Gateshead Unitary Development Plan
Community Facilities and Recreation
Topic Paper
CD/TOP/08
0
Contents
Page
1. Introduction
3
2. National policy and advice background
PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
4
Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion
Guide to PPG17
5
Accessible Natural Greenspace
5
3. Regional policy background
Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1)
6
Submission Draft Regional Strategy Statement (RSS)
7
4. Gateshead policy background
Gateshead Playing Pitch Strategy
7
An Assessment of Open Space Provision
7
Asset Management Plan
9
5. Approach in the re-deposit draft replacement UDP
Built community facilities
9
Outdoor sport and recreation – strategic context
11
Outdoor sport
11
Relationship of outdoor sport policies to the Playing Pitch Strategy
11
Outdoor sport – other considerations
12
Public open space
12
Council’s existing information and use of the Assessment of Open
Space Provision
12
Tasks performed by the Assessment of Open Space Provision
13
Detailing the areas of open space deficiency
13
1
Types of open space included in the standards
14
Residential neighbourhoods
14
Protecting open space in deficient neighbourhoods and elsewhere
15
The accessibility standard for Local Open Space
15
Cases where the policy wording proposed by the Assessment of
Open Space Provision has not been incorporated in the Plan
15
Policies to deal with proposed loss of open space
16
Countryside recreation
16
Accessible Natural Greenspace
16
Allotments
17
Children’s play areas
17
Consistency with policies on similar types of development
elsewhere in the Plan
17
Consistency with policies requiring provision in new housing
developments
18
Relationship to the urban green space policy
18
Requirement for new open land provision in retailing and
employment developments
19
Relationship of accessible natural green space policy to nature
conservation policies
19
6. Core documents
19
2
1.
Introduction
1.1
The purpose of this topic paper is to explain the background to the UDP’s
Community Facilities and Recreation chapter, indicating where necessary the
methodology by which policies, proposals and standards in the chapter have
been arrived at, their links with other policies in the Plan as part of an integrated
whole, and how the overall approach has been informed by Planning Policy
Guidance, Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional Strategy Statement,
and other advice, trends, initiatives and the local situation.
1.2
The chapter is divided into two broad areas: built community facilities (of
a non-commercial type) including indoor sports facilities; and outdoor recreation,
which includes outdoor sport, public open space, allotments, countryside
recreation facilities, and children’s play areas.
1.3
The first part (non-commercial built community facilities) is not the
subject of very much national or regional planning policy guidance or advice,
except in so far as planning obligations assist with the provision of some facilities
(guidance and policies on which are dealt with by the “Introduction and General
Development Policies” topic paper and by policies STR21, PO1 and PO2 of the
Plan) and advice on the proper level of playing space to be available for schools.
However, they often require the allocation of substantial areas of land and the
Plan provides the opportunity to integrate planning for these needs within the
strategic framework of land use planning for the Borough as a whole. In other
cases, specific kinds of facilities give rise to special considerations when
determining planning applications and the Council has taken the view that it is
helpful to have criteria-based policies to help determine these.
1.4
The second part (outdoor recreation) is subject to a range of planning
guidance and advice, from which has followed local research into need and
demand, which is outlined in Section 4 below. Detailed surveys have been
carried out of current provision of open space, sports facilities, allotments,
accessible natural greenspace and play areas, and deficiencies have been
identified where they exist. With the exception of play areas, sites are identified
on the Proposals Map, although it has not been practicable to show smaller
public open space sites, nor necessarily to correctly identify all privately-owned
allotment sites. Standards, and appropriate policies based on them to safeguard
existing provision and where possible to remedy deficiencies, are included for all
these types of recreational facility, and have been applied to a variety of levels of
geographical area, or to maximum distances from residential areas, appropriate
for each type of facility. The general basis on which this has been done is
indicated in the text of the chapter and further detail is given below (paras. 5.,10
to 5.12, 5.15 to 5.27, 5.31 and 5.34).
1.5
A number of the policies in this chapter have not been the subject of
objections, or only of objections relating to specific sites, and these are dealt with
only briefly in this topic paper. Objections relating to particular sites will be
treated fully in the proofs of evidence relating to them.
3
2.
National policy and advice background
PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002)
2.1
PPG17 requires that local authorities undertake robust assessments of
the existing and future needs of their communities for open spaces, and sports
and recreational facilities, based on local research and thus taking account of
differing local circumstances. They should audit provision both quantitatively and
qualitatively. The results of this should be used to set locally-derived, needsbased standards, as a starting point for establishing an effective strategy for
open space, sport and recreation at the local level, and for effective planning
through the development of appropriate policies in plans (paras. 1 to 6).
2.2
Local standards should take account of quality, quantity and accessibility
and should be included in development plans (paras. 7 and 8).
2.3
The PPG requires that any proposal for loss of open space takes full
account of all the functions which that open space can perform (para. 10). It
allows for the possibility that there may be development proposals which provide
an acceptable opportunity for at least equally beneficial open space or sports
facilities to be created elsewhere to replace that which is being lost (para. 12).
2.4
Local authorities are reminded that poor quality or under-use do not
necessarily mean there is a lack of demand.
2.5
The Annex to the PPG includes a typology listing the range of open
spaces that may be of public value. The following list reproducing the typology
shows where each is taken into account for their recreational value in the redeposit draft Plan:

parks and gardens, including country parks – can contribute to each of
the public open space standards CFR20, CFR21 and CFR22, and in the
case of country parks may include accessible natural greenspace
CFR26.

natural and semi-natural urban greenspace – accessible natural
greenspace (CFR26) and may contribute to Local Open Space (CFR20).

green corridors – ENV28 (Environment chapter).

outdoor sports facilities, including those of schools – football and other
pitch sports, and golf courses are covered by CFR14 to CFR16. These
and other outdoor sports facilities, including tennis and bowls, are
included in the policy for the retention of outdoor sports facilities CFR17.
School sports facilities, if surplus, are safeguarded for other recreational
use where appropriate by CFR5, and CFR4 seeks to improve the
availability of land for school sports use where there is a deficiency.
4

amenity greenspace – if publicly accessible, this can contribute to the
Local Open Space standard CFR20 and, if large enough, the
Neighbourhood Open Space standard CFR21. CFR24 provides criteria
to judge applications for the enclosure of amenity greenspace into the
curtilages of dwellings.

provision for children and teenagers – CFR28 (toddlers), CFR29 (juniors)
and CFR30 (teenagers)

allotments, community gardens and city farms – CFR 27 on allotments.
There are no specific policies in the Plan for community gardens and city
farms

cemeteries and churchyards – included in urban green space (ENV27)

accessible countryside in urban fringe areas – if natural, would be
included in accessible natural greenspace (CFR26); could qualify as
Local Open Space (CFR20) if there was free access across it rather than
purely on rights of way. Almost all Gateshead’s countryside is Green Belt
and would be protected by the Green Belt control of development policy
ENV37.

civic spaces – included in Local Open Space (CFR20).
Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17
2.6
The Companion Guide gives advice on undertaking local assessments,
setting local standards and developing open space strategies as required by
PPG17. The section “Gateshead Policy Background” below (Section 4) includes
an outline of the Assessment of Open Space Provision and the Playing Pitch
Strategy, which are the main respects in which this approach has been
implemented to inform the drawing up of policies for the replacement UDP.
Accessible Natural Greenspace
2.7
Before the publication of the most recent version of PPG17, English
Nature published advice which expanded on its 1995 standard (contained in
“Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities – a Review of Appropriate
Size and Distance Criteria” (CD/CFR/01) which quantified a recommendation for
the provision of accessible natural greenspace. An updated version, to take
account of PPG17, of this expanded advice, “Accessible Natural Greenspace
Standards in Towns and Cities: A Review and Toolkit for their Implementation”
(2003; CD/CFR/02) was intended but has not been forthcoming. The English
Nature standards are:


that no person should live more than 300 metres from their nearest area
of natural greenspace of at least 2 hectares in size;
provision of at least 1 hectare of Local Nature Reserve per 1,000
population;
5



that there should be at least one accessible 20 hectare site within 2
kilometres from home;
that there should be one accessible 100 hectare site within 5 kilometres;
and
that there should be one accessible 500 hectare site within 10 kilometres.
Para. 5.31 below indicates how these proposed standards were taken into
account in the preparation of the UDP.
3.
Regional policy background
Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1)
3.1
RPG1 includes sections on Open Land and on Sport and Recreation. No
material is relevant to built community facilities.
3.2
Policy OL1 – Open Land specifies that “Development Plans and other
strategies should ensure that … open land of recreational or amenity value is
protected from development”.
3.3
The objectives for sport and recreation are stated to be that “adequate
provision should be made for both organised and informal sport and recreation
on the basis of a rigorous analysis of current deficiencies and anticipated future
demand”. This applies the revision of PPG17.
3.4
Policy SR3 – Sport and Recreation Development in the Green Belt and
Urban Fringe – requires local authorities to recognise the potential of such land,
further develop recreational opportunities there, and seek to bring derelict and
under-used land into recreational use. This is reflected by a number of policies in
the Environment chapter and also the references to increasing open space in
policies CFR20 to CFR22.
3.5
Policy SR4 – Sport and Recreation in Urban Areas – states:
“Development Plans and other strategies should recognise the vital role
that urban areas play in the provision of sport and recreation facilities.
They should:




identify existing facilities (major ones are identified on the
Proposals Map)
include policies for their protection, enhancement and where
necessary refurbishment (CFR13 to CFR17 and CFR19 to CFR24)
ensure a good level and quality of provision in association with
new developments (policies in the Housing and Environment
chapters, see below paras. 5.37 to 5.41, and 5.44)
identify opportunities for developing and improving derelict and
under-used urban land for open space purposes (not individually
6

identified in the Plan but included in the Gateshead Open Space
Assessment); and
recognise the importance of dual use indoor and outdoor sport and
recreational facilities in relieving pressure on open space (the
Council’s Best value review of Leisure addresses this in terms of
maximising the efficient and accessible use of facilities and the
Council habitually seeks community use agreements when new
school sports facilities are developed) ”
3.6
Policy SR5 – Water-based Sport and Recreation – outlines the need to
avoid conflict with environmental considerations (reflected by CFR19).
3.7
Policy SR6 – Recreational Routes – stresses accessibility and
particularly mentions river corridors. ENV28 (Green corridors) and T6 (River
Tyne recreational route) reflect this.
Submission Draft Regional Strategy Statement (RSS) (November 2005)
3.8
There are no policies in submission draft RSS dealing with open space,
sport or recreation.
4.
Gateshead policy background
Gateshead Playing Pitch Strategy
4.1
The Strategy, referred to in the UDP as the Playing Pitch Study, was
carried out by consultants McAlpine Thorpe Warrier for the Council and Sport
England in 2003 in conjunction with Playing Pitch Strategies for the other Tyne
and Wear local authorities. It was designed to guide planning and provision of
playing fields for the main pitch sports until 2011, as well as improvements
required to the Borough’s existing facilities.
4.2
Demand was assessed based on existing teams, anticipated
participation growth rates, and population change to 2011, including changes in
the numbers in the age groups participating in sports. Specific standards were
set out for each sport.
4.3
Paras. 5.10 to 5.12 below discuss how the findings of the Strategy were
translated into the outdoor sports policies in the UDP.
An Assessment of Open Space Provision (2005)
4.4
Para. 5.17 below indicates the principal tasks which the Assessment of
Open Space Provision, carried out for the Council by consultants White Young
Green, had to perform in the context of the revision of PPG17 and how the
results were incorporated with information already held by the Council to inform
UDP policies.
7
4.5
White Young Green carried out public consultation – with a sample of
residents, and with community groups – to establish locally appropriate
standards for provision of all types of open space. The consultation and its
results, and the conclusions from it are set out in Section 8.1 of the Assessment.
In brief, the findings were:




A significant proportion of respondents thought their neighbourhoods
were under-supplied with local open space
Distances that people were prepared to travel to access different types
of open space, for a range of recreation purposes, were examined.
People are prepared to travel further to reach larger open spaces with
a greater range of facilities or recreation opportunities, and will
generally stay longer there; accessibility thresholds were therefore
appropriate for all types of open space provision
It was not possible from consultation to establish directly an exact area
in hectares of desirable open space provision; however, comparison of
the responses with the levels of provision of each type in each part of
the Borough allowed the conclusion to be drawn that the approximate
average level of existing provision should be made in all parts of the
Borough
The mean average was an inappropriate mechanism to do this
because it was skewed by very large amounts of open space in a few
neighbourhoods, and therefore the modal class of level of open space
provision, excluding levels of provision at the extremes, should be used
to derive quantitative standards.
4.6
The standards therefore proposed by the Assessment (sections 8.2 and
8.3) are:



In each residential neighbourhood at least 3 hectares of Local Open
Space comprising sites of at least 0.1 hectares* should be provided
per 1,000 residents, such that no resident has to travel more than 330
m from home or cross a busy main road to reach one. Where the
provision of local open space falls below this standard, improvements
will be made as opportunities arise and resources permit, by bringing
other land into use as public open space or through requiring new
provision to be made within new housing developments.
(Note: the text of the report says 0.1 hectares but the Appendices
include many smaller sites newly identified by White Young Green as
contributing to Local Open Space. In discussion with White Young
Green they confirmed that “0.1” was an error for “0.01” but failed to
correct it in the final version of the report supplied to the Council.
No change to the standard for Neighbourhood Open Spaces included
in the deposit draft replacement UDP.
Area Parks of at least 5 ha. should be provided such that as few
residents as possible have to travel more than 1.5 km from home or
cross a busy main road to reach one.
4.7.1
Section 11.2 of the Assessment examined the range of factors which
should be taken into account before open space is permitted to be lost, to
8
development or otherwise, and recommended the introduction of a policy, or the
extension of an existing policy, to apply these considerations to any such
proposal (included in CFR23, see below).
4.8
The Assessment also included an inventory of additional sites which
should be included in the calculation of existing open space provision to ensure
that all aspects of the PPG17 typology were included, and the calculations which
were included have been used to identify deficiencies.
Asset Management Plan
4.9
The Asset Management Plan is maintained by the Council and updated
intermittently. It identifies the need for land for new facilities which the Council is
involved in providing and appropriate uses of existing Council-owned sites. At the
time of preparation of the re-deposit UDP, the most recent version was in
preparation but was not approved by the Council until April 2006. Preparatory
work towards this version of the Asset Management Plan was taken into account
in the preparation of the first part of the Community Facilities and Recreation
chapter to ensure that all significant programmed changes in land use and major
new facilities were included in the re-deposit draft UDP with appropriate policies,
but some changes to the Asset Management Plan may have taken place
between this preparation stage and its issue. The Asset Management Plan is
included as a Core Document to provide background information on relevant
sites and programmes.
5.
Approach in the re-deposit draft replacement UDP
Built community facilities
5.1
Para. 1.3 above indicates that the policies in this section (CFR1 to
CFR13) deal with a range of demands for land that tend not to be subject to
specific policy advice at national or regional level, except that the range of normal
considerations that govern the allocation of land and the protection of amenity
applies. Para. 5.41 below refers to the identification of Northside, Birtley in two
policies in this section (CFR3 and CFR11) resulting from the housing site
allocation there. The Council’s Asset Management Plan (CD/CFR/03) is
continually updated and shows identified needs for major public facilities. Where
the proposals in the Plan arise from specific programmes or initiatives, this is
indicated in the supporting text.
5.2
Policy CFR1 allocates land for new schools, both to safeguard sites for
long-standing proposals which were included in the deposit draft and additional
ones which arose either from the successful Private Finance Initiative (PFI) bid
between the deposit and re-deposit drafts, or in the case of Saint Edmund
Campion school from a separate initiative from the Roman Catholic diocesan
education authority. In the case of the allocations arising from PFI (CFR1.4 to
CFR1.7), planning permission has now been granted for these developments. At
Highfield (CFR2), another PFI scheme already granted planning permission, but
9
the subject of a separate policy which is new in the re-deposit draft, there is a
special need to write into the Plan (including the supporting text) the need to
safeguard for community use any part of the site which might become surplus to
educational needs. The new schools at Highfield and Saint Edmund Campion
(formerly Whitehouse Lane Playing Fields) have been included in CFR1 instead
of CFR3 as specific allocations had been identified by the time of the re-deposit
draft.
5.3
CFR4 and CFR5 seek respectively to provide guidance on the
circumstances in which it will be appropriate for open space to be used as school
playing fields, and for surplus school playing fields to be safeguarded for open
space or sport use. CFR5 has been re-worded in the re-deposit draft in response
to an objection, to improve its effectiveness by including reference to
circumstances where a development on surplus school playing fields could
create a deficiency of open space or sports facilities in the area in question. The
Proposals Map has also been amended to protect land which will become the
playing fields of the new schools included in policy CFR1.
5.4
The policies on Jewish and other minority education (CFR6), libraries
(identified location at Sunniside – CFR7), social services (older persons’ village
at Harlow Green – CFR8), the general location identified for a community centre
at Northside (CFR11 – see para. 5.41 below), and places of worship (CFR12)
have not been the subject of any objections. Policy CFR10, which allocates two
sites for Children’s Centres, is subject to an objection to the inclusion in the Plan
of allocations arising from PFI schemes, but not in any respect more specific to
the policy.
5.5
CFR9 allocates land for a primary health care facility at Ryton. This
policy has been introduced to the re-deposit draft because of need identified by
the Primary Care Trust and follows careful consideration of alternative sites.
Although the land is currently public open space and is in a neighbourhood
deficient according to the Local Open Space standard, the Council was unable to
find an acceptable alternative site in a settlement which is tightly bounded by the
Green Belt. The existing clinic site in Ryton, which would be vacated, has been
included in the re-deposit Plan as a mixed use site (MU25), the supporting text to
which clarifies that it may be used in whole or in part as replacement public open
space. The Council intends to ensure that the new facility has the minimum
possible detrimental impact on the public open space, both in terms of its siting
and its size.
5.6
CFR13 (District sports halls) has been amended in the re-deposit draft to
exclude reference to Blaydon. The Council’s Best Value Review of Leisure Final
Report (CD/CFR/04) states (p.27) that there is no apparent need to provide a
new sports hall in Blaydon. The Review does not identify Ryton and Felling as
early priorities for new sports hall either, but they have not been abandoned as
longer-term aspirations and opportunities to provide them may become available
during the Plan period. Although the Review identifies a number of needs or
proposals for upgrading or replacing built sports facilities, especially swimming
pools, in various parts of the Borough, none of them have yet given rise to
specific new sites or general locations which could be identified in the Plan.
10
Outdoor sport and recreation – strategic context
5.7
Policy STR12 sets the strategic context for this part of the chapter. It has
been amended to refer additionally to increasing public open space where
appropriate.
Outdoor sport
5.8
The Plan includes policies for those outdoor sports which have significant
land-use implications and which give rise to the need for policy specifically
related to the types of development involved (the pitch sports football, cricket,
rugby, and hockey, and golf; and also water-based recreation). The general
development control policies, DC1 to DC5, are believed to be sufficient to
address issues raised by applications for any others which fit this description but
which are not the subject of material in this chapter, such as motor sports. Sports
which are popular but which take up little land, notably tennis and bowls, are not
specifically dealt with in this chapter because the need for them can easily be
accommodated, but they are covered by the policy on the retention of sports
facilities (CFR17).
5.9
No objections have been received to the proposed standards for football
in CFR14, as opposed to the allocation of particular sites, or to the policies for
cricket, rugby and hockey (CFR15) or golf (CFR16). CFR17 (retention of
facilities) is subject to two objections, on of which (that from Sport England) the
Council now recognises has some merit (see proof of evidence). There have also
been no objections to the policy on the Saltwell School site (CFR18) or on waterbased recreation (CFR19).
Relationship of outdoor sport policies to the Playing Pitch Strategy
5.10
Anticipated population change did not allow for the rise in population
shown by recent mid-year estimates (see the Population topic paper) or the
stable or slightly growing population over this period sought by the Council and
intended to be the outcome of policies in the draft replacement UDP. However,
the supply of grounds for cricket, rugby and hockey was re-assessed by the
Council and found to be comfortably adequate for the period to 2011, allowing
for:

the population figures used for the Playing Pitch Strategy, which were
found to be too high when the 2001 Census results were released, and
the mid-year estimates adjusted, after the Strategy was prepared

the interchangeability of land between pitch sports

the willingness of teams in these more specialised sports to travel
several miles to play matches; and

the greater use of school sports facilities by the community.
11
5.11
Football is much more popular and requires an adequate supply of
pitches in each part of the Borough. The Playing Pitch Strategy was carried out
at ward level which is too fine a geographical level to assess provision since
pitches in one ward can easily serve population in adjoining wards, particularly in
the main urban area. For the purposes of the UDP therefore, the Borough was
divided into eight groups of adjoining wards taking account of the accessibility of
concentrations of pitches. There were 0.51 hectares of football pitch land per
1000 population in the Borough using the 2001 census figure, an adjustment of
the figure of 0.53 found by the Playing Pitch Strategy, to take account of the
revised population figures established by the 2001 census and revised mid-year
estimates. This has been rounded to a standard of 0.5 hectares in policy CFR14
and the groups of neighbourhoods deficient according to this standard have been
identified in the policy. Together with the policy for the retention of facilities,
CFR17, the policy provides for the provision of pitches to meet demand rather
than restricting it to the bare achievement of the 0.5 hectare standard.
5.12
No objections have been received to how the standards included in this
Strategy have been translated into policies CFR14 and CFR15 of the re-deposit
draft UDP.
Outdoor sport – other considerations
5.13
The policy for the retention of facilities (CFR17) takes account of the
advice in PPG17 that poor quality or under-use should not be taken as indicating
lack of demand (para. 18), but that equivalent re-provision elsewhere may be
acceptable (para. 15 iii). The Council now recognises that there is merit in Sport
England’s objection to the re-deposit draft that bringing criterion (b) of the policy
more closely into line with point iii of para. 15 of PPG17 would strengthen and
clarify it.
Public open space
5.14
The focus of this part of the Plan is on recreationally useable public open
space. Open land with visual amenity value is dealt with elsewhere in the Plan
(see particularly paras. 5.42 and 5.43 below).
Council’s existing information and use of the Assessment of Open Space
Provision
5.15
The Council included policies in the deposit draft UDP which carried
forward those in the adopted UDP (1998), pending the completion of a study to
research local need, demand, provision and appropriate standards in line with
PPG17 (see paras. 2.1 to 2.5 above). This study is the Assessment of Open
Space Provision (CD/CFR/05) carried out for the Council by White Young Green
in 2005 (see paras. 4.4 to 4.8 above). Its findings and recommendations have
been incorporated in the re-deposit draft as the basis for policies CFR20, CFR21
and CFR22 setting standards for the three levels in a hierarchy of public
recreation open space, and policy CFR23 on the protection and improvement of
existing open space.
12
5.16
Sites of over 0.2 hectares are identified on a database held by the
Council and based on an exhaustive survey carried out between 1989 and 1991
and subsequently updated where necessary. By definition this includes all sites
qualifying as Neighbourhood Open Spaces (CFR21) and Area Parks (CFR22) as
well as the larger sites qualifying as Local Open Space (CFR20). Only sites of
more than 1 hectare are shown on the Proposals Map because it is impractical to
show smaller sites.
Tasks performed by the Assessment of Open Space Provision
5.17
The Assessment of Open Space Provision (CD/CFR/05) was able to take
into account the information already held on sites over 0.2 hectares but it was
necessary for it to perform the following main tasks:





to review the types of open space included in the database and ensure
that they included all those contained within the typology in PPG17;
to identify any open spaces contributing to provision which were not
included in the Council’s existing database (this included grey space
(paved public squares etc.) and sites smaller than 0.2 hectares with
recreational value);
to examine the appropriate level of provision of different types of public
open space in the Borough, based on local need and demand,
established as far as possible by consultation with the public and
relevant local groups, in accordance with PPG17;
to propose standards and policies for the re-deposit Plan based on this
analysis and information; and
to re-assess levels of provision according to the new typology and
standards and identify areas of deficiency..
5.18
All these tasks were performed by the study and the results have been
included in the re-drafted policies CFR20 to CFR23 and their supporting text
without significant alteration.
Detailing the areas of open space deficiency
5.19
Fuller details of the level of provision in each geographical area and the
areas of deficiency will be included in an Interim Policy Advice note on Public
Open Space Needs and Standards (IPA6) (to become a Supplementary Planning
Document when the Plan is adopted). The Assessment of Open Space Provision
includes, for each residential neighbourhood (see paras. 5.22 and 5.23 below)
the amount of Local Open Space and the extent to which the new standards are
exceeded or not met (Appendix 9 in CD/CFR/05). There has been no significant
change in the standards for neighbourhood Open Spaces or Area Parks which
were included in the Deposit Draft as a result of the Gateshead Open Space
Assessment; therefore the maps showing areas deficient in these types of open
space, which were included in SPG10 Public Open Space Needs and Standards
(CD/CFR/07) published at the same time as the deposit draft, continue to show
accurately the areas which are deficient according to these distance-based
standards.
13
Types of open space included in the standards
5.20
Para. 2.5 above shows how each element of the typology in PPG17 is
included in the Plan. Those elements for which standards are set in the public
open space section of the Plan (policies CFR20 to CFR22) are as follows:
1. Formal parks (this implies provision of a range of facilities and areas for
both formal and informal recreation)
2. Mown grass useful for active informal pursuits such as kickabouts (see
also category 6)
3. Pocket parks and small grass areas suitable for sitting out and for young
children to play
4. Rough grassland
5. Grey space, such as paved public squares
6. Mown grass not suitable for organised pursuits, because of e.g. slope,
shape, presence of trees or planted beds, uneven surface, immediate
abutment onto roads or house fronts, etc.
7. Sparse woodland (which can be walked through other than on paths)
5.21
All these categories have been included in calculations of Local Open
Space to meet the standard in CFR20. Only land in categories 1 and 2 is
considered suitable for Neighbourhood Open Spaces (CFR21) and then only if of
at least 2 hectares in size. Only land in category 1 and at least 5 hectares in size
is considered suitable to meet the Area Parks standard (CFR22).
Residential neighbourhoods
5.22
For the Local Open Space standards included in the adopted UDP, the
Council had already divided the Borough into 91 residential neighbourhoods
specifically drawn for this purpose. The Gateshead Open Space Assessment
found that these remained an appropriate mechanism for assessing the provision
of Local Open Space at the new standard of 3 hectares per 1,000 residents
which the Assessment proposed. A map showing the boundaries of the
residential neighbourhoods is included in Appendix 9 of the Gateshead Open
Space Assessment and will be included in IPA6 along with the figures for Local
Open Space supply and deficiency in each neighbourhood.
5.23
Except in very rural areas, the neighbourhoods were so drawn that every
resident should be within reasonable walking distance of the public open space
serving their neighbourhood, except where there was no public open space at all;
this has now been supplemented by an additional distance-based standard to
make it more rigorous (see para. 5.25 below). This was done so that
neighbourhoods should not be classed as deficient simply because public open
space close at hand fell within the boundaries of another neighbourhood. At the
same time the identities of communities and neighbourhoods as perceived by
residents have been respected as far as possible, and many of the boundaries
follow those of wards or polling districts in order to facilitate regular re-calculation
14
of neighbourhood populations to provide an up-to-date assessment of the extent
to which the 3 hectare per 1,000 standard is met. Physical barriers to movement
such as railways, rivers and particularly roads carrying more than 10,000
vehicles per day, have also been treated as boundaries.
Protecting open space in deficient neighbourhoods and elsewhere
5.24
The neighbourhoods referred to in policy CFR20, and shown on the
Proposals Map, are those which were identified as deficient on the Local Open
Space standard by at least 1 hectare in total. Neighbourhoods with a more
marginal deficiency were not identified in the Plan because regular reassessments may show that they cease to be deficient within the Plan period
because of population loss or additional open space being provided. However
policy CFR23 to protect existing open space will also apply to these more
marginal neighbourhoods and to open space the loss of which, in otherwise
adequately-supplied neighbourhoods, would result in the 330 metre maximum
distance being infringed. CFR23 also seeks to ensure, in line with PPG17, that
open space will only be lost exceptionally, even where the standards are
comfortably exceeded, and that tests of the value of any open space will be
applied where there are proposals that would result in its loss. These tests refer
to recreational value, accessibility, visual quality and biodiversity, and reflect
PPG17 and further advice in section 11.2 of the Assessment of Open Space
Provision (see above). However in new housing developments, as PPG17
advises, new open space can only be required where the neighbourhood
concerned is, or would be as a result of the development, deficient in Local Open
Space according to the 3 hectare per 1,000 and 330 metre standards contained
in CFR20.
The accessibility standard for Local Open Space
5.25
However, because these neighbourhoods are a little large to ensure that
open space at one end of a neighbourhood is readily accessible to all residents
in the neighbourhood for regular casual use, the Assessment proposed an
additional standard that there should be an open space site within five minutes’
walk. This has been variously estimated as an average of either 300 metres or
330 metres, and 330 metres has been included as the maximum distance in
policy CFR20 as being a more achievable target in the foreseeable future.
Cases where the policy wording proposed by the Assessment of Open Space
Provision has not been incorporated in the Plan
5.26
The Council has not adhered exactly to the wording proposed in the
Assessment of Open Space Provision for the latter part of CFR20. However, its
reference to open space in new housing developments is addressed in policy
H14 in the Housing chapter. Inclusion in CFR20 as proposed might have
appeared to suggest that a requirement for open space on new housing
developments would be used to remedy deficiencies already existing in the
neighbourhoods where these new development were taking place, rather than
meeting need created by the developments themselves. This would have been
contrary to government guidance on planning obligations. No reference to the
15
need to avoid having to cross busy main roads to access Local Open Space sites
has been included in the policy either, because the neighbourhood boundaries
are drawn so that such roads always form neighbourhood boundaries; not having
to cross them is therefore automatically incorporated in the standard.
5.27
The Council has not included the Assessment of Open Space’s proposed
reference to the desirability of not having to cross busy main roads in the Area
Parks policy (CFR22). There are many such roads in the area and opportunities
to provide additional facilities of the scale and quality of Area Parks are rare. It
was therefore concluded that it would be unrealistic to include this additional
requirement, which would have greatly increased to number of such facilities
required to meet the standard.
Policies to deal with proposed loss of open space
5.28
CFR23 has been re-written to ensure, in line with PPG17 para. 10, that
any proposal for the loss of open space takes account of all the functions that
open space can perform; and allows for the creation of an alternative site of
equal value to one lost where this is an acceptable outcome of a development
proposal (in line with PPG17 para. 12) .
5.29
CFR24 carries forward a policy included in the adopted and draft deposit
UDPs to provide guidance on the considerations to be taken into account in
determining a particular, and common, type of planning application. It has been
altered to clarify that it is intended to refer to the incorporation of public open
space into the curtilages of dwelling houses for any purpose, rather than
specifically into gardens.
Countryside recreation
5.30
The countryside recreation policy (CFR25) has not been the subject of
any objections.
Accessible Natural Greenspace
5.31
Accessibility to larger sites as recommended by English Nature’s last
three points (see para. 2.7 above) is generally met in Gateshead. Policy ENV50
in the re-deposit UDP seeks to increase the provision of Local Nature Reserves.
The Community Facilities and Recreation chapter therefore concentrates on
improving the provision of accessible natural greenspace to work towards the
first element of the standards. However achieving the full recommendation is
ambitious and indeed impractical in the urban area of Gateshead. The Council
has calculated that to achieve it, 7% of the built-up area would need to qualify as
accessible natural greenspace, with sites closely spaced, and there is no
prospect of achieving this. Policy CFR26 therefore proposes to retain the
minimum 2 hectare size but increases the distance threshold to 500 metres. Map
CFR1 in the Plan shows the identified sites and which parts of the Borough are
within the recommended 500 metre radius of them.
5.32
In response to an objection to the deposit draft, areas of water were
deleted from sites contributing to the standard as, particularly in the case of the
16
river Tyne, their inclusion was felt to be inappropriate and in some locations to
raise safety concerns if they were shown as accessible.
Allotments
5.33
There has been a reduction in the amount of allotment land in recent
years but there is still unmet demand in parts of the Borough. The level of
vacancy and abandonment in some areas is partly a result of a historical pattern
of high levels of provision in those areas, particularly former mining villages in the
more rural parts of the Borough. Para. 12.34 indicates that a robust assessment
is necessary before it will be accepted that allotment land is genuinely surplus to
requirements, in line with PPG17 para. 18. Policy CFR27 therefore provides for
the conversion of genuinely surplus allotment sites to recreational public open
space where there is an open space deficiency, before built development will be
considered.
Children’s play areas
5.34
The difficulty of eliciting meaningful responses on the desirable level of
children’s play provision in terms of a ratio between total area of provision and
population meant that the consultants who prepared the Assessment of Open
Space Provision were unable to advise on the desirable level of children’s play
provision. The Council has therefore retained, in the re-deposit draft, the policies
(CFR28, CFR29 and CFR30) proposed in the deposit draft, which have in turn
been carried forward from the adopted UDP. This is a demanding standard which
is still far from being achieved in many areas of the Borough, particularly in
respect of toddlers’ play areas, which should be provided within 60 metres of all
homes. The standard is based on the mid-point of the former range of provision
recommended by the National Playing Fields Association, namely 0.7 hectares
per 1,000 residents. The Council has gradually progressed towards this level
largely through the requirement for it to be met in new housing developments.
However, no objections were received to these policies at either the deposit or
re-deposit stages.
Consistency with policies on similar types of development elsewhere in the
Plan
5.35
The public open space and children’s play areas sections of the chapter,
particularly the supporting text, have been extensively augmented to respond to
objections which led to the recognition that they were insufficiently clear, both in
respect of the extent to which the same piece of land could contribute to meeting
more than one standard, and their relationship to other policies in the Plan,
particularly those requiring provision by developers. The new paras. 12.24, 12.26
and 12.37 particularly address this.
5.36
There are particular respects in which policies in this chapter are closely
linked to, and consistent with, policies in other chapters, and other cases where it
is important to clarify the distinctions between superficially similar policies in this
and other chapters. This section identifies the most important examples.
17
Consistency with policies requiring provision in new housing developments
5.37
The policies on public open space and children’s play areas for the
Borough in general, contained in this chapter, are consistent with those for new
housing developments contained in the Housing chapter. Policy CFR20, which
establishes the standard of 3 hectares of publicly-accessible open space per
1,000 population, and that such space should be available within 330 metres of
all homes, is reflected by policy H14 which seeks to ensure that this standard is
met from the start in new developments. Para. 12.25 lists the types of open
space which are acceptable.
5.38
The Neighbourhood Open Space standard in policy CFR21 is applied by
Policy H15 to new housing developments expected to house over 1,000
residents, where there is no access, meeting the standard in terms of distance, to
such a space already. Any such developments would in any case require the
provision of at least 3 hectares of Local Open Space if that standard were also
not already met in the area concerned. Only one such site is identified by H15 in
the re-deposit draft (H3.62 – Northside, Birtley).
5.39
There is no counterpart in the Housing chapter to policy CFR22 (Area
Parks) as no housing allocation is large enough to justify such a requirement,
and none is likely to come forward within the lifetime of the Plan as a windfall
site. Any new Area Parks created in new developments would mainly serve an
existing population outside the development.
5.40
Policy H16 for the provision of play areas in new housing developments
is consistent with, and the supporting text refers to, the Borough-wide standards
for play areas contained in policies CFR28, CFR29 and CFR30.
5.41
The larger new housing allocations can also create their own
requirements for new schools and built community facilities. Policies CFR3 and
CFR11 again identify Northside, Birtley as the only such allocation in the redeposit draft Plan, although para. 12.4 acknowledges that the requirement for a
new primary school there also depends on capacity in other primary schools in
the area; it is appropriate to continue to identify a general location within the
development until this becomes clearer. The identification of a general location
for a building for community use is justified by the expectation that it would
mainly serve the new development itself, in line with the Council’s general
approach to providing such facilities locally across the Borough.
Relationship to the urban green space policy
5.42
Some comment is necessary on the relationship between, on the one
hand, public open space and outdoor sport policies in this chapter, and, on the
other, the urban green space policy, ENV27. The Proposals Map shows major
sites (over 1 hectare) designated under ENV27 and also the larger sites
protected either by CFR5 (education playing fields), CFR17 (outdoor pitches) or
18
CFR23 (public open space). The latter three categories are mutually exclusive
but both can and do overlap with land protected under ENV27.
5.43
The distinction is that ENV27 is purely environmental in intent, being
concerned with visual amenity, landscape and townscape quality and nature
conservation. CFR5, CFR17 and CFR23 on the other hand are concerned with
recreational value. CFR23 requires that land is accessible to the public and of
some use at least for passive informal recreation. CFR17, while not requiring
public access since it can also protect purely private sports grounds, does
require that a proper facility for organised sport is in existence. CFR5 is
concerned with safeguarding surplus school playing fields to meet any identified
deficiency in public recreational open space or outdoor sports provision. ENV27
therefore also protects sites such as cemeteries and dense woodland which are
not recreational, and also green space in the urban areas which is purely private
and not used for sport. Conversely CFR5, 17 and 23 protect some land which is
not protected by ENV27, either because it is of no environmental value (for
example artificial pitches) or because it is in the rural area.
Requirement for new open land provision in retailing and employment
developments
5.44
Related to the urban greenspace policy is the policy requiring the
provision of landscaped areas, wildlife habitats or public open space in retail and
employment developments (ENV29). This is stated to allow for the inclusion of
recreational areas where appropriate, but the primary focus is visual amenity and
no standards are set in the Community Facilities and Recreation chapter for any
kind of recreational provision within retail and employment use developments.
Relationship of accessible natural green space policy to nature conservation
policies
5.45
Similarly the accessible natural green space policy, CFR26, overlaps to a
large extent with designations in the Environment chapter such as Local Nature
Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Nature Conservation
Importance, and wildlife corridors. CFR26 is concerned with setting and meeting
standards for the provision of sites which are at the same time of both
recreational and nature conservation value. Local Nature Reserves also have
recreational value by definition but because they are a national designation it was
felt appropriate to include them in the Environment chapter together with other
nature conservation sites designated according to nationally-recognised criteria.
6.
Core documents
Planning Policy Guidance note 17 (PPG17): Planning for Open Space, Sport and
Recreation (CD/GOV/17)
Assessing Needs and Opportunities – A Companion Guide to PPG17
(CD/GOV/17a)
19
Accessible Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities – A Review of Appropriate
Size and Distance Criteria (CD/CFR/01)
Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards in Towns and Cities – A Review and
Toolkit for their Implementation (CD/CFR/02)
Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) (CD/REG/01)
Submission Draft Regional Strategy Statement (RSS) (CD/REG/03)
Asset Management Plan (CD/CFR/03)
Gateshead Playing Pitch Strategy (CD/CFR/06)
An Assessment of Open Space Provision (CD/CFR/05)
“Supplementary Planning Guidance note 10: Public Open Space Needs and
Standards” (CD/CFR/0)
Best Value Review Of Leisure – Final Report (CD/CFR/04)
20