The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: SCOTTISH AND EUROPEAN POLICY CONTEXT - A LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

3.1 The Scottish Executive and UK Government together with many European countries are addressing a breadth of physical and social planning policy that embraces health, social justice, social and environmental development, sustainability and economic development through a number of inter-linked and relatively new policy initiatives. A common component of these initiatives, as demonstrated by the Scottish Executive, is a commitment to a more sustainable future linked strongly to quality of life, quality of place and equality of opportunity.

3.2 Open space standards and planning for open space need to be considered within this wider context recognising the cross-cutting nature of open space and its capacity to contribute to all aspects of a more inclusive and sustainable future.

3.3 The Scottish Executive Strategy for sustainable development, Meeting the needs… priorities, actions and targets for sustainable development in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2002), stresses the need for an integrated approach to social, environmental and economic issues. This is supported by a new requirement, under the Local Government in Scotland Act (2003), for local authorities to establish Community Planning partnerships. These bring together key partners to prepare and implement a shared strategy to improve quality of life in their area. The Community Regeneration Fund and regeneration outcome agreements also contribute to these strategies. Community Plans and the community planning process provides a unique opportunity to promote the benefits and values of open space and establish partnerships, secure community support and ensure that local green space partnerships deliver on local priorities.

"I want environmental justice so that all our people can live in decent surroundings and can access the countryside" (Jack McConnell, First Minister 18th February 2002)

"We have made real progress in recognising how green space contributes to people's quality of life. It is increasingly clear that green space is a key part of regeneration. Good quality, well managed accessible and well designed green space can help challenge negative images of places and create neighbourhoods where people want to stay and raise their families". (Mary Mulligan, Deputy Minister for Communities 20th September 2004)

3.4 The broad value and role of open space is covered in other studies and reports and background reference should be made to the bibliography and particularly to the following selected publications:

• Scottish Executive, 1996, NPPG 11: Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space
• National Playing Fields Association, 2001, Six Acre Standard
• Scottish Executive, 2001, Rethinking Open Space
• Scottish Executive, 2001, Designing Places
• Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002, Natural Heritage Futures: Settlements
• Sportscotland, 2002,Facilities Planning Model
• Sportscotland, 2002, Planning Policy for the Protection of Playing Fields
• Scottish Executive, 2003, Planning Advice Note, PAN 65 Open Space
• Scottish Executive, 2003, Planning Advice Note, PAN 68 Design Statements

3.5 Delivering better open space across Scotland involves, in our view and the view of consultees, a requirement to build upon the advisory regime encapsulated within PAN 65 and review how standards and other best practice initiatives (European/ UK/Scottish), may provide useful tools to support the stated ambition that open space can and should provide a greater contribution to the quality of life of communities.

Scottish Executive Policy and Planning Advice

NPPG 11: Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space

3.6 NPPG 11 sets out the Government's objective that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance the resources required for the nation's sport and physical recreation. It is part of councils' responsibilities to take full account in their preparation of development plans and development control decisions of the community's need for recreational space and sporting facilities including the need for specialist facilities, to have regard to current levels of provision and deficiencies, and to resist the loss of unique resources or facilities with a wider role.

3.7 The drive of NPPG 11 is clearly to protect open space, with the suggestion being that 'councils should lead by example and generally resist development of open space and playing fields in their ownership'. The document then goes on to suggest that councils should include views on the 'level of provision' required for sporting and recreational facilities, the implication being that such levels be determined by largely quantitative measures of distance and accessibility. Throughout, there is an emphasis placed on the completion of local audits, without which any measure of deficiency would be almost impossible to determine. It is recognised that national standards cannot cater for local circumstances, such as differing demographic profiles and the extent of existing built development in an area. Local councils are advised to adopt a strategic approach to the planning of open space provision, to protect existing open space, resist new development opportunities which might diminish recreational provision, ensure accessibility and provide good quality open space and recreational facilities as a part of new communities. NPPG 11 states that locally set standards should include:

• Quantitative elements ( i.e. scale and level of provision)
• Qualitative components ( i.e. assessing quality & the need for enhancement)
• Accessibility ( i.e. distance thresholds including consideration of cost)

3.8 The importance of setting such standards, at the local level, is linked to an assessment of need, related to auditing and the formulation of development plans. This requirement has significant resource implications for local authorities. The associated guidance notes suggest a process based on the following key elements:

• Identifying needs
• Setting standards
• Identifying deficiencies
• Developing a strategy and related policies

PAN 65 - Setting a Context for Open Space Standards

Defining a Typology

3.9 PAN 65 sets out a number of categories or typologies, describing the various types of open space to ensure a common nation wide application. Open space embraces all types of open space including both green space (public parks and gardens, landscaped corridors and amenity spaces, etc) and civic and urban spaces (squares, streetscape, waterfronts, etc) embracing hard landscaped area. Additionally the term 'grey space' is occasionally used with reference to vacant and derelict land albeit that the term 'brownfield' usually is more commonly recognised.

3.10 PAN 65 defines an open space typology (see Table 1 below) as an appreciation of the hierarchy of open spaces can help councils to understand the different functions they perform and distinguish between spaces of strategic, local and neighbourhood importance. PAN 65 suggests a wide typology for green space, including: parks; private gardens; natural and semi-natural urban green spaces; green corridors; play space for children and teenagers; amenity green space; and, other functional green spaces. The typology is similar to that suggested elsewhere ( e.g.PPG 17), and is useful in that it clearly indicates the need to recognise the diversity of types of open space and create strategies that are appropriate and closely tailored to needs and circumstances.

3.11 Some interpretation of the typology is required and necessary as frequently open space will serve a range of functions (park, green corridor, sports area, natural & semi-natural space) and values. Indeed multiple use and functionality of open space is a desirable objective of much open space management. An appreciation of the hierarchy of open spaces and the relative importance of differing functions can distinguish between spaces of strategic, local and neighbourhood importance and their contribution within the typology. In progressing strategies and setting standards further sub-division of PAN 65 typologies may be necessary eg. Public Parks & Gardens may be further categorised as Country Park / Regional Park / District Park / Neighbourhood Park / Local Park providing each type can be adequately described and defined.

Open Space Audits / Needs Assessments and Strategies

3.12 PAN 65: Planning and Open Space sets the context and principal reference for open space planning in Scotland. The PAN sets both the broad aspiration for open space planning but importantly provides clear guidance on establishing open space audits, needs assessments and strategies and advises local authorities that in developing open space strategies that it may be appropriate to consider a range of approaches.

3.13 PAN 65 suggests that there are three approaches to assessing current and future requirements for open space provision. The assessment of existing settlement areas requires a combination of the three approaches to act as a guide for reasonable decision making.

• Supply-led approach - Spaces most suited to a supply-led approach are urban parks and gardens, civic spaces, woodlands and other natural spaces. This should assess the existing size and distribution of spaces against their current and future role and allow for the formulation of a strategy that protects and enhances these spaces.
• Demand-led approach - This approach is suited for those spaces for which a quantifiable demand can be identified, for example, sports facilities, green corridors and functional greenspaces. This should allow the local authority to consult with relevant user groups or carryout necessary survey work in order to establish the demand for facilities.
• Standards-based approach - Where the need for a type of space is broadly the same everywhere, or where the demand for a particular use is difficult to quantify, it may be appropriate to use a standards-based approach, for example children's play areas and amenity open space. Standards should contain the following three elements:
• Quality - a benchmark against which quality can be measured
• Quantity - and amount of space per house unit or head of population
• Accessibility - an amount of particular types of open space within a specified distance i.e. a distance threshold.

Developing Networks of Green & Civic Spaces

3.14 PAN 65: Planning and Open Space raises the profile of open space, providing guidance for the preparation of open space strategies for maintaining and enhancing open space provision. The guidance states that local authorities should aim to maintain or form networks of green and civic spaces, which are:

• well located - linking into the open space network, connecting into well-used routes and overlooked by buildings, helping to foster a feeling of safety and discourage anti-social behaviour as well as being easily accessible to all
• well designed - designed to reduce vandalism and, where appropriate, maintenance, with the use of high quality durable materials and incorporating elements of interest, for example, through public art
• well managed - covered by a management and maintenance regime attuned to the type of space, durability, wildlife habitats present, level of usage and local interests
• adaptable - be capable of serving a number of functions and adapting to different uses while promoting a range of benefits such as biodiversity, flood control or environmental education

Design Quality, Maintenance and Aftercare

3.15 Good design is recognised as a practical mechanism in helping to create places that will be successful and sustainable. PAN 65 emphasises that arrangements for management and maintenance are essential to the quality of the open space environment. Daily, decisions are made that have the potential to make a piece of a city, town, peripheral housing areas or village a little bit more welcoming, pleasant and enhance the character and distinctive quality of place.

3.16 Scotland's traditions of quality urban design are evidenced in many of our historic towns and quality places and open spaces ( PAN 68) with new open space needing to learn the lessons, interpret past models and innovate to create open space fit for purpose and capable of meeting future needs. Designing Places (Scottish Executive,2001) reminds us that critical to the quality of design is ensuring the design objectives and design brief are clear and quality design input is secured working in close consultation with all stakeholder interests. Safe secure and appealing spaces are strongly influenced both by design (permeability, lighting quality, sight lines, materials etc.) and by the standards of maintenance (standards of care, litter collection, graffiti removal, repair etc).

3.17 The perceptions of quality and safety of the spaces involved will influence many of these decisions and activities ( e.g. the safety and attractiveness of routes travelled to and from work, school or community facilities.). Oxford Brookes University ( ODPM 2002) note specifically that the value of open space is strongly and adversely impacted by concerns relating to safety and concerns relating to anti-social behaviour, crime and the fear of crime; dirty streets and public spaces; and, unattractive and inaccessible parks, play areas and open spaces offering only poor provision for children and young people, older people and disabled people.

Other Relevant Organisations: Policy Advice and Non-Statutory Guidance

3.18 A number of other agencies, organizations and groups are directly involved in the provision and management of open space and/or have prepared guidance on open space and/or have developed important roles in promoting open space, undertaking or commissioning research or disseminating best practice in open space planning, design and management.

Sportscotland

3.19 Sportscotland is the Scottish Executive's main advisory body on sport in Scotland and the national body for sport development in Scotland and was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1972. Working in partnership with public, private and voluntary organisations Sportscotland is a non-departmental public body that works closely with the Scottish Executive, advising Scottish Ministers and implementing Scottish Executive policy for sport and physical recreation. Sportscotland has involvement in several areas of policy development, including:

• advising Scottish ministers and implementing Executive policies for sport and physical recreation;
• co-ordinating the implementation process for Sport 21 2003 - 2007: The National Strategy for Sport;
• developing and conducting research for Sport 21 and the programmes and initiatives related to it;
• working with key partners, including the Scottish Executive, local authorities and Scottish governing bodies for sport to develop sports policy;
• researching, developing and preparing policies addressing specific and topical policy areas;
• acting as a statutory consultee on planning applications for developments affecting playing fields;
• inputting to the consultation documents issued to ensure the contribution of sport and sportscotland to the development of policy; and
• ensuring that the development and delivery of our work links in with the appropriate national strategies and Scottish Executive policy.

3.20 Sportscotland also recommend that local councils should prepare sports pitch strategies, and have issued a Guide to the Preparation of Sports Pitch Strategies which outlines a methodology that local authorities can use to assess the requirements for sports pitches in their area and to develop action plans to improve the quality of provision. Pitch strategies are intended to sit within an overall open space strategy as well as linking to development plans and the councils' sport and recreation strategies.

Facilities Planning Model

3.21 Sportscotland has developed a Facilities Planning Model ( FPM) as a planning tool to inform decisions about the provision of community sports facilities. Indeed a number of authorities have commissioned sportscotland to run the model to assist with facility planning for their areas. The Government's planning advice for sport, physical recreation and open space (National Planning Policy Guideline 11) advises councils to take account of the FPM in assessing levels of provision of sports facilities appropriate for their area.

3.22 The FPM provides an objective assessment of the relationship between the likely demand for sports facilities in an area and the actual supply. It takes into account the distribution of the local population and its demographic structure, as well as the capacity and availability of facilities in the area and their catchment areas. Using this data, the model is able to distribute demand from the study area to available facilities on the basis of catchment areas, linking people (demand) to facilities (supply) in terms of realistic travel patterns. It then identifies "unmet demand" -that is, demand which cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. This may be because existing facilities are full to capacity, or because there is demand arising from outwith their catchment areas. The Model provides an objective input to the planning process, assisting with important decisions on the provision, upgrading and replacement of sports facilities. The data which it provides can help develop a strategic approach to the provision of facilities but it must be used with other information as part of a comprehensive approach to developing sport in the community.

Greenspace Scotland

3.23 Greenspace Scotland was established by Scottish Natural Heritage with support from the New Opportunities Fund to drive forward the Greenspace for Communities Initiative. The initiative draws upon the experience of the Countryside Around Town Projects and seeks to make a significant step change in the quantity and quality of green space management throughout Scotland's urban settlements. The organisation is a national umbrella trust with a federal structure and operates as a company limited by guarantee with charitable trust status. Key references include:

• Greenspace Scotland Strategy 2002-2005, Greenspace Scotland (2003)
• "Greenspace: The Common Denominator - contributing to health, environment, communities and the economy" Conference (2004)
• Greenspace and Quality of Life: Making the Links (2004)
• Quality of Life Indicators (2004)

3.24 Greenspace (established from the Urban Parks Forum) provides an equivalent forum within which managers, planners and key stakeholders can debate green space issues within England and has been active in the consultation and development stages of key policy documents.

Scottish Natural Heritage

3.25 Scottish Natural Heritage ( SNH) is a government affiliated organisation responsible for advising Scottish Ministers on the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment within Scotland. SNH are active in the funding of research concerning open space/green space in Scotland, and in considering the 'value' of green space. SNH's equivalent organisation in England and Wales (English Nature) has also been active in research and guidance on the management of natural areas and in setting open space standards.

3.26 English Nature ( ANGSt Standards) has developed a set of standards for Accessible Green Space in Towns and Cities. The main focus is to encourage authorities to make provision to ensure access to natural and semi-natural habitats, spaces and Local Nature Reserves.

National Playing Fields Association ( NPFA)

3.27 The National Playing Fields Association is a leading authority on the design, and management of playing fields, playgrounds and other play spaces. The NPFA is a registered charity incorporated by Royal Charter with responsibility for acquiring, protecting and improving playing fields, playgrounds, and play spaces. The NPFA has established within The Six Acre Standard - Minimum Standards for Outdoor Playing Space, 2001 a quantitative and qualitative standard addressing Outdoor Sport (1.6ha) and Children's Playing Space (0.8ha) creating the Minimum Standard (2.4ha) per 1000 people.

OPENspace

3.28 Academic research work in Scotland has been supported through contributions from the European Commisson ( e.g. Greenspace) and through a Scottish Higher Education Funding Council grant to Edinburgh College of Art to establish the 'OPENspace' research centre. The OPENspace centre states that 'good landscape and urban design, responsive to people's needs, local distinctiveness and sense of place, are vitally important to quality of life', and their work has produced some key research concerning user needs and values (Ward Thompson et al 2004, Ward Thompson and Scott Myers 2004).

CABE Space

3.29 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment ( CABE) has emerged as a major champion of green space issues through CABE Space, established in May 2003. CABE Space seeks to champion excellence in the design and management of parks, streets and squares in our towns and cities. One of CABE Space's aims is to become the principal organisation co-ordinating information, good practice and research on parks and public spaces. Useful CABE Space references include:

• The Value of Public Space (2004)
• Is the Grass Greener? Learning from International Innovations in Urban Greenspace Management (2004)
• Green Space Strategies: A Good Practice Guide (2004)
• Manifesto for Better Public Spaces (2004)

3.30 The first report represents the outcomes from one of the initial pieces of research commissioned by CABE Space, and the report reviews studies which have previously attempted to identify those variables (physical, economic and social) which could support a prediction of the impact new open space might have on the economic performance of an area. It attempts to draw direct connections between the provision of green space, and the economic performance of local areas. Although to some extent lacking new primary data, the report is an excellent summary of research in this area to date. It is suggested that the determination of minimum standards in Scotland should take economic viability (including provision, maintenance and economic impact) as a central theme. The second report concerns international approaches to green space management. What is perhaps notable is that the report again focuses on living standards, the image of a city, environmental awareness, and other social and health related benefits. This might suggest that standards may well be best geared around local assessment approaches, rather than the determination of overly rigorous nation wide criteria.

3.31 CABE Space and ODPM has set up a Strategic Enabling Scheme, to assist English local authorities in developing green space strategies for improving the quality of parks and urban green spaces. It provides free expert advice to help develop a strategic view of the design, management and maintenance of urban green spaces. Architecture and Design Scotland (formerly the Royal Fine Arts Commission for Scotland) has a similar role and remit.

Wider Issues - The Value of Open Space

3.32 The Scottish Executive is addressing wider policy agendas relating to health, social justice, sustainability and economic development through a number of policy initiatives. There is a broad evidence base from research and literature of the impacts that open space has on the various aspects of our quality of life. The following sections set out the strategic policy context of the open space debate and are discussed in more detail in the Greenspace Scotland's publications 'Greenspace and Quality of Life: Making the Links' and 'Quality of Life Indicators'. These are important references and provide a foundation of research and evidence that is summarised below. More detailed information can be referenced from these reports.

Urban Renaissance and Regeneration

3.33 High quality open spaces can contribute to regeneration and renewal projects, enhancing neighbourhood image and encouraging economic development. Urban regeneration, and more specifically the Scottish Executive target of addressing social inequity (Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap, June 2002), has identified the need to invest in regeneration and develop a Scotland where every neighbourhood is a safe, attractive place to live, work and play. (Margaret Curran MSP: Minister for Social Justice).

3.34 Recent evidence ('The Value of Public Space' CABE Space, 2004) has shown that the provision of high quality open spaces contributes to the prosperity of a local area, helping to make it an attractive place to live, work and visit. Quality spaces bring a number of economic benefits, including higher land values, improved urban environment and image, business opportunities, employment, tourism and inward investment. The protection, enhancement and development of open space in our towns and cities will:

• establish a local sense of identity and belonging, place and purpose;
• enrich the urban experience;
• bring positive benefits through the environmental regeneration of run down areas;
• address the negative influences associated with poor quality open space;
• create a positive image to attract inward investment, businesses and tourism;
• provide an attractive settings for the urban fabric and infrastructure of towns;
• encourage tourism by promoting town parks and country parks;
• protect the heritage value of parks;
• bring cost benefits of different management regimes of open space; and
• provide safe, sustainable transport routes, promoting the benefits of walking and cycling as a viable means of transport.

Health and Physical Activity

3.35 Open spaces help to promote healthy living by extending choice, promoting contact with people and the environment and providing places for walking, cycling and other physical activities. There is some evidence on the positive impact that parks and open space may have on physical health, mental health and community health. Recent research has explored the links between levels of physical activity and health and to establish methods for maximising the health benefits to be gained from open space. The provision of a range of locally accessible parks and open spaces in our towns and cities may:

• promote equality of life and 'liveability' benefits associated with open space;
• provide active and passive recreation opportunities that encourage healthy lifestyles;
• increase opportunities for formal and informal sport and outdoor recreation in multi-use open spaces;
• encourage healthy living, play and learning;
• provide high quality play space and associated facilities, with safe play opportunities for children and young people of all ages;
• promote health benefits through contact with the natural environment, including stress relief and improvement of well-being;
• provide community health benefits such as the scope for social interaction, increased community involvement and empowerment;
• provision of exciting, attractive and safe places to relax;
• opportunities for practical volunteering; and
• safe and accessible green corridors, encouraging people to walk and cycle more.

Education and Life Long Learning

3.36 Open spaces can be used as an outdoor classroom for all ages and interests and can provide opportunities for life long learning. Diverse, high quality local open spaces provide an informal learning experience by providing the opportunity to explore and experience open space. Open space also plays a role in education and lifelong learning, reflecting the benefits of the use of open space for formal education by schools and further education institutions, written into a set curriculum. The provision of a range of locally accessible parks and open spaces in our towns and cities may provide the following opportunities:

• formal and informal environmental education and lifelong learning;
• recreation and play and the benefits in relation to child development;
• raising awareness of open space issues and benefits;
• developing events and education programmes;
• encourage the use of open spaces by individuals, families and community groups;
• promoting job creation and training of employees to improve the quality of service and skill base of the workforce;
• training and employment benefits; and
• community involvement in the planning and management of local open spaces.

Social Justice and Community Development

3.37 Community involvement in open space decision making and delivery can play an important role in helping to foster local pride, build community capacity and encourage participation in design and management. Open space provides opportunities for community and social interaction, contributing to an increased sense of community identity and ownership. Social inclusion is high on the policy agenda and research supports the role of urban open space in promoting social inclusion through encouraging community use and involvement in open space, also contributing to the policy aim of environmental justice. Open space provides a wide range of social and community benefits including:

• increased community involvement, empowerment and local pride;
• encouraging a sense of public 'ownership' and stewardship;
• promoting social inclusion by providing 'something for everyone';
• equal opportunities for all ages, genders, abilities and race;
• providing safe and accessible places;
• developing path and community networks;
• encouraging positive use of open spaces;
• meaningful engagement with young people;
• realising communities' aims and aspirations through local community initiatives and individual park development projects; and
• providing venues for community events and civic celebrations.

Environment and Ecology

3.38 The creation and management of open space can provide habitats of high value that increases the biodiversity and sustainability of our urban areas. The beneficial impacts of natural systems and the value in creating habitats of nature conservation value capable of sustaining native plant assemblages and supporting local biodiversity has been widely researched. It is recognised that the local and global environment influences quality of life through environmental processes such as the influence on air and water quality, biodiversity, sustainable surface water management, and environmental amenity. Open spaces contribute to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and deliver a wide range of environmental benefits including:

• protecting and enhancing the natural environment, ecology, habitats and biodiversity;
• providing opportunities for exploring the development of innovative maintenance and management techniques;
• reducing pollution and noise;
• providing inter-linked green access and wildlife corridors;
• better air quality;
• environmental improvement and increased amenity value of open spaces;
• protection of historic parks, community woodlands, wildlife sites and Local Nature Reserves; and
• use of open space for sustainable urban drainage systems.

European Approaches and Policy

3.39 A review of European policy has included an overview of approaches to Open Space Standards within eight European countries to assess their respective approach to the stipulation of standards and the extent to which these are enforced at either national or local levels. The value of considering precedent from abroad is clear, although Beer (2001) sounds a note of caution: "considering innovative solutions to greenspace management in urban areas, it needs to be recognised that what is seen as innovative by visitors from one country is often not seen as such in another country … This does not make their experience irrelevant; rather it can give us ideas for the future and do much to encourage us to believe that improvements are possible."

3.40 In the majority of countries where open space standards have been determined, these tend to take the form of procedures, with specific 'measured' standards determined at the local level ( e.g. Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands). It is also notable across Europe that the emphasis is substantially placed on aspects of how standards should be derived. For example, Danish planning legislation encourages a deep involvement of the public in the planning process, whilst Italian approaches take a stance closer to that of the quantitative and accessibility standards described earlier. Within the Netherlands, there is a strong emphasis placed again on the local determination of local aims, and a correspondingly strong development of tools and structures to support such decision making.

3.41 Of perhaps greater interest than those nationally determined 'standards' is the reasonable success with which standardised 'procedures' to assist local planners have been developed outside of the UK.

3.42 In reviewing European approaches to open space the study has also explored the approaches of two main European cities, Eindhoven and Barcelona, which further exemplify how European open space planning is advanced through a strategic masterplan led approach. The following tables set out the two European case studies, demonstrating different approaches to the setting of open space standards in two cities.

Review of Core Approaches to Open Space Standards

Quantitative Standards

3.43 PAN 65 advocates a 'standards based approach', including quality and accessibility, specifying that particular types of open space should be '… within a specified distance i.e. a distance threshold'. This should be understood as being distinct from quantitative approaches, determining for example the number of hectares/1000 people. Nevertheless, and although not official policy, it is clear that work of the National Playing Fields Association ( NPFA 2001) has been widely adopted or adapted by local authorities and referred to by government.

3.44 The NPFA 'six acre standard' sets out a recommended hierarchy for public green space, which could be followed when defining and designing new developments. The quantitative standard, based on a suggested minimum, is 2.4 hectares (6 acres) of outdoor playing space per 1000 people, comprising 1.6 hectares for outdoor sport and 0.8 hectares for children's play. As stated, the NPFA standard is not legally binding, but does have influence, due in part to the apparently simple manner in which it could be used to form or test decisions. The hierarchy of space is interesting to note, with each level containing a 'qualitative guide' and suggestions regarding siting, use, provision in existing developments and opportunities for improvements:

• Local area for play ( LAP) - small low key games area mainly for 4-8 year olds, typically a minimum of 0.5 hectares/1000 people
• Local equipped area for play ( LEAP) - equipped play area mainly for 4-8 year olds
• Neighbourhood equipped area for play ( NEAP) - equipped play area with space for meeting and for ball games or wheeled sports, mainly for teenagers, typically a minimum of 0.3 hectares/1000 people (combined with LEAP)
• Sports pitches - typically a minimum of 1.6 hectares/1000 people

3.45 It must be noted that the NPFA guidelines have also been criticised for their potential lack of flexibility and overly general approach to open space hierarchies (for example, Earley 2001), and an over-focus on formal green space rather than other uses of green and open space. Barber (2002) and Campbell et al (2001) both note that the assumption that all parts of the UK require the same amount of open space, regardless of local characteristics ( e.g. population, culture, urban/rural) is unrealistic, and Barber questions whether the focus of NPFA (sport and children's play areas) can be used for other typologies in any case.

3.46 The work of Box and Harrison (1993), developed following publication of an earlier iteration of the NPFA standard in 1992, suggested that:

• urban residents should be able to enter natural green space of at least 2 hectares within 0.5km of their home; and
• there should be provision for Local Nature Reserves in every urban area at a minimum level of 1 hectare per 1000 people.

3.47 That work was followed by Harrison et al (1995) who made a clear distinction between access (rights of entry) and accessibility (the extent to which rights can be exercised). They also noted that biodiversity and the size of an area are not intrinsically linked, and that networks of smaller green spaces might generate higher ecological values. It was noted that the earlier work of Box and Harrison (1993) had attempted to combine quantitative and hierarchical approaches to open space planning, but that the approaches taken therein to provision per resident, distribution, green space type and access were not necessarily consistent. They also felt that distance criteria suggested in 1993 were too high (suggesting the need for flexibility generally, perhaps), and that minimum standards are useful but may not be achievable in many urban settings. Referring back to the issue of green space use, it was also noted that 'safe' and 'perceived as safe' open spaces may be a topic of concern in many settlements.

Qualitative Standards

3.48 Land Use Consultants (2004) reviewed research, which attempted to draw links between green space and other 'quality of life' issues. This work was connected with other initiatives studying the place of green space within communities (see SNH 2004). With particular reference to quality driven agendas, the study concluded that although green space 'impacts on a wide range of social and community issues ranging from community involvement and empowerment to issues of safety, inclusion, equality, civic pride, education and play', the precise role which greenspace can play in enhancing communities and lead to benefits is 'poorly evidenced in research although greenspace and environmental improvements often fulfill a key element of regeneration projects. Social inclusion is high on the policy agenda and research supports the role of urban greenspace in promoting social inclusion through encouraging community use and involvement in greenspace. This also contributes to the policy aim of environmental justice'.

3.49 With regard to qualitative standards, PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation is less clear regarding setting of levels, although emphasis is placed again on community, and the suggested setting of 'quality benchmarks'. These could, presumably, be related to design guidelines perhaps including the specification of materials, although this is not determined by the national documentation. Similar approaches taken within urban design provide some precedent in terms of form ( e.g. Scottish Enterprise, 1997, Miljøministeriet, 1995).

3.50 It should be noted that such guides, even where the recommendations have been widely adopted, do not carry an enforceable set of 'standards', but tend instead to provide a framework within which urban form can be understood by planners, designers and conservators. In Scotland, Rethinking Open Space (Campbell Associates, 2001), set the use of not only qualitative standards but also the collection and incorporation of qualitative participation at the heart of a modern decision making process. SPP1: The Planning Process, which requires the involvement of communities in the formulation in local policies, would appear to leave the possibility of local authorities developing local policies to open space which will deviate from a national 'norm' to reflect local culture, need and populations. However, Campbell et al note that there appears to be a widespread use of largely similar quantitative standards, often derived or lifted directly from the NPFA standard. This is reported as being commonly linked with similar approaches to the provision of amenity space (in new developments) in connection with proportion (of overall development size) and distance thresholds (stratified by typology).

3.51 What is clear from the overall document (Campbell Associates ibid) is that a proposed 'new' approach to open space provision should be focused on the development and adoption of high quality design, which should be linked closely with open space audits. This aspect of a qualitative standard, one must presume, would be difficult to define at the national level, although Campbell et al appear to favour the adoption of an established process, rather the definition of a national design guide as such.

3.52 Barber (2002), of the Urban Parks Forum (now called 'Greenspace'), clearly welcomed the publication of PPG 17, on the basis that 'quality is to be put before quantity and accessibility is to be put before both'. In agreement with Campbell et al that locally rather than nationally driven quantitative standards (or at least levels) for quantified open space policy were appropriate, Barber went on to argue that a genuinely useful national policy document would encourage genuine local determination of standards (or whatever form) rather than defining the actual aims or outcomes.

3.53 In their definition of goals for open space, the ODPM noted in 2002 that these centered on the support of government strategies aimed at 'regeneration, renewal and housing programmes, supporting healthy living, fostering neighbourhood pride and community cohesion'. Although described within an agenda using accessibility (distance, near homes) and the creation of green networks, there is also recognition that 'over time the needs of people and their communities change. Today people want a more diverse range of green spaces that cater for their social, educational and physical needs and changing lifestyles'. Clearly, the implication for standards themselves is that flexibility, allowing adaptation over time to changing needs as communities changes would be important. Perhaps a deeper question for this study concerns how a suitably rich data set can be drawn from an existing population, and how data concerning current needs and views can be updated over time in a manner which is meaningful to assist decision and policy makers.

3.54 Qualitative interviews and focus groups can be held to determine peoples' leisure and recreation needs, their perception of green space, the importance that they attach to green space as a contributor to their quality of life relative to other factors, and their preferences for green space attributes and types (Laing and Davies, 2002). Various other studies and reports ( e.g. Scottish Enterprise 1997, ODPM 2003) have indicated that such data can be vital when defining the final design, and that 'standards' connected with this process might be better concentrated on design principles or 'thinking points' rather than definitive or potentially constraining 'solutions' aimed at solving problems in generic situations.

3.55 Nevertheless, and despite the rather disappointing amount of research undertaken concerning this area in the past, previous studies (including Burgess et al 1998, CCRU 2003, David and Jones 1997, Greenhalgh and Worpole 1995, Kuo et al 1998, Taylor and Coalter 2001) at least support the notion that it is reasonable to draw links between green space and long term benefits to communities ( e.g. cohesion and community pride), and that methodologies exist ( e.g. choice and preference studies, participatory methods, non-market surveys, hedonic pricing) which could be used in the development and support of new standards. What is clear from these studies is that open space has the potential to contribute to communities across a range of issues. They also suggest why the revision of PPG 17 in 2002 (as described in Lipman 2002) was felt to contain an over-emphasis on sport and recreation.

3.56 Respondent groups should be identified that represent the range of parties likely to influence the use and future of green space in the city or town being considered, drawing for example from the different departmental responsibilities within the local municipal authority which are responsible for planning, maintenance and possibly design of green space.

3.57 The principal purpose of undertaking qualitative data collection and analysis is to enable the identification of issues considered to be of particular importance to each of the groups. These issues can be used subsequently to generate research questions to be addressed within survey work, or to form the basis of design briefs.

Accessibility Standards

3.58 Regarding accessibility, a clear link is made between distance thresholds and the usefulness of decision support tools including GIS systems. It is suggested that there may be flexibility in the connection between distance thresholds and catchment areas, although it is suggested that an emphasis should be placed on journeys made by foot, bicycle or public transport. Examples provided tend to use an 'as the crow flies' approach to defining catchment areas, although there is also a recognition that more sophisticated methods may be required as determined by local demographic spread. For example, rural areas might require quite different levels of 'acceptable' accessibility to densely populated urban settlements. In addition, the 'travel cost' approach should, very much in line with established research methodologies, also take into account the economic wealth of the population.

3.59 The ODPM (2003) described processes that could be followed when developing accessible play space. The key recommendation, nonetheless, took a different approach to that of distance based approaches, and again concentrated on matching the needs of users with the quality and type of space provided. As noted in connection with other aspects of audit, there is clearly a need for an audit of the quality and appropriateness of current open space, including a consideration of how such space meets the needs of local communities. Clearly, such an audit cannot take place until a similar audit of local 'need' has been undertaken. The distinction between these may in fact be central to the current project, as the definition of local and/or local standards may require a series of audits, which previous studies have suggested will require the consideration of design quality, appropriateness, changing population and demographics and changing attitudes to the use of open public space generally. Harrison et al (1995) reiterated previous survey work regarding existing open spaces in selected London boroughs in terms of the proportion (%) of the overall borough and persons per hectare. This was then used as the basis for what might be regarded as 'accessible' green space in towns and cities. As with other reports, there is a stated need for understanding local needs, with an emphasis on human rather than ecological constraints.

3.60 The application of these standards ( DETR 2001b, chapter 7), is so structured as to begin by identifying current deficiencies in the provision of open space, concluding with a forecasting of future needs. Nevertheless, although these standards and studies do not individually appear to necessarily operate effectively as a 'panacea' for all areas, they at least appear to all recognise that a combination of approaches focussed on quantification, qualitative assessment and accessibility are all vital.

3.61 It was suggested as long ago as 1989 (Morphet, referenced in Gordon and Shirley 2003) that an over-emphasis on park hierarchies and the lack of a national 'standard' for green space, had led to a lack of attention being paid to inner city sites. This was coupled with the realisation that users were more concerned over quality than quantity of space, and that users give a 'high priority to the visible presence of management'. Gordon and Shirley (2003) also note that previous attempts have been made to 'blend' issues of park 'bandings' with distance based accessibility standards ( e.g. London Planning Advisory Committee, 1992), and to recognise that high quality green space has the potential to enhance economic performance ( e.g. Barber 1993).

3.62 DTLR (2002) argued that, within England, there remained a lack of a framework within which national leadership could be given regarding urban parks and green space. A plead for the creation of a suitable framework was made within the context of such space being regarded as 'national assets', although there was no request for the definition of national standards beyond this. If anything, though, there is again a strong view that local leadership is vital, and tied to the generation of local pride. A clear guide is given that a local recognition of the place green space can play in 'regeneration and other policy priorities'. A lack (in 2002 at least) of a local strategy in 56% of English local authorities was highlighted as a barrier to the further involvement of communities in planning. Local strategies are defining as including:

• Vision and strategy
• Community involvement
• Clear aims and 'measurable' objectives, with achievable action plans
• Audits of existing space
• Locally determined provision standards, coupled with guidelines for design, management and maintenance
• Proposals for monitoring, evaluation and review

3.63 Recent research has sought to provide a sharper economic based edge to quantify the potential benefits in terms of actual and tangible economic uplift. However, despite there being much anecdotal evidence to support the idea that a direct causal link exists between the quality of public space and economic performance, objective and measurable data to back up such claims remains elusive. Publication of the recent 'Economic Value' paper by CABE Space goes some way to recognising this deficiency, although further work is required to arrive at objective and robust indicators which can assist planners and designers attempting to produce new open space schemes which have the potential to support local economies.

Conclusions

3.64 The review of national standards outside Scotland demonstrates that there appears to be little precedent for setting national standards. National legislation tends to be procedural, rather than aimed at enforcing quantitative delivery of open space. Quantitative standards are common in the UK and across Europe. However, standards tend to be enforced at the local rather than national level through local development plans.

3.65 What becomes clear from the literature review is the fact that there has been a realisation within Scotland and the UK for more than three decades of the vital importance of public involvement in planning decision making. A series of policy and guidance documents over the past decade, from within Scotland and the UK as a whole, have also sought to place qualitative judgements and access on a level with quantitative judgements of open space provision. Whatever form a national standard or decision framework for Scotland might take, it is clear that sufficient flexibility must be in place to provide for local assessment, locally driven decisions, and resource planning to ensure that such decisions can be sustained in the long term.

« Previous | Contents | Next »