0%) and Crondall Bowling Club at Hook Meadow (maintenance shed but no changing pavilion)

Average quality score: 51%

Value

All five bowling greens have a high value score of 81%, which reflects their excellent contribution to liveability, local image, social value, sporting value and uniqueness in their areas.

Richard Yeoman Sports Ground

Audit Scores

The chart below plots the quality and value scores for the five sites and also shows the average quality and value scores for all five sites:

Bowling Greens

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

75% 8 0% 85% 90% 95%

Quali ty

Av erage Value

sc ore: 81%

Av erage Qual it y sc ore : 83%

Interpreting the Results

For the five bowling greens in the audit, it would be invidious to identify the “worst” site, with scores around 80%, as being of “poor” quality or value. Common sense indicates that all five sites are of both high quality and high value.

Desirable Improvements

This said, our audit identified a number of desirable improvements to individual sites:

Odiham and North Warnborough – Improve the condition of the playing surface, which appears over-


Odiham and North Warnborough Bowling Club

used Crondall – Improve the condition of banks and ditches

and provide changing and other pavilion facilities. Yateley – changing pavilion Richard Yeoman Sports Ground – changing facilities

On the basis of this limited sample, therefore the main need seems to be for changing accommodation rather than any significant improvements to playing facilities. In planning terms, the Council should aim to protect all five sites.

Equipped Play Areas All 26 of the play areas we audited contained equipment intended for young children and 13 of the sites also included provision for teenagers.

The Mounts Play Area, Elvetham Heath

Quality Scores

Highest quality: The Mounts at Elvetham Heath and Elvetham Green (both 91%)

Lowest quality: North Warnborough Recreation Ground (47%)

Average score: 70%

Value Scores

Highest Value: Crondall Recreation Ground (82%) Lowest Value: North Warnborough Recreation Ground

(45%) Average score: 82%

Crondall Recreation Ground Play Area

Audit Scores

The chart below shows the scores for each site and also the average quality and value scores for all 26 sites:

Equipped Play Areas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Quality

Va

lue

Av erage v alue :

6 1%

Av erage q ual it y : 70%


The following eleven sites achieved high quality/high value scores and therefore both set a benchmark for provision in Hart and should be protected by the Council


Basingbourne Recreation Ground Birch Grove/Wellington Park Crondall Recreation Ground Elvetham Heath Green Ewshot Recreation Ground Hook Recreation Ground/Hartletts Park John Morgan Close Monteagle open space Richard Yeoman Sports Ground The Mounts Wellington Country Park

The following four sites achieved a below average quality score but an above average value one and therefore it will be desirable to enhance their quality:

Haig Lines The Views Yateley Green Springfield Avenue

It will be possible to enhance the quality of these (and other) sites by providing:

A better mix of play equipment A fresh coat of paint for play equipment and facilities Better lighting, good footpaths and safety matting Better/more seating areas and bins

The two sites with high quality/low value scores were Odiham Recreation Ground and Zebon Copse Playing Field. It will be desirable to try to enhance the play value of these sites by improving the teenage facilities at Odiham and the facilities for both young children and teenagers at Zebon Copse. Odiham will also benefit from other changes, including

Better lighting Better quality surfaces and paths within the play area Better basketball goals and area More litter bins

Ancells Park Greenway Play Area

Finally, ten sites have below average quality and value scores so it will be desirable to review the need for them:

Ancells Park Greenway Ancells Park Recreation Ground Chamberlain Gardens Eversley Cricket Ground Frogmore Road open space Long Sutton Recreation Ground Mitchells Avenue Recreation Ground North Warnborough Recreation Ground Oakley Park


Yeoman Open Space/Chequers Green

By way of illustration, the changes that will be needed if the Council decides to retain and bring some of these sites up to a decent standard will include:

Better accessibility and footpaths Better safety surfacing underneath equipment More and varied play equipment Better seating At least one litter bin Dog-proof fencing Better litter control Removing graffiti and other evidence of vandalism

Overview

By implementing some of the improvements outlined above - most of which will be relatively cheap - it will be possible to deliver the basis of a high quality and high value network of play areas.

Multifunctional Greenspace

Wellington Country Park

Appendix F lists the multi-functional greenspaces in our sample audit. The sites with the highest and lowest quality and value scores are:

Highest quality score: Wellington Country Park (83%) Lowest quality score: Warnborough Recreation Ground

(35%) Average quality scores: 66%

Highest value: Wellington Country Park (86%) Lowest value: Victoria Park Road (30%) Average value score: 59%

Audit Scores

The chart below summarises the quality and value scores for each multifunctional greenspace in the audit relative to the average scores:

Mult ifunct io n Greenspac es

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Qual i t y

Val

ue

Av erage Value sc ore:

59%

Av erag e Qual ity sc ore : 66%



Combining the quality and value scores leads to the following initial policy conclusions:

Protect: 25 sites; these sites also provide a benchmark for the quality and value to which Hart should aspire for its greenspaces

Protect and enhance quality: 18 sites Seek to enhance value: 18 sites Review the need for the site: 25 sites

We list the sites in each of these categories in Appendix F. The main improvements required on those sites with a low quality score include:

Improving accessibility, for example by better signage, provision for people with disabilities and bicycle parking

Providing more or better facilities, for example interpretation and lighting

Mitigating the effect of negative factors such as road traffic noise or overhead power lines

The main improvements needed on sites with a low value score include more planting, thereby enhancing both amenity and wildlife value, and additional facilities.

North Warnborough Recreation Ground

Case study: North Warnborough Recreation Ground

North Warnborough Recreation Ground is the multifunctional greenspace with the lowest quality score. As it should be an important local amenity there is an obvious need to improve it in ways which will lead to higher levels of use and increase its value to the local community. On the basis of the audit results, we suggest that these improvements should include:

Outside the Site

Better, clearer and more attractive entrances

Design of the Site

A better sense of place and distinctive identity Improved access with better footpaths Increased sense of safety by increasing informal

surveillance and improving lighting Better shrub planting and horticultural interest Better seating areas with litter bins Better fences and gates New play equipment

Management of the Site


Deal efficiently with litter, vandalism and graffiti Cut the grass more regularly

Pitches and Courts

Frogmore Community Campus ATP

In summary, the audit quality and value scores are:

Highest quality score: Frogmore Community Campus (82%)

Lowest quality score: Chanlers Lane Recreation Ground (53%)

Average quality score: 68%

Highest value score: various (75% Lowest value score: Peter Driver Centre (25%) Average value score: 64%

Audit Scores

The chart below summarises each site’s quality and value score with the average scores:

Pit ches and Court s

0%10%20%30%40%50%

60%70%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Quality

Val

ue

Average Quality score: 68%Average

Value score:

64%


Combining the quality and value scores leads to the following initial policy conclusions:

Protect: 9 sites; these sites also provide a benchmark for the quality and value to which Hart should aspire for its greenspaces

Protect and enhance quality: 4 sites Seek to enhance value: 2 sites Review the need for the site: 5 sites

We list the sites in each of these categories in Appendix F. The main improvements required on those sites with a low quality score include:

Information at site entrances Watering systems for cricket squares Better artificial cricket wickets Better playing surfaces and maintenance of football


pitches (and possibly some reconstruction) especially in goalmouths

Lower levels of football pitch use – which will necessitate more pitches

Better provision for girls and women

Chanlers Lane Recreation Ground

Case Study Site: Chanlers Land Recreation Ground

This site’s low quality score reflects the need to improve:

Management and clearing of geese droppings The changing accommodation Safety margins around the pitches The artificial wicket Signage and contact details

Calthorpe Park

Case Study Site: Calthorpe Park

Calthorpe Park is an important site on the edge of Fleet town centre with a good range of sports facilities. However, it has a number of significant weaknesses, including:

Limited and unsurfaced car parking and no secure bicycle parking

Inadequate maintenance of the pitch and putt course with poor tees, greens and bunkers

Poor grass cover in some areas Inadequate signage Poor football/tennis changing

Benchmarking Because we have undertaken similar greenspace audits in other areas, using almost identical audit forms, we are able to benchmark provision in Hart against the provision in a number of other council areas. The comparators we have used for this, all in the south of England, are:

Havant Borough, Hampshire: next door to Portsmouth, Havant is a mainly urban Borough but one with large areas of greenspace

Mid Sussex District, West Sussex: a largely rural district, with three main towns, to the east of Gatwick airport

West Wiltshire District: a large rural district with five main towns

The table below provides summary scores for each of these areas and Hart.


Hart Mid Sussex

Havant West Wilts

Hart scores as % of

averages for other

areasAllotments Minimum quality scores 47% 25% 43% 33% 140%

Average quality scores 47% 45% 57% 43% 97%

Maximum quality scores 47% 55% 82% 52% 75%

Minimum value scores 50% 44% 43% 41% 117%

Average value scores 50% 56% 62% 60% 84%

Maximum value scores 50% 68% 73% 73% 70%

Bowls - the green Minimum quality scores 78% 75% 94% 79% 94%



Bowls - changing Minimum quality scores 29% 75% 100% 71% 35%






Equipped Play Areas Minimum quality scores 47% 46% 43% 44% 106%






MFGS Minimum quality scores 35% 30% 36% 30% 109%






P&C - sports facilities Minimum quality scores 55% 41% 41% 43% 132%



P&C - changing Minimum quality scores 33% 0% 0% 0% #DIV/0!



P&C - overall Minimum quality scores 53% 43% 40% 31% 139%



Minimum value scores 25% 25% n/a 17% 119%

Average value scores 64% 68% n/a 48% 110%

Maximum value scores 75% 100% n/a 100% 75%

Note: MFGS = Multi-functional greenspaces; P&C = Pitches and Courts

In this table, if the figure in the final column is above 100%, the average score for Hart is higher than the average score for the other three council areas; and vice versa. On this basis, Hart compares well with these other areas in relation to play areas and changing accommodation for pitches and courts, but poorly in terms of bowling greens and multi-functional greenspaces. It is not possible to draw any conclusions in relation to allotments as we audited only a single site in Hart. In absolute terms, we


suggest that Hart – and other areas for that matter –should aim to achieve quality and value scores of at least75% for all spaces. This is equivalent to a “good” score on the basis of the scoring system we have used.

Conclusions The results of the audit lead to a number of strategic conclusions:

In broad terms, the quality of provision in Hart is broadly comparable with other areas in which we have undertaken audits using the same basic audit forms and methodology. This said, however, there is a need to improve the quality of a number of playing pitches and related changing accommodation and a general need to enhance the quality of multi-functional greenspaces.

The value of Hart’s greenspaces – to the local community and in relation to wider issues such as wildlife and biodiversity - is also generally good, but there are many sites where it will be desirable to enhance value if at all possible. This will require a number of site-specific responses which range from general environmental improvements to better opportunities for formal and informal recreation use, managing sites in a way which will be of greater benefit to wildlife, improving paths and encouraging greater use.

Although play areas in the District achieved a reasonable average quality score, it is clear that there is a need significantly to improve a number of sites. More generally, we question the long term play value and attractiveness of many play areas – especially in the context of their fairly high maintenance costs. However, play provision also has to be highly accessible on foot and this inevitably implies a need for a fairly closely spaced network of play spaces. This is an issue we discuss further in the accessibility assessment.


6: Quality Standards

Introduction This chapter provides a brief overview of the proposed quality standards we recommend that the District Council should adopt:

Greenspaces Accessible natural greenspaceAllotmentsAmenity greenspacesLocal equipped play areas Neighbourhood equipped play areasSports pitchesBowling greensTennis and multi-courtsUrban parks and recreation groundsYouth activity areas

Indoor provision Indoor sports halls and swimming pools

The purpose of quality standards is to set out the quality of provision the Council wishes to see in its area. Such standards have two main uses:

They provide a benchmark for the Council to assess and compare the quality of different facilities of the same type within its area as an aid when determining priorities for improvement or changes to management regimes. Given that it will not always be possible to achieve all aspects of the quality standards - for example because of a lack of resources - they are an aspiration for the quality of existing provision. As such they should be challenging, but broadly achievable, and the Council should aim to achieve them wherever it is practicable to do so.

They set out the Council’s requirements as a guide for developers on the quality of provision the Council will expect them either to provide or fund. In this context, quality standards are a requirement, although they must obviously be applied in a way which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of a proposed


development. There is no point in allowing developers to create new spaces which the Council may need to enhance within a reasonably short space of time.

We have derived each of the recommended quality standards from examples of best practice, such as the Green Flag Award criteria for parks or published advice, coupled with our experience and the results of the audit. For consistency, we set out the draft standards in Appendix G under six standard headings:

General characteristics: the “first impressions” that a space or facility is likely to create for visitors. For example, does it appear welcoming and safe? Does it have a “cared for” appearance? Does it have a character of its own, and enhance the area in which it is set, or is it simply a bland, featureless “green desert”?

Accessibility: this covers criteria such as “usability”. For example, how suitable is the space or facility foruse by people with disabilities? How well is it linked to the local footpath or cycleway network? Are the entrances obvious?

Planting and biodiversity: trees and other plants make spaces attractive. Is there a good mix of tree and plant species? What condition are they in? If appropriate, are there areas of horticultural interest?

Facilities and features: different spaces need different facilities. For example, where appropriate, are there toilets? Is there interpretation where it will help peopleunderstand their surroundings better? Are there sufficient litter and “pooper” bins (and related signs) and seats?

Management and maintenance: poor management or maintenance can let spaces and facilities down so badly that people do not want to use them. How well are litter and vandalism under control? Is grass length appropriate for the nature of the space? Are beds free from weeds and paths clear of debris?

Minimum size: there is a minimum size beneath which spaces are not cost-effective to maintain or unsuitable for use. Accordingly it would undesirable for developers to provide such small spaces. The minimum size standards therefore provide guidance on when the Council should seek off-site rather than on-site provision in order to prevent the provision of small and fairly useless spaces or facilities.


7: Accessibility Standards

Introduction The use of distance thresholds as a planning tool means that it is possible to ignore boundaries and use the typical distances that people are willing to travel to different forms of provision. Accordingly we suggest distance thresholds for:

Allotments Artificial turf pitches Bowling greens Children’s play areas Grass sports pitches Indoor sports facilities Multi-functional greenspaces Teenage facilities Tennis and multi-courts

We have used a variety of sources to derive suitable distance thresholds for Hart, including:

Our survey of local residents Government guidance National agency guidance Research in other local authority areas The nature of the district

Distance thresholds can only ever be seen as a very general guide for planning purposes. It would be an obvious nonsense to use either the maximum distance travelled by users or an average of all users. The maximum distance travelled by an individual user could easily be an aberration; for example, a survey of park users might pick up a visiting business person who had travelled hundreds of miles and was early for a meeting or waiting for a train home while everyone else had travelled only a short distance. Similarly, the average distance could also be affected by some users who had travelled a very long or very short distance.

Recreation planning therefore normally uses the concept of the “effective catchment”, defined as the distance at least 75% of users are willing to travel, because there is no such thing as “the” catchment area of anything - except for


facilities on small islands.

Recommended Distance Thresholds

Based on the above sources, we set out the straight line walking and cycling distance thresholds we suggest the Council should adopt in the table below and give the reasoning underpinning them in Appendix H. The walking thresholds represent 75% of the actual distance that can be travelled at a speed of 80 m per minute for 5, 10, 15 or 20 minute time periods as appropriate, rounded slightly to the nearest 50 m. We have derived the cycling thresholds from the walking ones by assuming that the same basic travel times will be acceptable but increased the average speed of travel to 12 kph (200 m per minute). There is no cycling threshold for equipped play areas because it is unlikely that both a child and accompanying parent or carer will cycle to these facilities or for multi-functional greenspaces because it is obviously desirable that local residents should be able to walk from home to at least one such space within about 5 minutes.

Form of Provision Travel time

(minutes)

Walking Thresholds

(m)

Cycling Thresholds

(m)

Allotments 15 900 2,250Artificial turf pitches 20 1,200 3,000Bowling greens 15 900 2,250Children’s play areas 5 300 N/aGrass sports pitches 15 900 2,250Indoor sports facilities 20 1,200 3,000Multi-functional greenspaces 5 300 N/aTeenage facilities 10 600 1,500Tennis or multi-courts 15 900 2,250


8: Accessibility Assessment

Introduction This chapter summarises the results of our accessibility assessment using the straight line distance thresholds set out above. For obvious reasons, in order to undertake the assessment it is necessary to have a comprehensive database of existing spaces and facilities. However, no such database exists for Hart. The District Council does not have one and the Parish and Town Councils have been unable to provide details of the spaces or facilities they own or manage. Moreover, because of budget restrictions we were able to carry out only a sample audit of existing provision and the Local Plan Proposals Maps do not identify greenspaces or sports facilities

The approach we have adopted, therefore, has been to derive what should be a reasonably comprehensive database from a number of sources, including GIS layers provided by the Council, our sample audit information, the Landline Ordnance Survey digital map data provided by the Council and information on sports facilities from the Sport England website. It is possible, although slow and therefore time-consuming, to search Landline map data to identify spaces labelled in various ways - Allotments, Bowling greens, Play areas, Playing fields, Recreation Grounds, Sports Grounds and Tennis courts, for example. We caution that this approach is unlikely to have produced a fully comprehensive database but it has been the only sensible way to proceed. It has one significant weakness in that it is not possible to identify some forms of local greenspace from any of these sources, such as amenity spaces in housing areas.

This approach has also enabled us to come to what should be a realistic view on the extent to which different forms of provision are accessible to members of the local community. To do this we have placed spaces and facilities into one of four main groups, mainly for sports facilities:

Public and private: this category includes spaces which are obviously open to the public, such as Calthorpe Park in Fleet, together with those which may be privately owned but will accommodate some


community demand – half the players in any pitch sport match are playing “away” - such as the Cody Technology Park. The public facilities will be owned mainly by the District, the County or a Town or Parish Council and some by voluntary sports clubs and broadly similar organisations.

School facilities, which we have generally assumed not to be available for casual community use

The Police College facilities at Bramshill Park The Ministry of Defence facilities at the Queen

Elizabeth and Gibraltar Barracks and Odiham airfield. While there is some community use of these facilities it can obviously be withdrawn at any time.

With these broad constraints in mind, we have assessed the accessibility of the following forms of provision:

Greenspaces and Outdoor Sports Facilities Allotments Artificial turf pitches Bowling greens Children’s play areas Grass pitch sites Parks, gardens and commons Teenage areas Tennis courts

Indoor sports facilities

Bowls halls Sports halls Swimming pools Tennis halls

Methodology We have undertaken the accessibility analysis in two main ways:

By plotting the above distance thresholds on maps. This gives a visual indication of the areas of the District with and without ready access to different forms of provision. With a comprehensive audit we would also have been able also to show summary quality and value scores on the maps but there is no point in doing this on the basis of a sample audit of only 100 sites. All the maps are given at the end of this Chapter.

By calculating the number of properties (using Ordnance Survey Addresspoint data supplied by the Council) within the distance thresholds of different forms of provision by walking or cycling and, for those sports facilities which will attract people from a wide area, driving. This is a proxy measure for the proportion of the District’s residents able to access provision within the distance thresholds. For this analysis, we were unable to separate residential from other properties in the Addresspoint data and so the


accessibility statistics relate to all properties in the District and not just dwellings. This is not a particularly significant problem: while most users of spaces and facilities will travel to or from home, others will travel from work. We did however strip out all addresses not within the District as the Addresspoint files contained a significant number of properties outwith Hart. We give the results in Appendix I.

For major sports facilities – athletics tracks, sports halls and swimming pools, indoor bowls and tennis halls and artificial turf pitches - we have taken account of provision around the periphery of the District.

District-wide Overview

Allotments

Map 1, below, suggests that there is a real paucity of allotments as we were able to identify only three sites within the District – but a cluster of five on the periphery of it in Farnborough. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold of at least one allotment site is:

15 minutes/900 m walking 15% 15 minutes/2,250 m cycling 43%

As the demand for allotments is rising, fuelled by earlier retirement, higher housing densities and therefore smaller gardens, it is likely there will be a need for some plots in Hook and Yateley. There is also an accessibility deficiency in the northern part of Fleet but as houses in this area are generally large, with large gardens, this is unlikely to be significant. Increasingly the demand is for five rather than the traditional ten rod plots and sometimes even smaller plots.

Artificial Turf Pitches

Maps 2A and 2B show respectively the accessibility of all artificial turf pitches and only those which are floodlit. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold of at least one ATP is:

All ATPs Floodlit ATPs

20 minutes/1200 m walking 9% 7% 20 minutes/3,000 m cycling 34% 27% 20 minutes/7,500 m driving 89% 58%

These maps reveal a need to have at least one floodlit pitch in the Fleet area. One on the western edge of the town –for example at Hitches Lane - will also just about serve Hartley Wintney and Hook. Alternatively it will be desirable to try to get the pitch at either RAF Odiham or LordWandsworth College floodlit. However, the former is


probably unrealistic as floodlights would not be particularly compatible with night flights.

Artificial turf pitches make much better use of land than grass ones and can relieve the pressure on them.


Athletics Tracks

The nearest athletics facility to Hart is at Down Grange in Basingstoke but it is outwith the 7.5 km driving distance threshold. Accordingly no Hart residents live within 7.5 km of either a track or athletics training facility – hence the pressure for one.

Bowling Greens

Map 3 demonstrates that most of the urban parts of the District are within a fairly easy cycle of at least one bowling green, the exceptions being Hook and Hartley Wintney. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold of at least one green is:


The cycling threshold is a little academic as most bowlers will not cycle to a green. As Odiham is able to support a green it is likely that Hook, Hartley Wintney and Church Crookham could as well, and possibly also the western half of Blackwater and the eastern part of Yateley.

Parks, Gardens and Commons

Hart is fortunate to have a number of high quality historic parks and gardens, mainly to the north of the M3, and a significant area of common land. Because a common can be thought of at least partly as a park serving a village, we have grouped the historic parks, the commons and a handful of other parks – mainly in Fleet - into a single category of Parks, Gardens and Commons. Map 4A demonstrates that almost all of the developed parts of the District lie within a five-minute walk of at least one space in this category, while Map 4B shows that very few dwellings are further than 10 minutes walk from one. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold of at least one park, garden or common is:


The much lower accessibility by walking suggests that the District Council and its partners should be seeking to enhance a number of accessible spaces - not necessarily parks, gardens or commons - in order to make them into something like local parks.

Grass Pitches

Maps 5A and 5B show respectively the accessibility of all grass pitches in the District and Recreation Grounds and


other public access sites. 5A shows that almost all of the developed areas of the District are within walking distance of at least one pitch site, while 5B shows that excluding those sites which are not publicly accessible makes little difference. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold of at least one pitch site is:

All sites Public sites

15 minutes/900 m walking 84% 77% 15 minutes/2,250 m cycling 99% 98%

The high level of accessibility of these spaces demonstrates the critical importance of them to the residents of Hart. However, most of them are little more than “green deserts” – large areas of fairly flat, short mown grass. Accordingly we suggest that the District Council and its partner third tier councils should seek to convert appropriate sites into something more like local parks. With careful design and management this need not compromise their use for pitch sport.

Equipped Play Areas

Map 6 shows the accessibility of equipped play areas for children up to the age of about 12. 70% of properties in the District are within the 10 minutes/600m walking distance threshold of at least one play area. It also shows a good distribution of play areas on most of the developed areas of the District except in Yateley, and to a lesser extent Hook and Odiham, where there are a number of play facilities bunched closely together. This suggests that it may be possible to rationalise provision in these areas slightly.

Teenage Areas

Map 7 shows the accessibility of teenage facilities such as skateparks and basketball areas. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold of at least one such facility is:


Once again, residents of Hook and Hartley Wintney have the worst accessibility to teenage facilities. However, Blackwater is also poorly served, as is a large area in the southern half of Fleet/Church Crookham. There may also be a need for some provision in Crondall.

Tennis Courts

Maps 8A and 8B show the accessibility of, respectively, all tennis courts and only those with public access. 8A


indicates that only Hartley Wintney is lacking reasonable access to tennis courts, although most of the eastern half of Fleet/Church Crookham is outwith the walking distance threshold. 8B indicates that excluding those facilities with little or no public access makes no real difference to this conclusion and therefore there is no need, on accessibility grounds at least, to seek to “open up” more school, Police or MoD facilities for public use. The percentage of properties in the District within the distance thresholds of at least one court are:

All courts Public courts

15 minutes/900 m walking 49% 44% 15 minutes/2,250 m cycling 92% 90%

Ice Rinks

The nearest ice rink to Hart is in Basingstoke. However, the population of the District is insufficient to support a rink.

Indoor Bowls and Indoor Tennis

There is no indoor bowls or indoor tennis provision within the District. Part of the eastern edge of the District is just outside the 20 minutes/1200 m cycling threshold from the bowls hall at the Farnborough Leisure Centre but most of Fleet/Church Crookham, all of Blackwater and part of Yateley are within the driving threshold. Overall, some 60% of properties in Hart are within the 20 minute/7500 m driving threshold of this facility. However, there are no properties within any distance threshold of an indoor tennis hall, the nearest such facility being at War Memorial Park in Basingstoke.

Sports Halls

Maps 10A and 10B show the distribution and accessibility of sports halls in and around the periphery of the District. 10A shows the 20 minute distance thresholds round all halls while 10B shows it around only those with casual or “pay and play” use. Excluding those which allow only club or organised group use makes very little difference to the basic conclusion that all areas other than Hook, Hartley Wintney and Crondall are reasonably well served. Overall, the percentage of properties in the District within the distance threshold are:

All CasualHalls Use

20 minutes/1200 m walking 30% 16% 20 minutes/3000 m cycling 77% 73% 20 minutes/7500 m driving 100% 99%


Swimming Pools

Maps 11A and 11B show the accessibility of swimming pools, with 11A showing all pools and 11B only those with casual use. Excluding those with only organised group use makes little difference as the only pool with limited public use is at RAF Odiham. Overall, the percentage of properties in the District within the distance thresholds of a pool are:

All CasualPools Use

20 minutes/1200 m walking 7% 5% 20 minutes/3000 m cycling 44% 39% 20 minutes/7500 m driving 99% 99%

Conclusions -Accessibility

This assessment leads to the following conclusions:

Allotments: probable need for additional allotment sites across the District, but especially in Hook and Yateley

Artificial turf pitches: there is a need for at least one ATP in the Fleet area – at least one because ATPs can now be designed specifically for hockey or football (and, in the case of the latter type, some rugby training) rather than multi-purpose.

Athletics: as there is no athletics facility within the District, there is an obvious need at least for a training area. Any such facility should obviously be associated with a secondary school if at all possible.

Bowling greens: probable need for greens in Hook, Hartley Wintney and Church Crookham and possibly also in Yateley/Blackwater

Parks, gardens and commons: it will be desirable to increase the number of “park-like” spaces across the District but this does not necessarily imply any additional provision. Instead it will make better use of land, and be far more cost-effective, to enhance a number of existing spaces.

Grass pitches: there is little need for more grass pitches purely on accessibility grounds, although the quality of many sites leaves a lot to be desired. This is another argument in favour of providing at least one high capacity artificial turf pitch designed for football.

Equipped Play Areas: there may be opportunities to rationalise provision in parts of Yateley, Hook and Odiham

Teenage areas: there is a probable need for additional


provision in Blackwater, and the southern half of Fleet/Church Crookham and possibly Crondall.

Tennis courts: there is no real need for additional provision on accessibility grounds, other than perhaps in Hartley Wintney

Indoor Bowls: as the population of the District grows older, there may be a growing need for indoor bowls provision.

Indoor Tennis: given the fairly widespread provision of tennis courts, there may be a need for indoor tennis courts in Hart. However, with milder winters a cheaper option will be to identify existing outdoor courts it will be possible to floodlight in order to allow winter use.

Sports halls: there may be a need for additional sports hall provision in the western part of the District, although village halls will no doubt provide substitute opportunities for badminton and some other indoor sports activities.

Swimming pools: there is no need for additional provision on accessibility grounds.


9: Quantitative Assessment

Introduction This chapter reviews the quantity of provision across the District and suggests suitable quantitative standards for the future. In summary, the quantity standards we recommend are:

Outdoor Provision

Allotments 0.75 sq m/personArtificial turf pitches 0.25 sq m/personAthletics training 0.24 sq m/personBowling greens 0.11 sq m/personEquipped play areas 0.5 sq m/personGrass pitches 19.0 sq m/personParks, Gardens and Commons 18.0 sq m/personTeenage areas 0.3 sq m/personTennis courts 0.25 sq m/person

Indoor Provision

Indoor bowls 0.013 sq m/person

Quantity Standards It is always important to be clear exactly what quantity standards cover so that they can be applied correctly. This can be especially difficult with sports facilities: for example, should the quantity standard include space to allow pitches to be moved laterally to minimise goalmouth wear, or land required for changing or parking? In order to try to provide clarity we have therefore worked out the quantity standards for sports facilities in terms of actual playing area – typically the pitch and essential safety margins, the green or the court. We will then include the other elements required in the quality standards. For bowling greens, for example, the quality standard will require not just the playing surface (ie the green) but also banks and ditches meeting the appropriate governing body standards, a walkway all round the green, a clubhouse and a certain amount of parking.

We have based the above standards on the following evidence:


Our analysis of the present quantity of provision across the District, derived using our Geographical Information System to calculate the area of existing sites

Local views as established through the survey of local residents and parish and town councils

“First principles” calculations The Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator (indoor

sports provision)

Allotments As noted in the accessibility chapter, the level of allotment provision in Hart is very low and this provides no real basis for determining a provision standard. However, our local consultations have identified unmet demand for allotments in at least Church Crookham, Fleet, Harley Wintney and Yateley.

The only comprehensive national data on allotments is the English Allotments Survey 1997, carried out by the National Association of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners and Anglia Polytechnic University. It found that the average level of provision at that time was 15 plots per 1,000 people or one plot to 65 households. In Hart, the 1991 census identified a total of around 33,000 households, suggesting a need for some 500 plots. Taking a plot as an average of 7.5 rods or around 190 sq m, and the average household size in Hart as 2.51 people, this gives a provision standard of some 1.2 sq m per person. However, this relates only to the land actually comprising plots and ignores the additional land needed for paths, compost areas and the like. Adding an allowance for this gives a total quantity standard of around 1.5 sq m per person.

This is very much a figure based on a national survey a few years ago. Hart is more prosperous than those areas in which allotment gardening is a long-standing tradition and so 1.5 sq m per person is too high. Given the lack of allotments in the area, we recommend a standard of around 0.75 sq m per person. However, this standard need not be used for developments in which dwellings have sufficiently large gardens in which to grow produce. This will require gardens of at least 150 sq m.

Artificial Turf Pitches Sport England put forward a guideline of one floodlit ATP to 60,000 people time ago and this suggests a need for around 1.5 such pitches in Hart. Although there are already three ATPs in the District, the current level of provision is inadequate, especially in view of the poor quality of many grass pitches. Two of the three ATPs are at RAF Odiham and Lord Wandsworth College and as neither is floodlit the potential for community use is at best very limited. We have already commented in the chapter on accessibility that there is a need for an additional artificial turf pitch in the Fleet area, ideally on


the western side.

The Sport England guideline is around 20 years old and the demand for ATPs has grown significantly since then – and likely to increase as more football players and clubs realise the benefits of artificial surfaces. Accordingly we recommend that the District should have a minimum of three floodlit ATPs compared with the one it already has at the Frogmore Centre. This equates to one ATP to approximately 29,000 people.

The standard carpet size of an ATP for football is 106 x 70 m, or an area of 7,420 sq m. There should also a further safety margin inside the ball-stop and security fencing fence, but it is simplest to work out a provision standard on carpet size and allow for the extra space required when assessing developers’ contributions. Accordingly a sensible quantity standard for Hart is 7,420 sq m divided by 29,000 people = 0.25 sq m of ATP carpet per person.

Athletics Facilities UK Athletics recommends that there should be one synthetic outdoor track where there are 250,000 people living within a 20 minute drive time in urban areas and up to 45 minutes in rural ones. On this basis, Hart does not have a large enough population to justify a full set of track and field facilities. In addition, the excellent floodlit track at Down Grange in Basingstoke is only some 23-24 km from the centre of Fleet and therefore within the 45 minute drive time. Accordingly we recommend that Hart should have an athletics training area rather than a track.

A suitable form for this will be roughly a third of a full synthetic track consisting of a 110 m straight, followed by about half to two thirds of a bend, with long and high jump and other field events facilities. The throws area can also be used as a pitch at times when no athletics training is taking place. A suitably designed area can be used to practice at least the following disciplines: 100 m sprint, 110 m hurdles, long jump, high jump, pole vault, discus, javelin, shot putt and hammer. It can also be used for practising relay baton handover, curve starts and curve running. Ideally this facility should be on a leisure centre or secondary school site.

This will require a site area of approximately 2 ha. Accordingly we recommend a provision standard of 20,000 sq m divided by the District’s population, ie 0.24 sq m per person.

Bowling Greens -Outdoor

There are currently five bowling greens in the District, equivalent to one green to approximately 116,700 people. Greens can vary in size, but are normally 6 or 7 rinks. A typical six rink green – the commonest size – should be between 36.58 and 40.23 m square (1,338-1,618 sq m, or an average of 1,475 sq m), excluding the banks, ditches


and green surround. As with ATPs, it is easiest to work out developers contributions in relation to the actual bowling surface and allow for these extra areas as part of the calculation. Using the average size, the current level of provision in the District can also be expressed as around 0.09 sq m of bowling surface per person.

Based on the accessibility assessment, it seems that the District should have at least one additional green. This is a view supported by Hartley Wintney and Eversley Parish Councils. An appropriate provision standard is therefore around 0.11 sq m per person.

Equipped Play Areas Hart’s adopted Local Plan uses the NPFA 6 Acre Standard for “playing space”. The children’s play component of this is 0.8 ha/1000 or 8 sq m per person, of which roughly 3-4 sq m should be in the form of equipped play areas and 4-5 sq m as “casual playing space”.

We have identified a total of some 43 equipped play areas with an aggregate site area of around 34,000 sq m. Accordingly the average size is around 790 sq m, although 19 are smaller than 400 sq m. This gives an average level of provision of some 0.4 sq m per person – roughly a tenth of the NPFA standard requirement. This clearly illustrates the extent to which the NPFA Standard is unrealistic. At the same time, the Church Crookham, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Mattingley, Odiham and Yateley town/parish councils have expressed the view that provision for children’s play in their area is inadequate.

This said, it is not the amount of play provision that matters, however, but its accessibility and, especially, its play value. Accessibility is critical because young children, even accompanied by a parent or carer, cannot walk far and will often not be allowed to do so unaccompanied. It is not until children reach about ten or twelve that most are allowed to “range” a significant distance from home. Play value depends in large part on the range of equipment and play opportunities – not all of which require equipment. Children are often fascinated, for example, by insects and small animals and a well maintained and well draining piece of woodland is probably a better play area than almost any equipped play area. Conversely, a small area with just a couple of swings can be pretty boring.

Because play areas do not have a fixed capacity to accommodate use, it is not possible to adopt a supply and demand approach to determine an appropriate quantity standard. Accordingly we have developed a standard from first principles based on two things: a conceptual model and the need to provide children (and parents or carers) with choice. It is in two parts: children below 8 years, and those aged about 8-12 years.


Young Children (Below 8 Years)

The basic parameters for play areas for young children are:

Minimum size: 1000 m in order to provide for a range of pieces of equipment and other play opportunities

Distance threshold: 10 minutes walk or 600 m (taken from recommended distance thresholds)

Assumed housing density: 30 dwellings/hectare (taken from PPG3)

Average dwelling occupancy: 2.51 people (taken from the 2001 census for Hart)

The basic conceptual model consists of a circular residential area with a radius of 600 m – the area that one play area can serve. It has an area of approximately 113 ha. At 30 dwellings/ha, this area will contain roughly 3,400 dwellings and just over 8,500 people. Assuming that this area requires at least two play areas, this gives a quantity standard of 2,000 sq m to 8,500 people, or roughly 0.25 sq m per person.

Older Children (8 to 12 years)

The basic parameters for older children are:

Minimum size: 1,000 sq m Distance threshold: 600 m (taken from the

recommended distance thresholds)

Using the same approach as above, and assuming that this area should have at least two play areas, this also gives a provision standard of some 0.25 sq m per person.

Combining the two standards gives a composite standard for children’s play of some 0.5 sq m per person. This is a little higher than the current average level of provision across the District, but it should take the form of fewer but generally larger and better sites with higher play value.

Grass Pitches Across the District we have identified a total of some 47 grass pitch sites with an aggregate area of 201 ha as follows:

Public: 31 sites with an aggregate area of 116 ha, or some 14 sq m per person

Private/voluntary: 2 sites with an aggregate area of 15 ha, or some 2 sq m per person

Schools: 9 sites with an aggregate area of 31 ha, or some 4 sq m per person

Police: 2 sites with an aggregate area of 16 ha, or some 2 sq m per person

MoD: 3 sites with an aggregate area of 22 ha, or some 3 sq m per person


In terms of quantity standards, all of these forms of provision are relevant with the exception of the school and Police ones. If there were no MoD pitches, for example, there would be a need for more public pitches as MoD teams play in local leagues. The Police pitches are different because they are at a residential training college and therefore cater predominantly for a transient population.

It is clear that the District cannot currently afford to “lose” any of its grass pitches and the Parish/Town Councils in Church Crookham, Eversley, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Hook and Mattingley have all indicated a need for more pitch provision in their area. Equally it is clear that the District Council cannot afford to purchase land for any new pitches. Accordingly, the greatest local needs, in order of priority, are:

Artificial turf pitch provision (see above): this is the top priority because it will be the best way of increasing the weekly total carrying capacity of pitches. There should also be opportunities to work in partnership with the County Council and one or more schools to minimise the cost to the District Council.

The enhancement of existing pitches: this is the second priority because a number of grass pitches across the District are of poor quality and enhancing them will benefit junior and adult sport but not require any additional land; it will also make better use of existing changing pavilions – many of which also need improvement

The provision of additional mini-soccer pitches: this is the third priority because much of the demand for min-soccer pitches can be resolved by providing either ATPs or better adult pitches. In addition the number of children of mini-soccer age in Hart’s population will decline slightly in the next few years.

Given that we have recommended a specific provision standard for ATPs above, the grass pitches provision standard can reflect the current level of provision. Excluding the Police and school pitches, this equates to around 19 sq m per person, well above the current Local Plan standard of 12 sq m per person.

Parks, Gardens and Commons

The real need in terms of parks, gardens and commons is for the enhancement of existing provision rather than additional or new provision. Accordingly it is sensible to “post-rationalise” the present level of provision into a quantity standard.

We have identified a total of 125 sites which we have classed as parks, gardens or commons with an aggregate area of some 35 million sq m, or 418 sq m per person. Of these sites:


8 historic parks and gardens total some 16.5 million sq m, or roughly 197 sq m per person

112 commons total some 17 million sq m, or roughly 203 sq m per person

5 other parks and gardens total some 1.5 million sq m, or roughly 18 sq m per person

The amount of both common land and historical parks and gardens is very much an accident of history and cannot be assumed to represent a response to local “need”. Moreover, the historic parks and gardens are not generally managed by public bodies, they serve an area much wider than the District and have an income to support their maintenance. Accordingly they should be excluded from provision standards although they are an important component of local provision and contribute significantly to the local quality of life.

Commons, however, do need upkeep at public expense and any investment in upgrading them will generally fall on the public purse. However, it is unrealistic to set a provision standard of over 200 sq m per person and it is unlikely that many will be enhanced.

This leaves the “other” parks and gardens category. This includes sites such as The Views Meadow in Fleet and Oakley Park in Church Crookham. We have also included some of these sites in the grass pitches category (see below) and it will be important not to “double count” them. This said, enhancing a pitch site as a pitch site is one thing, but enhancing it to make it into more of a local park is quite another. Accordingly we recommend a provision standard for parks of some 18 sq m per person, but recommend that the Council should see this as a means of generating funds to add park-like features to appropriate spaces and regard pitch upgrading as an entirely different matter. This can be manifest through the costs associated with the provision standards for developer contributions to off-site provision.

Teenage Facilities The audit database contains details of 13 sites with provision for teenagers, although most of them have very limited equipment. Most also include play equipment for younger children so we have already taken account of them in the derivation of a standard for equipped play areas for young children. The Parish/Town Councils for Church Crookham, Crookham Village, Eversley, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Mattingley, Odiham, South Warnborough and Yateley have all indicated that teenage provision in their area is inadequate.

Accordingly we have used the same approach as for children’s equipped play areas to determine an appropriate quantity standard, with the following parameters:


Minimum size: 1,600 sq m, based on a multi-court with an area of around 700 sq m (and therefore large enough for 5-a-side soccer or basketball), a skateboard/BMX area of around the same size and a “hanging about” area.

Distance threshold: 10 minutes walk/600 m (taken from the recommended distance thresholds)

Housing density: 30 dwellings/hectare Occupancy: 2.51 people per dwelling (taken from the

2001 census for Hart)

The conceptual model residential area extends to some 113 ha and contains around 3,400 dwellings and 8,500 people. This gives a theoretical provision standard of 1,600 sq m divided by 8,500 people, or around 0.19 sq m per person. However, this assumes that the conceptual model areas requires only a single youth facility and ignores both the need to give teenagers a choice of facility and the possible issue of territorialism. The latter can be particularly significant. Accordingly we recommend increasing this to 0.3 sq m per person. This is based on the fact that a doubling would be desirable, in order to give teenagers a choice of at least two areas in each conceptual model area, but reducing this by half to allow for existing provision.

Tennis Courts Our audit database contains a total of 27 sites with a total of 48 courts. There are:

13 public sites with 25 courts 7 private sites with 7 courts, mainly attached to private

dwellings 4 school sites with 10 courts 1 Police site with 4 courts 2 MoD sites with 4 courts

The current level of provision across the District averages 1 club or public court to 1,744 people, although the level of public courts is one court to 3,350 people.

Our accessibility assessment has suggested that the level of provision is slightly inadequate and this conclusion is supported by the Hartley Wintney and Eversley Parish Councils. Accordingly it will be sensible to have a slightly higher provision standard than the current level of provision of around 1 court to around 2,750 people. As a court is 36.5 x 18.25 m, or 666 sq m, this equates to around 0.25 sq m of tennis court per person.

Indoor Provision Sport England Facilities Calculator

The Sport England Facilities Calculator (SFC) is a spreadsheet, downloadable from the Sport England website, which calculates the total quantity of sports hall,


pool and indoor bowls hall provision required for any local authority area in England. It uses standard Facilities Planning Model parameters and makes the implicit assumption that all provision is accessible to all potential users. Because it is a spreadsheet, it also works all figures out to an apparently high, but misleading, level of accuracy. In round figures, the calculator assesses Hart’s peak period needs as equivalent to:

Just under 867 sq m of indoor pool water area (equivalent to 2 pools each 25 m x 6 lanes plus one 25 m x 4 lanes)

Just over 24 badminton courts (equivalent to six 4-court halls)

Just under 5 indoor bowls rinks (equivalent to one indoor bowls centre)

The normal peak periods for the Facilities Planning Model are midweek evenings and weekends, when those school facilities in Hart with community use will be available. The District currently has the following provision:

Indoor Pools (sq m of indoor water area)

Hart Leisure Centre 25 x 10 m 250 sq m Hart Leisure Centre 5 x 10 m 50 sq m RAF Odiham 25 x 12 m 300 sq m Yateley Centre 20 x 10 m 200 sq m Total 800 sq m

Sports Halls (Badminton Courts)

Court Moor School 4 courts Frogmore Leisure Centre 4 courts Hart Leisure Centre 8 courts Lord Wandsworth College 6 courts RAF Odiham 4 courts Robert May’s School 4 courts Yateley Centre 4 courts Total 34 courts

Accordingly the District has slightly less pool provision that the SFC indicates as needed but more sports hall provision. If RAF Odiham is ignored, however, there is a significant shortfall in pool provision but there is still a surplus of sports hall facilities.

Sports Halls Quantity Standard

The SFC takes no account of local circumstances other than population structure. However, the level of provision, the fact that effectively every property in the District is within the driving distance threshold of a casual use sports hall means that there is really no case for additional provision, particularly for hall sports.


We have used the SFC to assess the extent to which it will be possible for the District’s population to increase without needing more sports hall provision as follows:

Current District population 83,700 SFC halls needed 24.12 courts Population per court 3,470 Provision, excluding RAF Odiham 30 courts Therefore population limit 104,100 Potential for population growth 20,400

Accordingly there is no need for a provision standard for the foreseeable future unless the District wishes to generate contributions to be used to upgrade its existing facilities. However, this will take a long time to generate the sort of funds needed to do a major refurbishment of the Fleet Leisure Centre and so we recommend that there is no need for a quantitative provision standard for sports halls.

Swimming Pools

Without RAF Odiham, the District would have a deficiency in pool provision amounting to some 367 sq m of water area – the approximate equivalent of a 25 m x 6 lane pool. This is supported by local views; one of the findings of our survey of local residents was a view that the Hart Leisure Centre pool is “too busy”. However, there is no significant centre of population in which it might be sensible to site a pool of this size. Accordingly it may be sensible to consider providing a small pool in the Hartley Wintney/Hook area but this should not really be necessary provided RAF Odiham remains accessible to the local community. Accordingly we recommend that there is currently no need for a quantitative provision standard for pools.

Indoor Bowls

A 5-rink indoor bowling green, as suggested by the Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator, will have a green with dimensions of approximately 24 m wide x 37 m long, or an area of 888 sq m. However, there is no real point in a five-rink green and six rinks would be much better as it is the size needed for competitions. A six-rink green is approximately 29 m wide and 37 m long, or a total of some 1,073 sq m. Dividing this by the population of the District gives a provision standard of 0.013 sq m of bowling surface per person.

The Impact of Population Growth

Each of the above quantity standards relates to the population of the District, as established by the 2001 census. As there is to be significant housing development in the District, the population is likely to rise. If the overall


demographic structure of the District stays broadly the same as in 2001, it will be possible simply to apply the above standards to new development.


10: Issues and Options

Introduction In the course of this assessment we have identified a number of issues on which we think it desirable that the Council should make policy decisions. We set them out in this chapter, with recommendations on the policy approach we recommend. The issues are:

Provision Issues

A new approach to children’s play Provision for teenagers Provision for football Provision in the western part of the District Walking and cycling Provision for athletics Indoor provision

Funding Issues

The use of planning agreements District Council funding External funding

Management Issues

Asset management The Basingstoke Canal

Provision Issues

The Views Meadow Play Area in Fleet

A New Approach to Children’s Play

Issue

The National Playing Fields Association approach to children’s play – adopted not only in Hart but in Local Plans throughout the country - is deeply flawed:

The amount of play provision it suggests as necessary is excessive (several times the current level of equipped play provision in the District) and the revenue costs of this level of provision would be unaffordable

The play value of most LEAPs and NEAPs is very limited, with the result that most lie idle most of the time

A very small proportion of children’s play takes place in


play areas The standard pays inadequate attention to the needs of

teenagers who, as a result, tend to colonise play areas for younger children, especially in the evenings

The choice the District Council faces is to continue with its present approach or to adopt a different one, particularly for new residential developments. It will obviously take a considerable time, and not a little money, to change all the present play areas across the District into something better.

A large play area, set in a park and providing a range of safe play environments for children

Recommendation

The Council and its partners, such as the Parish Councils, should adopt a new approach to children’s play provision loosely based on the home zone concept. The key features are:

Residential streets designed in such a way as to force vehicles to move very slowly – typically 10 mph at most – using trees and obstacles rather than sleeping policemen or speed tables

Small spaces suitable for play opening directly off streets and designed with natural materials and planting to provide opportunities for children to experience nature, hide, run around, handle materials and get dirty

All greenspaces designed to provide a range of play opportunities, not necessarily using equipment

Large equipped play areas at accessible locations, such as in parks

How much value are facilities like this for teenagers?

Provision for Teenagers

Issue

In our local consultations, residents of all parts of the District placed a high priority on better provision for young people. The success of the recently built skatepark at The View Meadows is an excellent demonstration of the value of investing in the right sort of provision for young people. Its opening should lead to a reduction in local vandalism and unsightly damage to hard landscaped areas in Fleet town centre from skateboarding. If so, the skatepark will effectively pay for itself.

It is difficult to know what teenagers want – there is usually no clear consensus amongst young people themselves as to what they want beyond places to meet (preferably warm) and have fun or do something exciting in the company of their peers. In surveys done in various parts of the country, teenagers’ preferences tend to be split fairly evenly between skateboard/BMX facilities, ball courts, sports facilities, cinemas and tenpin bowling.


Recommendation

The District Council should work with the Parish and Town Councils throughout the District, and young people, to identify and deliver the provision required by teenagers in each of the main settlements.

Provision for Football

Issue

The quality of many of Hart’s football pitches – and related changing – is poor and the District seems to be regarded as having the worst pitches amongst Hampshire authorities by the Hampshire Football Association and at least some local clubs.

Background

The needs of football are changing. Nationally there has been a decline an adult participation, offset by rapid and significant growth in mini-soccer which is beginning to feed through into junior football. As mini-soccer does not necessarily need dedicated, marked-out pitches, but can be played on almost any area of level ground large enough, it has not had a huge impact on the demand for pitches as teams “make do”. But as players reach their teens, and start to play 11-a-side matches, there is a need for proper junior pitches. These are smaller than adult pitches so meeting the demand has the potential to need a considerable area of additional land unless adult football declines further and some pitches can be converted from adult to junior use. However, this is likely at best to be only a short term solution because growth in mini-soccer should feed through into growth in junior soccer and then growth in the adult game. At the moment, however, no-one knows how much mini-soccer demand will translate eventually into adult demand. In many areas there is a high drop-out rate at the transition points from mini to junior soccer and from junior to the adult game as players develop other interests.

Assuming that the present boom in Mini-soccer does eventually result in more adult teams, Hart has two basic needs. In the short term, it needs to improve the quality of many of its pitches; and in the longer term it will need to be able to accommodate more matches.

Improving Pitch Quality

Most of the District’s current pitches can accommodate a maximum of only about two games a week (roughly 3 hours play) without rapid deterioration in poor weather. Improving quality will require at least the enhancement of


drainage and (preferably) the reconstruction of pitches with a free-draining sand-soil mix, at a cost of up to about £100,000 a pitch. This will significantly improve the quality of pitches and, by improving the soil structure and grass growth, make them more resistant to wear and less susceptible to damage in wet weather. However, there will also be a need to follow up any such capital improvements by better maintenance regimes, including regular top dressing with sand. This will increase maintenance costs.

Increasing Pitch Capacity

Reconstructing pitches as outlined above will also roughly double their carrying capacity from about 3 to 6 or even 8 hours per week. However, unless such pitches can be floodlit, their winter capacity is still constrained by the amount of daylight. Effectively, grass pitches without lights can be used only at the weekend for much of the year and with lights they can still be used for only a very limited number of games each week. Accordingly the floodlighting of grass pitches, at about £40-50,000 each, represents poor value for money. It is also likely to be self-defeating by leading to the over-use of the floodlit pitches.

The other ways of being able to accommodate higher levels of demand and therefore more games per week are:

To open up more school pitches for community use –something which many schools resist because of the potential impact on the quality of their pitches and PE programmes. In addition, school pitches are unlikely to be floodlit so, after taking account of school use, their capacity is unlikely to exceed two community games (three hours) a week.

To provide one or more floodlit artificial turf pitches (ATPs). In theory such ATPs can be used 24 hors a day, although in practice 30-40 hours is typical. Therefore one ATP, costing about £400,000, is the approximate equivalent of about ten unimproved grass pitches or 5-8 reconstructed ones.

The Benefits of ATPs

Taking account of the savings in land and pavilion costs, and the fact that maintaining an ATP costs about the same each year as a grass pitch, the economic case for ATPs is overwhelming. Indeed, in research we undertook for sportscotland some years ago, we came to surprising conclusion that councils would find it cheaper to provide ATPs and make them available without charge than to continue to provide grass pitches and levy a typical charge for them. Our calculations took account of all the “whole life costs” of different forms of pitch, including the need to replace the carpet on an ATP at roughly ten year intervals.


Unfortunately ATPs have a bad reputation amongst football players, arising from the fact that some of the early carpets provided a very poor playing surface which was greatly inferior to a good grass pitch for football. The issue of whether they were better or worse than a typically very poor grass pitch, however, was largely ignored. The first artificial grass was actually developed for indoor American Football use in the Houston Astrodome (hence the name “Astroturf”, a name which entered the language and is still used generically, like “Hoover”, although Astroturf is nolonger sold). American football indoors and Association football outdoors are very different sports.

In the last few years, however, manufacturers have developed what is known as “third generation” ATP surfaces designed specifically for Association football, although relatively few players have yet played on them. They are so different from the earlier artificial surfaces that football’s world and European governing bodies have approved their use for all standards of play. Indeed, it has been estimated by Sport England that around half the matches in the 2012 World Cup will be played on ATPs. If they are good enough for the world’s most expensive prima donna professional players they are also good enough for local ones.

At say 1100 hours on a Sunday morning or 1430 hours on a Saturday afternoon an ATP has the same capacity as a grass pitch; it can accommodate one match. Therefore ATPs are not the solution if leagues continue to insist on all matches in a particular division starting at the same time. However, as local authorities wake up to the very high subsidies received by pitch sport players - in our research for sportscotland we identified subsidies at some pitches of over £20 per player per match - many will decide that meeting football’s demand for more and better grass pitches is unaffordable. And then football will have to learn from hockey, which moved to artificial surfaces for all serious play a number of years ago - and gained immeasurably as a result.

Recommendations

The Council should plan on the basis of providing at least one and ideally two artificial turf pitches - one designed for hockey (with what is known as a “water-based” surface) and the other for football (with a “third generation surface) - rather than upgrade grass pitches across the District. The best location for these pitches will clearly be where floodlighting will be acceptable to the Council in its role as planning authority and on or close to school sites (eg Hooks Lane, where the pitch can be managed from theHart Leisure Centre) so they can be used for school PE programmes during the day and a range of community


uses at night and the weekend. These community uses, which the Council’s leisure services should promote actively, can include:

After-school coaching for school-age children Mini-soccer coaching and matches (it is possible

simultaneously to play three mini-soccer games across a full size pitch)

Mid-week floodlit junior and adult leagues (eg 30 minutes each way, in order to maximise usage)

Club training and practice Sports schools in the school holidays

Ideally, these sites should also provide grass pitches which can be used by community teams. We therefore suggest that the Council, in partnership with the County Council Education Service, should designate a limited number of strategic pitch sites across the District and give priority to enhancing them. These strategic sites should have a number of common characteristics: at least three pitches; regular use for mini-soccer; and there should be a club or group of clubs willing to take on the management of community use in partnership with the school governors. Ideally they should also be specialist sport colleges. There are good examples of how this can work in other areas, for example the William Parker School and Rugby Club partnership in Hastings.

Provision in the Western Part of the District

Issue

The accessibility maps in Chapter 7 highlight the paucity of several forms of provision in the western part of the District around Hook, Odiham and Hartley Wintney, specifically:

Allotments (although we understand there may be a site in Hook which is not identified in the OS map data supplied by the Council)

A bowling green (there is one in Odiham but none in either Hook or Hartley Wintney)

A swimming pool (while the RAF Odiham pool is currently available to organised groups in the area, this use is obviously subject to various restrictions and can be withdrawn at any time; something like a 20 x 8 m public pool in Hook or Hartley Wintney is obviously desirable)

Teenage facilities (again, there is some provision in Odiham but not in either Hook or Hartley Wintney)

Tennis courts in Hartley Wintney (there are some near-derelict courts at the Greenfield School)

A sports hall, possibly in Hook

Recommendation


Given the relatively small size of these settlements, the District and three Parish Councils should work together to plan and deliver the above facilities.

Walking and Cycling

Issue

In our questionnaire survey of local residents, some 44% of respondents claimed to cycle regularly. Within settlements, this suggests an opportunity to boost the use of bicycles as an everyday means of transport to work or community facilities, with obvious benefits in terms of the health of local people and less traffic and air pollution. It would be fairly simple, for example, to enhance the accessibility of the Hart Leisure Centre on foot from much of Fleet.

Hart residents are also fortunate in that the District has attractive roiling countryside, making cycling in the countryside relatively easy.

Recommendations

The Council should:

Require all appropriate new developments (eg offices, shopping facilities and schools) to include secure bicycle parking racks

Provide secure cycle racks at its own leisure facilities, including Hart Leisure Centre and the District’s pitches and parks, and encourage Parish and Town Councils to do the same

Work closely with the County Council to ensure that its Local Transport Plan promotes and helps to deliver a network of cycle routes for both recreational and leisure purposes

Provision for athletics

Issue

The District Council has promised local athletics interests that it will make provision for their sport for many years but has not done so. English Athletics recommends a maximum drive time catchment for athletics tracks of 30-45 minutes and this means that the tracks in Basingstoke (about 30 minutes drive from Fleet and less form the western parts of the District) and Aldershot (about 15 minutes drive from Fleet and more from the western parts of the District) are fairly readily accessible. Basingstoke is also readily accessible by train from Hook and Fleet.

Recommendation


The Council should make a clear decision not to provide an athletics track and instead consider providing financial support for any talented young athletes in the District in order to help them meet the costs of travelling to nearby tracks. However, if any of the secondary schools decide to provide athletics training facilities, the Council should endeavour to secure community use of them.

Indoor Provision

Issue

The Hart Leisure Centre contains a “ticking time bomb” in that the dry side of the building is reaching the age where it will require major re-investment, not least in servicing systems, simply in order to keep it operational. The wet side, while younger, could also do with some refurbishment.

Refurbishments can be staved off for a while using a “make do and mend” approach, but the result is more than likely to be declining usage, income and customer satisfaction. There are a number of exciting, high profile pools within an acceptable travel distance of Hart (eg Basingstoke Aquarena, Coral Reef in Bracknell) and there is a real danger that the Hart Leisure Centre will come to be seen as a poor second best. The Hart Leisure Centre was also criticised by a number of people in our local consultations.

Recommendation

The Council should:

Commission a comprehensive survey of Hart Leisure Centre’s fabric and environmental servicing systems (assuming it has not already done so) to establish (a) the cost of necessary repairs and maintenance over the next few years and when these repairs are likely to be necessary in order to keep the building in a safe and usable condition and (b) the costs of ensuring that the Centre offers facilities which will be comparable in quality to those in adjoining areas

If the Council opts to set up a trust or externalise the management of the Hart Leisure Centre it should not see this as simply a way of reducing its costs option but with a view to enhancing the service offered to the local community

Use any savings from externalising the management of the Centre to enhance the facilities in order to help the management maximise income, rather than subsume those savings into its general budget.

Funding Issues The Use of Planning Agreements


Issue

To date, the District Council appears not to have made as much or effective use of planning agreements to fund the provision or enhancement of open spaces and sport and recreation facilities as it could. ODPM Circular 5/2005, Planning Obligations, provides it with an opportunity address this issue. It introduces two major policy changes, both of which create an opportunity for Hart:

Councils like Hart, without comprehensive high level policies relating to planning obligations (or agreements) in their Local Plan can introduce a Supplementary Planning Document using the Circular as their policy basis. Until publication of this Circular, the Council would have had to wait until it had suitable policies in its future Local Development Framework.

Councils can use planning agreements, at least partially, to address existing deficiencies in provision. The previous circular on planning obligations (DoE Circular 1/97) made clear that this was not acceptable and that developers could be required only to mitigate the impact of their developments.

Recommendation

The Council should prepare a Supplementary Planning Document on how it plans to use planning agreements, using Circular 5/2005 as the policy basis. However, first it should discuss this recommendation with the Government Office for the South East (GOSE). If GOSE agrees that it is a sensible and acceptable course of action the Council will be reasonably immune to challenge from developers. Insofar as open space, sport and recreation provision is concerned, we have prepared a first draft of such a Document for the Council. However, this will require a sustainability appraisal before the Council can consider adopting it.

Welcome to the Peter Driver Sports Ground!

District Council Funding

Issue

Council members and officials have both made clear that the potential for increasing its expenditure – capital or revenue – on open space, sport and recreation provision is, at best, very limited. It is also clear that some provision in the District is in decline and the local community would like to see a number of spaces enhanced. No-one visiting the Peter Driver Sports Ground, for example, would imagine for a moment that they were in a District which claims proudly to be the least deprived in England. It is a monument to a local hero and a disgrace to the Council. In Fleet alone, Calthorpe Park – particularly the so-called pitch and putt course - and the Basingbourne Recreation


Ground are not much better and The Views Meadow (the recently constructed skateboard area excepted) compares poorly with Oakley Park. These and other spaces need fairly radical enhancement and the sooner the better. The Council should see the success of the skateboard area at Views Meadow as pointing the way forward.

Recommendation

The Council should

Maximise its use planning agreements to generate funds for the enhancement of existing spaces and facilities rather than require developers to provide more of them. Fortunately, greenspace enhancements can be implemented as a series of small projects as funding becomes available.

Develop and implement a costed action plan for the upgrading of the Peter Driver Sports Ground

Give priority to tackling the other “wasted spaces” identified by a number of residents in our local questionnaire survey. These are clearly high profile eyesores and by doing something about them the Council will be able to demonstrate that it has listened to the local community (see “Community Relations” below). They include the former garage site at the junction of Kings Road and Aldershot Road in Fleet; the Ancells Farm Recreation Ground and play area; land to the rear of the Tweseldown Public House in Church Crookham; Basingbourne Recreation Ground; the old night club in Bourley Road, Fleet; Bell Lane, Blackwater; Yateley Common; and Odiham Recreation Ground.

External Funding

Issue

Most sources of external funding seek to give priority to projects in disadvantaged communities – a category which excludes Hart. This means that attracting external funding will not be easy. In any case, it is never possible to attract sufficient external funding to meet all the costs of a project. It is also the case that applications for external funding need to have widespread support from as many partners as possible and relate to strategies to which those partners are fully committed.

In Hart, probably the most likely source of external funding is the Football Foundation, as a result of the poor condition of many of the District’s pitches and changing pavilions. The Hampshire Football Association and local clubs can probably be relied on to support any bids the Council may wish to make which, if successful, will lead to enhanced football provision. The County Council can probably also be relied to give at least moral support to


support any bid for funding towards one or more artificial turf pitches on school sites.

Funding regimes change fairly frequently and it sometimes that as soon as councils and others “learn the ropes” and how to apply successfully for external funding the programme is scrapped and a new one introduced. This said, there is funding for children’s play provision through the rather cynically named Big Lottery Fund. As a result it makes sense to apply for external funding as soon as a new scheme is announced as this maximises the chances of a successful application.

Recommendation

The Council should:

Keep a close eye on Government, Lottery and any other announcements relating to grant aid and aim to lodge applications as quickly as possible after the announcement of any new funding regime

Try always to submit applications which involve or are at least supported by as many partners as possible

Lodge applications for external funding through new grant schemes as soon as possible after the funding rules are known

Identify one or more sites where it will be acceptable to have a floodlit ATP and develop a partnership with other agencies (eg the County Council, a school or schools, local clubs and the Hampshire Football Association) to help prepare and submit a funding application to the Football Foundation

Management Issues Asset Management

Issue

The Government has made clear that the primary purposes of the planning system are to promote sustainable development and deliver the land use aspects of community strategies and a high quality environment for local communities. Assuming that funds generated from planning agreements are used primarily for the enhancement of existing provision, the Council will have to increase the funds it allocates to the maintenance of the spaces and facilities it enhances. If it does not it will be open to criticism from developers who will see their capital contributions as being used as a substitute for adequate revenue funding of maintenance by the Council.


Hart has some wonderful trees

The Council also needs to be aware that it must not adopt an approach of “do as we say, not as we do” in relation to the management of assets such as trees and greenspaces. The District contains a large number of magnificent trees, many subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs). As a result of this designation it can take steps to ensure their owners look after them properly. The Council must do the same for those trees for which it is responsible. In our local questionnaire survey, street and other trees regarded as very important by local residents.

Recommendation

The Council should give a clear commitment to maintain its assets to best practice standards. This should be cheaper in terms of “whole life costs” than allowing them to decline so that capital investment is needed in refurbishment or replacement.

The Basingstoke Canal

Issue

The Basingstoke Canal is on of the District’s greatest assets and generally reckoned to be one of the most attractive waterways in the UK. Its wildlife and natural heritage value is also very high.

Recommendation

We recommend that

The work being done by the Basingstoke Canal Association is well worth continued support from the Council.

The Council should seek to integrate the Canal as much as possible into the District-wide network of walking routes and other “green corridors”. The extent to which it will be possible to allow cycling along the towpath is uncertain but, with the Association, the Council should be seeking to find ways of minimising the potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists in order to allow cycling long its length.


11: Draft Planning Policy

Introduction This chapter puts forward a broad draft planning policy for inclusion in the Local Development Framework.

Principles Rather than have a detailed policy, we suggest that the LDF should have a single, broad policy, with further details set out in a Supplementary Planning Document.

Most planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are essentially negative; that is, they aim to protect spaces from development. Given the need to enhance provision across the District, and possibly to change the overall pattern of provision, we suggest that the Council should adopt a more positive approach and set out our suggested policy approach below.

Draft Policy Policy Objective

The Council’s objective – which it could probably use as a core policy objective in its LDF – should be to ensure that Hart has a network of accessible, high quality greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities which meet local needs and enhance the “liveability” of the District, promote sustainability, support bio-diversity and make the best use of land.

Achievement of the Policy Objective

In pursuance of this objective, and in accordance with PPG17, the Council will protect all those spaces it regards as being of high value to the local community, to wildlife or for some other reason, but is willing to be more flexible in relation to the possible development of those it regards as being of low value. However, in all circumstances, it will allow the development of an existing greenspace or sport and recreation facility only if the benefits of the development in terms of helping the Council deliver its policy objective will clearly outweigh the loss of spaces or facilities.

Throughout much of the District, the Council has established that its clear priority should be to enhance existing provision rather than seek new provision as a


result of development. Accordingly, for most new residential developments it will require developers to contribute to the enhancement of existing provision, rather than require them to provide or fund new provision, and will require developers to enter into an appropriate planning agreement for this purpose. There are two main justifications for this:

PPG17 makes clear that deficiencies in provision can be both qualitative and quantitative, and councils should use planning agreements to tackle them

New development will increase the demand pressure on existing community infrastructure and therefore it is appropriate that developers should fund the enhancement of it in order to mitigate these impacts

For larger developments, for example those involving a net gain of more than (insert number) dwellings, the Council will be more likely to seek some forms of on-site provision by developers.

Draft Policy

(a) Proposals which involve the loss of open space or sport and recreation provision

The Council may allow proposals which will result in the loss of open spaces or sport and recreation facilities provided the site that will be lost serves no strategic purpose and is not significant in terms of nature conservation, subject to the following policy tests:

1. The site that will be lost is clearly surplus to requirements in terms of its current use and there is no need for it to be used for a different form of open space or sport and recreation provision; or

2. The development will result in the enhancement of other spaces or facilities and represent a greater benefit to the community served by the space or facilities that will be lost than retention of that provision; or

3. The development will result in replacement provision which will be at least as accessible, at least equivalent in terms of attractiveness and quality and capable of accommodating and sustaining at least the same levels and types of use as the provision which will be lost; or

4. The proposed development is ancillary to the use of land used for sport and physical recreation and will not adversely affect either the level of use it can sustain or the quality of provision

(b) All Other Proposals

Depending on the size of the proposed development, its location and likely impact in terms of increasing the


demand pressures on open space and sport and recreation provision, the Council may require developers:

1. To make on-site provision in accordance with its adopted provision standards; or

2. To fund off-site provision in accordance with its adopted provision standards, within the appropriate distance threshold if at all possible; or

3. To fund the enhancement of off-site provision in accordance with its adopted provision standards

Supporting Text

The Council will impose a condition when it wishes to achieve the first of these outcomes and require developers to enter into a planning agreement when it wishes to achieve the second or third. The Council, at its discretion, will use any contributions that developers provide towards enhanced provision, or new off-site provision, in two main ways:

To enhance local provision, or make new provision, as close as practicable to the proposed development

To enhance District-wide provision

In both cases, the Council may, at its discretion, aggregate contributions from two or more developments in order to achieve worthwhile benefits for local communities.

The Council will publish a Supplementary Planning Document setting out how it will apply its provision standards and calculate developers’ contributions. We give a draft of this Document in Appendix J, but point out that before the Council can consider adopting it there will be a need to undertake a sustainability appraisal.

KCA Development Control Model

In order to provide transparency for developers and others, it will be desirable for the Council to make available an on-line tool which will allow developers to assess, for any proposed development:

The amount(s) and type(s) of on-site provision the Council may be likely to require; and

The contribution(s) it may require towards the enhancement of existing provision.

We can provide such a tool through our development Control Model but first it will be necessary for the Council to prepare a comprehensive audit of current provision in the District. We give details of the Model in section 3 of the Background Notes.


12: Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction In this final chapter we pull together a number of key points from the assessment under three broad heads:

Policy priorities The evidence base for open space, sport and recreation

policies Keeping the local community informed and involved

Policy Priorities

Basingbourne Recreation Ground: upgrading needed

While this assessment has been PPG17-driven, and therefore may be seen as primarily concerned with planning and land use, it has identified a real need for the Council – and of course its Town and Parish Council partners – to manage and maintain existing spaces and facilities better throughout the District. In broad terms, the main policy message is that the quality and accessibility of provision are far more important than the amount of it. The planning system can help to deliver resources for greenspace and sport and recreation facility enhancements, but we recommend that the Council should see this as an important complement to better management and maintenance, rather than a substitute for it.

The Council will not be able to generate sufficient developers’ contributions to enhance all of the spaces that it might like to improve or provide all of the new facilities needed in the District. In addition, there will often be a long “shopping list” of the ways in which the Council might seek to mitigate the impacts of development and therefore a need for it to set clear priorities for the forms of provision for which it will seek contributions. The process of setting priorities will have to take account of all relevant issues, such as the need for affordable housing, school accommodation and highways works, as well as open space, sport and recreation. In broad terms, we recommend that the priorities for open space, sport and recreation provision are likely to be:

The development and enhancement (where in public ownership) of a limited number of high profile strategic sites, designed to serve a wide range of community needs. Some will be the strategic pitch sites suggested


in Chapter 10 and others those existing poor quality parks or other spaces with a significant resident population within the distance threshold. We suggest that they should include: the Basingstoke Canal; Calthorpe Park, Fleet; Fleet Pond; Oakley Park, Church Crookham; The Views Meadows; Wellington Country Park.

The upgrading or reconstruction of existing pitches and related changing and the provision of artificial turf pitches

The improvement of provision for teenagers The development of a new approach to children’s play

The Evidence Base In order for an assessment of this kind to be fully PPG17-compliant it is necessary to undertake a comprehensive audit of local provision. The Council will also need this in order to be able to prepare and submit its Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report to the ODPM on the area and percentage of greenspace in the District managed to Green Flag Award standards.

As a result of this assessment, it has a substantial part of the evidence it will need, including the views of most of the District’s Town and Parish Councils, a selection of key stakeholders and a good cross-section of the general public. However, it will be important to try to develop and maintain a comprehensive evidence base and therefore we recommend that the Council should:

Seek to obtain the views of those town and parish councils that did not respond to our requests for their views, in spite of several requests

Develop and maintain a comprehensive database of local provision. Without this, there is a risk that Inspectors may not regard the assessment as fully PPG17 compliant. In addition, the Council will need this in order to be to report annually to the ODPM in its LDF Annual Monitoring Report on the area and proportion of greenspace in the District that is of Green Flag Standard.

The process for completing the audit will be:

Draw up a database of those spaces and facilities to be included. A key first step in this process will be to set some sensible ground rules for the spaces to be included; for example, not less than 1,000 sq m (0.1 ha) in area; no road verges or SLOAP (space left over after planning); and only spaces which are publicly accessible. As noted earlier in this report, we have tried to identify as many spaces as possible from a range of sources, but it has not been possible to identify amenity greenspaces in housing areas. We may also have missed some spaces in other forms of provision if they are not highlighted in the Ordnance


Survey digital map data we have used. The methods the Council can use for developing this database include seeking information from parish and town councils (although we have already tried this with very little success); using the local knowledge of staff who live across the District; visiting each parish or town clerk to get details of their Council’s grounds maintenance contract; and engaging students (which can be dodgy) or consultants to drive round the District and identify sites.

Conduct the audit, using the same audit forms as we have used. This will ensure the results are broadly compatible. Appendix E gives details of how to add details of additional spaces into our Microsoft Excel spreadsheet approach.

Keeping the Community Informed and Involved

Many Hart residents have contributed to this assessment and open space, sport and recreation provision is clearly important to many local people. This creates both a need and an opportunity for the Council.

First, there is a need to keep residents better informed on what the Council is doing and why. We have asked a question on “wasted spaces” in questionnaire surveys in about half a dozen local authority areas and as a result analysed several thousand responses. In the question, we define wasted spaces as “unused, poorly used or derelict areas which do not benefit the local community, but might do so if they were either improved or put to an alternative use”. No resident of any other area has nominated the District Council offices as wasted spaces. In Hart, four residents did so. This is not healthy and obviously has the potential to make good governance difficult. More generally, and as noted in the chapter on local views, some of the responses to our questionnaire survey were clearly indicative of considerable hostility towards the Council. If the Council is seen as ignoring the results of the consultations underpinning this assessment, and the conclusions of it, this hostility is likely to increase.

We therefore recommend that the Council needs to do three things:

To make clear to the local community that it is not entirely its own master in terms of the amount of residential development planned for the District, but must conform to the Regional Spatial Strategy (and in the short term, the Structure Plan)

To prepare a short version of this assessment, for example as a supplement to Hart News, thanking those members of the community that contributed to it and setting out what the assessment found, inviting comments on the policy issues it has raised and, once


these responses are collated, to set out how the Council intends to respond to the recommendations and what it intends to do differently as a result

To emphasise to the local community that the Council intends to harness development more than it has done in the past to benefit existing local communities by enhancing their greenspaces and sport and recreation facilities. Having done this, however, and raised expectations, it must then deliver.

Second the assessment has highlighted an important opportunity for the Council in terms of getting local communities more involved in greenspace management and maintenance. Just over 13% of Project Greenspace survey respondents indicated that they would be interested in getting involved. Amongst the respondents alone, that suggests a pool of nearly 200 potential volunteers. These people could be a hugely valuable resource for the Council in its work to enhance and maintain the “liveability” of the Hart District. We recommend that it should seek to form a Friends Group where one does not already exist for each of the designated “strategic spaces” when it is ready to think about enhancing them. The Friends of Oakley Park is an obvious model to follow and its members could be useful allies in helping the Council foster similar approaches in other areas.

hart ppg17 assessment main report · health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational...

Documents