hartlepool linear park

North Hartlepool linear park feasibility study

Final Report for the

North Hartlepool Partnership

and

Pride in Hartlepool

May 2006

Cass Associates ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • ECOLOGY

for

North Hartlepool Partnership

and

Pride in Hartlepool

Cass Associates Studio 104 The Tea Factory 82 Wood Street Liverpool L1 4DQ Tel 0151 707 0110 Fax 0151 707 0332 [email protected] www.cassassociates.co.uk

Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 3 2 Methodology 4 3 The policy framework 5 4 Aspirations for the linear park 16 5 The conceptual masterplan 19 6 Implementation 20 7 Next steps 26 Plans (between pages 19 and 20) 1 Green spaces and tourist attractions 2 Nature conservation 3 Community 4 Connections 5 Overview 6 Concept masterplan 7 Community zones Appendices 28 1 List of consultees 29 2 Workshop details 30

Cass Associates│May 2006 1

Executive summary 1 This report details the findings of a feasibility study commissioned

by the North Hartlepool Partnership and Pride in Hartlepool for the concept of a linear park in North Hartlepool. The study area covers the Headland and Central Estate, as far west as a line drawn from the BritMag works along the railway to Victoria Harbour.

2 The main purposes of the study were:

• To assess whether the linear park is likely to be practical on the ground.

• To define the concept of the linear park, and what it might look like.

• To assess whether it is likely to be attractive to funders.

• To prepare initial design ideas for the park, including a route alignment and initial design material.

• To prepare an implementation strategy, including an action plan for what needs to be done next, advice on funding, procurement, delivery, management/maintenance issues, and a strategy for stakeholder engagement.

3 We used a simple five stage methodology (see chapter 2):

1 Commissioning and preparation work

2 Information gathering

3 Appraisal and analysis

4 Preparation of strategic objectives at a stakeholder workshop

5 Conceptual masterplanning and implementation advice 4 The linear park can potentially contribute to a wide range of policy

agendas, including land use planning, regeneration, health, transport, recreation, tourism and nature conservation (see chapter 3). A number of key themes were identified which the linear park could tap into:

• Promoting tourism as a means of economic development.

• Making the most of new development opportunities, particularly Victoria Harbour.

• Part of a coastal walking and cycling route from Seaton Carew to the Hart to Haswell Walkway via the Headland.

• Encouraging people to do more physical activity as part of the


wider agenda for healthier lifestyles.

• Improving accessibility by walking and cycling to local employment, shops, and health and other community facilities.

5 The aspirations for the linear park (chapter 4) are that it should:

a. Be a community-based project, where community groups could take on green spaces within an overall framework.

b. Tie in with a range of policy agendas – health, recreation, tourism, regeneration, nature conservation and transport.

c. Integrate and connect existing green spaces, points of interest and recent investments on the Headland and Central Estate.

d. Be attractive to both local residents and visitors.

e. Provide opportunities for recreation, walking and cycling.

f. Provide attractive routes to facilitate walking and cycling between homes and community facilities.

g. Be an integral part of the tourism offer in the Headland.

h. Develop over a number of years as local community groups come on board to deliver different parts of the linear park.

6 We have rarely seen a project which scores so highly across such

a wide range of policy and funding agendas – but it is important to get the concept right, build in community involvement as far as local capacity allows, and present the case properly to funders.

7 A series of plans detail our analysis of the current situation and

opportunities, conceptual masterplan, and potential areas for local groups to take forward (see chapter 5).

8 We have provided further advice on implementation issues,

focussing on funding and community engagement, but touching on other issues such as future maintenance (see chapter 6).

9 In terms of funding, capital costs are likely to be limited. Sufficient

funding will however be required for longer term management of physical works and to sustain community involvement (for example through subsidy of a community development worker). We have identified a number of potential sources of funding.

10 In terms of community engagement, we have suggested two tiers:

• An overall management steering group led by the local community but with involvement from public sector partners.

• Local community groups (based on existing community groups and organisations) who would take forward implementation of component green space projects within the overall strategy.

11 Finally, we include a plan of action for securing the necessary

support and resources for the linear park so that implementation can begin on the ground (see chapter 7).


1 Introduction 1.1 This report details the findings of a feasibility study commissioned

by the North Hartlepool Partnership and Pride in Hartlepool for the concept of a linear park in North Hartlepool. The study area covers the Headland and Central Estate, as far west as a line drawn from the BritMag works along the railway line to Victoria Harbour.

1.2 The main purposes of the study were:

• To assess whether the linear park is likely to be practical on the ground.

• To define the concept of the linear park, and what it might look like.

• To assess whether it is likely to be attractive to funders.

• To prepare initial design ideas for the park, including a route alignment and initial design material.

• To prepare an implementation strategy, including an action plan for what needs to be done next, advice on funding, procurement, delivery, management/maintenance issues, and a strategy for stakeholder engagement.

1.3 Before we were commissioned to do this work, we stated that we

would say if we felt that the linear park was not a viable or realistic proposal. Having studied the policy context, stakeholder aspirations and the local area in some detail, we established in the interim report for the project and subsequent workshop (February 2006) that it would be worthwhile progressing the concept of the linear park through this feasibility study.


2 Methodology 2.1 We used a simple, robust methodology involving five stages, each

building on the one before:

1 Commissioning and preparation work

2 Information gathering

3 Appraisal and analysis

4 Preparation of strategic objectives at a stakeholder workshop

5 Conceptual masterplanning and implementation advice 2.2 Our approach is tried and tested, although we constantly tweak

and refine it over time in response to experience, feedback from clients, best practice and guidance such as that produced by CABE, CABE Space, and local circumstances. It is a similar approach to the Prepare-Design-Implement philosophy commended by CABE.

2.3 The need to respond to local circumstances is fundamental. We

would emphasise that we have not simply lifted our approach from other projects with no thought for local context. We have carefully reviewed our approach in response to the client’s detailed brief and in the light of our knowledge of North Hartlepool from this and previous projects.

2.4 The remainder of this chapter gives further detail on each of the

five stages that made up our methodology. Stage 1: Commissioning and preparation 2.5 Although short, this stage was critical. Upon appointment, we met

with representatives of the client group to:

• Agree our detailed methodology.

• Establish the study programme.

• Identify key stakeholders.

• Discuss stakeholder engagement.

• Confirm the relevant policy context.

• Discuss related projects.

• Agree reporting procedures and means of informal


communication with the client. Stage 2: Information gathering 2.6 Our aim at this stage was to gain a complete understanding of the

issues facing North Hartlepool and the Headland, going well beyond simply the network of greenspaces that exist. We sought to understand the local economy, accessibility and transport, the pattern of crime and antisocial behaviour in public places, health, as well as local aspirations and the roles of the various public bodies and voluntary groups in the area. Only by gaining a wide understanding of these issues could we ensure that the proposed linear park will be as relevant to local people and issues as possible.

2.7 We used a combination of:

• Review of existing plans and information held by the Partnership, the local authority, community groups and other public bodies.

• Our own visual observation and survey work.

• Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders agreed with the client. This included representatives of local community groups as well as Council officers responsible for delivery of services and investment in the area.

2.8 This work included noting community concerns and aspirations as

expressed in discussion with stakeholders and through records of recent relevant consultation exercises (such as that for the North Hartlepool Neighbourhood Action Plan). We did not however undertake any wider public consultation at this stage.

2.9 Stage 2 also included research into potential funders of the linear

park and their priorities. This information was a critical input as we formulated the strategy for the linear park later in the study.

Stage 3: appraisal and analysis 2.10 The purpose of the analytical stage was for us to look rationally

and objectively at the information that we had gathered. The combination of planning, landscape architecture and project implementation skills in our team proved very useful here, supported by our mutual understanding of each other’s disciplines. We have found that looking at what we have uncovered from a variety of perspectives is very effective at facilitating creative and informed thinking. We were prepared to draw on other skills from within the practice (including architecture, project management, ecology and remediation). In the event, this did not


prove to be necessary. 2.11 Within the team, we were looking to:

• Understand local issues, needs and aspirations both for local communities in general and for this particular project. This meant getting to the root of issues identified by stakeholders, and identifying common aspirations.

• Identify physical opportunities within the study area for the linear park for resolving problems and meeting aspirations.

• Pinpoint potential constraints to the linear park – such as land ownership, coastal erosion, ground contamination issues, ecology, potential tensions between modes of transport, and capacity to deliver.

• Bring in an awareness of best practice from our own work and that of others, particularly in the UK but also from abroad where relevant.

• Understand potential funders’ parameters. Stage 4: preparation of strategic objectives and testing with client 2.12 This stage was the culmination of the research and analysis stages,

when we bring together what we have learnt about local issues and aspirations, relevant strategy and policy context, and potential funders’ priorities.

2.13 We prepared an Interim Report for the client at this stage, which

summarised our findings from stages 1, 2 and 3. This was circulated to a number of key stakeholders in both the community and public sectors (see appendix 2). The purpose of the Interim Report was to stimulate debate at a stakeholder workshop, with the aim of achieving some measure of consensus on the aims and objectives of the linear park, and how it might be implemented on the ground.

2.14 The workshop was successful in two ways. Firstly, it achieved a

remarkably high turnout for such a relatively small project, demonstrating the level of interest in the concept. Secondly, there was marked consensus amongst those present that the linear park:

• Should, above all, be strongly community-based.

• Should serve the interests of local residents and visitors, integrating places of interest and community facilities.

• Should aim to promote walking and cycling as means of healthy and sustainable local transport.

2.15 The strategic objectives that emerged from the workshop are

summarised in chapter 4. They then acted as a set of parameters for the preliminary design of the linear park that we undertook in stage 5.


Stage 5: conceptual design work and implementation advice 2.16 In this final stage, we developed a physical design concept to satisfy

the aims and objectives agreed in stage 4. Our aim was to create a design concept for the linear park which satisfies local needs, but also complements the local policy context and is realistic in terms of potential funders’ priorities.

2. 17 Equally importantly, this final stage also included the preparation of

recommendations on implementation of the linear park (see chapters 6 and 7), including advice on:

• Funding and procurement issues

• Management and maintenance issues.

• Community involvement.

• An action plan for what needs to be done next – both to secure funding, and then after that to implement the project.


3 The policy framework 3.1 The linear park can potentially contribute to a wide range of policy

agendas, including land use planning, regeneration, health, transport, recreation, tourism and nature conservation. Our audit of this policy framework has been very useful to help us identify:

• How the linear park could contribute to achieving a variety of policy objectives, and to “joined-up” thinking in policy delivery.

• Equally, how the policy framework could potentially justify the allocation of resources to the linear park.

• What the purpose of the linear park might be (see chapter 4) which will inform what it will look like (see chapter 5).

This chapter of the report describes the policy framework in sufficient detail to be able to address each of these three points.

3.2 Our analysis has encompassed a number of relevant documents,

which can be split broadly into two categories:

Local

Regeneration Hartlepool Community Strategy Neighbourhood Action Plan Headland Regeneration Strategy Planning Hartlepool Local Plan Transport Hartlepool Local Transport Plan Recreation Sports and Recreation Strategy Health Hartlepool PCT Public Health Strategy Tourism Hartlepool Tourism Strategy and Action Plan Biodiversity Tees Valley Biodiversity Action Plan Strategic

Planning Regional Spatial Strategy for the North-East Tees Valley Structure Plan Regeneration Tees Valley Strategic Vision Coastal Arc strategic vision Economy Regional Economic Strategy consultation Tourism NE England Tourism Strategy 2005-2010 Tourism Strategy for the Tees Valley Culture Hartlepool Cultural Strategy

3.3 We have also reviewed a number of other relevant local

documents, including:


• Various publications by the North Hartlepool Partnership including the baseline survey and community consultation (1999), annual report 2004-05, delivery plan 2005-06 and community newsletters.

• Victoria Harbour masterplan.

• Proposals for the BritMag works.

• Durham Heritage Coast Sustainable Tourism Report. 3.4 Taken together, these documents have given us a good

understanding of the policy context – which helps us to ensure that the linear park will tie in with other policy objectives. This is critical if the linear park is to be successful, not least because funders will only support the linear park if it can be demonstrated that it meets the aims and objectives of relevant policies and strategies.

3.5 Many of the policy documents we have studied have also been

helpful in that they contain records of the aspirations and concerns expressed by local residents through consultations. Although the scope of this commission did not extend to carrying out a dedicated consultation on the linear park, using the results of other consultations (combined with discussions with a number of representatives from local communities) has enabled us to get a basic understanding of relevant community issues.

3.6 The following paragraphs summarise key issues from the more

important documents that we have reviewed, identifying themes which will be taken up in chapter 4. There are certain common themes in the following paragraphs, which we will pick these out at the end of this chapter (see paragraph 3.29).

Regeneration 3.7 Hartlepool Community Strategy has seven priorities and aims:

• Jobs and the Economy Develop a more enterprising, vigorous and diverse local economy that will attract investment, be globally competitive and create more employment opportunities for local people.

• Lifelong Learning and Skills Help all individuals, groups and organisations realise their full potential, ensure the highest quality opportunities in education, lifelong learning and training and raise standards of attainment.

• Health and Care Ensure access to the highest quality health, social care, and support services, and improve the health, life expectancy and well-being of the community.

• Community Safety Make Hartlepool a safer place by reducing crime, disorder and the fear of crime.

• Environment and Housing Secure a more attractive and


sustainable environment that is safe, clean and tidy, a good infrastructure and access to good quality and affordable housing.

• Culture and Leisure Ensure a wide range of good quality, affordable and accessible leisure and cultural opportunities.

• Strengthening Communities Empower individuals, groups and communities and increase the involvement of citizens in all decisions that affect their lives.

3.8 The linear park could potentially contribute to each and every one

of these priorities, by improving access to education, health and employment opportunities through walking and cycling, increasing the range of leisure opportunities, improving the environment, and using community-based implementation and management to strengthen communities.

3.9 North Hartlepool Neighbourhood Action Plan was issued in draft form

in January 2006, and contains a detailed series of actions under the seven priorities identified in the Community Strategy. The Neighbourhood Action Plan looks at all public services provided in the local area, and aims to help local service providers and users identify gaps between existing and desired services that need to be addressed. It has been informed through extensive public consultation, and therefore contains a good impression of local aspirations and concerns.

3.10 There are a number of detailed actions in the Neighbourhood

Action Plan which are relevant to the linear park proposal, in terms of shaping both the concept and the detailed design:

• Improve and make better use of green spaces (pages 67-68 of the Neighbourhood Action Plan). Specific actions include developing a community park (Central), open up close-boarded fencing from the Co-op to Throston Engine House to provide view of Victoria Harbour, improve incidental green spaces such as the top of Thorpe Street/Marine Drive, and consult with the local community on how to make the best use of Town Moor (including better maintenance and lighting).

• Improve off-road cycle paths in the area that link to community facilities, such as education, health and leisure facilities (page 74).

• Lots of potential for further tourism investment within the Headland (including Fish Quay, Kafiga Landings, the Manor House and Heugh Gun Battery), but more investment needed to maximise the potential (pages 4, 29 & 45).

• Build links with Victoria Harbour to make the most of the employment opportunities it represents (pages 4 & 44).

• Provide better information and signs for directions and maintenance of existing signs (Central Estate) (p.72).

• Improve residents’ confidence when walking in the area,


particularly at night (pages 57-58).

• Address dangerous use of motorbikes on open spaces and green areas (page 58).

Planning 3.11 Hartlepool Local Plan (revised deposit draft 2005) objectives relate

to regeneration, community needs, environment and transport. The linear park could potentially contribute to each of these four objectives. The Local Plan also specifically identifies the Central Estate linear park as a proposal (Policy Rec 8, chapter 11), thus demonstrating to potential funders that support for the concept has already been established from the Council. As the Local Plan has already been through consultation and public inquiry, this gives the concept further credibility.

3.12 The Local Plan contains a number of other policies and statements

which the linear park should link with, including:

• Promotion of the cycle network and improvements to pedestrian linkages, especially the Headland amongst other areas (chapter 8).

• The Local Plan objectives for the Headland include strengthening tourism and conserving the environmental heritage, with an emphasis on maritime and Christian heritage (chapter 14).

• Promotion of a Green Network, including the “north coastal corridor” from the Headland to Hart Warren (chapter 12).

• Promotion of a coastal route for walking and cycling (chapter 11).

Transport 3.13 The Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 contains a number of issues

relevant to the linear park concept:

• The need to improve pedestrian and cycle linkages to the Headland, for both local residents (to access shops, education, jobs and health services) and visitors (cultural and tourist attractions).

• The opportunity provided by the Victoria Harbour proposals as both an economic driver for the Headland and to provide better connections to the Marina, town centre and Seaton Carew via the proposed footbridge.

• A proposal for a continuous walking and cycling route around Hartlepool’s entire coastal area, including linking the Hart to Haswell Walkway to the Headland and Victoria Harbour. This is seen as having the potential to encourage people to adopt more healthy and active lifestyles and attract more tourists.


• Other more general proposals include upgrading the National Cycle Network (which forms the western edge of the linear park study area), providing links to the National Cycle Network, increasing the number of cycling trips, providing safer routes to public transport for pedestrians, and improving cycling facilities (routes and junctions).

• A Cycling Strategy and Rights of Way Improvement Plan are also included in the document as appendices.

3.14 There are a number of policy objectives in the Local Transport

Plan which the linear park could usefully contribute to, both those directly related to the Headland and those which are more general. Since the Local Transport Plan also identifies relatively large amounts of capital funding for the implementation of these actions over the next five years, the potential for integrating the linear park concept with the Local Transport Plan’s implementation objectives should be borne in mind.

Tourism 3.15 The Hartlepool Tourism Strategy (final draft 2004) identifies the

strategic focuses for tourism as being its maritime credentials / waterfront. Although the Strategy focuses on the Marina and Historic Quays, the Headland is identified as an area of special character which is of importance for the tourism market. The Strategy also notes that tourist attractions and assets, such as the Headland, are disjointed and spread around the Borough, and need to work together more effectively if they are to attract visitors.

3.16 Clearly, if the linear park can add to the Headland’s tourism

offering and also signpost tourists to other nearby tourist attractions, we will be able to demonstrate that it contributes to the tourism strategy agenda.

Sport and recreation 3.17 The Sport and Recreation Strategy (2001) has the vision of ensuring

access to a wide range of affordable, high quality sporting and recreational opportunities which satisfy the needs of the Hartlepool community. Five strategic priorities are identified:

• Social inclusion Removing the barriers to participation in sport and recreation

• Public health Promoting a healthy lifestyle through sport and recreation

• Environmental issues Developing a comprehensive and sustainable framework of sports and recreation facilities

• Economic regeneration Regenerating the economy and


community through sport and recreation

• Young people Developing lifelong sporting pathways from schools to community

3.18 The Sports and Recreation Strategy recognises that sport and

recreation is not simply about organised competitive sport, but is also about exercise and informal recreation; this is demonstrated by its desire to promote healthy lifestyle initiatives such as organised walks.

3.19 A linear park could provide free opportunities for walking, cycling

and play right on people’s doorsteps; and the concept of a linear park means that it would be near lots of doorsteps. It would therefore directly contribute to the Strategy’s priorities of social inclusion and public health, and could also contribute to environmental issues and young people if sports facilities are included as part of the park.

Health 3.20 Hartlepool Primary Care Trust Public Health Strategy (2004) notes

that, although the health of Hartlepool residents is improving, they still suffer more ill health and disability, higher death rates from diseases such as cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease and live shorter lives than in most other parts of the country. There is evidence to indicate that this ‘health gap’ is widening. There are also inequalities in the ‘health experience’ of communities within Hartlepool; the most deprived communities (including the Headland) suffering significantly poorer health than the more affluent areas.

3.21 The Strategy notes that an active lifestyle is very important for

health. Increased physical activity significantly reduces the risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure developing (or reducing it when already occurs), in the control of diabetes, keeping weight stable and reducing the risk of osteoporosis and cancer of the colon. Only 30.4% of the UK population participate in the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity five times a week. If this amount of activity were undertaken, a 20-30% reduction in mortality could be achieved, with the greatest benefits being seen in the 50+ age group.

3.22 To tackle these problems, the Health Strategy has a number of

overall aims, one of which is to increase participation in physical activity. It seeks to do this by improving and increasing access to local physical activity, and promoting and delivering a range of physical activity initiatives in a variety of settings and populations. It specifically promotes alternatives to car use such as walking and cycling, and contains an action to set up a range of community-based initiatives to cater for a wide spectrum of age and


experience. 3.23 The linear park could contribute to the Strategy’s aim of increasing

participation in physical activity by providing better opportunities for local people to take informal exercise, both recreationally and as part of their daily routine if the linear park provides attractive walking and cycling routes linking homes with community facilities, shops and places of employment.

Nature conservation 3.24 The study area for the linear park contains or is adjacent to a

number of areas, which all receive varying levels of protection through the planning system:

• International and national designation Tees and Hartlepool Foreshore and Wetlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which covers the foreshore from Block Sands round to Steetley and beyond.

• Regional and local designations Fish Sands Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), Spion Kop Cemetery Local Nature Reserve (LNR), and Hartlepool Headland Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGGS).

Each of these designations is shown on the plans contained in chapter 5.

3.25 In addition, Hart Warren Dunes LNR and the Durham Coast

(Hart Warren Dunes) SSSI lie approximately 1 mile north-west of the proposed linear park, and are connected to it by a right of way between the railway and the BritMag works. Hart Warren Railway Embankment SNCI, West Harbour and Middleton Beach SNCI and The Slake SNCI are also relatively accessible from the study area.

3.26 The Tees Valley Biodiversity Action Plan is a series of action plans for

various habitats and species rather than a formal document. The relevant habitat action plans for the linear park include amenity grassland, brownfield sites, coastal grassland, foreshore mud and sand flats, roadside verges, sand dunes, and gardens and allotments. They focus on the management of sites to enhance their biodiversity as well as interpreting and communicating biodiversity interest where possible. These requirements may influence the exact extent of the linear park, and should ultimately also be reflected in the detailed design proposals.

Strategic and regional context 3.27 This discussion has focussed on the local policy context. This is


for two reasons: firstly, strategic documents do not generally go down to the level of detail associated with the linear park; and, secondly, because many of the themes running through these local policy documents (e.g. promotion of walking and cycling, encouraging healthier lifestyles, access to employment opportunities, promotion of tourism) simply reflect strategic objectives set at the sub-regional, regional and national levels.

3.28 It should however be stressed that regeneration of the Headland

is an important objective in a number of strategic documents, such as the Tees Valley Vision and the Coastal Arc strategic vision, quite apart from the SRB funding and the work of the North Hartlepool Partnership. It perhaps goes without saying that the Headland’s importance as a strategic regeneration objective increases the relative likelihood of securing resources for the linear park, provided that we can demonstrate that the project fits with funders’ other criteria.

Key themes 3.29 A number of key themes run through this policy review which the

linear park could tap into:

• Promoting tourism as a means of economic development.

• Making the most of new development opportunities, particularly Victoria Harbour, to improve connections between the Headland, new employment opportunities and other parts of the town.

• Promoting a coastal walking and cycling route from Seaton Carew to the Hart to Haswell Walkway via the Headland.

• Encouraging people to do more physical activity as part of the wider agenda for healthier lifestyles.

• Improving accessibility by walking and cycling to local employment, shops, and health and other community facilities.

3.30 These key themes were then taken forward into a discussion of

what the purpose of the linear park should be.


4 Aspirations for the linear park

4.1 The purpose of this chapter is to pick up the common themes

emerging from the workshop held with key stakeholders, our review of the policy context, local aspirations and concerns as expressed through other community consultations and the local context. We believe that it is critical to identify what the main purposes for the linear park should be before starting to consider what the park might look like.

4.3 Our survey work and understanding of the policy context allowed

us to:

• Understand local issues, needs and aspirations both for local communities in general and for this particular project, getting to the root of issues identified by stakeholders and identifying common aspirations.

• Identify physical opportunities within the study area for the linear park, particularly where we can address the objectives emerging from chapters 3 and 4 of this report.

• Pinpoint potential constraints to the linear park – such as land ownership, coastal erosion, ground contamination issues, ecology, potential tensions between modes of transport, and capacity to deliver.

• Suggest what the linear park should aspire to achieve. 4.5 In our Interim Report, we suggested what the linear park’s

aspirations could be. These were then discussed with key stakeholders from the local community and the public sector at the workshop on 27 February 2006 (see Appendix 2 for further details of the workshop).

4.6 The outcomes of this discussion were that the concept of the

linear park should aspire to:

a. Be a community-based project, where community groups could develop and manage areas of green space within an agreed overall framework. There was clearly strong community support for this.

b. Tie in with a range of policy agendas – health, recreation, tourism, regeneration, nature conservation and transport.

c. Integrate and connect existing green spaces, points of


interest and recent investments on the Headland and Central Estate.

d. Be attractive to both local residents and visitors, recognising the diversity of interest in the Headland and North Hartlepool, from sunbathing on Fish Sands to nature conservation on Spion Kop to the heritage of the Heugh Battery. We should use this diversity to draw people in – both visitors and locals.

e. Provide opportunities on people’s doorsteps for informal recreation, walking and cycling.

f. Provide attractive routes for local residents which facilitate walking and cycling between their homes, places of employment and local services including shops, health, sports, youth and other community facilities.

g. Be an integral part of the tourism offer in the Headland, such as the Story Trail and St Hildas, rather than be a separate project.

h. Be part of a longer coastal walking and cycling route from Seaton Carew to Hart Warren, and connect with related points of interest and facilities outside the linear park for local residents and visitors (such as places of employment, community facilities and other areas of open space).

i. Connect with development opportunities, particularly Victoria Harbour but also the BritMag Works.

j. Be a long term project which could develop over a number of years as local community groups come on board to deliver different parts of the linear park concept.

4.7 Perhaps the two key themes are community involvement and

integration. We will consider each of these two themes in a little more detail in the following paragraphs.

Community involvement 4.8 It is widely accepted that involving the local community from the

outset makes for a better project. This is partly because a clear understanding of community aspirations and concerns help to inform the nature and design of the project. Equally importantly, community involvement from the early stages of a project, particularly involving young people, is acknowledged as having benefits for community development and cohesion, stemming from the opportunities for a sense of community ownership and shared involvement.

4.9 It is clear from our work with local stakeholders and the

knowledge that we have gained of the local area that there is strong support for community-based development and management of the linear park. This was particularly emphasised


at the workshop we held during the study. 4.10 A community-led focus is likely to fit well with many funders’

current priorities. Careful thought is however required on how to engage local communities in developing the concept so that there is a sustainable management structure for the linear park, which combines genuine community ownership with an assurance of long term management and maintenance. We will return to this issue in chapter 6.

4.11 We have rarely seen a project which scores so highly across such

a wide range of policy and funding agendas – but it is important to get the concept right, build in community involvement as far as local capacity allows, and present the case properly to funders.

Integration 4.12 The second key theme is integration. The proposed linear park is

an important opportunity to integrate the existing network of greenspaces in the Headland and North Hartlepool. By linking these existing spaces attractively and imaginatively, we can encourage greater use of them, make the area more attractive, exploit underused recreational and heritage potential, encourage more informal physical activity, and make them part of the local travel network for walking and cycling. This will deliver greater benefits for local residents in terms of recreation, local accessibility and health. It will also contribute to the Headland’s attractiveness as a destination for visitors, by helping to connect the other parts of the tourism offer and also flagging up another dimension.

4.13 By integrating a range of objectives in the linear park project –

particularly regeneration, tourism, transport, health and recreation – we will not only be addressing local concerns and aspirations, we will also be helping to achieve joined-up service delivery across a range of policy agendas. This maximises the effectiveness of the project, and increases the likelihood of gaining funding.


5 The conceptual masterplan

5.1 This chapter of the report seeks to flesh out the concept of the

linear park, based on the aspirations identified in paragraph 4.6. 5.2 The core of this chapter is the sequence of seven plans on the

following pages. They fall into four distinct groups:

a. Analysis of the current situation and opportunities Plans 1 to 4 contain our understanding and analysis of green spaces, tourist attractions, nature conservation areas, community facilities and connections beyond the immediate study area.

b. Overview Plan 5 provides a summary overview of the information presented in plans 1 to 4. It shows the relationship between existing green spaces, access routes, tourist attractions, and community facilities (such as schools, the medical centre, shops, major places of employment, churches etc). As you look at this plan, you may be able to see patterns emerging; for example, clusters of visitor attractions, ribbons of green space, or relationships between community facilities and cycle routes, and visitor attractions and green spaces.

c. Conceptual masterplan By combining the overview plan with the aspirations for the linear park agreed in the workshop, we have produced the conceptual masterplan in plan 6. We would emphasise that this is very much an illustrative masterplan; it may well be modified following more detailed input from local communities. The plan, does, however give a flavour of what the linear park could look like and how it can achieve the aspirations identified in paragraph 4.6. It should be a useful means of illustrating to potential funders how the linear park might look.

d. Potential community zones The final plan demonstrates a possible way of subdividing the linear park into a number of smaller chunks for local neighbourhoods to get involved with. This is not a definitive plan: it should be up to local communities themselves to define the areas for which they take responsibility, although they may find our suggestions helpful. We have deliberately suggested a variety of sizes and types of green space.

5.3 Please turn over to see the sequence of plans.


6 Implementation 6.1 The previous chapter explored how the linear park might look.

This chapter looks at number of issues surrounding how the park might be implemented, including:

• Community engagement.

• Funding. 6.2 We also address the issue of ongoing management and

maintenance during the course of this chapter. Community engagement 6.3 We explained in chapter 4 that one of the key aspiriations for this

project it should be community-based, where community groups could develop and manage areas of green space within an agreed overall framework. This came out particularly strongly at the workshop held during the study, which was attended by representatives of local community groups and other stakeholders.

6.4 As we have explained in paragraph 4.8, a community-led focus is

likely to fit well with many funders’ current priorities. Careful thought is however required on how to engage local communities in developing the concept so that there is a sustainable management structure for the linear park, which combines genuine community ownership with an assurance of long term management and maintenance.

6.5 From our knowledge of existing community activity and structures

in the study area, and discussions at the workshop, it is clear that there is sufficient will and capacity for local residents to become actively involved in both the overall development and management of the linear park concept, and in progressing individual neighbourhood components of the park on the ground. There is a also a positive history of engagement between the local community and local government in its broadest sense, particularly the North Hartlepool Partnership and Hartlepool Borough Council. There is, therefore, a very solid base on which to build a genuinely community-led project.

6.6 We believe that this process of community involvement has

already started through existing community engagement exercises, such as the Neighbourhood Action Plan (see paragraph 3.9), our


use of community aspirations and concerns to help define the objectives of the linear park, and the involvement of key community representatives in the workshop. It is important to build on this positive start by developing the concept in association with local schools and community groups to ensure that they can influence its design, as well as identifying individual components of the linear park which they may wish to be involved with.

6.7 The key issue at this stage is to get the right structures and

processes in place for taking community engagement forward. We suggest that a two-tier structure would be sensible:

• Management steering group comprising both community representatives and officers from local public sector organisations. The role of the steering group should be to oversee the development of the linear park concept, to take overall responsibility for its implementation and management over the longer term, and to be responsible for implementation and management of common components of the linear park such as signage and footpath/cycleway connections between different parts of the linear park.

• Local community implementation groups who would take responsibility for designing and implementing individual component parts of the linear park concept, along the lines of the existing Friends of Spion Kop community group.

6.8 In order to discharge its management and “overseeing”

responsibilities effectively, the management steering group should comprise of both community representatives and officers from relevant stakeholder organisations. Community representatives are likely to include local councillors and members of established community groups, and should be invited to join primarily on the basis of their commitment to the local area, ability to think strategically, and experience/abilities in running and managing projects. The community representatives who attended the workshop on 27 February 2006 should be included in the short-list. Officers should be appointed from the North Hartlepool Partnership, Hartlepool Borough Council and Hartlepool Primary Care Trust, each of which has a policy connection with the linear park concept, responsibility for managing or implementing its component parts (such as green space or pedestrian/cycle routes) or implementation and funding skills and abilities.

6.9 We suggest that the management steering group should have

approximately equal numbers of community and officer representatives (between 8 and 12 in total would be a realistic number). The group should be chaired by a local elected member, and be serviced by either the North Hartlepool Partnership or (in the longer term) Hartlepool Borough Council. A simple terms of reference should be drawn up and endorsed by the public sector partners, to give the steering group group appropriate authority.


6.10 Once initial discussions have been held with potential funders and there is some certainty that the project can be implemented, the management steering group’s work over its first year should include:

• Drawing up a simple strategy/workplan for community engagement and phased implementation of the linear park over a 5-10 year period. This should include the general principles of a management steering group for overall guidance and local community implementation groups (see below), and should include longer term community development work to establish and support community groups over a 5-10 year period.

• Engaging with the local community to secure endorsement of the linear park concept proposed in this document, using a well-publicised community event. This should include involvement of the local primary and secondary schools, churches and established community groups. It could usefully include a competition or other technique to secure a meaningful title for the linear park concept.1

• Working up the concept in sufficient detail for outline costings.

• Identifying a small number of local community implementation groups to take responsibility for initial component green spaces of the park, focussing on areas where there is already an active community organisation/commitment and few constraints (e.g. no land ownership issues, no remediation requirements, and low cost implementation). The two suggested hubs of Spion Kop and St Hildas are an obvious place to start (see Figure 6 in chapter 5). Work at Spion Kop, for example, would build on the success and commitment of the Friends of Spion Kop. These local community implementation groups could include local schools and churches.

• Putting in place a simple long term management strategy for the component green spaces of the linear park, the connections between them (pedestrian/cycle links and signage), and for long-term community development work to support existing community groups and encourage new ones to take on component green spaces of the linear park.

• Design and physical implementation of any improvements and new investment required for the connecting aspects of the linear park (pedestrian/cycle links, signage and promotional/developmental work). This may be phased over a number of years.

1 The term “linear park” is simply a working title. It was clear at the workshop that the eventual name for the project needs to embody a number of themes. For example Green Village, Heritage Way, Heritage Trail – but there are many, many other possibilities.


• Preparing a sensible legal or quasi-legal structure for the management steering group and the locus of ultimate responsibility for maintenance and ownership of the linear park and its components. This should be prepared in association with the local authority (see paragraph 6.12).

6.11 In the longer term, the management steering group’s role will be

as the guardian of the linear park concept. This role will entail supporting community groups, encouraging new groups to take on aspects of the park, sourcing project funding for the overall strategy and individual component projects being taken forward b community groups, and resolving and taking responsibility for maintenance and management issues.

6.12 Long term maintenance and management are significant issues.

Whilst the management steering group should take an overseeing role, day-to-day management is likely to remain with those bodies currently responsible for maintenance of public open space. We understand that this is currently Hartlepool Borough Council and Headland Town Council. It is therefore critical that these bodies are involved from the outset, so that they have the opportunity to influence the nature of the linear park and retain their maintenance functions. The relevant function of the Borough Council as represented at the project workshop on 27 February 2006 so are aware of the emerging linear park concept. Depending on the likely nature of their involvement in future management and maintenance, it could be worthwhile briefing the Town Council at an early stage.

Funding 6.13 Clearly, any new park will require funding – for design and

preparation, for any construction and implementation works required, and for ongoing management and maintenance.

6.14 The nature of the linear park means that it is likely to be relatively

inexpensive to establish, simply because it integrates existing areas of green space rather than creates new ones. There will be some need for investment (e.g. design work, community involvement, new signage, tree planting and benches), but this will be limited compared to the cost of acquiring land and building a brand new park from scratch. The additional costs of ongoing management and maintenance are also likely to be relatively low, since most component parts of the linear park are already maintained. Maintenance requirements and costs may change as the park comes to fruition, but again the additional costs will be less than if the park was being established from nothing.

6.15 We explained in chapter 4 that we have rarely seen a project

which scores so highly across such a wide range of policy and


funding agendas. The integration of a range of objectives in the concept – regeneration, tourism, transport, health and recreation – not only addresses local concerns and aspirations, but also helps to achieve joined-up service delivery across a range of policy agendas. This maximises the effectiveness of the project, and increases the likelihood of gaining funding from a variety of funders. When combined with the fact that implementation of the linear park will be relatively cheap, it becomes a very cost-effective and efficient project for potential funders. The fact that the project is rooted in community aspirations and will be genuinely community-led is also likely to be attractive to many potential funders.

6.16 It is important that these key characteristics of the project are

emphasised to funders. We hope that this report will be helpful in achieving that.

6.17 It is likely that there will be a requirement for funding over a

number of years and to cover a number of issues including:

• Planning and design.

• Community engagement.

• Costs of supporting local community groups in improving local green space components of the park, such as events, planting and interpretation.

• Costs of implementing improvements connecting different parts of the park, such as signage and pedestrian/cycle routes.

• Ongoing management and maintenance costs over and above those already incurred by the Council.

6.18 The wide range of objectives for the linear park means that the

range of funders is potentially very broad. It is likely that funding will come from a range of sources, including:

• National lottery funds, such as Parks for People (Heritage Lottery Fund/Big Lottery Fund) – a competitive two stage programme for new parks which includes up to £50,000 project planning grants followed by grants of between £250,000 and £3,000,000. The programme invites applications which are community-based, and runs until 2009 (deadlines for initial applications at the end of March and September each year). For more information visit www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/programmes/parks_people/

• Pride in Hartlepool (Hartlepool Borough Council) - an initiative aimed at encouraging people who live and work in Hartlepool to get involved in improving the local environment.

• Tees Valley Coastal Arc (ONE/Hartlepool Borough Council and partner local authorities) – potential source of funding which has the objective of creating/developing activities and places that will be attractive enough to draw visitors and tourist to the coast on a regular and repeat basis.


• Hartlepool Borough Council may have funding available in relation to components of the linear park which contribute to the aims of the Local Transport Plan.

• Joint funding with other related projects can be a very useful source of funding. For example, Sustrans are currently planning improvements to the national cycle network which could be integrated with the linear park.

• Trusts and foundations may provide other sources of finance, particularly for designing and implementing individual components of the linear park, such as the Church Urban Fund. Those based locally or with green space/community-based objectives are more likely to wish to provide funding. It should be borne in mind, however, that applying for charitable funding is potentially a time-consuming job that needs careful research to ensure that efforts are targeted to likely funders.

• The private sector – there is likely to be localised potential for private sector investment, particularly in relation to new development opportunities (such as Victoria Harbour and Steetley) but also from existing local businesses who may wish to be associated with (and may benefit from) the linear park proposals, such as local employers.

6.19 In many cases, funding applications will need to be submitted by

the local community rather than public sector bodies such as the North Hartlepool Partnership. In these instances, we recommend that the management steering group should submit applications on behalf of the local community.


7 Next steps 7.1 We believe that the linear park concept has much to commend it

as a way of integrating recent projects in North Hartlepool and providing a legacy for the community themselves to take forward in the future. The concept fits closely with current policy issues, due to its ability to address a range of policy agendas including community-based development, green space improvements, sustainable transport, and health/exercise.

7.2 We are therefore able to say with some confidence that there is a

clear opportunity to create a project which is of genuine benefit and interest to the local community as well as appealing to a number of potential funders.

7.3 In order to move forward, you need a simple plan explaining what

needs to be done next in order to bring the project to fruition. The table overleaf contains our recommendations on what should be done next, based on the implementation advice contained in chapter 6. It includes a programme to give an indication of timing.

7.4 Bear in mind that the programme shown overleaf only relates to

the initial set-up of the linear park. Being a community-based proposal, the actual implementation is likely to be ongoing for a period of 5-10 years.


Action plan for initial stages of linear park design and implementation

Stage 2 Draw up detailed proposals and begin implementation

Stage 1 Secure in-principle support from the wider local community, funders and public sector partners Seek endorsement of key public sector partners (e.g. NHP, HBC) to take the project forward, particularly the principles of (a) community-based implementation with management steering group and local community implementation groups and (b) ongoing maintenance remaining with statutory authorities but led by management steering group

2006-07 Q1

Establish management steering group of community representatives and public sector partners, stemming from participants at project workshop

2006-07 Q1-2

Draw up a strategy for community engagement/development and phased implementation of the linear park over a 5-10 year period

2006-07 Q2

Contact potential funders to assess their level of interest in the emerging project

2006-07 Q1

Engage with the local community to secure endorsement of the linear park concept – start of wider “public” engagement

2006-07 Q3

Prepare initial costings (may need to be done earlier if required to meet funders’ timescales)

2006-07 Q3

Identifying a small number of local community groups to take responsibility for initial component green spaces of the park, focussing on Spion Kop and St Hildas in the first instance

2006-07 Q3-4

Design work on improvements and new investment required for the connecting aspects of the linear park (including pedestrian/cycle links, signage and overall promotion)

2006-07 Q4 onwards

Put in place a simple long term management strategy for the component green spaces of the linear park, the connections between them, and for long-term community development/promotional work

2006-07 Q4

Sign off formal structure for the management steering group

2006-07 Q4

Detailed design work and implementation of green space components, led by community implementation groups supported by consultants as necessary

2007-08 Q1 onwards

Begin physical implementation work of connecting aspects

2007-08 Q2 onwards


Appendices 1 List of consultees

2 Workshop details


Appendix 1 List of consultees

This appendix contains a list of stakeholders who were consulted during the study (HBC = Hartlepool Borough Council):

Ian Bond HBC ecologist

Cllr John Cambridge HBC & North Hartlepool Partnership

John Ford North Hartlepool Partnership

David Geen Headland History Group

Rev. Jonathan Goode St Hildas Church

Elaine Grieveson North Hartlepool Partnership

David Griffiths HBC Sports Development Unit

Richard Harland HBC Parks and Recreation

Ian Jopling HBC Neighbourhood Services, Transportation

John Lynch Resident representative, North Hartlepool

Cllr John Marshall HBC & North Hartlepool Partnership

John Mennear HBC Community Services

Keeley Metcalfe Pride in Hartlepool

Karen Oliver HBC North Towncare Manager

Chris Scaife HBC Rights of Way and Access Manager

Robert Smith HBC Countryside Wardens

Richard Starrs HBC Town Square Project Officer

Cath Torley Friends of Spion Kop / Central Estate Tenant Management Organisation

Liz Torley Friends of Spion Kop / Central Estate Tenant Management Organisation

Pat Usher HBC Sports Development Unit

Richard Waldmeyer HBC Planning


Appendix 2 Workshop details

This appendix contains further information on the workshop held for stakeholders on 27 February 2006, after publication of our Interim Report. It includes:

• A copy of the invitation to the workshop.

• A list of who was invited.

• A list of who attended.

• The format of the workshop. (See following pages.)


Invitation letter for the workshop

Name and address… 15 February 2006

Dear …

Proposal for a linear park in North Hartlepool: initial ideas and workshop discussion

We have commissioned a consultant, Cass Associates, to carry out a feasibility study for a linear park in North Hartlepool. The aim of the commission is to assess whether the idea is practical, if it is likely to be attractive to funders, to establish what the aims of the linear park would be, and prepare initial design ideas with which we can seek funding. The consultants are aware that there has been considerable investment in the Headland and North Hartlepool over the last few years. They do not want to duplicate any recent or ongoing work, and are keen to ensure that the proposals for the linear park reflect local concerns and current policy agendas. This is the best way to make sure that the park is relevant for local people and likely to obtain funding. With this in mind, we are holding a meeting on the afternoon of 27 February 2006 between 2pm and 4pm in the Middlegate Room of the Headland Borough Hall. The consultants will facilitate the session. The purpose is to discuss what the linear park could achieve, who it will be for, and what it might look like. This is an important opportunity to influence the proposal as we are at a very early stage. (I understand that one of the consultant team, Nick Wright, may already have spoken with you on the phone to explain that this meeting will be taking place.) Your input at the workshop would be most welcome, but we understand that you may not be able to attend due to the short notice. We have therefore also enclosed a brief report with initial information and ideas prepared by the consultants. If you have any comments on the report or would like to attend the workshop, please contact either myself (tel: 01429 298391 or email: [email protected]) or Nick Wright of Cass Associates (tel: 01505 352147 or email: [email protected]) by Friday 24 February. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, (North Hartlepool Partnership) Encl.


List of people who were invited to the workshop

Each of these individuals received a copy of the Interim Report prepared in advance of the workshop. (HBC = Hartlepool Borough Council)

Derek Allison Headland Parish Council


Mike Cooney St Begas RC Primary School

Steve Cooper HBC Countryside Wardens

Robin Daniels Tees Archaeology

John Ford North Hartlepool Partnership




David Griffiths HBC Sports Development Unit




John Mennear HBC Community Services

Keeley Metcalfe Pride in Hartlepool

Les Nevin HBC Building Control

Karen Oliver HBC North Towncare Manager

Peter Price Director of Public Health, Hartlepool PCT

John Southcott Heugh Gun Battery Trust


Emma Tierney HBC Regeneration and Planning

Sue Sinclair HBC Regeneration and Planning, Coastal Arc

Liz Torley Friends of Spion Kop & Central Estate Tenant Management Organisation


List of people who attended the workshop

(HBC = Hartlepool Borough Council)







John Lynch Resident representative, North Hartlepool


Chris Scaife HBC Rights of Way and Access Manager

Robert Smith HBC Countryside Wardens


Cath Torley Friends of Spion Kop & Central Estate Tenant Management Organisation

The workshop was facilitated by Nick Wright and Ben Riley of Cass Associates.


Format of the workshop

2:00 Introductions, purpose and structure of workshop

2:15 Presentation 1: Summary of interim report (covering introduction, policy context, and objectives and aspirations)

2:30 Discussion 1: What are our objectives and aspirations for the linear park ?

3:00 Presentation 2: Summary of initial ideas

3:15 Discussion 2: How might the linear park look on the ground ?

3:45 Final comments

4:00 Finish

hartlepool linear park

Documents

linear park chapter

north hartlepool partnership

cass associatesmay

nature conservation

community groups

community facilities

range of policy agendas

concept masterplan