strategic green and open spaces review board · strategic green and open spaces review board final...

Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board Final Report2016

Submission Document SD20

A city becomes magnificent when

the spaces between the buildings

equal the architecture they frame

1

Contents

Mayoral Preface .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Chair’s Note ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

1. The Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board ............................................................................................... 9 Board Members .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Overview and Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Background and Context ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Time of Austerity .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 The Review ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 The Final Report ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15

3. Report Structure ........................................................................................................................................................... 19

4. Health and Wellbeing ................................................................................................................................................... 21 The contribution of green and open spaces to public health and wellbeing ................................................................................... 22 General health and wellbeing ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 Protection from harmful environmental exposures .......................................................................................................................... 24 Promoting physical activity .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Promoting social interaction and cohesion ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Public health in Liverpool and the role of green and open spaces .................................................................................................. 27 Integrating public health care and green and open spaces ............................................................................................................. 28

2

5. Environmental Factors ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Climate change, flooding, air quality and biodiversity...................................................................................................................... 33 Climate change ................................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Hotter, drier summers ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34 The role of green spaces in hotter, drier summers ............................................................................................................... 35 Milder, wetter winters ....................................................................................................................................................................... 35 The role of green spaces in milder, wetter weather .............................................................................................................. 35 Unpredictable and extreme weather events..................................................................................................................................... 36 The role of green spaces in unpredictable and extreme weather events ......................................................................................... 36 Sea level rise .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 The role of green spaces for future sea level rise ................................................................................................................. 36 Flooding ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Surface water flooding ..................................................................................................................................................................... 37 The role of green spaces in surface water flood alleviation ................................................................................................. 37 Tidal flooding .................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 The role of green and open spaces in tidal flooding ............................................................................................................ 39 Air quality .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Air quality in Liverpool ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Air quality and the role of green spaces .............................................................................................................................. 40 Biodiversity ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Biodiversity in Liverpool ................................................................................................................................................................... 41

6. Education ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Environmental education in Liverpool .............................................................................................................................................. 46 The importance of organised educational activities within parks ......................................................................................... 46

3

7. Finance - Balancing the Books? ................................................................................................................................. 49 Public parks finances ....................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Balancing the books ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50 Public park – alternative maintenance regimes ................................................................................................................................ 51 The Future – Public parks, nature reserves and other public spaces .............................................................................................. 51 Sport and recreation finance ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 Playing pitch strategy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Other sports provision models ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 Highways and verges finances ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 Other spaces finance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Current cost other spaces 2016/17 .................................................................................................................................................. 60 Incidental space – alternative maintenance regimes ....................................................................................................................... 60 The future for incidental spaces ....................................................................................................................................................... 61

8. Other Options including Park Trusts .......................................................................................................................... 63 Six options for consideration............................................................................................................................................................ 63 Option 1: Referendum for parks levy .................................................................................................................................... 63 Option 2: Car park levy ......................................................................................................................................................... 64 Option 3: Tourism levy .......................................................................................................................................................... 64 Option 4: Student levy .......................................................................................................................................................... 65 Option 5: Do nothing ............................................................................................................................................................ 65 Option 6: Parks Trust ............................................................................................................................................................ 67 Exploring a blended finance charitable parks trust model ............................................................................................................... 67 Scoping the trust portfolio .................................................................................................................................................... 67 Making a parks trust affordable – capital costs and commercialism ................................................................................... 68 A charitable trust endowment .............................................................................................................................................. 69 Future considerations and work ....................................................................................................................................................... 70 Brownfield development ....................................................................................................................................................... 70 Potential Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................................................... 70 Croxteth Country Park and Hall ....................................................................................................................................................... 73

4

9. Planning For the future ................................................................................................................................................ 75 The Local Plan process .................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Providing enough housing ................................................................................................................................................................ 75 Protecting land and buildings for economic growth (providing enough employment land) ............................................................. 76 Protecting the open space that Liverpool needs ............................................................................................................................. 76 The next steps and the Local Plan examination stage ..................................................................................................................... 77 Housing ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 77 Employment land .............................................................................................................................................................................. 80 Land categorisation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Green corridors forming a ‘Green Web’ ........................................................................................................................................... 81 Establishment of a ‘Green Web’ for Liverpool .................................................................................................................................. 82 Green corridors – the evidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 82 1.The added value of links-hubs-nodes ............................................................................................................................... 82 2.Behavioural change and added socio-economic benefits of access to and from nature ................................................. 83 3.Non-motorised transport and the promotion of walking-cycling as significant forms of mobility .................................... 84 Green corridors – make the most of existing land use ..................................................................................................................... 84 ‘Green Web’ – strategic alignment with development contributions ................................................................................................ 85 Capital costs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Equity and accessibility .................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Opportunities for improving equity and accessibility ....................................................................................................................... 92 Play areas ............................................................................................................................................................................. 92 Green Flag sites .................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Public woodland ................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Business links ....................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Blue green links .................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Equestrian links .................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Corporate Access Forum (CAF) ............................................................................................................................................ 99

5

10. Engagement .............................................................................................................................................................. 101 Engagement in Liverpool ................................................................................................................................................................ 102 Engagement Initiatives ................................................................................................................................................................... 103

11. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 107 Board Thematic Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 108 Chair’s Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 114 1. A Parks Trust................................................................................................................................................................... 114 2. Green space maintenance and development funding .................................................................................................... 115 3. External green space funding ......................................................................................................................................... 115 4. Liverpool ‘Green Web’ .................................................................................................................................................... 116

12. Chair’s Concluding Thoughts .................................................................................................................................. 119

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 123

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 127

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................... 127

List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................... 127 Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 129 Appendix 5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 138 Appendix 6 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 Appendix 10 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 140

6

I would like to thank Simon and the Board Members for their time and commitment over the last 18 months. The scope of the work they have taken on has increased beyond what was originally envisaged and they have collectively led the way in seeking a solution to a problem that is affecting local authorities up and down the country.

I asked Simon and the Board to consult locally and widely on the future of our parks and green spaces and it was very encouraging to see the strength of feeling and public support for such areas across the city. We are fortunate to live and work in a city that is defined by its historical green spaces and waterfront setting. Our green and open spaces are extremely valuable to the people of the city and they provide many benefits - spaces for outdoor exercise, education, biodiversity, as well as other environmental enhancements such as contributing to temperature control, flood alleviation and improved air quality.

But to maintain our parks and spaces, regrettably comes with a high financial cost. So far, Liverpool City Council has lost 58% of our Government funding and by 2020 the Government will reduce this to zero. The longer term maintenance of our green and open spaces is increasingly at risk. I therefore tasked the Board to research and investigate alternative, cost-effective options that would enable us to retain and improve our green spaces in the future as Liverpool remains a global destination and continues to attract visitors and businesses.

The Board’s Interim Report was published in December 2015 and by bringing together local voices, background information and best practice models it presented a number of recommendations and identified the key objectives to be addressed in the final report.

Since the publication of the Interim Report several months ago, I have, despite ongoing austerity, championed several initiatives to help deliver its recommendations. In direct response to the Board’s work and their interim recommendations the city council has:

• identified £1million of funding from developers who have gained planning consent that is being invested in a 2 year Play Area Improvement Programme to introduce 8 new natural outdoor play areas and refurbish 11 existing playgrounds

• promoted the ‘Green Web’ initiative for interconnecting green corridor routes and sought to include this within the emerging Local Plan

• launched a new Environmental Initiative Fund; providing grants for community, school and business groups to make local green space improvements

• identified a site for a new park in Kirkdale, Melrose Cutting

• partnered with key city stakeholders to submit a multi-million Euro bid for a Horizon 2020 project, which if successful would allow us to establish green routes in our city centre.

Mayoral Preface

7

We will continue to review the recommendations, working with partners and stakeholders to progress other environmental proposals and initiatives, wherever possible.

I am aware that the final report provides a number of alternative and complementary options that can now be considered to help us address the longer-term financial sustainability of our parks and green spaces. The Chair has made no secret of his interest in exploring a Parks Trust model and we will investigate those opportunities with Heritage Lottery and the National Trust. I want to see the proposals with the greatest positive impact brought to our city, and we will continue to look at the options available.

I have no doubt that Liverpool will rise to the challenges facing our parks and green spaces and that this report is an important and significant contribution to the next steps of this journey. Once again, I thank Simon and the Board for their effort, time and commitment to our City.

Joe Anderson OBEMayor of Liverpool

liverpool.gov.uk/greenandopenspaces

8

Chair’s NoteI sincerely hope that Central Government very quickly realises that the perilous state of Liverpool’s parks and public spaces is not a local issue. This is not a matter of a bellyaching Labour Council.

From London to Newcastle a crisis is looming.

This has finally been recognised by the Communities and Local Government Committee with the launch of a public parks inquiry to examine the impact of reduced local authority budgets on these open spaces and consider concerns that their existence is under threat.

My countrywide visits, conference attendance and presentations have painted a very clear picture. As austerity measures and reduction to the public service sector continue unabated then those Local Council services which are non-statutory will obviously have the weakest voice when it comes to grabbing a share of dwindling resources and these include parks and other green spaces. Yet public open space is massively undervalued with regard to a host of major issues facing our society. Health provision, environmental factors such as air pollution and flood alleviation, as well as huge economic benefits to industry and private property, are but a few of the valuable contributions the unbuilt environment bring to our nation. Academics understand, Health Providers are realising and people just know that it is time to celebrate the true worth of the space around us.

From the local play park to the swathes of greenbelt, it’s time to stop pontificating and hiding behind the need for more evidence and just sort this pressing issue out because as when it comes to ‘Paving Paradise’, Joni Mitchell was right penning ‘you don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone’.

However, the time for such debate is running out in Liverpool so this report will focus on the situation right now and seek to find a way forward whilst we all hope for a more enlightened approach with regard to our outdoor world.

The purpose of the final report is to build on the 18 months of evidence gathering, consultation and discussion in the Interim Report and to focus on emerging key recommendations for the future. The final report contains the voices of all the Board members, members of the public and key stakeholders who have engaged so sincerely with the review. As well as quotes from public meetings and correspondence I tasked Members of the Board and my strategic support officer to write specific sections of this report where they had particular experience and interest. The main report is broken into distinct categories to enable the Mayor and the people of Liverpool to consider the immediate and longer term future of the green and open spaces of our city. For ease of reference the final report is also supplemented by a Chair’s summary and recommendations, which include all the Board’s recommendations in addition to the 4 actions that I feel will deliver the greatest impact in the shortest space of time.

The final report also debates differing methods for maintaining and possibly enhancing our outdoor recreational facilities as the current public sector budget for such provision disappears. Liverpool is one of the first cities to undertake as thorough a piece of work and could lead the way into a dramatic and bold new approach to green space provision in the Core Cities. The work of the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review will enable the people of Liverpool to assess the options and decide how we continue to care for our beautiful city.

Simon O’Brien. Chair of the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2015/public-parks-launch-16-17/

9

Board Members The Mayor of Liverpool has tasked the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board to look at ways to help Liverpool retain its many and diverse green and open spaces. The Review is independently chaired by Simon O’Brien and supported by a Board of local authority Councillors and Officers, and members of the wider academic and third sector communities, each of whom bring a wealth of experience and sectorial expertise to the discussion of how best Liverpool can manage its green and open spaces in the future.

Simon O’Brien Chair of the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board

Born and brought up in Liverpool, Simon began acting in 1982 in the first episode of Brookside. For the last thirty years he has successfully combined dual careers of acting and presenting. When not working in these two main creative fields Simon splits his time between developing and shooting his independent films and scouring Europe seeking out derelict properties to renovate: all done from an ecological perspective.

Simon is uncompromising in his attitude toward our interaction with the natural environment. This philosophy has been practically applied to all his building developments. Simon has campaigned individually and as part of wider groups for many years.

Maxine Ennis CEO at Rotunda Community College, Kirkdale

Maxine Ennis is the Chief Executive Officer at Rotunda Ltd, a highly effective charity based in North Liverpool. She has worked at Rotunda for the past six years and has developed a culture within the organisation which has supported growth and success for the community. Her previous work has included supporting the cities response to The National Asylum Support Service in 2000 and implementing a high level strategy to deal

with the statutory responsibilities of the city around housing and urban policy in this area. Maxine is an advocate for supporting people with multiple complex needs and she has managed 3,500 bed spaces for vulnerable people across the North West which included bail hostels, domestic violence hostels and young person’s accommodation for children leaving care. As an individual, Maxine is passionate about social change and the environment.

David Hughes Head of Planning, Liverpool City Council

David Hughes joined Liverpool City Council as Head of Planning in November 2014. He is a Chartered Town Planner with over 25 years’ experience, at a senior level, of developing and delivering partnership solutions for complex regeneration challenges and unlocking economic growth. David has a degree in environmental science and has worked as an ecologist. David left the post of Head of Planning in August 2016.

1. The Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board

10

Councillor Malcolm Kelly Director of Woolton Youth and Community Centre

Councillor Malcolm Kelly has worked with a number of local voluntary and community groups within Liverpool for nearly 30 years. During this time he has been committed to helping to improve communities and the lives of those who live within them through his voluntary work. He also serves as a City Councillor, which has given him a wealth of experience in local government over the past 19 years.

Councillor Malcolm Kennedy Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Transport and Climate Change

Councillor Malcolm Kennedy has been a City Councillor in Liverpool since 1998. Malcolm was appointed to the Cabinet with responsibility for Regeneration and Transport in May 2010. Last year the Mayor rearranged portfolios and Malcolm is now the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, responsible for physical development strategy and project development across the city. In this role he has been responsible for overseeing the

development of Liverpool’s Strategic Investment Plan and Liverpool’s Local Development Framework. Malcolm is a director of several companies in his role as Cabinet Member including Liverpool Science Park and Liverpool Business Improvement District. Outside of the Council, Malcolm is the owner and director of RMK Business Solutions, a small consultancy aimed at assisting the growth and development of small businesses.

Professor Richard Meegan During the Review Richard was Professor of Economic Geography in the European Institute for Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University. Now retired, he is currently an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool.

Richard has worked in the field of social and economic research for over 40 years. His research has ranged across urban and regional regeneration and development, labour market change, community responses to the impact of economic restructuring, urban policy and community economic development. He has a particular interest in the recent economic and social history of Liverpool and Merseyside. His

research has been funded by central and local government, overseas planning and government agencies and a variety of research councils and foundations and the findings of this research have been widely published. He recently completed a joint ESRC research project exploring the impact of the recession on households in Bristol and Liverpool with the Centre for Urban and Public Policy Research at the University of Bristol. He was also a member of the joint research team from Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Liverpool that produced the recent ‘The State of the Liverpool City Region: Making The Most of Devolution Report’. He lives in south Liverpool and treasures his easy access to both Calderstones and Sefton Park.

11

Dr. Ian Mell Lecturer in Planning and Civic Design, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool

Dr. Ian Mell is a Lecturer in Planning and Civic Design at The University of Liverpool. He teaches and researches a variety of green infrastructure and planning issues evaluating the opportunities and disconnects between planning strategy, policy and practice. His research investigates the nature and ‘value’ of green infrastructure investment in a number of geographical contexts to better understand how innovative and

integrated landscape management can address social, economic and ecological issues. This included recent work on the Interreg IVB Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE) project. Ian’s current work reflects on how green infrastructure is being positioned as one of the ‘go-to’ approach to planning for sustainable urban planning in the USA, India and China. Outside of academia Ian has experience of green infrastructure practice through working with advocacy organisations (Community Forests in North-East England) and as a local government officer in Cambridgeshire.

Councillor Steve Munby Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods

Councillor Steve Munby has been a councillor since 1998 and was appointed to the Cabinet with responsibility for Neighbourhoods in May 2010. His portfolio was extended to include young people in 2011, street cleansing and waste services in 2012 and parks in September 2014. Steve says: “My priorities are to promote the devolution of services and decision-making down to neighbourhood level,

keep the city’s streets and public spaces as clean and attractive as possible, secure sustained increases in recycling, radically improve our public and open land from creating community gardens, new allotments and securing a sustainable future for our parks.”

Ron Odunaiya Director of Community Services, Liverpool City Council

Ron Odunaiya was appointed as Director of Community Services in September 2012. However, he is not new to the city and spent his early years in Liverpool and many of his family still live in the city. He attended Liverpool John Moore’s University and chose a career in Local Government because he is passionate about providing excellent services to improve the quality of life for our communities. Ron has spent much of

his career in Local Government and has previously worked as an Executive Director for Sunderland City Council and more locally at Knowsley Council where he was the Assistant Chief Executive. In his current role he has responsibility for a wide range of services including: Sports and Outdoor Recreation; Parks, Environmental Services and Waste Management; Libraries; Youth and Offending Service; Public Protection and Community Safety and Neighbourhoods.

Victoria Owens Managing Director, 4d4u Ltd

Victoria has lived in south Liverpool all her life and has an unrivalled knowledge of the area and local property. With previous retail experience she spent 14 years operating an estate agency in south Liverpool, which she sold in July 2015. Victoria now owns and manages a baby scanning clinic, 4d4u Limited which is based in Woolton Village. Victoria has two children and lives in the Allerton area.

12

Steve Stuart Brabners Stuart (Retired)

Steve has over 25 years’ corporate finance experience gained locally, nationally and internationally. Steve is a great strategic thinker who specialises in innovative solutions. Formerly a partner with Ernst and Young, Steve started the practice with the clear vision of providing high calibre entrepreneurial corporate finance advice to business owners. Since embarking on his own, Steve has gained first-hand experience of

the issues facing entrepreneurs and this provides him with a truly unique insight into the issues facing owner managers. Steve is a well-connected and respected figure in the local business community and was the instrumental driving force behind the creation of Merseyside Special Investment Fund in the mid-1990s. Steve has worked on a number of disposals of private companies to international buyers and more recently has successfully completed a number of financial restructuring exercises.

The Chairman and the Board have been supported throughout the Review by:

Dr. Juliet Staples Strategic Support, Liverpool City Council

Juliet has over 25 years’ experience in the environmental and sustainability sector and has worked for a range of organisations that have included the public, private and voluntary sectors. Previous roles have included working within academic institutions, as an environmental consultant, for an environmental charity and within Local Government. Juliet works for Liverpool City Council.

Melanie Wilson PA Support, Liverpool City Council

Stephen Claus Board Observer - Partner, Head of Charity and Social Enterprise, Brabners Stuart

A copy of the Board’s Interim Report and the

supporting appendices can be found at

liverpool.gov.uk/greenandopenspaces.A copy of the Board’s Terms of Reference can also be located on the above website and are additionally available within this report as Appendix 1.

13

2. Overview and Introduction

“The measure of any great civilisation is in its cities, and a measure of a city’s greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and its squares.”

John Ruskin quoted in CABE Space (2005:7)

2.1 Background and ContextIn the last decade Liverpool has undergone extensive change, with major investment in the city centre and other locations, particularly south Liverpool, which has included the rapid expansion of Liverpool Airport. However, despite these achievements Liverpool still faces a number of challenges. The legacy of its long-term economic and population decline is evident in the economic and social deprivation seen in the city. The scale of this situation is particularly apparent in residential neighbourhoods close to the city centre, especially in northern inner Liverpool where substantial parts of Anfield, Kirkdale and Everton wards fall within the 1% most deprived areas in the country. As the city’s economic fortunes have varied, we have seen a corresponding change in the quality of the public realm in Liverpool.

Liverpool also has substantial green and open space resources, which include parks, local wildlife sites, green wedges, allotments, street trees, the internationally important Mersey Estuary, the Leeds-Liverpool Canal, numerous playing fields and private gardens.

Although the Council has targeted Stanley Park in the north and Sefton Park in the south to achieve Green Flag status annually, the geographical distribution and quality of provision is not consistent across the city. There is significant potential for improvements if we approach things differently.

In addition to these easily recognised green spaces, the city also benefits from a Country Park at Croxteth, a number of cemeteries, churchyards, golf courses, hundreds of incidental spaces, civic and pedestrianised areas,

green spaces within the grounds of institutions, agricultural land, brownfield sites and a long waterfront area, which together provide a mosaic of green and open spaces across the city. Viewed from above, the distribution of green and open spaces is uneven. However, in reviewing the size and spatial distribution of these spaces there are a number of interesting patterns.

The River Mersey frames the city to the west, whilst the ring of Victorian parks circles around the city centre to create an inner urban greenbelt. This is supported further by the actual greenbelt, which lies at the eastern edge of the city. Other green and open spaces, such as Otterspool Promenade and Croxteth Country Park are also important spaces in the city’s green network. These major sites and the patchwork of small street-level, incidental and neighbourhood green and open spaces make up the city’s green and open space network. They offer key recreational, social and environmental benefits to Liverpool and its local residents.

The variability of the city’s green and open spaces also reflects the waves of development witnessed in Liverpool. From large-scale philanthropic investments in the 1800’s to more recent community gardening projects, Liverpool has constantly reinvented its use of green and open space. Most recently, the development of ‘meanwhile’ spaces for temporary use has shown that the city is attempting to reinstate value in some of Liverpool’s underused landscape. With such variety though also comes variation in quality. Although Liverpool has a number of high quality and well used sites, others suffer from a range of social and financial issues, which require a rethinking of how we manage and improve these spaces. As a consequence, it is fair to say that the city’s green and open space network is one of the reasons why Liverpool has prospered, as it has an almost unique mosaic of parks and open spaces not seen in many UK cities.

2.2 Time of AusterityDue to the financial cuts made to local government funding by the UK government the City of Liverpool has seen a 58% cut in its budget since 2010. The impact of this has been a collective tightening of the belt of what services can be provided by Liverpool City Council (LCC), and which may have to be reduced further. This has been exacerbated as the city is legally bound to deliver statutory services, such as adult social care, education and waste collection, whilst discretionary services, such as leisure services or

14

green space provision, which are not protected, have been the first to be earmarked for funding cuts.

From the 2017/18 financial year onwards it is feared that Liverpool will have no money to meet some of its existing service provision so there is a pressing need to look at alternative and creative examples of how other cities in the UK, and further afield have used alternative financial models to fund green space provision. The lack of future funding for green and open spaces is a problem also faced by the majority of core cities in England who are struggling to balance the delivery of statutory and discretionary services with ongoing funding cuts and Liverpool is therefore not the only city feeling the financial strain. Newcastle and Sheffield, which are potentially the most comparable cities to Liverpool, are also currently engaged in similar financial reviews asking how they can continue to deliver green and open space provision; although it could be argued that to date the issues being dealt with in these locations are not as significant as those experienced in Liverpool.

As a response to both financial cuts and the growing disquiet amongst many residents to proposals to redevelop existing green and open spaces, the Strategic Green and Open Space Review was convened to investigate what alternative funding opportunities could be available to Liverpool City Council (LCC) to limit the impacts of central government funding cuts.

2.3 The ReviewThe review commenced in January 2015 and from the initial round of public meetings held across the city, through a series of thematic workshops, and meetings with local communities and a range of key local, regional and national stakeholders (Appendix 2) the Chairman and the Board have canvassed the city’s residents extensively asking for their thoughts, concerns and aspirations for the future of Liverpool’s green and open space.

The review has greatly benefited from the extensive and valuable insights of the people of Liverpool, Friends of groups, the business community and direct input from the University of Liverpool, the National Health Service and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and United Utilities. At times the ongoing discussion has led to confrontation, as people felt strongly that the city’s parks, gardens and green spaces were key resources making Liverpool special. The protection of green and open space is a highly emotive issue.

Frequently, when proposals to redevelop parks, gardens or public open space are released the public raises objections. Such objections focus on a myriad of issues including access to nature, changing house prices, the health and well-being of local communities, and the rights to nature of the public - specifically children. However, whilst people object to green spaces being redeveloped, Liverpool City Council is tasked with ensuring that the city has sufficient housing, transport infrastructure, economic development opportunities and green and open space to function effectively. Liverpool City Council’s role in promoting liveability, prosperity and social equity can, on occasions, set its development objectives at odds with local opinion. However, a significant proportion of the city’s residents remain adamant that its green and open space provide city-scale benefits for health, community cohesion, and recreation, and that land sales would negatively impact the liveability of the city.

The views presented in person, via email, letter and phone calls have provided one of the most extensive evidence bases of opinion and knowledge about green spaces that the city has ever received. Each of the submissions to the consultations has been read, discussed and taken into account within this final report (and the preceding Interim Report), and a series of public comments are used to illustrate the feeling within Liverpool regarding specific thematic issues.

These opinions, facts and ideas have been incorporated alongside the broader thinking about financing green spaces within this final report, as well as the experience and knowledge brought to the review by the Board. Collectively this has helped to shape the thinking presented in this report and to identify what is considered valuable in the city’s green and open spaces, what alternatives (if any) could be used by the City Council to fund maintenance of green spaces, and, which spaces could be used to meet local development needs.

Whilst the review cannot address all the concerns raised through eighteen months of consultation the Board has attempted to find common ground between pro and anti-development commentary, and between the needs of local communities and the economic development of the city.

15

2.4 The Final ReportThe outcome of this programme of consultation has been diverse and useful. It is clear from this consultation that Liverpool’s green and open spaces are incredibly popular and valued assets by the city’s residents, businesses and social/environmental organisations. It has also become clear that people are aware of the financial constraints being placed upon Liverpool City Council and are sympathetic to the difficulties of managing development conversations across the city.

What the review does not do is offer a single solution to the long term security constraints of the city.

Alternatively, it provides a set of options that can, and should, be investigated further by Liverpool City Council and other stakeholders, to identify which investment and management options are best aligned to different parts of the city.

The report considers a number of financing options including the potential of developing a Parks Trust model for the city, which would provide long term security for the city’s green and open spaces. However, there is a need to generate financial, political and public support for such a process to secure an appropriate endowment fund. Extending the consultation and engagement activities undertaken throughout the review will be crucial to achieving this, and the engagement and commitment of key city and regional stakeholders will be needed to deliver this.

Other options explored include revised developer contributions through commuted sums, devolution of management to local communities, or greater engagement and payments from Public-Private-Partnerships (P-P-Ps) which are all discussed within the report as offering appropriate forms of investment for Liverpool.

Moreover, a series of strategic green investments are proposed as Liverpool’s ‘Green Web’, which could help Liverpool City Council identify and generate income from developer contributions or from national and international development funds to support a city-wide network of connected green spaces.

All of the above options are supported by developing partnerships and collaborations to help Liverpool City Council meet the challenges of funding green and open space. This includes how local businesses have been engaged to assess management options for some of the city’s parks, the role that the National Health Service (NHS) and Clinical Commission Group (CCG) can play in moving from users of parks for health programmes to funders of parks or the broader benefits that can be derived from working with The Football Association (FA), Everton Football Club (EFC) and Liverpool Football Club (LFC) to secure a long-term legacy for sports provision in the city.

Each of the options discussed has been applied elsewhere, and although all may not be appropriate in all locations across the city, the Board have identified how each could be feasible in some. This reflects the current state of the city’s green and open spaces, which are well used and of high quality, but also where improvements could be made. It also examines how different economic solutions could be used in individual sites to achieve positive outcomes for the environment, the city’s people and for the city’s economy.

The report also presents the Board’s central recommendations in terms of financial modelling in the city, the manner in which parks can support each other, and where and how stakeholder engagement and support will be required to ensure the successful and sustainable delivery of the vision.

17

The final report therefore seeks to address the Board’s Terms of Reference (Appendix 1) through the following aims:

1. To showcase alternative practices which can be used to identify green and open space funding mechanisms, for future consideration.

2. To present a series of green space management scenarios ranging from do nothing, increased public/community ownership to land sales and the formation of Trusts that could be established to meet provision and maintenance needs.

3. To provide a forum for interested parties in the city to come together and share their experience, expertise and knowledge of which green and open spaces are valuable, where areas of improvement could be identified and how green spaces provide key amenities for local people.

4. To consider the future land use needs of the city and how this affects provision of green and open spaces.

5. To ensure that equitable access and corridors of green spaces exist across Liverpool.

6. To lead the way by being one of the first UK authorities to explore alternative options and highlight best practice for the long-term future of green and open space provision.

To arrive at the final report is, however, only part of the journey. The future of Liverpool’s green and open spaces is currently still subject to ongoing financial constraints. Moreover, the breadth and depth of knowledge invested in the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review illustrates the possibilities open to Liverpool City Council, local communities and environmental organisations to adapt their thinking to include more creative and collaborative approaches to managing Liverpool’s landscape.

However, from this point onwards it will be down to communities, individuals and Liverpool City Council to ensure that the momentum generated through the review is maintained and that work continues to deliver measurable achievements in the development, protection and management of the city’s green and open space.

18

Priceless..........

© Graham Maddrell

19

The report will be presented in a series of sections highlighting the activities undertaken to populate the review and this final report. This reflects the outcomes of the consultation and engagement activities undertaken throughout the review and discusses the findings of the Interim Report (Liverpool City Council, 2015). These discussions will illustrate where progress has been made in addressing the recommendations proposed in the Interim Report, where additional evidence has been collected, and where additional evidence or engagement is needed to deliver them. The report also highlights the work that is still required to meet the long-term financing needs of Liverpool’s green and open space.

To ensure that the review is grounded in an in-depth understanding of best practice the report draws on other experiences in the North West, the UK and internationally to illustrate what Liverpool can learn from other agencies and partners to deliver more efficient green space management (Appendix 2).

The Chair and members of the Board have all actively consulted with key local, regional and national stakeholders in an attempt to rationalise the funding possibilities that Liverpool can draw upon to ensure it can maintain, and enhance, its green spaces in perpetuity. This is, however, an ongoing process and Liverpool City Council remains committed to working with partners, including the National Trust, the Heritage Lottery Fund and others, to lobby regional and central government for green and open space funding.

However, before considering the future of Liverpool’s green and open spaces it is essential to once more grasp the importance of such spaces. These were discussed in the Interim Report and at the final round of public meetings at great length. There have been many excellent academic papers written by ground-breaking and inspirational parks organisations, as well as environmental organisations (CABE Space, 2005a, 2005b; NESTA, 2016).

A range of thoughtful strategic documents including the Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy 2010 (The Mersey Forest, 2010) and the United Kingdom Natural Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP-WCMC, 2011) have also been reviewed. Each of these go into a greater level of detail regarding the multiple benefits that such spaces provide, with the former calculating that Liverpool’s environment is an £8 billion asset for the city, whilst the latter argues that the natural environment contributes over £2.3 billion per year to the UK economy.

3. Report Structure

20

The following sections of this report are:

Section 4 Health and Wellbeing

Section 5 Environmental Factors (Climate Change, Flooding, Air Quality and Biodiversity)

Section 6 Education

Section 7 Finance – Balancing the Books

Section 8 Other Options Including Park Trusts

Section 9 Planning for the Future (Land Use, Land Categorisation, Green Corridors, Equity and Accessibility)

Section 10 Engagement

Section 11 Recommendations

Section 12 Chair’s Concluding Thoughts

Each section will be introduced by a series of statements from the Board’s Chair, (Simon O’Brien) and from consultees to illustrate the range of ideas, experiences, and values that people place on Liverpool’s green and open spaces. In order to be as inclusive as possible the Chair has intentionally invited other contributions so that this report contains many voices thereby embracing detailed discussions of the thematic and financial aspects undertaken in support of the review.

The report is supported by a set of appendices which will provide additional information of the consultations, engagement activities and evidence gathering undertaken for the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review.

This report will therefore not seek to collate every piece of data available but rather capture the essence of the academic and practitioner reporting, and perhaps most importantly the groundswell of opinion that the Chair and Board Members have encountered regarding our green and open spaces of all shapes and sizes. What the report can and does do is to present its findings independently, using city council structures and by seeking to address the comments of local people such as those presented throughout to ensure Liverpool remains an equitable and liveable city.

21

4. Health and WellbeingWith key contributions from Board Member Professor Richard Meegan

“When I have been ill or had surgery I first walk round my garden, then our field, then Doric Park, Newsham Park before I start getting the bus into town.”

Mary (Old Swan resident)

“The current system grossly underestimates the true value of our green spaces and what happens in them… Because the focus is on money and investment now, we do not make judgements which fully appreciate the costs in terms of health and wellbeing if we do not preserve these spaces.”

Christina, Liverpool CIC.

Chair’s Comment:

Sedentary lifestyles and obesity are some of the most critical health issues of our time. Central to the

Board’s and the public’s way of thinking is the belief that green and open spaces should be considered as an

integral part of health provision rather than an incidental benefit. The Chair was very surprised at the amount

of strong vocal support for the NHS to financially support parks - something that was raised frequently

during all the public meetings and workshops.

After hearing countless presentations and reading paper after paper, the argument that ‘more evidence is

needed’ in order to ask health providers to invest directly into our parks and green spaces is deemed by

many to be redundant.

Whilst some worthwhile green space projects have always been financially supported in a piecemeal way,

there is an overwhelming feeling (both inside and outside the organisations) that the time for Liverpool’s

Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), University Hospitals, Community Health Trust and all other health

providers to start paying properly towards and thereafter fully utilising the amazing facilities on their doorsteps

is long overdue.

Open spaces bring people together for events such as the Liverpool International Music Festival (LIMF),

guided walks, toddler interaction, bike rides or just sitting on a patch of grass talking nonsense. From

sitting alone and people watching to dancing en masse, the simple fact that the space is free of charge and

free of walls removes barriers and opens up endless possibilities for people to get together. In an urban

environment; there are few places where people of all ages, beliefs, lifestyles and mind sets mingle freely

like we do in the gaps between the buildings. To quantify this benefit in monetary terms is impossible and

this hits the nail on the head. Just because something can’t be valued in millions doesn’t mean that it’s not

valued by millions.

22

“Parks provide children with opportunities for play, and play is critical in the development of muscle strength and co-ordination, language, and cognitive abilities. Parks also build healthy communities by creating stable neighbourhoods and strengthening community development. Research shows that residents of neighbourhoods with greenery in common spaces enjoy stronger social ties. Neighbourhoods with community gardens are more stable, losing fewer residents over time.”

(The Trust for Public Land, 2006:6).

4.1 The Contribution of Green and Open Spaces to Public Health and Wellbeing

The Board received submissions from the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS), Mersey Forest and the City Council’s Community Services Directorate that all highlighted the contribution that green and open spaces make to enhancing public health and wellbeing. Dr. William Bird, GP, member of the Physical Activity Programme Board for Public Health England and Chief Executive Officer of Intelligent Health, was also commissioned to review evidence on the links between nature and health and propose a plan for Liverpool (Intelligent Health 2016, Report attached in Appendix 3).

The Chair also took part in a workshop hosted by the Heseltine Institute; the University of Liverpool in collaboration with Nature Connected; the Liverpool City Region Local Nature Partnership, and the North West Coast Academic Health Science Network, discussing how the city can make better use of its natural assets both to strengthen its economy and to promote improved health and wellbeing.

The health impact of green and open spaces was also repeatedly stressed by members of the public in our consultation meetings following publication of our Interim Report. Health is determined by a complex interaction between genetic characteristics, lifestyle and behaviours, the physical, social and economic environment and health care. Health maps have been produced which place people, differentiated by age, gender and hereditary

characteristics, at the centre of an interconnected layering of these wider determinants of health and the wider global ecosystem (Figure 1). Measuring the relative contribution of these different determining factors is difficult but it is generally agreed that the social and economic environment has the largest impact (CSDH, 2008). The physical environment – both built and natural – is, nevertheless, still important, determining, on some estimates, as much as 15% of public health (Booske et al, 2010).

The evidence that green and open spaces are an essential element of a healthy human habitat and crucial in enhancing community health and wellbeing, particularly in cities, is very strong - even though questions remain over the causal mechanisms that transmit these benefits and the variable effects of different types of green and open spaces.

Greenspace Scotland, Public Health England and the Institute of Health Equity at University College London and the Faculty of Public Health, have all conducted recent authoritative evidence reviews of the links between green and open spaces and health and wellbeing outcomes (Croucher et al, 2008). The Marmot Review of evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England highlighted the role that green and open spaces play in the creation and development of healthy and sustainable places and communities (The Marmot Review, 2010). The European Environment Agency, in its broader review of the relationships between the environment and health, also identified the multiple benefits that access to green space can offer to physical health, mental and social wellbeing and improved quality of life (European Environment Agency, 2013). Natural England summarised the evidence demonstrating the natural environment’s contribution to public health and wellbeing and academics from Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and the US have also reviewed recent research on the links between nature and health (Natural England, 2012 and Hartig et al, 2014).

These reviews on health provide very strong support for the positive impact that green and open spaces have on health; notably through the direct impact that these spaces have on general health and wellbeing, the protection they afford from harmful environmental exposure, the promotion of physical activity and the indirect effects of promoting social interaction and cohesion.

23

Source: (Barton, H. and Grant, M., 2006) ‘A health map for the local human habitat’, The Journal for the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126 (6). pp. 252-253.

Figure 1. Health Map

Global Ecosystem Biodiversity

C

limat

e ch

ange

Natural Environment Air, Water, Land

N

atur

al h

abita

ts

Built Environment Streets Routes

Bui

ldin

gs, P

lace

s

Activities Playing, Learnning

W

orki

ng, S

hopp

ing

mov

ingLocal Economy M

arkets

Wea

lth c

reat

ion

Community Netw

orks

S

ocia

l Cap

ital Lifestyle People

Age, Sex, Hereditary

factors

Mac

ro-e

cono

my,

politic

s Glob

al fo

rces

Other Neighbourhoods

other Regions

The determinants of health and well-being in our neighbourhoods

24

The following sections highlight some of the identified key health benefits of green and open spaces under these different headings.

4.2 General Health and Wellbeing• Better health is related to green and open spaces - regardless

of socio-economic status (Mitchell and Popham, 2008); …but this is highly dependent on the accessibility, quantity and quality of green space: poor quality green space may have a negative health impact (de Vries, et al, 2003; White et al, 2013; Takano, Nakamura and Watanabe, 2002; Maas et al, 2006; Kuo, 1998; Bixler and Floyd, 1997; Tzoulas et al, 2007).

• People are happier when living in urban areas with greater amounts of green space - compared to those living in areas with less green space they show significantly lower mental distress and significantly higher wellbeing;

• …living in an area with higher levels of green space has been associated with improvements in wellbeing indicators roughly equal to a third of that gained from being married, or a tenth as large as being employed versus unemployed (White et al, 2013).

• Green and open spaces have a positive impact on levels of stress - reducing and aiding recovery from stress and attention fatigue (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003; Hartig et al, 2003; Orsega-Smith et al, 2006; Whitelaw et al, 2008; van den Berg et al, 2010).

• Individuals report less mental distress and higher life satisfaction when they live in greener areas - even after accounting for changes over time in income, employment, marital status, physical health, and housing type and personality (White et al, 2013; de Vries et al, 2003; van den Berg et al, 2010; Maas et al, 2009).

• Spending time in green space or simply viewing nature – even for relatively brief periods - can improve attitude, self-esteem and concentration, and help alleviate stress and mental health disorders (Depledge et al, 2011; Thompson Coon et al, 2011; Pretty et al, 2007; Barton and Pretty, 2010).

• Populations exposed to the greenest environments have the lowest levels of health inequality related to income deprivation (Mitchell and Popham, 2008).

• Income-related inequality in health is less pronounced where people have access to green space;

• …but access to green space is not equal - people living in the most deprived areas are less likely to live in the greenest areas, and consequently have less chances to benefit from the health benefits of green space compared with people living in the least deprived areas;

• …so increasing access to and use of good quality green space for all social groups is likely to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities (Public Health England and UCL Institute for Health Equity, 2014).

4.3 Protection from Harmful Environmental Exposures

• Green and open spaces in cities protect people from harmful environmental exposures such as flooding, air pollution, noise and extremes of temperature including those generated by the ‘urban heat island effect’ (Intelligent Health, 2016; Pugh et al, 2012; Regional Public Health, 2010; Rao et al, 2014).

• Trees and vegetation can directly reduce air pollution by catching and eradicating fine particulate matter and indirectly by reducing air temperatures (Nowak et al, 2006; Tallis et al, 2011).

• Air temperatures are lowered by green infrastructure through both the evaporation of water from vegetation and shading (Bowler et al, 2010; Doick, 2013).

“I have used my park to find friends and other local new mums; it is a community hub. Before I had the baby I used the park for walking and running as do many local residents.”

Score Lane Resident.

25

4.4 Promoting Physical Activity• Accessible and safe urban green spaces have a positive influence on

levels of physical activity – as long as the green space is well-maintained and safe to use (Intelligent Health, 2016; Bird, 2004; Coombes, Jones and Hillsdon, 2010; Hillsdon et al, 2006; Jones, Hillsdon and Coombes, 2009); Lachowycz and Jones, 2011; Maas et al, 2008).

• Parks most likely to generate physical activity are close to users, large, form part of a network with trails, have lighting, have less disorder and are surrounded by lower speed streets (Kaczynski et al, 2014; Turnstall et al, 2006; Rydin et al, 2012; Tunstall et al, 2006; Hillsdon et al, 2006; Bowler et al, 2010; Richardson et al, 2005).

• Green and open spaces can increase physical activity by both providing an attractive area to exercise and the opportunity to take part in physical activity with other people (Mytton et al, 2012).

• There is a positive association between access to green space and physical activity, weight and associated health conditions (Coombes, Jones and Hillsdon, 2010; Maas et al, 2008; Natural England, 2011).

• Green spaces offer a site for regular physical activity, which reduces, in particular, the risk of coronary heart disease, obesity and diabetes (Rydin et al, 2012).

• There is an additional positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to synthetic environments such as indoor gyms (Bowler et al, 2010).

• Exercising in natural environments - compared to exercising indoors - is associated with greater feelings of revitalisation, and a greater intention to repeat the activity (Coon et al, 2011).

4.5 Promoting Social Interaction and Cohesion• Green and open spaces have the potential to increase and enhance social

interactions and the use of public spaces (Coley, Sullivan and Kuo, 1997; Sullivan, Kuo and De Pooter, 2004; Maas et al, 2009).

• 85% of people surveyed found that parks and green spaces had a positive impact on the quality of life in a given location (Cabe Space, 2004).

• Not all parks, gardens or public space are the same or provide the same opportunities to promote social cohesion, however, if we know the socio-economic context of a given space we can assess whether, and if so, how its physical structure can be of benefit (Mell, 2016).

• Communal green and open space activities – for example, allotments and community gardens and ‘friends of parks’ organisations - can enhance community interactions and build local capacity, self-esteem, social empowerment and the ‘social capital’ that promotes wellbeing (Kingsley and Townsend, 2006; Moore, Townsend and Oldroyd (2006); Maas et al, 2009).

• Public green spaces are also important for social integration by offering the opportunity for people from different social and ethnic backgrounds to meet and interact (Shinew, Glover and Parry, 2004; Seeland, Dübendorfer and Hansmann, 2009; Peters, Elands and Buijs, 2010).

• People with chronic illness who experience high levels of social cohesion are less likely to report deteriorating health (Waverijn et al, 2014).

• Green and open spaces also support frequent, casual contact amongst neighbours that builds social ties where people support and care for green and open spaces – fostering safer neighbourhoods and the enhanced wellbeing associated with them (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001).

• Providing spaces that enable people to interact with nature in different ways allows them to gain a lifelong attachment to the environment; …parks need to be seen as locations of adventure, of education, and of inclusion, and parents, communities, and other formal and informal groups (schools, churches, health care professionals, and sports teams) need to be encouraged to make best use of them (Louv, 2005).

26

Moving in the right direction

27

• Parks act as focal points for recreation and the variety in the form, location and activities held in parks addresses a wide range of social needs and the recreational use of parks helps to tackle anti-social behaviour and foster greater care of green spaces by local people (NESTA, 2016).

• Local authorities and parks managers are increasingly looking to the users of their sites for inspiration to help design and manage these spaces as these are most likely to know what works and what innovations could lead to additional benefits (NESTA, 2016).

4.6 Public Health in Liverpool and the Role of Green and Open Spaces

The city’s Green Infrastructure Strategy showed very clearly that, while the city as a whole is relatively green, green infrastructure is very unevenly distributed across it (Liverpool City Council, 2010a, and 2010b). The lowest levels are in the City Centre and surrounding Inner Areas and the limited green infrastructure that is present in these areas functions very poorly. It also showed how the geography of green infrastructure closely maps onto the geography of ill health - with areas of the city with a higher incidence of coronary heart disease, poor mental health and poor air quality also having relatively low levels of green infrastructure. The local relationships, albeit moderate in statistical terms, clearly supported the argument in the academic literature that the physical environment – in the form of green infrastructure - is one of the many interconnected determinants of health.

The latest health data for the city for life expectancy and conditions recognised in the literature as being particularly related to the presence or absence of accessible green infrastructure - including obesity and premature mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases - provide a mixed picture with some recent improvements alongside ongoing challenges.

The latest report of Liverpool’s Director of Public Health highlights some notable public health improvements over the last decade (Liverpool City Council, 2015). There has been a 10% reduction in the annual number of deaths, 10 times the national rate, and the infant mortality rate is now below the national rate after being significantly above it. Mortality for all causes of death, as well as cancer and cardiovascular disease have also fallen and faster than nationally over the past ten years. Smoking prevalence and

alcohol related hospital admissions have also decreased. The last year of the decade also saw a promising reversal of the trend of increasing obesity in children, with the proportion of 4 - 5 year olds having excess weight falling and the proportion of 10 - 11 year olds stabilising.

Despite these improvements, however, the health of the city’s residents remains a major challenge, and at just over the half way mark in the city’s Decade of Health and Wellbeing (2010 - 2020), the city still performs significantly worse than the England average in over 60% (16 of 24) indicators of health, disease and life expectancy in Public Health England’s latest health profile (Public Health England, 2015). It is significantly better than the England average in only 3 of the indicators. In its Blueprint for Healthy Liverpool, Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) provides a sobering assessment of health and wellbeing, highlighting how the city has the highest levels of poor health and health inequalities both within it and compared to the rest of the country (Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group, 2015). 30% of Liverpool residents live with one or more long-term health conditions. 93,000 residents are affected by mental health issues.

The city also has one of the highest cancer mortality rates in the country. In terms of health inequality, men in Liverpool live 3.1 years less and women 2.8 years less than the England average. Moreover, across the city, life expectancy can vary by more than 10 years between different areas. Residents of Picton ward in the centre of the city, for example, are 2.5 times more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those living in Mossley Hill ward in the south of the city. The city’s residents are living longer but not necessarily living well in their later years. Almost 26,000 older people have long-term illnesses that limit their daily activities and by 2021, the number of people living with dementia is forecast to increase by 10.7%. In terms of lifestyles, more than half of Liverpool adults are overweight or obese. Some 11,300 residents drink alcohol at high risk levels. 86% of people in Liverpool are not active enough to maintain good health and, despite recent reductions, 25% of Liverpool adults still smoke.

28

In this context, then, the Board would argue that the continued provision of adequate, accessible and well-maintained green and open spaces is essential for its contribution to sustaining public health improvement and helping to build healthy and sustainable neighbourhoods and a healthy and sustainable city.

4.7 Integrating Public Health Care and Green and Open Spaces

The public health benefits of green and open spaces and green infrastructure more broadly defined have been recognised in policy – at national, regional and local levels. At national level, the relationship drives Natural England’s promotion of a ‘Natural Health Service’ (Natural England, 2008, 2009, 2012). The natural environment - and green and open spaces within it - is recognised as an important determinant of public health in the Government’s White Paper, Healthy Lives, Healthy People, which set out a long-term vision for public health and informed the Health and Social Care Act that produced the most recent reorganisation of the National Health Service (HM Government, 2010, 2012). In March 2016, NHS England announced plans to create ten NHS-supported ‘healthy new towns’ across the country in which the built and natural environment will be designed specifically to build in health and wellbeing and to link up with new models of technology-enabled health care. Two of these are in the North West; one in Fylde, Lancashire and one in Runcorn in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority area.

The Board feels strongly that to establish greater clarity on these issues, National Government should recognise the positive impact of accessible and well-maintained green and open spaces and green infrastructure more broadly defined within public health and well-being and account for this accordingly in the local government financial settlement. Green infrastructure should be included in national infrastructure planning and funding on a par with transport infrastructure.

At regional level, the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores University has put forward a powerful case for utilising parks as hubs for improving public health (Wheater et al, 2007). Locally, the contribution that green and open spaces can make to improving public health has been recognised at city-level in the Council’s Parks Strategy, Open Spaces Study

and Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Mayoral Health Commission report and at city-regional level in the Health is Wealth Commission report, the Liverpool City Region and Warrington Green Infrastructure Framework Action Plan and the Liverpool City Region Parks Study (Liverpool City Council, 2005a, 2005b, 2010: 2014a; Liverpool City Region Health is Wealth Commission, 2008; Mersey Forest, 2014; Peter Neal Consulting Ltd with Richard Tracey Ltd, 2015).

At local level, the integration of green and open spaces into health care has been greatly facilitated by the movement of public health into local government and the partnerships that have developed to establish the Integrated Health and Social Care System focusing on prevention and self-care recommended by the Mayoral Health Commission. Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group’s Prospectus and Blueprint for Change and the Health and Wellbeing Strategy produced by the Health and Wellbeing Board are the foundations of the Healthy Liverpool transformation agenda of the local health system, and are supported by the Board (Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group, 2014a, 2015; Liverpool City Council, 2014c).

The Board also welcomes the Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group’s social value strategy aimed explicitly at increasing the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of local people (Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group, 2014b). For environmental wellbeing, the goal is to improve health outcomes through approaches which both reduce health inequalities and mitigate climate change to create healthy places and communities. Two of the five areas for action relate directly to green and open spaces and the Board’s promotion of green corridors. The first recognises the need to improve neighbourhood environments by increasing the provision, access and quality of green space to improve mental and physical health.

The second recognises the need to increase active travel (walking and cycling) to increase physical activity, reduce traffic emission related respiratory illness and carbon emissions. Related performance measures to green space and reduction in exceedances of air quality standards and performance metrics are the increases in access/quality of the Green Infrastructure Strategy and in physical activity.

The City Council has already developed a partnership between its parks and sport and recreation services and the health sector in the implementation of the city’s Physical Activity and Sports Strategy (Liverpool City Council,

29

2012, 2014b). As part of this partnership working, the Council’s Community Services Directorate has already secured over £3m of funding from the Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group – and Sport England - to support physical activity programmes across the city including within the city’s parks and the Review Board would like this ‘social prescribing’ to be developed further.

To facilitate this ongoing dialogue it is important to recognise that Green and open spaces are key elements of ‘community health’ and need to be incorporated into local public health care strategies and funding and local health partners should be members of a Green and Open Spaces Strategic Group responsible for the long term management and maintenance of green and open spaces. Other partners would include the Council (Community Services, Adult Services, Regeneration, Children and Young People’s Services and Public Health), Merseytravel, and local housing associations, Mersey Forest, Merseyside Environmental Trust and Friends of Parks Groups.

Moreover, The Health and Wellbeing Board should continue to encourage the use of green space through commissioned programmes of health improvement interventions (like the former ‘Natural Choices for Health’ and ‘Wellbeing Grants Scheme’ and sponsored activities like green gyms, health walks and park runs).

In its Report to the Board (Appendix 3) Intelligent Health suggested that the Council should pilot a ‘Nature Exchange’ funding model, which would charge for the estimated loss of health value of each square metre of green and/or open space covered by buildings or roads. The revenue for loss would be collected annually by a newly established Foundation and would be used to create or maintain green space to help improve the health and wellbeing of the local community within 800 meters or half a mile of the charged developments. The Foundation would engage with local community groups in managing the Fund.

The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) should explore the potential for establishing a ‘Nature Exchange Fund’ for creating and maintaining green and open spaces which would allow GPs to prescribe activities in green spaces as part of a community prescription in which patients with long term conditions participate in electronically-logged activity programmes.

The city’s Parks Strategy was published 11 years ago, before the recession

and subsequent central government austerity programme, which have affected its delivery. The target to establish, by 2008, a Friends Group for every high level park (City Parks, Green Flag Parks, and English Heritage Registered Parks) was achieved but funding cuts have since reduced the level of support and led to the disbandment of some groups. Budgetary cuts have also meant that the target to have Site Management Plans for the high level parks in place by 2008 has not been met.

The target to achieve Green Flag status for 14 parks or open spaces was actually exceeded in 2012, when Green Flag status was secured for 18 sites. Budget cuts since then, however, have meant that the Council has only been able to fund Green Flag applications for Sefton and Stanley Parks. This along with Chavasse Park managed by Liverpool ONE, means the city now only has three parks with Green Flag status so the target for 50% of Liverpool’s citizens to live within 1,000m of a Green Flag park has not been achieved. Moreover, the target for all Liverpool Citizens to live within 1,000m of a children’s play area by 2010 was unsuccessful.

The strategy clearly needs revisiting in a broader strategic approach to development and landscape management in the city.

30

Staying healthy can be a ‘walk in the park’

31

The Mayor’s Commission on Environmental Sustainability also recommended the establishment of an International Research Centre for Environmentally Sustainable Cities. This Research Centre should include a strand of research on the impact of green and open spaces on public health and well-being. Links should also be made with researchers in ‘Sensor City’, the University Enterprise Zone, located within the Knowledge Quarter, to exploit developing sensor technologies for measuring and monitoring the usage and environmental impact of green and open spaces in the city.

There is also much forward thinking work being done by organisations such as Liverpool Food People and Squash Nutrition. The Chair has attended enlightening workshops and other discussions centred around the objective of growing much more food with the city’s boundaries. Planting fruit trees everywhere, growing crops on public land, cultivating mushrooms on brownfield sites and sprouting veg on any available space. Every little intervention would not only help the health and wellbeing of those involved but would also be the next step to making Liverpool truly sustainable

Recommendation:

The Board recommends a series of interventions to make more effective

and visible links between the city’s green and open spaces and improving

the health of Liverpool’s population.

These include:

• 20of the largest parks in Liverpool shouldbeof equal quality and

equally accessible to all communities

• No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of

accessible natural green space of at least 2 hectares in size (and with

a children’s play area)

• Everypersonovertheageof60yearslivinginLiverpoolshouldhave

access to a communal space, garden, allotment or raised bed within

500 metres of where they live, so that they can grow plants and

vegetables

• AllGPsshouldbeabletorecommendafreeactivity(i.e.HealthWalks,

Green Gym etc.) in a park or as part of a community prescription

in which patients with long term conditions participate in activity

program’s – that are logged electronically

• In2017/18aimtoget5,000LiverpoolResidentstovisitaparkthat

they have not visited before and a further 10,000 Liverpool residents

in 2018/19

Recommendation:

City Council to continue to work with interested stakeholders to identify

places to grow food across the city.

32

Chair’s Comment:

Frisbee, rounders, hide and seek, running, walking, cartwheeling, scooting, boot camping, limbering, meditating,

climbing, dodging, stick throwing, ball kicking, ball throwing, leapfrogging, batting, escaping, wrestling,

sunbathing, dancing, ball catching, conkers, swinging, sliding, spinning, splashing, hockey, laughing, cloud

shaping, hopping, building, planting, dog walking, rolling, tagging, rustling, collecting, spotting, adventuring,

nothing, drawing, painting, snogging, lolling, spying, working, sleeping. Just about anything can happen in a

park.

Anecdotally it is possible to see the benefits of public parks as recreational spaces in Liverpool with any trip

to Walton Hall Park, Sefton Park or Otterspool. Every weekend these spaces, and many other neighbourhood

level sites such as Score Lane Gardens or Reynolds Park, are full of families using the play equipment, groups

of people playing football, and children riding bicycles or running around. Recreation in parks is a multi-

generation and cross-cultural activity and due to the variability in the size, design, location and function of

these spaces the parks and green spaces of Liverpool are able to meet a wide range of needs and outdoor

aspirations simultaneously.

From raucous sport to quiet contemplation the recreational fun to be had in parks green and open spaces is

without limits. Quantifying such physical and mental wellbeing is nigh on impossible but that is not the point.

Every moment spent exercising or relaxing within reach of our homes is vital for the wellbeing of our city

and nation. This is the very raison d’être for any of our glorious parks and must be at the heart of all future

strategies and plans.

33

5. Environmental Factors - Climate Change, Flooding, Air Quality, Biodiversity

With key contributions from Dr. Juliet Staples

Chair’s Comment:

From air pollution management through urban temperature control to flood alleviation the

importance of green and open space within a cityscape cannot be over stated. As global warming

changes our weather systems and patterns become more extreme then the mitigating effect of

parks, woodland and other spaces will become even more essential.

A good barometer of the health of any urban environment is the biodiversity of the flora and

fauna to be found within its boundaries. As was discussed in the Interim Report the picture for

Liverpool is patchy but there has been some good work done by Mersey Forest, Merseyside

Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) and other organisations with regard to the provision on

offer. Whilst not completely black and white, as some less tended smaller spaces can be more

supportive than larger homogeneous sites, it stands to reason that the less natural and semi

natural areas to be found then the less the offer for wildlife.

The incredible offer that Green, Blue and other Public spaces provide for what they cost cannot

be overstated. Our green space provision may be non-statutory but the importance of such

places, evidentially and morally, is way beyond any legal obligation and though austerity imposed

from Westminster is driving the city to a cliff edge in this respect, the money must be found from

somewhere and we must start realising our Parks, Recreation Grounds, Sports Facilities and Wild

Places are priceless.

“Once our green spaces have been built on our land changes forever. Please don’t make short sighted decisions about our remaining areas of green which will have devastating consequences for future generations. Your current proposals and ideas do just that. It is time to listen, really listen to the voices of the people of our city.”

Nikki (from Childwall)

34

Green and open spaces provide many valuable attributes. They offer wild places to enjoy; space for exercise, education, agriculture and leisure as well as providing biodiversity, green pedestrian routes, health benefits and making an important contribution to temperature control, flood alleviation, biodiversity and improved air quality.

The following is limited to summarising the key issues associated with climate change, air quality, flooding and biodiversity in Liverpool and the important role that green space can provide in these areas for both helping us to adapt to environmental changes and continuing to supporting our wellbeing.

5.1 Climate ChangeClimate Change is the long term, underlying warming of our environment that is creating changes in our weather patterns. Climate change has been occurring for many years already and future projections of climate change are certain to impact on economic, social and environmental aspects of our lives. The Climate Change Act was introduced in 2008 to ensure the UK cuts its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The 80% target is set against a 1990 baseline. The act enables the UK to transition towards being a low carbon economy. It also sets in place a legally binding framework allowing the government to introduce measures which will achieve carbon reduction, and mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The last set of United Kingdom Climate Projections (UKCP09) were published in June 2009 and provided the most comprehensive report of its kind ever produced (Jenkins et al, 2009). Since then, and following the Paris Agreement on climate change in December 2015, Defra (Department of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs) are now updating the climate projections and it is anticipated that an updated set of climate projections, UKCP18 which are due to be completed in 2018, will build on UKCP09 to give greater regional data and provide more analysis of risks and the potential extremes and impacts of climate change.

UKCP09 lists the current main climate change projections for the northwest of England as:

• Hotter, drier summers;

• milder, wetter winters;

• more unpredictable and extreme weather events; and

• sea level rise.

5.1.1 Hotter, drier summersNASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) data show the average global surface temperature in February 2016 was 1.35°C warmer than the average temperature for the same month between 1951 - 1980, a far bigger margin than ever seen before (CLASP, 2016). By the end of the century, temperatures are expected potentially to rise by about 3.5°C across the UK (under a medium-emissions scenario), with more warming in summer than in winter (CLASP, 2016). Increased urbanisation and release of waste heat could increase this still further.

Hotter, drier summers bring a range of different opportunities, some of which could support different land uses with new crops, higher yields and extended growing seasons. Economically green and open spaces could also benefit financially through the prioritisation of promoting a greater use of the outdoors and a corresponding development in outdoor leisure services. Linked to the health and wellbeing agenda these spaces could help to deliver outdoor education and begin to facilitate healthier and active lifestyles and better diet. Warmer weather could also facilitate future development of the low carbon economy through the adoption of renewable energy and enhance the tourism offer of the city.

However, these benefits need to also be balanced against a number of potential risks. Although people may become more active in better weather, the increased footfall in and around green and open space results in a need for additional maintenance, cleansing and brings an increasing risk of UV exposure and subsequent skin damage. Hotter, drier weather is also likely to see an increase in infectious diseases and other health issues such as overheating or respiratory issues (Brown et al, 2014). Buildings currently designed without adaptation measures will potentially incur increased costs

35

for cooling and ventilation. By the 2050s it is estimated that one fifth of homes in England could experience overheating even in a cool summer and excess deaths from high temperatures are projected to triple to 7,000 per year, on average (Adaptation Sub-Committee, 2014).

Warmer weather will also result in changes to habitats and established ecosystem functioning; with short-term pest population explosions and longer term potential species loss and migration. Prolonged periods of drier weather will lead to reductions in water availability with water restrictions or drought adversely affecting people, crops and the maintenance and upkeep of green and blue (water) spaces.

The role of green spaces in hotter drier summersUnder hotter and drier conditions the role of trees and green space becomes increasingly important. Wide canopies of broad leaved trees provide shady places that are cool and protected from the sun.

Research has shown that grassed surfaces in tree shade can also be 15 - 20°C cooler than tarmac exposed to sun whilst the air temperature in tree shade can be 5 - 7°C lower than in the sun (Nature Connected, 2015; Bowler et al, 2010). Urban parks with dense vegetation are on average 1°C cooler than built-up areas during the day (Nature Connected, 2015; Bowler et al, 2010). Adding 10 percent green cover to areas with little green in high density residential areas also helps to maintain maximum surface temperatures at or below the 1961 – 1990 baseline levels (Gill et al, 2007). Just as importantly, research has indicated that removing 10 percent of existing green cover in high density residential areas is likely to result in surface temperatures increasing by 7 - 8oC under a similar timeframe (Gill et al, 2007).

Green space coverage in all its forms – be it street trees, grass, green walls, green facades, or greening of railway lines - all contribute to the environment’s natural cooling ability (The Mersey Forest, 2010). In addition to coverage, vegetation positioning can also be influential in helping to reduce solar heat gain in buildings and thus reducing the demand for air conditioning, which contributes to both greenhouse gas emissions and waste heat (Niachou et al, 2001). Natural, cool, green spaces play an important role in helping to adapt cities to climate change and the associated environmental and health issues.

5.1.2 Milder, wetter wintersDecember 2015 was the wettest December on record in the UK and was the also the sixth wettest year on record dating back to 1910 when records began (CLASP, 2016). Projections currently indicate that in future, rainfall could significantly decrease in the summer, (particularly in the South East) and significantly increase in the winter (particularly in the North West). Heavier winter rainfall is expected to become more frequent, potentially resulting in an increased risk of surface water flooding to homes, properties, businesses and critical national infrastructure (Jenkins et al, 2009).

Milder, wetter winters can, however, bring a number of benefits, such as reduced winter heating bills, and an expectation of fewer cold-related winter deaths. Mild weather can also extend the growing season for crops leading to increased agricultural productivity. However, milder weather can also result in an increase in food, water and vector borne diseases and similarly extend the growing season for weeds and grass, which need further treatment or supplementary maintenance at additional cost. With the increasing precipitation expected by the 2080s there will also be a corresponding increase in surface water run-off.

The role of green spaces in milder, wetter weatherResearch has shown that increasing green cover or tree cover by 10 percent, or adding green roofs to high density residential areas or town centres will all help to reduce run off at a local level (Gill et al, 2007). However, the projected increase in winter precipitation brought about by climate change is such that run-off cannot be contained by these sources alone and it will be necessary to use the green space in different ways to provide increased storage for increased run off through sustainable urban drainage (SUDS) techniques, such as creating swales, infiltration, detention and retention ponds in parks (Mell, 2016b; Young, 2010).

36

5.1.3 Unpredictable and extreme weather eventsSevere weather events such as storms, winds and very heavy rain can damage infrastructure, transport networks, parks and ecosystems and increase insurance costs. In Liverpool severe weather has previously resulted in the cancellation of public events, power cuts, and damage to buildings, trees being blown down, summer flash floods and closure of parts of the City Centre. Often a corresponding loss of utilities will increase the support required for vulnerable people at a time when transport and other services are disrupted and there is a reduced ability to provide assistance. In the longer term, there are risks of disruption caused by rising food and fuel prices and by the pressure of inward migration in response to the impacts of climate change elsewhere as well as loss of income associated with the cancellation of outdoor events for health and safety reasons.

The role of green spaces in unpredictable and extreme weather eventsIn addition to the important role green space plays to contain surface water run-off in extreme precipitation events or provide shady, cooler areas during hotter weather, it can also become a valuable and practical asset to a range of service providers. Parks and green spaces (where safe and suitable) are able to offer alternative access routes when others are blocked; provide operational working space for emergency responders and /or equipment storage options for infrastructure or utilities repair work. Following damage inflicted by severe weather they can also act as a community hub and focus in the recovery period.

5.1.4 Sea level riseThe sea-level rise across the UK is projected to be between 13cm and 52cm under a medium emission scenario by 2080 (CAG, 2010). Liverpool is largely protected from current sea level rise through a combination of its sea wall and docks complex. However, weather events in recent years has seen overtopping and sea storm surges that have resulted in localised flooding at Pier Head and Otterspool Park. Climate projections indicate that sea level rise is likely to be more pronounced in the south of the UK than the north.

The role of green spaces for future sea level riseWell-designed green space behind the sea wall and along the city’s coastline offers capacity to accommodate overtopping and sea storm surges without these issues directly and immediately impacting on the city and its residents.

5.2 Flooding

“Green and open spaces act as natural flood defences enabling water to infiltrate the ground rather than adding to surface water runoff and overloading sewers and rivers. By building on green and open spaces Liverpool would make itself less resilient to future climate change and prone to more surface water flooding”.

Lucy (email correspondent)

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, place responsibilities on County and Unitary Authorities including Liverpool City Council. As the Lead Local Flood Authority, Liverpool has a responsibility in taking the lead role in understanding, co-ordinating and managing local flood risk.

In recent years Liverpool has experienced different types of flooding that include groundwater flooding (where the water table is very close to the surface), sewer flooding (when excess surface water has entered the drainage network and exceeded the sewer capacity), tidal flooding (from high tides) and surface water flooding (from excessive rainfall). Flooding is often a result of complex interactions between these and other sources (Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy (FRMS), 2016). Within this report the focus on flooding evaluates the issues of two key flood related risks that will potentially be exacerbated through climate change in Liverpool, which are surface water flooding (a type of flooding which is expected to become more frequent due to climate change and over development in flood plains) and tidal flooding.

37

5.2.1 Surface water floodingLiverpool’s history, growth and general development have created one of the UK’s core cities but like many other early cities its drainage infrastructure dates from Victorian times and was designed to service a much smaller population. As a result many of the culverts under the city are more than 150 years old, in poor condition and provide inadequate capacity to meet today’s needs. Coupled with this a significant proportion of the earlier open channels, ditches and watercourses have been culverted or backfilled as the city developed, which has, in turn, led to a reduction in the efficiency of the original land drainage system. Collectively, these factors, together with the loss of previous open space to development, has resulted in Liverpool having the 4th highest surface water flood risk in the UK (Low Carbon Liverpool, 2013).

As a result of climate change the pattern of rainfall has also gradually changed with a shift away from small, regular rainfall to longer periods of dry weather interspersed by deluges of rain with several inches sometimes falling in a very short space of time. Under such conditions dry ground is either unable to soak up the water fast enough, or becomes so saturated that it can no longer drain away excess surface water. This excess water then competes with run off from roads and hard surfaces for the limited capacity in gullies and drains. During periods of high intensity rainfall, when the network is full to capacity, or on occasions where stormy weather results in leaf fall and detritus temporarily blocking road gulley gratings, the water will begin to ‘pond’. This can quickly lead to water pooling on the highway and ultimately to surface water several inches deep entering neighbouring homes and properties. This situation can also be further exacerbated by the surcharging of pipes which would usually carry surface water away to the sewer and is most prevalent in topographical low spots (Draft FRMS, 2016).

Surface water flooding is often unpredictable and rapid. In addition to damaging properties, flood waters often result in loss of utilities and communication services and have a range of knock on effects including staff work absence and travel disruption. Flood waters are also frequently contaminated by sewer overflows, which bring additional health risks to the increase in respiratory-related conditions, which have been evidenced from those directly affected by flooding.

The role of green spaces in surface water flood alleviationParks and green spaces have the potential to play a key role in helping to manage and alleviate surface water flooding by slowing water discharge upstream of flood areas and safely soaking away excess surface water (Ahern, 2007; Natural England and Landuse Consultants, 2009).

Green infrastructure can intercept, infiltrate, store and evaporate rainwater, thereby reducing the rate and volume of water entering drains and limiting the risk of them being overwhelmed during extreme rainfall. Runoff can be reduced by up to 60% by the planting of trees over hard surfaces and by nearly 100% by grassland (Ennos, 2001). A hectare of grassland and broadleaved woodland in the UK can evaporate, respectively, 3.4 and 4.0 million litres of water (Hölzinger, 2011) and trees can increase the capacity of soils to absorb water (Bird et al, 2003) and both reduce flood water velocity (Collins et al, 1997) and delay the downstream progression of peak flood waters (Thomas and Nisbet, 2006). Modelling conducted in Manchester has also shown that adding green roofs to all buildings in densely built-up areas could reduce runoff by over 17% and introducing an additional 10% of green space can reduce surface water runoff by 5 - 6% (Gill et al, 2007).

In recent years Liverpool has commissioned a range of works to help manage surface water flood risk through improving knowledge and understanding of the risks within the city and gathering data on the flood risk assets (Draft FRMS, 2016). In addition to this work there have been a number of capital schemes to proactively treat culverts in poor condition, realign a problematic brook, create capacity for flood retention through the introduction of dry swales or SUDs and, through external grants funding and partnership working, provide property level flood protection to some of the properties most vulnerable to surface water flooding. An overview of these schemes is available in the Draft FRMS.

Recognising the importance of green space for flood alleviation the Chair and Board have engaged positively with United Utilities (UU) who have acknowledged the valuable role green spaces can play in mitigating surface water flooding. At present, work is being scoped with United Utilities (UU) to investigate and model the effect of theoretical green space loss on future surface water flooding within the city. This information will help to provide a better understanding and importantly a stronger business case for the role of green space in the future management of surface water flooding.

38

When it comes to climate change, green space is cool

© James Killick

39

5.2.2 Tidal floodingThe second most relevant type of flooding for Liverpool is the risk of tidal flooding. This occurs on the Mersey River during spring high tides and can result in a rapid increase in water levels, which together with strong winds causes ‘overtopping’ on the waterfront. Approximately every 18 years there is an unusually large tide due to the alignment of the moon and the sun. The last such event happened in 29th September 2015 resulting in a tide height in Liverpool of 10.37m (The National Tidal and Sea Level Facility, National Oceanography Centre).

The role of green spaces in tidal floodingFortunately, Liverpool is currently fairly well protected from tidal flooding through a combination of the dock complex, the dock or sea wall and the green space at Otterspool which collectively help to accommodate high tides and any overtopping from sea storm surges. The green and blue infrastructure of the city thus plays an important role in delivering economic flood related benefits to the city and making a valuable contribution to the city’s resilience.

5.3 Air Quality

“The green spaces of Liverpool are its greatest asset; the envy of the country, the lungs for the people of Liverpool.”

Christine (Aigburth resident)

Good air quality is vital for our health and quality of life as well as the environment. The Environment Act 1995 placed a statutory duty on all Local Authorities to review and assess air quality within their electoral boundaries.

5.3.1 Air quality in LiverpoolLiverpool City Council (LCC) has to monitor and submit the results of air quality monitoring on a yearly basis to Defra (Department of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs). The monitoring is undertaken at two continuous Air Quality monitoring stations in operation as part of the Defra operated Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN). They are located as follows:

• Queens Drive Walton: Particulate Matter <10 micron (PM10), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

• Speke: Particulate Matter PM10, Particulate Matter PM2.5, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

In addition, there are 43 locations in the city where Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is measured on a monthly basis through the use of Passive Diffusion Tubes (73 tubes in total). Results of the monitoring assessments undertaken since 2001 show that Liverpool has continuously failed to meet the required European Standard for NO2 on an annual mean basis (40 ug/m3).

In 2003 LCC declared two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) for NO2. Further review and assessments of air quality between 2004 and 2007 showed a further deterioration in Air Quality across Liverpool and in 2008 Liverpool designated a city wide AQMA based on the exceedances of NO2 (Liverpool Air Quality Management Action Plan, 2008).

Once an AQMA has been declared, the local authority has to produce an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) which contains actions to be taken to reduce the level of air pollution.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that United Utilities continue their work to

investigate and model the effect of theoretical green space loss on future

surface water flooding within the city to provide a robust business-case

for future investment in services and green infrastructure.

40

Although poor air quality emanates from both domestic and industrial sources the majority of the air pollution, especially relating to NO2 in Liverpool is associated with transport sources in particular buses, heavy goods vehicles and taxi fleets. This is compounded by a growth in road traffic, decreasing bus patronage, low environmental standards for the majority of buses, and an increase in congestion.

Buses alone account for 57% of the NO2 from local roads in Liverpool and evidence suggests that a 60% reduction in road transport oxides of nitrogen emissions (NOx - which is a precursor to NO2) is necessary to achieve the NO2 annual mean objective.

The AQAP contains 23 key actions under 6 different themes which collectively were intended to reduce traffic related emissions by almost 10% at specified locations within the previously designated AQMAs. Given the impact of transport on local air quality the AQAP was also fully integrated into the Local Transport Plan (2006-2011).

Information on local air quality has been made available via the Liverpool City Council website with additional links to external air quality information through the UK Government.

The Government recognises opportunities to improve air quality for the protection of public health and the environment through decisions made on land use planning, permitting, roads and air quality management areas. From 2016 local authorities will now be required to work together across departmental or authority boundaries to identify suitable measures to address air quality issues. This includes measures in relation to local transport, highways, land use planning, environmental health and public health. Subsequently, the annual reporting of air quality monitoring to Defra and provision of updates on the actions being taken within the AQAP will now have to have sign-off from a senior level of all departments within the Council. This will take the form of a new Annual Status Report being submitted by the end of June in 2016 and by April in each subsequent year.

Air quality and the role of green spacesWarmer weather and climate change projections will exacerbate poor air quality, particularly in the case of fine particles (PM10, PM2.5) which become more prevalent at higher temperatures and also notably for ozone, which is formed more rapidly in strong sunlight.

The decision to cut carbon emissions by engineering a switch to diesel fuels came at the expense of increasing particulate air pollution. In recent years scientists have found that the fine particles emitted by diesel engines play a far bigger role in global warming than many previously thought. The smallest particles known as ‘black carbon’ trap heat in the atmosphere and are now thought by some to be second only to carbon dioxide as a driver of global warming. This has repercussions for cardiovascular and respiratory health as links between air pollution and heart disease are now robustly proven (Vidal, 2015).

In the north west of England there are a high proportion of communities with increased vulnerability to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases which will be adversely affected by poor air quality, which can trigger breathing problems and exacerbate health conditions such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchitis. In addition this can be compounded by the earlier seasonal appearance of respiratory symptoms and longer duration of exposure to aeroallergen (e.g. pollen) associated with climate change (Public Health England, 2012; Climate Ready, 2014).

Trees and green spaces make a valuable contribution to improving local air quality in urban areas in a number of ways. They are able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, act as carbon sinks and help to alleviate the greenhouse effect associated with climate change. In addition they also help manage high temperatures by providing shade to homes and offices, and help to improve local air quality as trees and green walls can capture and remove gaseous pollutants through the stomata in the leaf surface by absorbing them with normal air components (Lafortezza et al, 2013; Mathey et al, 2011). Fine particulate matter, especially that emitted from the combustion of diesel, can also sometimes be effectively trapped by road side trees which act as ‘biological filters’, removing airborne particles that settle on their leaves and reducing street-level particulates (Nowak et al, 2006).

http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and-policies/environment-and-planning/air-quality/

http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and-policies/environment-and-planning/air-quality/

41

Moreover, work by the Urban Forestry Network in the Unites States (2014) has estimated that over a 50-year lifespan a tree can generate $32,000 worth of oxygen, providing $62,000 worth of air pollution control in addition to recycling $37,500 worth of water and controlling $31,000 worth of soil erosion. Therefore, although costs are associated with the planting and maintenance of trees they do have a reciprocal economic value for urban areas with evidence from both the UK and internationally highlighting these benefits (cf. Byrne, Lo, & Jianjun, 2015; Mell et al, 2013).

5.4 BiodiversityBiodiversity is the variety of living things and includes all species of plants, animals and the natural systems that support them. Every organism, whether rare or abundant, contributes to the balance of nature and this inter-dependence is fundamental to the good health of the world around us. Ecosystems which are rich in biodiversity make a range of environmental, economic and social contributions and are typically healthy and more resilient to the impacts of climate change, especially extreme weather events.

The conservation of biodiversity is then a critical component of Liverpool’s response to climate change and will aid the delivery of crucial ecosystem services for the city such as flood management and the provision of clean air and water. It will also play a key role in enhancing the community’s well-being and in providing a ‘sense of place’. Recognising the many important contributions that biodiversity can offer, it is clearly important that maximum effort is given to its protection and development.

Local authorities, along with all other public organisations, already have a statutory responsibility to consider the impact of their decisions and actions on biodiversity. This duty was introduced by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) Act (2006) and extends beyond just conserving what is already there to carrying out, supporting and requiring actions that may also restore or enhance species populations and habitats.

5.4.1 Biodiversity in LiverpoolLiverpool has several areas of high biodiversity value of which the estuary is the most important.

A large part of the estuary including its banks is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Ramsar Site, and Special Protection Area (SPA) due to the vital role played by the intertidal flats and salt-marshes in providing feeding and roosting sites for large and internationally important populations of waterfowl. The city also has 31 Local Wildlife Sites and 4 Local Nature Reserves at Croxteth Local Nature Reserve; Childwall Fields and Black Woods; Mill Wood and Alder Wood; and Allerton (Eric Hardy) Local Nature Reserve. In total, an area of 950.7 hectares in Liverpool has been identified as being of substantive nature conservation interest, which equates to 8.6% of the city’s land area and 33% of green and open space within the city boundary.

To fulfil its obligation under the NERC Act, and to meet local and national biodiversity priorities and objectives including the North Merseyside Biodiversity Action Plan, the City Council must ensure that these sites are protected from inappropriate development.

There are of course large areas of open space across the city with more limited nature conservation value which could still be targeted for biodiversity enhancement. This includes land in both public and private ownership; comprising the city’s green wedges, parks, allotments, street trees, hedges, cemeteries, private gardens and water bodies including the park lakes and water courses. For the most part this resource is fragmented and isolated within the urban setting but some remain connected to varying degrees by green corridors such as the Leeds Liverpool Canal and Liverpool Loopline.

The effects of climate change including hotter, drier summers and milder, wetter winters with increased flood risk are understood. Wildlife has already begun to respond to these changes through the timing of seasonal events such as flowering, species distributions, species abundance, and rates of growth. These changes are likely to impact adversely on some species and habitats, but provide gains for others.

42

Life flowing into the heart of the City

43

The current fragmentation of valued habitat across Liverpool means that wildlife is less able to respond to climate change by movement. This vulnerability is further heightened by additional pressures including built development, invasive non-native species, air pollution and historical management practices.

The active conservation of Liverpool’s protected sites and other habitats is vital if we are to maintain a healthy, bio diverse environment and respond effectively to climate change. Management objectives must ensure that areas with high biodiversity value in particular and other green spaces in general, take full account of climate change adaptation requirements and that opportunities to extend provision are realised. Appropriate management of protected sites, other non-designated land such as parks, school grounds and cemeteries, provides extensive habitat for wildlife and creates opportunities to enhance the area for biodiversity and local communities. The connectivity between sites should also be improved by promoting and enhancing green corridors and ecological networks.

In support of these aims, Liverpool City Council is working with CARTIF (an experienced organisation that is currently running 12 successful transnational projects across Europe) and a number of additional external partners to be one of 3 lead cities in a trans-European project to be submitted to the Horizon2020 programme EU SMART AND SUSTAINABLE CITIES “demonstrating innovative nature-based solutions in cities”. The other two lead cities are Valladolid in northern Spain and Izmir in Turkey and the proposed programme of work would be to research the potential of introducing green infrastructure solutions to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity, to improve local community and wildlife value, and to test the impact of vertical gardens, green roofs and new technologies.

Also, in appreciating the important contribution that biodiversity will make to climate change mitigation, the Green and Open Spaces Review Board commissioned MEAS in 2015 to undertake a biodiversity assessment of Liverpool. Following the review of data sets and historic habitat reports however, it became clear that species records per hectare were very low and probably under-representative of the presence of biodiversity in the city. For many areas, there were simply no records. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it highlighted that there has been little formal recording or monitoring on either a city wide, species wide or habitat wide basis and there is a scarcity of robust information on biodiversity detail across the city. Without this it will be difficult to deliver on statutory conservation obligations or to provide protection for the most fragile sites and species.

More detail of the importance of wildlife and provision for biodiversity can be found in the MEAS report(s) in Appendix 4a and 4b.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that biodiversity should be a key consideration and

form an integral part of the Local Plan consultation and the ‘Green Web’*

vision for the city.

*see chapter 9

44

Side by side with nature

45

“Schools, Colleges, Universities should get involved and include gardening and horticulture within their curriculum, pupils should learn new skills and be educated about the environment, so they respect and have pride in their green and open spaces.”

Nadine (Consultation respondent)

The work of The Mersey Forest and individual forest school providers continue to make a positive impact on the education of the City’s children. Below is an excerpt from A Forest School Study undertaken by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the Government:

The evaluation suggests Forest Schools make a difference in the following ways:

• Confidence: children have the freedom, time and space to learn and demonstrate independence.

• Social skills: children gain increased awareness of the consequences of their actions on peers through team activities such as sharing tools and participating in play.

• Communication: language development was prompted by the children’s sensory experiences.

• Motivation: the woodland tended to fascinate the children and they developed a keenness to participate and the ability to concentrate over longer periods of time.

• Physical skills: these improvements were characterised by the development of physical stamina with gross and fine motor skills.

• Knowledge and understanding: the children develop an interest in the natural surroundings and respect for the environment as they grow up.

6. Education With key contributions from Board Member Councillor Malcolm Kelly

Chair’s Comment:

“What’s that?” My daughter asked me. “That’s the sound

of a Woodpecker” I answered.

“What’s a Woodpecker”? Her ongoing biology lesson

continued as it does whenever we walk around my beloved

Woolton Woods. Our green and open spaces have long

been valued for the educational possibilities but none more

so than now. Study after study tells us that achievers of all

levels thrive when taken from the classroom and asked the

same questions surrounded by the interwoven, complex

yet unrestricted great outdoors.

46

The full report can be found at the Forestry Commission website (forestry.gov.uk/forestresearch). The evidence therefore appears clear and should be acted upon and Forest School further developed within the City and City Region.

“I don’t want my children’s children to say; what is a park?”

Imelda (participant at public meeting)

6.1 Environmental Education in LiverpoolOur parks, especially in cities such as Liverpool, are so important to us all because of the range of opportunities they can offer in a variety of ways. The most obvious use of our parks is for sport and recreation, but there is clearly a wider use, none more so than education, of both adults and of our children.

In Liverpool there is some support given to schools through the Liverpool Environmental Advocate Team (LEAP) who deliver national curriculum ‘Key Stages’ about our parks in areas such as heritage, local history and geography sessions, study of seasonal change, plant growth, tree identification, habitats and mini-beasts. More details can be found about this at www.ednet.co/leat

6.1.1 The importance of organised educational activities within parks

A number of reasons can be identified why organised educational activities are important for children. It can be argued that there is concern about children being disengaged from the natural environment and that they are not being afforded opportunities to play and learn in these environments, which means much more needs to be done to engage them as widely as possible.

But why are they not being engaged in a way they should be? A recent case study funded by Natural England identified a range of barriers that had been suggested by children in relation to their play at home and within the natural environment. Seventeen children from one school participated in small focus groups before and after a 12-week Forest School that took place within a school woodland area in The Mersey Forest. It was found that Forest School had a positive influence on children’s natural play and their knowledge of the natural world around them.

However, the barriers highlighted by the children were around parental constraints with the majority of children taking part explaining that these constraints were closely linked to safety concerns such as parental fears of abduction, heavy road traffic when travelling to and from local park land and risk of injury. Many children stated that they were not allowed to go to the local park without adult or older sibling supervision, and were subsequently reliant on their families for taking them to play in natural environments.

The more of our green open space and woodland areas that disappear or are reduced within the city, the less opportunity there will be for our children to be engaged educationally with the natural environment. Communities cannot be solely blamed for the lack of use of some of our green space or woodland area if they are not encouraged to use it to its full potential. It is short sighted to simply adopt the “use it or lose it” approach to our green space, when much more can be done to help encourage a greater use of it.

Those of us who work closely with children and young people know how excited and engaging they are when they visit the countryside or rural areas to take part in organised recreational or educational activities. The

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that Liverpool City Council continue to work with

schools, Education Authorities, The Mersey Forest and other stakeholders

to identify and energise ‘A Forest School For Every School’ on a citywide

scale. This work to commence with the newly created public woodland

at Woolton Woods being developed as a Forest School for schools within

Woolton, Allerton and Hunts Cross wards.

47

excitement and interest shown by young people in this type of environment clearly highlights the limited outdoor experiences of our open space and woodland areas that they currently get, and as such probably endorses the findings by Natural England (Truss, E, 2016).

But whilst it might be desirable for local schools or youth groups to travel to the countryside, why do we need to take our children so far to engage them in these educational activities or studies? Why not bring those same activities to our urban parks, open spaces and woodland areas on a much more frequent basis?

At a national level the Government has recognised the need to safeguard National Parks and in March 2016, it launched a kick start programme of activity to safeguard their future (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-parks-8-point-plan-for-england-2016-to-2020).

New figures revealed that nationally only 10% of schoolchildren currently have access to outdoor learning, which may also be reflected here in Liverpool. The UK Government is including, as part of the programme, the engagement of young people throughout their education, from primary school through to secondary school with the aim of increasing the number of young people visiting the National Parks and by including National Parks in the curriculum. However, part of the programme will also include supporting the first steps to employment by developing a new apprenticeship standard and doubling apprenticeships in National Parks.

A similar approach can be applied to our local parks by encouraging schools at all levels to use green spaces as a means to support most, if not all, subjects in the curriculum. Through an active engagement with environmental education we may also see greater uptake from sport, environmental studies, art, and science. This can also be extended to youth organisations such as Youth Clubs, Scouts, and Guides.

There are also examples around the city where schools or youth organisations who are located on, or immediately next to parks, open spaces or woodland areas and already make some use of this open space to support the education or work that they do with young people. There are many more examples of schools or youth organisations that are located in close proximity to such areas who should be encouraged to use our parks to their full potential as an educational resource.

Elsewhere in the country Ofsted highlighted two schools, Duncton Junior School and Graffham Infant School, in West Sussex as good practice by setting up Forest Schools, which improved provision, engagement with pupils and learning (Martin, H. 2012). The schools said, “This led to the beginnings of a new, creative topic structure with a strong focus on out of classroom learning. The addition of the Forest School, using a stretch of woodland one mile away, enriched this culture. Every child has a forest school experience each year; this improves their confidence, self-esteem, collaborative and enquiry skills” (Ridgers et al 2012).

Opportunities may therefore arise for the use of local parkland or green space close to woodland areas for the development of a new school building; however, it can be argued that building schools to improve education on local parkland is counterproductive. This has the potential to take away a valuable community asset, but more importantly, take away or damage natural educational opportunities.

In the area of Further Education, there is also an opportunity for the city council to expand on its current apprenticeship schemes with more apprenticeships geared to looking after our parks and woodland areas and helping to set young people up with opportunities for their future employment.

With the majority of the population of Liverpool living close to parks, green space and woodland areas, the council must aim to help increase the diversity of visitors from across the city to our parks through education.

“The goal of early childhood education should be to activate the child’s own natural desire to learn.”

Maria Montessori

48

Thinking outside the box

49

Later in the report there will be discussion over the potential regime change for the long-term financial security of the city’s green and open spaces. It is however assumed that in the short-term at least, such provision will remain within council control. The following sections will therefore investigate

the existing possibilities in order to continue to close the financial gap for Liverpool’s green and open space provision which could ultimately both help the council to fight austerity and make any alternative regimes more realistic.

7. Finance - Balancing the Books?With key contributions from Board Members Ron Odunaiya, Victoria Owens and LCC Finance Team

Chair’s Comment:

It is very difficult to put the exact economic value on the City’s unbuilt environment. The incredibly successful ‘Giants’ events, Tour of Britain

(cycling) stages and the ‘3 Queens’ visit took place entirely on the highways and in the open and blue spaces of Liverpool and generated millions of

pounds toward the economy of the city, and yet these events are a huge financial burden on the Council’s balance sheets for reasons of logistical

planning, post event clean up etc. and the limited fees charged by Liverpool City Council to use the city’s green and open spaces. Further to Central

Government budgetary cuts, this is rapidly becoming untenable but a loss of such events would be significant to the city’s prestige, its people

and very importantly, its visitor economy. The River Mersey, parks and other civic areas also have an economic value by just making Liverpool an

attractive place to visit, do business and live.

Thus parks, recreation grounds, nature reserves and other public green spaces are a priceless asset with regard to urban living but this report was

partly born out of the fact that the city is struggling to allocate the finances required to maintain these places. Valuable lessons can be learned from

other councils such as Nottingham City Council with regard to the commercial offer of green space provision. Yet even in Nottingham the books do

not balance (https://nottinghaminsight.org.uk/f/96578/Library/Council-Government-and-Democracy/Financial-Statements/) and the cost of public

open space provision remains whilst the value is unquantifiable.

50

For the purposes of this report the current and possible future revenue streams and maintenance costs of Liverpool’s green space provision will be broken down into the following areas:

•Public Parks Finances

•Sports and Recreation Finances

•Highways and Verges Finances

•Other Finances

7.1 Public Parks FinancesThroughout the duration of the review Liverpool City Council has continued to seek to reduce costs and improve income from the public spaces. This is an ongoing process which requires extensive analysis of current and future trends in government and Local Authority financing and maintenance costs.

7.1.1 Balancing the BooksThe current costs for green space maintenance and the overall analysis of costs and income for green spaces can be viewed in Appendices 5 and 6 respectively.

Table 1 provides an overview of the current costs and income for Parks and Public Green Space.

Table1. Parks and Public Green Space Overall Costs 2016/17

Cost Element Value in £ (2016/17)

Costs £3, 754,056

Income

(concessions and rents)

£387,600

Efficiencies in maintenance regime from Cemeteries and Crematoria

£1,301,230

Balance £2,065,226

Over the last 2 years, Glendale-Liverpool Ltd have implemented a number of efficiencies in the grounds maintenance of cemeteries and crematoria totalling circa £1.3 million per annum. It is recommended that this efficiency be ring-fenced and continue to be reinvested into parks maintenance. Given the costs involved it is important that existing funding streams are not lost and the current support from Cemeteries and Crematoria that provides a ‘legacy’ contribution to the parks maintenance is preserved.

One way possibly to reduce the parks maintenance cost deficit is to follow Burnley’s example (Appendix 7) and take the provision of green and open spaces back in house, under Liverpool City Council control, at the end of the current contract. This would in theory allow the city to regain control over the programme of maintenance and lower the overall costs of managing the programme. However, based on the updated 2016/17 figures discussed above, Liverpool City Council cannot afford to do this unless other possible models are considered. One option available to Liverpool City Council would be to move towards a transitional maintenance arrangement which lowers the revenue costs to the city.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the £1.3 million efficiencies from Cemeteries

and Crematoria be retained and continue to be reinvested back into parks.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that if transitional funding cannot be secured prior

to 2017/18 then maintenance of the City’s green and open spaces should

be reduced from its current regime to 50-70% in the interim. At such a

point when a sustainable form of financing becomes available the 100%

maintenance (modified to meet needs) can be reinstated.

51

7.1.2 Public Park - Alternative maintenance regimesTo highlight the opportunities to Liverpool City Council a range of best practice exemplars can be identified highlighting how different cities and parks are working with alternative financing regimes- these include excellent examples to be found nationally such as the Heeley Development Trust in Sheffield www.heeleypeoplespark.co.uk and Streatham Common Co-operative in London www.sccoop.org.uk/

These include:

The Isla Gladstone The Isla Gladstone in Stanley Park operates a successful commercial business within a public park. Based within a large, historic conservatory building and with a vested interest in the state of Stanley Park, the commercial viability of the Isla Gladstone is closely linked to the quality of the surrounding park.

Speke Hall Speke Hall is a historic property and grounds which lie within the city. It is currently operated by the National Trust as part of their nationwide parks trust model, which generates a mixed income from gifts, membership, entrance fees to buildings, merchandising and endowment. This in turn, subsidises and facilitates the ongoing maintenance of the estate.

Acrehurst Park, Belle Vale This excellently presented public park was developed and is currently maintained by Riverside Housing Association with resident input. (Appendix 8)

Chavasse Park, City CentreThis distinctive, raised quasi-public space is the largest green roof in the city and is maintained by Liverpool ONE Management Group. Its green flag quality status was re-awarded for another year in July 2016.

Business Improvement District (BID)Maintenance of this quasi-public space to the rear of Exchange Station has previously been paid for by businesses located in the Business Improvement District (BID) through an agreed business environment improvement levy but is now Council owned and maintained.

Re-wilding the cityA process of re-wilding could be appropriate if the city fails to identify alternative sources of funding for green and open space post 2017/18. The process of re-wilding has been successfully employed in other locations and could provide a short-term solution between the current financial scenarios faced by the city and the identification of alternative funding sources, and a longer-term solution to permanently reduce maintenance budgets.

All of these very different examples potentially have something to offer when looking at the possibilities to continue to maintain and enhance the city’s parks and green spaces in the future.

7.1.3 The Future - Public Parks, Nature Reserves and other Public Spaces

Whilst certain alternative regimes could reduce the cost of running parks and green space the savings under the current regime made over the previous five years have to all intents and purposes cut the current workforce ‘to the bone’, and have led to the loss of skilled and knowledgeable personnel. There are already signs of falling standards in some of the city’s parks and other green spaces, where the management regimes are considered by some locals to now be inadequate for the level of use (for instance in Walton Hall Park).

Further savings could be made by following some other cities and taking the maintenance back in house and thus removing any management fee payable (see section 7.1.1 - although this could be a moot point if there is no money for any maintenance regime of any sort). Any future ‘in-house’ regime would also benefit from increasing revenue from Liverpool’s green and open space assets as it is felt that there is great potential in this area. Liverpool City Council can work with small businesses and other service providers to assess what opportunities exist to increase the economic returns from green and open spaces without impacting negative on the integrity of these spaces.

Raising revenue within our parks can essentially be broken down into two elements, commercial revenue and event revenue.

52

Commercial revenueThere are already a number of examples across the city such as Otterspool Adventure Centre and the Isla Gladstone which are considered to be good examples of what can be achieved in our parks.

Businesses operating within our parks provide added value and increase footfall within the park. There is a need to support and develop business within our parks, as not only do they help to animate the park but importantly because businesses within parks are able to raise revenue to help support and maintain parks.

LeasesCurrently the business leases are not robust and many still rely on the city council to inspect, report and carry out most, if not all, repairs. Some rents have not been updated and are out of line with current commercial rates and fail to account for potential growth. There are also a number of buildings within the parks that are empty or underutilised and could accommodate local business and generate funding for the maintenance of the park. Work is currently underway within the city council to both review existing leases and commercial arrangements within parks and to explore the commercial appetite for some of the unused buildings within our green space. It will be important going forward that a significant proportion of income generated from any sale of buildings within the green space is ring fenced for the future maintenance of the park/s.

ConcessionsThere are currently a low number of concessions in the parks and although they do bring in important income there is an opportunity to develop this income stream further. In recent months the city council has updated its tender and procurement process for parks concessions which has seen a positive increase in income and there are plans to test additional concessions at new sites. Increasing the type and location of hot and cold concessions and ensuring that adequate enforcement is in place to protect concession holders will help the city council to grow this area of future income. There is also an opportunity to explore the potential for all business users of parks (boot camps, professional dog walkers, private sports trainers etc.) to register and contribute financially to the future maintenance and upkeep.

Going forwardThe following opportunities and actions have been identified to increase revenue into the parks budgets and to improve the process for leases and concessions:

• Review current lease agreements to ensure they are not financially detrimental to the city council. Produce a framework for future leases to ensure rents are realistic and terms fair to both parties.

• Create a plan for empty, derelict buildings in parks.

• Consider a franchise business agreement to apply to all new businesses operating within a park. This would rely on a percentage of the turnover being handed back to the council and have the added bonus that it may also promote some degree of networking within the parks business community.

• Identify areas within parks where a concession could work particularly in the smaller parks where there is no current café facility.

• Place a value on a concession area to establish a fair rent for the area.

• Review the tender process to ensure it does not become a downward-bidding process.

• Introduce an audit process to help support businesses and provide guidance and ensure compliance with lease and franchise agreement.

• Should a business wish to expand and promote a new idea this should be encouraged and supported rather than put out for tender.

• Identify a community business support ‘Advisor’ providing a point of call and support/promotion for park businesses.

53

In addition, there are a number of new financial initiatives that can also be considered:

• Create a concession licence/badge – visible on inspection - for boot camp and dog-walking businesses.

• Improve the promotion of the memorial bench initiative and develop additional memorial initiatives such as ‘Memory Walks,’ where people could buy a brick to create a walkway in memory of a loved one, or pay to plant and maintain a tree.

• Create sponsorship packages to sell to local business which in turn pay for the maintenance of a particular area e.g. Japanese garden sponsored by local restaurant including a food event during the summer, photo opportunity with Mayor, subtle advertising within the area etc.

• Create ‘100 Club’ – local business participates in a raffle with the prize of free marketing/branding of an event/area.

• Sponsorship of areas within our parks using subtle advertising.

Event revenue

“Give people a reason to come to the park and they will!”

Anonymous Parks User

Liverpool is a place like no other, and undeniably the home of incredible innovative events. The programme of events held across the city in the past has been very successful, well received and supported, but it is increasingly apparent that as a city we can no longer afford to host these events unless we can also cover costs incurred through associated clean-up and reinstatement works.

If we are to raise revenue from events in parks we need to factor in all costs; ensuring that we actively market and promote our parks to all whilst simultaneously increasing parks income.

One initiative that caught the imagination of the Board was that of ‘MyPark Scotland’ at http://www.mypark.scot/. Their remit is to connect people to their parks by providing up to date information on park locations, facilities and what’s on. The web site also provides details of exciting projects that will help to improve the parks for future generations and additionally provides a method of funding park improvements and longer term investments by combining elements of project funding, for individuals and businesses to support parks and projects, with an investment strategy to develop longer-term sustainability and endowment funds. Currently this is Scotland’s only

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that a review of the commercialisation opportunities

for the city’s green and open spaces be undertaken to identify sites where

activities and/or businesses can be promoted to increase revenue. The

Board recommends that Liverpool City Council works with local communities

and businesses to identify opportunities for small, medium and large scale

commercialisation activities.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that all commercial receipts generated from

commercial activities including, but not exclusively from, income associated

with parks leases, parks concessions and parks sponsorship be ring-fenced

to fund on-going maintenance of the city’s green and open spaces. This

income would be utilised to manage green spaces across Liverpool, and

not just the sites where events are held.

54

crowd funding site specifically for parks and green spaces and through the web site people can Gift Aid donations the ‘extra funding’ going towards building an endowment fund for Scotland parks. This is a model that could be usefully considered and adopted in Liverpool and forms part of a recommendation within the Engagement section of this report.

To progress this further commercialisation in innovation there is a need to develop a strategic approach to events in our parks that involve local businesses as well as the business based in the parks. Liverpool is a city that is opening itself up for business and our parks have a big role to play in helping to attract large scale events and attracting footfall and revenue. For example:

• There is a need for a joined up approach between Green Space Officers and Culture Liverpool Officers, along with a need to simplify the application process; potentially considering investment into an online application process that includes all outdoor event bookings on public realm. This will encourage more enquiries, create a smoother process and present the council more professionally.

• Green Space Officers and Culture Liverpool Officers should work together to share expertise and to streamline and improve the events application process for park events. Additional support should be sought from wider Liverpool city council officers e.g. Licencing, Highways, Streetscene, City Centre Management etc. Crowd funding could also be considered along similar lines to the successful examples at ‘My Park Scotland’.

• A scale of differential charges needs to be established for premier and key park sites to maximise their earning potential so that the income they generate can help to support other parks and open spaces. Charges and costs should seek to recover all associated reinstatement and clean-up costs and an upfront bond to cover these costs (based on the types, size, and duration of event) should be provided before any events and returned after any necessary deductions have been made after the event. Consideration should also be given to introducing a disruption or non-operational charge (if applicable) to all events.

• The Council should seek to balance the commercialisation of parks with the continuation of free or affordable charges for charitable/voluntary/not for profit events.

• Successful key park initiatives such as “The Walk in the Park” campaign should be developed, replicated and marketed into smaller parks e.g. ‘A Walk in the Park’ to help attract further commercial events and be linked to a new centrally managed booking system.

• Tenders should be sought for smaller commercial events such as circus and funfair to ensure best value for the city council.

• The implementation of a new central booking process would need to be supported by a dedicated commercial officer, who could focus on parks events and seek to maximise their income. Whilst parks officers remain a key consultee their expertise is not necessarily in event planning and finance and it is suggested that this role could be best delivered through staff in the Culture Liverpool Team for an agreed management fee.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that Green Space Officers and Culture Liverpool

Officers should work together with additional identified Liverpool City

Council staff to share expertise and streamline and improve the events

application process for park events.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that all income generating events in parks should

be managed by the Culture Liverpool Team in liaison with Green Space

Officers. Revenue generated through park events should be ring fenced

for future parks maintenance, subject to payment of an agreed percentage

management fee to the Culture Liverpool Team.

55

7.2 Sport and Recreation Finance Just like public parks, dedicated green space allocated to Sports and Recreation is also non statutory, which in the current climate of sedentary health issues and obesity is rather surprising. Current dedicated sport and recreation pitch facility costs are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Sports and Recreation Overall Costs 2016/17

Cost Element Value in £ (2016/17)

Costs (Expenditure) £520,463

Income £160,000

Balance Minus £360,463

N.B. This refers to sports provision outside of parks.

All green space sports provision (outside of that in parks) currently costs the city £360,463 per year. This will come under increasing pressure as non-statutory budgets continue to be cut. There has been a move in recent years toward shifting the management and financing of council managed spaces to private businesses, and in light of budget contraction this looks likely to continue. Any transfers should, however, be done with great care in order to avoid the visibility of issues that surround sites like Olive Mount Sports Fields. The loss of school sports fields for development is also notable.

The baseline assessment of the number of playing pitches disposed of across the city in the last ten years is subject to change given that it is an assessment of the pitches in the city dependent on variables such as pitches being ‘disused’, ‘lapsed’, new secured community access arrangements emerging, and the opening of new/replacement playing surfaces as a result of planning conditions. The number of playing pitches at a given site can fluctuate over periods of time for reasons relating to management and maintenance - this means the findings of a count conducted in one season may differ from results of similar exercise conducted previously or in future seasons.

The current supply of playing pitches across the city was established through undertaking a series of independent data review, research and consultation exercises. This included a review of information held by the council; site visits to pitches owned and managed by the council; consultation with key stakeholders; and a survey of all identified sports clubs as agreed with the council. This exercise was undertaken in 2013 and is the basis of Liverpool’s Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS is currently under review with Sport England and seeks to provide guidance for planning decisions made across Liverpool up to 2020.

This strategy will help in identification, and prioritisation, of playing pitches that are of local and city-wide significance and guide the City Council and its partners to work collaboratively (i.e. reduce duplication and competition), identify and use limited resources to optimum effect.

It is against this background that future provision must be considered.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that all commercial for-profit events held in the

city’s green spaces are charged appropriate licensing fees that cover the

reinstatement costs and make a financial contribution to ongoing site

maintenance.

56

7.2.1 Playing pitch strategy (PPS)The Liverpool PPS together with a number of other important City Council Strategies and documents (including the Physical Activity and Sport Strategy) forms part of the evidence base that will support local planning and other policies for Liverpool.

The primary purpose of the PPS is to provide a strategic framework which ensures that the provision of outdoor playing pitches meet the local needs of existing and future residents within the city. In addition, the Football Association (FA) Strategy was produced in accordance with the national planning guidance and provides robust and objective justification for future playing pitch provision throughout Liverpool.

Liverpool City Council in partnership with Sport England and the five main pitch sport national governing bodies (The Football Association FA, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union, Rugby Football League and the England Hockey Board) produced a Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) for Liverpool during 2012/13. The PPS Action Plan has helped inform a variety of investment projects and planning applications since the policy was signed off by the Steering Group in December 2013. All partners acknowledged the need to update the baseline data for the PPS Action Plan and take into account changes in sport programmes and projects, particularly the FA Investment Programme for Liverpool. It was agreed that the PPS should be refreshed to reflect changes that have occurred since 2013.

The 2016 PPS will address a number of key factors including:

• Rectify quantitative shortfalls through improvements to the current pitch stock;

• establish a framework to inform planning application negotiations which involve the loss of playing fields;

• establish an approach to securing developer contributions which priorities projects according to a range of core criteria;

• work with facility providers to establish an approach to co-ordinate investment.

The following key priorities and objectives are required relative to the FA Investment Programme:

• Determine the future requirements of sites/pitches where there is currently no recorded football play and/or spare capacity at education sites to address overplay on senior, youth and mini pitches;

• identify strategic grass pitch sites and improve football pitch quality in order to increase capacity to accommodate unmet and future demand for youth 11 vs 11 and adult 11 vs 11 football;

• a current shortfall of one full size 3G (third generation) Artificial Grass Pitches (AGPs) to service unmet demand for football in the north of the city;

• deliver a phased implementation of new 3G Artificial Grass Pitches (AGPs) and changing facilities on strategic hub sites to meet the FA Chairman’s England Commission priorities and be the catalyst to address shortfalls in provision in the city e.g. shortfall of adult pitches in the south of the city.

Each of these priorities seek to focus future investment into a new more sustainable business model for football within the city, where key football hub sites, (including changing facilities and the creation of new 3G AGPs to serve for training, affiliated match play and recreational football) will, in turn, support the maintenance and improvement of key grass pitch sites.

To achieve this the City Council is required to enter into an investment partnership with the external joint funding partners (Football Association FA, Premier League and Sport England) totalling £12.6 million and commit a City Council £4.4 million capital contribution to the development and construction of the new third generation (3G) pitches and ancillary facilities.

The benefits to Liverpool will include new and affordable facilities – artificial pitches, improved grass pitches and changing, increased participation levels, and improved health; major capital investment from national sources and a potential long-term saving to the council as more play is concentrated on fewer pitches.

57

The FA model is based around all grass roots football delivery in an area being focused on floodlit 3G pitches and a small number of high quality grass pitch hub sites. The ownership of the improved sites after the investment has been undertaken would be transferred from council ownership to a new city-wide local delivery vehicle (Football Trust) responsible for maintenance and management of football in the city.

The proposal in Liverpool is to invest in up to 4 hub sites across the city; each consisting of three floodlit artificial grass pitches, three grass pitches, associated changing provision and extensive car parking. The sites that have been identified are Jeffrey Humble Playing Fields, Heron Eccles Playing Fields, Jericho Lane Playing Fields and the Simpson Ground. At least two of these sites would include a health and fitness offer.

Figure 2. Map of Football Association Hub Sites.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2016

Ordnance Survey 100018351

Chair’s Comment:

‘The City Council is already working with the FA to create 4 citywide 3G

football hubs. I have real misgivings about this model. Personally, natural

play always seems to be the best option and, though unproven at this point,

the potential health risks associated with the rubber crumb incorporated

into the 3G pitches should be carefully and thoroughly investigated before

swapping grass pitches for synthetic pitches in the long term. I watch with

disquiet as my daughter’s under 8’s football team make piles of the crumb

and throw it at each other! Despite the evidence of a shortfall of pitches in

the south of the city, I also wonder whether locating three of the hubs within

a 1.5-mile radius of each other is a ‘citywide’ model’?

Even though the Council continue to make great efforts to be more

sustainable, simply due to the public access ethos and being affordable for

all, Council sports provision is loss making and subsidised. However, there

are significant streams of revenue generated by some sports away from

the public sector. Football for example, which makes up the majority of

the council maintained pitches, generates enormous amounts of money for

other interested parties.

The Football Association made £261million profit in the year ending 2014,

which is far less than the estimated £3billion generated by the Premier

League. Liverpool FC and Everton FC received a combined figure of over

£170 million from the Premier League this year (2015/16) alone.

This multi-million pound entertainment industry owes a great deal to the

council maintained pitches and public parks where young talent is nurtured

and discovered.

Jeffrey HumblePlaying Fields

Jericho LanePlaying Fields

Heron EcclesPlaying FIeld

SimpsonGround

58

Where sport has no boundaries

© Francis Rowlands

59

7.2.2 Other sports provision modelsAs well as a sport being supported by larger organisations with a vested interest in its continuity, there are also examples of how sports provision can be run outside Liverpool City Council but remain relatively accessible and affordable:

• Allerton Municipal Golf Course is now maintained privately but with a contract to provide ‘Pay Per Play’ access.

• Mersey Bowmen Tennis Club in Sefton Park, is a further example of how sports facilities run by a voluntary group of members can be supported by national bodies like Sport England and the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA).

• The Alder Sports Club provides a variety of sports in conjunction with a bar and function room facility.

However, although these examples highlight the ability of sports provision to be managed by non-Liverpool City Council organisations, some may also constrain use by the public. Private courses and tennis clubs exclude some members of society who may be put off from joining a club or having to pay to play sport. It may therefore be useful to link the provision of private/semi-private facilities with an additional proviso in their contracts that they allocate

funding to the City Council to co-fund fully public facilities. One example would be Sefton Park Tennis Club, (Mersey Bowmen) which could provide funding to subsidise the management of the public courts in Sefton Park, thus ensuring that all people can benefit from these resources. In addition, there has been recent contact with the ‘John Mitchel’s Gaelic Football Club’ who have expressed an interest to investigate the possibility of a Community Asset Transfer or long lease of the Council owned pitch in Greenbank Lane.

Thus, while sports provision plays a vital role within a city, if approached carefully with an all-inclusive philosophy, it is deemed that such is the commercial interest and potential of the offer private organisations, local and national stakeholders must now engage more than ever to assist the city’s offer going forward. This can be achieved through financial, commercial or logistical support in order to stop the impending decline as budgets diminish and uphold the invaluable ‘sport for all’ spirit within the city.

7.3 Highways and Verges FinancesAlthough the maintenance of highways and roadside verges is technically a non-statutory service, Liverpool City Council does have a legal obligation to keep sight lines clear and all transport corridors safe, such as checking roadside tree health. Therefore, it is assumed throughout the remainder of this report that the costs of such provision will have to be maintained (with possible increases in line with the costs of service provision). However, if less intensive management regimes are investigated costs could go down.

This report will not focus on this section of green and open spaces provision at all.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that to ensure a continuation of Liverpool’s proud

heritage of creating national and international talent in football it is imperative

that both of the city’s football clubs and the Premier League and the city’s

professional football clubs join with the FA and enter into dialogue with the

City Council to discuss the viability of funding and improving football pitch

provision and management in the long-term.

60

7.4 Other Spaces FinanceAs well as our public parks, nature reserves and recreation ground there are hundreds of other smaller public green spaces dotted throughout the city. This provision is very labour intensive as the associated travel, unloading and reloading of plant and equipment takes a good deal of time and thus makes these small spaces relatively expensive to maintain.

7.4.1 Current cost other spaces 2016/17The current costs for these other, incidental spaces is calculated to be £51,811 for 2016/17.

7.4.2 Incidental space - alternative maintenance regimes

There are already diverse examples of how such spaces could be managed under different regimes should the council be unable to do so as predicted earlier.

• Derwent Square This is a green space within a conservation area that is maintained by

a voluntary levy raised by the properties surrounding the space as well as in kind hours. The space is integral to the architectural style of the surrounding properties but it should be noted that this is not a public space and use is at the invitation of the residents only.

• Business Improvement District, BID Previously a levy has been paid by businesses to improve the environment

in the proximity of the work place.

• Pocket Park, Sandheys Close, Kirkdale A previously unkempt brownfield site is now a community garden

managed by Liverpool Mutual Homes (LMH) with volunteer force in support.

• Ferngrove Community Growing Garden, Toxteth A ‘meanwhile space’ initiative entirely maintained by a local community

group with support from local councillors.

• Community Asset Transfer As per the Interim Report recommendations, the Board has held meetings

with stakeholders around Menlove Gardens and Circular Road West to investigate different models of Community Asset Transfer of ‘Incidental Spaces’ in order to reduce current maintenance costs.

The Menlove Gardens meeting was very well attended by the local residents and after much debate it was generally agreed that two models could be further investigated. The first being a full community asset transfer to the community and the second being a partial transfer of maintenance with the council retaining ownership and liability of the space.

Both models would see the area continue to be a public space. The Board have tasked council officers to continue this work following the conclusion of the review.

The West Circle (Circular Road West) public meeting was less well attended but those that did attend discussed at great length the possibilities for a different approach and other examples to be found elsewhere in the country. Liverpool Mutual Homes (LMH) was also in attendance and has been very supportive of the process. Liverpool Mutual Homes later held a further ‘Impact’ day to engage the community further and identified that 58% of those questioned used the space and would be interested in being part of a group to decide its future.

Other possibilities for alternative provision should also be explored. Engagement with the Homebaked co-operative and Community Land Trust in Anfield has been very positive and the group have shown a real appetite the potential community asset transfer of the currently run down recreational space to the rear of the building at Oakfield Road.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the Council continue the engagement with

Menlove Gardens and Circular Road West communities to investigate and

build transferrable models of alternative maintenance.

61

The group has a very clear vision for the space with plans to develop a community growing space and reinvigorate the recreational aspect of the site. There has already been positive dialogue with LCC and this could be used as an excellent example of creating alternative public play areas.

7.4.3 The Future for Incidental SpacesAs the Council becomes unable to provide sufficient budget for the maintenance of green spaces such as those described above it is almost inevitable that community groups, enthusiastic individual and stakeholders such as businesses and Housing Associations will have to step into the void to stop local pockets of much needed greenery falling into disuse and disrepair. This may happen organically as people notice the maintenance dwindling or could be done strategically with the support of Housing Associations, schools and other community stakeholders.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that when a community organisation can generate

community value from the management and maintenance of incidental

spaces, the city council should prioritise that community’s needs in any

development proposals for those spaces.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that Liverpool City Council should continue

to work with the Anfield based Homebaked Community Land Trust to

explore opportunities for Homebaked to take over the maintenance and

development of the recreational ground to the rear of this building.

62

Small is beautiful too

There is no single option that can be used to meet the current and future needs of the city’s green and open spaces. What alternatives are available and how these can be achieved may be one or a mixture of options outlined above. What is certain is that by reviewing the appropriateness of each option Liverpool City Council, the Review and the Board, and the city’s residents are engaging in a much needed and broad conversation.

8.1 Six Options for ConsiderationBased on the assumption that ‘the current model isn’t working’ and that this issue needs to be urgently addressed, the Chair and the Board Members have investigated at great length alternative ways to maintain and enhance our green and open spaces. Many have been considered (some already exist within Liverpool as discussed earlier) but after due consideration a smaller number of models emerge as the most appropriate and relevant to the management scenarios facing Liverpool and these are presented below.

Option 1: Referendum for Parks levyThe people of Liverpool could be asked via referendum whether they would be willing to pay a levy on the Council Tax bill ring-fenced for the maintenance of green spaces, with contributions varying by Council tax bands from £5 (Band A) to £15 (Band H), thereby making the service statutory at a local level.

Apart from the objections to paying ‘extra tax’, the referendum would in itself cost money to undertake. However, the value to Liverpool of its139 parks (and other green and open spaces) could be seen as an investment in the future prosperity of the city and its environment. If adopted the levy could be administrated by the City Council or an independent Parks Trust.

8. Other Options Including Park TrustsKey contributions from Board Members Councillor Steve Munby, Steve Stuart and LCC Finance Team.

Chair’s Comment:

As was previously discussed even with more commercialisation

and a radical overhaul of the revenue generated by the city’s

parks it is still very unlikely that the maintenance budget could

be reduced to zero under the current regime. Therefore, if the

landscapes of Liverpool are to remain accessible green and

open spaces, then it is clear that an alternative form of funding

and management is needed.

Chair’s Comment:

For just £5 per person per year we could ensure the security

of all the public parks and sports pitches throughout the city.

That’s what I call value for money.

63

64

Option 2: Car park levyThere is a growing case for using monies raised from parking charges, not least for car parking in and around parks, to fund other non-vehicular infrastructure. If Liverpool City Council were to ring-fence a proportion of car parking income to pay for parks and green space maintenance either in the short or long-term then these resources could be funded indefinitely.

Car parks modify urban landscapes by concretising natural resources and creating barriers between the earth, people and wildlife - Dr William Bird makes this clear in his paper prepared for the Review (Appendix 3). Dr Bird refers to a possible levy paid by Medical Centres to fund other activities and infrastructure, which could be extrapolated on a city-scale in Liverpool if car parking charges were made available. There is also a direct correlation between car parking and air pollution (http://www.airqualitynews.com/2016/02/12/london-car-parking-plans-prompt-pollution-concern/). Thus an argument could be made where funding the city’s green and open spaces could be viewed as offsetting a proportion of the emissions of the city’s traffic pollution and green space ‘loss’.

By ring-fencing a proportion of the surplus revenue raised by Liverpool City Council from car parking which averaged £2.03 million pounds per year from 2012 - 2015 (£2.606 million for 2014/15), coupled with more effective commercialisation and/or alternative maintenance regimes, the city’s public parks and open spaces would be safeguarded for the foreseeable future. Moreover, if employed effectively an additional proportion of any surplus could be used to enhance the ‘Green Web’ network (see section 9.5). This would, in effect, help release a proportion of the pressures placed on existing highways infrastructure, as the development of traffic-free corridors would promote more non-vehicular movement.

Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, car park revenue surplus can only be used for certain purposes including: passenger transport, highway improvements and environmental improvements. The environmental improvements include:

1. The reduction of environmental pollution.

2. Improving a road or piece of land in the vicinity of a road.

3. The provision of outdoor recreational facilities available to the general public without charge.

The advantage of using the car parking levy surplus is that it already exists and could be appropriated or ring-fenced with legal amendments in the short term. As Liverpool City Council has continually demonstrated that there will be no money for non-statutory services within two years this would be an appropriate opportunity to utilise existing funding streams to safeguard the city’s parks and green spaces as a long term model or until a Parks Trust is put in place.

Option 3: Tourism levy

“If Liverpool wants to continue its current popularity in tourist ratings and attract residents then it needs to stop hammering green spaces.”

Penny (written submission)

With just under 2.3 million overnight stays in Liverpool during 2014 the city is a major national and international tourism destination (Liverpool Vision 2015). By way of example in 2014 Liverpool was identified by Rough Guide as the 3rd best place to visit in the UK or world. Also, the RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) placed Liverpool’s historic waterfront as ‘England’s’ Greatest Place’ in December 2015.

If the City Council were to adopt a £1 per person per night ‘tourism tax’ this would raise the revenue needed to maintain the green and open spaces which visitors enjoy. Such local taxes are commonplace in European countries, e.g. France, where small 1 - 2 Euro payments are required as a local tax. Unfortunately, such levies, unless voluntarily accepted by cities and their

65

businesses are illegal in the UK, and any changes would require legislation to be adopted by central government.

A prime justification for any proposed ‘tourist tax’ is the added value that Liverpool’s green and open spaces, as well as the Mersey River provide. The city’s landscape is a significant element of Liverpool as an attractive and welcoming city. Moreover, visitors to the riverfront, and the city’s parks for events bring a large financial boost to the economy of Liverpool per annum.

Option 4: Student levyStudents form one of the largest distinct communities in the city. Students from the University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and from Liverpool Hope University are residents and employees in the city, they are also frequent users of the city’s landscape for recreation and study.

Currently there are approximately 48,000 students enrolled in University programmes in the city and more enrolled in further and tertiary education. This is a significant body who could make a more direct impact on the funding and management of the city’s green and open spaces. For example, Students and/or the Universities could be asked to:

1. Pay into an endowment fund to manage green and open spaces in close proximity to student halls of residence or campuses.

2. The universities are making significant investment in their on and off-campus facilities. They could extend their capital/revenue programmes and sponsor or take leased ownership of sites, e.g. Crown Street Park or Greenbank Park, and manage them on behalf of the city.

3. Whilst students do not pay council tax they could be asked to pay a minor payment to the city council or through the University of £3 - £5 which could be ring-fenced for parks management, which could generate over £144,000 - £240,000 pro rata, per annum towards maintenance budgets.

4. Through the Liverpool Students Guild and Students Union societies, students could work with Glendale Liverpool Limited to train as volunteer park wardens/maintenance crews. This could provide essential experience for students and provide a valuable co-productive service for the city.

5. The universities could play a greater civic role in promoting the socio-economic and ecological value of the city’s green and open spaces, and taking ownership and leadership of Liverpool’s green space campaigns.

The practicalities of developing any of these options are subject to ongoing discussions between the three universities in the city and Liverpool City Council. It is therefore important to ensure that dialogue continues as the universities can contribute to debates over green space issues and have the intellectual expertise to promote diverse thinking in terms of green space management. The universities also have a significant body of staff and students who can be engaged to support volunteering and project work throughout Liverpool.

Option 5: Do nothingA further option, and potentially the most radical, is to leave parks to go ‘wild’ or re-nature the city until an alternative source of funding e.g. crowd funding, individual/corporate philanthropy or a more enlightened central government fills the void. The city’s parks are currently maintained to a high standard and moving to a re-wilding regime of limited maintenance, i.e. one/two grass cuttings per year would be a significant shift in management.

However, elsewhere re-wilding or limiting the level of management that the city’s parks receive would remove some of the financial costs of maintenance and if the sites were protected once re-wilded, could reduce the level of discussion of whether land sales of parks or green spaces are needed. The argument about whether some sites should be sold to endow the remaining area was challenged by the dark days of the 1970’s and 80’s. It should be noted that if such practice was applied to Sefton Park the HLF could demand significant financial claw-back from previous investment in the Park.

66

The past, present and future?

67

‘The parks may have been wrecked and abandoned but they were still there’

Public speaker at meeting.

Option 6: Parks TrustFollowing continued investigation, evidence gathering and collaboration with interested parties and independent experts one practical possibility has come to the fore regarding future maintenance. Liverpool’s parks could be endowed as an Independent Parks Trust (or Trusts). Presented here is an overview of one such model but there are other possible models worth further work such as individual Parks Trusts or cluster based Trusts. Any Trust would function on similar principles to other Charitable Parks Trusts, be they a single Park Trust, City Park Trust or City Region Park Trust. All would require further work to test the robustness and desirability of each model.

Of all the possible long term maintenance regimes, a Charitable Parks Trust model is deemed by the Board to be the most attractive for the following reasons:

• The terms of reference for a Trust would be the enhancement and maintenance of Liverpool’s parks, which would provide a single, focused, strategic approach to the future of our parks.

• Liverpool would lead the way in achieving a radical approach to establishing a Trust model in an established Victorian City. This has not been implemented in the UK before and the city would be an exemplar for the protection and enhancement of urban green spaces.

• The blended finance approach, with other stakeholders sharing the burden of endowment and ongoing maintenance, would mean the city could realise the initial investment in relatively few years, after which time the ongoing maintenance burden would be removed from the Council for the long term.

• The Parks Trust could be expanded to a Metro or City Region scale to further increase efficiencies and the variety of offer.

• The formation of an independent Charitable Parks Trust would leave a lasting legacy so that whatever changes happen to the cityscape as the population rises the 139 parks within the Trust would be safeguarded for the people of Liverpool in perpetuity.

Whilst all the above options are worthy of consideration the Board was especially keen to explore the option of a Charitable Parks Trust for both financial and philosophical reasons.

The following section provides an example of how one such Parks Trust, a blended finance Parks Charitable Trust, would work, including consideration of issues such as scoping, affordability, maintenance, contingency and charitable status.

8.2 Exploring a Blended Finance Charitable Parks Trust Model

The Liverpool Parks Trust would work with identified city stakeholders to help endow, further commercialise and reduce maintenance costs within the city’s parks. These key stakeholder partners would have a significant influence on the long term governance and strategic development of the Parks Trust. However, the Liverpool Parks Trust would be an Independent Charitable Trust with an associated commercial company. All revenue raised by the Trust would be used for the ongoing integration, protection, maintenance and subsequent enhancement of all parks in the City. All parks within the Trust would be held on a leasehold basis with the ultimate ownership still being retained by Liverpool City Council on behalf of the people of Liverpool.

Scoping the Trust portfolioThe strategy behind such a Trust model is driven by both the future long term economic and physical security of the parks of Liverpool.

A Trust model is based on the principle of securing assets and/or capital funding and investing the capital or securing a commercial return from the assets to generate revenue funding. This type of Trust model has been successfully applied to parks large and small within the UK such as Beam

68

Parklands, Dagenham; Pottersfield Park, Southwark; Heeley Development Trust, Sheffield; Lambeth Co-operative Parks, Lambeth; Shenley Park Trust, Hertfordshire and outside of the UK to Bryant Park in New York where the investments have generated sufficient income (and more), to maintain and develop their parks and green spaces.

A proposal to endow all of Liverpool’s Parks is based on the following scoping criteria:

• Highways and Verges - excludedAs referenced in the Interim Report this provision is considered to be a statutory requirement because the city is legally required to keep all sight lines clear and to ensure the safety of road users with regard to issues including tree maintenance. Highways and verges would therefore be excluded from the Parks Trust model.

• Sports and Recreation Grounds - excludedTo be excluded: see Sports and Recreation section. However, it should be noted that there are cases around the city where sports provision falls within parks and this would continue to be the case within the Parks Trust. There are also mixed use sites which though deemed to be ‘Sports and Recreation Grounds’ clearly serve a dual purpose as a public park. Sites identified as such e.g. Wavertree Playground (The Mystery), Long Lane Rec (Garston Park) and Scargreen should also fall within the Parks Trust.

• Allotments - excludedAllotments are deemed to be largely cost neutral and there is also the possibility that they could be passed over to individual associations to be run on an independent basis.

• Cemeteries and Crematoria - included These sites are offset by income from internment and cremation and are generally deemed to be cost neutral but can and do generate efficiencies which are currently used to part fund green space maintenance. As such, these sites need to fall within the Parks Trust Model.

Making a Parks Trust affordable - capital costs and commercialisationThe updated costs for parks and cemeteries and crematoria maintenance are now £3,754,056 and £4,926,765 respectively (see Appendix 6). It can be argued that these costs could be further reduced to make a Parks Trust more affordable. For example, an initial comparison of Liverpool parks’ maintenance costs for a selection of key sites when benchmarked against best practice costs taken from APSE (Association of Public Service Excellence) suggest there may be an opportunity to reduce current costs by up to 20%. Similarly, using best practice data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies it may be possible under a Charitable Trust structure to reduce staffing costs by a similar margin. Perhaps the greatest possible cost reduction could be seen in reductions to the current corporate support service recharge costs (CSSR), which when compared with those from existing Charitable Trusts indicate significant potential savings of up to 75%.

Investigating and applying any such reductions and considering these alongside current and future income will almost certainly help to narrow the financial gap and reduce the endowment figure required to make a Charitable Parks Trust more attractive and affordable.

It is however, important to note that any resulting endowment figure would, in addition to the revenue streams and yearly maintenance costs of the green spaces, also need to factor in associated capital costs, which can vary greatly year by year for a variety of reasons and could increase the endowment sum required. As such, the capital costs and their impact on any future Trust model would need further exploration as they could differ greatly if moved from the systems and regulations governing the city council’s operations to those of a Charitable Trust. This is a detailed but necessary piece of future work in order to explore the viability of any Charitable Parks Trust model.

In addition to exploring the cost reduction opportunities and to offset any capital cost implications for a Trust model it would also be necessary to further commercialise any provision within a Charitable Parks Trust however appropriate. There is evidence that the income currently raised by the Council could be increased significantly. For example, Nottingham City Council have made a determined effort to increase their commercial offer within their parks and green spaces and now bring in circa £4m per annum. As with the capital costs, the opportunities for additional commercialisation will need further

69

detailed analysis and planning in association with relevant stakeholders to make any future Trust financially viable.

The detailed financial modelling and investigation, together with further work on both land categorisation and alternative stakeholder provision should be incorporated and explored more fully within the proposed ‘resilience funding bid’ to the Heritage Lottery Fund.

A Charitable Trust EndowmentIn a charitable context an endowment would belong to the Charitable Trust. Gifts to charity can result in donations being held for a charitable purpose or in the event of a failure of that purpose, for alternative charitable purposes. The endowment, therefore, would have to be held by the charity and in the event that for any reason the Trusts were to fail, then that endowment could only be used in an exclusively charitable way by distributing for other similar charitable purposes. It should be noted that it would be unlikely that the endowment could be used to relieve the investment rate and that, therefore, the use of such an endowment in the hands of anybody other than a charity for exclusively charitable purposes, would not be permitted by the charity regulator.

Charity endowments ought to be invested by responsible trustees in order to generate a proper return, such monies being expended upon exclusively charitable purposes of the Trust means that there is normally no charge to tax on income arising. Such a generous fiscal concession also applies in respect of any capital gain. However, charity trustees cannot invest their assets in every type of investment vehicle, but must rather confine their investments to those approved by HMRC. This list, however, is fairly expansive.

The endowment could be invested either for pure maximum return, or ethically. Endowment could be established in such a way that total return principles were adopted so that all of the income and potentially capital arising on a year-by-year basis could be redeployed for the benefit of the Trust.

Charities can hold land as part of their endowment and in this case the parks or open spaces concerned could potentially be held for a charitable use, i.e. use and occupation by beneficiaries as users of the park, or they may be held to exploit the asset to generate an income. It is also possible to use the assets for a combination of both purposes.

The asset being used for a charitable purpose but a charge being imposed for the use of that charitable asset is perfectly acceptable and that income could contribute to the endowment.

Charities are permitted to accumulate income for 21 years from their establishment, provided that the Trusts permit it. This would potentially permit the endowment to comprise a smaller capital amount at first with an ambition to expand that capital sum over a 21 year period. For example, collecting income from use of the parks through concessions or other non-charitable use could accumulate so that over a planned period an appropriately sized endowment could be created.

A charity could receive capital sums from a range of sources, including match-funding potentially from Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and/or the City and that money can be retained for specified use upon a restricted basis, i.e. it may only be applied for the park A, B or C. The more flexible approach would be to accumulate an endowment which the trustees would then determine the expenditure thereof. If terms are written flexibly then the endowment itself might be expended in an exceptional year where high expenditure was incurred, or it might be retained on a permanent basis so that only the income arising from it is expended upon the charitable work. It would, however, using this model be possible to use endowment monies that might have been associated with park A or the benefit of park B or C and vice versa, thus ensuring the sustainability of the project generally.

The endowment being invested in ordinary circumstances could be expected to achieve a yield according to market conditions and it would be possible for an accumulated expendable endowment, i.e. a non-permanent endowment, to sit alongside a permanent endowment so that peaks and troughs in the investment markets could be effectively ironed out, thus ensuring a sufficient income for the basic maintenance of the parks concerned on an ongoing basis.

Any businesses or individuals wishing to contribute to the endowment in the hands of a registered charity may do so using the benefits of either Gift Aid or the corporate scheme whereby a tax break is available through HMRC, according to the amount of the gift made available.

There are several examples of permanently endowed charities up and down the country, some of which have existed for many hundreds of years.

Prudent stewardship and management of the endowment are key and the selection of an appropriate investment policy would be one of the critical steps faced by the trustees in ensuring that the fund grows sufficiently on a capital basis so as to preserve the base value against inflation, whilst at the same time generating sufficient income to enable the proper maintenance and development of the parks to occur.

8.2.1 Future Considerations and Work

Brownfield DevelopmentThere is also potential to attach a portfolio of ‘Brownfield’ development sites to the endowment. These sites would be developed in partnership with Liverpool City Council and any profit split 50/50 between the endowment fund and Liverpool City Council. This would assist the city in achieving its housing targets and economic aspirations whilst enabling the Parks Trust to develop a robust mixed economy base for future investment.

Further contingency and capacity would be built by working with other Stakeholders to provide maintenance support for strategic parks to drive down costs further.

Potential StakeholdersPotential stakeholders positively currently engaged in endowment or alternative provision are:

• CCG: Clinical Commissioning Group

Several meetings have been held with key members of the CCG and dialogue remains ongoing.

• Housing Associations

Liverpool Mutual Homes, Cobalt Housing, South Liverpool Homes, Riverside Housing have been positive with regard to the potential maintenance of public green space in the proximity of their housing stock.

• Universities

Liverpool John Moores University, Hope University and University of Liverpool in particular, have shown a positive attitude toward collaborating in any future Parks Trust model.

• United Utilities

United Utilities continue to be positively engaged in a potential Parks Trust model and have agreed to investigate differing scenarios with regard to possible endowment of a Parks Trust model.

• Peel Holdings

Initial discussions with one of Liverpool’s largest private stakeholders have left the door open for further engagement.

• Mersey Forest

The Mersey Forest social enterprise has been updated and engaged throughout the review and is already a strategic partner.

• Liverpool Anglican Cathedral

The Dean and community stakeholders, given their interest in St James’s Garden and the green space surrounding the Cathedral have been very positive with regard to potential alternative maintenance regimes going forward.

• Community Groups

Menlove Gardens, West Circle (Circular Road West, Norris Green)

In response to the consultation undertaken by the Review Board, Liverpool Mutual Homes (LMH) also held a resident impact day on 3rd June 2016 to further investigate the appetite for local people to get involved in decisions and management for Circular Road West greenspace. Of the 24 respondents that completed a questionnaire 58% used the space and would be interested in being part of a group to decide its future, however, of these, 43% would prefer not to be involved in management and maintenance aspects.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the concept of a Parks Trust or Trusts be

explored and that subject to the establishment of a Parks Trust management

model that ‘(a) Shadow Board(s) of Trustees’ are created to oversee the

development of the Trust(s).

70

71

It must be stressed that whilst the above stakeholders are in active dialogue there are other potential Parks Trust provision partners - most notably Her Majesty’s Treasury, major regional corporations/companies, major supporters and commercial businesses along with individual philanthropists all interested in being involved.

Timeframe and Support

A target of two or more years could be set for the formation of the ‘Liverpool Parks Trust’, to allow for the setting up of Shadow Board(s) and the completion of legal paperwork.

The remaining issue is then the detailed planning of capital investment via HLF match funding and other commercial partners in order to capitalise fully and investigate the commercial potential of the city’s parks. This is currently considered to be outside the current scope of this Review.

Capacity

Following discussions with the HLF and The National Trust, Liverpool has been encouraged to bid for up to £250,000 HLF Resilience Funding from July 2016 to progress these works further for an 18 month period.

Chair’s Comment:

Whilst the fine details of the ‘Liverpool Parks Trust’ model needs further work it is seen as a very

viable option. The model has been examined and discussed with the National Trust, Directors of the

Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and independent financial advisors.

All have deemed the proposed Trust model to be robust and achievable.

HLF have encouraged Liverpool to continue to lead the way as the independent approach instigated

by the Mayor and this Review has put the city in a more advanced position than other core cities and

organisations to date. The ‘Liverpool Parks Trust’ would complete the mission of the Strategic Green

and Open Spaces Review by saving the amazing public parks we have from the threat of dereliction

and ensure they are here for the future generations of Liverpool.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that whichever future management option is

adopted that at least 50% of any dowry, uplift from development of open

space and/or sale of assets within the green space should be ring-fenced

for the Parks Trust or future maintenance of public green and open spaces.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that, where legal requirements are met, developer

contributions in the form of commuted sums are ring-fenced to financially

support the delivery of the city’s ‘Green Web’ (where most appropriate),

rather than being used to fund alternative services.

73

8.3 Croxteth Country Park and Hall

“Croxteth Park needs more publicity, more music events, etc and benefits from Forest Schools which give natural health from early years.”

Attendee (Consultation event 8)

Croxteth Country Park is the city’s largest park and one of Liverpool’s most important heritage sites. Key features of the park are Croxteth Hall, the Walled Garden and Croxteth Country Farm. Despite the opportunities provided by the park the City Council has failed over many years to secure adequate investment in the Hall and Park, attract the potential uses and visitors it could benefit from, and generate sufficient income either for capital investment or to secure a sustainable financial future for the Hall and Park. In the current financial year the Hall and Park are operating at a running loss of £1.7 million which represents a third of the total Parks budget.

Over the last 18 months discussions have taken place with key stakeholders on the future of the Hall and Country Park and in particular with two major operators in the park: Myerscough College in relation to their training provision and Alt Valley Community Trust in relation to Croxteth Country Farm. Negotiations are currently underway aimed at securing long term agreements with both parties, improved use of space, a reduction in running costs and an increase in income.

Towards the end of 2015 the Council issued a prospectus seeking ideas from the voluntary and private sector on activities which could increase the attractions of the Hall and Country Park and generate additional income. Following this a number of organisations and individuals made presentations over two days of sittings in Croxteth Hall to a panel composed of the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, council officers and representatives of the Friends of Croxteth Park and Croxteth Hall Volunteers. The presentations made clear the wide range of interest and potential offers to develop the Hall and Country Park. Further submissions were invited and received.

The range of interests and enquiries give confidence to take a new step in securing the future of Croxteth Hall and Country Park with new governance and management arrangements.

Discussions have also been held with stakeholders which could see Croxteth Hall and Country Park transferred into the city-wide Charitable Parks Trust as previously discussed or into a Croxteth Hall and Country Park Trust with a Board based on a tripartite structure: a third representatives of the Council with a golden share, a third local stakeholders, a third independents. The aim of the Croxteth Hall and Country Park Trust would be the preservation of Croxteth Hall and Park as public assets with public access, etc. The precise terms would need to be the subject of detailed consultation and there would need to be crucial caveats e.g. protection of green space, heritage, public access, reversion to Liverpool City Council in the event of failure. The initial steps would involve a decision by the Council to establish a Shadow Trust Board, followed by recruitment of members and work to agree a constitution and legal terms. In parallel to this the Council would work with the Shadow Board to procure managing agents for Croxteth Hall and Croxteth Park.

Both steps would take a minimum of a year in which to agree the considerable complexities involved, ranging from legal and financial terms, addressing environmental and heritage concerns and risks, creating and agreeing working models for both the Board and Managing Agent. There are major uncertainties which would need to be resolved before any agreements could or should be finalised.

It is not just for financial reasons that Charitable Parks Trust should be considered. It is a philosophical point that placing all Liverpool’s parks into charitable status will offer better protection and further safeguard them for future generations.

74

A new direction with something for everyone

75

“There are many in this city who are crying out for some peace and quiet in their lives, and the healing power of the natural world is beyond questions…..”

Arthur (written submission)

“We all share the Mayor’s vision of a vibrant, prosperous city but without open spaces, greenery and the occasional ‘pause for breath’ between the rows of housing, Liverpool won’t be in a position to offer people who are looking to move into the city a green balance and, more to the point, won’t be an attractive place to live for those who are already here”.

Ian (Woolton resident)

9.1 The Local Plan ProcessOn 19th August 2016 Liverpool City Council’s Cabinet approved the undertaking of public consultation on the draft Liverpool Local Plan. The Local Plan, when adopted will both update and amend the City’s existing planning framework, the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan. The Cabinet report states that the draft Local Plan has a number of relevant key priorities to deliver:

• A focus on delivering homes on brownfield sites

• Protecting land and buildings for economic growth

• Protecting Liverpool City Parks for the health and wellbeing of the population.

9.1.1 Providing enough housing This is a key issue for every local planning authority and measured by the amount of land required is often the most significant.

If the City Council does not provide enough land for new homes it is at significant risk of losing control of what can be built and where. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires the City Council to calculate how many homes are needed and the potential supply of land to meet that need.

9. Planning For The FutureWith key contributions from Board Members David Hughes, Dr. Ian Mell and Councillor Malcolm Kennedy

Chair’s Comment:

As Liverpool continues to rapidly regenerate following the

difficult times of the 70’s and 80’s then the ability of the

spaces between the buildings to catalyse further growth

and investment is compelling. Property values, business

investment and immigration are all directly influenced by

the quantity and quality of green space and conversely by

the scars of decline and decay.

76

How many homes has three main components:

• The overall number needed

• The type and size of homes needed, and

• Has a backlog built up because the number of homes completed does not meet the annual need? If so this must be made up through increased delivery in subsequent years. It does not increase the overall number needed but is intended to ensure that the overall number needed are delivered by increasing the average annual requirement.

Housing land supply has two key components:

• The amount of land available overall

• Is there a five year supply plus a 5% or 20% buffer

To identify how many homes are needed over the whole plan-period (2013 – 2033) the City Council is required to produce a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The SHMA calculates the Full Objectively Assessed Need (FOAN) for new homes and the size and type of homes required.

To identify how much land is available to meet the FOAN figure, the City Council must maintain an up to date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

There are two parts to the housing land supply calculation:

• Is there enough land to meet the housing need over the plan – period as a whole?

• Can the City Council meet the government requirement of having a rolling five year supply of deliverable sites plus a buffer of either 5% or as much as 20%?

The five year figure is calculated by dividing the total need by the number of years in the plan–period to give the annual requirement and multiplying that by 5 and then applying the 5% or 20% buffer.

9.1.2 Protecting land and buildings for economic growth (providing enough employment land)

In addition to providing Liverpool with enough homes, the Local Plan is required to meet the need for a range of other land uses based on a robust and up to date evidence base.

Of these the City’s employment land requirements are particularly significant. The emerging evidence has identified a level of need between 105 and 140 hectares against a potential supply of less than 100 hectares.

The sites that make up the potential supply are still being assessed for their suitability, therefore the draft Local Plan does not yet include site specific recommendations. DCLG are aware that the Draft Local Plan will not contain site allocations and designations, however provided that they are included in the final version of the Local Plan for publication in spring 2017, they wish to see the City Council undertake consultation on the draft Local Plan at the earliest opportunity.

9.1.3 Protecting the open space that Liverpool needs

The open space policies of the Local Plan will be informed by the Open Space Study which is currently being completed by the consultants KKP. The Open Space Study comprises an Assessment Report which examines existing provision, its condition, distribution and overall quality.

Taking the Open Space Study as its evidence base the final version of the Local Plan will give direction on the future provision of accessible, high quality, sustainable provision for open spaces across Liverpool based on population distribution, planned growth and consultation findings. The Local Plan will also tie in with this Strategic Green and Open Spaces review which will inform the final version of the Local Plan for publication in spring 2017.

In the interim the draft Local Plan, contains proposed policies taking on board the Open Space and Green Wedge polices in the existing UDP, as well as new policies addressing the natural environment.

77

As with the employment land policies DCLG are aware that some aspects of the Local Plan’s Green Space policies and designations are not yet fully developed due to the need to complete the update of the evidence base. Their advice is that in the Local Plan consultation the Council set out the position with the emerging Open Space Study and ensure that the final version of the Local Plan, which must be published in 2017, is complete.

An independent Inspector will be appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct an examination into whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements and whether it is sound. New Population and Household Projections have recently suggested that Liverpool’s resident population and households will grow faster than anticipated in the Local Plan. The Department of Communities and Local Government has set every local planning authority the task of putting a new Local plan in place by early 2017 and as a result has advised that despite this it is more important to progress the current plan rather than pause to amend the Local plan evidence base and potentially the policies and proposals in it.

When the Local Plan is submitted for examination the independent Inspector will have to decide whether the government’s policy to have all local plans in place by 2017 has priority over the government’s requirement to meet housing need in full. At present however the City Council is able to demonstrate a high level of annual housing delivery, a large stock of existing planning permissions and a number of proposed housing sites on brownfield sites. By the time that the Local Plan is undergoing examination the level of need and whether the City does have to find more land will have been clarified by work now taking place in a Liverpool City Region wide assessment of housing and employment land needs.

9.1.4 The next steps and the Local Plan examination stage

Following the consultation on the draft Local Plan and the consideration of the representations a final version of the Local Plan will be published. The ‘Publication’ version will be available for six weeks and the comments received along with the Local Plan as published will be submitted for independent examination.

An independent Inspector will be appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct an examination into whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements and whether it is sound.

9.2 Housing

“There is plenty of land in Liverpool to build on without touching our parks. Leave them as they are”.

Kev (Consultation participant)

Liverpool has a legal obligation from Central Government to provide at least a 5-year supply of deliverable sites (plus an additional buffer of either 5% or 20%) for the building of the different housing types to meet the Objectively Assessed Need for new housing required by the city. For a site to be deliverable it must be one that will contribute new homes within the next 5 years because it:

• Is available now;

• offers a suitable location for development now;

• is achievable within five years; and

• development of the site is viable.

78

Chair’s Comment:

“The Chair agrees with the vast majority of the public submissions that there continues to be scant regard to well purposed public open

space when it comes to planning applications and those granted within Liverpool. This may be a legacy of the years of decline when

‘anything was better than nothing’ but if Liverpool wishes to remain an attractive place to live, work and play on par with other forward

thinking global cities then the tail must stop wagging the dog.

The loss of public or private fields within the urban landscape may be at times inevitable but there has been a perceived lack of forethought

historically with regards to replacement of such space where there is often little alternative provision of any replacement green space. This

approach infuriates local communities and leaves them wondering ‘where did the money go?’

Such examples of poor decisions past and present are littered across the city:

• Speke: A community where a significant proportion of its green space, large and small, has been lost in recent years and is still waiting

for improvements and replenishment of other green space.

• Old Swan: The loss of Rathbone Park within the current planning consent to be replaced by a much smaller space along with limited

green spaces, urban greening or traffic free routes.

• Woolton: Planning permission has been granted for rebuilding of St Julie’s school partly on a gifted piece of parkland, when a temporary

move by the school to an empty state of the art facility less than two miles away would enable the required rebuild to happen entirely

on the current site.

• Park Avenue: Whilst the argument that ‘Sefton Park Meadows’ lies within the original 1903 boundaries of Sefton Park are contested,

the economic benefits of new development appear to be weaker than originally proposed by the chosen developer.

These are just a small number of the high profile examples of land use conflicts being witnessed in Liverpool. There are other examples,

as evidenced at public meetings and seen by the Chair whilst surveying the city.

We are therefore at a critical junction in the city’s development. Do we continue to look at green space as a development opportunity or

do we take inspiration from other cities in Europe such as Hamburg, Oslo and Copenhagen to work with Liverpool’s green infrastructure

to ensure liveability across the city? If we follow the latter course of action the city will be able to realise better equity and accessibility as

well as meeting the building needs of the city.”

The Mayor and Council leaders also have aspirational plans with regard to the mix of housing on offer. The ongoing Local Plan consultation will provide more detailed analysis of what types of homes are needed and where they should be developed.

As part of the review the Board was also tasked to identify potential sites where a mixture of housing types and tenure could be linked with green space provision. This work is embodied within the land categorisation work (see section 9.4). Evidence from the public meetings and workshops has also been considered within this process. The Board does, however, consider the change of green and open spaces to facilitate housing development an ongoing discussion: not one that is finalised.

The Draft Local Plan has been prepared on the basis of an overall housing requirement of 29,600 between 2013 and 2033. Through a combination of completed homes since 2013, outstanding planning permissions and the proposed site allocations it has been possible to meet this requirement through the use of sites which are brownfield and do not involve building on public parks or designated green/open spaces.

Recently, this situation has now changed because the calculations set out in the current SHMA are derived from population and Household Projections, which have changed since both the SHMA and the Local Plan have been prepared.

Annex 1 to the 19th August 2016 Cabinet Report explains that:

“17. On the 25th May 2016 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published new Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP) covering the period from 2014 to 2039. The new figures show that by the end of the Local Plan period in 2033 Liverpool’s population will have increased to 517,000 an increase of some 25,000 over the previous figure of 492,000.

18. Subsequently on 12th July 2016 DCLG published new Household Projections which reflect the increases in the SNPP figures for Liverpool. In summary the projections show that Liverpool will have 9,000 more households at the end of the plan period (2033) than has been built into the Local plan as it has been prepared.”

While in any other circumstances it would be appropriate for a Liverpool City Council to adjust its plan-making timetable to address the changed

circumstances. However, the government’s timetable means that this is not possible and so DCLG have advised that while the new population and Household Projections have significantly increased, the City Council should continue to progress its Local Plan as drafted, as quickly as possible and if necessary to address the consequences of new projections in a review of the Local Plan.

The City Council is also advised by DCLG to make a clear statement in the Local Plan consultation that it may need to undertake an early review in the light of the new housing projections data. This will involve both the updating of the assessment of how many homes the City needs and only if necessary a search for new sites. That updating will emerge through a piece of work now taking place in a Liverpool City Region wide assessment of housing and employment land needs.

Chair’s Comment:

Even if the Department for Communities and Local

Government (DCLG) should impose an extra requirement on

Liverpool with regard to extra housing, I believe that the City

should set itself the challenge of implementing such plans

without building on any more public open space. As the

population rises and the City becomes more crowded then

such spaces will become even more important than they

currently are. The City should work with its regional partners

to seek the best solutions for housing (and other land) needs.

Furthermore, there are many examples throughout Europe

and beyond which demonstrate that high density sustainable

living does not need to be at the expense of personal privacy.

Land pressure requires creative thinking and solutions rather

than simply ‘filling the gaps.’

79

80

On balance it appears that as far as ‘land pressure’ is concerned with sites already available plus windfall sites, Liverpool can potentially meet its housing needs without building on Public Parks or designated green/open spaces. This conclusion is aimed at strengthening the legislation, covenants, legacies and other protection afforded the Public Parks and civic spaces, as well as responding to the groundswell of opinion contesting the conversion of green space into development sites.

In order to achieve this objective a more in-depth consideration of the value of retaining public green and open space, be it council or privately owned, is required. With a mix of large developer, Housing Association, council self-build, custom self-build (such as Kingsley Road HPBC; http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/liverpool-habitat-for-humanity-community-collaboration) and LILAC Bramley Leeds; http://www.lilac.coop/), Liverpool has the potential to retain and enhance a beautiful city to complement and juxtapose the one inherited from our Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian architects.

Development does not have to mean a lack of biodiversity and wildlife. The Review therefore proposes a more ecologically sensitive form of development within Liverpool that attempt to use nature-based solutions (NBS), ecological planning and green infrastructure to balance built infrastructure and nature. By using best practice already found in pockets around the city, for example the Eldonian Village, Kirkdale and Lower Everton Valley and Croxteth corridor, along with further consultation with local residents and stakeholders regarding the ‘Green Web’ network and identified areas of inequality, it may be possible to address the housing needs of a growing city whilst allowing people’s lives and wildlife to flourish. Moreover, given the potential of further democratic devolution a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to such practice could be scaled to a city-region level.

9.3 Employment LandAs well as housing the city must continue to develop its employment land in order to improve the commercial offer of the city’s landscape for the 21st Century. This includes providing sites for additional job creation, as well as supporting existing businesses that are looking to expand. Whilst such provision is essential it must be created sensitively and as cohesively as possible in terms of aligning housing development, commercial/industrial

development and the ongoing provision of green and open space. There is, as already mentioned, a view within some local communities that the city has focussed too heavily on providing the right environment for development. What may be required now is a more balanced discussion that places development, the provision of employment land, and the environment in equilibrium. There is also a strong case, even more so than housing, that employment land should be considered on a city-region basis.

9.4 Land Categorisation

“I feel very strongly that there should be no building on any of our precious parkland. Brownfield ONLY”.

Elizabeth (written comment)

Chair’s Comment:

‘During public consultation meetings with Council Officers and ward

Councillors the wish to have properly categorised and defined public

areas of all sorts was a pervading message. There are already statutory

and strategic guidelines in place regarding planning and land use but in

a fast changing urban environment there is a desire to know ‘what will

be here in 10 years’ time?’ and ‘what can be relied on not to change?’.

There is also the necessity to value the variety of open space in the city

in order to strategically plan any future maintenance regimes. This work

aims to help bridge the gap between the Unitary Development Plan

(UDP) and the formation of the Local Plan. This land categorisation

will also cut across and draw together just about every aspect of the

Review from Finance, Recreation, Biodiversity, Housing, Employment,

Equity and Green Corridors. This is the final major undertaking by the

Board for a cohesive Green and Open Spaces Review.’

81

Following the survey completed for the Interim Report which covered some 1,253 unbuilt sites (Appendix 9) and an extensive (and ongoing) process of public consultation it was agreed that it would be very useful to have an update of land categorisation of all sites within the city.

An initial meeting involving the Chair and representation from Glendale Liverpool Limited and representatives from Liverpool Council from Physical Assets, Finance and Parks service areas was held to scope out the necessary work involved. A sample of 5 sites of various types was chosen within Kirkdale Ward (as this was the ward with the most unbuilt spaces in the city). A working draft of potential categories evidenced by standard practices from around the country was also prepared which could be adapted as the process developed. It quickly became apparent, however, that whilst such a categorisation would be valuable the undertaking would be both extremely complicated and labour intensive. For this reason, it has not been possible to complete the categorisation process before the publication of the final report.

The Chair has undertaken the task of paring back the number of sites as some were already developed or in the process of being so as the survey took place. Others are already clearly defined such as cemeteries and football pitches.

Capacity is now being sought to continue this body of work as it is obviously a necessary undertaking for the future planning of the city and will also be vital for the development of the Green Corridor Network (‘Green Web’) and any potential Parks Trust model.

9.5 Green Corridors forming a ‘Green Web’

“The Loop Line is a superb green relaxing corridor, where you can catch glimpses of wildlife such as birds and squirrels and enjoy the trees and flowers - perfect for enhancing your health and wellbeing!”

Stella (South Liverpool Resident)

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the land categorisation work continues as an

essential tool for the future development and preservation of the city green

and open spaces.

Chair’s Comment:

“The network of green corridors proposed in this Report is a direct

result of the city-wide survey of 1,253 sites undertaken by the

Chair during the course of the Green and Open Spaces Review.

Throughout the Review the Chair, Board Members and the general

public identified a number of sites within Liverpool, both north and

south, which are considered to have significant social, ecological and

economic values to the city’s population. Additional links between

these sites would improve access and potential use of these spaces

by the city’s residents. As a result of ongoing consultation with

residents the Review has identified a ‘Green Web’ of corridors and

that could be created as a connected network of green and open

spaces.”

82

The proposed network covers large areas of the city linking existing sites, such as Anfield Cemetery, Stanley Park and Croxteth Hall Park, with a series of improvements and investments in on and off-street corridors. The aim of the network is to provide access to green and open space within, and across the city, in a safe, accessible and connective manner. Moreover, the network promotes the use of the English Nature (now Natural England) Accessible Natural Green Space Standards (ANGSt), whereby people would live no more that 5 - 10 minutes’ walk from a good sized park, garden, waterway or other green space (Harrison et al, 1995; Pauleit et al, 2003).

Unlike some cities in the UK, and others globally, Liverpool benefits from an existing resource base that can be considered to offer a series of high quality green and open spaces throughout the city (Green Infrastructure North West, 2010). These ‘green jewels’ of Victorian parks, city-scale parks such as Stanley and Calderstones Park, The Mersey riverfront and promenade, as well as the interaction of the city with its Green Belt on the city’s edge provide Liverpool with an extensive network of largely accessible green and open space. The diversity of these small urban parks and larger and more biodiverse urban-fringe sites provides Liverpool with a broad range of spaces which support ecological, social and economic activities for different members of the city’s population (Amati, 2008; Fábos, 2004).

9.5.1 Establishment of a ‘Green Web’ for LiverpoolThe overall impact of the network would be the establishment of a ‘Green Web’ for Liverpool, which would make best use of a series of existing and potential linear corridors radiating from the city centre. These would be intersected by three distinct radials circling the city centre, the Victorian parks network of the city, and the outer (and larger) green spaces, for example Croxteth Hall Park, respectively. The spatial layout of such a network would provide key links between the urban core of the city and its parks and gardens, the River Mersey, and the wider green infrastructure of Liverpool, something which has been scoped previously1 . The spatial distribution of the ‘Green Web’ will potentially provide investment in much needed linkages across the city that complement the Sustrans Cycling network, the existing parks network, but also fill the gaps left by uneven development in many parts of the city.

With direct input via a process of on-site scoping from Board Members Dr. Ian Mell (University of Liverpool), David Hughes (former Head of Planning, LCC), Dr. Juliet Staples (Green and Open Spaces, LCC), and the Chair, the Board have proposed a network of green corridors that will form a green web and facilitate more effective engagement by people with the city’s green spaces that run throughout the city. Additional input has been received from local GP Dr. David Webster (CCG), Dr. Simon Bowers (CCG), Alan Jemmett of MEAS, Dr. John Morrissey (LJMU) and his urban geography students at Liverpool John Moores University, as well as representatives from the Merseyside Cycle Campaign.

Alongside the professional advice and guidance received from the people mentioned above the green corridors initiative has benefited from the knowledge provided by the city’s residents, who have provided in-depth information to support the location of the proposed corridors. Evidence has been received by the Board at the public meetings and workshops, and via additional emails/telephone calls/letters with the review team.

9.5.2 Green Corridors: the evidenceThere is a growing body of evidence arguing that linking isolated areas of natural habitat with a range of man-made and natural corridors provides a strong supporting environment for biodiversity (Hellmund & Smith, 2006). This reflects the added connectivity provided by a network of green spaces but also the additional opportunities that wildlife can gain from access to various, diverse biological landscape resources (Green Infrastructure North West, 2010). Furthermore, by developing a network of green spaces that address local and city-wide deficiencies which utilise links and hubs and corridors as linking infrastructure, there is a potential for a much greater level of movement and support for wildlife across the urban area of Liverpool (Ahern, 2013; Hostetler, Allen, and Meurk, 2011).

1. The added value of links-hubs-nodes

To marry such links with traffic free paths, like the existing Loopline Route, which already traverse Liverpool, could be proposed as common sense. It can also be considered to be a cost effective way of providing vital services, as habitats for wildlife and connective features for people, that can help create a more interactive, supportive and sustainable 21st century urban environment (Mell, 2016a).

1The Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy developed by The Mersey Forest highlighted areas of potential for the creation of green corridors, as well as areas of green space deficiency. The

Green and Open Spaces Review is though the first concerted effort to identify a deliverable plan that identifies pinch-points, development opportunities and a city-wide network for investment.

83

Moreover, promoting the ecological values of green corridors illustrates just one of the many positives that such investments can deliver. A review of the literature on ‘greenway’ investments suggests that ‘Green Corridors’ can provide a broad range of further socio-economic values to an urban areas (Lindsey, Maraj, and Kuan, 2001; Noss, 2006; Taylor, Paine, and FitzGibbon, 1995).

The promotion of a Liverpool ‘Green Web’ helps to identify which benefits in which locations exist, as well as where gaps in the provision of amenities or access exist. The three most prominent benefits are:

(i) Recreational routes and sports;

(ii) health and wellbeing agendas; and

(iii) property values and improved economic value.

Sports and recreation can be used to promote health, wellbeing and community engagement especially if they can link via green corridors to homes/residential areas. Green corridors provide focal points for communities in many locations, as well as opportunities for families to interact with their peers; a view discussed extensively in the wider ‘greenways’ and linear corridors literature (Little, 1990; Walmsley, 2006). Green corridors can therefore be proposed to decrease the need to have or use a car to access nature potentially promoting greater equity between different groups within society. Although it also has to be acknowledged that investments in green corridors may not directly change the behaviour of how people access or make use of local/city green spaces.

Along with promoting recreational use of the landscape green corridors can also help to improve individual and communal health and well-being. By providing better access to green and open spaces close to people’s homes older people can find it easier to socialise and are more likely to spend time outside (CABE Space, 2009). Children are also more likely to socialise if parks and green spaces are accessible and deemed safe to use by parents (Louv, 2005; Luymes & Tamminga, 1995). Linking spaces through green corridors could thus promote exercise and learning through interactions with nature that benefits individuals, families and communities; especially if access to a private car is limited (Pauleit et al, 2003). Additional and quantifiable improvements to individual physical and mental health (See Health and Wellbeing, Chapter 4) and to communal health in terms of social

inclusion and supporting community interactions have also been associated with improved access to green and open spaces (Coutts and Hahn, 2015; England’s Community Forests and Forestry Commission, 2012; Pretty et al, 2007).

Investment in green corridors have also been seen to have a positive economic impact on the value of local homes and commercial returns. Where investment in linear corridors is linked to better access to socio-economic services and amenities, for instance on riverfronts or promenades, there are greater returns on the investments made. Green corridors that link areas of business and promote a more attractive investment environment (and more productive in terms of employee productivity, access to recreational facilities, and other amenities), are therefore more likely to support a prosperous urban landscape (Fitzsimons et al, 2012; Kousky, Olmstead, Walls, and Macauley, 2013; Mell, 2016b).

2. Behavioural change and the added socio-economic benefits of access to and from nature

Whilst access to nature and green spaces does not necessarily lead to behavioural change in the level of use it does provide the physical location to promote increased use. The English Nature ANGSt standards argued that where green and open spaces were within 5 - 10 minutes of a person’s home they may be used more frequently (Countryside Agency and Groundwork, 2005; Harrison et al, 1995). Within the academic and practitioner literature there is a wealth of evidence supporting such claims, however, there is a caveat: that such spaces must offer appropriate and diverse amenity values for its users if it is to encourage use (Hale and Sadler, 2012; Young, 2011).

Additional evidence supporting such claims has been discussed in Scandinavia where access to green and open spaces is argued to increase educational attainment in children (Konijnendijk, 2003; Sandström, 2002). This includes the use of outdoor spaces as ‘living classrooms’, as well as the role that nature plays in supporting exploratory and adventure play (Ridgers and Sayers, 2010a, 2010b). Developing a network of green and open spaces that are linked to schools may offer a mechanism for urban planners to facilitate interaction with the landscape by providing the physical infrastructure to promote walking to school, outdoor classrooms and greater interactions with the landscape.

84

It may also be sensible to review the research of Dr Richard Louv (2005) here as well. His work on Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD) posits that children who are not exposed to nature or green spaces early in their lives may not develop attachments to the physical landscape in later life. Whilst there are clear recreational, health and potentially education concerns with such a situation there are also issues regarding the longer-term use and valuing of green and open spaces. What Louv proposes is that with an active engagement with the landscapes around us, people are more likely to respect, use and protect them in later life (Abrahams, 2010; Louv, 2005; Mell, 2016b).

3. Non-motorised transport and the promotion of walking-cycling as significant forms of mobility

A further benefit of investing in green corridors is the promotion of non-motorised forms of transport including walking and cycling (Hellmund and Smith, 2006; Luymes and Tamminga, 1995). Within the UK the Sustrans cycle network offers a spatially broad series of on and off-road amenities that enable cyclists to ride safely across urban areas. In Liverpool the Loopline and the Sustrans Route No. 56 are good examples of the positive difference such infrastructure can make in promoting cycling. Moreover, when cycle paths are integrated with pedestrianised routes it is possible to develop city-wide routes that allow people to move freely between places of interest, work and their homes (Walmsley, 2006). The promotion of greenways in North America offer good exemplars of how such projects can be integrated into urban areas. Cities such as New York and Boston have both invested in urban greenways to facilitate urban mobility with notable successes (Fábos, 2004; Mell, 2016b). In Liverpool the ongoing discussions between the city council, Mersey Travel and other transport orientated stakeholders are exploring the value of such projects to establish their potential value in the city. The green corridors programme is viewed as one mechanism to focus these discussions on defined programme of investment for the city.

Green Corridors – make the most of existing land useThe Green Corridors being proposed aim to establish a logical development process that links ‘Brownfield’, ‘Existing Green Space’ and potential ‘Development sites’ into a city-wide ‘Green Web’. Examples of each category can be found throughout Liverpool and provide the foundation for the green corridors network or ‘Green Web’.

The existing network of spaces also highlights that although some areas may have higher proportions of green space, i.e. in south Liverpool, or brownfield land for example Anfield, when viewed collectively most neighbourhoods in the city have a combination of these sites. Most wards also have various areas which have been identified by Liverpool City Council (and other government agencies) as potential development sites (Couch and Karecha, 2006; Sykes et al, 2013). We must therefore view Liverpool as an evolving landscape that provides scope for the city, its people and developers to promote development, whilst also ensuring that the city’s green corridors are enhanced.

Through a process of consultation with the public and other stakeholders, and through extensive site visits across the city, the role of the Board as a Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review has developed the recommendation that Liverpool City Council, development stakeholders, the public and other actors should support investment in a city-wide green corridors network to create a ‘Green Web’. Between the basic frameworks provided by The Promenade, The Loop Line and the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, as well as other bridleways and public footpaths (i.e. Public Rights of Way – ProW), are islands of greenery that our city has inherited and around them lie potential development sites. These spaces are the foundation of the proposed Liverpool ‘Green Web’ network.

The creation of new links plus the extension and/or maintenance of existing spaces do not infer a loss of public open space. Alternatively, it calls for the creation of a rather more pragmatic way of thinking about the city’s landscape and how best to promote its amenity value. Furthermore, there is a need to consider that some open space may be lost as a city develops. As Liverpool continues to develop the landscape will invariably change as it has done already. The Board therefore suggest that it is better to work with developers if, and where loss of green space occurs, to find innovative solutions to minimise any losses and to create high quality and connective

85

green space that service the city as a whole. This includes the promotion of a strategic green corridors network, Liverpool’s ‘Green Web’, as a key piece of infrastructure that requires funding from a broader range of investments.

The proposed ‘Green Web’ will make extensive use of existing infrastructure within the city. Liverpool is criss-crossed with a series of public rights of way (PRoW), long and shorter cycle paths developed by Sustrans and linear walkways/paths, such as the Otterspool Promenade, which provide excellent links between people’s homes, places of work, and local amenities. The ‘Green Web’ will use these links as its foundations for enhancement of the city’s landscape. Where gaps exist Liverpool City Council will work with stakeholders including the Highways Agency, Mersey Travel and local communities to:

(i) identify how best to maximise the amenity value of the existing network;

(ii) how to address infrastructure needs in specific locations; and

(iii) how to promote behavioural change in the use of the city’s landscape by local people.

The city’s topography and the spatial layout of housing/commercial/transport infrastructure also provide Liverpool with a series of identifiable natural corridors. These include linear features running along the River Mersey, the location of potential wildlife corridors along main roads such as Menlove Avenue or Edge Lane, and the opportunities for green links to be made between small gardens and parks in the city centre, i.e. Saint George’s Hall, and the universities, and sites further afield including Everton Park and Princes Park. What this gives Liverpool is a clear set of identifiable

boundaries that include the River Mersey and the Green Belt at the perimeter of the city, and a network of linear corridors (links) within it linked to larger parks, gardens and green/open spaces (hubs and nodes). The proposed enhancement of the existing network therefore aims to address the gaps or pinch points in this network.

Green Web – Strategic alignment with development contributionsTo ensure that the green web network is delivered the Review recommends that it be considered as a programme of strategic investment of city-wide importance. Due to its spatial breadth the network will deliver benefits to the whole city and should therefore be viewed as a key investment proposal within the Local Plan. Elements of the network already exist throughout the city and the proposed ’Green Web’ programme aims to facilitate an expansion of any green and open space that is required to meet the limitations of the city’s existing green space network. Proposals for the ‘Green Web’ routes are illustrated below in Figure 3.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the Mayor engages Merseytravel, MEAS

and The Mersey Forest and other stakeholders to begin costing and

planning the Green Corridor network (or ‘Green Web’) in greater detail.

The implementation of the ‘Green Web’, as embedded in the Local Plan,

should begin with an implementation plan for critical sites.

86

Figure 3. Proposals for ‘Green Web’ Routes

© Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100018351

Green Corridors Stage One

Green Corridors Stage Two

Maintained Greenspace

87

Due to its presentation as a strategic investment linked to all development in the city, the ‘Green Web’ is viewed as offering Liverpool City Council a mechanism to require payments from all development in the city to fund its delivery. Such large-scale projects work in other cities, for example in Atlanta (Georgia, USA) where the development of a city-scale circular corridor – the Atlanta Beltline, has facilitated a form of corporate taxation or philanthropy, whereby businesses (led by Coca-Cola, CNN and Home Depot) have required businesses to pay into the Beltline investment fund to ensure that the landscape of the city is function and connected (Atlanta Beltline Inc, 2015; Kirkman, Noonan, and Dunn, 2012). The Liverpool ‘Green Web’, project may not be able to rely on such multi-national sponsors but the aims of the project, its spatial distribution and the proposed socio-economic benefits it can deliver are reasons for Liverpool City Council to present the project as strategically important.

The proposed ‘Green Web’ also provides a large-scale project that is visible to both the public and the development sector who should be able to see the benefits of paying into it through planning consent/obligations (Byrne, Lo, andJianjun, 2015b; Cabe Space, 2005a). Its scale should also attract positive reactions from the public, as the enhancements to the city’s landscape will not be spatially constrained to one area or neighbourhood. Furthermore, in terms of meeting the UK government’s sustainable and

inclusive communities remit the ‘Green Web’ will promote greater access to nature, transparent urban environments (in terms of location, access and amenity), and the creation/delivery of places that people want to live, work and recreate in (Department of Communties and Local Government, 2012; Natural England and Landuse Consultants, 2009; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003). All of which helps to support the City Council’s promotion of Liverpool as a liveable place to work, live and spend time.

To ensure that Liverpool’s ‘Green Web’ moves from planning to implementation it is imperative that Liverpool City Council continues to engage with all stakeholders located along the corridors. This includes resident/housing groups, local land owners, health and educational providers, and local businesses that can all contribute and benefit from improvements to the connectivity of the city. Improvements to Liverpool’s ‘Green Web’ could also provide a low-cost solution to the delivery of green space throughout the city. Moreover, as the ‘Green Web’ is aligned with the upcoming Local Plan as a strategic investment project then it should be less complicated to attract and allocate funding for investment from development in Liverpool. Such links may also provide Liverpool City Council or a new management vehicle, i.e. a Charitable Trust Endowment Fund to maintain the city’s green and open spaces in the future by identifying specific requirements from developers to contribute to the creation, enhancement and maintenance of the ‘Green Web’.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the ‘Green Web’ network should be identified

as a strategic investment within the Local Plan consultation to ensure that

developer contributions from sites located in proximity to the corridors can

be generated to make financial contributions to deliver the scheme. Given

its spatial diversity and potential to deliver benefits across Liverpool the

‘Green Web’ may be able to deliver a multitude of social, economic and

ecological benefits to the city that are cost-effective and make best use of

the city’s existing green network and areas of brownfield land.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that to kick start the green corridor work and realise the possibilities of the ‘Green Web’ initiative the city council should work in partnership and through the Horizon 2020 programme if possible to establish the first green corridor in the Baltic area, linking Bold Street to the Arena on the waterfront.

The Board also recommends the following specific corridors:• AnareaclosetotheChurchillFlyoversshouldbeidentifiedasaconduitfora

wider Business District City Centre green corridor.• TheEasternCorridormovingfromtheCityCentretotheCity’sboundary.• TheEverton-Anfield corridor linking theCityCentre, EvertonValley,Anfield

and Croxteth Country Park.• Southern corridor linking the City Centre with Sefton Park, Princes Park,

Calderstones Park and Otterspool Promenade.

88

9.5.3 Capital costs

“I believe that you get out of the community what you put into it. We should all do our bit to keep our environment pleasant and at least we should all look after our patch”.

Elaine (Workshop comment)

The network routes developed for the ‘Green Web’ have been identified with the direct purpose of minimising the capital costs required by Liverpool City Council to realise their delivery. This has been done by identifying routes that are already used and linking these with existing spaces to reduce any engineering works that may be required. The capital costs of the network would be largely met by a range of development stakeholders in a variety of ways to ensure that equity and accessibility issues around the city are addressed.

To actualise the project the following interventions could be used to fund the corridors:

• Working with developers to set aside and construct ‘Green Web’ routes as part of a more forward-thinking planning process

• Using capital receipts from the sale of council sites to fund investment

• Using any levies due or uplift from development sites to fund investment

• Ring fencing a portion of Highways budget to meet strategic ‘Green Web’ investment needs

• Strategic investment in ‘health target areas’ by Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

• Strategic investment from Merseytravel as part of ‘Stepping Stones’ investment

• Strategic investment from utility providers

• Strategic investment from Higher Education establishments

• Corporate Investment for sponsored routes including members of the development and sports industry

Chair’s Comment:

A vital ‘live’ example is the proposed redevelopment of the ‘Fruit

Market’ site between Edge Lane and Prescot Road as a mixed use site

including Merseyside Police facilities and housing. This is a one-off

opportunity to create a purposeful traffic-free link between between

Newsham Park and Fairfield through to Wavertree Technology Park

and Wavertree Botanic Gardens. This crucial link for the entire city

network will be very difficult to develop through any other site(s). I urge

all stakeholders to work together to create this section of the ‘Green

Web’ and therby lay down a market for the future of the network.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that stakeholders should work together to develop the vital link of the ‘Green Web’ between Newsham Park and Fairfield through to Wavertree Technology Park and Wavertree Botanic Gardens.

89

• Sustainability Investment and sponsorship by Universities and Higher Education Providers

• Crowdfunding for one off construction work

• Volunteering

• Other forms of sponsorship and income

9.5.4 MaintenanceThe ongoing maintenance costs of the proposed ‘Green Web’ would be achieved through a diverse stream of financial payments and donations and labour. It is envisaged that the strategic and local focus of the ‘Green Web’ network will promote buy in from a range of public, community and private sources including:

• Neighbourhood Commissions

• Investment from the NHS and CCG such as prescriptive investment or funding associated with the location of medical centres and interactions with health providers

• Corporate capital sponsorship of sections of corridors such as piloted in Darlington

• Ring-fenced contribution from parking, tourism, student or other levies

• Other income such as social enterprise contributions (such as NESTA model - Bristol Park Ways)

In order to keep costs down, as well as achieve an increased city-wide buy in, the network would make extensive use of volunteer contributions. The Chair has discussed with MEAS the possible mapping of the network in conjunction with the Mersey Forest and other relevant stakeholders to identify in more detail the potential investor and custodian possibilities for the corridor routes.

The network would allow a targeted approach of a variety of community groups to promote initial and longer-term involvement in the creation and management of the routes. These include:

• User groups

• Local schools

• Corporate social initiatives such as team building days and interdepartmental competitions

• University teams and volunteer societies

• Site specific volunteer stakeholders such as ‘Friends of the Flyover”

• Other interested groups such as The Ramblers Association

The proposed ‘Green Web’ network will not happen overnight. Instead the report proposes a ten-year implementation period that will ensure that the investments develop into a major green infrastructure asset for Liverpool. By presenting this long-term vision and planning proactively for its delivery the city could take a major step in achieving its sustainability and growth objectives.

It would also assist the city’s promotion of itself as an innovative European and global city.

90

Let the imagination fly

91

Chair’s Comment:

‘The Interim Report identified a lack of accessible public woodland in the North and Eastern core of the city and

recommended that two sites be identified for such provision. As the Chair continued gathering evidence from around

the city, an introduction to one passionate individual led to a site visit of an old railway track in Kirkdale Ward, adjacent

to Kirkdale Station. This piece of land owned by Liverpool City Council has self-wilded into a Birch Woodland with

mixed deciduous trees now taking hold. With a little imagination and limited investment this site (which incidentally

was identified as a potential park in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP)) could become a fabulous public park and

part of the Green Corridor network linking Kirkdale station to the local community, the Leeds - Liverpool Canal and

the city centre. There is ongoing community engagement regarding the possibilities for this hidden gem through the

‘Ralla’ project – details are (http://www.everymanplayhouse.com/the-ralla).

With regard to developing public woodland in the Eastern Core, the review has engaged with The Mersey Forest to

look into the possibilities of planting woodland in the Kensington and Fairfield/Old Swan wards. There are possibilities

of drawing on a philanthropic offer from a private individual who wishes to leave Liverpool a woodland legacy.

Further planting on Fairfield public park could be an appropriate project but such a proposal would require further

consultation with the local community and friends group, and a fundable maintenance plan to be put in place prior to

commencement.

Thus the recommendation from the Interim Report regarding new woodland has developed further and should continue

to do so in partnership with The Mersey Forest.

The educational value of Forest Schools is cited elsewhere in the report and it is clear that working with The Mersey

Forest to identify a ‘Forest School for Every School’ would be a very positive step with regard to this provision.

92

9.6 Equity and Accessibility

“These are public amenities that are used and add to the quality of life of those in the area. They should be preserved at all costs as they will never be reclaimed when they are gone.”

Janet (email correspondent)

Bearing in mind the current financial situation Liverpool is in it may prove difficult to equalise the inequity of high quality green space provision around the city and provide better accessibility. It therefore seems prudent that, whilst remaining within the legal framework, we consider more creative approaches to how we use S106 or other developer contributions, as well as proposing more detailed collaborations between the alternative financial provision and green corridor network proposals contained within this report. Moreover, the opinion that any monies raised from development on open space should be largely, if not entirely, used to improve other open space provision had been prevalent throughout the consultation process and the whole Review. Using funding raised from the commercialisation and/or sale of green and open spaces to pay for the long-term management of other green spaces is a view held by a large proportion of the public in Liverpool, stakeholders in the city and the Board.

9.6.1 Opportunities for improving equity and accessibility

Play AreasThe Interim Report highlighted that in addition to acute under provision of outdoor play facilities in some areas there were a number of existing playground sites that were over 20 years old and in a state of decline.

In response to this, and following the publication of the Interim Report, the Mayor announced a £1million investment into a 2 year Play Area Investment Programme which will introduce 8 new natural play areas to help address the identified gaps in play provision. The programme will also see the refurbishment of 11 existing playgrounds so that existing levels of play value can be improved or maintained across the city. This investment programme will be funded by Section 106 developer contributions, which is money paid by developers to the council as part of their planning agreements. Figure 4 shows the location of the existing outdoor play provision and the planned new play provision and improvements.

93

Figure 4. Liverpool Play Area Provision


Green Flag SitesLikewise, to ensure there is equity of high quality green spaces the Board recommends that Green Flag status should be retained in the north and south of the city.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that no playgrounds/provision should be lost to

development in Liverpool (without a minimum like for like replacement in

close proximity), and where possible provision of play equipment should

be improved.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the city take steps to ensure that its Green

Flag parks retain their status as high quality spaces. Green Flag parks

provide the city with nationally important spaces which can be used to

promote the liveability and investment environment of Liverpool to external

partners.

Play Area (Existing)

Play Area to be refurbished

Proposed new ‘Natural Play Area’

94

Not far from the madding crowd

© Jon Warren

95

Public WoodlandAccess to public open woodland was discussed in the Interim Report and it was noted that there was a lack of provision to the eastern, central and northern areas of the City Centre.

Businesses LinksLiverpool is one of the most verdant cities in the country yet the City Centre has a distinct lack of green spaces. With the exception of St. John’s Gardens and a few other small oases it is an issue that needs redressing for both residents and commuting workers. This imbalance was a priority of the Mayor when setting up this review.

The Business Improvement District (BID) have been engaged throughout the process of the Review and are continually seeking ways in which to bring more greenery into the central business district. Plans to engage businesses and the city council to rework and green Williamson Square are very interesting and could help to uplift the surrounding environs.

The Liverpool City Centre Strategic Investment Framework contains an artist’s impression of a far greener Lime Street corridor. This improved physical link between the city’s main train station and the business district is desperately needed. The Friends of The Flyover (http://friendsoftheflyover.org.uk/) campaign to create a linear park on one or both of the city centre flyovers would dramatically change the area around the Museum, Walker Art Gallery, Central Library and LJMU Faculties and be a catalyst for the regeneration of the London Road area as happened with the High Line Park in Manhattan (http://www.thehighline.org/).

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that two new areas of public woodland are

developed. One in Kirkdale next to Kirkdale Station, now known as

Melrose Cutting (formally the ‘Ralla’ site) which could act as a community

hub as well as a green corridor route spur to Kirkdale Station. The second

opportunity is to continue to work with the Mersey Forest and local

communities to further explore the possibility of creating a new woodland

at Fairfield, adjacent to Newsham Park in Kensington and Fairfield ward

bordering Old Swan.

Chair’s Comment:

The flyover park would also bring a welcome splash of greenery

to the otherwise urban desert that is Dale Street. There is so much

more planting and landscaping that could be done in Liverpool city

centre by both the Council and individual businesses. A walk up

Stanley Street past Delifonseca shows what can be done with the

right energy and mind-set. Imagine if every business did the same.

The city centre would be transformed!

Chair’s Comment:

As austerity continues to erode LCC budgets there is a danger that tree

lined streets and thoroughfares are seen merely as an expensive drain

on the maintenance coffers of both public and private bodies (take a

walk around the Mann Island or Kings Dock and Arena complex and play

‘spot the grass’). Many new developments around the city are ‘concrete

deserts’ with token trees and borders added as an afterthought. Such

design flies in the face of sustainable development and Liverpool must

reverse the trend. This can be achieved via appropriate tree planting

along the developing Green Corridor network and one way of gauging

such progress would be to plant a tree for every child in the city.

96

Figure 5. Illustration of Potential Sites at Brunswick Docks for Eden Centre of the North Tourist Attraction. By kind permission of Architectural Emporium and Reshaped Landscape Architects

Walk on water

97

Blue Green LinksFollowing evidence and input from Bluegreen, The City Council is already investigating via its Horizon 2020 bid how to begin creating Green Corridors throughout the city centre starting with a potential link between the Bold Street retail district via the Baltic Triangle to The Arena and Convention Centre on the waterfront.

There is some very creative thinking emerging around the city centre - by pulling together the interested parties and stakeholders there is no question that the quality and quantity of the city centre green and open space offer could substantially change the way Liverpool looks and feels.

Liverpool’s blue (water) space is both diverse and fascinating. From the mighty Mersey Estuary to the trickling Fazakerley Brook, the importance of such provision is moving up the agenda.

The River Mersey is, of course, the city’s raison d’etre. In terms of the city’s economy it remains vital for secondary and tertiary industries. The substantial dock system running alongside the river is an equally valuable asset for many reasons and as the century develops so will the purpose of many of these spaces. The planned development by Peel Holdings, Liverpool Waters, should create a vital corridor link to the north of the city as well as providing much needed housing around the Northern Dock basins.

As public open spaces many of the docks are both welcoming and foreboding at the same time. They provide welcome gaps between the cityscape but the height of the dock walls can be a barrier and deter public use. This disconnect is being challenged by various stakeholders. The City Centre Strategic Infrastructure Framework calls for better links between Mann Island across to the Albert Dock.

Engage (www.engageliverpool.com) also seek ideas to improve the greener offer around the City Centre and connect people to the blue and green spaces. Working with Bluegreen and Engage and other partners, The Canal and River Trust are currently developing strategic plans to create water level floating corridors along with a mixed commercial and cultural offer including possible event venues and floating parks as illustrated in Figure 5. The Maritime Museum continues to be engaged in this process as it seeks to develop the currently redundant Graving Dockside.

Further afield, the Leeds-Liverpool Canal already provides a corridor for people and wildlife to the north of the city and out into the city-region. The River Alt also provides a valuable wildlife corridor to the northeast of the city. The newly opened Alt Park should be the first step in opening up the entire Alt corridor as a valuable route for the city region. Ditton Brook could do the same to the south of the City Region.

Many of Liverpool’s lost brooks and streams still enhance our landscape when they appear from beneath our feet. The Sefton Park Lake system is the damned brook which once ran into the Mersey at the ‘Otters Pool’. Greenbank Lake and The Dell at the end of Queens Drive are both part of another brook which originated at the top of The Mystery (Wavertree Playground) and ran down past the ‘Brookhouse Pub’ on Smithdown Road. There are also culverted waterways under Walton Hall Park and other city parks and green spaces. Deculverting or ‘daylighting’ of any urban river, brook or steam will not only help to alleviate flood risk and increase biodiversity but will, if managed correctly, greatly enhance our built environment. It is also often the cheapest engineering solution for a problem culvert. Further discussions involving the Environment Agency and United Utilities (UU) to investigate and evidence such good practice whenever possible, should be developed in the future.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that all partners and stakeholders continue to

engage and creatively develop the city centre dock system as vital public

space and corridor routes.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that dialogue should continue with the Canal and

River Trust, Maritime Museum and other stakeholders to create a City

Centre Stevedore Adventure Park on the Graving Dock Dockside which

will also increase connectivity in and around the Albert Dock area.

98

Liverpool’s blue space provision is diverse and complex, much of which could be further enhanced and every effort should be made to encourage people and wildlife to use such spaces.

Equestrian LinksVery early on in the process the visit to Milton Keynes threw up one very interesting scenario.

There are paddocks for horses dotted everywhere around the urban landscape. When investigated further it transpired that these paddocks were both popular with the public and lucrative.

There are already council owned livery and stables at Beechley Riding School adjacent to Calderstones Park, but the only privately run equestrian facility lies within Croxteth Country Park.

Since the release of the Interim Report, engagement with Liverpool based volunteers of the British Horse Society has led to a rudimentary citywide ‘hacking’ route being identified which could be easily adapted to fit in with the ‘Green Web’ network. There are also outline plans for a much larger City Region circuit.

A livery and stables (Park Palace Ponies) are soon to open in the Riverside ward which will give access to horse and pony riding to the inner city population.

It has also been evidenced to the Board by ‘Beautiful Ideas’ that a livery and stables could with the support of the British Horse Society, be opened at Walton Hall Park allowing access to the Loop Line and, using the ‘Green Web’ network in the future, out into Croxteth Country Park and the surrounding countryside. This would bring a greater offer to the park and a useful revenue stream as well as giving children the chance to simply engage with these magnificent animals.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that Mayor and city continue to engage with the

British Horse Society (BHS) to co-ordinate a Liverpool City Horse Riding

Strategy and citywide stabling/livery network linked to the ‘Green Web’

Network.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends that the city should engage with ‘Bluegreen’ to

identify another Riverside Greenspace and investigate the potential for the

development of an ‘Eden of The North’: (https://www.insidermedia.com/

insider/northwest/pomona-island-green-space-set-for-prs-scheme

Chair’s Comment:

“I believe the city should relentlessly pursue the goal of freeing

The Strand of all traffic by dropping the road below ground level.

Liverpool will never realise its full potential until a peaceful parkway

links the Pier Head, Albert Dock and Arena to the rest of the City

Centre.”

99

Corporate Access Forum (CAF)For those of us with any kind of physical impairment public open spaces can be incredibly liberating as they are more often than not on one level and offer few physical barriers to the social inclusion of all. Yet what should be an amazing facility for those with physical impairment can be infuriatingly upsetting due to the lack of infrastructure and facilities available. A beautiful park is no use to a chair user if the toilet facilities are inadequate. The Loopline is a fabulous asset to the city but access is often impossible or impractical for wheel chair users. There are some exemplary cases of inclusive design such as the toilet facilities in Newsham and Calderstones Parks created in co-operation with ‘Changing Places‘ (http://www.changing-places.org/find_a_toilet/location_search_results.aspx#map).

As the ‘Green Web’ corridor network develops it is essential that an audio route adviser becomes available for the visually impaired to whom a visual app or map is of little use.

Equitable access to green and open space must be exactly that. To create a beautiful outdoor place which excludes part of society is cruelly contradictory. Every new development or enhancement within public open space must take on best practice incorporating the invaluable guidance of the Corporate Access Forum. (http://liverpool.gov.uk/health-and-social-care/disability/corporate-access-forum/).

Chair’s Comments:

I found it of interest to note that the fields at Park Avenue/Sefton

Park Meadows have a bylaw allowing horse riding. I engaged with

the Save Sefton Park Meadows Campaign Group to determine

whether a livery and stables along with paddocking could be a

suitable alternative to any proposed housing scheme. The reply was

uncompromising. A fairly predictable “no building of any sort.” So

much for compromise.

This year the British Horse Show was held at the Liverpool Arena and

will return for a 5 year period. It seems that this is a perfect moment

to engage with all stakeholders and interested parties to see how

horse riding could be better integrated within the urban fabric and

encourage particularly the children of the city to have a go at horse

riding whilst bringing in revenue to the city’s green spaces.

100

A strand of the ‘Green Web’

101

“Liverpool is renowned for its open spaces. Once they are gone, they are gone. Let community groups take them on and show the country what happens when Liverpool gives its people the power to let Liverpool breathe!”

Helen (Written submission)

Throughout the review the city has seen how green and open spaces act as a clarion call for local communities, especially where development may threaten the integrity of a given space. In the Save Woolton Woods, Sefton Park Meadows and Walton Hall Park campaigns the city has witnessed a groundswell of public engagement around issues which affect people’s daily lives. Each of these campaigns has seen a broad range of local people of all ages come together to protect locally important spaces from housing or larger developments. At times this has been antagonistic and the review has received numerous comments questioning the logic of selling or redeveloping parks as residential areas. However, the review has allowed people, community groups and interested stakeholders to make representations to the city council expressing their concerns over development. It has acted as a meeting point for likeminded people to voice their aspirations and thoughts on the city’s green spaces and parks.

This has been a valuable experience for the Board and the review as a whole as it has illustrated the breadth of knowledge, engagement and passion for the city’s green and open spaces. It has also highlighted the variability of uses for these spaces and key place they hold in the lives of a significant proportion of the city’s population.

It is vital that the support for volunteer organisations making our spaces more vibrant is cohesive and reactive. When putting in unpaid time to a space you love there is nothing more discouraging than not getting a response to a request for help or direction for a suggested event. With this in mind the Board has been actively seeking ways to simplify and enhance the engagement process some of which already exists but have been left redundant for one reason or another. The use of appropriate technology and social media must also be considered.

10. EngagementWith key contributions from Board Member Maxine Ennis

Chair’s Comment:

Liverpool City Council has undergone massive restructuring

during recent years and sadly many knowledgeable

members of staff have been lost from within different

departments. Public meeting evidence and meetings with

various stakeholders has indicated that the loss of staff

and restructuring has left a void with regard to engagement

between the Council and members of the public. ‘I used

to talk to...’ ‘Don’t know who I call anymore…’. This

unfortunate state of affairs must be addressed in order to

help those people who value our Parks and to help the city

council run the facilities to the highest standards.

102

10.1 Engagement in LiverpoolFor effective engagement Liverpool City Council needs to broaden how it it sees itself as a provider of public open space and become a delivery partner, facilitator, supporter, collaborator, and enabler of citizens and stakeholders. This change requires letting go of some of the traditional reins of power and trusting that people can and will effectively engage in the issues.

People are ‘engaged’ when they play a meaningful role in the deliberations, discussions, decision-making and/or implementation of things affecting them. Central government cuts to local authority budgets across the country have been extreme, more so in Liverpool with over 58% cuts since 2010 leaving non-statutory provision most at risk. Our green space provision may be non-statutory, but the importance of such places, evidentially and morally, is way beyond any legal obligation, as previously argued within this report.

The money must be found from somewhere and we must start by accepting that our parks, recreation grounds, sports facilities and wild places are priceless.

After 18 months of evidence gathering, stakeholder consultation and discussions, the Board has made a number of interim recommendations; critically the key recommendation and the platform on which success rests within this report ‘is better stakeholder engagement’ with a more ‘joined –up mechanism for strategic decision making’.

At the heart of this section of the report is the belief that we make better decisions together.

How we facilitate this approach to decision making, specifically in relation to saving our green and open spaces, is academic. There are numerous best practice examples and evidential reports to draw on, demonstrating common themes of successful stakeholder engagement.

However, for the purpose of this report and based on the feedback of those most experienced in engagement activities the basic principles are the simplest to apply: be respectful, inform, consult, involve and empower. By employing these basic principles we can build a platform of trust as a critical element in long-term, sustainable engagement and effective governance of our green and open spaces for our children of which we can be proud.

A good example of partnership development and engagement can be seen in the model adopted by Liverpool Knowledge Quarter Strategic Network (KQSN). The KQSN promotes sustainability and environmental issues through Liverpool’s Knowledge Quarter and encourages active collaboration and partnership. Its members are well placed to identify projects and collaborations that will improve sustainability, including energy infrastructure; sustainable built environment; green infrastructure and green space (including biodiversity); local food growing (including incidental greenspace) sustainable and ethical procurement; health and wellbeing; travel, transport and public realm; and low carbon circular economy (including responsible waste management). The KQSN considers it essential to raise the awareness and profile of sustainability and related projects/initiatives amongst the local community and stakeholders, specifically those developments which the community, including residents, students, businesses and organisations, can directly access and benefit from.

We all understand that budget reductions are going to impact greatly on resources so drawing on key networks such as KQSN, Friends Groups, Health Partners, and other stakeholder resources and existing staff teams together is crucial. How we do this successfully will be the deciding factor; rebuilding trust with Friends Groups for example, who have felt undervalued and disregarded previously, will need a different approach – they will need to feel respected, informed, involved, consulted and empowered.

A key element of face-to-face engagement at community level is to invoke meaningful conversation, listening rather than talking at, often rebuilds damaged relationships at all levels. Loosening the reins of authority, policy and process will inevitably lead to innovation and greater productivity – allowing people to do what they do best and want to do is always a good thing, providing enabling structures are in place. The long term sustainable aim of this strategy is to ensure that all areas of dialogue, consultation, engagement and decision-making are robust and transparent as this will impact on the task ahead. The first stage is about ‘joining up’ all stakeholders to ‘talk’ and ‘engage’ in a timely and formal manner. Existing relationships with, for example, KQSN, and Friends Groups exist (which are fruitful partnerships built over many years) but difficult to maintain without a single mechanism of communication. The question is therefore how we become smarter in our approach to stakeholder engagement which is both innovative and sustainable.

103

10.2 Engagement InitiativesLiverpool City Council’s vision is “to enable Liverpool to become the first Smart City in the UK creating ongoing monitoring of resource deployment, insightful visualizations and constant feedback loops to develop a highly efficient, interactive and engaging city stimulating behavioural change. This will develop a low carbon, competitive and therefore sustainable Liverpool City Region utilising contemporary technology and design….” Liverpool City Council has already identified the need to think differently about the issue we’re all facing, firstly by commissioning this independent Review Board to help facilitate discussions and rationalise the terms of reference for the ongoing management and maintenance of our greenspace and secondly the city’s commitment to smart technologies and environmental sustainability. Using both face-to-face and digital methods of communication a tool box of mediums can be created, one supporting the other, to achieve a successful engagement strategy for our green and open spaces.

The creation of an interactive website would encourage people to discover and support their local parks but also provides a platform for individual projects and events with an investment strategy to develop crowd funding, longer term sustainability and endowment funds. It should also provide information about park events, facilities and activities.

MyPark Scotland is one of 11 UK ‘park trailblazers’ in the Rethinking Parks Programme, funded by NESTA, Heritage Lottery Fund and Big Lottery Fund, and is thus an avenue of funding LCC can explore for the development of such a tool. However, Liverpool can be more creative and incorporate our cultural offer, actives and events happing across the city from local community activities and projects, to more strategic park events such as ‘African Oye’ and the ‘Giants’ visits. An animated character representing the old ‘Park Wardens,’ the Liverpool virtual ‘Parkie’ should be explored as an approachable image would encourage a more friendly engagement experience in relation to park communications, information sharing or responses to complaints perhaps about litter, or dog fouling. Positive engagement with dog owners such as a local dog show, with donated prizes from dog grooming salons to help reduce the amount of dog fouling may be more productive, than just imposing fines – negativity breeds negative actions.

On-line recruitment for volunteers for both culture and park activities is also a good way of engaging people and encouraging them to participate in decision making processes as part of their volunteering experience.

Awards to showcase the work local people do for their Parks and Open Spaces e.g. Best Park Gardens, Best Allotment, dog shows are all fun ways of engaging people, and a means of capturing information about usage and the health benefits associated with being more active. NHS England, CCG or Local Business could sponsor these events generating an income that can be reinvested, either to fund other activities or sustain administrative support to Friends Group Forums and/or the Green and Open Spaces Ambassadors Programme.

The creation of an internet based parks app would feature parks, gardens and open space, with images and video footage relating to the cultural heritage of those sites. Regular activities and events would encourage greater footfall boosting the economy at a micro level within parks, but also citywide, not to mention the potential health benefits. Better marketing and promotion is the key to the success for any business – the business of our city’s parks and green spaces is no exception. One example of a similar app is: The Chimani National Parks app (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chimani.parks.free&hl=en_GB), which contains details on each of the 400 plus units of the U.S. National Park Service, including national parks, monuments, seashores, historic sites, and more. The app includes a photo gallery with hundreds of images, and the ability to collect badges and earn points for each of the parks you visit.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends the creation of an interactive website. Such a

website would encourage people to discover and support their local parks

but also provide a platform for individual projects and events with an

investment strategy to develop crowd funding, longer term sustainability

and endowment funds. It should also provide information about park

events, facilities and activities.

104

The creation of a gaming experience of our parks could incorporate the concept of ‘gaming’ into park technologies that can provide both and on-line and real time experience or activity. Games and gaming is already a very popular way of engaging children to learn in a fun and creative way with on-line homework platforms such as Purple Mash (https://www.2simple.com/purple-mash) which focuses on numeracy and literacy and more lately for fun through Pokeman-Go. Developing a similar on-line game and activities that promote the use of a local park or green space familiar to the learner, incorporating outdoor adventures, such as a Treasure Hunt, (horticultural or heritage based perhaps), adding value to their classroom curriculum but also promoting local knowledge of their area and community, health and wellbeing advantages too. ‘To get children to be active in parks, public open space needs to be interesting and provide an element of risk’. Nature-based features (i.e., trees, rocks and water) in parks attract children and youth of all ages (Fjørtoft, 2001, Fjørtoft and Sageie, 2000, Lee and Christiansen, 1999, Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz, 2002, Wood et al, 2010).

The creation of a ‘Green and Open Spaces Ambassadors Programme’ would benefit parks by ‘Ambassadors’ providing face to face engagement, and harnessing local involvement from Community Groups, Friends Groups, and local Business investors as well as employment/volunteering opportunities for local people to help maintain and improve parks. The programme should incorporate an element of peer support and mentoring, education and training for those participating. Funding to support the programme could be sourced from Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM), Skills Funding Agency (SFA), ESF and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG); building the capacity of the programme, providing real resources and employability progression routes for participants willing to support the maintenance and upkeep of local greenspace – either incidental, pocket or large park activities. This group could provide the content for the website, be ‘the Parkie’, organise shows and awards for the Best Park Friend of the Month perhaps – complementing and adding value to the digital and reality engagement methods. As far as is reasonably practicable, all stakeholders would be kept informed of planning developments, and fully consulted and involved with decision making process relating to changes to the local green infrastructure.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends the creation of an internet based parks app

which would feature parks, gardens and open space, with images and

video footage relating to the cultural heritage of those sites. Promoting

regular activities and events would encourage greater footfall boosting the

economy both at a micro-level within parks and citywide.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends the creation of a gaming experience of our parks.

The concept of ‘gaming’ could be incorporated into park technologies that

can provide both and on-line and real time experience or activity.

105

In addition to the Ambassadors programme there is the potential for greater interactivity with the city-wide Parks Forum to facilitate innovation in parks management and financing in Liverpool.

Recommendation:

The Board recommends the creation of a ‘Green and Open Spaces

‘Ambassadors Programme’. ‘Ambassadors’ would benefit parks by

‘Ambassadors’ providing face to face engagement, and harnessing local

involvement from Community Groups, Friends Groups, and local Business

investors as well as employment/volunteering opportunities for local

people to help maintain and improve parks.

Recommendation

The Board recommends that where feasible and appropriate that events

held in the city’s parks and green spaces are shared equitably across

Liverpool. This would promote interactions and investment in a larger

number of major sites in north and south Liverpool.

Recommendation

The Board recommends an ongoing engagement with the Liverpool

Friends of Parks Forum to liaise between local and site specific issues and

city-wide green and open space management practices.

Final recommendation

The Board recommends that the City Council commit to providing

sufficient in-house capacity and resources to both explore and test Trust

model options and drive forward delivery of the key recommendations

within this final report.

107

1.1 Board Thematic Recommendations

11. Recommendations

Chair’s Comment:

Although the final report makes recommendations in a number of areas and

provides detail and background on wider areas such as health and wellbeing,

environmental factors, education etc. The main focus of the Review Board

was to explore the financial issues that faced the city council and to identify

options that could help to preserve and improve our green and open spaces.

As such, the reader is referred to the main body of the report for the wider

discussions and I restrict myself here to providing a summary of the Board’s

final set of recommendations (Table 3) and additionally highlighting the 4 key

recommendations which I, as Chair believe are realistically achievable and would

have the most impact in the shortest space of time.

108

Finance – cost reduction, commercialisation and revenue generationNo Cost Reduction Reference

1 if transitional funding cannot be secured prior to 2017/18 then maintenance of the city’s green and open spaces should be reduced from its current regime to 50 - 70% in the interim. At such a point when a sustainable form of financing becomes available the 100% maintenance (modified to meet needs) can be reinstated.

Chapter 7 Section 7.1.1

2 the city council should continue the engagement with Menlove Gardens and Circular Road West communities to investigate and build transfer models for alternative maintenance.


Commercialisation

3 a review of the commercialisation opportunities for the city’s green and open spaces be undertaken to identify sites where activities and/or businesses can be promoted to increase revenue. The Board recommends that Liverpool City Council works with local communities and businesses to identify opportunities for small, medium and large scale commercialisation activities.


4 council Officers from Parks and Green Spaces, Culture-Liverpool and Licensing should work together to share expertise and streamline and improve the events application process for Parks events.


Revenue Generation

5 £1.3 million efficiencies from Cemeteries and Crematoria be retained and reinvested back into Parks. Chapter 7 Section 7.1.1

6 all commercial for-profit events held in the city’s green spaces are charged appropriate licensing fees that cover the reinstatement costs and make a financial contribution to ongoing site maintenance.


7 all income generating events in parks should be managed by the Culture Liverpool Team in liaison with Green Space Officers. Revenue generated through park events should be ring-fenced for future parks maintenance, subject to payment of an agreed percentage management fee to the Culture Liverpool Team.


8 whichever future management option is adopted that at least 50% of any dowry, uplift from development of open space and/or sale of assets within the green space should be ring-fenced for the Parks Trust or future maintenance of public green and open spaces.


9 all commercial receipts generated from commercial activities including, but not exclusively from, income associated with parks leases, parks concessions and parks sponsorship be ring-fenced to fund on-going maintenance of the city’s green and open spaces. This income would be utilised to manage green spaces across Liverpool, and not just the sites where events are held.


10 where legal requirements are met developer contributions in the form of commuted sums are ring-fenced to financially support the delivery of the city’s green corridors (where most appropriate), rather than being used to fund alternative services.


Table 3 Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board Thematic Recommendations

The final report should be read in conjunction with the Interim Report, and recommendations in the final report are additional to and complement those in the Interim Report. The Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board recommend:

109

Engagement, Health, Wellbeing and ActivityNo Engagement Reference

11 an ongoing engagement with the Liverpool Friends of Parks Forum to liaise between local and site specific issues and city-wide green and open space management practices.

Chapter 10 Section 10.2

12 the creation of a ‘Green and Open Spaces ‘Ambassadors Programme’. ‘Ambassadors’ would benefit parks by providing face to face engagement, and harnessing local involvement from Community Groups, Friends Groups, and local Business investors as well as employment/volunteering opportunities for local people to help maintain and improve parks.


13 where feasible and appropriate that events held in the city’s parks and green spaces are shared equitably across Liverpool. This would promote interactions and investment in a larger number of major sites in north and south Liverpool.


14 Liverpool City Council continue to work with schools, Education Authorities, The Mersey Forest and other stakeholders to identify and energise ‘A Forest School For Every School’ on a citywide scale. This work to commence with the newly created public woodland at Woolton Woods being developed as a Forest School for schools within Woolton, Allerton and Hunts Cross wards.


15 the creation of an internet based parks app that would feature parks, gardens and open space, with images and video footage relating to the cultural heritage of those sites. Promoting regular activities and events would encourage greater footfall boosting the economy both at a micro-level within parks and citywide.


16 the creation of an interactive website. Such a website would encourage people to discover and support their local parks but also provide a platform for individual projects and events with an investment strategy to develop crowd funding, longer term sustainability and endowment funds. It should also provide information about park events, facilities and activities.


17 when a community organisation can generate community value from the management and maintenance of incidental spaces, the city council should prioritise that community’s needs in any development proposals for those spaces.


18 Liverpool City Council should continue to work with the Anfield based Homebaked Community Land Trust to explore opportunities for Homebaked to take over the maintenance and development of the recreation ground at the rear of this building.


110

No Health and Wellbeing Reference

19 a series of interventions to make more effective and visible links between the city’s green and open spaces and improving the health of Liverpool’s population. These include:

•20 of the largest parks in Liverpool should be of equal quality and equally accessible to all communities

•No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of accessible natural green space of at least 2 hectares in size (and with a children’s play area)

•Every person over the age of 60 years living in Liverpool should have access to a communal space, garden, allotment or raised bed within 500 metres of where they live, so that they can grow plants and vegetables

•All GPs should be able to recommend a free activity (i.e. Health Walks, Green Gym etc.) in a park or as part of a community prescription in which patients with long term conditions participate in activity programmes – that are logged electronically

•In 2017/18 aim to get 5,000 Liverpool Residents to visit a park that they have not visited before and a further 10,000 Liverpool residents in 2018/19.


Activity

20 City Council to continue to work with interested stakeholders to identify places to grow food across the city. Chapter 4 Section 4.7

21 to ensure a continuation of Liverpool’s proud heritage of creating national and international talent in football it is imperative that both of the city’s football clubs and the Premier League and the city’s professional football clubs join with the FA and enter into dialogue with the City Council to discuss the viability of funding and improving football pitch provision and management in the long-term.


22 the creation of a gaming experience of our parks. The concept of ‘gaming’ could be incorporated into park technologies that can provide both and on-line an real time experience or activity.


111

Categorisation, Provision and Protection of GreenspaceNo Categorisation Reference

23 the land categorisation work continues as an essential tool for the future development and preservation of the city green and open spaces.


Provision

24 the city takes steps to ensure that its Green Flag parks retain their status as high quality spaces. Green Flag parks provide the city with nationally important spaces which can be used to promote the liveability and investment environment of Liverpool to external partners.


Protection

25 the concept of a Parks Trust or Trusts be explored and that subject to the establishment of a Parks Trust management model that ‘(a) Shadow Board(s) of Trustees’ are created to oversee the development of the Trust(s).


26 no playgrounds/provision should be lost to development in Liverpool (without a like for like replacement in close proximity), and where possible provision of play equipment should be improved.


112

Creation/Improvement of Green and Blue Spaces

No Green Spaces Reference

27 the ‘Green Web’ network forming the green web should be identified as a strategic investment within the Local Plan consultation to ensure that developer contributions from sites located in proximity to the corridors can be generated to make financial contributions to deliver the scheme. Given its spatial diversity and potential to deliver benefits across Liverpool the ‘Green Web’ may be able to deliver a multitude of social, economic and ecological benefits to the city that are cost-effective and make best use of the city’s existing green network and areas of brownfield land.


28 to kick start the green corridor work and realise the possibilities of the ‘Green Web’ initiative. The city council should work in partnership and through the Horizon 2020 programme if possible to establish the first green corridor in the Baltic area, linking Bold Street to the Arena on the waterfront.

The Board also recommends the following specific corridors: •An area close to the Churchill Flyovers should be identified as a conduit for a wider Business District City Centre green corridor •The Eastern Corridor moving from the city centre to the city’s boundary •The Everton - Anfield corridor linking the city centre, Everton Valley, Anfield and Croxteth Hall Park •Southern corridor linking the city-centre with Sefton Park, Princes Park, Calderstones Park and Otterspool Promenade.


29 that stakeholders should work together to develop the vital link of the ‘Green Web’ between Newsham Park and Fairfield through to Wavertree Technology Park and Wavertree Botanic Gardens.


30 the Mayor engages Merseytravel, MEAS and The Mersey Forest and other stakeholders to begin costing and planning the Green Corridor network (or ‘Green Web’) in greater detail. The implementation of the ‘Green Web’, as embedded in the Local Plan, should begin with an implementation plan for critical sites.


31 biodiversity should be a key consideration and form an integral part of the Local Plan consultation and the ‘Green Web’ vision for the city.


32 two new areas of public woodland are developed. One in Kirkdale next to Kirkdale Station, now known as Melrose Cutting (formally the ‘Ralla’ site) which could act as a community hub as well as a green corridor route spur to Kirkdale Station. The second opportunity is to continue to work with the Mersey Forest and local communities to further explore the possibility of creating a new woodland at Fairfield, adjacent to Newsham Park in Kensington and Fairfield ward bordering Old Swan.


33 the Mayor and city to continue to engage with the British Horse Society (BHS) to co-ordinate a Liverpool City Horse Riding Strategy and city-wide stabling/livery network linked to the ‘Green Web’’ Network.


113

No Blue Spaces Reference

34 United Utilities continue their work to investigate and model the effect of theoretical green space loss on future surface water flooding within the city to provide a robust business-case for future investment in services and green infrastructure


35 all partners and stakeholders to continue to engage and creatively develop the city centre dock system as vital public space and corridor routes.


36 dialogue should continue with the Canal and River Trust, Maritime Museum and other stakeholders to create a City Centre Stevedore Adventure Park on the Graving Dock Dockside which will also increase connectivity in and around the Albert Dock area.


37 the city should engage with ‘Bluegreen’ to identify another Riverside Greenspace and investigate the potential for the development of an ‘Eden of The North’: https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/northwest/pomona-island-green-space-set-for-prs-scheme


Capacity and resources

No Capacity and Resources Reference

38 the City Council commit to providing sufficient in-house capacity and resources to both explore and test Trust model options and drive forward delivery of the key recommendations within this final report.


Chair’s comment:

My Liverpool ‘Green Vision’ proposes a multi-faceted approach to the long-term management of the

city’s green and open spaces making use of a number of options/recommendations contained within

the report. The central aim of the vision is to limit the constraints placed upon Liverpool City Council

by current, and potential future austerity measures and enhance such spaces by strategically linking

the following recommendations.

Following extensive discussion with stakeholders in the city and nationally I believe that the following

approaches should be considered to finance future green and open space provision.

114

1.2 Chair’s Recommendations

1. A Parks TrustThroughout the review it has become clearer to me that a Parks Trust in some form could help to solve the ongoing financial maintenance of parks and green spaces whilst also protecting them in the longer term by transferring them to an independent body whose long term objective is solely to maintain, preserve and enhance them for all to enjoy.

Whilst other financial models may seek to balance the books in the short-term, they often fail to address the potential long-term sustainability that a Parks Trust could offer. I believe it is only by transferring our parks to a Trust or similar organisation that we can free them from the financial constraints of City Council control and allow them to generate an income that can support them in the future.

The process will be overseen by a Shadow Board of Trustees/Management Team who will work with local stakeholders to ensure the funding and management of the city’s parks remains effective. Each sub-management team will report to the overarching Parks Trust Board of Trustees.

The proposed Parks Trust for Liverpool makes use of a ‘blended finance model’ to support short and long-term investment in the city’s green and open spaces. A ‘blended finance model’ is one that operates on endowment, commercialisation, financial gifts and other support. To ensure the successful migration from planning to implementation the proposal is to use a tiered hierarchy of sites linked through a Federal Park Trust structure.

In practice Liverpool could be categorised into six clusters using Tier 1 parks as the financial ‘anchor’ that other lower tier parks and spaces can ‘tie onto’ for management and funding purposes. The Tier 1 parks will be used to attract funding which will cascade down to the lower tiered sites under the Charitable Federal Parks Trust model. Funding will be obtained from a range of sources discussed within the report.

Figure 6 highlights the initial conceptualisation of the proposed clusters and provides a draft working illustration of how clusters could be formed. The separate clusters each contain an identified Tier 1 park and a range of other green and open spaces. The clusters encourage local focus and continued community /stakeholder engagement, whilst providing a degree of flexibility to use the commercial spaces most effectively. However, in order to apply economies of scale and strategic planning, the clusters would all form part of a single Charitable Federal Parks Trust.

Figure 6. Proposed Charitable Federal Parks Clusters


Tier 1 Parks

Cemeteries and Crematoria

Non-Parks Trust Sport

Key Housing Association Areas

115

Putting all our beautiful parks into a Charitable Trust and thus removing them from the political agenda and securing them in a legal framework for generations to come would be on the understanding that all such assets would continue to be the property of the people of Liverpool but safeguarded in the longer term under lease to The Liverpool Parks Trust.

2. Green Space Maintenance and

Development FundingTo support future maintenance of green space for a Trust or other financial model it is critical that the revenue generated by the assets within the park can be ring fenced for the future maintenance of green and open spaces.

3. External Green Space FundingIn support of green space improvement and the delivery of some of the recommendations made within this report it will be important to work with stakeholders and external funding bodies to attract the capital and investment needed to realise the City’s vision for its green spaces. An opportunity currently exists for the city council to work with the Heritage Lottery Funding (HLF) to investigate an application for between £100,000 - £250,000 Resilience Funding to aid the city to develop the institutional framework and buy-in from key partners/stakeholders for a Parks Trust structure for Liverpool. This is a timely opportunity to work collaboratively with some other core cities that are on a similar green space journey and should be embraced by Liverpool City Council.

Together with the Board, I strongly endorse the current work in the City Council to develop an EU Horizon 2020 funding application that could attract financial support for research and investment in developing green corridors in the city. If successful, this work would help to deliver and retrofit green corridors into urban areas; delivering both on the recommendations within this review and that of the Mayoral Commission on Sustainability.

Chair’s Recommendation:

I therefore recommend that The Mayor and Liverpool City

Council work with relevant partners to explore the options

and seek to endow an Independent Charitable Parks Trust

for Liverpool.


I therefore recommend that capital receipts of any green or

open space sale be retained to fund the maintenance and

development of the city’s other green spaces and recommend

that a minimum of 50% of any sale or uplift be retained to fund

green space management.


I therefore recommend that Liverpool City Council

investigates funding opportunities through the Heritage

Lottery Fund to further explore the Parks Trust Vision and

that the City Council also continues to assess the viability of

other funding mechanisms to support future green and open

space provision.

116

4. Liverpool ‘Green Web’

I believe that the ‘Green Web’ provides a spatial structure to support socio-economic development in the city, as well as being essential to regulating, supporting and providing ecological services. Joined up working between officers in planning and environmental services will help to ensure continuity between the ‘Green Web’ and the Local Plan preparations and consultation

Within the ‘Green Web’ there are also a number of strategic projects that I feel could be fast-tracked and/or promoted as key components of the city’s environmental resource base. Specific projects include the Everton Valley green link, the Friends of the Flyover project, and the provision of an east-west corridor linking the River Mersey, city centre and the Merseyside Green Belt.

At the same time, I ask the whole city to grasp the opportunity of building the ‘Green Web’ traffic free corridors so Liverpool can catch up with other world class smart cities as this century develops. The city, housing developers, commercial stakeholders, health and infrastructure partners should commit to the strategic planning and delivery of a network for the people of the city and region to enjoy. Where possible this scheme should seek to incorporate the creative vision amongst us and we should embrace opportunities to build a Flyover Park, create Walks on Water and integrate Horse and equestrian facilities all over and before the window of opportunity closes uncover a

hidden woodland and rediscover forgotten bridges and ancient byways. Let’s not be ruled by the accountants and get on with it. One senior Council Officer pointed out that if Sustrans had ever worked out how much it would cost to maintain the bridge decks on the Loop Line then they would never have built it. Thank heavens they didn’t or that fabulous facility, my favourite bike route, would not exist!

The progress Liverpool has made to date, where it is now and the journey that lies ahead is perhaps best illustrated and captured below using the NESTA Seven Stages for Innovation in Figure 7.

Having started at stage one in December 2014 the work of the Board has over the last 18 months carried Liverpool through the first 4 stages, positioning us strongly and enabling us to make a solid case to progress this work further through to its conclusion.

There is still a way to go, both on delivering the recommendations and making the parks more financially sustainable. The City Council will need to provide continued support and capacity to drive forward this work and to maximise the benefits that a new way of working can potentially bring.

If Liverpool can pull together the above recommendations, then not only could it protect the long term future of green and open spaces it would also progress the existing legacy and demonstrate that Liverpool continues to lead the way and retain its place as a city of innovation on the global stage.


I recommend that a proposed ‘Green Web’ (a network of

linking green corridors) be integrated and be taken forward

in the Liverpool City Council Local Plan at the earliest

possible juncture.

117

Figure 7. Liverpool’s 7 Stages for Innovation (using the NESTA 7 Stages for Innovation).

3

4 5

6

7

Developing & Testing

Making the Case

Delivering & Implementing

Growing & Scaling

Changing Systems

1 Opportunities & Challenges

2 Generating Ideas

1. Review December 2014

2. Board consults January 2015

onwards

3. Interim Report December 2015

4. Final Report October 2016

6. Decisions 2018 onwards

7. Implementation 2018 onwards

5. Heritage Lottery Bid (2016 to 2018) Horizon 2020 Bid (2017 to 2020)

Glendale-Liverpool Ltd maintenance contract ends 2018 Alternative maintenance models 2017/18

Nesta 7 stages for Innovation

Rethinking Parks Report 2013

Rethinking Parks Programme

119

Some 4,500 miles by train, 2,100 miles by bike and 410 miles by car and

over 7,000 miles travelled to see more than a 1,000 spaces in Liverpool and

in England. Searching for answers to the oddest and most engaging work I

have ever undertaken.

The conclusion: there is no single answer, yet.

However, with the right commitment, I truly believe that Liverpool could be

the place where answers can be found. We are looking for a new way of

enhancing and protecting our green spaces, one that offers security for the

future, and uses the city’s landscape as part of the offer to develop the city for

21st Century living. A model that can to be replicated in cities around the UK .

Many people doubted Joe’s wisdom in inviting me, a loose cannon, into the

Council. Many people (including me) thought I was mad to accept a role

within the seemingly opaque political world of local council. Yet it seems to

have worked.

Being independent, whilst having the Liverpool City brand supporting me,

has allowed me (and the Board) to engage with people and organisations

in a frank and enquiring manner and ask blunt questions without an overtly

political agenda or bias. Along the way I have met some truly inspirational

people, too numerous to mention here, but thanks to all those energetic

souls who patiently, and enthusiastically, answered my sometimes obvious

questions, and championed their personal passions and ideas, a number of

which are just too good to ignore.

Some of the places I have visited have also been inspiring. Again too many

to list but around Liverpool a few have really stuck with me. The scrubby

brownfield site on Edge Lane was the moment I realised the ‘Green Web’

corridor network could be practically achieved. Rice Lane City Farm should

not be ‘Liverpool’s best kept secret’ anymore, it should be supported and

advertised by all means possible! Wandering through a disused railway

tunnel into pristine woodland in Kirkdale was fabulously uplifting. The Isla

Gladstone in Stanley Park is a shining example of how commercialisation

in parks can be achieved. Larkhill Gardens, Dutch Farm and Scargreen are

all brilliant parks just a few miles from my front door that I never even knew

existed.

Perhaps the most important park of all to me - that all of the Board Members

are sick of hearing me mention is Doric Park in Old Swan. It is in fact a very

ordinary park but to the people who live in the terraced streets surrounding

it, Doric Park is irreplaceable. It symbolizes many such public parks and

green spaces around our city and throughout the country. It is part of the

community and will hopefully remain so for many years. During hours of

debate in the boardroom and with the public, listening to expert advice and

reading detailed evidence suggesting ways of maintaining our green and

open spaces in these difficult times, I have repeatedly asked the question

“What about Doric Park?” If any model or alternative regime being proposed

doesn’t solve the maintenance issues and future security of the likes of Doric

Park then, to me, whatever is being proposed is not good enough.

12. Chair’s Concluding Thoughts

120

It is worth mentioning that I got involved with this process due to a local

campaign I felt very strongly about. Campaigning for something you care

about passionately is hard work and takes dedication. Sometimes the

result is not what you wanted but the ripples can become waves. However,

throughout all the discussions, all the arguments, and all the evidence there

must be space for a rational discussion. Following such a process I would

like to applaud both the campaigners and the Mayor for ensuring that Walton

Hall Park will be there for future generations.

Drawing together the disparate strands of this process, I, as the Chair of the

Review, would like to do three things.

Firstly, I would like to thank the Board, the City Council and all the amazing

individuals I have encountered, for their support and expertise which has

been crucial in framing this Review.

Secondly, I would like to reflect on the Interim Report which identified 31

interim recommendations and outlined some key objectives for the final

report recommendations. Since the publication of the Interim Report in

December 2015, it is pleasing to note that despite the difficult financial and

capacity restrictions that the council is currently operating under, the green

space agenda has been prioritised and there are a number of examples

where recommendations have been significantly progressed. These

include the development of the ‘Green Web’ initiative and its inclusion in the

emerging Local Plan, the launch of the Environmental Initiative Fund, £1m

of funding being made available to address inadequacies in outdoor play

provision across the city to both improve existing facilities and build new

facilities where they are most needed and the announcement of a new park

in Kirkdale, Melrose Cutting, which was a direct result of the ongoing work

of the review.

Many of the other recommendations are also being progressed and several

have been further explored and are re-presented within the final report;

specifically those around new provision of green and open space, equality

and accessibility to green space, outdoor play provision, the continued

exploration of community asset transfer for some spaces, ongoing work

to investigate alternative financial models and a greater analysis on green

space and associated health and wellbeing issues.

Thirdly I ask for action not just words. I believe that if the recommendations

and objectives are acted upon then our already beautiful green city would be

what it has been on many occasions during its history, a beacon of innovation

and creativity for others to follow.

The development of the Green and Open Spaces Review has not been

straightforward. Neither has it been a process of agreement between the

Board Members, Liverpool City Council and the public. However, what it has

done is to bring a number of very emotive issues into a public forum leading

to a much needed discussion of what green and open spaces mean to the

people of Liverpool, and how, in a time of austerity, the City Council (and

other partners) can finance their provision and management in the future.

Following the collection, discussion and exploration of the evidence presented,

the Mayoral Commission has identified a number of recommendations

aimed at managing the city’s green and open spaces in the long-term. These

121

are presented in the Recommendation Chapter of this report, where they

have been grouped thematically and are additionally complemented by the

4 priority actions which I believe will yield the greatest impact in the shortest

period of time.

I end by once more emphasising the importance historically, presently and for

the future of our green and open spaces. Liverpool is blessed with beautiful

Parks and fabulous green and blue spaces. An amazing asset way beyond

the understanding of hawkish number crunchers. The national population

will continue to rise and my extensive travels with work have taught me that

what Liverpool has to offer is head and shoulders above most other cities,

so people will come and make it home in ever increasing numbers but that

increase will never be an excuse to build on public spaces. The complete

opposite is true as the value of ‘space’ increases. Furthermore, in difficult

financial times, the temptation to sell off the family jewels is obvious. With

regard to Parks and public green spaces, such short-term thinking is folly.

There are other answers if the political will and vision is there. As well as

developing the ways to link these precious places, all public green space

should be legally protected in perpetuity and Liverpool will continue to be a

place I am proud to call home.

Simon O’Brien. Chair of the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board

122

Priceless ......... (Doric Park)

123

Term/Acronyms: Full Description:

3G (Pitches) They refer to ‘third generation’ and types of artificial turf. The general idea is that the more G, the more technological advancement it incorporates, and the closer it should resemble playing on real grass.

AGP Artificial Grass Pitches.

ANGSt The accessible Green and Open Space Standards released by Natural England.

APSE Association of Public Service Excellence.

AQMA Air Quality Management Areas.

AQAP Air Quality Action Plan.

BID Business Improvement District.

BSS British Safety Standards.

CCG Clinical Commissioning Group.

CAF Corporate Access Forum.

CAG 2010 Citrix Access Gateway Hardware Installation & Set Up Guide.

Cartif CARTIF develops research and development projects, directly funded by companies or public funds raised through competitive calls for national and international level. CARTIF also advises public authorities (municipalities and regional governments) in the planning and development of innovative projects with high economic returns.

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy.

CLASP 2016 Challenge Lead Applied Systems Programme.

COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

FA Football Association, The.

FRMS 2016 Flood Risk Management Strategies.

GIS Geographic Information System, is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyse, manage and present all types of spatial or geographical data.

GP General Practitioner (Doctor)

Green Belt Green belt or greenbelt policy and land use designation use in land use planning to retain areas of largely undeveloped, wild or agricultural urban areas.

Green Corridors A green corridor, wildlife corridor or habitat corridor is an area of habitat connecting wildlife populations separated by human activities or structures (such as roads, development, or logging).

GVA Gross Value Added.

Glossary of Terms & Acronyms

124

HLF Heritage Lottery Fund.

HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

ILM Institute of Leadership and Management.

KWSN Knowledge Quarter Strategic Network.

LMH Liverpool Mutual Housing.

LEAP Liverpool Environmental Advocate Team.

The Local Plan The Local Plan sets out how Liverpool will plan its future development. It will guide new developments to appropriate locations, while protecting our natural environment and built heritage, and provides guidance to developers on submitting planning applications. The Local Plan is shaped by the National Planning Policy Framework – the top tier of planning policy.

LTA Lawn Tennis Association.

Meanwhile Space A space which will host an alternative interim, temporary or ‘meanwhile’ use (e.g. wildflower planting, community garden) pending the commencement of an otherwise agreed planning use for the site.

MEAS Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service.

MPs Elected Member of Parliament.

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NDD Nature Deficit Disorder.

NBS Nature Based Solutions.

NESTA An innovation charity that has been chosen by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to engage ‘exemplars’ projects to find possible solutions to the issue of financing green and open spaces.

NERC National Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework.

PPS Playing Pitch Strategy.

PASS Physical Activity and Sports Strategy.

PRoW Public Rights of Way.

Posit Puts forward as fact or as a basis for an argument.

Purdah Purdah is the pre-election period in the United Kingdom, specifically the time between an announced election and the final election results. This time period prevents central and local government from making announcements about any new or controversial government initiatives (such as modernisation initiatives or administrative and legislative changes), which could be seen to be advantageous to an candidates or parties in the forthcoming election.

RAMSAR A RAMSAR site is the land listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the RAMSAR Convention) 1973.

125

S106 Section 106 development agreements are a mechanism which makes a development proposal acceptable in planning terms that would not otherwise be acceptable. A section106 obligation can: •Restrictthedevelopmentoruseofthelandinanyspecificway •Requirespecifiedoperationsoractivitiestobecarriedoutin,onorovertheland •Requirethelandtobeusedinanyspecificwayor •Requirethesumorsumstobepaidtotheauthority(or,totheGreaterLondonAuthority)onaspecifieddateordatesorperiodically

SFA Skills Funding Agency.

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

SLH South Liverpool Housing.

Social Prescribing Social prescribing’ is defined by the Centre Forum Mental Health Commission as ‘a mechanism for linking patients with non-medical sources of support within the community’, including ‘opportunities for arts and creativity, physical activity, learning new skills, volunteering, mutual aid, befriending and self-help, as well as support with, for example, employment, benefits, housing, debt, legal advice, or parenting problems’ (Centre Forum Mental Health Commission, 2014; p6). In their informative review of social prescribing in the UK, Thomson, Camic and Chatterjee (2015) note how it has been brought about by the decentralisation of healthcare decision making from national to local government and is based on the notion that prevention is better than cure and the organisation of multi-agency and holistic approaches to healthcare. Actual models vary and include, for example, ‘Arts on Prescription’, ‘Books on Prescription’ and ‘Education on Prescription’. From the perspective of green and open spaces, relevant models would include ‘Exercise on Prescription’, ‘Green Gyms’ and green and open space- related ‘Healthy Living Initiatives’.

SPA Special Protection Area.

SuDS A sustainable drainage system (SuD) is designed to reduce the potential impact of new and existing developments with respect to surface water drainage discharges.

SGOSRB Strategic Green & Open Spaces Review Board.

ToR Terms of Reference.

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

UK NEA National Ecosystem Assessment.

UKCP09 UK Climate Projections.

LCC Liverpool City Council.

PPP Public Private Partnerships.

Defra Dept of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs.

127

List of AppendicesAppendix Number Appendix Title

Appendix 1 Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board, Terms of Reference, 2015

Appendix 2 Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board National, NESTA and other Visits April 2015 – October 2016

Appendix 3 Review of Evidence of Nature and Health Plan for Liverpool. A report by Dr. William Bird, Intelligent Health, 2016

Appendix 4a Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service – Biodiversity Evidence base Report, October 2015

Appendix 4b Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service – Assessment of Biodiversity Value in Liverpool, October 2015

Appendix 5 Analysis of Parks and Other Costs/Income for Liverpool City Council, July 2016

Appendix 6 Analysis of Glendale Liverpool Limited Contract Costs and Related Income, 2016

Appendix 7 Burnley’s Green Space Strategy, 2015 - 2025

Appendix 8 Acrehurst Park Presentation, Riverside

Appendix 9 List of sites surveyed and visited in Liverpool for the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review

Appendix 10 Bibliography

Please note all appendices for the interim and final report can be downloaded at liverpool.gov.uk/greenandopenspaces

List of TablesTable Number

Table Title Chapter

1 Parks and Public Green Space Overall Costs 2016/17

7

2 Sports and Recreation Overall Costs 2016/17 7

3 Strategic Green and Open Space Review Board Thematic Recommendations

11

List of FiguresFigure Number

Figure Title Chapter

1 Health Map 4

2 Map of Football Association Hub Sites 7

3 Proposals for the Green Web routes 9

4 Existing outdoor play provision and planned new play provision and improvements

9

5 Illustrations of potential site at Brunswick Docks for Eden Centre of the North Tourist Attraction

9

6 Proposed Charitable Federal Park Clusters 117 Liverpool’s 7 Stages for Innovation (using the

NESATA Stages for Innovation)11

129

Appendix 1 Analysis of Parks and Other Costs/Income for Liverpool City Council, July 2016Simon O’Brien Chair of the SGOSRB: Dr. Juliet Staples Strategic Support to the Chair: (acting as Committee Secretary)

Cllr Stephen Munby: Cabinet Member

Steve Stuart: Brabners Stuart (retired)

Cllr Malcolm Kennedy: Cabinet Member

Maxine Ennis: CEO The Rotunda

David Hughes: Former Head of Planning, LCC Malcolm Kelly: Director, Woolton Youth Club

Ron Odunaiya: Director of Community Services, Liverpool City Council Victoria James: Local Entrepreneur

Professor Richard Meegan Professor of Economic Geography, European Institute for Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University

Dr Ian Mell Lecturer in Planning & Civic Design University of Liverpool

Stephen Claus Board Observer: Brabners Stuart, Liverpool

The Board to be further supported by: Simon McEneny (Assistant Director, Physical Assets); Derek Dottie (Parks (retired)); Mike Eccles (Planning); Peter Cosgrove (Glendale); Cllr Peter Mitchell (Parks); Mike Brown (Divisional Manager, Streetscene).

External Partners with interest in Green & Open Spaces: Nature Connected; Liverpool Park Friends Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Mersey Forest; The Land Trust; Liverpool Vision; Housing Associations; Wild Life Trust; Friends of the Earth; Universities; & Elected Members.

By Invitation: External organisations and community interest groups who can strategically input into the future of Green and Open Spaces use and development within Liverpool, as and when required.

1.0 Purpose:1.1 The purpose of the Review Board is to provide strategic direction and

recommendations to the Mayor/Cabinet/Council to make decisions in respect of the allocation of Strategic Green and Open Spaces for the benefit of the local communities of Liverpool.

1.2 The Review Board will operate as a key advisor on strategic green space planning, identifying benefits, testing solutions (both conceptual and real) and risk management. It will seek to align green spaces with the Council’s strategic priorities for the City.

1.3 It has ultimate accountability for the Strategic Review of Green and Open Spaces and acts as the ultimate point of reference for the development and allocation of land types (as set out below) across Liverpool.

2.0 Timescales:The Review Board will meet monthly and is expected to have concluded its review in six months, with final conclusion within twelve months.

3.0 Decision and Activity Areas are:3.1 Challenging and owning of the strategic review, associated with the

green and open space set out in section 4 .0 below.

3.2 Reviewing and making recommendations to the Council on open and green spaces provision, including options and type.

3.3 To ensure that equitable access and corridors of green spaces exists across Liverpool.

130

3.4 Supporting communication and stakeholder management in the strategic land review process.

3.5 Providing comments and guidance in the development of future maintenance and ownership to enable a sustainable model(s) of open space provision. (This may involve looking at other models operated across the country).

4.0 Business Objectives for the Board:4.1 The Green & Open Spaces Review Board will consider, challenge

and make recommendations on the following areas:

4.2 Green & Open Space Provision – The city needs to improve and preserve its green and open spaces for the future generations of our city. It is important that we use our green and open spaces in a sustainable way, making sure that they meet the needs of our communities.

4.3 Green Spaces Equitable Access for All - Successful, thriving and prosperous communities are characterised by streets, parks and open spaces that are maintained, clean, safe, attractive areas that local people are proud of and want to spend their time in. We need to ensure our green and open spaces are equitable and accessible to the communities they serve.

4.4 Land Identification & Ownership - Consider the key issues associated with land use in order to allow the Council to make decisions in relation to land ownership, equitable access, development and management. The project will review and agree the existing land assets and type. The following five categories are a suggested approach and a clear definition needs to be established by the Board for each category.

4.4.1 Large strategic open spaces such as parkland and lakes.

4.4.2 Land of community value – that provides local equitable access and contributes to local community cohesion.

4.4.3 Green Corridors – Green and open spaces that physically link sites and movement corridors for people and urban wildlife.

4.4.4 Incidental green and open space – that could be transferred to other individuals or organisations.

4.4.5 Land with a strategic value to the Council - whether that is through financial disposal to a developer; development of the land by the Council; or for wider regeneration and/or multifunctional benefits.

4.5 Green Space & Open Spaces Maintenance – To facilitate the development of a model that allows for the most appropriate methods for sustainable future management of green and open spaces.

Consideration should be given to the types of funding models that will enable sustainable open space provision, together with a management and maintenance position whilst ensuring that open space aligns with the Council’s wider strategic priorities, such as a cleaner greener Liverpool, economic growth, health, wellbeing, and community cohesion.

5.0 Frequency of Meetings:5.1 The Strategic Review Board will meet initially monthly; this is subject

to change and is expected to be adjusted, as and when based upon the key milestones (to be developed with the Board).

6.0 Communications and Governance:6.1 All Board Members to abide to the Officer and Member Code of

Conduct as attached at Appendix 1.

6.2 The Board to develop and approve a clear Communications Process and Standards.

7.0 Expenditure and Commissioning:7.1 Board Members will be reimbursed for travel and subsistence

expenses (see proforma attached as Appendix 2).

7.2 Where identified and approved by the Council, the Board will commission independent assessments/surveys as required to achieve the outputs identified below.

131

8.0 Agenda:1. Actions from previous meeting

2. Review topic and consideration

3. Performance and status, progress; milestones; issues, risks and actions

4. AOB

9.0 Inputs and Outputs:9.1 Input:

1. Actions from previous Meeting

2. Programme Board report(s)

3. Presentations & Site Visits

9.2 Output:

1. Actions agreed /updated (including overall RAG status and review comments)

2. Land use and associated key issues relating to sustainability, equity and ownership (Strategic Overview key sites, ward by ward review)

3. Future management and maintenance options for open spaces

4. Final report from the review board

10.0 Financials:10.1 There are a number of financial considerations that need to be

managed and monitored as part of the work. It is expected that the view of the Board will be concluded within 12 months and will be reviewed at 3 and 6 months:

•PaymentofcostandexpensesoftheChairandBoard

•Boardsupporttobeprovidedforupto12months

•Projectleadtobeprovidedforupto12months

•GISsupporttobeprovidedforupto12months

132

Appendix 5 Glendale Site Bill of Quantities by Area, by Cost and by Hectarage 2016/17

Site Hectares Cost per Hectare Annual Cost

Anfield Cemetery - Maintenance 44.160 £3,085.09 £136,237.39

Everton Cemetery - Maintenance 19.830 £3,254.94 £64,545.38

Kirkdale Cemetery - Maintenance 12.350 £2,867.29 £35,411.05

West Derby Cemetery - Maintenance 18.240 £3,259.35 £59,450.62

West Derby Cemetery (Jewish) - Maintenance 0.712 £9,767.51 £6,949.58

Allerton Cemetery - Jewish & Springwood (Maintenance) 6.890 £5,738.42 £39,537.70

Allerton Cemetery (Maintenance) 21.730 £7,825.49 £170,047.91

Toxteth Cemetery - Maintenance 18.600 £3,238.08 £60,228.23

Anfield Crematorium 0.473 £93,952.92 £44,477.31

Springwood Crematorium 2.847 £26,377.33 £75,090.99

St Georges Church 0.263 £12,028.63 £3,168.34

St Mary’s Church Walton 0.115 £7,758.00 £892.17

Holy Trinity Church 0.966 £4,873.73 £4,706.56

St James Church 0.390 £18,039.74 £7,035.50

St Nicholas Church Gardens 0.241 £50,317.52 £12,116.46

Croxteth Country Park 45.100 £2,771.13 £124,978.09

Everton Park 23.746 £2,320.32 £55,098.96

Newsham Park 37.433 £3,175.45 £118,867.21

Stanley Park 24.590 £7,528.56 £185,124.19

Walton Hall Park\ Walton Soccer Centre 55.360 £2,852.70 £157,925.65

Botanic Gardens/Wavertree Park 19.653 £5,583.66 £109,735.65

Based on desktop analysis

133


Calderstones Park 48.470 £3,067.20 £148,666.97

Otterspool Park 12.210 £2,429.98 £29,670.07

Otterspool Promenade 18.431 £4,345.13 £80,086.33

Princes Park 15.911 £4,537.34 £72,195.00

Sefton Park 50.100 £3,885.14 £194,646.19

Lower Breck Recreation Ground 9.684 £4,017.97 £38,908.40

Norris Green Park 6.729 £5,085.19 £34,219.25

Rice Lane Recreation Ground 8.241 £2,900.44 £23,903.09

Sheil Park Open Space 1.301 £7,413.31 £9,644.72

Springfield Park 9.040 £3,307.01 £29,894.40

Allerton Towers 8.530 £6,383.98 £54,455.38

Belle Vale Park 4.984 £6,296.28 £31,379.42

Clarke Gardens 14.270 £3,351.66 £47,828.18

Garston Recreation Ground (Long Lane) 12.280 £4,836.19 £59,388.41

Netherley Park 9.498 £1,882.12 £17,876.57

Sudley Estate 80.540 £526.21 £42,380.87

Wavertree Playground (The Mystery) 34.160 £2,973.64 £101,580.75

Wood Lane Recreation Ground 14.887 £1,541.09 £22,941.81

Woolton Wood & Camphill 19.427 £5,810.84 £112,887.71

Adlam Park 3.556 £5,899.01 £20,976.88

Alf Langly (Crocus Street) Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

Alt Park 2.553 £4,453.45 £11,369.65

Altcourse POS (Brookfield Drive) 2.888 £817.25 £2,360.38

Atlantic Park 1.688 £9,362.14 £15,806.10

Barnfield D.P.F. (Bill Shankley) 4.800 £4,321.11 £20,741.33

Birchfield Park 0.247 £16,622.41 £4,109.06

134


Canalside Park 4.823 £3,636.50 £17,538.85

Cantril Farm Park 2.155 £3,553.91 £7,659.39

Circular Road East Recreation Ground - Leisure 0.467 £37,784.83 £17,656.85

Clubmoor Recreation Ground 10.331 £3,074.67 £31,764.42

Croxteth Sports Centre 0.670 £10,279.58 £6,887.32

Devonfield Gardens 0.400 £37,195.65 £14,893.14

Doric Park (Wharncliffe Rec) 2.294 £6,222.40 £14,275.42

Dovecot Park 7.726 £2,792.32 £21,572.04

Everton Park (China Street) 0.000 £0.00 £2,310.91

Everton Park Nature Garden 0.405 £13,496.91 £5,464.90

Everton Sports Centre 6.005 £4,546.85 £27,305.68

Everton Terrace Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

Fazakerley Fields 0.000 £0.00 £437.77

Fazakerley Woods 11.300 £44.15 £498.86

Grant Gardens 1.655 £2,615.12 £4,326.97

Hawksmoor Park 2.555 £2,164.59 £5,529.65

Joe Stone Recreation Ground 11.805 £2,318.60 £27,371.13

Kirkdale Recreation Ground 2.213 £3,661.76 £8,102.74

Larkhill Gardens 1.155 £8,064.57 £9,314.58

Maiden Lane D.P.F. 2.156 £2,455.58 £5,294.24

Midghall Street Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

Muirhead Avenue Gardens Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

Norwood Grove POS 2.061 £2,036.24 £4,196.49

Parkview Recreation Ground 2.409 £3,198.07 £7,704.16

Peter Lloyd Sports Centre 0.721 £6,012.71 £4,336.97

Pythian Park (MUGA) 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

Scargreen Avenue D.P.F. 4.576 £3,383.78 £15,484.19

Seeds Lane Park 3.907 £5,272.66 £20,601.86

Thirlmere POS Playground 0.031 £82,954.17 £2,588.17

135


Thomas Lane Playing Field 5.689 £2,929.39 £16,663.81

Townsend Lane D.P.F. 3.556 £4,145.38 £14,740.97

Walker D.P.F. 5.047 £2,854.45 £14,406.71

Walton (Cherry Lane) Recreation Ground 1.598 £5,420.14 £8,659.76

Warbreck Moor Recreation Ground 1.249 £9,345.65 £11,675.52

Whitley Gardens 2.399 £2,969.44 £7,123.69

William Cliffe Recreation Ground 1.157 £3,545.20 £4,101.80

William Collins POS - Leisure 5.788 £3,180.60 £18,409.65

Aigburth Vale Playground 0.321 £22,414.00 £7,185.93

Banks Road Recreation Ground 1.577 £7,796.30 £12,290.87

Barnham Drive Playing Field 6.792 £2,172.50 £14,756.07

Black Wood 0.000 £0.00 £3,178.18

Blackrod Avenue Recreation Ground 0.920 £9,241.04 £8,498.98

Caldway Drive Recreation Ground 5.450 £3,166.05 £17,254.96

Childwall Woods & Fields 3.923 £987.09 £3,871.88

Crown Street POS 2.980 £4,457.87 £13,283.55

Dingle Recreation Ground 0.863 £5,335.79 £4,605.85

Dutch Farm Recreation Ground 0.655 £4,642.95 £3,042.99

Gateacre Recreation Ground 1.682 £3,072.86 £5,169.47

Greenbank D.P.F. 2.161 £4,284.82 £9,260.79

Greenbank Park 3.761 £14,286.23 £53,731.95

Holt Recreation Ground 6.503 £1,985.88 £12,914.76

Jericho Lane Playing Fields (Boys) 4.787 £4,959.92 £23,742.63

Jericho Lane Playing Fields (Girls) 3.418 £2,734.54 £9,345.58

King George V Playing Fields 3.980 £778.45 £3,098.23

Little Heath D.P.F. 2.601 £2,990.03 £7,777.06

Lyndene Recreation Ground 3.871 £2,132.98 £8,256.75

Mersey Road Playing Fields 4.324 £3,076.33 £13,302.03

Millwood/Alder Plantation 0.000 £0.00 £1,993.74

136


Northway Recreation Ground 3.349 £3,656.61 £12,245.99

Park Road Sports Centre 0.593 £9,580.44 £5,681.20

Parkhill Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,416.07

Picton Playground (Mill Lane) 0.578 £14,929.62 £8,633.80

Priory Wood 0.541 £8,390.83 £4,536.08

Rathbone Recreation Ground 2.330 £1,967.05 £4,583.23

Reynolds Park 4.123 £22,063.77 £90,962.29

Riverside Promenade (Green Space) 4.160 £3,884.11 £16,157.88

Roscoe Gardens 0.083 £38,948.85 £3,228.86

Sandon Street Garden 0.140 £14,169.26 £1,982.28

Sandown Park Playing Field 2.945 £2,545.12 £7,495.38

Score Lane Gardens 3.850 £4,462.97 £17,180.22

Shorefields Comp D.P.F. 3.359 £1,973.19 £6,627.37

Springwood Recreation Ground 2.432 £8,060.59 £19,602.54

St Agnes Playground 0.000 £0.00 £3,002.45

St James Gardens 0.802 £10,329.73 £8,282.38

St James Mount 0.490 £22,017.86 £10,797.56

St Johns Gardens 1.262 £27,182.35 £34,304.13

Stapleton Avenue Open Space 2.924 £3,381.83 £9,887.46

Palm House (Sefton Park) (Supply of Summer Bedding Only) 0.000 £0.00

Lester Gardens 1.185 £4,911.91 £5,821.11

Queens Drive Rest Gardens 0.232 £10,526.17 £2,437.86

Radcliffe POS Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

137


Richmond Park Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

St Martin’s Recreation Ground 0.642 £10,342.78 £6,641.10

Stalmine Road Gardens 0.592 £6,501.12 £3,846.71

Childwall POS Playground (Valley Rec) 0.000 £0.00 £1,295.27

Faulkner Square Park 0.650 £28,118.48 £18,274.20

Great George Square 0.443 £16,770.96 £7,421.15

Lyon Street Playground 0.000 £0.00 £1,155.46

Quarry Street Playground 0.388 £18,789.85 £7,296.10

St Lukes Church 0.424 £30,672.61 £13,011.32

The Venny Playground (Speke Adventure Playground) 0.000 £0.00 £2,311.00

Upper Hill Street Playground 0.000 £0.00 £3,399.17

Citywide Interments (6 Cemeteries) 2000.000 £286.11 £572,228.00

Tree Provison 955.502 £51.81 £49,500.00

Playgrounds Repairs - Labour & Materials 85 £820.94 £69,780.00

Infrastructure Repairs - Labour & Materials 955.502 £0.00

City Wide Astro Turf - Synthetic Pitches 22.000 £1,305.63 £28,723.87

Total Hectareage Average Cost Per Hectare Total Cost

955.502 £4,586.95 £4,382,840.43

138

Appendix 6Analysis of Glendale Liverpool Limited Contract Costs and Related Income, 2016

Parks & Other Green Space INCOME

Description Value £

Stanley car park -332,600

Funfairs -15,000

Concessions & rents -40,000

Total -387,600

Parks & Other Green Space COST


Parks & Play Grounds maintenance 2,081,568

Sports Pitches in Parks 150,000

Public Open Space 51,811

Staffing LCC client 252,000

Utilities 200,000

Depreciation 390,281

CSSR’s 578,396

Client Maintenance Budget 50,000

Total 3,754,056

Parks & Other Green Space COST


Parks & Play Grounds maintenance 2,081,568

Sports Pitches in Parks 150,000

Public Open Space 51,811

Staffing LCC client 252,000

Utilities 200,000

Depreciation 390,281

CSSR’s 578,396

Client Maintenance Budget 50,000

Total 3,754,056

Total Parks Cost (Nett) 3,366,456

Croxteth Hall & CP COST


Hall & CP 1,022,397

Glendales 151,600

Staff 326,080

27600

Total 1,527,677

139

Croxteth Hall & CP INCOME


Events & Sales 189,742

Property Rents 340,172

Concessions 94,176

Ice cream 28,692

Total 652,782

Cemeteries & Crematorium COST

Description Value £ Comments

Employees 942,000

Grounds Maintenance 2,313,861 Includes £1.3m Glendale-Liverpool contract efficiencies to be reallocated to parks

Premises, utilities & Supplies etc 1,670,904 Inc central recharges

Total 4,926,765

Cemeteries & Crematorium INCOME


Burials & Cremations 4,926,765

Total 4,926,765

140

Appendix 10Bibliography

Abrahams, P. M. (2010). Stakeholders’ perceptions of pedestrian accessibility to green infrastructure: Fort Worth’s urban villages. (T. R. Ozdil, Ed.)ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Architecture.

Ahern, J. (2007). Planning and design for sustainable and resilient cities: theories, strategies and best practice for green infrastructure.

Ahern, J. (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1203–1212.

Allen, J. and Balfour, R. (2014). Natural Solutions for Tackling Health Inequalities, London: Institute of Health Equity, University of London.

Amati, M. (2008). Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-first Century. (M. Amati, Ed.). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Arup (2010). Toxteth Smart Grid Area – Outline Wind Assessment.

Asad, Ali (undated). Role of Green Space in Sustainable Urban Environment: A case of Tehran (Iran). Paper by the Assistant Professor of Extension and Education, Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran.

Atlanta Beltline Inc. (2015). Atlanta Beltline Homepage. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from www.beltline.org

Barber, A. (2007) . ‘Urban Green Space’, in Cavill, N. (ed) Building Health: Creating and enhancing places for healthy, active lives: What can be done? London: National Heart Forum, pp. 41-47.

Barton, H and Grant, M (2006). ‘A Health map for the local human habitat’, The Journal for the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126 (6).pp.252-253

Barton, J. & Pretty, J., (2010). Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 3947-3955.

Bates, G; McCoy, E; Murphy, R; Kornyk, N; Suckley, D (2013) . Evaluating the provision of outdoor gym equipment. Uptake and impact in Sefton, Merseyside: Summary Report.

BBC News (2015). ‘Fairy control’ to halt tiny doors in Somerset woods. BBC News Article.

Bird, SB, Emmett, BA, Sinclair, FL, Stevens, PA, Reynolds, A, Nicholson, S & Jones, T. (2003). PONTBREN: Effects of tree planting on agricultural soils and their functions. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bangor, Gwynedd.

Bird, W. (2016). Intelligent Health Review of evidence of nature and health and plan for Liverpool: A Report, Reading: Intelligent Health. Preventative Medicine, 49, (6). pp. 50-505.

Bird, W., (2004). Natural Fit: Can Green Space and Biodiversity Increase Levels of Physical Activity?

Bixler, R. D. & Floyd, M. F., (1997). Environment and Behaviour, 29, 443-467. Tzoulas, K. et al., 2007, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167-178.

Boles, N. (2014). Right to Build: Nick Boles Tells Councils to Offer Land for Self-Builds –‘Or Be Sued’. Guardian Article.

Booske, B.C., Athens, J.K., Kinding, D.A., Park, H. and Remington, P.L., (2010). ‘Different Perspectives for Assigning Weights to Determinants of Health’, County Health Rankings Working Paper, Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.

Bowler, D. E. et al., (2010). Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 147-155. Forest Research. Green infrastructure and the urban heat island. Forest Research.

Bowler, D., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. and Pullin A. (2010). BMC Public Health, 10, 456.

Bowler, DE, Buyung-Ali, L, Knight, TM & Pullin A, S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns and cities. A systematic review of the empirical evidence Landscape and Urban Planning 97: 147-155.

141

Bristow, C and Farrell, J (2015). Reward Your World and Liverpool City Council. Presentation to Workshop 3 Innovation, Isla Gladstone, Liverpool.

Brown, L,. et al (2014). Impact of draught on vector-borne diseases - how does one manage risk? Public Health Volume 128 issue 1 p 28 - 37.

Byrne, J. A., Lo, A. Y., & Jianjun, Y. (2015b). Residents’ understanding of the role of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation in Hangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 132–143.

CABE Space (2002). Streets of Shame. Summary of findings from “Public Attitudes to Architecture and the Built Environment.” London, UK.

Cabe Space (2004). A Guide to producing park and green space management plans. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cabe Space (2004). Green Space Strategies: A Good Practice Guide. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cabe Space (2005). Decent Parks? Decent Behaviour? The Link between the Quality of Parks and User Behaviour. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cabe Space (2005). Start With the Park. Creating Sustainable Urban Green Spaces in Areas of Housing Growth and Renewal. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

CABE Space (2005a). Does money grow on trees? London UK.

Cabe Space (2006). Paying for Parks. Eight Models for Funding Urban Green Space. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cabe Space (2009). Making the Invisible Visible: The Real Value of Park Assets. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cabe Space (2010). Community Green: Using Local Spaces to Tackle Inequality and Improve Health. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cabe Space (2010). Community-led Spaces – A Guide for Local Authorities and Community Groups. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment & the Asset Transfer University.

Cabe Space (2010). Managing Green Spaces. Seven Ingredients for Success. Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. London UK.

CAG (March 2010). Adapting to Climate Change. Annexe to Liverpool City Council’s Climate Change Adaptive Action Plan, March 2010.

Carter, T & Butler, C. (2008). Ecological impacts of replacing traditional roofs with green roofs in two urban areas. Cities and the Environment 1:9-17.

CLASP (2016). Environmental Resilience Resource and Support Info. Bulletin March Resource News and Policy Update. Data taken from the National Centre for Enviromental Information.

Climate Change (Undated). The Effect on our Health. YPTE Young People’s Trust for the Environment.

Climate Change Act 2008 (2008). London, UK: HM Stationary Office.

Cochran, B; Rothfuss, B; Cochran, J (2015). Connecting Health Care and Green Space – Trends in Hospital Charity Care. An Opportunity for Investment in Nature and Health? Nature & Health Discussion Note. Willamette Partnership

Coley, R.L., Sullivan, W.C. and Kuo,F.E. (1997). ‘Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing’, Environ. Behav., 29, 468–494.

Collins, T, Empson, B, Leafe R & Lowe, J. (1997). Sustainable flood defene & habitat conservation in Estuaries - a strategic framework. In proceedings of 32nd MAFF Conference of River & Coastal Engineers. University of Loughbourough, July 2 - 4 1997.

Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Published by Department for Communities and Local Government.

142

Cookson, C. (2016). Climate change strongly linked to UK flooding. Financial Times, Science Editor.

Coombs E, Jones A P and Hillsdon M (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social Science and Medicine 70(6): 816–822.

Coon, J.T., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Barton, J. and Depledge, M.H. (2011). ‘Does Participating in Physical Activity in Outdoor Natural Environments Have a Greatere Effect on Physical and Mental Well-Being than Physical Activity Indoors? A Systematic Review’, Enviro. Sci. Technol., 45, 5, 1761-1772

Cosgrove, P. (2015). A Unique Partnership Success Story. Glendale Liverpool Limited. Presentation to Workshop 1 Finance 29th April 2015, Croxteth Hall, Liverpool.

Couch, C. and Karecha, J., (2006). Controlling urban sprawl: Some experiences from Liverpool. In: Cities, Volume 23, Issue 5, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 353-363. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2006.05.003.

Countryside Agency & Groundwork. (2005). The Countryside in and around towns: A vision for connecting town and county in the pursuit of sustainable development. Wetherby.

Coutts, C., & Hahn, M. (2015). Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(8), 9768–98. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120809768.

Croucher K., Myers, L. and Bretherton, J. (2008). The Links between green space and health: A critical literature review, Stirling: Greenspace Scotland.

CSDH (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equality through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health, Geneva: WHO World Health Organisation.

Cullingworth, B., Nadin, V., Hart, T., Davoudi, S., Pendlebury, J., Vigar, G., Townshend, T. (2015) . Town and Country Planning in the UK (15th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

Dahl, D and Lew, N. (2015). South Park Food Bridge Wins Design Contest for Old 520 Floating Bridges to Span Parts of the Duwarmish River Waterfront with Parks and Gardens. KPLU News for Seattle and the Northwest, USA. Web Article.

Davies, C. (2015). A Local Authority Perspective. Knowsley MBC. Presentation to Workshop 1 Finance 29th April 2015, Croxteth Hall, Liverpool.

De Vries, S, Verheij, R.A, Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). ‘Natural environments - healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health’, Environment and Planning A, 35(10):1717-1731.

Department of Communties and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London.

Depledge, M. H. et al., (2011). Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 4660-4665.

Doick, K. H., (2013). Air temperature regulation by urban trees and green infrastructure. Forest Research.

Dottie, D. (2015). A Parks Strategy for Liverpool. Presentation to Workshop 3 Innovation, 13th May 2016, Isla Gladstone, Liverpool.

Dover, J. and Phillips,S., (Nov 2015). Particulate Pollution Capture by Green Screens along the A38 Bristol Street in Birmingham.

Easyjet Traveller Magazine (2016). Where to find a forest that floats. Article in The Traveller, Easyjet April 2016.

Eight Point Plan for Englands National Parks (2016). Defra.

England’s Community Forests and Forestry Commission. (2012). Benefits to Health and Wellbeing of Trees and Green Spaces. Farnham. Retrieved from http://www.communityforest.org.uk/resources/case_study_health_and_wellbeing.pdf

English Nature (2007). A Natural Estate. Commissioned on behalf of Neighbourhoods Green.

Ennos, A.R. (2011). Quantifying the cooling benefits of urban trees.

Ennos, R. (2011). Quantifying the cooling and anti-flooding benefits of green infrastructure. Available at www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/architecture/research/ecocities/news/documents/UoM_Roland_Ennos.pdf

143

European Environment Agency (2013) . Environment and human health, EA Report No 5/2013, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Fábos, J. G. (2004). Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3), 321–342.

Faculty of Public Health (2010). Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space to Improve Wellbeing - Briefing Statement, London: Faculty of Public Health in association with Natural England.

Fitzsimons, J., Pearson, C. J., Lawson, C., & Hill, M. J. (2012). Evaluation of land-use planning in greenbelts based on intrinsic characteristics and stakeholder values. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(1), 23–34.

Five things to know about flooding and climate change (2012). Carbon Brief, clear on climate.

Gallent, N. (2013). Re-connecting “people and planning”: parish plans and the English localism agenda. Town Planning Review, 84(3), 371–396.

Geographers to collaborate on landscape database for Britain (2011). Kingston University.

Gill, SE, Handley, JF, Ennos, AR & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment 33: 115-133

Glendale Liverpool (2014). Glendale Liverpool Recognition Awards.

Glendale Liverpool Budget (2014/15). Produced by Glendale Liverpool Limited.

Goode, D. (2014). Nature in Towns and Cities. London: William Collins.

Grahn, P. and Stigdotter, U.A. (2003). ‘Landscape planning and stress’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2(1), 1-18.

Gray, L. (2009). Floating Allotments - Allotments on Canals to be offered to public. Telegraph article produced by Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent.

Green Infrastructure North West. (2010). Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy. Liverpool City Council UK.

Greenspace (2013). An opportunity for change: Exploring the Trust option for parks and green space services. A practical guide to the feasibility stage. Full version 1: Jan 2013.

Greenspace Scotland (2007). The links between greenspace and health: critical literature review. Executive Summary Stirling: Greenspace Scotland.

Greenspace Scotland (2016). Transforming urban spaces into people places, working together to imporve the quality of life of people in urban communities through the creation and sustainable management of greenspaces. Greenspace Scotland. Stirling.

Groenewegen, P. (2009). Vitamin G - Green Space the Key to Helath. Nivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research.

Groundwork (2005). Areas of Opportunity. A review of local green space policy and guidance in a social housing context. Produced for Neighbourhoods Green by Hannah Peabody (Groundwork) in collaboration with Mathew Frith (of Peabody Trust).

Hale, J., & Sadler, J. (2012). Resilient ecological solutions for urban regeneration. Engineering Sustainability, 165(1), 59–67.

Harrison, C., Burgess, J., Milward, A., & Dawe, G. (1995). Accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities: A review of appropriate size and distance criteria. English Nature Research Reports No. 153. Peterborough UK.

Hartig, T, Mitchell, R, de Vries, S, & Frumkin, H. (2014). ‘Nature and Health’, Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 207–228.

Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S. and Garling, T. (2003). ‘Tracking restoration in natural and urban field setting’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 109-123.

Hawkins, S (2015). Aquatic Biodiversity and Ecosystems - evolution, interactions & global change, Liverpool 2015. University of Southampton.

Hellard, B. (2015). Liverpool City Council Budget. Presentation by the Director of Finance at Liverpool City Council to the Strategic Green and Open Space Review Board.

Hellmund, P. C., & Smith, D. (2006). Designing Greenways: Sustainable Landscapes for Nature and People. Washington DC: Island Press.

144

Heritage Lottery Fund (2014). State of UK Public Parks. Research Report to the Heritage Lottery Fund. Prepared by Peter Neal Consulting, Community First Partnership, Ben Hurley Communications, Peter Harnik Centre for City Park Excellence, Dr Ed Hobson, Ipsos MORI.

Hillsdon M, Panter J, Foster C, Jones, A (2006). The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Journal of the Roayl Instititue for Public Health, 120: 1127-1132. Social Science and Medicine 70(6): 816-822.

Hillsdon M, Panter J, Foster C, Jones, A (2006). The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Journal of the Royal Institute of Public Health, 120: 1127-1132.

Hillsdon, M., et al. (2006). Public Health, 120, 1127-1132.

HM Government (2010). Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England, CM 7985, London: TSO.

HM Government (2010). Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England, CM 7985, London: TSO.

Holzinger, O. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure in Birmingham and the Black Country. The Total Economic Value of Ecosystem Services provided by the Urban Green Infrastructure. The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham & the Black Country. See Gill et al (2007)

Hornsby, M. (2015). Liverpool’s Best Kept Secret. Presentation by Rice Lane Farm to Workshop 1 Finance 29th April 2015 Croxteth Hall, Liverpool.

Hostetler, M., Allen, W., & Meurk, C. (2011). Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green infrastructure is only the first step. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 369–371.

Hu et al (2008). Rao et al (2014) IARC (2013).

Hughes, D. (2015). National and Local Planning Policy. Presentation by David Hughes, Head of Planning and Policy at Liverpool City Council to Workshop 2 Balance 6th May 2015, Palm House, Sefton Park, Liverpool.

Iliad Presentation (2015). Vertical Gardens Project. Connecting Rope Walks & the Baltic Triangle through an environmentally sustainable vertical garden maze.

Jackson, BM, Wheater HS, McIntyre NR, Chell, J, Francis OJ, Frogbrook, Z, Marshall, M, Reynolds, B and Solloway, I. (2008). The Impact of Upland Land Management on Flooding, insights from a multiscale experimental and modelling programme. Journal of Flood Risk Management 1:71-80.

Jenkins, G. (2015). Landlife. Presentation by Landlife to Workshop 3 Innovation, 13th May 2016, Isla Gladstone, Liverpool.

Jenkins, G. J., Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M. H., Lowe, J. A., Jones, P., & Kilsby, C. G. (2009). UK Climate Projections: Briefing report. Exeter.

Johnston, M. and Percival, G. (eds). (2011). Trees, People and the Built Environment Conference, Birmingham, April 2011. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 122–127.

Jones, A, Hillsdon M, Coombes E (2009b). Greenspace access, use and physical activity: Understanding the effects of area deprivation.

Kaczynski, A.T., Besenyi, G.M., Wilhelm Stanis, S.A., Koohsari, M.J., Oestman, K.B., Bergstrom, R., Potwarka, L.R. and Reis, R.S. (2014). ‘Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park based physical activity amongst adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics’, International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11:146.

Kandy, D and Diaz, D. (2015). Using Carbon Markets to help Urban Landowners in Oregon Pay for Healthcare. Does Healthcare Cash Grow on Trees? Ecosystem Marketplace. Website.

Keaney, M. (2015). Liverpool Playing Pitch Strategy. Presentation to the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board.

Kings Fund (2014). Making the case for public health interventions, London: Kings Fund (citing Canadian Institute of Advanced Research, 2012).

Kingsley, J. and Townsend, M. (2006). ‘Dig in to social capital: community gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness’, Urb.Policy Res, 24, 525–537.

Kirkman, R., Noonan, D. S., & Dunn, S. K. (2012). Urban transformation and individual responsibility: The Atlanta BeltLine. Planning Theory, 11(4), 418–434.

145

Konijnendijk, C. C. (2003). A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(2), 173–186.

Kousky, C., Olmstead, S. M., Walls, M. A., & Macauley, M. (2013). Strategically placing green infrastructure: cost-effective land conservation in the floodplain. Environmental Science Technology, 47(8), 3563–70.

Kuo, F. E., (1998). American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 823-851.

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce crime? Environ. Behav.,33, 343-367.

Kuznetsova, D. (2012) Healthy Places: Councils leading on public health, London: New Local Government Network. Kings Fund (2014) Making the case for public health interventions, London: Kings Fund (citing Canadian Institute of Advanced Research, 2012). See also http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/time-to-think-differently/trends/broader-determinants-health.

Lachowycz K, Jones A P (2011). Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence. Obesity Reviews, Vol 12, Issue 5, pp e183-189, May 2011.

Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2013). Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 6, 102–108.

Lambeth Council (2015). Enabling Local Leadership of Lambeth Parks and Open Spaces. Delivering differently in Neighbourhoods. Produced by Lambeth Council.

Leonard, M. (2015). The Art of Innovation. Presentation by Palm House, Sefton Park to Workshop 3 Innovation, Isla Gladstone, Liverpool.

Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., & Kuan, S. (2001). Access, Equity, and Urban Greenways: An Exploratory Investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53(3), 332–346.

Little, C. (1990). Greenways for America. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Liverpool Air Quality Management Action Plan (2008). Liverpool City Council. Liverpool.

Liverpool City Council (2005). A Parks Strategy for Liverpool, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. Liverpool City Council (2005) Liverpool Open Space Study. Report to City Council by Atkins, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

Liverpool City Council (2005). Liverpool Open Space Study Volume 1: Strategic Open Space Assessment Final Report. Produced by Atkins.

Liverpool City Council (2009). Positive Future 2009. Regeneration Policy Programmes and Performance Division.

Liverpool City Council (2010). A Guide for Community Groups: Setting up Community Greening Activities. Liverpool City Council. Liverpool.

Liverpool City Council (2010). Greening the City - moving towards a strategic approach. Topic Paper – An investigation in the temporary re-use of land within Liverpool. Produced by SQW Consulting.

Liverpool City Council (2010). Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy: Technical Department, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. Liverpool

Liverpool City Council (2011). Liverpool Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Report. Prepared by GVA Ltd

Liverpool City Council (2011). Liverpool Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – Appendix C. Forecasting Future Population and Household Growth – Modelling Methodology and Assumptions. Prepared by GVA Ltd.

Liverpool City Council (2011). Liverpool Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – Appendix B. Housing Survey Methodological Overview. Prepared by GVA Ltd.

Liverpool City Council (2012). Green Print for Growth. Mayoral Recommendation. Report No: EDR/82/12 & EDR/48/12.

Liverpool City Council (2012). Liverpool Active City Strategy 2012–2017, Be Active: Be Healthy, Creating a Moving Culture, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

Liverpool City Council (2014). Liverpool Draft Playing Pitch Strategy 5 Year Plan 2014 – 2019. Produced by Knight, Kavanagh and Page.

Liverpool City Council (2014). Liverpool’s Cycling Revolution. A Cycling Strategy for Liverpool 2014 – 26.

Liverpool City Council (2014). Liverpool Active City: Physical Activity and Sports Strategy, 2014-20121, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

146

Liverpool City Council (2014). Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy Liverpool: Liverpool City Council (2014)

Liverpool City Council (2014). Liverpool Sustainable City Health and Wellbeing Strategy, 2014-2019, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

Liverpool City Council (2015 - 2021). Liverpool Active City - Physical Activity & Sports Strategy. Liverpool City Council. Liverpool

Liverpool City Council (2015). Annual Report of the Director of Public Health 2014/15: Power of Prevention, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

Liverpool City Council (2015). City Centre Connectivity, Stand and North Liverpool Major Schemes. Presentation to Regeneration Select Committee.

Liverpool City Council (2015). Draft Local Flood Risk Management Strategy - Highways and Transportation Regeneration.

Liverpool City Council (2015). The Report of the Mayor of Liverpool’s Commission on Environmental Sustainability. Chair of the Commission Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive - Liverpool John Moores University Professor Nigel Wetherill.

Liverpool City Council, et al (2012). Greenprint for Growth. The making of the Great Park: North and South Liverpool. North Liverpool and South Sefton Stakeholder Event. Presented by Richard Tracey.

Liverpool City Council. (2012). Submission Draft – Liverpool Core Strategy.

Liverpool City Region (2015). LEP Final Report - Green Infrastructure Technical Report. Produced by Arup and Partners.

Liverpool City Region (2015). Liverpool City Region Parks Study Final Report. Commissioned by the Rethinking Parks Task Group. Established by Nature Connected the Liverpool City Region Local Nature Partnership Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council with Halton Borough Council, Liverpool City Council Sefton Council and St Helens Metropolitan Council. Peter Neal Consulting Ltd with Richard Tracey Ltd.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2015). A Transport Plan for Growth. Merseytravel.

Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (2014). Healthy Liverpool: Prospectus for Change, Liverpool: Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group.

Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (2014). Commissioning for Social Value: Social Value Strategy and Action Plan, 2014, Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group.

Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (2015). Healthy Liverpool: The Blueprint, Liverpool: Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group.

Liverpool Nature (Aug 1997). A Nature Conservation Strategy for Liverpool. Lancashire Wildlife Trust, Seaforth.

Liverpool Vision (2015). Figures rises up for visitor economy. Liverpool Vision.

Liverpool Vision (2024). People, Place and Prosperity. An Economic Prospectus.

Liverpool Waterfront Voted England’s Greatest Place (Dec 2015). Royal Town Planning Institutue.

Local History Liverpool. BBC Home. Reservoir - Water Supply in Liverpool.

London Car Parking Plans Prompt Pollution Concern (2016). National Air Quality Conference and Awards.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2013) Social determinants of Health: How Social and Economic Factors Affect Health, Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Low Carbon Liverpool (2013). An Enviromental Audit of Liverpool. Dept of Geography & Planning, University of Liverpool.

Luymes, D. T., and Tamminga, K. (1995). Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1-3), 391–400. http://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)02030-J

Maas J, Verheij R.A., Groenewegen P.P., Spreeuwenberg P., de Vries, S. (2008). ‘Physical activity as a possible mechanism behind the relationship between green space and health: A multilevel analysis’, BMS Public Health 8: 206.

Maas, J., van Dillen, S.M.E., Verheij, R.A. and Groenewegen, P.P. (2009) ‘Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between greenspace and health’, Health Place, 15(2), 586-595.

147

Maas, J., et al. (2006). ‘Greenspace, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Epidemiol.Community Health, 60, (7),587–592.

Maas, J.et al., (2009). Journal of epidemiology and community health, 63, 967-973

Marmot, M. (2016). The Health Gap: Improving Health in an Unequal World, London: Bloomsbury.

Martin, H. (2012). Improving teaching and learning using the outdoor environment: Lavington Park Federation. Duncton Junior School, West Sussex.

Mathey, J., Roessler, S., Lehmann, I., & Braeuer, A. (2011). Urban Green Spaces: Potentials and Constraints for Urban Adaptation to Climate Change. (K. OttoZimmermann, Ed.) Resilient Cities Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010 (Vol. 1). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0785-6_47

McGovern, I., Miller, G. and Hughes-Cronwick, P. (2014). ‘The Relative Contribution of Multiple Determinants to Health Outcomes’, Health Affairs, August 21, Princeton (NJ): Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Mell, I. C. (2016a). Financing Green Infrastructure in times of austerity: The case of Liverpool, UK. Biotope City Journal. Retrieved from http://www.biotope-city.net/gallery/financing-green-infrastructure-times-austerity

Mell, I. C. (2016b). Global Green frastructure: Lessons for successful policy-making, investment and management. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mell, I. C., Henneberry, J., Hehl-Lange, S., & Keskin, B. (2013). Promoting urban greening: Valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(3), 296–306.

Mersey Forest Trust (2010). Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy Technical Document. Mersey Forest.

Mersey Forest Trust (2015). Forest School Research. Paper to the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board.

Mersey Forest Trust (2015). Benefits of Trees. Presentation to the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board.

Merseyside Biodiversity Group. North Merseyside Biodiversity Action Plan. Latest news on Liverpool City Region Local Nature Partnership.

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (2015). Biodiversity Evidence Base Report. Prepared for The Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board.

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service MEAS (2015). An overview of the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service. Presentation to the Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board.

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service MEAS (2015). Assessment on Biodiversity Value in Liverpool. Version 2. Prepared by MEAS for The Strategic Green and Open Spaces Review Board.

Michael, G, R. (2010). Air Purifying Road Surface Eats 45% of Nox Pollution. Driving sustainability mainstream.

Mitchell, R. and Phoham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet, 372 (9650):1655-60

Modern Farmer (2015). Plastic eating mushrooms could save the world. Anna Roth January 2015.

Moore, M., Townsend, M. and Oldroyd, J. (2006). ‘Linking human and ecosystem health: the benefits of community involvement in conservation groups’, Ecohealth3 (4), 255–261.

Munro, Gavin (2015). The Innovators: Growing Solid Wooden Furniture Without the Joins. Guardian Newspaper Article.

Mytton, O., Townsend, N., Rutter, H., and Foster, C. (2012). ‘Green space and physical activity: an observational study using Health Survey for England data’, Health and Place, 18, (5), 1034-1041.

Mytton, O., Townsend, N., Rutter, H., and Foster, C. (2012). Green space and physical activity: an observational study using Health Survey for England data. Health and Place, 18, (5), 1034–1041.

National Housing Federation (2011). Greener Neighbourhoods: A Good Practice Guide to Managing Green Space. NHF.

National Museums Liverpool (2014). Maritime Park Design and Access Statement. Revision A. Produced by Austin Smith Lord LLP

148

Natural England & Landuse Consultants. (2009). Green Infrastructure Guidance. Peterborough.

Natural England (2008). A Manifesto for the Natural Environment, London: Natural England. Natural England (2009) Our Natural Health Service: The role of the natural environment in maintaining healthy lives, London: Natural England.

Natural England (2008). A Manifesto for the Natural Environment, London: Natural England.

Natural England (2009). Our Natural Health Service: The role of the natural environment in maintaining healthy lives, London:

Natural England (2011). Green space access, green space use, physical activity and overweight, Sheffield: Natural England.

Natural England (2011). Green space access, green space use, physical activity and overweight, Sheffield: Natural England.

Natural England (2012). Health and natural environments: An evidence based information pack. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/linkingpeople/health/default.aspx.

Neal, P.Nesta Rethinking Parks (2013). Exploring new business models for parks in the 21st Century. Nesta.

Neighbourhoods Green (undated). A Natural Estate. Improving the greenspace for social housing. Prepared by Ecology Consultancy Ltd and Commissioned by Natural England on behalf of the Neighbourhoods Green project.

NERC Act (2006). Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act.

NESTA. (2016). Learning to rethink parks. London, UK.

Nolan, P. (2015). The Mersey Forest. Mersey Forest, Presentation by the Mersey Forest at Workshop 2 Balance 6th May 2015, Palm House, Sefton Park, Liverpool.

North Merseyside Biodiversity Action Plan. Published by the Merseyside Biodiversity Group chaired by MEAS.

Noss, R. (2006). Greenways as wildlife corridors. In P. C. Hellmund & D. Smith (Eds.), Designing Greenways: Sustainable Landsacpes for Nature and People (pp. 70–107). Washington DC: Island Press.

Novotny, V., Ahern., Brown, J&B (Eds.). (Undated). Water-Centric Sustainable Communities (pp. 135–176). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

Nowak, BJ, Crane, DE, Stevens, J,C. (2006). Air pollution removed by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (4) 2006 115 - 123 USA Forest Service, North Eastern Reseach Str, 5 Mozn Library, SUNY - ESF, Syracuse, NY13210 USA

Nowak, D,J., Daniel, E., Crane, J. and Stevens, C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening.

Nowak, D. J., et al., (2006). Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 4, 115-123. Tallis, M., et al., 2011, Landscape and Urban Planning, 103, 129-138

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. London.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Sustainable Communities: People, Places and Prosperity. London.

Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, A., Payne, L. and Godbey, G. (2006). ‘The interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults’. Journal of Leisure Research, 36:232-56.

Otterbourgh, K. (2016). National Geographic The Power of Parks. How Urban Parks are Bringing Nature Close to Home.

Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Handley, J., & Lindley, S. (2003). Promoting the Natural Greenstructure of Towns and Cities: English Nature’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards Model. Built Environment, 29(2), 157–170.

Peel Holdings (2016). Liverpool Waters - A Waterfront for the World.

Peter Neal Consulting Ltd with Richard Tracey October Communications (2015). The Liverpool City-region Health is Wealth Commission Final Report.

Peters, K., Elands, B. and Buijs, A. (2010). ‘Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion?’ Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 93–100. (Seeland et al, 2009; Shinew et al, 2004).

Place Northwest (2011). Exchange Flags Enjoys Year of Revival. Web Article.

149

Places to see in your lifetime (2015). A new attraction in Sydney – Floating Forest, Australia. www.placestoseeinyourlifetime.com

Planting on Agricultural Soils & Their Functions. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bangor, Gwynedd

Pretty, J. et al., (2007). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 211-231.

Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N., & Griffin, M. (2007). Green exercise in the UK countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2), 211–231.

Public Health England (2015). Health profile for Liverpool Unitary Authority, 2015, London: Public Health England

Public Health England and UCL Institute for Health Equity (2014) op cit.

Public Health England and UCL Institute for Health Equity (2014). ‘Local Action on health inequalities: Improving access to green spaces’. Health Equity Evidence Review 8, London: Public Health England.

Pugh, T. A. M., MacKenzie, A.R., Whyatt, J.D. and Hewitt, C.N. (2012). ‘Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Improvement of Air Quality in Urban Street Canyons’, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 7692-7699.

Rao, M., George, L.A., Rosenstiel, T.N., Shandas, V., Dinno, A. (2014). ‘Assessing the relationship among urban trees, nitrogen dioxide, and respiratory health’, Environmental Pollution, 194, 96–104.

Regencia, T. (2015). The Award-Winning Bridge Connecting Iranians. The Third Symbol of Tehran Earns International Recognition for Architect Leila Araghian. Web Article in Al Jazeera English.

Reacher, M. et al.,(2004). Communicable Disease and Public Health, 7, 39-46.

Regional Public Health (2010). ‘Healthy Open Spaces: A Summary of the impact of open spaces on health and wellbeing’, Regional Public Health Information Paper, Lower Hutt: Hutt Valley District Health Board, Greater Wellington Region, New Zealand.

Ridgers, N and Sayers, J. (2010). Natural Play in the Forest School Evaluation – children. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University and The Mersey Forest. A report produced for Natural England (Report 1 of 2).

Ridgers, N and Sayers, J. (2010). Natural Play in the Forest, Forest School evaluation (Families). Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University and The Mersey Forest. A report produced for Natural England (Report 2of 2).

Ridgers, N.D., Knowles, Z.R. and Sayers, J. (2012). Childrens Geographies. Encouraging play in the natural environment: a child-focused case study for Forest School.

Ridgers, N; Knowles, Z; Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging Play in the Natural Environment: a child-focused case study of Forest School. Children’s Geographies, 10:1,49-65.

Riley, J; Newton, J; Massin, P, Frith, M. (2015). Making space for nature on housing estates. Neighbourhoods Green.

Rockey Jnr, D.L, Barcelona, R, Brookover, R, Thorn, D, Saturday, D (2016). USA Creative Strategies for Financing Parks & Recreation. Research Update.

RSPB (2004). Natural Fit: Can Green Space and Biodiversity Increase Levels of Physical Activity? Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Sandy, UK.

Rydin, Y. et al. (2012). Lancet, 379, 2079.

Rydin, Y. et al. (2012). Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. Lancet 2;379 (9831):2079-108.

Sandström, U. (2002). Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), 37–41.

Seeland, K., Dübendorfer, S. and Hansmann, R. (2009). ‘Making friends in Zurich’s urban forests and parks: The role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures’, Forest Policy and Economics 11, 10–17.

Shinew, K.J., Glover,T.D. and Parry, D.C. (2004). ‘Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial interaction: community gardens in urban areas’, J. Leis. Res., 36, 336–355.

Sidders, J. (2010). Parks trusts - models of community-run green spaces. Retrieved June 7, 2016, from http://www.hortweek.com/parks-trusts-models-community-run-green-spaces/article/1027246

150

Slater, P. (2015). Submission to Liverpool Green Spaces Review.

Stansfield, G and Whiteoak, F. (2015). Liverpool Housing Partnership, Building Our Future. Presentation by Redrow to Workshop 1 Finance 29th April 2015 Croxteth Hall, Liverpool.

Staples, J. (2015). Climate Change and Green Space. Presentation to Liverpool City Council to Workshop 2 Balance 6th May 2015, Palm House, Sefton Park, Liverpool.

STEP (2015). Sustainable Transport Enhancements Package Executive Summary. Merseytravel documentation.

Stewart, K and Bennett, M. (2015). Friends of the Flyover. Presentation by Friends of the Flyover to Workshop 3 Innovation 13th May, Isla Gladstone, Liverpool.

Sullivan, W.C., Kuo, F.E. and De Pooter, S.F. (2004) ‘The fruit of urban nature: vital neighbourhood spaces’, Environ. Behav.,36, 678-700.

Sunderland, T. (2012). Microeconomic Benefits of Investment in the Environment, Natural England.

Supertides’ the weather and coastal flood risk. (2015). National Oceonography Centre.

Sykes, O., Brown, J., Cocks, M., Shaw, D., & Couch, C. (2013). A City Profile of Liverpool. Cities, 35, 299–318. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.013

Takano, T., Nakamura, K., Watanabe, M. (2002). ‘Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 12, 913-8.

Taylor, J., Paine, C., & FitzGibbon, J. (1995). From greenbelt to greenways: four Canadian case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1-3), 47–64.

The Flood and Water Management Act (2010). IFRC 8th April 2010.

The Flood Risk Regulations (2009). Environmental Protection. Defra 2009.

The Local Transport Plan for Merseyside 2006 - 2011. Liverpool City Council, UK.

The Marmot Review (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post - 2010, London: Institute for Health Equality, University College London.

The Mayoral Health Commission (2008). All Change - the platform to a healthier Liverpool, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council, UK Liverpool City - Region Health is Wealth Commission.

The Mersey Forest. (2010). Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy. Mossley Rise.

The Trust for Public Land. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks. San Francisco, USA.

Thomas A. M. Pugh*, A. Robert MacKenzie, J. Duncan Whyatt, and C. Nicholas Hewitt (2012). Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Improvement of Air Quality in Urban Street Canyons. Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4 YQ, UK.

Thomas, H & Nisbet T,R. (2006). An Assessment of the impact of floodplain woodland on flood flows. Water & Enviroment Journal 21:114-126.

Thomas, J. (2014). Liverpool Air Pollution is cutting lives short: shocking new figures reveal impact of toxic emissions.

Thompson Coon, J. et al., (2011). Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 1761-1772.

Truss, E. (2016). New Plan for National Parks gives every schoolchild a chance to visit. Environment Agency and Natural England

Tunstall, S., et al. (2006). Journal of Water Health, 4, 365-380.

UCL Institute of Health Equality (2014). Review of social determinants and the health divide in the WHO European region: final report updated, Copenhagen: WHO World Health Organisation.

UNEP-WCMC. (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Understanding nature’s value to society. Synthesis of key findings. Cambridge.

University of Liverpool (2015). Fresh Thinking: Beyond Greenspace: How can nature create healthier and wealthier places? The Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and Practice 2015.

University of Sussex (1998). Tree Traps: An effective filter for air pollutants. Media Release19th Feb 1998.

151

University of Washington (2012). When plants go vegan. Conservation, the source for environmental intelligence.

Urban Task Force. (1999). Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. London. Retrieved from http://www.urbantaskforce.org/UTF_final_report.pdf

US Forest Service (2014). Trees improve our air quality. Urban Forestry Network.

van den Berg, A., Mass, J., Verheij, R., and Groenewegen, P. (2010). ‘Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health’, Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1203-1210.

Vidal, J. (2015) All Choked Up: did Britain’s dirty air make me dangerously ill? Guardian newspaper article.

Walmsley, A. (2006). Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76(1-4), 252–290.

Watson, E. (2015). Acrehurst Park, The Project. Presentation by Riverside Housing to Workshop 2 Balance 6th May 2015, Palm House, Sefton Park, Liverpool.

Waverijn, G., Wolfe, M.K., Mohnen, S., Rijken, M., Spreeuwenberg, P. and Groenewegen. P. (2014). A prospective analysis of the effect of neighbourhood and individual social capital on changes in self related health of people with chronic illness. BMC Public Health, 14:675.

Wheater, C.P., Potts, E., Shaw, E., Perkin, C., Smith, S., Casstles, H., Cook, P. and Bellis, M.A. (2007). Returning Urban Parks to their Public Health Roots. Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

White, M., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B., and Depledge, M. (2013). Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24, 6, 920-928.

White, M.P. et al., (2013). Psychological Science 24, 920-928. van den Berg, A. E. et al., 2010, Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1203-1210.

Whitelaw, S., Swift, J., Goodwin, A. and Clark, D. (2008). Physical activity and mental health: the role of physical activity in promoting mental well-being and preventing mental health problems, Edinburgh: National Health Service: Scotland.

Woodland Trust (2011). Trees or Turf? Best Value in Managing Urban Green Space. Prepared by Land Use Consultants.

Young, R. F. (2010). Managing municipal green space for ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(4), 313–321.

Young, R. F. (2011). Planting the Living City. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 368–381. http://doi.org/6

Photography by Tim McConville

strategic green and open spaces review board · strategic green and open spaces review board final...

Documents