Maldon District Green Infrastructure Study

September 2011

EB041a

EB041a

Contents

Executive Summary 1. Introduction……………………………………………………

Background………………………………………………. Policy context……………………………………………. District profile…………………………………………….

2. Methodology………………………………………………….. Objectives………………………………………………… Scope of study…………………………………………… Carrying out the survey……………………………….... Auditing GI and estimating provision standards……...

3. Identifying Local Need……………………………………… General Need Survey...………………………………… Non-user Survey……………………………………….... Town and Parish Council s Issue Survey…………….. Staff and Stakeholder Interviews……………………… 4. Public Park and Amenity Greenspaces…..……………… Definition …………………………………………………. Quantity………………………………………………….... Quality…………………………………………………….. Accessibility……….……………………………………… Conclusion and Recommendations…………………….

5. Sports provision………………………………………….......

Introduction……………………..………………………... Sports halls……………………………………………... Indoor swimming pools………………………………..… Synthetic athletic tracks……………………..………..… Synthetic turf pitches…………………………………..... Indoor bowls facilities………………………………..….. Outdoor bowls greens……………………………..……. Indoor tennis courts…………………………………..…. Outdoor tennis courts………………………………..….. Squash courts………………………………………..…... Golf courses…………………………………………..….. Health and fitness facilities………………………..……. Grass pitches………………………………………..……

6. Natural and Semi-natural greenspaces………..………....

Definition………………..………………………………… Quantity……………………………………………...…….

Quality…………………………………………………...... Accessibility…………………………………………...…..

Conclusion and Recommendations.……………………

P.1 P.1 P.1 P.6 P.9 P.9 P.9 P.10 P.10 P.13 P.13 P.15 P.16 P.17 P.18 P.18 P.19 P.25 P.28 P.30 P.31 P.31 P.32 P.37 P.40 P.41 P.44 P.47 P.50 P.51 P.54 P.55 P.58 P.61 p.67 p.67 p.67 p.70 p.71 p.73

EB041a

7. Allotments…………………………………….……..……..... Quantity………………………………………………….

Quality………………………………………………….... Accessibility……………………………………………..

Conclusion and Recommendations.…………………… 8. Green Infrastructure Network…….……….……..…….....

The Biodiversity Network…………………...…………. The Recreation Network………………….…………....

9. Conclusion and Recommendations…….……..……........ Reference Appendices Appendix 1 – Maldon District Green Infrastructure Study

(Landscape Partnership’s report) Appendix 2 – Feedback summary of Liveability Conference

2005 Appendix 3 – List of all public parks and amenity spaces Appendix 4 – Site assessments for public parks Appendix 5 – List of all natural and semi natural greenspaces Appendix 6 – List of questions for an Allotment survey with town/parish councils

p.74 p.74 p.79 p.79 p.81 p.82 p.82 p.83 p.85

EB041a

Maldon District Council Green Infrastructure Study Executive Summary Green Infrastructure (GI) is defined as a multi-functional network of green spaces such as green corridors, the open countryside, parks and greenways. It encompasses natural green spaces (such as the estuaries and nature conservation areas), man-made or intensively managed green spaces (such as parks and sport facilities), as well as linear spaces (such as footpaths, cycleways and sea walls). Policy ENV1 of the East of England Plan (2008) which recommends Local Planning Authorities should:

� Define a multiple hierarchy of GI;

� retain connected networks of green spaces, and;

� ensure local policies have regard to GI assets.

The importance of having a GI study has also been indicated in PPS12: Local Spatial Planning, where it states that the “core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical, social and green infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and distribution (PPS12, para 4.8). In light of these requirements, a Green Infrastructure Study was prepared by Maldon District Council and the Landscape Partnership, informed by consultations with partners and key stakeholders. The Study is one of a number of evidence base documents undertaken by Maldon District Council for informing the emerging future growth and infrastructure requirements in the District. The Study identifies a number of components which make up the District’s GI network, including public parks and amenity space, sports provision (e.g. playing pitch, swimming pools, golf courses) natural and semi natural green spaces (e.g. Sites of Specific Scientific Interests, Local Wildlife Sites) and allotments1. It investigates the general need for GI in the District, assesses the quantity, quality and accessibility of current provision, and draws together recommendations for future standards. It is identified that the current supply of GI within the District is relatively good overall, although some areas of the District are better provided for than others. However, population in the District is projected to increase steadily over the next 20 years and as a result new facilities will be required to maintain the current level of provision.

1 It should be noted that children’s play spaces are currently covered by the Council’s Children’s Play Strategy 2007-2012. Children’s play spaces will be incorporated into future updates of the Green Infrastructure Study.

EB041a

The following table provides an overview of the current provision of different types of GI in the District and summaries of recommended future standards:

Type

Current provision

Summary of recommended local standards by 2026

Public Park and amenity green spaces

145.4 ha Linear space ~130 km Cycleways ~ 6.7km Public Right of way ~ 500km

� A new District Park to be created � Maintain current level of local parks and

neighbourhood amenity spaces � To improve accessibility and connectivity

of exiting linear space (sea walls, cycleways and footpaths)

11-a-side football pitch: 38 � 8 extra pitches in the urban area (Maldon,

Burnham and Southminster) � 2 extra pitches in the rural area

Mini soccer pitch: 10 � 3 extra pitches needed

Cricket pitch: 10 � 2 extra pitches needed

Rugby pitch: 7 � 2 extra pitches needed

Synthetic turf pitch: 3 � No extra provision required

Sports hall: 4 � 1 extra hall needed

Swimming pool: 1 � 1 extra pool needed subject to feasibility

Squash court: 0* � 8 extra courts needed

Heath and fitness facilities: 2 � No extra provision required

Golf course: 8.5 � 2 extra courses needed Outdoor tennis: 14 � 3 extra courts needed Indoor tennis: 0* � 4 extra courts needed Outdoor bowl: 4 � 1 extra green needed

Sports provision

Indoor bowl: 7 � 1 extra rink needed

Natural and Semi Natural Greenspaces

11517.94 ha (including SSSI, Ramsar, SAC, NNR, Nature Reserve, Fishing Lakes, Common Land, Working Quarries, Semi-Natural Sites, Local Wildlife Sites and Green Corridors)

� To investigate the potential to create new accessible greenspaces in or around Latchingdon and Tillingham

� To improve connectivity between semi-natural greenspaces

� To apply a higher level of policy protection to Local Wildlife Sites through the emerging Local Development Framework

Allotments 11.09ha (0.17ha per 1000 population)

� To seek to achieve the recommended standard of 0.2 ha of allotments per 1000 population at parish level

� Where it is feasible, all household should be within 2km radius of an allotment site

� Priority of creating new allotments should be given to Heybridge, Mayland, Great Totham (South) and Wickham Bishops

*The provision identified in this table includes only publicly accessible facilities in this category. The Study noted that there are private facilities in the District and efforts should be made to both improve accessibility to these private facilities as well as developing new facilities.

EB041a

Two GI networks have been identified by the study namely the Biodiversity network and the Recreational network. The Biodiversity network covers a range of nature conservation areas and the study recommended that this network should be managed as a multifunctional rural and coastal landscape which provides habitats and corridors for wildlife as well as access to water-base activities, leisure activities and tourism development. The Recreational network covers all informal recreation facilities such as public parks and amenity green spaces, and all formal recreation facilities identified under the sports provision. The Study recognizes the rural nature of the District and recommended that priority for the development of new sport provision should be located in areas where their catchment covers the largest possible population. Existing provision in smaller settlements should be preserved to maintain local access while better transport connection should be provided to allow better access from rural villages to facilities in other areas. The final section of the Study includes recommendations in relation to the future delivery and management of GI in the District, these include:

� Work with local communities, partners and stakeholders to achieve recommended standards for individual types of GI and GI networks

� Incorporate GI and GI networks into the strategic planning framework

� Incorporate consideration of GI provision at an early stage of development proposals

� To improve accessibility to GI for rural communities

� To develop a GI Implementation Plan

� To introduce a monitoring mechanism to enable the provision and condition of GI to be continuously updated and reviewed

� To seek to work with neighbouring authorities, partners and stakeholders to ensure cross boundary co-ordination and future planning

EB041a

1

Chapter 1: Introduction Background According to Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Guidance, Green Infrastructure (GI) means

“A strategically planned and delivered network comprising the broadest range of high quality green spaces and other environmental features.”

(Source: Natural England 2009)

The definition of GI therefore covers a wide range of spaces and facilities including nature reserves, protected areas, parks, gardens, sport pitches and other recreation facilities which are designed, developed and managed to meet the environmental, social and economic needs of communities. It is part of, and contributes to, a high quality natural and built environment which can help to enhance the quality of life for present and future residents and visitors as well as delivering a sustainable community. GI is an important element of our society; it provides us with valuable space to relax and retreat from the pressure of day to day life, somewhere to play and exercise, to enjoy flora and fauna and interact with our natural environment. The existence of quality open space and green infrastructure will improve visual attractiveness of our towns and villages, they are also an important element in helping to define the character of the locality and improve prosperity by attracting employment and enhancing tourism offer. And a comprehensive network of these spaces will contribute to the delivery of biodiversity and other environmental benefits such as flood relief. The aim of the Maldon District Green Infrastructure Study (hereafter, the Study) is therefore to assess the local need for GI, establish existing supply and condition of provision, identify networks of GI and make recommendations for future provision and standards. The result of the study will be used to inform the development of local planning policies as well as helping the Council to meet its wider strategic objectives in health, environmental, heritage, regeneration and other areas. The Study will also be useful in prioritising future investment and providing rationale to secure external funding. Policy Context In developing the Study it has been important to take into account national, regional and local planning policies as well as other relevant strategies and guidance from different organisations involved in the planning, delivery and management of these spaces and facilities. A summary of some of the key documents are given below. National Planning Policy PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development outlined that plan policy should ‘deliver safe, healthy and attractive places to live” and “should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban area as a whole (para 16,17).’

EB041a

2

PPS12: Local Spatial Planning defined Green Infrastructure as ‘a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities’ and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should ‘orchestrate the necessary social, physical and green infrastructure to ensure sustainable communities are delivered.’ (para 2.4) In terms of open spaces and recreation facilities, PPG17: Planning for open spaces, sport and recreation identifies the role open space should play in enhancing quality of life and delivering wider governments objectives including:

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

� Supporting a rural renewal - the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors can play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas. Open spaces within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and recreational facilities contribute to the quality of life and well being of people who live in rural areas;

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

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

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

EB041a

3

Furthermore, the companion guide for PPG17 states that the Government expects all local authorities to carry out assessments of needs and audits of open space and sports and recreational facilities in accordance with the following guidelines:

� Undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities;

� Cover the differing and distinctive needs of the population for open space and built sports and recreational facilities;

� Undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, the use made of existing facilities, access in terms of location and costs (such as charges) and opportunities for new open space and facilities;

� To identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in their areas; and

� Identify locally derived standards for open spaces and sport facilities in terms of quality, quantity and accessibility. PPS3: Housing also emphsises the need for LPAs to retain and protect existing valuable amenity open spaces in towns, villages and indeed for all developments.

(Source: PPG17 companion guide (ODPM 2002))

Regional Planning Policy Policy ENV1 of the East of England Plan (EEP) states that areas and networks of green infrastructure should be identified, created, protected, enhanced and managed to ensure an improved and healthy environment is available for present and future communities. The policy emphasises the need to define a multiple hierarchy of green infrastructure, in terms of location, function, size and levels of use, based on analysis of natural, historic, cultural and landscape assets, and the identification of areas where additional green infrastructure is required. Most of the planning policies contained in the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan expired on the 27 September 2007 and are therefore no longer in effect. However, six policies have been 'saved' including CC1 – Undeveloped Coast: Coastal Protection Belt; LRT6 – Coastal Water Recreation; EG1 – Proposals for New Power Stations. These policies have a transitional status and remain in force until they are replaced by other planning policies adopted by respective planning authorities. The Local Area Agreement 2008-2011 is an agreement made between the Government and the Essex Partnership, including public, private and third sector organisations to serve the overarching vision of which Local Authorities in Essex signed up to. Within the document there are two priorities which are related to this Study, namely Priority 6: More participation in sports, culture and volunteering for the benefit of the whole community, and; Priority 10: A well managed environment.

EB041a

4

Local Planning Policy Maldon District Replacement Local Plan – Saved Policies will continue to be relied upon until being replaced by the emerging Local Development Framework. In particular CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC5 provided policy protection to nature conservation sites of international, national and local importance, while policy Rec1, Rec2, Rec3 and Rec4 address issues in relation to the provision of formal public open spaces; children play spaces and other informal open spaces (MDC 2008c). The emerging Maldon District Core Strategy (MDC 2009b) also indicates that a strategic multi-functional network of green infrastructure will be identified, managed and enhanced. (Policy CS19, MDC 2009b). The Maldon Sustainable Community Strategy (MDC 2008a), pulls together the key issues that need to be addressed to improve the quality of life for the people who live and work in the District. It sets out a long-term vision and priorities for delivering change and forms an overarching strategy for the District. The following priorities in the strategy could help deliver an enhanced Green Infrastructure network:

Theme Priority To improve the health and well-being of residents

• Encouraging healthy living

To strengthen and encourage opportunities that will sustain and develop active communities with strong community spirit

• Supporting voluntary groups and the voluntary and community sector within the District

• Working with them to provide services and/or develop projects that involve the community and more closely meet the communities' needs

• Exploring ways to enable local people to be involved in shaping their communities

To make the Maldon District a safer place

• Tackling anti-social behaviour and perceived anti-social behaviour and by providing diversionary activities for young people

To protect and enhance the distinctive environment of the District and encourage enjoyment of it

• Encouraging sustainable travel especially among those who commute out of the District for work

• Working to minimise the harmful effects of possible flooding

• Encouraging the sustainable management of our natural and built heritage

Table 1.1 – Themes and Priorities from the Maldon SCS

EB041a

5

The Draft Maldon District Green Spaces Strategy 2007 – 2012 (MDC 2005) identifies how Maldon District’s green spaces can be managed and improved to provide a safe, attractive and enjoyable environment for the residents of Maldon District and visitors to the area. It sets out in broad terms the measures that are required to protect and improve the existing green spaces, create new green space in areas where provision is poor and provide a mechanism where local residents and park users are central to the decision making process. The findings of the study have been used to develop the Green Infrastructure Study. The Maldon District Children’s Play Strategy 2007 – 2012 (MDC 2007) has been developed as a response to the increasing restrictions on children’s opportunity to play freely in a range of settings and to increase recognition of the importance of play opportunities. It looks at play provision specifically for informal and casual play activities for children and young people aged 0-19 years. The strategy identified areas of deficiencies and sets out local standards according to the identified needs. Action plans are also adopted in order to address these identified deficiencies. Children’s play space is an integral part of open spaces and green infrastructure and information from this strategy will be referred to in the Study. Other Strategies and Guidance The Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature (now Natural England) and Environment Agency have jointly published guidance entitled Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning which suggests that within the LDF, all significant development proposals should contribute to environmental resources [i.e. green infrastructure]. The guidance also suggested that LDFs should identify opportunities to create major new or improved 'green infrastructure' projects such as regional parks, green grids and large scale urban open space networks.’ (EA, 2005) Natural England has published Green Infrastructure Guidance (Natural England 2009) which provides stage-by-stage guidance for LPAs in developing a green infrastructure strategy. It acknowledges the difference between an open space strategy and a green infrastructure strategy by pointing out that whilst PPG17 compliant studies (open space study) may consider typologies beyond sports and amenity greenspace, spaces are considered primarily from access, quality and management perspectives, rather than consideration of wider environmental benefits and services of which a green infrastructure network would be able to address. These spaces are, however, important constituents of a green infrastructure network. CABE – the government’s built environment agency - identifies that there are many benefits to high quality parks and public spaces in their research of 2004 ‘The value of public space: how high quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and environmental value’ (CABE, 2004). These benefits can include; a significant impact on the economic life of urban environments; stimulating increased house prices; improvement to our physical and mental health by encouraging us to walk more, to play sport, or simply to enjoy a green and natural environment; providing children with opportunities for fun, exercise and learning; helping to allay fear of crime; shaping the cultural identity of an area; providing a safer and more welcoming environment, encouraging walking and cycling; redress the imbalance known as the ‘heat island effect’; vegetation also has benefits to mental well being.

EB041a

6

Sport England’s planning policy statement on playing fields is identified in ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England / Playing Fields for Sport Revisited, Sport England (Sport England 2000)’. In ‘Planning for Open Space’ Sport England draws together the large body of research and good practice on the subject of open space and focuses on the revised PPG17 and its companion guide. Other relevant documents produced by Sport England includes: Planning Policies for Sport (Sport England,1999), Playing Fields for Sport Facilities (Sport England, 2000), Planning Across Boundaries: Guidance on Local Strategies for the Development of Sports (Sport England, 2001a), Sport and Regeneration (Sport England, 2001b), and Towards a Level Playing Field (Sport England, 2003). To supplement the locally derived assessment of need, Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM) was applied to assess the current and future balance between the supply of, and demand for, sports halls and swimming pools in Maldon District. The FPM comprises a spatial assessment of provision for sports halls and swimming pools based on the nature of sports participation [demand] within an area and the available supply, taking into account issues such as capacity and accessibility. The model facilitates a comparison with the results for England, the East as well as neighbouring and selected comparator authorities and also provides an indication of the likely situation in 2019. Where appropriate, the Study has taken into account the findings from similar studies undertaken by adjoining LPAs i.e. Braintree, Chelmsford, Colchester and Rochford. District Profile The rural district of Maldon covers an area of approximately 426 square km in East Essex. The District has over 100 km of coastline that includes the estuaries of the Rivers Blackwater and Crouch which has limited the development of settlement facing the North Sea. The main towns are Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch with other villages scattered across the District. The area has strong associations with fishing and coastal trading, and more recently sailing. While many of the small rural villages owe their origins to the agricultural economy, they were also linked to coastal settlements and quays from where their produce was shipped to provision London. There are three distinct areas within the District: the Maldon and Heybridge area, the Dengie peninsular and the rural North. Demography It is estimated that population of Maldon District in 2010 was 63,700 and has one of the lowest population density in Essex at just under 150 residents per sq. kilometre. The population of the District is expected to grow steadily in the foreseeable future and by 2028 it is projected that the population of the District will reach 75,700. Such level of increase is generally in line with the regional rate of 16% (ONS 2008). Approximately one-third of the District’s population is concentrated in the two towns of Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch, with the remaining two-thirds spread relatively evenly across the District’s network of villages. All areas of Essex will face a growth in the numbers of older people, but it is predicted that by 2026, 26% of the District’s population will be 65+ in comparison with the current figure of 19.7%.

EB041a

7

The impact of an ageing population on green space and facilities could be significant with more accessible provision being needed. This would include not just enhanced physical access to facilities (disabled parking, provision of electric buggies, accessible paths and ramps e.g. in countryside locations) but also more facilitated events to get the older user participating in activities once more (health walks, green gyms, ‘pensioner playgrounds’) and training for parks personnel in ‘wellness’ management. Historic Environments There are in total 13 conservation areas within the District, 1031 listed buildings and 20 designated historic parks and gardens. The Maldon District Historic Environment Characterisation Project (MDC, 2008) reveals the sensitivity, diversity and value of the historic environment within Maldon District and provides a baseline from which historic environment objectives can be informed for spatial planning purposes. This includes opportunities for creating and enhancing existing open spaces in relation to access, interpretation, education and promotion. The Council has also produced Conservation Area Reviews and Appraisals for all conservation areas. Topography, river patterns and flood zones Maldon District is characterised by the two estuaries: the Blackwater and the Crouch. A large part of this estuarine landscape is low-lying, the coast itself consisting of mud-flats, creeks and salt-marsh. Further inland, the landscape comprises rolling clay plateau with a land-use of agriculture. (CBA 2006) Many low-lying parts of Maldon District, especially on the Dengie peninsula, around Maylandsea, Maldon and Heybridge have been identified as being at risk from flooding from the sea or rivers, a risk that will increase with climate change. There is a role that green infrastructure can play in adapting and mitigating some of this impact by providing space for coastal change, for example, realigned sea defences, regenerated salt marsh, lagoons and restored grazing marsh. Connectivity of Green Infrastructure via wildlife corridors is critical in ensuring that biodiversity is safeguarded in the face of a changing climate and green space can ameliorate surface water run-off to reduce the risk of flooding. As part of climate change mitigation, well-designed and managed Green Infrastructure can encourage people to travel in a more sustainable way, such as cycling and walking. In addition to acting as carbon sinks, trees and landform can reduce energy use for heating and cooling buildings by shading them in summer and sheltering them in winter. A Green Infrastructure approach to planning can also optimise the potential for efficient, decentralised, renewable energy, improving local energy security, providing potential future space for ground source heating, hydroelectric power, biomass and wind power (Landscape Institute 2009). The UK Climate Impacts Programme is predicting changes to UK weather patterns and levels of precipitation over the coming decades. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that the East of England may experience hotter, drier summers, milder, wetter winters, more extreme climate events and increased risk of flooding. Despite being classified as semi-arid, the eastern region is likely to experience both water shortages during drier summers and flooding during the winter due to climate change.

EB041a

8

Geology and Soils The dominant geological constituent of the District is London Clay. In the south the clay is overlain by river gravels and alluvium. The generally flat and typically gently undulating lowlands are drained by numerous watercourses. Most soils are heavy clay although lighter soils occur in some foot-slope positions. On level sites, winter waterlogging over impermeable subsoils is severe and drainage is needed to improve the soil for arable crops. Traditionally, the land was ploughed in a form of ridge and furrow that promoted limited surface run-off. Most of these have been ploughed out and underdrainage systems using clay pipes installed (CBA 2006). Landscape Character Landscape characteristics should be used to inform enhancements to the greenspace network. Maldon District Council's Adopted Replacement Local Plan (November 2005) identifies that the District has an attractive and varied landscape with a distinct contrast between the well-wooded, higher land to the west and the flat marsh and pasture landscapes of the valleys to the east. One-third of the District is low lying with only subtle undulations creating variation in the landscape. Areas of higher land include Wickham Bishops, Little Braxted, Great Braxted, Purleigh, Cold Norton, Stow Maries, Maldon and the Dengie Ridge. The landscape character of Maldon falls into two national character areas namely the Greater Thames Estuary and the Northern Thames Basin, details of which can be found in the Maldon District Landscape Character Assessment (CBA, 2006).

Furthermore, the Council has undertaken a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (ECC 2009) which focuses on assessing any potential impacts which future developments may bring to the areas surrounding the District’s many settlements. Biodiversity There are a number of natural conservation designations providing statutory protection to the coast and the estuarine areas within Maldon. The entire coastal line and the estuaries are significant in providing habitats for birds and have been designated as Ramsar as well as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Furthermore there are two National Nature Reserves (NNR) as well as 89 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS) in the District (EECOS, 2007).

The Biodiversity Action Plan for Essex (EWT 2000) details the priorities for nationally and locally important habitats and wildlife. The Plan identifies species that are disturbance sensitive and which present a serious possible conflict between biodiversity and recreational need. Priority Biodiversity Action Plan habitats in Maldon include coastal habitats such as salt marsh, grazing marsh, mudflats and saline lagoons as well as small areas of ancient woodland.

EB041a

9

Chapter 2: Methodology Objectives In accordance with PPG17 and various other guidance on open spaces, sport facilities and green infrastructure, the objectives of the Maldon Green Infrastructure Study are to:

� Assess local need for open space provisions, taking into account varying socio-demographic and cultural characteristics of local communities;

� Examine existing supply of facilities in term of function, level of use, quantity, quality and accessibility, including the degree to which provision meets need from beyond local authority boundaries;

� Set out local standards based on the findings from the assessments bearing in mind differences between urban and rural areas in terms of level of provision,

� Identify networks of Green Infrastructures;

� Recommend how provision of green infrastructure could be improved and managed so to contribute to wider sustainability objectives.

Scope of the Study The assessment has included Council owned or managed greenspaces and facilities as well as other facilities and spaces which are publicly accessible e.g. private clubs and facilities. For the purposes of this Study these have been divided in to the following categories:

� Public parks and amenity green spaces, including parks, gardens, amenity spaces, children’s play space;

� Sports provision, including playing pitches, sports halls, swimming pools, golf courses and health and fitness facilities;

� Natural and semi-natural green spaces, including Ramsar sites, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Natural reserves, the estuaries and the water courses, Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS), and green corridors; and

� Allotments.

The following types of greenspaces have not been included in the Study in accordance with PPG17

� Private roads and domestic gardens;

� Small and insignificant areas of grassland or woods;

� Farmland and farm tracks; and

� Grass verges on the side of the road.

EB041a

10

Children’s play spaces have been covered in the Council’s Children’s Play Strategy which covers a five year period between 2007 and 2012 and therefore has not been included in this study. The Council is mindful that children’s play spaces are part of the green infrastructure network and will be looking to including them in any subsequent update of this study. It is recognised that some green spaces can be multi-functional, for example, some playing pitches can well be used as amenity spaces. In considering these multi-functional spaces, the Study has identified their primary and secondary functions as recommended by the PPG17 guidance. For the purpose of this study, focus has been made on the primary function of the facility when assessing local need and calculating local standards to avoid double counting. However, secondary functions have also been accounted for in the study and will be considered when planning for the GI network. Where detailed information on the condition/usage of a certain facility is not available i.e. there are unlikely to be records of the number of visitors, uses are sensitive to weather, or the operators are not willing to provide information such as the level of use, the study has made an informed guess rather than ignore the facilities in question. Carrying out the Study The Maldon District Green Infrastructure Study has been undertaken jointly by the Council and the Landscape Partnership whereby:

� A need assessment has been undertaken by the Landscape Partnership (Appendix 1);

� A comprehensive audit survey of all sport provision has been undertaken by the Landscape Partnership (Appendix 1);

� A survey of other GI including parks, natural and semi-natural greenspaces and allotments has been undertaken by the Council; and

� The Council has produced the final report taken into account finds from all information gathered

Chapter 3 of this study summarises the need assessment while Chapter 4 to Chapter 7 look at the definition, quantity, quality, accessibility and proposed local standard for different types of GI. Auditing GI and estimating provision standards All GI identified in the Study have been categorised and digitally mapped in accordance to the ‘primary use’ of the site/facility. Current provision of each type of GI is therefore determined by calculating the overall site size of each individual types/categories of GI and dividing it by the total population of the District based on ONS population estimate (ONS, 2009) to give a quantified provision for GI per 1000 population. Table 2.1 shows the population projection by parish for the District up to 2028 based on census data (ONS 2001) and sub-national population projections (SNPP) (ONS, 2009).

EB041a

11

Parish 2001 Census 2008 SNPP (000) 2028 SNPP (000) Althorne 1.1 1.18 1.41 Asheldham 0.2 0.17 0.20 Bradwell-on-Sea 0.9 0.94 1.12 Burnham-on-Crouch 7.8 8.32 9.88 Cold Norton 1.1 1.18 1.40 Dengie 0.1 0.14 0.17 Goldhanger 0.6 0.69 0.82 Great Braxted 0.3 0.35 0.41 Great Totham 2.8 2.97 3.53 Hazeleigh 0.1 0.12 0.15 Heybridge 7.6 8.17 9.71 Langford 0.2 0.17 0.20 Latchingdon 1.2 1.32 1.57 Little Braxted 0.1 0.14 0.16 Little Totham 0.4 0.40 0.47 Maldon 14.0 15.04 17.88 Mayland 3.7 4.00 4.75 Mundon 0.4 0.38 0.45 North Fambridge 0.8 0.81 0.96 Purleigh 1.1 1.23 1.46 Southminster 4.0 4.31 5.12 St. Lawrence 0.9 0.99 1.18 Steeple 0.5 0.48 0.57 Stow Maries 0.2 0.21 0.25 Tillingham 1.0 1.09 1.29 Tollesbury 2.7 2.87 3.41 Tolleshunt D'Arcy 1.0 1.04 1.24 Tolleshunt Knights 1.0 1.10 1.31 Tolleshunt Major 0.6 0.68 0.80 Ulting 0.1 0.14 0.17 Wickham Bishops 1.8 1.90 2.26 Woodham Mortimer 0.5 0.54 0.64 Woodham Walter 0.6 0.62 0.74

Total 59.4 63.70 75.70 Table 2.1 Population Projection

Qualitative information for sites identified in this Study has been sourced mainly through site visits and the completion of site survey forms. Other information has also been used to assist the assessment including monitoring data from other organisations and discussions with staff in the Council who have an interest or responsibility towards either the planning, delivery or management of green infrastructure.

EB041a

12

Assessment of sport and recreational facilities has been undertaken by the Landscape Partnership. Provision for this type of GI has been based on a number of facilities rather than the overall size of sites. A separate scoring assessment has been undertaken to identify the quality of components with this type of GI (Appendix 1). The recommended distance threshold to determine the accessibility of GI has been derived both from national standards and recommendations from relevant organisations. The potential accessibility of each type of open space included in this assessment has been digitally mapped to show spatial distribution of provision and the distance threshold. These maps are presented within each section of the Study. However, it should be noted that the threshold identified does not take into account local connections, geography and any major landscape obstacles such as the railway. Where quality of access has been identified as an issue e.g. poor signage, this has been considered as part of the quality assessment. The Study has identified existing areas of deficit surplus provision as well as potential deficit /surplus taking into account population projection. Recommendations for local provision in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility for each type of GI will therefore be derived as appropriate taking into account findings from the Study. Moreover, networks of GI have been identified in the Study and recommendations have been made with regard to the future management of these networks.

EB041a

13

Chapter 3: Identifying Local Need As part of the Maldon Green Infrastructure Study, MDC has commissioned the Landscape Partnership to carry out a local need assessment. This chapter summarises the findings from the local need assessment, details of the findings can be referred to in Appendix 1. In accordance with PPG17, the approach to community engagement as part of the needs assessment in Maldon included:

� General Needs Survey

� Non-user Survey

� Town and Parish Council Issues Survey

� Stakeholder Interviews

General Needs Survey

This drew on existing sources of information such as the Draft Maldon District Green Spaces Strategy 2007 – 2012 (MDC 2005), feedback from the Liveability Conference (MDC 2005/Appendix 2), car-park surveys (MDC, 2009) and feedback relevant to the greenspace network through Maldon District Council’s complaints system in 2008 and 2009. Quantity In 2005, the Draft Maldon District Green Spaces Strategy (MDC 2005) identified a list of 260 publicly accessible green spaces across the district ranging in size from approximately 5,500ha (The Blackwater Estuary) to small amenity areas of a few square metres. Of these 260 sites, Maldon District Council directly manages just 30. Parish and Town Councils manage almost 80 sites between them and there are ten nature reserves managed by Essex Wildlife Trust, the RSPB or the National Trust. The remaining 140 sites are mainly small amenity areas within housing estates or alongside roads and are owned by Essex County Council, Housing Associations or ownership is unclear. Almost two thirds of the sites are smaller than 1 acre. However, these smaller sites are usually within or close to residential areas and are therefore easily accessible to large numbers of people, and are particularly important as informal play spaces for younger children. In addition to the green spaces identified in the strategy, residents are able to access a large number of sites in the neighbouring districts of Colchester and Chelmsford, the most significant of these being the large complex of mainly heathland and woodland at Danbury.

EB041a

14

Quality The quality of Maldon’s greenspaces is varied but in 2009 the district gained three Green Flag awards for Promenade Park in Maldon, Oak Tree Meadow in Heybridge and Riverside Park in Burnham-on-Crouch. Green Flag awards are seen as the ‘gold’ standard within green space management and are the only nationally recognised awards for parks and greenspaces. Survey work carried out as part of the ‘Green spaces Forum’ in 2005, indicated that there was actually a very high level of satisfaction with the quality of the green spaces managed by Maldon District Council but that people still felt that more needed to be done to tackle litter, dog fouling and anti-social behaviour. Summary of feedback from ‘Green Spaces conference’ 2005 The 2005 Green Spaces Conference was attended by about 120 people in total and included Maldon District Council staff and members, parish councils, Essex County Council, Essex Wildlife Trust, Housing Associations, Friends groups, sports clubs and many other groups and individuals that had an interest in parks and open spaces. The seminar recorded feedback from participants across four themes and the feedback was collated.

Details of the feed back can be referred to in Appendix 1 but some common concerns that were identified included issues around health and safety (the need for safe, friendly areas including routes, that reduce the fear of crime, increases lone usage and unaccompanied child use; the need for re-interpretation of some park rules and regulations for inhibit group (including school) usage); youth engagement (greater involvement of youth and 16+ groups including in Friends’ groups, input into Youth Strategy and provision of facilities; encourages sense of pride and civil responsibility); communication (the need for greater promotion of the existing facilities and activities available in the parks and green spaces; the need for more ‘facilitated’ events/activities/training e.g. wildlife walks, dog-training or music events to promote the parks, community engagement and sense of pride in greenspace; access and transport (enhance access for less able, pushchair and wheelchair users where still needed; explore innovative approaches to transport needs for those in rural areas; promote safe routes between green spaces.)

EB041a

15

Non-user Survey This survey was designed to identify the reasons why people do not use open space and recreation facilities. The survey form was very comprehensive asking a total of 18 questions on usage of open space, plus a section on personal information. The questionnaire was split into two sections: one looking at Open spaces and the other at sport and leisure facilities. Within each section the respondent was asked about their general views on facilities in Maldon, which specific ones they had visited in the past both in Maldon and neighbouring districts, why they did not use the facilities now, and their views on which features or facilities at sites might attract them to use sites again or more frequently. Detail of the outcome from the non-user survey can be referred to in Appendix 1 but the findings from the survey can be summarised as follow:

� 69% of respondents thought parks and green spaces in Maldon was good or very good;

� Parks, green corridors and natural green spaces were the most frequently visited types;

� 88% of respondents had visited Promenade Park;

� The most popular green spaces in adjoining districts were Danbury Common (42%), Danbury Country Park (40%) and Marsh Farm (38%);

� For those that did not use greenspace, the main reason given was lack of time (40%);

� 25% of respondents lived or worked within walking distance of the Blackwater Estuary;

� The feature people most wanted in their parks and green spaces was wildlife (30%);

� Under 50% thought sport and recreation facilities were good or very good;

� Of the sport and recreation users, 41% have been to the Blackwater Leisure Centre;

� 78% of respondents do not use sport and leisure facilities outside Maldon; and

� 50% of respondents would use their local sport and recreation facilities more often if they had additional facilities there that they wanted.

EB041a

16

Town and Parish Councils Issues Survey The issues survey focussed on areas of most concern to community councils who have extensive responsibility in terms of land ownership or management for their communities and some specific responsibilities around playing pitches, allotments and village halls. A specific question was then targeted at problems, one on allotments and one that would help define a vision for green infrastructure.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the Town and Parish Council survey include:

� More respondents felt there was not enough young people’s provision or allotments than any other typology;

� More respondents had quality issues with young people’s provision and sport and recreation provision;

� More respondents recorded dissatisfaction with sport and recreation facilities, car-parking, and boundaries than other facilities;

� More respondents recorded access issues due to public transport and cycle access;

� The most significant problems for the respondents was dog-fouling, vandalism and graffiti and litter;

� Most significant problems regarding allotments are with waiting lists;

� The sport and recreation provision that most parishes have issues of quantity with, are football pitches for all age groups; and

� Very few parishes identify any quality issues with sport and recreation provision.

A separate telephone survey has been undertaken by the Council specifically in relation to the provision and management of allotments and village halls. The result from this survey helps to inform the study and is further discussed in Chapter 7.

EB041a

17

Staff and Stakeholder Interviews Consultation was undertaken with relevant staff within Maldon District Council who had an interest or responsibility towards either the planning, delivery or management of green infrastructure. In addition, a select list of external stakeholders has also been consulted including governing bodies of sports and pitch providers.

Stakeholder letter This was sent out by email to all staff and stakeholders. Stakeholders were invited to make contact by either email or telephone and follow-up telephone calls carried out to chase responses. Stakeholder/staff responses The key points raised by stakeholders in the interviews were: Quantity

� A shortage in youth football pitches

� A shortage in rugby pitches

� The desire for a swimming pool in Burnham-on-Crouch

� Changing demography from young to older population needs to be considered in future planning

Quality

� Pitches are overplayed in Promenade Park

� Opportunities for green space with brownfield remediation

� Long term maintenance of new green space resources

� Issues with dog-fouling e.g. in ‘wildspace’ areas. Only one dog warden available.

� Issues of tourist impact in summer months

� Design in recycling facilities in new green space provision

� High quality at Promenade Park

� Parks need equipping for older people

� Provision for 13 plus age group needed

Accessibility

� Facilitated activities with schools/youth work well

� Access for all still not implemented in all facilities

� Connectivity an issue, although improving

� Public transport to venues remains an issue

EB041a

18

Chapter 4: Public Parks and Amenity Spaces Definition Public parks are defined as areas of land designed, managed and maintained primarily for public recreation. This includes the urban parks and formal gardens as well as a number of parish council sites which are traditionally referred to as recreation grounds or parish fields. Public parks often offer a range of facilities including recreational, ecological, landscape, cultural or green infrastructure features and are usually easily accessible. All of the spaces classified as public parks in the District are under public ownership either by the District Council or parish/town councils. Amenity spaces, on the other hand, are relatively smaller parcels of land which can most commonly be found in and around residential areas. Their primary function is to provide opportunities for informal recreation and leisure activities close to home or work and in some cases help to enhance the quality of built-up areas by providing spaces for visual amenity, soft landscaping as well as buffers for noise and other types of land uses. Function and size of these spaces vary greatly across the District from small pockets of grassland in the neighbourhood to large parks attracting more than 300,000 visitors a year. For the purpose of this study, a hierarchy of parks and amenity spaces has been identified which is illustrated in Table 3.1.

Approximate size Characteristics District park 10-30 ha Landscape setting with a variety of

natural features providing for a wide range of activities, including outdoor sports facilities and playing fields, children’s play for different age groups, and informal recreation pursuits. Should provide some car parking.

Local park 0.2 ha-10 ha Providing for sitting-out areas, sport pitches, children’s play spaces or other informal recreation activities.

Neighbourhood amenity spaces

Under 0.2 ha Public gardens, sitting-out areas, amenity grassland

Linear spaces Variable The coast, canals and waterways and associated open spaces and towpaths; other routes which provide opportunities for informal recreation. Often characterised by features or attractive areas which are not fully accessible to the public but contribute to the enjoyment of the space.

Table 3.1 – Hierarchy of Public Park and Amenity Space

EB041a

19

The primary functions of parks and amenity spaces are for informal recreational use but it is recognised that these are often multi-functional spaces which can accommodate other facilities e.g. children play facilities and playing pitches. This chapter focuses on the recreational function of parks and amenity space but will also reflect on the important secondary functions these spaces can carry. Quantity Public parks and amenity spaces represent a large part of the accessible green spaces in the District; the Study has identified three district parks, 35 Local parks and 72 neighbourhood amenity spaces within the District. Total land take for all the spaces identified is approximately 145ha. In some of the coastal towns and villages, the sea walls and foreshores serve as informal parks. These additional provisions, although not counting as formal public parks within the District, should still be taken into account when determining future provisions for public parks in the District. Table 3.2 shows the number of parks and amenity spaces within the District which are classified in accordance with the hierarchy set in table 3.1. It also shows the provision for different types of space per 1000 population. A full list of all the sites is included within Appendix 3.

Number of sites Total size (ha) Provision per

1000 population

District park 3* 64.1 1 Local park 35 72.7 1.14

Neighbourhood amenity spaces

72 8.6 0.14

Total parks and amenity spaces 110 145.4 2.28

Linear space

- Accessible sea walls along the coast

- Footpaths along Chelmer & Blackwater Navigation

- The Blackwater Rail Trail**

~130km N/A

Cycleways Existing and proposed cycleways

Existing – 6.7km Proposed – 39.3km N/A

Footpaths (Public Rights of Way)

Footpaths across the countryside

~ 500km N/A

Table 3.2 – Provision of Public Park and Amenity Space *Oak Tree Meadow and Elms Farm Park are counted as one District park for the purpose of this study. **The Blackwater Rail Trail is being managed as a linear Country Park by ECC. It overlaps with parts of the proposed cycleways identified by the Study.

The figure shows an existing provision of 2.28 ha of all parks and amenity spaces per 1000 population in the Maldon District with a breakdown of 1ha of District park per 1000 population, 1.16ha of Local park per 1000 population, and 0.12ha of neighbourhood amenity spaces per 1000 population.

EB041a

20

The three sites with district significance are Promenade Park in Maldon (24ha), Elms Farm Park and Oaktree Meadow in Heybridge (17ha), and Riverside Park in Burnham-on-Crouch (23ha) which reflect the concentration of population in the District. Taking into account existing level of District park provision and the projected increase in population in the foreseeable future, the District will require approximately 12ha of extra provision for District parks by 2028, which equates to approximately one additional District park. 35 sites were classified as Local parks. Applying the existing average provision of 1.16ha per 1000 population, and the PPG17 companion best guidance advice with regards to the provision hierarchy (whereby provision at a higher level of the hierarchy can substitute for one at a lower level, but not vice versa (PPG17 companion guide para 10.35)). Figure 3.1 illustrates whether there is existing deficiency of local park provision within the District at parish level (Sufficient: >=1.16ha / 1000 population; Minor deficit: 0.5ha ~ 1.16ha / 1000 population; Major deficit <= 0.5ha / 1000 population).

EB041a

21

Figure 3.1 – Provision of Public Parks and Amenity Spaces by parish

EB041a

22

Parishes Population (000) Size of District

and Local Parks (ha)

Local park provision (ha /

1000 population) Althorne 1.19 3.4 2.9 Asheldham 0.17 0 0.0 Bradwell-on-Sea 0.94 2.9 3.1 Burnham-on-Crouch 8.33 25.7 3.1 Cold Norton 1.18 2.1 1.8 Dengie 0.14 0 0.0 Goldhanger 0.69 2.3 3.3 Great Braxted 0.35 0.3 0.9 Great Totham 2.97 3.4 1.1 Hazeleigh 0.12 0 0.0 Heybridge 8.19 23 2.8 Langford 0.17 0 0.0 Latchingdon 1.32 2.5 1.9 Little Braxted 0.14 0 0.0 Little Totham 0.40 1.6 4.0 Maldon 15.07 31.1 2.1 Mayland 4.00 6.7 1.7 Mundon 0.38 0 0.0 North Fambridge 0.81 0.7 0.9 Purleigh 1.23 2.3 1.9 Southminster 4.32 7.9 1.8 St. Lawrence 1.00 1.6 1.6 Steeple 0.48 1 2.1 Stow Maries 0.21 0 0.0 Tillingham 1.09 3 2.8 Tollesbury 2.88 5.3 1.8 Tolleshunt D'Arcy 1.04 1.8 1.7 Tolleshunt Knights 1.10 4.7 4.3 Tolleshunt Major 0.68 2.3 3.4 Ulting 0.14 0 0.0 Wickham Bishops 1.90 0 0.0 Woodham Mortimer 0.54 0.4 0.7

Woodham Walter 0.63 1.7 2.7 Total 63.7 137.7* 2.2

Table 3.3 – Provision of Public Parks and Amenity Spaces by parish *Figures may vary from table 3.2 due to the inclusion of District parks in accordance with the companion guide of PPG17 and the provision hierarchy

EB041a

23

The Study finds that the majority of parishes within the District do have sufficient provision of Local parks. However nine out of the 33 parishes do not have Local park; they are Asheldham, Dengie, Hazeleigh, Little Braxted, Mundon, Stow Maries, Ulting and Wickham Bishops. Most of these nine parishes (except Wickham Bishops) have a very small population while the bigger settlement of Wickham Bishops has a large, well equipped sports field and a play site which to some extent performs the functions of a local park. For the residents of Mundon, the Mundon Furze also performs some function as a Local park. Taking into account existing and potential deficits, as a result of population expansion, it is recommended that the Council should aim to maintain the current level of provision at 1.16ha per 1000 population while considering any future developments. Moreover, measures should be undertaken to provide improved access to Local parks in parishes where there is an identified deficit. 72 sites were identified as neighbourhood amenity spaces within the Study. Around half of the sites identified are in or around the housing estates of Maldon, Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch with others scattered across the rural villages. Provision of neighbourhood amenity spaces therefore varies significantly across the District, largely reflecting the local characters and time period of development. The Study therefore recommends that no quantitative target should be set for neighbourhood amenity spaces but that the Council should actively encourage the inclusion of such spaces through new developments and should seek to enhance the connections between existing provision where possible. The Study has not undertaken a detailed survey to investigate how accessible coast and watercourses are currently being used as parks and amenity spaces; however, desktop review indicates that there are more than 130 km of accessible linear space within the District. Figure 3.2 provides an indication of the coverage and connection of these linear spaces to many of the towns and villages in the District and how they are linked to linear spaces in adjoining districts e.g. accessible coast is connected to Colchester to the north and Chelmsford to the south. The map also shows cycleways and proposed cycleways from the Replacement Local Plan, as well as the existing Public Rights of Way network within the District (approximately 500km in total).

EB041a

24

Figure 3.2 – Linear space and Public Rights of Way

EB041a

25

Beyond the District boundaries, a large number of sites contribute significantly to what is accessible to the residents of Maldon District. This include Tiptree Heath (Tiptree, Colchester), Danbury Country Park (Danbury, Chelmsford) and Saltcoates Park (South Woodham Ferrers, Chelmsford). In addition, a number of sites within other GI categories which are located outside of the District boundaries are also being used as parks and amenity spaces in particular sports provision (See Chapter 5) and natural and semi natural green spaces (See Chapter 6). Consultation responses from the needs survey indicated that District parks are well used and reaching their capacity. Notably the Promenade Park attracts more than 300,000 visitors a year with it’s wide range of facilities and attractive location. Quality A detailed survey has been undertaken to look at a range of issues which were considered key in assessing the quality of District and Local parks. A total of 39 sites have been assessed and details of the assessment are included in Appendix 4. The result shows that the overall attractiveness of public parks ranges from very good to poor. 25 sites has been rated ‘good’ or ‘very good’ in terms of overall attractiveness. Amongst those three District parks have received the Green Flag Award which sets the benchmark for high standard parks and open spaces in England and Wales. At the other end of the spectrum, ten public parks were considered to be ‘poor’. Main issues which led to their ‘poor’ attractiveness including poor access, lack of information, lack of supporting facilities and outdated or poorly maintained equipment. Small scale vandalism, although not widespread, is a problem at a few sites. Only five out of the 39 sites do not have any play facilities for toddler, junior and/or teenagers. Where play facilities are provided, the conditions of the equipment is generally good.

EB041a

26

Figure 3.3 – Children’s play area in the Promenade Park (Green Flag Award)

Figure 3.4 – Example of poor access to local parks

EB041a

27

Figure 3.5 – Example of poor equipment/vandalism

For neighbourhood amenity spaces, all sites have been visited although no detailed assessment has been carried out. The main issue identified through the survey is the uncertainty of site ownership. In many cases the ownership of local amenity spaces cannot be identified. It is believed that many are still owned by the original developers which contribute the land as amenity space through developer contribution. Currently the Council, town/parish councils, or housing associations have taken on the responsibility of managing these sites as requested by local residents despite no formal arrangements being in place. However, there are often conflicting views from local residents on how these sites should be managed e.g. some wanting the grass to be kept cut short while some wanting the site to be left to grow naturally. Regular requests were also received for the installation of benches, bins and memorial trees on these sites. Dog fouling is a problem occasionally. Moreover, many of these sites have never been formally adopted by local authorities and organisations, thus they may become neglected and unsightly as no one is adequately responsible for keeping them safe, clean and tidy.

EB041a

28

Accessibility Catchment areas for different types of parks vary to reflect their nature and functions. According to the consultation responses, 28% of the respondents suggested distance being a barrier to visit green spaces. Given the consultation responses and best practice, it is recommended that the following catchment threshold should be applied:

Park Hierarchy Catchment threshold

District park 10 min walking driving / 1km

or 10 minutes of driving / 5km

Local park 10 min walking / 1km Neighbourhood amenity spaces 5 min walking / 500m

Linear space N/A Table 3.4 – Accessibility threshold to Public Park and Amenity Greenspace

Applying the recommended catchment threshold (Figure 3.6), it is clear that most of the settlements within the District are within 500 metres of a neighbourhood amenity space except Bradwell-on-Sea, St Lawrence, Steeple, Althorne, Mundon, Great Totham (North), Tolleshunt D’Arcy, and Tolleshunt Knight. According to the figure 3.6 most town and villages are within the catchment areas of a Local park (except north Bradwell-on-Sea). However, detailed site surveys indicated that there are local accessibility issues. For instance, Great Totham recreation ground is located on the opposite side of the busy B1022 from the village which hinders accessibility; similar accessibility constraints have also been identified in Goldhanger and St. Lawrence where Local parks have not been sited in the best location for easy and safe access. The District parks are serving most of the District’s population as they cover the main settlements of Maldon, Heybridge, Burnham-on-Crouch and Southminster. Most rural villages fall outside of their catchment areas in particular those villages to the north-eastern part of the District and villages in the Dengie.

EB041a

29

Figure 3.6 – Catchment areas for Parks and Amenity Spaces

EB041a

30

Conclusion and Recommendations

� Seek to maintain the current level of provision for District parks (1ha per 1000 population). A new District park will be required by 2028 taking into account projected population growth.

� Investigate the possibility of creating new District parks in the north-eastern part of the District and in the Dengie to provide better access to District parks for residents in these areas.

� Provision for local parks and neighbourhood amenity spaces should not drop below existing levels. Where there is an identified local deficit, new provision should be sought where possible.

� Where possible, all new housing developments should be within 500m of the nearest neighbourhood amenity spaces, within 1km of a local park, and 5km of a District park.

� To seek to achieve ‘good’ or ‘very good’ overall attractiveness and quality for all District and Local parks.

� To work with partners to maintain and improve the quality neighbourhood amenity spaces across the District.

� To work with partners and neighbouring authorities and investigate how accessibility and connectivity of existing linear space (sea walls and footpaths) and cycleways can be improved i.e. for long distance walk.

EB041a

31

Chapter 5: Sports provision Introduction The Landscape Partnership was commissioned in October 2009 by Maldon District Council to contribute to the Green Infrastructure Study (Appendix 1). Their work includes an analysis of sports participation, market segmentation as well as a comprehensive audit on the quantity, quality and accessibility of sport facilities in the District. This chapter summarises the assessments undertaken by the Landscape Partnership and sets out the study findings of individual type of sports facility as well as future standards. For each type of sports facility the Landscape Partnership has undertaken the following assessments. Quantitative assessment The size and location of each type of facility in Maldon are detailed, based upon:

� Site data provided by Maldon District Council.

� Material from Sport England’s ‘Active Places’ database.

� Material from the governing bodies of sport.

� Information from the site visits.

Qualitative assessment

The quality of each type of facility was assessed via a site visit and the application of a standardised ‘scoring’ system. Full details of the scoring system are contained in Appendix 1, but the numerical scores equate to: 1 for ‘poor quality’; 2 for ‘below average’; 3 for ‘average’; 4 for ‘above average’; and 5 for ‘high quality’. For playing pitches, the methodology in Sport England’s ‘Playing Pitch Model’ was applied, which involved percentage ratings on a similar scale. Accessibility assessment

Only those indoor facilities which have public access are included in the assessment of standards. Public access is defined as follows:

� Indoor facilities – available on a ‘pay and play’ basis with no membership being required. This precludes private members clubs and hotel facilities

� Outdoor facilities – available for public booking on a pay and play or block booking basis or free of charge e.g. tennis courts and golf courses.

� Pitch sports – available for public hire either for one game or a season by season basis.

Supply and Demand

The Supply and Demands identified for each type of facility was assessed based upon the outputs from the user surveys and other consultations. Catchment areas provide a means to identify whether there is adequate geographical coverage of open space, sport and recreation provision.

Table 4.1 – Landscape Partnership’s audit assessment for sports provision

EB041a

32

Sports Halls

Definition Sports halls are indoor halls with minimum dimensions of 33m x 17m x 7.6m (equivalent in size to four badminton courts, or one basketball or tennis court), with line markings for multi-sports. Quantity There are four, 4 court sports halls with community access in Maldon, equivalent to one facility per 15,925 people. These can be used for a wide range of sports including badminton, basketball, volleyball, tennis and five a side football. In addition there are a number of smaller halls which are suitable for badminton but not the sports requiring larger courts. The total number of badminton courts is 26, equivalent to one court per 2,392 people. Publicly Accessible 4

Court Halls Address (including postcode) Dimensions

(No. of courts)

Blackwater Leisure Centre Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR 33m x 18m (4) Dengie Hundred Sports Centre Millfields, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM0 8HS 45m x 18m (5) Plume School, Maldon Fambridge Road, Maldon, CM9 6AB 33m x 17m (4) St. Peter’s School, Burnham Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch. 32m x 18m (4)

Other Sites Address (including postcode) Dimensions (No. of courts)

Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 27m x 18m (3) Plume School, Maldon Fambridge Road, Maldon, CM9 6AB 18m x 10m (1)

18m x 18m (2) St. Peter’s School, Burnham Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch,

CM0 8QB 18m x 10m (1)

Tolleshunt Knights Top Road. Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8EU 18m x 18m (1) Wickham Bishops, Village Hall Church Road, Wickham Bishops, CM8 3JZ 18m x 10m (1)

Table 4.2 – Provision of Sports Halls Quality The overall mean score for sports halls are as below (Table 4.3).

Sports Hall Playing area

Changing area

Disabled access

Maintenance / cleanliness

Parking / access Mean

Blackwater Leisure Centre 5 5 5 5 5 5

Dengie Hundred Sports Centre 3 2 4 4 2 3

Plume School 2 2 2 3 3 2.4 St Peter’s School 4 5 5 4 5 4.6

Mean 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 3.8 Table 4.3 – Quality of Sports Halls

EB041a

33

Accessibility Local consultations produced the following indications of accessibility to sports halls in the District:

� Sport England estimates that 80% of sports hall users travel 15 minutes or less to their chosen venue

� 10% of those surveyed said that distance was a barrier to participation

� Blackwater Leisure Centre was regarded as ‘often crowded’ although at other times it can be relatively quiet

� There is no evidence of local sports clubs or organisations not being able to find suitable venues in the district.

Figure 4.1 demonstrates that although only the two largest settlements of Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch are within the 15min/ 1500m walking catchment of sport halls, all rural villages are within the 15min/10km driving catchments except Tollesbury and Bradwell-on-Crouch

EB041a

34

Figure 4.1 – Catchment areas of Sports Halls

EB041a

35

Sport England Facilities Planning Model (FPM) Detailed FPM report can be referred to in Appendix 1 and the main findings are summarised below.

� There is a surplus of overall supply (8.3 courts) compared with demand, accounting for a comfort factor.

� Satisfied demand is greater than average, and unmet demand is relatively low. Most of this unmet demand is caused by the distance/time that residents have to travel to halls. .

� Overall, use of the existing halls at peak time is relatively low with only the Blackwater Leisure Centre sports hall operating close to a level (80%) where the facility would start to become uncomfortably busy.

� Accessibility to sports halls over the whole district (and outside) is good for most local residents.

� There is no need to provide new sports halls to meet unmet demand due to the relatively low levels of unmet demand. However, the Blackwater Leisure Centre sports hall is operating close to a level (80%) where the facility would start to become uncomfortably busy and additional space could be found, by improving community access to other halls on nearby school sites in the first instance e.g. Plume School, before consideration of either providing additional space on this site by increasing capacity or through refurbishment. Furthermore, St Peter’s School (40%) and the Dengie Hundred Sports Centre (34%) have relatively low levels of percentage demand of capacity and consideration could therefore be given to the potential of future consolidation of these facilities within Burnham-on-Crouch.

� To preserve the current level of provision of sports halls in the district and to acknowledge the multi-role of four court sports halls, a standard which reflects the current level of provision is recommended.

EB041a

36

Proposed local standard Drawing from the evidence gathered, it is recommended that the following local standard should be applied when considering future provision for sports halls.

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One, publicly accessible

four-badminton court sports hall (33m x 18m x 7.6m) per 15,925 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one sports hall per 15,925 people

� No evidence from surveys or governing bodies of frustrated demand

� Provision supported by community and village halls

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all facilities are rated as ‘above average’ or better.

� The overall quality of sports halls in the district is currently rated as ‘above average’ or better.

� Concerns about car parking and the quality of changing at Dengie Hundred Sports Centre

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes walk or drive of the closest hall.

� Sport England recommendations

Table 4.4 – Recommended local standards for sports halls Indoor sports hall provision is at a good level. Whilst current facilities meet demand in terms of quantity, however, an additional one sports hall will be needed by 2026 given the projected population increase. This could be provided in the Tollesbury area where there is no existing access. In terms of quality, although the overall rating is ‘above average’, it is recommended that the quality of indoor sports hall provision at Plume School and Dengie Hundred should aim to be improved in accordance with issues identified (Appendix 1).

EB041a

37

Indoor swimming pools Definition Indoor swimming pools are defined as main pools with a minimum length of 20 metres, although smaller teaching and diving pools are included in the assessment where they are integral to a facility with a main pool. Quantity There is only a single, publicly accessible pool in Maldon which is the leisure pool at the Blackwater Leisure Centre. This gives a standard of one pool per 63,700 people.

Publicly Accessible Sites

Address (including postcode) Dimensions

Blackwater Leisure Centre

Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR Leisure Pool Area of 250 sqm.

Other Sites Address (including postcode) Dimensions Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 15m x 8m Forrester Park Golf Club Beckingham Road, Great Totham,

CM9 8EA 10m x 5m

Herbage Park Heybridge Park Road, Woodham Walter, CM9 6RW

15m x 6m

Park Drive Squash and Fitness Club

Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR 5m x 16m

Table 4.5 – Provision of swimming pool Quality The qualitative audit produced the following results:

Swimming Pool Pool Changing Disabled access

Maintenance / cleanliness

Parking / access Mean

Blackwater Leisure Centre 3 5 5 5 5 4.6

Table 4.6 – Quality of swimming pool Accessibility Local surveys produced the following indications of accessibility to swimming pools in the District.

� Sport England estimates that 80% of swimming pool users travel 15 minutes or less to their chosen venue

� 10% of those surveyed said that distance was a barrier to participation

� Blackwater Leisure Centre was regarded as ‘often crowded’ in the survey

� 50% of Burnham residents surveyed would like a swimming pool in the town.

Figure 4.2 shows the catchment areas of the Blackwater Leisure Centre where the only standard swimming pool in the District is located.

EB041a

38

Figure 4.2 – Catchment areas of the Blackwater Leisure Centre

EB041a

39

Sport England Facilities Planning Model The full results of the FPM assessment are contained in Appendix 1 but the main numerical findings for swimming pools are summarised below.

� The amount of waterspace available in Maldon District is 4.2 sqm. per 1,000 population, which is lower than a national and regional average of 12.6 sqm.

� As a result of the low level of supply only 52% of all satisfied demand from Maldon residents is met within the district boundaries by the Blackwater Leisure Centre, with 48% being exported to facilities outside the district boundaries (primarily to South Woodham Ferrers and Witham). In other words, very few swimmers travel into Maldon to swim, but a large number travel outside of the district boundaries to visit a pool.

� Unmet demand would justify an additional 171.95 sqm of waterspace. However, any additional swimming pool provision in Maldon District could have an impact on facilities within other Local Authority areas and the Council should therefore liaise with the relevant Local Authorities if recommendations of new community pool provision were to be made.

� It is be important to consider the contribution that excluded existing swimming pools make towards unsatisfied demand before recommendations of new community pool provision were made.

Proposed local standard Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One 25m, publicly

accessible, indoor swimming pool per 31,850 people (8.4 sqm. of water space per 1,000 people).

� Existing levels of provision equate to one swimming pool per 63,700

� Community surveys indicate dissatisfaction with access to provision in the Dengie peninsula

� ASA recommends 13 sq. m of useable water space per 1,000 population ‘The ASA Strategy 2009 - 2013’ (ASA 2009).

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all facilities are rated as ‘good’ or better.

� The overall quality of the swimming pool in the district is currently rated as ‘good’.

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes walk or drive of the closest pool.

� Sport England and ASA recommendations

Table 4.7 – Recommended local standards for Swimming Pool Taking all evidence into account, it is acknowledged that the provision of an additional standard swimming pool in the District would address the current deficiency. However, considering the complexity in developing a new swimming pool, and the resources required for management, it is recommended any proposal for new public swimming pools in the District should be subject to a feasibility study and only be developed as and when resources allow. The most appropriate location for a new pool in terms of market access and travel times would be in the Burnham-on-Crouch area if a new pool is to be developed.

EB041a

40

Synthetic athletic tracks Definition Synthetic athletics tracks comprise all-weather, 400m tracks, with a minimum of six lanes and full field event facilities. Quantity

There are no synthetic turf tracks in the District. Athletes need to travel to neighbouring districts to train and compete. The provisions of athletics tracks in neighbouring local authorities are tabulated below.

Local authority No. of tracks Tracks per capita Chelmsford 2 1:78,500 Colchester 1 1:156,000 Braintree 1 1:132,000 Maldon 0 0

Table 4.8 – Synthetic athletics tracks in neighbouring local authorities Accessibility In the absence of a track in the district, none of the local surveys produced any data on supply and demand. However, at a national level UK Athletics recommends one 6-lane 400m synthetic athletics track within 20 minutes drive time (20 minutes walk in urban areas) - ‘Athletics Facilities Strategy for the UK’ (UKA 2006). Proposed local standard

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One 400m synthetic track

per 250,000 people.

� There is no provision in the District at present.

� UK Athletics recommends one 6-lane track per 250,000 people

� The four tracks in surrounding districts serve an average of 111,000 people each, which indicates that neighbouring areas have some spare capacity at present in relation to the national standard.

Quality All aspects of a track and its ancillary facilities should be rated as ‘average’ or better.

This complies with the general aspiration in all the local standards of provision, to achieve at least ‘average’ quality ratings.

Accessibility The whole population within 20 minutes walk or drive of the nearest track.

UK Athletics recommends one 6-lane 400m synthetic athletics track within 20 minutes drive time (20 minutes walk in urban areas)

Table 4.9 Recommended local standards for Synthetic athletics tracks There is no provision for athletics in the District. However, available provision within neighbouring authorities means that the governing body access standards are met. It is recommended that no provision is required in the District.

EB041a

41

Synthetic turf pitches Definition Synthetic turf pitches have artificial grass playing surfaces of a minimum of 100m x 60m, with sand-filled, rubber crumb or water-based variants. Quantity At present there are three pitches with community access in the District. This is equivalent to one facility per 21,233 people:

Publicly Accessible Sites

Address (including postcode) Type

Maldon Football Club Wallace Binder Ground. Park Drive. Maldon CM9 5JQ

Sand-filled 102m x 63m

Plume School, Maldon Fambridge Road, Maldon. CM9 6AB 3G 120m x 80m

St. Peter’s High School, Burnham

Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch. CM0 8QB

Sand-filled 100m x 60m

Table 4.10 – Provision of Synthetic turf pitches Quality The qualitative audit indicates that the quality of Synthetic turf pitches in the District is between ‘above average’ and ‘average’ (Table 4.14)

Synthetic Turf Pitch

Playing area

Lighting

Fencing

Disabled access

Maintenance / cleanliness

Parking/access

Mean

Maldon Town FC

2 3 2 4 4 5 3.5

St Peter’s 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.5 Plume School

5 5 5 5 5 4 4.7

Mean 4 4.3 3.7 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.2 Table 4.11 – Quality of Synthetic turf pitches

Accessibility Sport England recommends a standard that the whole population should live within 20 minutes walk or drive of the nearest synthetic pitch. Provision in Maldon District matches this requirement. Figure 4.3 demonstrates that the walking catchment for the three sites has covered the two largest settlements of Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch while all rural villages are within the driving catchments.

EB041a

42

Figure 4.3 – Catchment areas of Synthetic turf pitches

EB041a

43

Proposed local standard Proposed Standard Justification

Quantity One full-sized floodlit synthetic turf pitch (100m x 60m) per 21,233 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one synthetic pitch per 21,233 people

� There is only one hockey club in the district which suggests pitches are important to football for training and competition

Quality All aspects of all pitches and their ancillary facilities should be rated as ‘good’ or better.

� The overall quality of the existing pitches is currently rated as ‘good’

� Pitch fencing at Maldon Town is currently rated at ‘below average’

Accessibility The whole population within 20 minutes walk or drive of the nearest synthetic pitch.

� Sport England recommendations

Table 4.12 - Recommended local standards for Synthetic turf pitches

The Study shows that the district is well provided for in terms of artificial turf pitches, especially since the opening of the new 3G football pitch at Plume School. No additional provision is recommended up to 2026.

EB041a

44

Indoor bowls facilities

Definition Indoor bowls facilities comprise specialist halls for playing flat green bowls. The number of individual rinks will vary, but is typically six or eight. Quantity There is a single indoor bowls centre in Maldon.

Indoor Bowls Centre Location Number of Rinks Jacks Indoor Bowls Burnham Road, Latchingdon, CM3 6EX 7

Table 4.13 – Provision of indoor bowls facilities Quality The qualitative audit produced the following results:

Indoor Bowls Centre

Surface

Changing Disabled access

Maintenance / Cleanliness

Parking access

Mean

Jacks Indoor Bowls 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 Table 4.14 – Quality of indoor bowls facilities

Accessibility At a national level Sport England’s ‘Indoor Bowls Design Guidance’ (Sport England 2005) identifies that ‘the majority of facility users will live locally and travel not more than 20 minutes’. None of the surveys illustrated any demand for additional facilities. The following map shows that the majority of the settlements within the District are within the 20 minutes travelling catchment area (2km walking and 13km driving) from Jacks Indoor Bowls in Latchingdon.

EB041a

45

Figure 4.4 – Catchment area of indoor bowls facility

EB041a

46

Proposed local standard Proposed Standard Justification

Quantity One indoor bowling rink per 9,100 people (equivalent to one 7-rink centre per 60,000 people)

� Current provision is one, 7 rink indoor bowling centre – equivalent to one rink per 9,100 people The English Indoor Bowling Association advocates one indoor rink per 14,000 - 17,000 people.

� There is no local evidence to suggest that current levels of provision do not meet local needs adequately.

Quality All aspects of all indoor bowls facilities should be rated as ‘good’ or better.

� Current provision is rated as ‘good’ Qualitative audit (2010).

Accessibility The whole population within 20 minutes walk or drive of an indoor bowls facility.

� The majority of facility users will live locally and travel not more than 20 minutes.

Table 4.15 - Recommended local standards for indoor bowls facilities Although the only indoor bowls facility in the District is at a private club and cannot be defined as publicly available, nonetheless its seems to serve local needs as the Study finds no evidence that there is an unmet local need. It is therefore recommended that no extra provision is required.

EB041a

47

Outdoor bowls greens

Definition Outdoor bowls greens are effectively flat, fine turf grassed areas, 40 yards x 40 yards, with regulation banks and ditches around the perimeter and ancillary facilities for changing and equipment storage. Provision in Maldon There are four bowling greens in Maldon, equivalent to one facility per 15,925 people:

Publicly Accessible Sites Address (including postcode)

Hillside Bowls Club, Burnham Station Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM0 8HR Maldon Bowls Club, Maldon Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5JQ Southminster Bowls Club Station Road, Southminster, CM0 7EW Tillingham Bowls Club Vicarage Lane, Tillingham, CM0 7TW

Table 4.16 – Provision of outdoor bowls greens Qualitative analysis The qualitative audit produced the following results.

Facility Playing surface

Pavilion/changing

Disabled access

Maintenance Cleanliness

Parking / access Mean

Hillside Bowls Club 4 3 3 4 3 3.4 Maldon Bowls Club 4 4 4 4 5 4.2 Southminster Bowls Club 5 5 4 5 4 4.6 Tillingham Bowls Club 4 3 1 4 1 2.6 Mean 4.25 3.75 3 4.25 3.25 3.7

Table 4.17 – Quality of outdoor bowls greens Accessibility Experience from elsewhere shows that bowlers will typically travel 15 minutes or less. This would indicate a shortfall in provision. However, none of our surveys or consultations pointed towards any frustrated demand. Figure 4.5 demonstrates that although only the two largest settlements of Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch are within the 15min/1500m walking catchment as well as Southminster and Tillingham. All rural villages are within the 15min/10km driving catchments except Tollesbury (the map only shows a crow flies catchment and in reality Tollesbury falls outside all catchments).

EB041a

48

Figure 4.5 – Catchment area of outdoor bowls greens

EB041a

49

Proposed local standard

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One outdoor bowling green

per 15,925 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one green per 15,925 people.

� Three is no local evidence to suggest that current levels of provision do not meet local needs.

Quality All aspects of all greens and their ancillary facilities should be rated as ‘average’ or better.

� The overall quality of bowling greens in the district is currently rated as ‘average’ or better.

� Disabled access and car parking is rated as ‘poor’ at Tillingham.

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes walk or drive of the nearest green.

� Local patterns of use indicate that 20 minutes is an appropriate catchment.

Table 4.18 - Recommended local standards for outdoor bowls greens Provision of outdoor bowls is at good quality with no evidence for unmet demand. However, future forecasts show a need for one additional outdoor bowling green by 2026. Any new provision should aim to serve the Tollesbury area where a deficit in accessibility has been identified.

EB041a

50

Indoor tennis courts

Definition Indoor tennis courts are specialist facilities housing one or more tennis courts. There are no publicly accessible indoor courts in Maldon. Provision is restricted to the four court indoor centre at Five Lakes Country Club. This might have suggested a shortfall in provision. However, none of our surveys or consultations pointed towards any frustrated demand.

Other Sites Address (including postcode) Courts

Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 4 Table 4.19 – Provision of Indoor tennis courts

Proposed local standard

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One indoor tennis court per

15,725 people.

� No publicly available provision at present - Quantitative audit (2010).

� four courts available at Five Lakes Country Club but no pay and play.

Quality All aspects of all indoor courts and their ancillary facilities should be rated as ‘average’ or better.

� This complies with the general aspiration in all the local standards of provision, to achieve at least ‘average’ quality ratings.

Accessibility The whole population

within 20 minutes drive or walk of the nearest courts.

� Sport England and LTA recommendations

Table 4.20 – Recommended local standards for tennis courts The Study can find no evidence for unmet demand and therefore no further provision should be provided. However, it is recommended that public access to four indoor tennis courts should be improved by 2016.

EB041a

51

Outdoor tennis courts Definition Outdoor tennis courts are hard or grass surfaced courts permanently marked for tennis, complying with dimensions specified by Lawn Tennis Association. Quantity There are 14 public tennis courts in Maldon, equivalent to one court per 4,550 people:

Publicly Accessible Sites Address (including postcode) Courts King George Playing Field,

Southminster Station Road, Southminster, CM0 7EW 3

Lawling Playing Field, Mayland Katonia Avenue, Mayland, CM3 6AD 3

Promenade Park Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5JQ 4 Wickham Bishops Sports

Ground (Beacon Hill Sports Association)

Great Totham Road, Wickham Bishops, CM8 3NP 4

Other Sites Address (including postcode) Althorne Recreation Ground Southminster Road, Althorne, CM3 6BX Disused

Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 4 Park Drive Squash and

Fitness Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR 1

Tollesbury Cruising Club The Yacht Harbour, Tollesbury, CM9 8SE 1 Table 4.21 – Provision of outdoor tennis courts

Quality The qualitative audit produced the following results.

Facility Playing surface Fencing Disabled

access Parking / access Mean

King George V. Southminster 5 5 4 4 4.5 Lawling Playing Fields, Mayland 5 5 3 5 4.5 Promenade Park, Maldon 5 4 5 5 4.8 Wickham Bishops Sports Ground

5 5 4 5 4.8

Mean 5 4.8 4 4.8 4.6 Table 4.22 – Quality of outdoor tennis courts

Access to provision Experience from elsewhere shows that casual tennis players will make a journey of ten minutes or less. Our surveys did not elicit any frustrated demand for tennis courts. Figure 4.6 demonstrates that most settlements in the District are within the ten minutes travelling catchments from a publicly accessible outdoor tennis court except Bradwell-on-sea, Tollesbury, Tolleshunt D’Arcy and Tolleshunt Knight.

EB041a

52

Figure 4.6 – Catchment area of outdoor tennis courts Proposed local standard

EB041a

53

Proposed local standard

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One public, outdoor tennis

court per 4,500 people. � Existing levels of provision equate to one court

per 4,500 people.

� The is no local evidence to suggest that current levels of provision do not meet local needs adequately.

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all facilities should be rated as ‘A’ or better.

� The overall quality of tennis courts in the District is currently rated as ‘average’ or better.

� Althorne Recreation ground court is in a poor state of repair.

Accessibility The whole population within 10 minutes walk or drive of the nearest court.

� Local patterns of use indicate that ten minutes is an appropriate catchment.

Table 4.23 – Recommended local standards for outdoor tennis courts Currently there is no unmet demand for outdoor tennis courts but taking into account projected population growth, it is recommended that two additional outdoor tennis courts should be provided by 2026.

EB041a

54

Squash courts Definition Squash courts are specialist indoor courts, complying with the dimensions specified by the England Squash and Racketball Association. Quantity There are no publicly available courts in the District. There are four glass backed courts at the Park Drive Club in Maldon and three courts at the Five Lakes Country Club. This might have suggested a shortfall in provision. However, none of our surveys or consultations pointed towards any frustrated demand.

Other Sites Address (including postcode) No. courts Park Drive Squash and

Fitness Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR 4

Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 3 Table 4.24 – Provision of Squash courts

Accessibility Experience from elsewhere shows that squash players will make a journey of 20 minutes or less. The surveys did not elicit any frustrated demand for squash courts. Proposed local standard

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One publicly available

squash court per 9,000 people. Open up private provision

� There are no publicly available squash courts in the District. All provision is at private clubs. This totals 7 courts.

Quality Quality improvements to ensure that all aspects of all facilities are rated as ‘average’ or better.

� This complies with the general aspiration in all the local standards of provision, to achieve at least ‘average’ quality ratings.

Accessibility The whole population

within 15 minutes drive or walk of the nearest court.

� Sport England recommendations.

Table 4.25 – Recommended local standards for Squash courts The Study can find no evidence for unmet demand and therefore no further provision is required immediately. However, taking into account potential growth in local population and the limited access to existing courts in the District, it is recommended that there should be eight publicly accessible courts. To achieve the proposed standard, efforts should be made to improve accessibility to existing private courts and to develop a new public squash court.

EB041a

55

Golf courses Definition Golf courses are specialist facilities comprising nine or eighteen holes. Quantity There is the equivalent of eight 18-hole courses within the District. All are available on a ‘green fee’ basis in addition to club membership. These courses total 144 holes, equivalent to one, 18 hole course per 7,494 people, or one hole per 416 people:

Publicly Accessible Sites Address (including postcode) No. holes

Braxted Park Golf Club Braxted Park, Great Braxted, CM8 3EN 9

Bunsay Downs Little Baddow Road, Woodham Walter, CM9 6RU 9

Also 9 par three

Burnham on Crouch Ferry Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM0 8PQ 18 Forrester Park Beckingham Road, Great Totham, CM9 8EA 18

Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 2 x 18 Maldon Golf Club Maldon Road, Langford, Maldon, CM9 4SS 9

Three Rivers Stow Road, Purleigh, CM3 6RR 2 x 18 The Warren Woodham Walter, CM9 6RW 18

Other Sites Address (including postcode) No. holes Swingfield Family Golf

Centre Steeple Road, Latchingdon, CM3 6LD 20 bays

The Warren Driving Range Woodham Walter, CM9 6RW 30 bays Woodham Mortimer Golf

Range Burnham Road, Woodham Mortimer, CM9 6SR 18 bays

Table 4.26 – Provision of golf courses Quality The qualitative audit produced the following results.

Facility Course Clubhouse

Disabled access

Parking / access Mean

Braxted Park 4 4 3 4 3.8 Bunsay Downs 4 4 4 4 4 Burnham on Crouch 4 4 3 4 3.8 Forrester Park 4 3 2 4 3.3 Five Lakes 5 5 5 5 5 Maldon 5 4 4 5 4.5 Three Rivers 5 5 4 5 4.75 The Warren 5 5 3 5 4.5 Mean 4.5 4.3 3.5 4.5 4.2

Table 4.27 – Quality of golf courses

EB041a

56

Accessibility Figure 4.7 demonstrates that all settlements except Bradwell-on-Sea are within 15 minutes driving catchment from a golf course.

Figure 4.7 – Catchment area of golf courses

EB041a

57

Proposed local standard Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One 18-hole golf course

offering pay and play “green fees” access per 7,494 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one 18-hole course per 7,494 people - Quantitative audit (2010).

� The English Golf Union states that in the country as a whole, ‘supply of golf courses currently exceeds demand, with membership vacancies existing in the majority of golf clubs. Nevertheless, it is important to note that participation rates are still rising’. Current levels of provision are therefore a reasonable basis for setting standards - Golf Development Strategic Plan 2004-2014’ (EGU, 2004).

� The is no local evidence to suggest that current levels of provision do not meet local needs adequately - Maldon sports clubs and governing bodies survey (2010).

Quality All aspects of the courses and their ancillary facilities should be rated as ‘average’ or better.

� The overall quality of golf courses in the district is currently rated as ‘good’ or better Qualitative audit (2010).

� Disabled access is rated as ‘poor’ at Forrester Park. - Qualitative audit (2010).

Accessibility The whole population within 20 minutes walk or drive of the nearest course.

� Local patterns of use indicate that 20 minutes is an appropriate catchment - Maldon sports clubs and governing bodies survey (2010).

Table 4.28 – Recommended local standards for golf courses

All consultations show that golfers in the District have a good choice of courses and ancillary facilities such as driving ranges within easy reach. The evidence of site visits is that Maldon imports significant demand from outside of the District. It is therefore recommended that the current level of provision (one 18-hole course per 7494 people) should be maintained.

EB041a

58

Health and fitness facilities Definition Health and fitness facilities comprise specialist indoor areas with a mixture of cardio-vascular and resistance exercise equipment (termed ‘stations’). Quantity There are two public health and fitness facilities in Maldon collectively providing, equivalent to one facility per 30,000 people and one station per 777 people. These are: Publicly Accessible Sites Address Stations

Blackwater Leisure Centre Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR 60 Dengie Hundred Sports Centre

Millfields, Burnham-on-Crouch. CM0 8HS

22

Other Sites Address Stations Five Lakes Hotel Tolleshunt Knights, CM9 8HX 30 Park Drive Squash and Fitness Club

Park Drive, Maldon, CM9 5UR 45

Three Rivers Country Club Stow Road, Purleigh, CM3 6RR 40 Table 4.29 – Provision of Health and Fitness Facilities

Quality The qualitative audit produced the following results:

Facility Equipment Changing Disabled access

Parking/access Mean

Blackwater Leisure Centre 5 5 5 5 5 Dengie Hundred Sports Centre

3 2 4 2 2.75

Mean 4 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.9 Table 4.30 – Quality of Health and Fitness Facilities

Accessibility Sport England estimates that 80% of health and fitness customers travel 15 minutes or less to their chosen venue. Applying the Sport England’s suggested standard, Figure 4.8 suggests that except for Tollesbury, Tolleshunt Knight and Bradwell-on-sea, all settlements are within a 15min driving catchment from the two publicly accessible facilities. However, it is worth noting that 10% of the respondents from the consultation pointed out that distance was a barrier to participation and the Blackwater Leisure Centre is regarded as ‘often crowed’.

EB041a

59

Figure 4.8 – Catchment area of Health and Fitness Facilities

EB041a

60

Proposed local standard

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One publicly accessible

health and fitness facility with 20 stations per 31,450 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one facility per 31,450 people.

� There is no local evidence to suggest that current levels of provision do not meet local needs adequately.

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all facilities are rated as ‘average’ or better.

� The overall quality of health and fitness facilities in the District is currently rated as ‘average’

� Changing and car parking at Dengie Hundred Sports Centre is currently rated as below ‘poor’.

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes drive or walk of the nearest facility

� Local patterns of use indicate that 15 minutes is an appropriate catchment.

Table 4.31 – Recommended local standards for Health and Fitness Facilities Issues identified for health and fitness facilities within the District might suggest an under provision, however, the existence of high quality private facilities and easy access to public facilities in neighbouring boroughs suggest that provision in Maldon meets local demand. It is therefore recommended that the current standard of provision (one facility per 31,450 people) should be maintained.

EB041a

61

Grass pitches Definition Grass pitches comprise permanently marked natural grass facilities used for competitive play, complying with the following governing bodies of sport specified minimum dimensions.

Pitch Type Length Width Senior football Max. 120m/Min. 90m Max. 90m/Min. 45m Junior football Max. 91m/Min. 73m Max. 59m/Min. 40m Mini-soccer 73m 40m Cricket pitch Wicket Outfield

20m

Minimum 40m radius

3m

Full-sized rugby 100m 69m Junior rugby 75m 46m

Table 4.32 – Provision of Grass pitches Quantity The audit showed that there are a total of:

� 34 football pitches

� 4 Junior football pitches

� 10 Mini-soccer pitches

� 10 Cricket pitches

� 7 Rugby pitches

A full list of all the sites can be found in Appendix 1. These figures are based upon sites in current use. One of the features of pitch provision in the District is the number of pitches not currently being used. Some are lying fallow and some are in a poor state of repair. Quality The qualitative audit used the methodology specified by Sport England, which generated percentage scores for each aspect of each site. The full results of the qualitative audit are set out in Appendix II, but the average score for each assessed criterion is set out on the table below. The mean rating equates to ‘average’:

Criterion Score Pitches 62% Pavilion/changing 50% Other aspects 47% Disabled access 46% Mean 51%

Table 4.33 – Quality of Grass pitches

EB041a

62

Accessibility There is a good spread of grass pitches across the District meeting the needs of recreational football, cricket and rugby and of football higher up the pyramid. Recreational players will generally travel up to 15 minutes for a home game and there are sufficient facilities to meet this standard. However, there are concerns about the quality of pitches and ancillary facilities at all levels. Changing facilities are generally of a low quality with very little female changing facilities and disabled access is below average. Particular problems exist at Drapers Farm concerning access and car parking. Pitches at Drapers Farm are also shared between local rugby and cricket leading to poor outfields and the danger of overuse. Proposed local standard 11-a-side football pitches (adult and junior pitches)

Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One pitch per 1,475 in

Burnham, Heybridge, Maldon, Southminster. One pitch per 1,650 people in rural areas.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one pitch per 1,650 people. The Playing Pitch Model indicates a balance between supply and demand at peak times overall but a shortage in the more urban areas.

� There is an imbalance between provision of adult and junior pitches.

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all pitches and ancillary facilities are rated as ‘average’ or better at all sites.

� The overall quality of adult football pitches and ancillary facilities in the district is currently rated as ‘average (above 50%)’. Disability access is generally below average and often poor.

� Female changing facilities are almost non-existent.

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes drive or walk of the nearest pitch.

� Local patterns of use indicate that 15 minutes is an appropriate catchment.

Table 4.34 – Recommended local standards for 11-a-side football pitches

EB041a

63

Mini-soccer pitches Proposed Standard Justification

Quantity One mini-soccer pitch per 6,280 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one pitch per 6,280 people.

� The Playing Pitch Model indicates a balance between supply and demand

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all pitches and ancillary facilities are rated as ‘average’ or better.

� The overall quality of pitches and ancillary facilities in the district is currently rated as ‘average’. - Qualitative audit (2010).

� Disability access is generally below average and often poor.

� Female changing is almost non-existent).

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes walk or drive of the nearest pitch.

� Local patterns of use indicate that 15 minutes is an appropriate catchment

Table 4.35 – Recommended local standards for Mini-soccer football pitches

EB041a

64

Cricket pitches Proposed Standard Justification

Quantity One cricket pitch per 6,290 people.

� Existing levels of provision equate to one pitch per 6,290 people.

� The Playing Pitch Model indicates a current surplus of two pitches at the peak period, suggesting that 8 cricket pitches are required to cater for existing demand levels, compared with the current ten.

� Essex Cricket Board’s opinion is that there are sufficient clubs to meet current needs but that the quality of facilities needs improvement for example the outfield at Maldon CC and the changing facilities at Promenade Park.

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all pitches and ancillary facilities are rated as ‘average’ or better.

� The overall quality of cricket pitches and ancillary facilities in the District is currently rated as ‘below average’ or better.

� Disability access is generally below average and often poor.

� Female changing facilities are almost non-existent.

Accessibility The whole population within 15 minutes walk or drive of the nearest pitch.

� Local patterns of use indicate that 15 minutes is an appropriate catchment.

Table 4.36 – Recommended local standards for Cricket pitches

EB041a

65

Rugby pitches Proposed Standard Justification Quantity One rugby pitch per 8,980

people. � Existing levels of provision equate to

one pitch per 8,980 people.

� The Playing Pitch Model indicates a current surplus of 1 pitch at the peak period, suggesting that 6 pitches are required to cater for existing demand levels, compared with the current 7.

Quality Qualitative improvements to ensure that all aspects of all pitches and ancillary facilities are rated as ‘average’ or better.

� The overall quality of rugby pitches in the District is currently rated as ‘below average’ or better.

� There are problems at Drapers Field, Maldon RFC with car parking and ground share arrangements between rugby and cricket.

� Poor changing and car parking at Millfield, Burnham-on-Crouch.

� Disability access is generally below average.

� Female changing facilities are almost non-existent.

Accessibility The whole population within 20 minutes walk or drive of the nearest pitch.

� Local patterns of use indicate that 20 minutes is an appropriate catchment.

Table 4.37 – Recommended local standards for Rugby pitches There are a large number of providers of playing fields across the District, with provision being made by town and parish councils, the District council and a network of voluntary clubs. Provision at adult level shows a small surplus in the major games of rugby and cricket. However, this is small and it is recommended that all current provision is retained, to cater for projected increases in participation in the future. For rugby, an additional one pitch is needed for the period 2010-2016 and a further pitch in the period 2016-2026. For cricket, an additional pitch is needed in each of the two future periods. In terms of quality, it is recommended that options should be investigated in improving playing surfaces, car parking and disabled access at Maldon Cricket and Rugby Clubs which share a site. The Study has identified a significant surplus in adult football pitches but one which is matched by an under provision of junior, 11 a side pitches. This indicates that most football from under 11 to under 18 level takes place on adult pitches. It is forecasted that within the urban areas of Burnham, Heybridge, Maldon and Southminster, six additional 11-a-side pitches will be required by 2016 and a further two pitches by 2026. For rural areas, one pitch is needed in each of the two future periods.

EB041a

66

The Study recommends that where possible, four junior football pitches should be provided at a site in the Maldon area with good quality changing facilities available to either sex. This could be through conversion of existing adult pitches to smaller sized junior pitches with smaller goals. The network of disused / underused playing fields should be retained as general amenity greenspace so that they can be easily converted back to playing pitches as future demand arises. Last but not least, the quality of existing changing facilities and disabled access is generally poor across the District and action should be taken to improve the quality of these facilities, particularly for female players, young people and disabled persons.

EB041a

67

Chapter 6: Natural and semi-natural greenspaces Definition Natural and semi-natural green spaces are landscapes and habitats which contribute to wildlife conservation and biodiversity. According to PPG17, this type of space include woodlands, urban forestry, scrub, grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons and meadows) wetlands, open and running water, wastelands and derelict open land and rock areas (e.g. cliffs, quarries and pits). The Study has shown that there are a large number of natural and semi-natural green spaces across the District. Amongst these many have statutory designations e.g. the coastal wetlands and the estuaries are designated as Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and National Nature Reserves (NNR) as well as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are also 89 Local Wildlife Sites within the District identified by the Essex Wildlife Trust (EECOS 2007). Most of the natural and semi-natural green spaces are linked by networks of green corridors and public footpaths (Figure 5.1) and it is often the case that these spaces are used by the general public for the enjoyment of nature. However, most of these spaces are either inaccessible or partially accessible to the public. The estuaries and the coast, for instance, while being one of the greatest assets for the District with their biodiversity, amenity and tourism value, is not entirely open for public access except for sailing and bird-watching. However, PPG17 recognises that green areas, even those that are inaccessible to the public, still have significant social and environmental value through their contribution towards biodiversity and visual amenity. Hence this Study has included all natural and semi-natural greenspaces in the District regardless of their accessibility. Quantity The extent of designated sites has been obtained from Natural England and Essex County Council. Other sites have been identified locally. In some cases there are overlaps between different typologies e.g. most of the coastal nature reserves are also part of the SSSIs. Detailed list of all sites by typology can be found in Appendix 5.

Types of sites Number of sites Size (ha) SSSI (including Ramsar, SPA, SAC and NNR) 8 8809.3 Nature Reserve 13 1373.2 Fishing Lakes 34 111.1 Common Land 8 51.6 Working Quarries 4 36.6 Semi-natural site (including water course, grassland, woodland and lakes)

56 90.1

Local Wildlife Sites 89 1165.8 Green Corridors* 21 9.2

Total 233 11517.94 Table 5.1 – Provision of natural and semi natural greenspaces

*Green corridors are more relevant to urban areas and therefore the Study has only identified green corridors in or around major settlements in the District.

EB041a

68

Figure 5.1 – Provision of all Natural and semi natural greenspaces

EB041a

69

In an attempt to improve access to natural green space, Natural England has issued a Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt, Natural England 1996) suggesting a set of benchmarks for ensuring access to places near to where people live, these include:

� an accessible natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size, no more than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home

� at least one accessible 20ha site within two kilometres of home

� one accessible 100ha site within five kilometres of home

� one accessible 500ha site within ten kilometres of home

� one hectare of statutory Local Nature Reserves per thousand population

The Woodland Trust has also produced a suggested access standard for woodland provision:

• That no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size

• That there should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than

20ha within 4km (8km roundtrip) of people’s homes. The total area of natural and semi-natural green spaces in the District amounts to 11517.94ha (Table 5.1). However, this is grossly distorted by the inclusion of inaccessible or partially accessible sites such as the Blackwater Estuary, the large coastal nature reserves and the mostly privately owned Fishing Lakes and Local Wildlife Sites. Unlike parks and amenity spaces where accessibility can be clearly identified and assessed, accessibility to most of the spaces identified under this typology cannot be clearly distinguished due to their physical character, functions, remote location and/or ownerships. The difficulties identified in terms of accessibility to spaces have also been recognised in a recent publication ‘Nature Nearby – Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance’ (Natural England 2010). The report suggested that the ANGSt is often more achievable in urban communities than in rural communities, particularly in lowland agricultural England where there is often poor access to quality greenspace. The guidance went on to highlight the need for rural authorities to improve accessibility between rural populations and accessible green space can be achieved through linear access e.g. footpaths and cycleways and sustainable transport routes. Therefore it is considered that it would be inappropriate for this study to apply the ANGSt and Woodland Trusts standards.

EB041a

70

Quality It is considered that an overall qualitative assessment is both inappropriate and impractical for the purpose of this Study given the wide ranging types of sites, difference in their function and character, uncertainty of ownership and accessibility, and staff resources. Nonetheless, most sites have been visited by council officers where possible. Others have been assessed/monitored by respective organisations who manage the site and through other relevant sources, such as the draft Maldon Natural Conservation Study (ECCOS 2007). Summary of the qualitative assessment are as follow:

� There are 13 SSSIs in the District with the three main ones being the three coastal SSSIs of the Blackwater Estuary, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries, and the Dengie. Natural England has broken these three coastal SSSIs down to 151 SSSI units for monitoring and management purposes. According to the Natural England’s annual condition assessment 2010, 41 of them are considered to be in a favourable condition; 103 units are considered to be unfavourable but recovering, and only one is considered to be in an unfavourable and declining condition (NE 2010).

� All fishing lakes are owned by private organisations or individuals and most of

them are not accessible to the surveyor. It is clear from those that were accessible that the biodiversity value of many fishing lakes is limited by the way they are managed to provide large specimen fish for anglers. However, the biodiversity and amenity of many sites is enhanced by the surrounding riparian habitats which may include scrub, trees and rough grassland.

� Nature Reserves are non-statutory sites managed by conservation organisations

for the protection of wildlife habitats. These sites are not to be confused with National Nature Reserve and Local Nature Reserves which are statutory designations.

� Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS) were identified and assessed initially through the

1990 Essex Wildlife Trust Survey and updated by the Nature Conservation Study (ECCOS, 2007) in 2007. In accordance with the Study 89 sites within the District have been identified as being of local biodiversity value. For the protection of these sites Essex Wildlife Trust has been encouraging landowners to produce a Positive Conservation Management (PCM) Plan for the management of the site - currently 27 out of 89 sites have achieved PCM status as at October 2010.

� There are eight areas of common land within the Maldon District. With the

exception of Woodham Walter Common which is owned by the Council and managed by Essex Wildlife Trust, the ownership of all the other seven common lands are unclear. All commons are generally in good condition and are accessible to the public.

� Semi-natural sites are sites identified to have potential biodiversity value in and

around settlement areas. 44 sites have been identified through this study, the majority of which are untended or extensively managed woodland and grasslands.

EB041a

71

Accessibility Mentioned above, it is difficult to account for the accessibility for some of the sites identified within this typology. For example, there are footpaths and public rights of way through most of nature reserves in the District, however a large area of these nature reserves are restricted to the general public for the protection of wildlife and habitats. To at least gauge the accessibility of natural and semi-natural green spaces in the District, the Study has made an assumption that spaces under the categories of semi natural space, commons and natural reserves are accessible to the general public when undertaking accessibility assessment. In light of PPS1 and PPG13 which encourage walking/cycling instead of motor vehicles at the local level, the Study considered that a 2km radius is appropriate for the purpose to represent catchment areas for these sites. The distribution of sites and their potential walking catchments is demonstrated in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1 illustrates the accessible natural and semi-natural green spaces are available to the majority of the population within the District. However, there are still a number of settlements where accessibility to natural and semi-natural green spaces is relatively poor i.e. Latchingdon and Tillingham. There are eight accessible sites of larger than 40ha within the District and seven of them are partially accessible nature reserves (Appendix 5). However, there are a number of large fully accessible sites in the adjoining districts which to a certain degree compensate for the lack of such spaces in the District. Results from the general needs survey undertaken by the Landscape Partnership (Appendix 1) suggested that the most popular greenspaces in adjoining districts were Danbury Common (Chelmsford 82.21ha) and Danbury Country Park (Chelmsford, 92.94ha). Other popular destinations include Hylands Park (Chelmsford, 86ha), High Woods Country Park (Colchester, 132ha), and Great Notley Country Park (Braintree, 40ha)

EB041a

72

Figure 5.1 Catchment areas for accessible natural and semi-natural greenspaces

EB041a

73

Conclusion and Recommendations Natural and semi natural spaces identified in the Study cover a wide range of spaces of varying functions and natures. The total size of land and waters included in this typology exceed 10,000ha which reflects the rural nature of the District. Furthermore, the fact that over 8,000ha have been granted statutory designation (Ramsar, SPA, SAC and SSSI) indicates how important these spaces are in terms of biodiversity value and nature conservation. The main function of these spaces is undoubtedly to preserve and enhance biodiversity and natural habitats. However, it is also important for these spaces to be accessible to the general public for the enjoyment of the natural environment. The Study recognised that a large number of spaces are either partially accessible or completely inaccessible to the general public. Nevertheless, smaller spaces (less than 2ha) which are accessible to the general public are mostly within a reasonable walking distance to existing settlement areas. There is limited provision of fully accessible natural and semi-natural green spaces within the District. Yet the residents in the District benefited from a network of accessible green spaces including country parks in the adjoining districts of Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester. The study therefore recommends that:

� Given the rural character of the District the Natural England ANGSt standard does not apply and therefore no quantitative standard of future provision is required.

� To investigate the potential to create new accessible greenspaces in or around

Latchingdon and Tillingham. � To work with partners and stakeholders to address the site specific quality issues

identified.

� To improve connectivity between semi-natural green spaces.

� To improve accessibility to, and awareness of existing natural and semi-natural greenspace where appropriate and practicable.

� To apply a higher level of policy protection to Local Wildlife Sites through the

emerging LDF.

� To introduce a long term monitoring mechanism for natural and semi-natural greenspace is required.

EB041a

74

Chapter 7: Allotments Definition In the 1925 Allotment Act, an allotment is defined as ‘parcel of land…which is wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetables or fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family’ (Allotment Act, 1925). The primary purpose of an allotment is therefore to allow occupants to grow their own food and plants. However, allotments have the potential to promote a much wider range of long-term sustainability objectives by providing opportunities for exercise, acting as open greenspaces which often help to soften the townscape, and creating a haven for local wildlife which is particularly important within the urban areas. The provision for allotments in the District is protected by Replacement Local Plan policy REC7 which restricts development on informal open spaces, including allotments. For the purpose of this Study, a survey was undertaken in by Maldon District Council in July 2010 to identify the number and location of all existing allotments within the District. Other details have also been collected such as ownership, waiting list, size of plots etc. (Appendix 6) Quantity There are currently 19 allotment sites in the District which are mostly managed by town/parish councils with a few privately owned and/or managed by local groups. These are:

Allotments Size (ha) No. of Plots Management/ownership St John’s Road, Tollesbury 0.20 Est. 8 Not known Station Road, Tollesbury 0.51 27 Parish Council

Chapel Road, Great Totham 0.10 8 Parish Council/United Reformed Church Blind Lane, Goldhanger 0.46 17 Parish Council

Chestnut Mews, Heybridge 0.03 Est. 1 Parish Council

Rectory Road, Woodham Walter 0.06 14 Woodham Walter Allotment

Association/Private Chelmsford Road, Purleigh 0.20 11 Parish Council/Private Pantile Hill, Southminster 1.09 89 Parish Council

Pump Mead Close, Southminster 0.18 24 Parish Council

Arcadia Road, Burnham on Crouch 5.34 195 The Burnham Allotment and Garden Holders Association/Town Council

Latchingdon Road, Cold Norton 0.07 15 Parish Council Vicarage Lane, Tillingham 0.27 Est. 11 Not known Marsh Road, Tillingham 0.25 Est. 10 Not known

South Street, Bradwell on Sea 0.08 Est. 3 Not known Burnham Road, Latchingdon 0.27 8 Parish Council

St Giles Crescent, Maldon 1.23 79 Town Council Poulton Close, Maldon 0.30 35 Town Council/ MDC

The Hythe, Maldon 0.09 15 Private (Queen’s Head Public House) Kings Street, Maldon 0.36 31 Town Council/Moat Housing

Total 11.09 Est. 601 Table 6.1 – Provision of allotments

EB041a

75

The majority of allotment sites in the District are below 0.5ha in size with the exception of St Giles Crescent in Maldon (1.23ha), Arcadia Road in Burnham-on-Crouch (5.34ha) and Pantile Hill in Southminster (1.09ha). In total, the 19 allotment sites in the District have a combined area of 11.09ha which equates to 0.17ha per 1000 of the District’s population. The average size of individual plots varies greatly between different allotments ranging from around 50sqm (Latchingdon Road, Cold Norton) to over 270sqm (Arcadia Road Burnham-on-Crouch). Where it has not been possible to identify the number of plots and plot sizes, the Study has applied an estimated standard plot size of 250 sqm as suggested by the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG). On this basis it is estimated that there are 601 allotment plots in the District. Whilst allotment sites can be found across the District (Figure 6.2), it is clear that in terms of total area and number of plots, the majority of allotments are around Maldon town, Burnham, and Southminster, which coincide with the main concentrations of population in the District. However, taking into account local population, the Maldon town area has an average provision of 0.14ha per 1000 population which is lower than the existing District average (Table 6.3). The Study has investigated whether management bodies for allotments maintain a waiting list for allotment plots and an estimation of the average waiting time for a plot. The management bodies were also asked about whether there are plans or intentions to create more plots and if so what are the major obstacles they are facing. Not all of the management organisations responded to these questions but from the data collected, the average waiting period for a plot is generally over 2 years, which suggests that there is demand for allotment plots across the District. Furthermore, the survey indicates that owners of existing allotment sites show little intention to create more plots with funding and land availability being identified as the major obstacles.

EB041a

76

Management bodies Estimated waiting period

Intention for plot creation Major obstacles

Tollesbury Parish Council Not known Not known Not known Great Totham Parish

Council Not known Not known Not known

Goldhanger Parish Council 2-2.5 years No. Site split possible Land and money

constraints Woodham Walter

Allotment Association 2+ years Yes. Funding

Purleigh Parish Council 2 years No Land ownership Southminster Parish

Council N/A Not known Not known

Burnham Town Council 1-2 year Yes Protected species Cold Norton Parish

Council No No Not known

Tillingham Parish Council Not known Not known Not known Bradwell-on-Sea Parish

Council Not known Not known Not known

Latchingdon Parish Council 5+ years No Not known

Maldon Town Council 3-5 years No Land availability Queens Head Public

House 3+ years Not known Not known

Table 6.2 – Waiting lists of allotments There is no existing national or local standard for allotment provision but under the 1908 Allotments and Small Holdings Act councils have a duty to provide land if six people or more request an allotment. The Thorpe Report (HMSO 1969) which was commissioned by the then Ministry of Natural Resources, suggested a target of 0.2ha per 1000 population but this is not legally binding. And more recently the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners also suggest a national standard of 20 allotments per 1,000 households which equates to 0.125ha per 1,000 populations based on two people per household. The current provision of allotments in the District is 0.17ha per 1000 population and if stocks remain constant, provision will drop to 0.15ha per 1000 population by 2028 taking into account projected population growth. Considering the local authority’s duty to provide sufficient allotments for local communities, the existing long waiting lists within the District, and the recommended level of provision from the Thorpe Report and the NSALG standard, it is recommended that the District should adopt a higher level of allotment provision in the future with 0.2ha per 1000 population. Figure 6.1 and Table 6.3 has applied the suggested standard of allotment provision by depicting the potential surplus/deficit on parish level (Sufficient: >=0.2ha / 1000 population; Minor deficit: 0.1ha – 0.2ha / 1000 population; Major deficit < 0.1ha / 1000 population).

EB041a

77

Figure 6.1 – Provision of allotments

EB041a

78

Parishes Population (000) Allotment Size (ha)

Allotment provision (ha /

1000 population) Althorne 1.18 0 0.00 Asheldham 0.17 0 0.00 Bradwell-on-Sea 0.94 0.08 0.08 Burnham-on-Crouch 8.32 5.34 0.64 Cold Norton 1.18 0.07 0.06 Dengie 0.14 0 0.00 Goldhanger 0.69 0.46 0.66 Great Braxted 0.35 0 0.00 Great Totham 2.97 0.1 0.03 Hazeleigh 0.12 0 0.00 Heybridge 8.17 0.03 0.00 Langford 0.17 0 0.00 Latchingdon 1.32 0.27 0.20 Little Braxted 0.14 0 0.00 Little Totham 0.40 0 0.00 Maldon 15.04 1.98 0.13 Mayland 4.00 0 0.00 Mundon 0.38 0 0.00 North Fambridge 0.81 0 0.00 Purleigh 1.23 0.2 0.16 Southminster 4.31 1.27 0.29 St. Lawrence 0.99 0 0.00 Steeple 0.48 0 0.00 Stow Maries 0.21 0 0.00 Tillingham 1.09 0.52 0.48 Tollesbury 2.87 0.71 0.25 Tolleshunt D'Arcy 1.04 0 0.00 Tolleshunt Knights 1.10 0 0.00 Tolleshunt Major 0.68 0 0.00 Ulting 0.14 0 0.00 Wickham Bishops 1.90 0 0.00 Woodham Mortimer 0.54 0 0.00

Woodham Walter 0.62 0.06 0.10 Total 63.7 11.09 0.17

Table 6.3 – Provision of allotments by parish

EB041a

79

With the suggested standard of 0.2ha per 1000 population, the map shows that the majority of the District is deficient in supply of allotments in particular the Mayland area (Mayland, Steeple, St Lawrence), North Fambridge area (North Fambridge, Stow Maries, Cold Norton) and parishes in the north of the District. However, it is recognised that it is difficult for some smaller rural villages to have a dedicated allotment site given their population base. With the agricultural tradition of the District and the predominantly rural nature of most of the District’s villages, the Study recommends priority for allotment development to be focused on parishes with larger population and a major deficit in allotment provision such as Heybridge, Mayland and Wickham Bishops. Quality There are no national or local standards for the provision of allotments. No quantifiable assessment on the quality of individual sites has been undertaken. It has been identified through site visits that most of the allotments are well used. It was noted, however that most sites have little or no signage and that there is an issue with the disposal of waste materials at the site in St. Giles Crescent, Maldon. Accessibility Figure 6.2 indicates that allotments are accessible to the majority of the population within a 2km radius. However, there are still a number of settlements which falls outside of the catchment areas; these include Althorne, Great Totham (south), Mayland, St Lawrence, Steeple, North Fambridge, Mundon, Woodham Mortimer, Wickham Bishops, Little Totham, Tolleshunt Knight, Tolleshunt D’Arcy and Tolleshunt Major.

EB041a

80

Figure 6.2 – Catchment area of allotments

EB041a

81

Conclusion and Recommendations Although allotments only represent a small proportion of open spaces in terms of their overall size, they remain an important type of open space. The application of the recommended standard of 0.2ha per 1000 population and an accessibility catchment of 2km highlights a number of local deficiencies specifically in Mayland and Wickham Bishops. Allotments are primarily demand led and therefore provision of new allotments sites should only be considered following extensive and specific local consultation. The Study therefore recommends the following:

� To seek to achieve the recommended standard of 0.2 ha of allotments per 1000

population at parish level. � Where it is feasible, all households should be within 2km radius of an allotment

site.

� Priority of creating new allotments should be given to areas where there are identified deficiencies both in terms of number of plots and accessibility. In particular allotment sites should be developed in Heybridge, Mayland, Great Totham (South) and Wickham Bishops.

� To seek to address site specific quality and accessibility issues such as waste

disposal and signage.

EB041a

82

Chapter 8: Green Infrastructure Network The Study has identified a large number of different types of green spaces and recreational facilities within the Maldon District. The introduction of GI and GI network gives opportunities to the Maldon District Council to develop a more comprehensive and cohesive approach to interpret how these spaces and facilities are distributed spatially, how different types of provisions interconnect, and how networks of GI can be planned, linked and managed to maximise potential benefits to both society and the natural environment. Findings from previous chapters provide the basis for identifying networks of GI within the District. Figure 7.1 illustrates the spatial distribution of all GI identified in the Study and how it relates to existing settlements and the transport network. The following assumptions have been taken in identifying the GI networks as illustrated in Figure 7.1.

� Sport pitches include football pitches, cricket pitches and rugby pitches

� Other sport facilities include provisions for sports halls, swimming pools, squash courts, Health and fitness facilities, golf courses, outdoor and indoor tennis courts, outdoor and indoor bowls and synthetic turf pitches

� Other Natural and Semi-natural green spaces include fishing lakes, working quarries and commons

The Biodiversity Network This study has identified a clear network of nature conservation areas including designated sites (SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar) and nature reserves particularly along the River Blackwater, around the estuaries and along the coast. The existence of extensive international and national wildlife designations in itself justifies the importance of these sites to the protection of wildlife, habitats and biodiversity. And although not designated, nature reserves in the District are also providing important habitats for a wide range of flora and fauna including rare species such as the jumping spider (Euophrys browningi) at Bradwell Cockle Spit. Alongside the network of significant biodiversity value described above, the Study has also identified a large number of smaller sites which contribute to local biodiversity as well as providing opportunities for the public to enjoy and interact with the natural environment. Semi-natural green spaces and common lands in or around settlements are usually accessible to the public and provide an interface between humans and nature. Other spaces such as Local Wildlife sites and fishing lakes may not be as accessible but the network of these spaces is important to maintain local biodiversity and provides connectivity to the wider network of wildlife conservation. It is therefore recommended that this biodiversity network should be managed as a multifunctional rural and coastal landscape which provides habitats and corridors for wildlife as well as access to water-base activities, leisure activities and tourism development.

EB041a

83

The Recreational Network The recreational network covers informal recreation facilities such as public parks and amenity green spaces, and formal recreation facilities. The Study has found that the majority of settlements contain provision for parks and amenity green spaces albeit with varying quantity, quality and accessibility standards. Recommendations have been made in Chapter 4 as to how deficiencies in this provision should be addressed. This includes improvement of access to District parks in the northeast of the District and in the Dengie area, maintaining current level of provisions for local parks and neighbourhood amenity greenspaces for future developments, and addressing identified deficiencies at the parish level.

The distribution of Sport provision generally reflects the concentrations of population and the widest range of sport facilities can be found within the two main settlements of Maldon/Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch. As discussed in Chapter 5, it would be unsustainable to provide a full range of facilities to every single settlement. Taking into account the rural nature of the District and projected future needs, the Study recommends priority for the development of new sport provision to be located in areas where their catchment covers the largest possible population i.e. Maldon/Heybridge, Burnham-on-Crouch and Southminster. Improved transport connections should be established for this new provision to allow better access from rural villages. Meanwhile existing provision in smaller settlements should be preserved to maintain local access. Moreover, it is acknowledged that there is a significant amount of import/export demands for GI networks. For instance there is a significant amount of recreational provision in the adjoining districts which compensate some of the deficiencies identified in the Study. On the other hand, specific GI within the District such as the Promenade Park is attracting large number of visitors from outside of the District. In order to have a full understanding of how a cross boundary GI network operate, and to achieve the full potential this GI network, it will be necessary for Maldon District Council to work closely with neighbouring authorities and stakeholders in the future when planning GI improvements.

EB041a

84

Figure 7.1 Green Infrastructure Network

EB041a

85

Chapter 8: Conclusion and Recommendations Recommendation 1: Work with local communities, partners and stakeholders to achieve recommended standards for individual types of GI and GI networks The management and delivery of GI and GI networks cannot be delivered by any single party but requires joint working across a wide range of bodies and organisations. Specific recommendations for the quantity, quality and accessibility standards for different types of GI and the GI networks are included within their respective chapters in this Study. Recommendation 2: Incorporate GI and GI networks into the strategic planning framework The emerging Local Development Framework will help to provide a platform where they can be considered together with a wide range of other issues. By doing so it will help to maximise the benefit of what GI and GI networks could deliver through improved management, coordination and prioritisation. Recommendation 3: Incorporate consideration of GI provision at an early stage of development proposals Delivery of new GI should be taken into account in the early stage of a development proposal to ensure any new developments are contributing to achieving recommended GI standards. New provision for GI should take into account both the cost and long term maintenance of the facility. Recommendation 4: To improve accessibility to GI for rural communities The Study identified a concentration of GI provision in the more densely populated settlements of Maldon/Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch. While rural villages in the District enjoy local access to some existing facilities it is clear that residents from these villages will need to travel further to the larger settlements in order to get access to other facilities which are not available locally. Given the limited resource it is likely that the delivery of new GI provision will continue to be focused in and around larger settlements. Therefore it is important to improve accessibility to GI provision from rural villages in particular through the development/improvement of footpaths, cycleways and public transport. Recommendation 5: To develop a GI Implementation Plan Taking into account recommended standards, feasibility and other sustainability considerations, a Green Infrastructure Implementation Plan could identify how best unmet demand can be addressed through specific GI schemes and details of how these schemes will be implemented. Recommendation 6: To introduce a monitoring mechanism to enable the provision and condition of GI to be continuously updated and reviewed To have an up-to-date understanding of the condition and performance of GI and GI networks, it is essential to have a regular and consistent monitoring mechanism. It is therefore recommended that this Study should be updated regularly.

EB041a

86

Recommendation 7: To seek to work with neighbouring authorities, partners and stakeholders to ensure cross boundary co-ordination and future planning People who enjoy and utilise GI are not bound by administrative boundaries. The Study has identified a number of cross boundary issues including export and import demand for GI provision. For instance, many local residents are visiting swimming pools in South Woodham Ferrers and Witham while many visitors have been attracted by the Promenade Park from outside of the District. It is therefore important to work closely with neighbouring authorities, partners and stakeholders to develop and manage GI networks in the future.

EB041a

Reference ASA (Amateur Swimming Association), 2009. ASA Strategy 2009-2013

CABE, 2004. Value of public space: how high quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and environmental value’.

CBA, 2006. Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessment.

EA (Environment Agency), 2005. Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning.

ECC (Essex County Cpuncil), 2009. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for Maldon District Council.

EECOS (Essex Ecology Services Limited), 2007. Maldon Natural Conservation Study (Draft).

EWT (Essex Wildlife Trust), 2000. Essex Biodiversity Action Plan.

HMSO, 1969. Thorpe Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Allotments.

Landscape Institute, 2009. Green Infrastructure: Connected and multi-functional landscapes.

MDC (Maldon District Council), 2005. Draft Maldon District Green Spaces Strategy 2007 – 2012.

MDC, 2005. Green Spaces Conference 2005 Feedback Forms Summary.

MDC, 2007. Maldon District Children’s Play Strategy 2007 – 2012.

MDC, 2008a. Sustainable Community Strategy.

MDC, 2008b. The Maldon District Historic Environment Characterisation Project.

MDC, 2008c. Maldon District Replacement Local Plan – Saved Policies.

MDC, 2009a. Car-park Surveys.

MDC, 2009b. Core Strategy Regulation 25 Consultation.

Natural England, 1996, A Space for Nature.

Natural England, 2009. Green Infrastructure Guidance.

Natural England, 2010. Nature Nearby – Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance

ODPM, 2002. Assessing needs and opportunities: Planning Policy Guidance 17 companion guide.

ONS (Office of National Statistics), 2001. 2001 census

ONS, 2009. 2008-based Su8b National Population Projection

Sport England, 1999. Planning Policies for Sport

Sport England, 2000. A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England / Playing Fields for Sport Revisited, Sport England.

Sport England, 2000. Playing Fields for Sport Facilities.

Sport England, 2001a. Planning Across Boundaries: Guidance on Local Strategies for the Development of Sports.

EB041a

Sport England, 2001b. Sport and Regeneration.

Sport England, 2003. Towards a Level Playing Field.

Sport England, 2005. Design Guidance Note: Indoor Bowls.

Sport England, 2009. Active People Survey 3.

Sport England, website http://www.sportengland.org/research/market_segmentation.aspx [Last accessed 12-11-2010]

UKA (United Kingdom Athletics), 2006. Athletics Facilities Strategy for the UK.

EB041a

EB041a